my porn story

[docjam]

First of all...I wasn't exactly sure where to put this thread, so until (if) someone moves it, it stays here...

I've got a classmate and a good friend who was doing a research project on the negative effects of pornography on youth. It was a good project and pretty in depth. Granted, he had a ways to go and still had a lot to do in the project, but the foundation and purpose of the project was a good one.

Huggy bear and I did really well in the class and the prof loved us and her project is even going to be up for an award! Since Jason (that's the kid I was helping) was behind a little and Huggy bear and I were both done, we were helping Jason.

His project, in case you missed it, was to raise awareness as to the negative effects pornography has on people (mostly youth for his project). We worked for a few hours together and I helped him along and guided him a little and after a few hours it was time to call it quits for awhile.

As we were leaving the library, a friend of ours just happened to be leaving as well. Jason stopped and talked to him for a minute and I waited by the door. I actually held it open for five or six people while the three of us talked. In the entry way though there was this girl who was wearing a shirt that only covered half of her stomach, who was just standing there talking on her phone.

I watched as a group of five guys walked by her and watched as every one of them checked her out from the corner of his eyes. I focused on each one of their eyes and noticed that each one of them looked her up and down. It really made me angry. I just got done helping on a project about the negative effects of pornography and here I am watching five guys in a row literally check her out.

Then earlier today I was finished with my exam and waiting got huggy bear (ironically the exam was for the class the three of us have together). I was sitting in the hall waiting and a girl goes over to the drinking fountain. As she bends over to get a drink, two guys were standing close by and both of them look right over at her as she bent over. I watched as the two guys looked at each other after she left, raised their eyebrows to each other and watched her walk away with smiles on their faces. What makes this even worse is that one of those two I know to be engaged and the other is in a relationship I believe.

This made me really kinda upset. I realized then that it's not just porn that has negative effects on our soceity. Holy stinking cats, I wanted to scream! I was so upset at these two and at the five guys from the night before.

Then I thought about this a little more in depth. Is pornography wrong? Well, if you're thinking that I'm going to justify it and come up with a list of ways it's right, you're wrong: it's wrong and it's sinful. Is it wrong to watch a naked lady though? Well, my answer to that is...no...the catch is that she must be your wife and even at that, you can't be lusting after her (oh yes, that's rights guys...I do believe it's possible to lust after your own wife).

Then I thought about some other times it might be possible to see a naked person without it being a sin. I don't believe necessarily seeing a naked person is a sin, it's the lust that acocmpanies it. Remember, Adam and Eve were naked and it wasn't until sin entered the world that they covered themselves.

In a similar way, it doesn't matter if you're watching porn or checking someone out who had a shirt that shows a stomach, or watching a girl bend over to get a drink, the fact of the matter is that your lust is what's going to get you into trouble. If you can't control your lust and temptation to watch someone bend over to get a drink, it's going to lead to greater lust and greater temptation and that's when people start getting into pornography. Porn is obviously an escalation of the lust, but lust is the underlying issue in many of these instances.

Back to times it's ok to see a naked body without it being sinful. My hugggy bear's dad works in law enforcement. It's completely possible that he could find a dead naked body in the woods and would have to drag it out of there. Even in touching another person: If you need to do CPR, your hands are going right over another person's chest. If you're a male administering CPR to a female, are you going to say you're not going to do it cuz you don't want to touch her chest? In all honesty, you probably will never even think about her chest. All you're thinking about is getting her to breathe.

For you see, it's not a matter of the body, it's a matter of lust. Men and women both, control your lustful thoughts and don't let it get so escalated that it gets out of control. And women, not really a reminder but a plea, don't dress so sleezily that guys can't help but to check you out, it's not worth it to put yourself in that position in the first place and secondly, you need to help us stay away from temptation cuz temptation leads to sin. Dress appropriately so we don't sin in checking you out. And men, control your lustful cravings and sinful nature. By not controlling ourselves, we're essentially supporting the porn industry, and we don't want that now do we?

So there it is, my porn story. It started with doing research on negative effects of porn and ended in realizing that it starts way earlier than the porn itself and that we need to take control of it early, cuz in reality, it's no worse to check out a girl while she's bending over to get a drink than it is to check her out when she's stripping or in an explicit movie- they're both wrong. I'll end by saying this one last thing: FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, STOP LUSTING

[docjam]

First of all...I wasn't exactly sure where to put this thread, so until (if) someone moves it, it stays here...

I've got a classmate and a good friend who was doing a research project on the negative effects of pornography on youth. It was a good project and pretty in depth. Granted, he had a ways to go and still had a lot to do in the project, but the foundation and purpose of the project was a good one.

Huggy bear and I did really well in the class and the prof loved us and her project is even going to be up for an award! Since Jason (that's the kid I was helping) was behind a little and Huggy bear and I were both done, we were helping Jason.

His project, in case you missed it, was to raise awareness as to the negative effects pornography has on people (mostly youth for his project). We worked for a few hours together and I helped him along and guided him a little and after a few hours it was time to call it quits for awhile.

As we were leaving the library, a friend of ours just happened to be leaving as well. Jason stopped and talked to him for a minute and I waited by the door. I actually held it open for five or six people while the three of us talked. In the entry way though there was this girl who was wearing a shirt that only covered half of her stomach, who was just standing there talking on her phone.

I watched as a group of five guys walked by her and watched as every one of them checked her out from the corner of his eyes. I focused on each one of their eyes and noticed that each one of them looked her up and down. It really made me angry. I just got done helping on a project about the negative effects of pornography and here I am watching five guys in a row literally check her out.

Then earlier today I was finished with my exam and waiting got huggy bear (ironically the exam was for the class the three of us have together). I was sitting in the hall waiting and a girl goes over to the drinking fountain. As she bends over to get a drink, two guys were standing close by and both of them look right over at her as she bent over. I watched as the two guys looked at each other after she left, raised their eyebrows to each other and watched her walk away with smiles on their faces. What makes this even worse is that one of those two I know to be engaged and the other is in a relationship I believe.

This made me really kinda upset. I realized then that it's not just porn that has negative effects on our soceity. Holy stinking cats, I wanted to scream! I was so upset at these two and at the five guys from the night before.

Then I thought about this a little more in depth. Is pornography wrong? Well, if you're thinking that I'm going to justify it and come up with a list of ways it's right, you're wrong: it's wrong and it's sinful. Is it wrong to watch a naked lady though? Well, my answer to that is...no...the catch is that she must be your wife and even at that, you can't be lusting after her (oh yes, that's rights guys...I do believe it's possible to lust after your own wife).

Then I thought about some other times it might be possible to see a naked person without it being a sin. I don't believe necessarily seeing a naked person is a sin, it's the lust that acocmpanies it. Remember, Adam and Eve were naked and it wasn't until sin entered the world that they covered themselves.

In a similar way, it doesn't matter if you're watching porn or checking someone out who had a shirt that shows a stomach, or watching a girl bend over to get a drink, the fact of the matter is that your lust is what's going to get you into trouble. If you can't control your lust and temptation to watch someone bend over to get a drink, it's going to lead to greater lust and greater temptation and that's when people start getting into pornography. Porn is obviously an escalation of the lust, but lust is the underlying issue in many of these instances.

Back to times it's ok to see a naked body without it being sinful. My hugggy bear's dad works in law enforcement. It's completely possible that he could find a dead naked body in the woods and would have to drag it out of there. Even in touching another person: If you need to do CPR, your hands are going right over another person's chest. If you're a male administering CPR to a female, are you going to say you're not going to do it cuz you don't want to touch her chest? In all honesty, you probably will never even think about her chest. All you're thinking about is getting her to breathe.

For you see, it's not a matter of the body, it's a matter of lust. Men and women both, control your lustful thoughts and don't let it get so escalated that it gets out of control. And women, not really a reminder but a plea, don't dress so sleezily that guys can't help but to check you out, it's not worth it to put yourself in that position in the first place and secondly, you need to help us stay away from temptation cuz temptation leads to sin. Dress appropriately so we don't sin in checking you out. And men, control your lustful cravings and sinful nature. By not controlling ourselves, we're essentially supporting the porn industry, and we don't want that now do we?

So there it is, my porn story. It started with doing research on negative effects of porn and ended in realizing that it starts way earlier than the porn itself and that we need to take control of it early, cuz in reality, it's no worse to check out a girl while she's bending over to get a drink than it is to check her out when she's stripping or in an explicit movie- they're both wrong. I'll end by saying this one last thing: FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, STOP LUSTING

after reading this, I think it sounds like I am coming off as saying that christians have this huge porn problem. That's not what I was trying to get across if anyone thought that originally. While there are definately Christians out there who do struggle with it, I was just trying to point out that it rally angers me to see every day guys out in the middle of a public place, openly lusting after another woman. It's just absolutely disgusting.

IF by chance you're a christian (specifically a christian guy) who is out there and is struggling with lust and porn, chech out www.xxxchurch.com (http://www.xxxchurch.com) It's an accountability site that'll help you and the websites that you check out. Get a close friend, sign up together and it'll explain it all on there, it was what Jason used in his project and I looked through it and thought it was a really good thing for guys to have. Super cool.

If you're a guy reading this and you've learned to control your lustful temptations, kudos to you and keep up the good work, the world needs more men like you.

[dizzle]

What responsibility do you think we Christian women have in this respect? I know this is totally politically incorrect, but I see Christian women who bend over drinking fountains and their thong is saying hello to the world.

[brother vinny]

Dang it! I clicked into this thread thinking tortoise-boy here had written a little piece of erotic fiction, and I get this stuff. :no:

[Spinyn00bman]

Are you saying a christian man cannot appreciate a woman's beauty without it being lust?

[dizzle]

Are you saying a christian man cannot appreciate a woman's beauty without it being lust?

In the way that Semmie's brother described it - no.

[Spinyn00bman]

What responsibility do you think we Christian women have in this respect? I know this is totally politically incorrect, but I see Christian women who bend over drinking fountains and their thong is saying hello to the world.

Blaming it all on women and the way they dress has become a real cop out in my opinion.

Ultimately it is the man who CHOOSES to look or not to look. Any man who tells you it is IMPOSSIBLE to look away is full of doo-doo. I'm not saying it isn't hard to look away, because it certainly is.

Prime example. I am a teacher and I work in a place that is more female than male. And many of the women I work with are beautiful women (including my wife:sigh:). There are situations I face on a daily basis of what to look at or not look at. Just today I was walking down the hall and one of our younger teachers (who is a very pretty girl) was down on her hands and knees helping some kids. Her blouse was hanging down giving anyone who walked by a clear and unobstructed view of said blouse's contents. At that time I bacame very much aware of two very real choices.

1. Slow down and soak in as much of the view as I can.

2. Avert my eyes and walk by quickly.

These are choices I am presented with every day. Today, I am glad to say I went with choice number 2. I buried my face in the papers I had and walked on by.

I wish I could say that everytime I make that choice. I do more times than not, but I still have moments of weakness. But those moments of weakness are MY responsibility. The sin is mine and mine alone.

I don't know what the line of women dressing should or should not be. It's not even really my choice to make. But I think too many guys blame the women when they refuse to deal with the sin in themselves.

My two cents.

[dizzle]

Blaming it all on women and the way they dress has become a real cop out in my opinion.

That's nice. Who did that?

Ultimately it is the man who CHOOSES to look or not to look. Any man who tells you it is IMPOSSIBLE to look away is full of doo-doo. I'm not saying it isn't hard to look away, because it certainly is.

First, I would disagree. It is IMPOSSIBLE not to look. I am a non-lesbian women and heck I look. And let's just say, fine, it is just hard. Are Christian women to make it hard on Christian men?

Prime example. I am a teacher and I work in a place that is more female than male. And many of the women I work with are beautiful women (including my wife:sigh:). There are situations I face on a daily basis of what to look at or not look at.

We are not talking about beautiful. We are talking about modesty.


Just today I was walking down the hall and one of our younger teachers (who is a very pretty girl) was down on her hands and knees helping some kids. Her blouse was hanging down giving anyone who walked by a clear and unobstructed view of said blouse's contents. At that time I bacame very much aware of two very real choices.

The minute you became "aware" - you had looked. It is impossible not to.


1. Slow down and soak in as much of the view as I can.

2. Avert my eyes and walk by quickly.



You should chose two, but something once seen, is not immediately forgotten.

These are choices I am presented with every day. Today, I am glad to say I went with choice number 2. I buried my face in the papers I had and walked on by.


I don't know what the line of women dressing should or should not be. It's not even really my choice to make. But I think too many guys blame the women when they refuse to deal with the sin in themselves.

I am speaking AS a woman to OTHER women. I get pissed off at other women who think it is their rights to shove their goods in the path of my husband's gaze. If he continues to gaze, then I am pissed at him too.

[Spinyn00bman]

That's nice. Who did that?

I know many guys who do. Many.



First, I would disagree. It is IMPOSSIBLE not to look. I am a non-lesbian women and heck I look. And let's just say, fine, it is just hard. Are Christian women to make it hard on Christian men?

So where should the line be drawn then?




The minute you became "aware" - you had looked. It is impossible not to.

I think there is a huge difference between a glance and a full on look.



You should chose two, but something once seen, is not immediately forgotten.

Granted, but again, where do we then draw the line? And there are other things you can turn your mind to.

[James Peter]

Actually I'd say it is entirely possible to check somebody out without lusting for them. Is looking at somebody and thinking "Cute." and smiling being lustful? It can be, but I don't think it is intrinsically. I can even watch a cute girl dancing for a while without it developing into lust. I'm sure the same is true for most guys. Lust isn't in the looking, it is in your reaction to what you see. Liking it and appreciating it isn't lustful. Desiring it is lustful. And not simply desire but pretty strong desire.

Do I have lustful thoughts? Of course. Any guy who denies it is probably lying. But lust isn't always the result of having seen something I like. It is a mental reaction that can be stimulated by looking at somebody cute but is really quite distinct from it.

Should christian women dress modestly so as to not promote lust? Absolutely.

Should a christian man leer lustfully at somebody? Absolutely not.

Is checking somebody out intrinsically lustful? No.

Is it intrinsically sinful? No.

Any other object of beauty that I see I will take a moment to savour, there doesn't need to be a difference when the object of beauty is human. If it develops into lust deal with it, if you are mature enough to know the difference then act according to your conscience.

[Little Shepherd]

Mostly deleted, though I think with a statement like "The minute you became "aware" - you had looked. It is impossible not to," it was relevent to what DX said.

[dizzle]

I know many guys who do. Many.

I don't. I see far too many people blaming the guy and getting all indignant when it is said that the woman has responsibility as well.

So where should the line be drawn then?

Is it really that difficult? I think the black and whites are quite easy in the culture one finds themselves in. Exposing your cleavage to the world and having a thong hanging out the back of your jeans are two definite no's. Going braless in a cold room is another. Wearing jeans so tight that we can see every contour of your private parts is another. It isn't so difficult.

I think there is a huge difference between a glance and a full on look.

Again, so what? No one said there wasn't. But an image seen is not forgotten.

Granted, but again, where do we then draw the line? And there are other things you can turn your mind to.

Yes but an image seen is not forgotten. Continually asking where the line is drawn is completely a red herring to my point. My point is that there is a LINE that women bear some responsibility for.

[Gromit45]

Actually I'd say it is entirely possible to check somebody out without lusting for them. Is looking at somebody and thinking "Cute." and smiling being lustful? It can be, but I don't think it is intrinsically. I can even watch a cute girl dancing for a while without it developing into lust. I'm sure the same is true for most guys. Lust isn't in the looking, it is in your reaction to what you see. Liking it and appreciating it isn't lustful. Desiring it is lustful. And not simply desire but pretty strong desire.


This is where the establishment of habits is key. The more often looking becomes lusting the easier that connection is made in the future. It's a line that is different for every guy. Some guys need to condition themselves to look away every time they see the pretty girl because he KNOWS it will turn to lust.

Another accountability organization is: www.settingcaptivesfree.com

[dizzle]

LS - I suggest you read my post again. I don't have time or desire to respond to anything that had no relation to what I said. Absolutely none.

[dizzle]

This is where the establishment of habits is key. The more often looking becomes lusting the easier that connection is made in the future. It's a line that is different for every guy. Some guys need to condition themselves to look away every time they see the pretty girl because he KNOWS it will turn to lust.

Another accountability organization is: www.settingcaptivesfree.com

Agreed. And women need to take responsibility as well. We don't have the right to dress as we please AND complain that men are pigs.

[James Peter]

This is where the establishment of habits is key. The more often looking becomes lusting the easier that connection is made in the future. It's a line that is different for every guy. Some guys need to condition themselves to look away every time they see the pretty girl because he KNOWS it will turn to lust.

Another accountability organization is: www.settingcaptivesfree.com

Yep, I wouldn't deny that for a minute. I'm just not entirely happy with people thinking that if I check somebody out as she is dancing I'm lusting for her!

