Lusting After Your Spouse?

[havok579257]

I have always wondered what exactly this entails. Now I know that when someone uses their spouse for their own sexual purposes that is lust. Got that one. What I am wondering is what else qualifies as lusting after one's spouse. If one fantasizes(thoughts only) about their spouse is that lust? If while in the marital embrace is fantasizing about the other spouse lust? Or does lust with your spouse only refer to using your spouse as an object of sex? Does having sexual thoughts about your spouse be considered lust? I never understood lust in marriage except for when a spouse see's or uses the other spouse for their own personal gain. Is that all it entails?

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='havok579257' date='05 December 2009 - 08:11 PM' timestamp='1260061864' post='2015152']
I have always wondered what exactly this entails. Now I know that when someone uses their spouse for their own sexual purposes that is lust. Got that one. What I am wondering is what else qualifies as lusting after one's spouse. If one fantasizes(thoughts only) about their spouse is that lust? If while in the marital embrace is fantasizing about the other spouse lust? Or does lust with your spouse only refer to using your spouse as an object of sex? Does having sexual thoughts about your spouse be considered lust? I never understood lust in marriage except for when a spouse see's or uses the other spouse for their own personal gain. Is that all it entails?
[/quote]

Lust is sexual objectification, whether in thought or deed. If you deliberately indulge in a fantasy of your spouse as a sex object, you lust. If a thought is troubling you, ask yourself: does this thought treat my spouse as a thing for my pleasure? If not - if the thought is a mere appreciation for your spouse's beauty or marital embrace - then it is not lust. And if you cannot tell the difference, then you may likely be suffering from scrupulosity (or perhaps sex addiction).

[MithLuin]

Exactly. Sex with your spouse is fulfillment of marriage vows (a *sacrament*) and thus not something that is necessarily tainted by lust. Lust doesn't mean anything having to do with sex or the enjoyment thereof.

Fantasies do tend to be about self-gratification. If that's what you're thinking about, then yeah, it's lust. But if you're remembering something or just thinking about what a beautiful woman you married...how is that devaluing her as a person? You understand that using her would be wrong. If she knew about your thoughts, would she feel used?

The problem with 'just thoughts' is that Jesus reads our hearts. While it might be commendable that we don't act on lustful thoughts, entertaining them and encouraging them does tend to warp how we view other people. If your thoughts aren't helping your relationship with your wife, it would be best to just push them aside when they crop up.

[N/A Gone]

My understanding is that lust is the desire to consume. The person becomes a resource. Desire is a good thing. Desire to be intimate with your spouse is a good thing. De-humanizing your spouse would be lust. Sexual love should be about desiring your spouse because they are who they are. Sexual lust is the desire to fulfill a need for self and using your spouse as a resource. To think of your spouse in a sexual way is fine, as long as it is not objectifying her.

At least that is how I understand it. The dangerous thing is that it is a matter of perspective and how your properly understand sexuality.

[Guest Jon]

There may be a fine line here - as in most things.
There is lust and fantasizing, and then there is desire and visuallizing in your mind.
What a wonderful thing that you want your wife. She, I hope, is pleased by this. She may not be.
Maybe you want relations more than she does.
I see visualizing as smiling about how attractive your wife is and how fun foreplay would be.

Ah, my mistake - I see you have not filled in gender and were careful to say "spouse" often.
Either way, desire and longing to be intimate with your partner is a wonderful thing. We are not robots.

If your desires are within natural thoughts -you are not fantasizing cruelty with sex, that type of thing ---you are keeping it lighthearted and full of fun loving desires, I personally see that as keeping some life in your marriage.

Raw lust - Well, I guess I don't understand that so much. I'll watch and learn also.

Jon

[MissyP89]

I also think it can be a grey area, but in my inexperience I would say if you're fantasizing about all the things you'd wish she'd do, or changing her deameanor or looks in your mind, that's lust. If you want to be intimate and start initiating things just because you want fulfillment, that's lust too.

