Distinction in Lust

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Okay, so a lot of times, I've heard from women that a woman's lust is more often over some claim to power or status by having "the right guy."

A guy's lust, as we all know, is more often seeing women as parts of themselves.

There is, of course, overlap.

So in philosophy we've been studying how the human person is violated in different ways and one of the things I've noticed are two opposite poles.

One way is to see a person as a group of various parts...that is, they are not a single thing in and of themselves, indivisible, but a group of little pieces stacked up into a body.

Another is to see the person, indivisible, as only a part of a larger structure, much like one would see a single ant in an ant colony.

It seems to me that the "male lust" is more like the first of these...that it breaks women down into various parts which are all intrinsically good and beautiful, but, still...they're supposed to be attached together and in the context of a whole person.

Likewise, it would seem that the "female lust" is the opposite, the second of these...that it takes a whole man and makes him only a part of something larger...a social status, a symbol of something to be proud of, etc.

This could all easily be carp, as it's only just come to me, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

[Qoheleth]

That's really profound. Seriously, it explains a lot.

[LSW]

Good post

[Birgitta Noel]

Makes sense to me! Good Job!

[matt_in_ohio]

I like your arguement, but I’ve always seen it a little more simply:

Men have it hard-wired into their DNA to “spread their seed,” as it where. Women are hard-wired to find someone who will take care of them and their children. This can be seen in the male and female members of just about any animal species. So one argument is based on genetics.

I’ve also thought that “lust” = “temptation” = “God’s testing you.” I think it is [b]normal [/b]of all human beings to find others attractive. How we act upon that attraction is who we [b]morally [/b]are.

Just my $0.02

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='matt_in_ohio' date='Sep 22 2005, 12:35 AM']I like your arguement, but I’ve always seen it a little more simply:

Men have it hard-wired into their DNA to “spread their seed,” as it where. Women are hard-wired to find someone who will take care of them and their children. This can be seen in the male and female members of just about any animal species. So one argument is based on genetics.

I’ve also thought that “lust” = “temptation” = “God’s testing you.” I think it is [b]normal [/b]of all human beings to find others attractive. How we act upon that attraction is who we [b]morally [/b]are.

Just my $0.02
[right][snapback]733557[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Lust is not a temptation; it's one of the seven deadly sins. We can be tempted to lust, but it is itself a sin.

It is one thing to look at a woman and be bombarded with the temptation to objectify...it's quite another to go ahead and do it. One is a temptation to lust, the other [i][b]is[/b][/i] lust.

It is normal to find others attractive, and yes, men can appreciate the parts of a woman (so long as they appreciate the parts because of the personhood of the woman they love, and not as ends in themselves...that is, so long as the parts aren't the reason they "love" them) and women can appreciate the status of "the right men" (so long as their being "the right men" isn't the reason they "love" them), but we're talking about disordered attraction here.

As for the DNA thing...I'm not a fan of Darwin or Freud...I don't believe that men are hard-wired to "spread their seed" in any way which would lead them to itemize the parts of a woman, nor am I convinced that women, in seeking men who can care for children, are bound to pick those who give them social status.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Bump...I want to hear more thoughts on this... :

[Old_Joe]

I have a question: If a guy checks out women habitually, does the sin become less serious?

[Proud2BCatholic139]

I know there is a verse in the bible that talks about this...

I will write it in here later, but as any man looks at a woman lustfully, you are commting adultery...

Yes, God tests us...but we shouldn't act upon our thoughts.

God made women beautiful for a reason, but looking at them lustfully you are looking at another man's potential spouse.

[Old_Joe]

[quote name='Proud2BCatholic139' date='Sep 22 2005, 12:20 PM']I know there is a verse in the bible that talks about this...

I will write it in here later, but as any man looks at a woman lustfully, you are commting adultery...

Yes, God tests us...but we shouldn't act upon our thoughts.

God made women beautiful for a reason, but looking at them lustfully you are looking at another man's potential spouse. 
[right][snapback]733896[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I understand that. I was wondering if it had become habit, what then?

[Sojourner]

I've got some thoughts, Micah, but I need to organize them into something legible, and first I need to do some other stuff. I'll get back to you on this.

[Sojourner]

OK, I'm still not quite organized, so forgive any rambling ... I'm just thinking aloud here, so don't blow me apart if you think I'm heretical in some statement

This thread makes me think of one from the now-defunct NFP forum in which I proposed that some romance novels are the equivalent of pornography for women. I know several other people posted in that thread in agreement with that assertion. I don't remember all the details of the discussion we had there, but from the dusty corners of my memory I recall that discussion also dealt with a distinction in the ways in which men and women experience lust.