[{Tim}]

Well. I am kind of on the fence here, I mean I agree with what Dee Dee is saying, but I can also see that some men will take that as a cop-out that it's all the woman's fault for dressing like that, none of their own fault at all. Which isn't a good thing.

It seems to me, that the best way to approach this is for each christian man to regard it as his personal responsibility not to look lustfully at a woman, regardless of how she is dressed -- and for each christian woman to make it her own personal responsibility to dress is such a way that, as far as possible, she doesn't "ask for" lustful glances from any man (christian or not). After all, the only thing we have direct control over is our own behaviour, so that's really the most important place to start.

But, as long as that is kept in mind, I don't see a problem with discussing things like how women should avoid attracting "looks", or just how much of a "look" is too much.

... :shrug:

[Minnesota]

In the entry way though there was this girl who was wearing a shirt that only covered half of her stomach, who was just standing there talking on her phone.

I watched as a group of five guys walked by her and watched as every one of them checked her out from the corner of his eyes. I focused on each one of their eyes and noticed that each one of them looked her up and down.

It really made me angry.



a girl goes over to the drinking fountain. As she bends over to get a drink, two guys were standing close by and both of them look right over at her as she bent over. I watched as the two guys looked at each other after she left, raised their eyebrows to each other and watched her walk away with smiles on their faces.

This made me really kinda upset. Holy stinking cats, I wanted to scream! I was so upset at these two and at the five guys from the night before.

In a similar way, it doesn't matter if you're watching porn or checking someone out who had a shirt that shows a stomach, or watching a girl bend over to get a drink, the fact of the matter is that your lust is what's going to get you into trouble. If you can't control your lust and temptation to watch someone bend over to get a drink, it's going to lead to greater lust and greater temptation and that's when people start getting into pornography. Porn is obviously an escalation of the lust, but lust is the underlying issue in many of these instances.

I think you need a good reality check. Men are attracted to women and women are attracted to men. A component of the attraction (perhaps larger in men than in women) is physical appearance. When either sex displays a physical appearance that's above average, which can be a purely individual, it will tend to attract greater attraction. Is this bad? Nope. It's one of nature's ways of generating mate selection. Both sexes participate in this very human, and perhaps necessary, conduct. Women are more attracted to handsome men and men are more attracted to beautiful women. And within limits, what makes each sex more attractive is pretty variable. And the specifics of this variability often translate into corresponding level of response. So the question is, at what point does this response go from ho hum to passing interest to mild attraction to delight to fascination to desire to lust? However, you seem to limit such responses to two categories: ho hum and lust. Anything more than a glance at an attractive man or woman is automatically lust. Is that the way you respond to attractive people, with lust? If not, why jump to the conclusion that others must? "WOW! Did you see him look at that very attractive girl? He has to be lusting after her." Now, maybe this IS how you respond, but believe me, others are not driven by such a polar response. Some of us can actually look at attractive, even very sexy, women without wanting to jump their bones (jumping bones = lust). We can simply say to ourselves, "Hmm nice looking babe. . . . . . I think I'll get that flat spare tire fixed tomorrow. . . . Darn, I forgot to lock the garage door. . . . . . . . . Boy, my nose itches . . . . "

It appears your immersion in the subject of pornography has warped your sense of proportion. Take a break and come back to reality.








Of course this all presupposes that lust is necessarily bad, something I don't happen to agree with.

[dizzle]

And of course the context is a Christian one.

It really gets me when nonChristian pipe in with nonChristian concepts. I am sure the invitation to abandon one's faith principles is greatly appreciated. Not.

[Spinyn00bman]

I don't. I see far too many people blaming the guy and getting all indignant when it is said that the woman has responsibility as well.


I never said the woman has no responsibility. But she doesn't have all or even most of it. That falls on us dudes.


Is it really that difficult? I think the black and whites are quite easy in the culture one finds themselves in. Exposing your cleavage to the world and having a thong hanging out the back of your jeans are two definite no's. Going braless in a cold room is another. Wearing jeans so tight that we can see every contour of your private parts is another. It isn't so difficult.

Agreed. If you are going to dress like a street walking slut then don't get all huffy when men, both christian and non, stare and allow their minds to go to those places. I am all for modesty.

But don't let us off the hook just because a woman is "Shoving her goods" at the world.

A lot of times those girls are to be pitied, not lusted after.


Again, so what? No one said there wasn't. But an image seen is not forgotten.

It almost seems like you are saying men are brainless oafs who can't turn their minds to other things. I know that is NOT what you are saying, but I also know there are those out there who believe that. An image seen may not be forgotten, but it can be ignored.



My point is that there is a LINE that women bear some responsibility for.

I see that, and I also know that was your original question.

I'm not so sure it's a universal standard. Unless you want to go to the muslim extremes of covering an entire woman's body, the line will be different for different guys. How much skin should a woman show or not show? What about bathing suits at the beach?

I don't think there is an easy answer. If each woman would be as concerned about her appearance as you are, and each guy would strive to make the choices that semmie'sbrother does, this would not be a problem.

but with so much variety out there.....what is the line?

[Minnesota]

And of course the context is a Christian one.

It really gets me when nonChristian pipe in with nonChristian concepts. I am sure the invitation to abandon one's faith principles is greatly appreciated. Not.
Are you saying that that lust is somehow different within a Christian context? If so, just what "faith principles" limit the responses to a physical attractant to either indifference or lust? Is the Christian psyche actually this polarized into black and white: "I don't care for you" or "I lust after you" ?

[docjam]

What responsibility do you think we Christian women have in this respect? I know this is totally politically incorrect, but I see Christian women who bend over drinking fountains and their thong is saying hello to the world.

The girl that was bent over the drinking fountain was moderately dressed, the guys were checking her out just to check her out. It's slightly different when they dress to be checked out. This particular girl wasn't. should she have to walk around knowing there are guys lusting after her. When I talked in the end about girls dressing appropriately, I was referring more to the woman who does have her thong hanging out, or the girl in the entry way who had a mid-riff on and a low cut shirt, practically begging guys to look at her.

I'm saying Christians who are women shouldn't dress seductively so as to make men stumble. In the same regards, men should dress so as to make women check them out either. Thanks Xena for helping to clarify that.

[docjam]

Dang it! I clicked into this thread thinking tortoise-boy here had written a little piece of erotic fiction, and I get this stuff. :no:you dork, go sign up at www.xxxchurch.com (http://www.xxxchurch.com) and get an accountability partner and get your mind out of the gutter. Step up and be a REAL man, a man that who's identity is completely found in that of Christ.

[Spinyn00bman]

The girl that was bent over the drinking fountain was moderately dressed, the guys were checking her out just to check her out. It's slightly different when they dress to be checked out. This particular girl wasn't. should she have to walk around knowing there are guys lusting after her?

this is exactly what I am talking about.

[docjam]

are you saying a christian man cannot appreciate a woman's beauty without it being lust?

not at all. I'm saying Men need to, in general, not be so lustful

blaming it all on women and the way they dress has become a real cop out in my opinion[/qoute]

I'm not blaming our motives, as men, on the way women dress. I'm saying to knowingly temp another christian and put them in a situation where they may sin is a sin in itself. I agree that blaming it all on the way they dress is a cop out, but I also think christian women need to watch the way they dress.

[quote=spinynorman]the man who chooses to look or not

:yes: agreed, and it's the man who chooses to lust after her or not. Like I said in the example of my girlfriend's dad, if he were needed to drag a dead naked ladies body out of the woods, (I'm not sure if that specifically has happened but something similar has which she can tell you about if she wants)he can't really choose not to look and still be able to do his job. I don't think it's the looking at another woman that's a sin, it's looking in a lustful way. I have to look at professor's every day, many of whom are women, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm saying lusting after women is wrong and to see someone publicly and knowingly do it without thoughts of anyone else around them is sickening and gross.

two very real choices [/qoute]
I'm glad you chose #2. And being a guy, I know it's very hard sometimes to not choose #1, but we can do it. And when we do, you're right, we sin and the sin is our sin alone, but that sin still affects other people, and we still need to ask for grace for that sin.

[quote=spinynorman] so where should the line be drawn them
women, ESPECIALLY christian women, should dress modestly and not with the intent of men looking at them.

[OldManZangetsu]

the catch is that she must be your wife and even at that, you can't be lusting after her

I don't understand what you mean, please explain.

[docjam]

[quote=James Peter]it is entirely possible to check somebody out without lusting for them [/end quote]

I agree with that, it's in the manner that one looks at the girl. In both cases I used, they were definately lusting after the girl and being very obvious about it.

[quote=darth xena] I see far too many people blaming the guy and getting all indignant whne it is said that the woman has responsibility as well.[/end quote]

the reality of it is this: nobody, well, very very few people, will fess up to their responibilities and be responsible for their actions

[quote=darth xena] an image seen is not easily forgotten [/end quote]
remind me to comment on this one

[quote=darth xena] there is a line that women bear some responsibility for [/end quote]
and there's a line that guys bear responsibility for but again, very few people are responsible enough for their actions

[quote=darth xena]LS - I suggest you read my post again. I don't have time or desire to respond to anything that had no relation to what I said. Absolutely none. [/end quote]

:rofl: sorry, I found that slightly funny but LS, I liked your point too

[quote=darth xena]And women need to take responsibility as well. We don't have the right to dress as we please AND complain that men are pigs.[/end quote] xena, you just moved into my top ten woman list. I love you! (Don't worry Erin, you're still my top girl though!)

[quote=simon peter]I'm not entirely happy with people thinking that if I check somebody out as she is dancing I'm lusting for her![/end quote]
what type of dancing are we talking about? There's some pretty lustful dancing going on in our world today, but if you're talking about dancing just to dance, then I agree. If she's seductively dancing all over and around you, then I have a problem with that. And besides, I don't think anyone here was being unhappy with you for checking out a woman.

* A side note to all:
I never inteded in saying that looking at a woman is wrong. I'm saying that lusting after a woman is wrong. Please everyone note the difference before responding.

[Warcraft3]

Well, my answer to that is...no...the catch is that she must be your wife and even at that, you can't be lusting after her (oh yes, that's rights guys...I do believe it's possible to lust after your own wife).

You cant lust after your wife? That is one of the most ridiculous comments I have ever read.....

[OldManZangetsu]

You cant lust after your wife? That is one of the most ridiculous comments I have ever read.....

That's what I was thinking.
-------------
edit: semmie's brother, I'd be interested in knowing what y'all concluded with in the project, or rather what information you gathered.

[docjam]

[quote={Tim}] I am kind of on the fence here [/end quote]
It's possible to be right in more than one area at the same time.

[quote={Tim}] I agree with what Dee Dee is saying, but I can also see that some men will take that as a cop-out that it's all the woman's fault for dressing like that[/end quote]
so it depends on if we're looking at if from the perspective of a man or a woman and what the intentions really are.

[quote={Tim}]the best way to approach this is for each christian man to regard it as his personal responsibility not to look lustfully at a woman, regardless of how she is dressed[/end quote]
which is the point I was trying to get across; for men to not be lustful

[quote={Tim}]After all, the only thing we have direct control over is our own behaviour, so that's really the most important place to start[/end quote]

amen to that, but like in my response to Xena, there simply are too few people who are willing to be responsible for their own actions.


I've gotta go again but I'll reply to more later...

*note to self, left off with Minnesota's reply...

[wiseman]

Those five guys that checked out that girl must burn in hell. The girl obviously wore the shirt that covered half her stomach because her top half was cold but the bottom half of the stomach was hot, she didn't wake up in the morning and choose that shirt thinking it was sexy and might grab some guys attention. If i was god i would rip their eyeballs out and throw it in the garbage bin because that where it belongs.

[vballer8]

i think that the conversation about this topic really boils down one question...what would Jesus do? would He look at porn? No. Would He check out women? No. IF He was married would he have lusted after his wife? No. .......and there we have it.

[Warcraft3]

i think that the conversation about this topic really boils down one question...what would Jesus do? would He look at porn? No. Would He check out women? No. IF He was married would he have lusted after his wife? No. .......and there we have it.

Yes he would have lusted after His wife....dont be idiotic.

[sc_q_jayce]

PS: "/" and "end" is redundant. And end doesn't work. :tongue:

[docjam]

anything more than a glance at an attractiveman or woman is automatically lust?... "WOW! Did you see him look at that very attractive girl? He has to be lusting after her."

I never said that every time a guy looks at an attractive female he's lusting. I'm saying in two very distince instances that happened within the past 24 hours, not only did they look lustfully at a woman, they made it very obvious to everyone around them, which is as wrong as the lust itself.

Some of us can actually look at attractive, even very sexy, women without wanting to jump their bones (jumping bones = lust).
where did I say differently? I don't recall saying there weren't men out there that can't look at a girl without lusting, I simply said it's an underlying problem in porn that lust can be controlled and needs to be controlled so as to not entice men into such things as porn.

Of course this all presupposes that lust is necessarily bad, something I don't happen to agree with.

I respect your opinion, but I disagree that it's not wrong to willingly look after another person and want to (to put it in your words) jump their bones


a lot of times those girls are to be pitied, not lusted after

agreed, probably most the time in my book

but with so much variety out there...what is the line

unfortunately, sometimes that exact fine line is too hard to be drawn. If it shows an excessive amount of body part or undergarment, I'd say it's too much across the line, but that's my opinion.

that is exactly what I am talking about

ah, but that's exactly what I was talking about first, just thought I'd point that out ;)

I don't understand what you mean, please explain.

I meant to say CAN instead of CAN'T...I believe it's possible for a man to lust after his wife, if he so deisres her in a way that's controlling or past a line where she's willing to go.

You cant lust after your wife? That is one of the most ridiculous comments I have ever read.....

I know, I in all honesty meant you CAN lust after your wife, sorry for the misconception :whack: jojo

Yes he would have lusted after His wife....dont be idiotic

first of all, I don't think had He been married that he would've lusted after His wife, He was perfect in all sense of the word and lust, being a sin wouldn't have gotten to Jesus, and secondly, let's refrain from calling names, debating with name calling is nothing more than politicals and this is nowhere near the political forum. Any more name calling and Xena said she'll put you in a time out

[docjam]

And end doesn't work. :tongue:I know, I am so dumb, but that's for another forum!

[Minnesota]

I never said that every time a guy looks at an attractive female he's lusting. I'm saying in two very distince instances that happened within the past 24 hours, not only did they look lustfully at a woman, they made it very obvious to everyone around them, which is as wrong as the lust itself.
No, YOU made the leap to judgment that what YOU perceived as lustful looks was a true indication of lust. That's a V E R Y dangerous thing to do. Some people would even call it prejudiced: a preconceived judgment or opinion. Preconceived based on a look YOU had decided reflects lust in others. And now you even claim to know how it looked to "everyone around them." I can only assume everyone around them expressed this impression to you. Moreover, you have also concluded that as bad as lust may be, letting others know you are lusting is equally bad. I don't even want to hear how you would justify this one. :no:




where did I say differently? I don't recall saying there weren't men out there that can't look at a girl without lusting,
Of course you didn't. You simply decided to judge people on how they look at others. And that look couldn't be anything else than an expression of lust. No chance that it was a look of passing interest or mild attraction or delight or fascination or desire. Forget any other possibility. To you it had to be LUST. And why? Well I'm sure most folk would assume that it's because you had no gray scale for judging the intent of others, because if you did you wouldn't bypass the other options and immediately jump to lust. Reasonable folk don't do those kinds of things. They know, as you now seem to claim, that there are other possibilities, and they wouldn't jump to the most damning interpretation possible. The only reason for anyone to do so is because they only give themselves two options: good and bad.

You see a person look a certain way at someone and it "really makes [you] angry."

You see a person look a certain way at someone and it "made [you] really kinda upset." So upset you wanted to scream.

Normal people don't go around jumping to conclusions about the passing expressions of others to the extent that it makes them angry, upset, and wanting to scream. They recognize how foolish it is to so rashly judge others by outward appearances and conclude the worst of them. If such momentary acts of others triggers such a polarized judgment in you I think it's pretty fair to conclude you lack a useful scale judgment: intentions are either good or bad; black or white; completely innocent or completely lustful.

[Muhd]

I know, I in all honesty meant you CAN lust after your wife, sorry for the misconceptionThat depends on your definition of lust. I think the way the Bible uses lust it means "desiring to commit some sinful act". In this context it would be desiring to have sex with someone to whom you are not married. Anyways that is my understanding as to how to lust is defined in the Bible, it isn't necessarily desiring someone in a sexual way. It can be desiring to hurt someone, desiring to steal, etc. But that is not how it is used when Christians usually discuss it so...whatever I dunno what definition we should use.

Also, I invite you all to check out my christian theory of sexuality (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=88522).