I agree with asking yourself how she would react. It might feel normal to you, but in many cases it can be very hurtful to women.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='havok579257' date='05 December 2009 - 08:11 PM' timestamp='1260061864' post='2015152']
I have always wondered what exactly this entails. Now I know that when someone uses their spouse for their own sexual purposes that is lust. Got that one. What I am wondering is what else qualifies as lusting after one's spouse. If one fantasizes(thoughts only) about their spouse is that lust?[/quote]

I think Rev hit on the key thing here. Lust consumes and uses (in the sense of utilitarianism, for which Fr. Karol Wojtyla, who became JPII, used the latin verb [i]uti[/i] as opposed to [i]frui[/i], which means [i]use[/i] in the sense of enjoyment). There seems to be a type of fantasy which is consistent with [i]frui[/i]...the same kind of thoughts that pop into a man's head when he thinks about giving his wife a gift or cleaning up the house to make her happy, but on a different scale. However, it seems that if by fantasy you mean a willful, intentional thinking through a sexual act, then this is wrong for the same reason pornography is wrong. Sexuality is supposed to be an expression of love between two people. Pornography invites a third party, fantasy leaves out one party. However, if we're talking about happy thoughts of pleasing one's spouse in this way that unintentionally pop into your head, I don't think there's anything wrong with smiling at the thought, so long as we don't play it out in our minds (which, if not sinful, would almost certainly be at least an invitation to take the thoughts into the direction of lust).

Also, it seems indicative of lust to me if, like most men, the thoughts that pop into your head are almost entirely of pleasure and not very much of self-giving love. To carry out those thoughts would be the sin of lust.

[quote]If while in the marital embrace is fantasizing about the other spouse lust?[/quote]

If you are with your spouse physically, but your mind is elsewhere, you are not doing justice to your spouse.

If you are with your spouse physically, but your mind is elsewhere with your spouse, what else could be concluded than that your fantasy spouse is in fact different from your real spouse and that you prefer the fantasy to the reality? That would be lust.

[quote]Or does lust with your spouse only refer to using your spouse as an object of sex? [/quote]

To use, to consume...that is lust. It is like greed and pride, but in the realm of the natural appetites of our bodies...we have a greedy want for more and in our pride we take it.

[quote]Does having sexual thoughts about your spouse be considered lust?[/quote]

I think having sexual thoughts about your spouse is human, but I think it is unhealthy to give them any more attention that a simple smile (if it is a pure sexual thought) and sinful to carry them into intentional sexual thought about your spouse.

[quote]I never understood lust in marriage except for when a spouse see's or uses the other spouse for their own personal gain. Is that all it entails?[/quote]

In a word, I think Rev has it...lust consumes.

[CatherineM]

I was reading some stuff on the Courage website to answer a question I got today about gay marriage, and this was in an explanation of the CDF Letter #3,

[quote]"It can be difficult to understand what an "objective disorder" is. It means that the very inclination toward a same sex act indicates that the desire itself is moving in the wrong direction; ordinarily the vast majority of men and women have a natural God given attraction toward physical union with a person of the opposite sex. This is natural and good because it leads the majority of people into marriage whereas same sex attractions while not sinful, end up in a disordered act if one gives into them.

[b]It may be objected that a man lusting for a woman is a disordered act, but the inclination to such an act is considered natural but misdirected under ordinary circumstances. Under the circumstance of marriage however this inclination is good because it leads to a strengthening of the union between a man and woman and the procreation of a child. [/b]

Same-sex erotic attractions do not lead to a strengthening of the union between a man and woman nor to the procreation of a child; therefore they are considered objectively disordered but not sinful in and of themselves."[/quote]

Emphasis mine, but I thought it was an interesting take on the issue.

[url="http://couragerc.net/PIPElevenChurchTeachings.html"]Source[/url]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='07 December 2009 - 08:01 PM' timestamp='1260234082' post='2015895']
I was reading some stuff on the Courage website to answer a question I got today about gay marriage, and this was in an explanation of the CDF Letter #3,



Emphasis mine, but I thought it was an interesting take on the issue.

[url="http://couragerc.net/PIPElevenChurchTeachings.html"]Source[/url]
[/quote]
The source you cite lists a CDF quote, but that's not it. It looks to me like your source cites paragraphs from the CDF and then tries to explain them. You quoted Courage's explanation.