It seems to me that with any sexually-related emotion or experience we have, there's a spiritual correlation. I think the distinction that we experience in the ways we lust stems from the different ways in which men and women were cursed by God as a result of the Fall. Man is to experience difficulty in working the ground, in reaping fruit from the land. Woman will experience difficulty in childbearing and in relationship with her husband. What does this mean for them? For man, there's a sense of inadequacy -- he's not able to do his work with the strength he once had. For woman, there's a sense of loneliness because of the break in relationship.

In the big picture, the curses are meant to be redemptive, of course -- Christ is man's ultimate strength and woman's ultimate love. Through our weaknesses, we are to see our need for Christ, for redemption from our fallen state.

However, I think there's something to the fact that these curses are gender-specific -- there's no blanket curse to mankind. Because it's gender specific, it's not that big a stretch to think that these weaknesses will play out in multiple facets of our lives, including in the ways in which we lust. We so easily juxtapose our need of God with our need of human relationship. How many times do we fall into the trap of looking for something in another human being that we can only truly find in God? Speaking for myself, I know it's pretty often.

So I think somehow this plays into the whole idea of lust. What [i]is[/i] lust, after all? Well, isn't it love gone wrong, twisted and inverted on itself? If true love means making a gift of self to the other, isn't it lust that seeks to be self-fulfilling, that seeks to meet one's own needs, rather than the needs of the other?

In a good and rightly ordered relationship, a husband will assuage his wife's loneliness as much as he can, all the while pointing her unfailingly to the One who alone can fill that deepest need in her heart. A wife will do her best to strengthen her husband, all the while pointing him unfailingly the One who alone can be his strength.

However, in a lustful setting, a man seeks to find strength in imagining himself dominant over a woman. A woman seeks to find companionship by conjuring up the "perfect" lover. We each take from the other without giving, all the while missing the fact that what we're feeding our needs with is nothing, and what we're really starving for is God.

I know this is now a really long post, and I'm not really sure how it fits in with Micah's original post, but for what it's worth, that's the distinction I see in the way we lust.

[Socrates]

Interesting discussion, but I really think this is being over-analyzed. Lust is simply the seeking of sexual pleasure outside the blessing of marriage. It is wanting a person simply for his or her body to satisfy one's physical cravings.
Lust occurs in both women and women.
Men are generally more quickly stimulated, but women can be just as lustful.

I think what Micah was saying about women is really a different sin from lust. I'm not sure exactly what to term it (seeking men for social status), but it would seem related more to the sins of avarice and envy. (Avarice for social status and/or material wealth and over-concern with having a better "match" than one's "girlfriends").

I think this is a common problem with females. I know in my younger days, a lot of girls would avoid having any association with me because I was not in the right social clique.

However, this is not exactly the same as lust.
Lust is when a woman wants a guy simply because she thinks he'll be "great in the sack" or just likes his body.
It's avarice or envy when she wants him simply for advancing her own social status.

[Maria]

What Sojourner said sounds more like what I've heard (and even felt to some extent) -- the idea that feminine lust has to do with thinking some guy would make the perfect husband/lover, that with him she'd live happily ever after.

But I'd agree with Socrates that there definitely do seem to be some women who have the male kind of lust. But that seems more unnatural.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Sep 22 2005, 10:51 PM']Interesting discussion, but I really think this is being over-analyzed.  Lust is simply the seeking of sexual pleasure outside the blessing of marriage.  It is wanting a person simply for his or her body to satisfy one's physical cravings.
Lust occurs in both women and women.
Men are generally more quickly stimulated, but women can be just as lustful.

I think what Micah was saying about women is really a different sin from lust.  I'm not sure exactly what to term it (seeking men for social status), but it would seem related more to the sins of avarice and envy.  (Avarice for social status and/or material wealth and over-concern with having a better "match" than one's "girlfriends").

I think this is a common problem with females.  I know in my younger days, a lot of girls would avoid having any association with me because I was not in the right social clique.

However, this is not exactly the same as lust.
Lust is when a woman wants a guy simply because she thinks he'll be "great in the sack" or just likes his body.
It's avarice or envy when she wants him simply for advancing her own social status.
[right][snapback]734860[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I think they are both lust. Lust does not need to be carnal.