[timspong]

Let me start with a quote that has helped me:

Job 31:1
31:1 "I have made a covenant with my eyes ; Why then should I look upon a young woman?

I think modern society has shifted our perception with regard to lust. If you took a first century Christian and brought him to any modern city, he would probably think he was in hell. You switch on the TV and you can not avoid seeing half naked women in all kinds of lustful scenarios. Anyhow I guess my first point is that you cannot trust the society norms in your judgment of sin, you can only use Jesus for comparison.

Lust is a very tricky sin to counter as the more you focus on avoiding it the more it plagues your mind.

How does the bible tell us to avoid sin?

Basically to focus on the right path and not focus on avoiding the sin.
Pr 4:25-27
25 Let your eyes look straight ahead, And your eyelids look right before you.
26 Ponder the path of your feet, And let all your ways be established.
27 Do not turn to the right or the left; Remove your foot from evil.

I used to do a lot of mountain bike downhill racing and many novices used to crash into tree. This was because they focused on not hitting the tree, rather than focusing on the path around the tree.

Some talk about watching girls dance is okay. I agree to a point in as much as the feelings don’t go beyond what you would feel if you were watching your sister/mother/daughter dance. Any more than that and you are into lust and have some hard work to attend to.

1 Ti 5:1b-2
Treat younger men as brothers,
older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters , with absolute purity.

[vballer8]

Let me start with a quote that has helped me:

Job 31:1
31:1 "I have made a covenant with my eyes ; Why then should I look upon a young woman?

I think modern society has shifted our perception with regard to lust. If you took a first century Christian and brought him to any modern city, he would probably think he was in hell. You switch on the TV and you can not avoid seeing half naked women in all kinds of lustful scenarios. Anyhow I guess my first point is that you cannot trust the society norms in your judgment of sin, you can only use Jesus for comparison.

Lust is a very tricky sin to counter as the more you focus on avoiding it the more it plagues your mind.

How does the bible tell us to avoid sin?

Basically to focus on the right path and not focus on avoiding the sin.
Pr 4:25-27
25 Let your eyes look straight ahead, And your eyelids look right before you.
26 Ponder the path of your feet, And let all your ways be established.
27 Do not turn to the right or the left; Remove your foot from evil.

I used to do a lot of mountain bike downhill racing and many novices used to crash into tree. This was because they focused on not hitting the tree, rather than focusing on the path around the tree.

Some talk about watching girls dance is okay. I agree to a point in as much as the feelings don’t go beyond what you would feel if you were watching your sister/mother/daughter dance. Any more than that and you are into lust and have some hard work to attend to.

1 Ti 5:1b-2
Treat younger men as brothers,
older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters , with absolute purity.


EXACTLY! GREAT JOB! :thumb:

[Warcraft3]

I know, I in all honesty meant you CAN lust after your wife, sorry for the misconception :whack: jojo

Okay...

first of all, I don't think had He been married that he would've lusted after His wife, He was perfect in all sense of the word and lust, being a sin wouldn't have gotten to Jesus, and secondly, let's refrain from calling names, debating with name calling is nothing more than politicals and this is nowhere near the political forum. Any more name calling and Xena said she'll put you in a time out

If you think that Jesus wouldnt have lusted after His wife then you are wrong....there is nothing sinful with lust if it is in the correct context.

Lust meaning "intense sexual desire or appetite" is perfectly fine within marriage, to think otherwise is idiotic and moronic.

I use words like "idiotic" and "moronic" because that is what Christians often are....its as if intelligence and realism gets checked at the door when we get saved and we become a bunch of drooling morons with really dumb ideas and beliefs. Its annoying when I hear fellow Christians saying ridiculous comments....no wonder some skeptics see us as a bunch of morons.

[James Peter]

i think that the conversation about this topic really boils down one question...what would Jesus do? would He look at porn? No. Would He check out women? No. IF He was married would he have lusted after his wife? No. .......and there we have it.

Actually I think that the second isn't as open and shut as you seem to make it. If checking out a woman is intrinsically lustful he wouldn't do it but simply appreciating her in exactly the same way he would a rose? Why not?


No, YOU made the leap to judgment that what YOU perceived as lustful looks was a true indication of lust. That's a V E R Y dangerous thing to do. Some people would even call it prejudiced: a preconceived judgment or opinion. Preconceived based on a look YOU had decided reflects lust in others. And now you even claim to know how it looked to "everyone around them." I can only assume everyone around them expressed this impression to you. Moreover, you have also concluded that as bad as lust may be, letting others know you are lusting is equally bad. I don't even want to hear how you would justify this one.

I don't like doing it but I have to agree with Minn on this. You shouldn't be so judgemental. You honestly can't tell the difference outwardly in many cases. Glancing to a friend and saying "Wow." or something to that effect doesn't indicate I've been lusting after her. Now if I start gibbering and have drool running out of the corner of my mouth...

Yes, don't lust. But equally do not judge the heart when you do not know it. Can we sometimes tell that somebody is obviously lusting? Yes, but only with people we know in most cases. I'd have no hestitation to whack a friend of mine who needed it but judging a stranger? Only if it was really, really obvious. And even then why be so judgemental about it? I believe that, assuming charismatic revelations are absent, one should give the benefit of the doubt when it exists.

[Ryokan]

First of all...I wasn't exactly sure where to put this thread, so until (if) someone moves it, it stays here...

I've got a classmate and a good friend who was doing a research project on the negative effects of pornography on youth. It was a good project and pretty in depth. Granted, he had a ways to go and still had a lot to do in the project, but the foundation and purpose of the project was a good one.

Huggy bear and I did really well in the class and the prof loved us and her project is even going to be up for an award! Since Jason (that's the kid I was helping) was behind a little and Huggy bear and I were both done, we were helping Jason.

His project, in case you missed it, was to raise awareness as to the negative effects pornography has on people (mostly youth for his project). We worked for a few hours together and I helped him along and guided him a little and after a few hours it was time to call it quits for awhile.

As we were leaving the library, a friend of ours just happened to be leaving as well. Jason stopped and talked to him for a minute and I waited by the door. I actually held it open for five or six people while the three of us talked. In the entry way though there was this girl who was wearing a shirt that only covered half of her stomach, who was just standing there talking on her phone.

I watched as a group of five guys walked by her and watched as every one of them checked her out from the corner of his eyes. I focused on each one of their eyes and noticed that each one of them looked her up and down. It really made me angry. I just got done helping on a project about the negative effects of pornography and here I am watching five guys in a row literally check her out.

Then earlier today I was finished with my exam and waiting got huggy bear (ironically the exam was for the class the three of us have together). I was sitting in the hall waiting and a girl goes over to the drinking fountain. As she bends over to get a drink, two guys were standing close by and both of them look right over at her as she bent over. I watched as the two guys looked at each other after she left, raised their eyebrows to each other and watched her walk away with smiles on their faces. What makes this even worse is that one of those two I know to be engaged and the other is in a relationship I believe.

This made me really kinda upset. I realized then that it's not just porn that has negative effects on our soceity. Holy stinking cats, I wanted to scream! I was so upset at these two and at the five guys from the night before.

Then I thought about this a little more in depth. Is pornography wrong? Well, if you're thinking that I'm going to justify it and come up with a list of ways it's right, you're wrong: it's wrong and it's sinful. Is it wrong to watch a naked lady though? Well, my answer to that is...no...the catch is that she must be your wife and even at that, you can't be lusting after her (oh yes, that's rights guys...I do believe it's possible to lust after your own wife).

Then I thought about some other times it might be possible to see a naked person without it being a sin. I don't believe necessarily seeing a naked person is a sin, it's the lust that acocmpanies it. Remember, Adam and Eve were naked and it wasn't until sin entered the world that they covered themselves.

In a similar way, it doesn't matter if you're watching porn or checking someone out who had a shirt that shows a stomach, or watching a girl bend over to get a drink, the fact of the matter is that your lust is what's going to get you into trouble. If you can't control your lust and temptation to watch someone bend over to get a drink, it's going to lead to greater lust and greater temptation and that's when people start getting into pornography. Porn is obviously an escalation of the lust, but lust is the underlying issue in many of these instances.

Back to times it's ok to see a naked body without it being sinful. My hugggy bear's dad works in law enforcement. It's completely possible that he could find a dead naked body in the woods and would have to drag it out of there. Even in touching another person: If you need to do CPR, your hands are going right over another person's chest. If you're a male administering CPR to a female, are you going to say you're not going to do it cuz you don't want to touch her chest? In all honesty, you probably will never even think about her chest. All you're thinking about is getting her to breathe.

For you see, it's not a matter of the body, it's a matter of lust. Men and women both, control your lustful thoughts and don't let it get so escalated that it gets out of control. And women, not really a reminder but a plea, don't dress so sleezily that guys can't help but to check you out, it's not worth it to put yourself in that position in the first place and secondly, you need to help us stay away from temptation cuz temptation leads to sin. Dress appropriately so we don't sin in checking you out. And men, control your lustful cravings and sinful nature. By not controlling ourselves, we're essentially supporting the porn industry, and we don't want that now do we?

So there it is, my porn story. It started with doing research on negative effects of porn and ended in realizing that it starts way earlier than the porn itself and that we need to take control of it early, cuz in reality, it's no worse to check out a girl while she's bending over to get a drink than it is to check her out when she's stripping or in an explicit movie- they're both wrong. I'll end by saying this one last thing: FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, STOP LUSTING
I don't see it. Checking out a girl in a belly shjirt and consuming a product where two people were paid to have sex with each other on film are not even the same category of thing.

[docjam]

That depends on your definition of lust. I think the way the Bible uses lust it means "desiring to commit some sinful act". In this context it would be desiring to have sex with someone to whom you are not married. Anyways that is my understanding as to how to lust is defined in the Bible, it isn't necessarily desiring someone in a sexual way. It can be desiring to hurt someone, desiring to steal, etc. But that is not how it is used when Christians usually discuss it so...whatever I dunno what definition we should use.

Also, I invite you all to check out my christian theory of sexuality (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=88522).

let's say a man and a wife are laying at home one night and the husband wants to have sex and the wife doesn't. The wife consistantly is saying no and the man is consistantly pushing. Eventually he forces himself unto her and literally makes her have sex with him, even though all along she didn't want to, even though she adamantly said no and even tried to push him off her, then he's lusting after her. I'd borderline say he raped her in that instance as rape could be defined as the forcing of one person on to another to have sex or sex between two people where one person was unconsenting. In that case, the husband just raped his wife. Also there are other sexual things that may go on in one marriage that may not go on in another marriage. Whatever sexual foreplay or anything else that goes on is completely up to that couple. If there's something of sexual nature that a woman or a man doesn't want to participate in (even within a marriage) and the other consistantly is pushing for that and desiring that, they're lusting after that and thus it is wrong.


you made the leap to judgement that you what you perceived as lustful was a true indication of lust

I have a professor that always told me we should, under no circumstances, assume anything. Then later on that professor said, ya know i was wrong, it's not wrong to make assumptions, just make sure they're reasonable assumptions. I'm sorry but when two guys gaud over a women bending over and are commenting to each other about it and how great her butt is and how they'd like to be in bed with that and are commenting on it, that's lustful. An openly public admission that you want to sleep with someone and have sex with that person, soley based on their physical appearance, is lustful.


letting others know you are lusting is equally bad
that depends. If I had a problem with lust and went to my best friend and asked him to pray with me and help me with this problem, then no I don't think it's wrong to publicly admit lust. But lusting after someone is a disgrace to that person. The girl at the fountain was dressed modestly and in no way was asking for these guys to look at her. She seemed embarrased and even more so, humiliated by the whole thing. When one person's actions humiliate someone, especially when that action can be controlled, then yes it's wrong.

timspong] job31:3 "I have made a covenant with my eyes; why then should I look upon a young woman?"
thanks, I was actually looking for this verse when I originally posted and then forgot all about it. Thanks for the points you made!



*note to self, I left of with post #41

[Xmansmommy]

Hey Semmie'sbro, I think part of the reason you are getting the responses about judging the intent of these men's hearts is because in your OP you merely mentioned a raised eyebrow or a smile in response to these women. No clear indication of lust. Now however, you clarified and said that they verbally acknowledged they were lusting. If by their own admittance they were lusting then by all means, respond accordingly. But if there were merely smiles, eyebrows raised, someone looking at and appreciating specific body parts, I don't personally believe as Minn and JP have mentioned, that we have the ability to judge whether or not those reactions are lustful in nature.

Just my two cents.

[James Peter]

Hey Semmie'sbro, I think part of the reason you are getting the responses about judging the intent of these men's hearts is because in your OP you merely mentioned a raised eyebrow or a smile in response to these women. No clear indication of lust. Now however, you clarified and said that they verbally acknowledged they were lusting. If by their own admittance they were lusting then by all means, respond accordingly. But if there were merely smiles, eyebrows raised, someone looking at and appreciating specific body parts, I don't personally believe as Minn and JP have mentioned, that we have the ability to judge whether or not those reactions are lustful in nature.

Just my two cents.

Indeed. The scenarios you are now giving are lustful but those in the original post probably weren't. If a guy says to his friend "Oh man, I so want to XXX her" then it is reasonable to assume he is being lustful :wink:. There is a lot of grey though when talking just about smiles and winks.

[dizzle]

No, YOU made the leap to judgment that what YOU perceived as lustful looks was a true indication of lust. That's a V E R Y dangerous thing to do. Some people would even call it prejudiced: a preconceived judgment or opinion. Preconceived based on a look YOU had decided reflects lust in others. And now you even claim to know how it looked to "everyone around them." I can only assume everyone around them expressed this impression to you. Moreover, you have also concluded that as bad as lust may be, letting others know you are lusting is equally bad. I don't even want to hear how you would justify this one. :no:





Of course you didn't. You simply decided to judge people on how they look at others. And that look couldn't be anything else than an expression of lust. No chance that it was a look of passing interest or mild attraction or delight or fascination or desire. Forget any other possibility. To you it had to be LUST. And why? Well I'm sure most folk would assume that it's because you had no gray scale for judging the intent of others, because if you did you wouldn't bypass the other options and immediately jump to lust. Reasonable folk don't do those kinds of things. They know, as you now seem to claim, that there are other possibilities, and they wouldn't jump to the most damning interpretation possible. The only reason for anyone to do so is because they only give themselves two options: good and bad.

You see a person look a certain way at someone and it "really makes [you] angry."

You see a person look a certain way at someone and it "made [you] really kinda upset." So upset you wanted to scream.

Normal people don't go around jumping to conclusions about the passing expressions of others to the extent that it makes them angry, upset, and wanting to scream. They recognize how foolish it is to so rashly judge others by outward appearances and conclude the worst of them. If such momentary acts of others triggers such a polarized judgment in you I think it's pretty fair to conclude you lack a useful scale judgment: intentions are either good or bad; black or white; completely innocent or completely lustful.

But since you see absolutely NO problem with lust, and this is fairly obviously a Christian conversation, I wonder about your inability to see your way about of an A and B conversation instead of being the evangelical humanist you so obviously are.

[dizzle]

Indeed. The scenarios you are now giving are lustful but those in the original post probably weren't. If a guy says to his friend "Oh man, I so want to XXX her" then it is reasonable to assume he is being lustful :wink:. There is a lot of grey though when talking just about smiles and winks.

Oh yeah, I am sure they were just winking because the girls butt look just like their mommas and what a coincidence, and those were just the pair of jeans that they wanted to buy for their sister but it only became obvious when she bent over, which of course carries absolutely no sexual connotations at all. Give me a freakin' break. If I could curse you to be a curvy woman with large breasts for one day I would do it in a New York minute, then report back to us, unless there is something you are not telling us about your night job.

[Xmansmommy]

Why the sarcasm, DD? Seriously if the conversation topic is a bit touchy for you, perhaps it's best not to engage in it. No condemnation here just some friendly advice.

[dizzle]

Let me start with a quote that has helped me:

Job 31:1
31:1 "I have made a covenant with my eyes ; Why then should I look upon a young woman?

I think modern society has shifted our perception with regard to lust. If you took a first century Christian and brought him to any modern city, he would probably think he was in hell. You switch on the TV and you can not avoid seeing half naked women in all kinds of lustful scenarios. Anyhow I guess my first point is that you cannot trust the society norms in your judgment of sin, you can only use Jesus for comparison.

Lust is a very tricky sin to counter as the more you focus on avoiding it the more it plagues your mind.

How does the bible tell us to avoid sin?

Basically to focus on the right path and not focus on avoiding the sin.
Pr 4:25-27
25 Let your eyes look straight ahead, And your eyelids look right before you.
26 Ponder the path of your feet, And let all your ways be established.
27 Do not turn to the right or the left; Remove your foot from evil.

I used to do a lot of mountain bike downhill racing and many novices used to crash into tree. This was because they focused on not hitting the tree, rather than focusing on the path around the tree.