If I understand their interpretation the way you seem to be using it (and I'm sorry if I'm getting the wrong impression of your meaning), then I disagree with their interpretation and I think the Church would to, don't you? Lust is objectively disordered. It can't be used for good. I think it would be better to say that the desire which may lead to either lust or love is morally neutral (being a passion), not that lust can lead to love.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='06 December 2009 - 12:23 AM' timestamp='1260077003' post='2015235']
My understanding is that lust is the desire to consume. The person becomes a resource. Desire is a good thing. Desire to be intimate with your spouse is a good thing. De-humanizing your spouse would be lust. Sexual love should be about desiring your spouse because they are who they are. Sexual lust is the desire to fulfill a need for self and using your spouse as a resource. To think of your spouse in a sexual way is fine, as long as it is not objectifying her.

At least that is how I understand it. The dangerous thing is that it is a matter of perspective and how your properly understand sexuality.
[/quote]

Could you please draw a distinction between "consume" and "consumate"; the second being clearly good?

[N/A Gone]

I believe you mean "consummate"? from Latin consummat- ‘brought to completion,’ from the verb consummare, from con- ‘altogether’ + summa ‘sum total,’ feminine of summus ‘highest, supreme.’ We learn here that it is to bring together, to bring to supreme/highest completion. Perhaps in the context here we could say consummation is to complete the initial aspect of the sacramental union and bring it to its intended state of perfection? (God's design for marriage)

To consume is to dehumanize and use as a resource. As a drug to cure an itch. from Latin consumere, from con- ‘altogether’ + sumere ‘take up’.

Maybe the latin threw you off (consummare vs consumere) but the words are incredibly different in their meaning and in their implication here.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='07 December 2009 - 10:44 PM' timestamp='1260243843' post='2015977']
I believe you mean "consummate"? from Latin consummat- ‘brought to completion,’ from the verb consummare, from con- ‘altogether’ + summa ‘sum total,’ feminine of summus ‘highest, supreme.’ We learn here that it is to bring together, to bring to supreme/highest completion. Perhaps in the context here we could say consummation is to complete the initial aspect of the sacramental union and bring it to its intended state of perfection? (God's design for marriage)

To consume is to dehumanize and use as a resource. As a drug to cure an itch. from Latin consumere, from con- ‘altogether’ + sumere ‘take up’.

Maybe the latin threw you off (consummare vs consumere) but the words are incredibly different in their meaning and in their implication here.
[/quote]

Thank you. I knew that they had different uses, but didn't realize that they had two different etymologies. I think I was relating both of them for two reasons:

1. They obviously look alike.
2. In sacrifice (here, sacrament), the sacrificial offering had to be consumed (either by fire or by eating). When Christ died on the Cross, he said "Consummatum est" -- "It is completed" ... which it seemed like consuming something would "finish" it. Then, relating Christ's sacrifice to marriage. That's how I arrived at being confused.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

To consummate is to complete, to consume is to finish off. Consummation is a culmination, a building up; consumption is an eating away.

Regarding the words of Christ on the Cross, I adhere to the interpretation that Christ was referring to the Paschal Feast begun the night of Holy Thursday that would not be completed until he drank again from the fruit of the vine upon the Cross, when he would bring the Kingdom through His ultimate sacrifice to God in service to mankind (which fits, since service is, as our Lord points out, the mark of a true King and therefore of a true Kingdom). I don't think He was saying He was consumed, I think He was saying that the Paschal Feast (and Wedding Feast) was consummated.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Raphael' date='07 December 2009 - 07:28 PM' timestamp='1260235724' post='2015908']
The source you cite lists a CDF quote, but that's not it. It looks to me like your source cites paragraphs from the CDF and then tries to explain them. You quoted Courage's explanation.

If I understand their interpretation the way you seem to be using it (and I'm sorry if I'm getting the wrong impression of your meaning), then I disagree with their interpretation and I think the Church would to, don't you? Lust is objectively disordered. It can't be used for good. I think it would be better to say that the desire which may lead to either lust or love is morally neutral (being a passion), not that lust can lead to love.
[/quote]
Yeah, I knew it was Courage's explanation from their point of view. I think what struck me is that idea lusting for someone of the opposite sex as being natural and lusting for someone of the same sex isn't natural. Lusting for both is sinful, but natural lust is what leads us towards a proper marriage. I think they were blurring the line between normal sexual attraction and true lust.

[Laudate_Dominum]

lolwut