Some talk about watching girls dance is okay. I agree to a point in as much as the feelings don’t go beyond what you would feel if you were watching your sister/mother/daughter dance. Any more than that and you are into lust and have some hard work to attend to.

1 Ti 5:1b-2
Treat younger men as brothers,
older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters , with absolute purity.

That is GREAT advice. I am a completely heterosexual female and HECK I get totally foreign sexual thoughts with the display of female sexuality that is rampant in our society, and like it or not, you guys that say you do not, are liars or deviants. And I don't mean deviant in a pejoratory way. I am a deviant in some ways. I don't like babies. That is not normal for women. I have no desire to pick one up or have one of my own. I like older kids, and if we ever have kids, we will adopt an older one. But that is not normal. I own that.

[dizzle]

Why the sarcasm, DD? Seriously if the conversation topic is a bit touchy for you, perhaps it's best not to engage in it. No condemnation here just some friendly advice.

Sarcasm is my nature. It isn't touchy (I don't need the pschoanalysis, those who have met me know that I dress FAR from provocatively), and if you felt it was, a PM would have been a much better vehicle. There are men and women who need to hear this whether or not it passes some self-imposed politeness meter which has never been what this board is about. In fact more than half of the men benefited, including the OP, so I don't think it appropriate to act as if they have not. This is a discussion board and I feel the boys can handle themselves.

[Xmansmommy]

Sarcasm is my nature. It isn't touchy, and if you felt it was, a PM would have been a much better vehicle. There are men and women who need to hear this whether or not it passes some self-imposed politeness meter which has never been what this board is about. In fact more than half of the men benefited, so I don't think it appropriate to act as if they have not. This is a discussion board and I feel the boys can handle themselves.

You're right DD, I probably should have PM'd you. For that I apologize. However, my comments were not meant to be rude, offensive, argumentative or condemning. But perhaps it's easier to assume the worst of another's intentions despite their acknowledged intent. I forget that on this board sarcasm, ad hominem, etc. is acceptable, even encouraged. Pardon me if it happens to bother me and leads me to respond in anger and disappointment sometimes. Like now. It's my nature. Nevermind my comments. It's your board.... carry on.

So much for self policing of this forum. :ahem:

[James Peter]

Oh yeah, I am sure they were just winking because the girls butt look just like their mommas and what a coincidence, and those were just the pair of jeans that they wanted to buy for their sister but it only became obvious when she bent over, which of course carries absolutely no sexual connotations at all. Give me a freakin' break. If I could curse you to be a curvy woman with large breasts for one day I would do it in a New York minute, then report back to us, unless there is something you are not telling us about your night job.

I'd take the deal if you'd have to spend a day with a guy's brain in return. Just saying that somebody is attractive is not the same as lusting for them. There is a huge difference between them. A wink can, and often does, simply mean no more than that really. Just because me and a friend see a cute girl and discretely acknowledge that with a wink or a look does not mean either of us are thinking lustfully. Lust isn't thinking "She is pretty." Lust is "intense sexual desire or appetite" or "uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite." It isn't lust unless it is overpowering, uncontrolled, intense...something to that effect. Sexual desire in and of itself is not lust. Sexual desire is natural and not harmful, even sexual desire when I'm not married. It becomes a problem if it reaches a particular intensity. There is absolutely nothing wrong with me wanting sex. There is something wrong if it becomes a dominant/controlling factor in my life.

[dizzle]

You're right DD, I probably should have PM'd you. For that I apologize.[/qiote]

Apology accepted.

[quote]However, my comments were not meant to be rude, offensive, argumentative or condemning.

Perhaps some self-reflection is in order. You read all kinds of inappropriate motives into my post.

But perhaps it's easier to assume the worst of another's intentions despite their acknowledged intent. I forget that on this board sarcasm, ad hominem, etc. is acceptable, even encouraged. Pardon me if it happens to bother me and leads me to respond in anger and disappointment sometimes.

And that is reality. All three owners and all of staff find a place for such expression.


Like now. It's my nature. Nevermind my comments. It's your board.... carry on.

It is not MY board. Technically it is mine, boom's, and cir's. Less technically it is everyone's.


So much for self policing of this forum. :ahem:

See XM, that is another jab directed at me, and quite honestly I don't appreciate it. The very poster who spoke of self-policing uses sarcasm more heavily than I do. The two other owners do as well. Self-policing does not mean no sarcasm, it means outright trollish and nasty and self-destructive posting and elevating of oneself as the paragon of behaviour. Nothing I said even qualified. I am extraordinarily hurt by your post if you must know. It came out of left field and I found it extraordinarily condemning and self-righteous. I forgive you. I ask you forgive me for whatever you found in mine, but I cried after you rebuke. I felt it was uncalled for and totally NOT al all with what I said.

[dizzle]

I'd take the deal if you'd have to spend a day with a guy's brain in return. Just saying that somebody is attractive is not the same as lusting for them. There is a huge difference between them. A wink can, and often does, simply mean no more than that really. Just because me and a friend see a cute girl and discretely acknowledge that with a wink or a look does not mean either of us are thinking lustfully. Lust isn't thinking "She is pretty." Lust is "intense sexual desire or appetite" or "uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite." It isn't lust unless it is overpowering, uncontrolled, intense...something to that effect. Sexual desire in and of itself is not lust. Sexual desire is natural and not harmful, even sexual desire when I'm not married. It becomes a problem if it reaches a particular intensity. There is absolutely nothing wrong with me wanting sex. There is something wrong if it becomes a dominant/controlling factor in my life.

James you and I rarely see eye to eye. We both acknowledge that. For that reason, I likely will only respond to those who are on the same wavelength so to speak. Let me just tell you if I were bending over a water fountain in modest clothes and you made such an expression you would get a word or too from my husband. On that I part my ways and continue with a few of the posters who were on the same wavelength.

[James Peter]

James you and I rarely see eye to eye. We both acknowledge that. For that reason, I likely will only respond to those who are on the same wavelength so to speak. Let me just tell you if I were bending over a water fountain in modest clothes and you made such an expression you would get a word or too from my husband. On that I part my ways and continue with a few of the posters who were on the same wavelength.

Its just so much easier to only talk to people who agree with us isn't it...

[dizzle]

If you wish to see it that way, that is your burden, not mine. I don't feel you have a completely Christian worldview, and I don't tend to spend my time with that. You know that, if you wish to pick a fight, you will find yourself quickly alone. If it feels you better to be satisfied with such a soundbite, go ahead. I have long since ceased to care.

[Spinyn00bman]

That is GREAT advice. I am a completely heterosexual female and HECK I get totally foreign sexual thoughts with the display of female sexuality that is rampant in our society, and like it or not, you guys that say you do not, are liars or deviants. And I don't mean deviant in a pejoratory way. I am a deviant in some ways. I don't like babies. That is not normal for women. I have no desire to pick one up or have one of my own. I like older kids, and if we ever have kids, we will adopt an older one. But that is not normal. I own that.

But DD.....what IS "normal" anyway?

[Gromit45]

I'd take the deal if you'd have to spend a day with a guy's brain in return. Just saying that somebody is attractive is not the same as lusting for them. There is a huge difference between them. A wink can, and often does, simply mean no more than that really. Just because me and a friend see a cute girl and discretely acknowledge that with a wink or a look does not mean either of us are thinking lustfully. Lust isn't thinking "She is pretty." Lust is "intense sexual desire or appetite" or "uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite." It isn't lust unless it is overpowering, uncontrolled, intense...something to that effect. Sexual desire in and of itself is not lust. Sexual desire is natural and not harmful, even sexual desire when I'm not married. It becomes a problem if it reaches a particular intensity. There is absolutely nothing wrong with me wanting sex. There is something wrong if it becomes a dominant/controlling factor in my life.

:thumb:

Great summary James Peter


For some reason I still have a memory of looking at a shapely woman walking along while I waited at an auto repair shop. Another guy customer said "Yep!"

My first thought was how transparent my stare was. Guys too often think we are subtle when people around us can tell. This guy knew what I was thinking and unfortunately he thought the same about her too.

Second thought was that I knew I lusted. My thoughts were carnal.

If my thoughts were "She is pretty. I'd like to get to know her better" I am still behind the line but because my thought went almost instantly to mental fantasy then I crossed into lust.

[dizzle]

But DD.....what IS "normal" anyway?

Normal is what statistically in a culture is the norm. It is normal for women to like children. It is normal for men to generally be taller than woman. It is normal for parents to love their children. There are many things that are normal. Others things are deviant. Are there gray areas? Sure, but that doesn't invalidate the rule.

[dizzle]

:thumb:

Great summary James Peter


For some reason I still have a memory of looking at a shapely woman walking along while I waited at an auto repair shop. Another guy customer said "Yep!"

My first thought was how transparent my stare was. Guys too often think we are subtle when people around us can tell. This guy knew what I was thinking and unfortunately he thought the same about her too.

Second thought was that I knew I lusted. My thoughts were carnal.

If my thoughts were "She is pretty. I'd like to get to know her better" I am still behind the line but because my thought went almost instantly to mental fantasy then I crossed into lust.

Yes, and it didn't have to cross into a dominant pattern in your life. That one incident was wrong. A "little" isn't okay.

[docjam]

lust meaning "intense desire or appetite"

one of the vaguer definitions, it also goes on to say "an uncontrolled desire" OR " an overmastering desire or craving" Jesus has no desires that He couldn't control or that mastered Him. In the context of lust in society, it is most associated with uncontrollable desires. That goes back to the difference between a glance and staring and drooling over someone. A glance would be a controlled action, when you're drooling over someone, you're acting based on your desires. So again I disagree in saying that had Jesus been married, he wouldn't have uncontrollably desired his wife.



well, Christ does say to become like the world so as to save the world. Ok, I couldn't resist that comment. I would agree that there are Christians out there who give other Christians a bad rep, but name calling isn't a way to go about things. If you disagree with someone, fine disagree but name calling is so second grade, come on now.

[quote=ryokan] I don't see it. Checking out a girl in a belly shjirt and consuming a product where two people were paid to have sex with each other on film are not even the same category of thing.[quote]

what's there not to get? A sin is a sin. Is stealing a candy bar worse than stealing a car? Our society would say yes but to God a sin in a sin. In the same way, lust is lust, whether it be gauding over a female standing in an entry way or watching a pornographic film.

[quote=james peter]I have to agree with minn on this. You shouldn't be so judgemental. You honestly can't tell the differences in many cases. Glancing to a friend and saying "Wow." or something to that effect doesn't indicate I've been lusting after her. Now if I start gibbering and have drool running out of the corner of my mouth...

I know originally I didn't explain the situation very well, but I believe in one of my other responses, I went on to explain their other actions as well. I know we shouldn't be judgemental, I agree with Minn on this too. But i am saying they were definately lusting over her and everyone in the lounge knew they were, they weren't secret about wanting to "jump her bones" as Minn put it. After she left, they made a public declaration they wanted to "get it on" with her. And the fact that I even posted one of these guys was engaged (since which I've actually found out he's married) and the other guy is in a serious relationship make it even more lustful and wrong.

I think part of the reason you are getting the responses about judging the intent of these men's hearts is because in your OP you merely mentioned a raised eyebrow or a smile in response to these women. No clear indication of lust. Now however, you clarified and said that they verbally acknowledged they were lusting.
yes, thanks. I never proof read my stuff, I just go. The problem with being A.D.D. sometimes is that I am way onto another though before really having finished my first thought. I have since stated that it was more than just a raised eyebrow or a glance and I'm sorry to everyone for that confusion. Thanks for your two cents too, it's appreciated.

The scenarios you are now giving are lustful but those in the original post probably weren't. If a guy says to his friend "Oh man, I so want to XXX her" then it is reasonable to assume he is being lustful :wink:. There is a lot of grey though when talking just about smiles and winks.

see above to xmansmommy, I hope the situation at hand in the original post is a little clearer and again, sorry for the confusion. However, I do think however that raising an eyebrow even is wrong...for the most part. It gives the indication of an impure thought, or that you're looking solely at the physical, which I believe to be wrong.

apology accepted

do I feel a group hug coming on here?

[docjam]

an image seen is not easily forgotten [/end quote]
[quote=semmie'sbrother]remind me to comment on this one


here's another little story as to how an image can lead to lust. I'll use the abbreviated version so as to not bore everyone to death...

there was a pastor who'd been in the ministry for more than 20 years. He was about as strong a man as you could find. He loved his wife and family and took care of them well. He was a very humble man and loved God more than anything. people all over respected him and loved him

One day he was out doing some community service work, picking up trash along the side of a road. He picked up a magazine and as he picked it up, it fell apart. Half of the magazine he proceeded to put into the trash and the other half fell open right on the ground before his eyes.

The pastor glanced down to pick it back up and throw it away and as he glanced, the magazine had opened to a picture of a naked woman. It was a porn magazine if ya hadn't figured it out yet. He picked it up and threw it in the garbage. He wondered to himself how anyone could get caught up in such filth. He continued picking up trash and never again looked at the magazine.

That one brief instance however proved to be a life changing event. The image randomly popped back into his head that night while studying. He couldn't help but recall the events of that day and naked woman he accidentally glanced at, even though it was for less than a second.

Over the course of the week, the image and the thought of the naked woman kept popping into his head. He prayed but he was so ashamed he told nobody of the situation. The image came more and more and finally his curiosity was aroused. To make the story short, that one image, that one glancing look at a naked woman, sparked curiosity, he went out and bought a pornographic magazine, evntually started watching movies in his alone time, and it got so bad, he cheated on his wife multiple times and then was eventually found out. He lost his job, his family and every last ounce of his self-respect.

An image seen truly is not easliy forgotten, so men, guard your eyes and your hearts.

[James Peter]

I'd suggest in that case all the image did was release that which was already there. Simply looking at the image merely unleashed his desires it didn't cause them. Images don't have that much power. If we don't want what we are tempted with then we cannot fall to temptation...

[themuzicman]

let's say a man and a wife are laying at home one night and the husband wants to have sex and the wife doesn't. The wife consistantly is saying no and the man is consistantly pushing. Eventually he forces himself unto her and literally makes her have sex with him, even though all along she didn't want to, even though she adamantly said no and even tried to push him off her, then he's lusting after her. I'd borderline say he raped her in that instance as rape could be defined as the forcing of one person on to another to have sex or sex between two people where one person was unconsenting. In that case, the husband just raped his wife. Also there are other sexual things that may go on in one marriage that may not go on in another marriage. Whatever sexual foreplay or anything else that goes on is completely up to that couple. If there's something of sexual nature that a woman or a man doesn't want to participate in (even within a marriage) and the other consistantly is pushing for that and desiring that, they're lusting after that and thus it is wrong.

Did you check out your bible before posting this?

3 The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband [does]; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife [does]. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

The sin occurred when the wife said 'no', because she didn't feel like it. Marriage means that you don't own your own body anymore.

Michael

[Muhd]

let's say a man and a wife are laying at home one night and the husband wants to have sex and the wife doesn't. The wife consistantly is saying no and the man is consistantly pushing. Eventually he forces himself unto her and literally makes her have sex with him, even though all along she didn't want to, even though she adamantly said no and even tried to push him off her, then he's lusting after her. I'd borderline say he raped her in that instance as rape could be defined as the forcing of one person on to another to have sex or sex between two people where one person was unconsenting. In that case, the husband just raped his wife. Also there are other sexual things that may go on in one marriage that may not go on in another marriage. Whatever sexual foreplay or anything else that goes on is completely up to that couple. If there's something of sexual nature that a woman or a man doesn't want to participate in (even within a marriage) and the other consistantly is pushing for that and desiring that, they're lusting after that and thus it is wrong. I don't think the woman has any right to say no, nor does the man. Look at 1 Corinthians:

7:1 Now with regard to the issues you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 7:2 But because of immoralities, each man should have relations with his own wife and each woman with her own husband. 7:3 A husband should give to his wife her sexual rights, and likewise a wife to her husband. 7:4 It is not the wife who has the rights to her own body, but the husband. In the same way, it is not the husband who has the rights to his own body, but the wife. 7:5 Do not deprive each other, except by mutual agreement for a specified time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.
The husband has the rights to the wife's body, and vice versa. If we are talking about a Christian couple here I'm not sure the wife can refuse the husband. Of course, the husband must be considerate and respectful of how the wife feels about things, but the fact is that if she deprives him of what he craves, then he will turn to other things that are not the proper outlet for his sexuality. Paul says a man and his wife should be constantly sexually intimate to avoid sexual immorality.

I talk about all of this in depth in that link I posted. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1755322#post1755322

[themuzicman]

one of the vaguer definitions, it also goes on to say "an uncontrolled desire" OR " an overmastering desire or craving" Jesus has no desires that He couldn't control or that mastered Him. In the context of lust in society, it is most associated with uncontrollable desires. That goes back to the difference between a glance and staring and drooling over someone. A glance would be a controlled action, when you're drooling over someone, you're acting based on your desires. So again I disagree in saying that had Jesus been married, he wouldn't have uncontrollably desired his wife.


By this definition, the 7 men in your OP weren't lusting at all.

Michael

[themuzicman]

[quote=darth xena] an image seen is not easily forgotten [/end quote]



here's another little story as to how an image can lead to lust. I'll use the abbreviated version so as to not bore everyone to death...

there was a pastor who'd been in the ministry for more than 20 years. He was about as strong a man as you could find. He loved his wife and family and took care of them well. He was a very humble man and loved God more than anything. people all over respected him and loved him

One day he was out doing some community service work, picking up trash along the side of a road. He picked up a magazine and as he picked it up, it fell apart. Half of the magazine he proceeded to put into the trash and the other half fell open right on the ground before his eyes.

The pastor glanced down to pick it back up and throw it away and as he glanced, the magazine had opened to a picture of a naked woman. It was a porn magazine if ya hadn't figured it out yet. He picked it up and threw it in the garbage. He wondered to himself how anyone could get caught up in such filth. He continued picking up trash and never again looked at the magazine.

That one brief instance however proved to be a life changing event. The image randomly popped back into his head that night while studying. He couldn't help but recall the events of that day and naked woman he accidentally glanced at, even though it was for less than a second.

Over the course of the week, the image and the thought of the naked woman kept popping into his head. He prayed but he was so ashamed he told nobody of the situation. The image came more and more and finally his curiosity was aroused. To make the story short, that one image, that one glancing look at a naked woman, sparked curiosity, he went out and bought a pornographic magazine, evntually started watching movies in his alone time, and it got so bad, he cheated on his wife multiple times and then was eventually found out. He lost his job, his family and every last ounce of his self-respect.

An image seen truly is not easliy forgotten, so men, guard your eyes and your hearts.

The problem wasn't seeing the image. The problem was not confessing that he had seen it and dealing with the feelings it aroused within him.

The moral of the story is: Be open and confessional with your sins. Hiding only harms everyone.

Michael

[docjam]

I'd suggest in that case all the image did was release that which was already there. Simply looking at the image merely unleashed his desires it didn't cause them. Images don't have that much power. If we don't want what we are tempted with then we cannot fall to temptation...
if we can't control our temptations, then yes images can have control over us and the desire was never there before the image. The image led directly to the desire to see more and the inability to control his lustful thoughts.

as for the response to I Cor. 7:

so if the husband tell his wife to go be intimate with another woman, then the wife must be obidiant to that. The biblical text refers to within the marriage. when I said there are other sexual things that could go on within a marriage, I was referring to this. I've known people who claim to be Christians who say a three-some is ok as long as both partners agree to it and I've known people who claim to be christians that say watching pornography together is ok because it doesn't interfere with their relationship. If was watching a porn movie with my wife and told to do what they were doing in the video with another woman, she should do that because her body is mine and mine is hers? That's what I mean when I refer to "something of sexual nature that a woman or man doesn't want to participate in" It's still within the marriage, but I'd say it's still wrong. So I would say even within the marriage there are certain limitations and lines that shouldn't be crossed.

to add a question: I won't answer before others just cuz it's more of a curiosity as to what others think, but we're kind of on that topic:

if one partner in a marriage wants to engage in oral sex and the other doesn't, must the other submit their body to that? What about anal sex, must one partner submit to that even if they don't want to and it repulses them? What if a woman was anally raped and it brought back horrific remembrances but the husband wanted to have anal sex, does he make her submit to that then? I'm just curious as to what others think on that...

The sin occurred when the wife said 'no', because she didn't feel like it. Marriage means that you don't own your own body anymore.

similar to when we tell Christ no huh. When we become Christian, we become married to Christ and must therefore submit ourselves completely unto Him, afterall, He completely submitted Himself for us.

By this definition, the 7 men in your OP weren't lusting at all.

true of the original post, but i went on to describe their actions a little more indepthly and I could do so more but would probably be moderated for it.

The problem wasn't seeing the image. The problem was not confessing that he had seen it and dealing with the feelings it aroused within him. The moral of the story is: Be open and confessional with your sins. Hiding only harms everyone.

right, had he just seen the image and nothing happened, everything would be ok. I'm just reiterating that if you let the image get the better of you and don't confess it that it can become controlling. Had he confessed it and gotten help and taken control of his lust, he'd probably would've been ok.

Michael, thanks so much for your posts. I agree with you on these things and I am well aware of the verses in I Cor., I probably should've brought that up and clarified more, but like I said in another response, I'm so A.D.D. sometimes that I am not usually half way through a thought before I'm already starting to type out other things. As long as I get the main point across usually we're ok. Sometimes I need to go back and reiterate a point I wasn't so clear on, such as the case with this, but for the main point that I try to get across I usually do so, it's the detailed areas I tend to miss sometimes. Thanks though for helping to clarify those things.

I've also never stated this, but you're one of the people whom I truely truely admire here on Tweb. I can honestly say that I love you to pieces. You do a good job of covering your viewpoints scripturally and are a great leader among leaders. Thanks for all you do...
oh, and good luck in fantasy football

[docjam]

like I said Michael, the story was a very abridged version ;)

[Muhd]

if we can't control our temptations, then yes images can have control over us and the desire was never there before the image. The image led directly to the desire to see more and the inability to control his lustful thoughts.

as for the response to I Cor. 7:

so if the husband tell his wife to go be intimate with another woman, then the wife must be obidiant to that. The biblical text refers to within the marriage. when I said there are other sexual things that could go on within a marriage, I was referring to this. I've known people who claim to be Christians who say a three-some is ok as long as both partners agree to it and I've known people who claim to be christians that say watching pornography together is ok because it doesn't interfere with their relationship. If was watching a porn movie with my wife and told to do what they were doing in the video with another woman, she should do that because her body is mine and mine is hers? That's what I mean when I refer to "something of sexual nature that a woman or man doesn't want to participate in" It's still within the marriage, but I'd say it's still wrong. So I would say even within the marriage there are certain limitations and lines that shouldn't be crossed.

to add a question: I won't answer before others just cuz it's more of a curiosity as to what others think, but we're kind of on that topic:

if one partner in a marriage wants to engage in oral sex and the other doesn't, must the other submit their body to that? What about anal sex, must one partner submit to that even if they don't want to and it repulses them? What if a woman was anally raped and it brought back horrific remembrances but the husband wanted to have anal sex, does he make her submit to that then? I'm just curious as to what others think on that...I always took "within the marriage" to be between the man and his wife. Yeah, anything else would be horrible and wrong. As for oral/anal sex, it is like I said, the partner has the ultimate authority, but they must treat their spouse with love and respect. If she strongly objects to anal/oral sex then he should be understanding (same if "he" and "she" are switched).

One could argue that anal/oral sex are outside the realm of normal sexual practices but I don't know. Some people think that oral sex is mentioned in Song of Solomon, and that it is perfectly natural.

[themuzicman]

The other dynamic to a marriage is that it is supposed to be a submitted and loving relationship by which each partner puts the needs, desires and pleasures of their spouse before their own within the context of their own morals and beliefs.

If one partner feels that oral sex is wrong, then they won't be engaging that upon their partner, nor will their partner (out of a desire to please them) not engage it, either.

However, the idea that somehow strong sexual desire isn't supposed to exist between husband and wife is simply a denial of how we were created.

Michael

Michael

[Minnesota]

I'm sorry but when two guys gaud over a women bending over and are commenting to each other about it and how great her butt is and how they'd like to be in bed with that and are commenting on it, that's lustful.
Perhaps, but you kept that little bit of important information from us, didn't you.. As written, your OP suggest absolutely no reason to jump to the conclusion that these people were lusting. Got anything else that should have been included? And, "gaud"? What's that?



But lusting after someone is a disgrace to that person. The girl at the fountain was dressed modestly and in no way was asking for these guys to look at her.
And just how do the actions of others infuse someone else with disgrace? Disgrace is a condition brought upon oneself. People sometimes say that so-and-so brought disgrace upon X, but this is nothing but misplaced judgment. People aren't held responsible--responsibility being crucial to any state of disgrace--for the free actions of others. If someone wants to take on the disgrace of others that's their prerogative, but it certainly does not happen automatically.

Now you claim the girl in question was humiliated ("When one person's actions humiliate someone . . . "), when she never said as much. To you she only "seemed" humiliated. This jumping to conclusions evidently comes quite easily to you. Too bad because it's a good avenue to a prejudice mind set.




But since you see absolutely NO problem with lust, and this is fairly obviously a Christian conversation, I wonder about your inability to see your way about of an A and B conversation instead of being the evangelical humanist you so obviously are.
I note the absence of answers to my questions. Not surprising, but anyway. . .

"Fairly obviously a Christian conversation. . . ."? And just how do you arrive at that conclusion ("conversation" taken to be the OP because that's the only thing I addressed )? Because the post was made by a Christian, or is it that you think lust or psychology is strictly a Christian endeavor?


As for thinking I have "NO problem with lust,"

"necessarily"

"NECESSARILY"

"NECESSARILY"

Good grief :no:

[dizzle]

Minnesota, let me put it bluntly, you are not a Christian. In my opinion, I don't seek counsel or opinions on things that are ultimately of a Christian or spiritual nature from a nonChristian. Why you want to insert yourself into a Christian conversation is beyond me, but I am not a part of it.

[Minnesota]

Minnesota, let me put it bluntly, you are not a Christian. In my opinion, I don't seek counsel or opinions on things that are ultimately of a Christian or spiritual nature from a nonChristian. Why you want to insert yourself into a Christian conversation is beyond me, but I am not a part of it.
Oh, I get it. Once the dialog fashioned from an OP goes down a particular road, then all other possible roads of comment are closed. Do you realize how many threads on Tweb would have died an unfortunate early death if this were the rule of dialog? In fact, I can remember a moderator of Tweb who recently made a statement to the effect that sometimes threads are enhanced by a shift in focus. So what's it to be, DE? Always stick to the first approach to an OP, no matter what, and let all others suffer in silence, or keep threads open to free discussion as long as they stay relevant to the topic? Or is this simply one of those cases where YOU, posting the first reply, get to decided what tack the thread should take? Someone posts an OP and you want to decide who and what kind of answers deserve to be admitted.
It's your game of course, :shrug: but if the rules are changing I would expect them to be across the board and applicable in all situations. What puzzles me is that if this Christian focus is so important, why not simply move the thread to a Christians-only forum where you could guiltlessly delete all nonchristians posts.

Oh yes, you mention that you don't, "seek counsel or opinions on things that are ultimately of a Christian or spiritual nature from a nonChristian," which is fine. But I have to ask, did you actually think I was addressing you when I responded to semmie'sbrother? And again, just what is so Christian about jumping to the conclusion that someone's passing look denotes lust? Or maybe this IS totally a Christian thing.

[vballer8]

Did you check out your bible before posting this?

3 The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband [does]; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife [does]. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

The sin occurred when the wife said 'no', because she didn't feel like it. Marriage means that you don't own your own body anymore.

Michael

yes at is possible for a husband to rape his wife.

by what you are saying, you are basically also saying that it is ok for a husband to tell his wife and force his wife to pour a pot of boiling water on her leg because guess what? her body is his, right? umm, i dont think so

[docjam]

one could argue that anal/oral sex are outside the realm or normal practices but i don't know.

I just don't know either, but I'm glad there's people I can debate it healthily with. I would lean towards it being outside the realm of normalcy for one, but that's my personal opinion. I do know christians who think oral sex is completely normal though. I don't know of many who ever refer to anal sex, but is it out there I'm sure.

The other dynamic to a marriage is that it is supposed to be a submitted and loving relationship by which each partner puts the needs, desires and pleasures of their spouse before their own within the context of their own morals and beliefs.
If one partner feels that oral sex is wrong, then they won't be engaging that upon their partner, nor will their partner (out of a desire to please them) not engage it, either. However, the idea that somehow strong sexual desire isn't supposed to exist between husband and wife is simply a denial of how we were created

i know this too, and ultimately it really is between the man and his wife to decide what they are willing/not willing to participate in. I'm not saying in any way that there should be no sexual desire between a man and his wife, but I am saying I believe it's possibly to lust after your own wife, in certain situations and while those situations may be few and far between, especially among christians, I do believe them to happen.

you kept that little bit of important information from us, didn't you.. As written, your OP suggest absolutely no reason to jump to the conclusion that these people were lusting

and I added that info in a later post, and at that I apologized for not posting that originally. I thought if I stated someone was lusting over another and being adamant about it, you'd take me at my word and everyone wouldn't need an explanation in detail of what happened, I was wrong so I added it in later. Sorry for that.

and gaud, what's that?

GAUD: excessively showy, plummaging, flashy, ostentaticious or if those don't work, cheaply showing off in a tastelss way.

just how do the actions of others infuse someone else with disgrace

people disgrace others all the time. When I played college ball, we were always told that we represent not only ourselves, but the team and the school. If we messed up, it not only affected us but the team and the school as well. If I went up and grab some random lady's chest, how is that not disgraceful to her?

to you she only seemed humiliated] because it's completely impossible to tell when someone is humiliated in public.

to be humiliated means that someone disgraced you, wounded your pride, showed a lack of respect for you, put you in a condition to which your condition or status was brought lower than that of where it should be, or breaking someones spirit(Webster). So in accordance with the definition of humiliation, whether intentional or not, just in knowing what went on and that her spirit was broken, she was humilitated. When she reacts by shaking her head and when she rolls her eyes, she's been disgraced and her spirit's been broken, thus she's been humiliated.

it's a good avenue to a prejudice mind set.

there's a difference between prejudiceness and reasonable assumptions. Neither of which I did, the actions of the girl showed she was humiliated.

Minnesota, let me put it bluntly, you are not a Christian. In my opinion, I don't seek counsel or opinions on things that are ultimately of a Christian or spiritual nature from a nonChristian. Why you want to insert yourself into a Christian conversation is beyond me, but I am not a part of it.

Xena, I'd hate to meet you in a dark alley with no witnesses, just thought I'd point that out. I still love ya to pieces though

[The Rock]

Okay all you Gibroni's out there, I, the great one have dropped in to locate a fellow samed Stedeli, who decided to show some disrespect to other posters.

Who is this Stedeli Roody-Pooh? The Rock is to busy to hunt you down at the moment, so I will tell you this.....

Listen closely and write this down....

Write this down...

Rock says: IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK!!!

Stedili, you must understand. YOU NEED TO KNOW YOUR ROLE AND SHUT YOUR MOUTH!!!


The Rock has spoken.

[Meta Knight]

Okay all you Gibroni's out there, I, the great one have dropped in to locate a fellow samed Stedeli, who decided to show some disrespect to other posters.

Who is this Stedeli Roody-Pooh? The Rock is to busy to hunt you down at the moment, so I will tell you this.....

Listen closely and write this down....

Write this down...

Rock says: IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK!!!

Stedili, you must understand. YOU NEED TO KNOW YOUR ROLE AND SHUT YOUR MOUTH!!!


The Rock has spoken.

:spam:

[Minnesota]

people disgrace others all the time. When I played college ball, we were always told that we represent not only ourselves, but the team and the school. If we messed up, it not only affected us but the team and the school as well. If I went up and grab some random lady's chest, how is that not disgraceful to her?
As I said, people can take responsibility for the actions of others if they wish to or not. Now why would a girl accept responsibility for your loutish behavior? She shouldn't. And if she doesn't, why should she feel any shame for your action? Why should anyone disapprove of her for what you did? Why should others loose their respect for her? Loss of respect, disapproval, and shame are all given as examples of disgrace. Should any of these be laid upon the girl? No. She did nothing to deserve them. If any disgrace should befall anyone it is you, who molested her. Same with the nutty belief that the poor performance of any athlete or team should reflect badly on their school or its faculty and student body. If a school chooses to take such shame or whatever upon themselves, so be it. You can find goofy people no matter where you go.

Same with those who preform poorly and believe it brings some kind of disgrace upon their school--(I note that you didn't use the word "disgrace" but rather "affect," which is far more logical ). More likely than not this silly notion is concocted by coaches who have no other way to rouse his athletes to do better, and the athletes willing buy into the notion. :shrug: Go figure.



GAUD: excessively showy, plummaging, flashy, ostentaticious or if those don't work, cheaply showing off in a tastelss way.
Yeah, I also looked up the word in several dictionaries, but couldn't find a definition that made sense in the context of your description either, so I figured it was some kind of local jargon of yours.



to be humiliated means that someone disgraced you,
And as I've explained, one doesn't assume the disgrace of the actions of others unless they choose to. So if the girl felt humiliation then that's her choice. No one else is blaming her for the acts of others.



When she reacts by shaking her head and when she rolls her eyes, she's been disgraced and her spirit's been broken, thus she's been humiliated.
WOW! it just never stops with you. You have absolutely no problem with ascribing mental states to people based solely on their appearance, something others are loath to do. .



there's a difference between prejudiceness and reasonable assumptions.
I agree. And reading your statements in the OP your assumptions were not reasonable.

[James Peter]

if we can't control our temptations, then yes images can have control over us and the desire was never there before the image. The image led directly to the desire to see more and the inability to control his lustful thoughts.


I'd still argue that it isn't the images that have control over us but rather it is our desires that do. Just because they weren't conscious desires before doesn't mean that they weren't there. It was a trigger, certainly, but I think it is too much to say it was a cause. Something else would have triggered it eventually.

It isn't seeing the image that he should have confessed, it was his reaction to having seen the image - that he couldn't get it out of his mind.

[Chrysostom]

Dang it! I clicked into this thread thinking tortoise-boy here had written a little piece of erotic fiction, and I get this stuff:
With this sort of attitude, all the erotica you'll ever experience will be fictional.

[Xmansmommy]

Sorry to interrupt again folks but I do want to apologize if my comments were offensive to anyone. DD and I have taken our conversation private. Hopefully resolution and true Christian understanding will prevail there. Thanks.

Linda

[Spinyn00bman]

Sorry to interrupt again folks but I do want to apologize if my comments were offensive to anyone. DD and I have taken our conversation private. Hopefully resolution and true Christian understanding will prevail there. Thanks.

Linda

no worries.

Me feathers be pretty much un-ruffable(if that's even a word!)

[dizzle]

I'd still argue that it isn't the images that have control over us but rather it is our desires that do. Just because they weren't conscious desires before doesn't mean that they weren't there. It was a trigger, certainly, but I think it is too much to say it was a cause. Something else would have triggered it eventually.

It isn't seeing the image that he should have confessed, it was his reaction to having seen the image - that he couldn't get it out of his mind.

I am not so sure that is under our control. For instance, I am super-sensitive to violent images. There are movies from decades ago that I cannot get out of my mind. I now make a sure point to stay away from violent movies.

[dizzle]

Xena, I'd hate to meet you in a dark alley with no witnesses, just thought I'd point that out. I still love ya to pieces though

Why is that? For pointing out that a conversation so far has been on Christian grounds, including the quoting of Scripture, and someone is going to come in and tell us we're all screwed up on our concept of lust and immorality? In my book that is presumptous and rude, but not very likely to have me accost you in a dark alley. On a brightly lit message board, perhaps.

[James Peter]

I am not so sure that is under our control. For instance, I am super-sensitive to violent images. There are movies from decades ago that I cannot get out of my mind. I now make a sure point to stay away from violent movies.

And in the case where somebody is sensitive to a particular type of image then avoiding the triggers whilst dealing with the actual problems is the 'sensible' thing to do. Just avoiding the images though isn't actually dealing with the problem and so I would suggest that it is an insufficient response. We can't 'control' our weaknesses but we can actively work to overcome them and I don't think avoiding them is overcoming them. One day you will be confronted with something you cannot avoid and what then? You will fall, perhaps specatularly. Dealing with the underlying problems that cause the sensitivity is difficult and time consuming but worth it. Simply blaming the triggers leads to not realising that the problem is actually an internal one which canm easily lead to not dealing with the problem with is, as I've already said, is bad. :teeth:

[Shadow Phoenix]

I really have mixed opinions on this. I'll say right out I do believe pornography is wrong and I do believe lust for another man's wife is wrong. (I will say from what I understand, the text in Matthew can easily refer simply to another man's wife.) However, there are some fine lines.

A lady should not dress seductively? Generally, that's true, but I also wonder if there are some minor exceptions. My mind goes back to Ruth 3 where Naomi tells Ruth to bathe and put on your best clothes and perfume and go to see Boaz. There is nothing wrong with a girl trying to dress attractively to get the attention of some guy. Of course, some ways are crossing the line and that is a fine line. If I am picking up a girl for a date though, is it wrong for her to shower and put on make-up and put on a nice outfit so she'll look fine for me? No. In fact, I think it's her way of honoring me in a sense.

I'd also say it's not entirely the woman's fault. A woman may wear something that is revealing. True enough. However, could it be she was just at the clothing store and bought an outfit because she liked the color and it was on sale and she thought that it was a good-looking outfit? A woman cannot be responsible for every man's conscience. Some men are just perverts and will view every girl they can as an object.

For guys like myself though, we're not really like that. I won't deny I have desires and Spiny has handled that point well. When I see a beautiful woman that may be revealing too much maybe even unaware of it, I do have to look away. However, there are some women I know that I find attractive and they're not necessarily "dressed to kill", but they are just beautiful women to look at and if they walk by me, I will notice.

I do believe marriage is about desire and there's no wrong in having those desires. There is nothing wrong in a guy desiring sex (Or for that matter, a lady. Women have libidos also). I even think that is a valid reason to get married although it shouldn't be the main one. I believe if we love someone in that romantic sense, we are to desire them body and soul.

The bottom line for me though is that you don't treat women as objects. I wonder how it would be if the women would focus on the pleasure in the men in their lives and the men would focus on the pleasure of the women. Proverbs tells us that a man who finds a wife is blessed and has favor from the Lord. It's the same language used of wisdom even. A lady is a treasure and I sure intend to treat mine someday like one.

[themuzicman]

yes at is possible for a husband to rape his wife.

by what you are saying, you are basically also saying that it is ok for a husband to tell his wife and force his wife to pour a pot of boiling water on her leg because guess what? her body is his, right? umm, i dont think so

Don't be stupid. (Unless you can't help it.)

Michael

[dizzle]

Is it not possible to rape your wife? I tend to think so. I am interested in this line of discussion.

[nomad]

I do believe marriage is about desire and there's no wrong in having those desires. There is nothing wrong in a guy desiring sex (Or for that matter, a lady. Women have libidos also). I even think that is a valid reason to get married although it shouldn't be the main one. I believe if we love someone in that romantic sense, we are to desire them body and soul.


I just wanted to say that I find comments like these truly baffling. The desire for friendship and the desire for sex are two totally different things. I think I can say two things for sure: (1) If there wasn't sex in marriage, very few men would ever bother. (2) If there wasn't sex at all, relationships between men and women would be far less stressful.

I would bet most men, in fact probably most people would not want to put up with all the byzantine intricacies of marriage if it weren't for sex. Most people have their 'circle of friends' that meet the desire for friendship, even a 'best friend' which they do everything with for those that need that. Maybe there are some people who need that who don't have it, but it doesn't have to be found in marriage.

It's possible to have a relatively close relationship with a woman without it being sexual - how many of you are close to your brother/sister without even thinking about it? - but it's not something that happens often because of 1. jealousy and 2. lust. Jealousy I don't need to expand on. Lust, because from personal experience someone you might not find attractive at all, after some time of personal contact and, yes, friendship, suddenly they are, which means that if you are friends with someone of the opposite sex, it seems that attraction always follows eventually (it's probably not a coincidence that so much cheating isn't with strangers but with either friends of the wife or wives of the friends...i.e. people known by and close to the person involved). It's just as possible to be close friends with your same sex as the opposite sex quite often, but sexuality gets in the way too often.

And hey, if you ask me, it's by design. Sex is the 'carrot' that drags us into relationships where we have to give far more of ourselves than we would normally be willing to do. It is a very good reason to get married, if you ask me. Paul himself doesn't say you should get married if you find your 'soul mate', he advises getting married if you can't control yourself... better to have a proper sexual relationship than an improper one. But once married, more will be required of you than ever before, and it's different even from the requirements of children. The difference between good friends and a husband and wife is one simple thing.

It's all nice and good for the marriage to also have romance, for your wife to be your 'best friend', etc, but you can be friends without getting married. That is a greatly simplified statement of course, and reality is just a wee bit more complicated than that, but I think the statement still stands. Why are people friends for years, and then decide to date? What changes? I'll leave that as a rhetorical question.

[themuzicman]

Is it not possible to rape your wife? I tend to think so. I am interested in this line of discussion.

I do think it is possible to rape your wife, as her consent is necessary. However, I think scripture clearly states that the wife ought to give consent, unless they agree for a time not to do so. That is something that a husband and wife ought to discuss together.

The "stupid" part was saying that the man could require his wife to pour boiling water on her leg.

That just completely ignores the entire context of this verse and what the bible has to say to husbands and wives.

Michael

[nomad]

Is it not possible to rape your wife? I tend to think so. I am interested in this line of discussion.

Scripture says also to submit to one another, that goes for both the husband and the wife. So whatever 'rights' to the spouse's body may exist, it is also unscriptural to force these rights. I would agree that it is possible to rape your wife.

[vballer8]

I do think it is possible to rape your wife, as her consent is necessary. However, I think scripture clearly states that the wife ought to give consent, unless they agree for a time not to do so. That is something that a husband and wife ought to discuss together.

The "stupid" part was saying that the man could require his wife to pour boiling water on her leg.

That just completely ignores the entire context of this verse and what the bible has to say to husbands and wives.

Michael

BUT that is what you were indicating

[themuzicman]

BUT that is what you were indicating
No, it's not. That's called "taking things out of context."

Michael

[semmie]

i just want to add a couple of pennies here.

1. muz...don't call her stupid. what you failed to communicate in your post is that scripture never encourages us to seek our own desires first. if a man wants sex, and his wife (even if she's wrong in doing so) says no, he does not have the right to force her. that is the point of this discussion. stay focused. stop calling people stupid.

2. i'm really baffled by this idea that a guy can "check out" a girl without lusting after her. seriously. even if there is a distinction between the two (and i really don't think the distinction is as big as some of you are claiming it is), as christians (so Minn, you can stay out of this), we are charged with avoiding even the appearance of evil! we are not told to avoid...or to ignore...or to skirt the issue of sexual immorality, but to flee it! we are told to not even have a HINT of sexual immorality! if there's some sort of question as to whether you're looking at someone lustfully, then as a christian, you need to take care of it before it spreads. sexual lust is like mold. don't just scrape it off the bread and say "ah, there's no harm in appreciating a beautiful woman!" get rid of it. altogether.

and women...yeah...we can't stop men from lusting. i can't stop anyone from staring at my breasts, but i can sure as hell stop them from looking down my blouse when i bend over. you want godly men? be godly women. avoid the appearance of evil. flee from sexual immorality. don't let there be even a HINT of these things. your body is not your own, ladies. you were bought at an incredible price. honor god with your body. believe it or not, having men appreciate your physical beauty is not your sole purpose in life.
.
god save us for succumbing to a culture that has taught us these things are okay.

natural? sure. remember...the nature of man is sin. the nature of sin is death. get rid of it.

[Ryokan]

I just wanted to say that I find comments like these truly baffling. The desire for friendship and the desire for sex are two totally different things. I think I can say two things for sure: (1) If there wasn't sex in marriage, very few men would ever bother. (2) If there wasn't sex at all, relationships between men and women would be far less stressful.

I would bet most men, in fact probably most people would not want to put up with all the byzantine intricacies of marriage if it weren't for sex. Most people have their 'circle of friends' that meet the desire for friendship, even a 'best friend' which they do everything with for those that need that. Maybe there are some people who need that who don't have it, but it doesn't have to be found in marriage.

It's possible to have a relatively close relationship with a woman without it being sexual - how many of you are close to your brother/sister without even thinking about it? - but it's not something that happens often because of 1. jealousy and 2. lust. Jealousy I don't need to expand on. Lust, because from personal experience someone you might not find attractive at all, after some time of personal contact and, yes, friendship, suddenly they are, which means that if you are friends with someone of the opposite sex, it seems that attraction always follows eventually (it's probably not a coincidence that so much cheating isn't with strangers but with either friends of the wife or wives of the friends...i.e. people known by and close to the person involved). It's just as possible to be close friends with your same sex as the opposite sex quite often, but sexuality gets in the way too often.

And hey, if you ask me, it's by design. Sex is the 'carrot' that drags us into relationships where we have to give far more of ourselves than we would normally be willing to do. It is a very good reason to get married, if you ask me. Paul himself doesn't say you should get married if you find your 'soul mate', he advises getting married if you can't control yourself... better to have a proper sexual relationship than an improper one. But once married, more will be required of you than ever before, and it's different even from the requirements of children. The difference between good friends and a husband and wife is one simple thing.

It's all nice and good for the marriage to also have romance, for your wife to be your 'best friend', etc, but you can be friends without getting married. That is a greatly simplified statement of course, and reality is just a wee bit more complicated than that, but I think the statement still stands. Why are people friends for years, and then decide to date? What changes? I'll leave that as a rhetorical question.Meh. People get married because they want to start a family. Sex you can get out of marriage if you want, divine ordinance against it our not. i don't think most men get married because they want sex without divine retribution. That is way too cynical.

[themuzicman]

i just want to add a couple of pennies here.

1. muz...don't call her stupid. what you failed to communicate in your post is that scripture never encourages us to seek our own desires first. if a man wants sex, and his wife (even if she's wrong in doing so) says no, he does not have the right to force her. that is the point of this discussion. stay focused. stop calling people stupid.

Oh, so saying that I inferred that a man can tell his wife to pour a pot of boiling water on her leg isn't stupid? riiiiiiiiiiiight.

And the other point of the discussion (which you obviously missed) is that from a sexual perspective, neither husband nor wife ought to be saying 'no' to the other when it comes to sex. Yes, there is interaction and full consideration for the other when this occurs, but in the end, there is another half to this, that being that spouses ought not be denying each other sex.

2. i'm really baffled by this idea that a guy can "check out" a girl without lusting after her. seriously. even if there is a distinction between the two (and i really don't think the distinction is as big as some of you are claiming it is), as christians (so Minn, you can stay out of this), we are charged with avoiding even the appearance of evil! we are not told to avoid...or to ignore...or to skirt the issue of sexual immorality, but to flee it! we are told to not even have a HINT of sexual immorality! if there's some sort of question as to whether you're looking at someone lustfully, then as a christian, you need to take care of it before it spreads. sexual lust is like mold. don't just scrape it off the bread and say "ah, there's no harm in appreciating a beautiful woman!" get rid of it. altogether.


Since you aren't a man, I would expect you to be "baffled". If you can't check out a guy without lusting, then fine, don't do it.

The scripture you are referring to has been badly quoted, since it does not intend what you say it does. 1 Thess 5:22 says, "22 Abstain from every form of evil."

Yes, we should avoid circumstances that might provide temptation for us, and that is a valid point. However to say that a man may never look at a woman and appreciate her beauty is to deny the very nature men were created with.

Yes, this too can be corrupted, and men ought to take care of their thoughts as we all should.

Michael

[semmie]

Oh, so saying that I inferred that a man can tell his wife to pour a pot of boiling water on her leg isn't stupid? riiiiiiiiiiiight.
allow me to remind you of what you said:
Don't be stupid. (Unless you can't help it.)

erin is not stupid. she may have misunderstood your point, but she is not stupid. you could've just as easily said "you misunderstood my point, erin." why do you choose to insult her? if she were your daughter, would you have insulted her? if she were your sister, would you have insulted her? set an example, or bite your tongue.

And the other point of the discussion (which you obviously missed) is that from a sexual perspective, neither husband nor wife ought to be saying 'no' to the other when it comes to sex.no, i didn't "obviously miss" this. it simply isn't the point of this particular tangent. this particular tangent was to answer two questions, as i recall:

A) is it possible for a man to lust after his wife?
B) is it possible for a man to rape his wife?

neither of these questions are dealing primarily with the topic of denying sex to your partner. these questions are dealing primarily with what happens when sex is denied (for whatever reasons). if you want to talk about that side of the coin, fine...we can...but if we're going to get anywhere with these two questions, it would help us to stay focused. if it needs to branch out into that discussion later on, okay...but stick to the point for now.

Since you aren't a man, I would expect you to be "baffled".
and that's just the type of response i would expect from a man. funny how that works, isn't it?

If you can't check out a guy without lusting, then fine, don't do it. well, how about if you teach me how to check guys out, and i'll let you know if i can do that without lusting.

The scripture you are referring to has been badly quoted, since it does not intend what you say it does. 1 Thess 5:22 says, "22 Abstain from every form of evil."i think you're picking at a scab, muz. i'm willing to hear whatever you have to say about this verse, but you've given no indication that the intent of the verse varies as much as you so dramatically claim it does. tell me the difference in intent. tell me about the greek wording.

However to say that a man may never look at a woman and appreciate her beauty is to deny the very nature men were created with. did you read what i wrote? i never said a man may never look at a woman and appreciate her beauty. i said...if there is a question as to whether there is a lust issue...then he ought not to minimize it by saying he's just appreciating her beauty. i think i stated that, but if i was unclear, then i certainly apologize. i think if you go back and reread what i wrote, you'll see that i made this distinction, though. if you want to address that...okay. but i did not say what you just attacked.

Yes, this too can be corrupted, and men ought to take care of their thoughts as we all should. what can be corrupted? our nature?

you're making a calvy of me, muz. knock it off.

[themuzicman]

no, i didn't "obviously miss" this. it simply isn't the point of this particular tangent. this particular tangent was to answer two questions, as i recall:

A) is it possible for a man to lust after his wife?
B) is it possible for a man to rape his wife?

neither of these questions are dealing primarily with the topic of denying sex to your partner.

Actually, the rape question brings that into play. If rape is when a men has sex with a woman who is not consenting, and the bible say that spouses ought not be refusing consent, except by prior agreement, then there is something to discuss, here. This isn't to say that rape isn't possible, but it does include the woman in the conversation regarding men desiring sex.

these questions are dealing primarily with what happens when sex is denied (for whatever reasons). if you want to talk about that side of the coin, fine...we can...but if we're going to get anywhere with these two questions, it would help us to stay focused. if it needs to branch out into that discussion later on, okay...but stick to the point for now.

This is on point.

and that's just the type of response i would expect from a man. funny how that works, isn't it?

I would have expected it from a man, too. What's the big deal?

well, how about if you teach me how to check guys out, and i'll let you know if i can do that without lusting.

Since I'm not a woman, that would be hard.

i think you're picking at a scab, muz. i'm willing to hear whatever you have to say about this verse, but you've given no indication that the intent of the verse varies as much as you so dramatically claim it does. tell me the difference in intent. tell me about the greek wording.

There isn't much to discussin the Greek.
pantoV - all/every
eidou - can be sight or visible form, in this context, it's form or kind
ponhrou evil
apecesqe - abstain, avoid, keep free from

Paul is making concluding remarks at the end of his letter to the Thesselonians, and, as he frequently does, makes several ethical imperatives.

In this case, he is telling the Thessalonians to keep away from all kinds of evil, no matter what form it may take. The only applicable context is verse 21:
"21 Test all things; hold fast what is good."

Paul is NOT making the point that we should seek to avoid any situation where someone might in some way think that we're doing something wrong. A man could never speak to a woman who wasn't his wife, in that case.

His point is to hold to what is good, and avoid that which is evil.

So, to say that a man who is appreciating the beauty of a woman isn't "avoiding the appearance of evil" just doesn't fit this context.

did you read what i wrote? i never said a man may never look at a woman and appreciate her beauty. i said...if there is a question as to whether there is a lust issue...then he ought not to minimize it by saying he's just appreciating her beauty. i think i stated that, but if i was unclear, then i certainly apologize. i think if you go back and reread what i wrote, you'll see that i made this distinction, though. if you want to address that...okay. but i did not say what you just attacked.

Go back to the OP. Semmie is referring to people he isn't hanging out with presently. Do you mean to say that whenever I look at a woman, I need to announce to the room that I'm only appreciating her beauty?

yes, there were things done in semmie's OP that were wrong. No question there, but to go so far as to say that when a man looks at a woman, he MUST be doing something wrong because it LOOKS like he's doing something wrong judges the heart of that man without knowing what is in it.

what can be corrupted? our nature?

Well, it was the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil. Paul says that when the law came (the he became aware of the law) that he died.

Does that sound like ontology or epistemology?

you're making a calvy of me, muz. knock it off.

Nah.. we just have to stop using Calvinist terms.

MIchael

[semmie]

Actually, the rape question brings that into play. If rape is when a men has sex with a woman who is not consenting, and the bible say that spouses ought not be refusing consent, except by prior agreement, then there is something to discuss, here. This isn't to say that rape isn't possible, but it does include the woman in the conversation regarding men desiring sex.i hear ya, muz...and i don't deny that this is the same coin. but again...stay focused. if you approach these questions from this perspective to begin with, you're going to give the impression (intentionally or not) that the woman, in essence, was wrong for not consenting--even though there are probably some valid reasons for a woman not giving her consent and denying sex to her spouse, even if they didn't agree to it prior. and in that discussion, you minimze marital rape. i think it's a mistake to approach the subject this way. i know this isn't where you want your comments to go, so why not treat start it where you know you can start it? does a woman have the right to say "no" just because she wants to say no? or because she doesn't have the same drive as her husband? absolutely not. but if she does...for whatever reason....does that give her husband the right (according to paul...or any biblical author) to demand or force his wife to giving him sex?

This is on point. i didn't say it wasn't relevent. i said it's not the focus. it shouldn't be your focus. it doesn't need to be your focus to address the question of lust and rape within marriage.

I would have expected it from a man, too. What's the big deal? no big deal. just friendly commenting.

Since I'm not a woman, that would be hard.it shouldn't be. it's pretty basic. tell me what it means to check out a guy. or tell me what it means to check out a girl. either way. it's the same concept.

eidou - can be sight or visible form, in this context, it's form or kind
in this context it's form or kind?...as long as you're reading the NIV. and at that...the greek dictionary companion to my NIV...gives lean to the idea of sight or appearance. and my Zodhiates dictionary leans heavily in agreement. those are the only two i've got handy...so if you discredit them or have some better reference on this, feel free to share it.

but for the heck of it...let's say you're right, and it refers to a visible form in this context. what does that mean, michael? is paul telling us we should avoid those evils that have visible form? so...i should avoid stealing (because there is a visible form), but i don't necessarily have to avoid pride (because you can't see it)? i know that neither you nor paul were saying this. so what are you saying? what does this visible form refer to?

In this case, he is telling the Thessalonians to keep away from all kinds of evil, no matter what form it may take. unless you've got something more than your opinion, i have to trust my reference books at this point. i don't want to derail the thread, but...i mean. there ya go.

Paul is NOT making the point that we should seek to avoid any situation where someone might in some way think that we're doing something wrong. A man could never speak to a woman who wasn't his wife, in that case. i didn't say that, you'll note, again. but at that...yes, a man should absolutely avoid giving the impression--as much as it is in his ability--that he has the same conversations or desires for or interest in a woman who isn't his wife. and that is the problem here, michael.

So, to say that a man who is appreciating the beauty of a woman isn't "avoiding the appearance of evil" just doesn't fit this context. you haven't shown that. but that wasn't my point, nonetheless. my point was twofold, really. 1. no one has clarified this alleged distinction between "checking out" and "lusting." there's been a couple of attempts, but they don't offer any practical difference. 2. if you're "appreciating the beauty of a woman" and it makes her uncomfortable, or gives others the impression that you're lusting, or raises that question for your wife...then yeah, you're failing to avoid the "appearance" of evil, no matter how you define the word.

Go back to the OP. Semmie is referring to people he isn't hanging out with presently. Do you mean to say that whenever I look at a woman, I need to announce to the room that I'm only appreciating her beauty?don't confuse me and sembro. i didn't make the OP.

yes, there were things done in semmie's OP that were wrong. No question there, but to go so far as to say that when a man looks at a woman, he MUST be doing something wrong because it LOOKS like he's doing something wrong judges the heart of that man without knowing what is in it.yeah, michael...if a gal bends over to take a drink, and you're staring...that's wrong. you're not appreciating her beauty. call me judgmental, if that's what you've got to do. i'm not all that bothered by it.

Nah.. we just have to stop using Calvinist terms.it's not semantics, muz.

[themuzicman]

i hear ya, muz...and i don't deny that this is the same coin. but again...stay focused. if you approach these questions from this perspective to begin with, you're going to give the impression (intentionally or not) that the woman, in essence, was wrong for not consenting--even though there are probably some valid reasons for a woman not giving her consent and denying sex to her spouse, even if they didn't agree to it prior.

OK, cite the parts of 1 Cor 7 that say that spouses ought not deprive each other and tell me where the exception without agreement is. I don't take this as a dictatorial sexual edict for either the man or the woman, but arriving at the middle ground, whereby the woman may not manipulate the man by witholding sex, and the man must give consideration of his wife, as he fulfills his role in serving her.

and in that discussion, you minimze marital rape.

I've already said that it is possible, and wrong. I'm not minimizing it. I'm trying to point out the biblical way to avoid it.

i think it's a mistake to approach the subject this way. i know this isn't where you want your comments to go, so why not treat start it where you know you can start it? does a woman have the right to say "no" just because she wants to say no?

I should think a simple reading of 1 Cor 7 would have already answered that question.

or because she doesn't have the same drive as her husband? absolutely not. but if she does...for whatever reason....does that give her husband the right (according to paul...or any biblical author) to demand or force his wife to giving him sex?

Force? No. Honestly, I don't think Paul is saying that at all. He is speaking to each spouse, not telling them what they can demand from their partner, but what they should be willing to do for their partner. To force or demand sex is akin to beating someone over the head with a bible (figuratively), that is just as wrong.

The tenor of a marriage relationship, even sexually, ought not be one of competition, manipulation or tension. Paul's does not give one spouse a hammer by which to force their partner to have sex. It does, however, remove the ability of one to manipulate the other by denying sex.

The marriage relationship ought to be one of partnership, consideration, submission and service. No demands. No refusals. No force. No manipulation. It should embrace communication and agreement and most of all a desire to meet the needs and desires of one's partner before one's own.

This is not rape.

What is rape?

Demands. Force. Sex against the will of the partner. Something that Scripture helps all of us to avoid.

Michael

PS. That quote in your signature is taken WAAAAAAY out of context. :doh:

[semmie]

Paul's does not give one spouse a hammer by which to force their partner to have sex. It does, however, remove the ability of one to manipulate the other by denying sex. you know, michael...you're starting to piss me off. maybe it's because i'm tired. but i think it's more about the fact that you think every time a man wants sex, it is somehow a valid request that his wife should respond to. if not, the woman is at fault. that's not a logical formula. at all. there are men (even men under the christian label, believe it or not) who use sex as a means of control...or who struggle with porn and turn to their wives not out of desire for her but out of lust and fantasy for what they've filled their sight with. if a woman is in this situation, she can either give it to him and be controlled...or other things... or deny him and be raped (or condemned for not giving her husband what was "due" him in the first place). and further...your response betrays you. denying sex isn't always about manipulation. and desiring sex isn't always healthy. now, in an ideal marriage...sure...all of these things play out perfectly, because the man and woman are both sinless and selfless. but not even christians are perfect, sinless, and selfless all the time. which is why you can't start addressing the question of marital rape from this perspective.

The marriage relationship ought to be one of partnership, consideration, submission and service. No demands. No refusals. No force. No manipulation. It should embrace communication and agreement and most of all a desire to meet the needs and desires of one's partner before one's own. where did anybody say differently?

PS. That quote in your signature is taken WAAAAAAY out of context. :doh:you keep accusing me of that. :poke: the quote in my sig was there before i read this thread; and i laughed when i read it. but for the sake of common interest, i'll remove it.

[nomad]

Meh. People get married because they want to start a family. Sex you can get out of marriage if you want, divine ordinance against it our not. i don't think most men get married because they want sex without divine retribution. That is way too cynical.

Maybe it is, and family is certainly another motivation for entering marriage (I am ignoring all the financial reasons for now, since they exist outside marriage as well). It's not really what I mean though, it might be close but I'm not sure. I wouldn't bring divine retribution into it at all; I was thinking more retribution closer to home :) (it is a rare woman who after a couple years of living together won't threaten to leave if they don't get a ring soon afaik). I am not saying that men get married because they want 'sex without consequences' or whatever. Like you said, plenty of people have sex outside marriage, and atheists (removing the 'divine retribution' thing) get married. Sometimes even without children. Sex outside marriage seems like an exception, but it's not... it's an optional step on the road to marriage. I.e. it's not an exception, but an optional prerequisite. Desire for sex with your partner is not necessarily a compelling reason for many people to get married, but it is a necessary prerequisite. Without it, you get Willow and Xander, Mulder and Sculley, Emma and Mr. Knightly, well these don't show up much in literature/media unless they turn into marriage eventually though I could probably think of others if I thought long enough...

And that's not to say either that marriage is all about sex either. It is much more than that; there are many volumes that could be said (and have been said) here about how sex changes relationships.

But you take a man and a woman. What's going to make him ask the question? Or from another point of view (well this question has to go to the women, there is no equivalent for men)... for a woman, there's this man and she gets along great with him, her 'soul mate' and all that. But he's a eunuch, castrated at birth by tyrants in africa or something. Would she consider marrying him? Why or why not?

[themuzicman]

you know, michael...you're starting to piss me off. maybe it's because i'm tired. but i think it's more about the fact that you think every time a man wants sex, it is somehow a valid request that his wife should respond to. if not, the woman is at fault.

I guess I would ask this first :At fault for what? This isn't grounds for a man to force himself on his wife.

that's not a logical formula. at all. there are men (even men under the christian label, believe it or not) who use sex as a means of control.

Never said otherwise.

..or who struggle with porn and turn to their wives not out of desire for her but out of lust and fantasy for what they've filled their sight with. if a woman is in this situation, she can either give it to him and be controlled...or other things... or deny him and be raped (or condemned for not giving her husband what was "due" him in the first place).

Again, who said anything about condemning anyone? Rape is still wrong.

and further...your response betrays you. denying sex isn't always about manipulation. and desiring sex isn't always healthy. now, in an ideal marriage...sure...all of these things play out perfectly, because the man and woman are both sinless and selfless. but not even christians are perfect, sinless, and selfless all the time.

I think we both acknowledge that there will be times when each will sin in the context of marriage.

which is why you can't start addressing the question of marital rape from this perspective.

I don't see why not. We should be speaking in terms of ideals. It's not as though the husband has no mandates in regards to his wife and may do as he pleases. I've been trying to address both sides regarding rape, and you keep focusing on this one aspect.

And I have yet to see an interpretation from 1 Cor 7 that gives an exception for the woman without prior agreement from the man.

where did anybody say differently?

That wasn't a point of argument, but a point of explanation. I understand your angst regarding 1 Cor 7 and the idea that men and women ought not refuse each other. However, there are many other mandates given to husbands and wives that apply to the sexual relationship, and I think we ought to deal with the problem of rape in terms of pursuing the ideal relationship, rather than saying that what Paul is speaking of only works in some Utopian world, but we can't apply this to us now.

From the perspective of the one desiring sex, they ought to first consider their spouse's mood, physical condition, relational temperature, and any other relevant factors before approaching him/her. If he/she does not, but simply demands sex from them, that is wrong. (Expressed in a neutral way, because it applies both ways.)

From the perspective of the one being approached, rather than going to an outright refusal, begin a discussion of why you might not want to engage in sex at this moment, and see if the two of you can work things out. Sometimes a relational healing has to take place. Sometimes minor physical ailments need to be quelled. Somtimes a spouse simply needs attention or other affection beforehand. Sometimes that discussion results in both spouses agreeing to not engage in sex at that time. But that discussion should take place in the context of meeting the needs of both spouses. And from this perspective, Paul states that one spouse ought not deprive the other, except by mutual consent.

If either spouse engages their portion of this, a healthy sexual relationship can emerge. If both spouses engage their portion, one will emerge.

I think the problem is that you and I have a different view of the sexual relationship. You appear to be of the opinion that a man always approaches a woman with demands that she must either deny or capitulate to. (i could be wrong, I'm just giving my observation.) I'm approaching this with the attitude that a married couple engages sex together as an act of service toward the other.

Thus, given the question of whether a man may lust after his wife, that would depend on whether his actions limit his ability to seek to meet his wife's needs.

And, given the question of whether a man can rape his wife, the answer is clearly 'yes', because his obligations towards her are first to meet her needs in this regard before considering his own, and seek her consent and desire before proceeding.

From the wife's perspective, she ought to express her needs in regards to engaging in sex to a husband who desires it, and seek to fulfill his request in an acceptable manner.

Is that a better balance?
you keep accusing me of that. :poke: the quote in my sig was there before i read this thread; and i laughed when i read it. but for the sake of common interest, i'll remove it.

Sorry, that was in jest... I found it funny that you picked that particular quote out. I'm not offended at all. You have my permission to use it.

Michael

[semmie]

You appear to be of the opinion that a man always approaches a woman with demands that she must either deny or capitulate to. (i could be wrong, I'm just giving my observation.) I'm approaching this with the attitude that a married couple engages sex together as an act of service toward the other.
michael, you based that "observation" on a couple of exchanges in a focused discussion. completely unfair. that's like telling a fireman who's trying to put out a burning house...that he hates fire. and you're the man wanting to talk about how useful and good fire is (and it can be!), when we're talking about the reality of houses burning.

good day, brother.

[themuzicman]

michael, you based that "observation" on a couple of exchanges in a focused discussion. completely unfair. that's like telling a fireman who's trying to put out a burning house...that he hates fire. and you're the man wanting to talk about how useful and good fire is (and it can be!), when we're talking about the reality of houses burning.

good day, brother.
If you'll read what I wrote, I said that I could be wrong, and admitted that it was based upon my observation.

What I'm talking about is preventing those houses from burning.

Michael

[semmie]

What I'm talking about is preventing those houses from burning.
telling people to live perfectly doesn't change the fact that there are houses on fire.

though i agree with you...(for whatever that's worth)...that we could prevent a lot of houses from burning down, were we to teach and implement these principles.

the point is...once the house is on fire...ya gotta have something more than "if you don't want your house to burn down, don't play with matches." that's all i'm saying.

goodnight, michael!

[Shadow Phoenix]

I've been thinking about this at work today and after work, I went to a coffeeshop so I didn't want to start a post on it before I left.

There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. I believe as a Christian that things down here are not ends in themselves. I believe they are pointers to greater things that lie beyond themselves.

As a man, I had no hesitancy sharing this at a Bible Study with other men and I wasn't shocked at the reply. I told them to think of these types of things. A majestic mountain range. A pristine waterfall. A galaxy seen in a distant telescope. The grand canyon. The great pyramids. A master work of art in a museum. A dazzling sunset.

Then I gave the last.

A human female.

I asked which of these is the most beautiful of all. I am sure that unless they are homosexual, every guy would say without a doubt that it is the human female that is the most beautiful of all. The human female holds a certain magic about her. She casts a spell by her very presence that makes a man want to please her.

This is something that is utterly stunning yet every man knows about it. The most rational man will be overcome by emotion at that time. Fears will melt and the rest of the world will cease to exist. He is in the presence of the bearer of God's beauty on Earth as she in her beauty reflects the beauty of her creator.

Why do I bring up something like magic in spells? I'm not pointing to magic Scripture condemns. I'm using it more in the Tolkien sense. I fear our world has lost the magic that is sexuality when we reduce it to porn. We make sexuality merely a chemical act.

If I have a headache, I can go take a pill. By doing so, I will in a way I don't understand enable certain chemical reactions within myself that will alleviate the pain. However, it is too often we make sexuality like that. A goes into B and good feelings will result for both parties. (I do not speak from experience of course, but I believe it is obvious that this is what happens as non-virgins I speak to seem to affirm.)

In essence, we have reduced it to tecnhology. Technology and magic are both ways to control the world around us, but it removes much of the wonder as well. Sex literally does become a physical act where you merely follow the plumbing and the result follows. While the homosexual community may not have the plumbing idea (RumTumPotter's terminology which I must copy to tease her.) correct, woe to us if all we have is the plumbing idea correct.

This then gets us back to each thing pointing beyond itself. In my eyes, the lady points beyond herself to an entire world. She invites a man like myself to come into this world of wonder and pleasure. Of course, a man is to give the same invitation, but I can only speak from the view of a man.

The picture is to point to that of a divine love where all is revealed and yet at the same time, all is accepted. I don't mean something impure accepted as the marriage bed is to be the place of purity. I am speaking of the person being accepted for who they are. It is the way of each person saying to the other that they want to know the other more than ever before in a way no one else ever will.

I approach this point as a guy with a sense of reverence. I am about to partake in something sacred. The lady's beauty is not to be treated as the end. It is to be seen as God's gift to her and to me as well in which he invites me to get a foretaste of what I believe divine love and beauty is to be like.

In this sense, how can I lust after her beauty? Instead, her beauty should be approached like a treasure. Would you mar a treasure? Not at all. You would stand in awe of it. You would not let anyone use it. You wouldn't put gold coins in your pocket to use in a coke machine. You wouldn't misuse a lady's beauty in the same way merely for your own pleasure. Instead, you are to take her to that other world just as she is to take you to it.

So, sexuality and beauty are sacred and what is sacred is not to be treated as if it was common. Woe to the person who treats a lady as merely an object to satisfy his own pleasure. She is a treasure and not just that, she is a person, and she is to be loved and respected as one and her beauty is to be honored.

Porn will just reduce us to chemical responses. It will simply make a man something to be turned on. Instead, we are to aim for more. We are to want the lady not just for her body, which would be making sex merely mechanistic, but we are to want her for her soul as well. If you want to avoid a woman's soul and thus not get the full package, porn is there. If you want a true lady though, it will take much more, but it will be worth it as well.

[semmie]

her beauty should be approached like a treasure...You would stand in awe of it.
this is well said, Nix. :thumb:

the fact remains that there is a real problem in our culture with men viewing women simply for their own pleasure--whether it is pornographic or not. it minimizes the woman to a large degree. and...when i talk about viewing women for his own pleasure, i'm not talking about looking at a woman and being captivated by her beauty. heck...i think a lot of women are beautiful! and i tell women when i see them and they look beautiful! when it becomes a sexual look, though, or a look that shouldn't occur outside of marriage, then it's not about truly appreciating something that god has made beautifully. and in my opinion, the church at large fails to make any distinction between the two.

and something else i was thinking about today...

somebody (was it you, Nix? even if it wasn't, you make the comparison in your last post, so i think it's worth bringing up) compared a beautiful woman to a beautiful rose. right? i have no problem with that. and again--i don't think there's anything innately wrong with looking at a person and seeing (and appreciating) their beauty.

but would guys make the same fuss if we were talking about a daisy? or a dandelion? i'm not saying that you should view every flower the same...or be as captivated by every flower the same way! what i am saying is that there is nothing inherently more beautiful about a rose than a daisy; and when roses are given special looks, special preference, special defense on web forums...it makes the daisies feel like they are somehow less beautiful, and thus--less valuable.

and particularly...because scripture tells us that it is not in being a rose that makes a woman beautiful! maybe we need to redefine beauty a little bit...train ourselves to recognize godly beauty...and maybe then our eyes would follow. :shrug: i don't know.

it's just a couple of pennies for you. i don't disagree with your post, though...i hope you realize that. i appreciate what you're saying. i just wanted to offer my thoughts.

pax, Nix!
~sarah

[Shadow Phoenix]

this is well said, Nix. :thumb:

the fact remains that there is a real problem in our culture with men viewing women simply for their own pleasure--whether it is pornographic or not. it minimizes the woman to a large degree. and...when i talk about viewing women for his own pleasure, i'm not talking about looking at a woman and being captivated by her beauty. heck...i think a lot of women are beautiful! and i tell women when i see them and they look beautiful! when it becomes a sexual look, though, or a look that shouldn't occur outside of marriage, then it's not about truly appreciating something that god has made beautifully. and in my opinion, the church at large fails to make any distinction between the two.

and something else i was thinking about today...

somebody (was it you, Nix? even if it wasn't, you make the comparison in your last post, so i think it's worth bringing up) compared a beautiful woman to a beautiful rose. right? i have no problem with that. and again--i don't think there's anything innately wrong with looking at a person and seeing (and appreciating) their beauty.

but would guys make the same fuss if we were talking about a daisy? or a dandelion? i'm not saying that you should view every flower the same...or be as captivated by every flower the same way! what i am saying is that there is nothing inherently more beautiful about a rose than a daisy; and when roses are given special looks, special preference, special defense on web forums...it makes the daisies feel like they are somehow less beautiful, and thus--less valuable.

and particularly...because scripture tells us that it is not in being a rose that makes a woman beautiful! maybe we need to redefine beauty a little bit...train ourselves to recognize godly beauty...and maybe then our eyes would follow. :shrug: i don't know.

it's just a couple of pennies for you. i don't disagree with your post, though...i hope you realize that. i appreciate what you're saying. i just wanted to offer my thoughts.

pax, Nix!
~sarah

I'd add this in. It's possible to desire the beauty without lusting after the beauty. Marriage is about desire and desire just doesn't suddenly appear when you put on a pair of wedding rings. That desire is kept in bay until it reaches its proper place in the honeymoon suite. However, the couple in love keeps getting closer and closer and finding out more and more about each other until that final revelation's time comes.

If a man does not desire the lady he is dating or is married to, he has a problem.

[docjam]

I always took "within the marriage" to be between the mant and his wife.

I would take it that way also and think that's the way it's inteded, but there are people out there, even people who claim christianity, who would say that as long as both partners consent then it's ok. Then there's watching a pornographic film together. There's no third party involved but they're watching it together, if it satifies their cravings does this make it right? I don't want to speak for you but I would assume you'd say no as would I, but I am also saying there are people who claim christianity that say it's ok.

One could argue that anal/oral sex are outside the realm of normal sexual practices but I don't know
I think I responded to this now that I am rewriting this, but I would tend to lean towards them not being normal and I'm not trying to justify them either in anyway, I just want to clarify that.

The other dynamic to a marriage is that it is supposed to be a submitted and loving relationship by which each partner puts the needs, desires and pleasures of their spouse before their own within the context of their own morals and beliefs. If one partner feels that oral sex is wrong, then they won't be engaging that upon their partner, nor will their partner (out of a desire to please them) not engage it, either. However, the idea that somehow strong sexual desire isn't supposed to exist between husband and wife is simply a denial of how we were created

if I've already responded to these and am just doing so again, I apologize, I'm just too lazy too look...good post though Muz. I agree that submission should be done in a loving way. I also want to state that I don't recall saying there shouldn't be strong sexual desires between a husband and wife, I don't feel that way at all. I think there should be a high level of physical and sexual intimacy that each of them experiences throughout their marriage with each other and it should be done in a loving way. However, in the defintion of lust, it's not just desiring or craving those pleasures, it's doing so to the extent that you can't control your emotions and when/if it gets to that point in a marriage, you're not really putting the needs of your spouse before your own.

I'd still argue that it isn't the images that have control over us but rather it is out desires that do.
I agree, to a point. But our desires originate somewhere. In the case of that particular pastor, he had no desires or intentions of looking at another woman ever. If you talked with people who really knew him, he was one of the purest of heart people they'd known. In the article he wrote he talked about how he would continually guard his heart from these things. If he knew a woman was even approaching, he would turn his head, not so as to ignore her, so as to not put give any even the slightest possibility of an impure thought in his mind. He was that devoted to loving his wife and having eyes for only him. Yet the one time that image came across his path, it completely caught him off guard and raised curiosities and put desires into his heart that had never been there before. While the image itself doesn't control us, it the starting point for which a huge downfall can occur. Xena originally said an image seen is not easily forgotten and this story was a reiteration of that. And by saying they weren't conscious desires, you're implying they were subconscious desires? That's an assumption we can't really make

xena I'd hate to meet you in a dark alley...
why is that? for point out that...[/quote
no, because you absolutely will back down to nobody and it matters not what anyone throws at you. I was really just trying to throw a little humor into the room. Now that I've been completely unsuccessful and shot down, I will return to my life of old in the game room...

[quote=james peter] We can't 'control' our weaknesses but we can actively work to overcome them and I don't think avoiding them is overcoming them.
if this were the case, then "resist the devil and he will flee" is meaningless, we should avoid temptation because it's not overcoming it? The bible doesn't say work to overcome it, it says resist temptation. resistance is overcoming my friend

the bottom line for me though is that you don't treat women as objects.
agreed. The problem is that it's so rampant in our society sometimes it's hard to not notice it.

...the story of Ruth and Naomi
right, it's ok to dress up to impress someone or to dress up to "find favor in their eyes" the problem is more so when a woman is dressing simply to show off her body. She's not necessarily trying to win favor, she just wants to show the world she's got a great set of abs and some nice cleavage.

I'd say also it's not entirely the woman's fault
actually in the originaly post, the woman was completely dressed modestly and it was in that instance no fault of her at all. Most of the time if they're wearing revealing clothing, it's not usually simply because of a sale


don't be stupid. (unless you can't help it)
again, let's not call names here. I ask you to remember also Michael, as a personal request, that there are some people out there who are very young in their faith. They want to grow and try to get into a debate and learn from it and maybe they have a very valid point and just, because of a lack of their biblical training or young faith, just aren't sure exaclty how to go about getting that point across. Please keep this in mind. People can get offended easily by remarks like this and never want to debate again. Don't be the one who causes a person young in their faith to not want to grow anymore. We've talked through private messages and she was pretty upset with this. She later explained her point to me and it made sense. Though the analogy isn't necessarily the best to go with the topic and may seem a little melo-dramatic, try to be a little more patient with people, especially those younger in their faith. I appreciate it, thanks :)

[Warcraft3]

one of the vaguer definitions, it also goes on to say "an uncontrolled desire" OR " an overmastering desire or craving" Jesus has no desires that He couldn't control or that mastered Him. In the context of lust in society, it is most associated with uncontrollable desires. That goes back to the difference between a glance and staring and drooling over someone. A glance would be a controlled action, when you're drooling over someone, you're acting based on your desires. So again I disagree in saying that had Jesus been married, he wouldn't have uncontrollably desired his wife.

I disagree.....when people say "lust" they usually mean "strong sexual desire" not "uncontrollable desire"...


well, Christ does say to become like the world so as to save the world. Ok, I couldn't resist that comment. I would agree that there are Christians out there who give other Christians a bad rep, but name calling isn't a way to go about things. If you disagree with someone, fine disagree but name calling is so second grade, come on now.

Stupid comments deserve to be called stupid....

[docjam]

I do think it's possible to rape your wife

isn't rape a form of uncontrolled desire? So wouldn't that make it lustful if you were to rape your wife?

we are charged with aoiding even the appearance of evil
thanks little sister, I love you! I agree in that even checking a woman out is lusting.

you want godly men? be godly women

true! but I would also like to point out that it's not a godly woman that makes a godly man, we're ultimately responsible for our own actions.

so saying that I inferred that a man tell his wife to pour a pot of boiling water on her leg isn't stupid?
no, i don't think so...actually Muz ya gotta remember too that if you leave out even the slightest bit of detail, then sometimes it's easy for people to misinterpret or misunderstand something. Like for example in my OP when I stated the guys checked her out and I wasn't specific in how they checked her out or what they did. Look back to the first couple pages and see how everyone jumped on me saying it wasn't lustful. While I would disagree in that even checking out is lustful, I did have to go back and make fully aware of the situation to everyone so it was completely understood what was going on. 1.)It may be possible that not everything to that point was completely understood and 2.) I do also believe that sometimes it takes a completely off the wall comment, not necessarily pertainint to the topic but with the same basic principles, to catch someones eyes. While that may or may not be the case, keep in mind that sometimes something off the wall can be useful too.

However to say that a man may never look at a woman and appreciate her beauty is to deny the very nature men were created with.

can you honestly tell me if a girl is wearing a low cut shirt and leans over showing off her cleavage and exposing her breasts to the world and you just coincidentally are happening to be looking down at those exposed breasts that you're appreciating her beauty?

the scripture you are referring to has been badly quoted, since it does not intend what you say it does. 1 Thess 5:22 says, "22 Abstain from every form of evil."
actually, I believe the scripture she is referring to is actually ICorinthians 6:18 where it literally states "Flee from sexual immorality."

i'm baffled by this idea that a man can "check out" a woman without lusting after her
[quote=muz] since you aren't a man, I would expect you to be baffled

I gotta be honest, I am quite baffled too. To see a woman in passing and realizing she's a beautiful woman is one thing, but checking out implies a whole lot more.

but to go so far as to say that when a man looks at a woman, he MUST be doing something wrong because it LOOKS like he's doing something wrong judges the heart of that man without knowing what is in it.

you're referring to looking at and checking out a woman as the same thing and they're not. I look at my mom every day and i can honestly say never once in my life have I checked her out.


on a side note, and I may be wrong and I'll check into this. I know I've read it in passing but in all honestly not sure where. This is my being naive in all honesty, but is there anything biblical that states a man should not have sex with his wife basically while she is menstruating or anything closely simliar along those lines?

the quote in my sig was there before i read this thread; and i laughed when i read it. but for the sake of common interest, i'll remove it.
I'm trying to think for the life of me now what your stinking quote was...

and almost finally, haha and Muz, we're talking about lust and pornography here, not fires and houses burning or preventing them from burning, that's over in the "heated debated" area...get it, heated...fire...oh never mind, I quit...

[semmie]

I'd add this in. It's possible to desire the beauty without lusting after the beauty. Marriage is about desire and desire just doesn't suddenly appear when you put on a pair of wedding rings. That desire is kept in bay until it reaches its proper place in the honeymoon suite. However, the couple in love keeps getting closer and closer and finding out more and more about each other until that final revelation's time comes.

If a man does not desire the lady he is dating or is married to, he has a problem.
but now you're making a distinction of a committed relationship that is pursuant of marriage. and a general attitude that it's okay to "check out" women...doesn't usually include wedding bells. i absolutely think physical attraction (and desire) belongs in the relationship headed toward marriage. and you're right--it's kept in check until the appropriate time.

but tell me this, Nix...

if you knew your future wife already, and you knew she was going to be your wife...say she's here at Tweb!...and all the other single guys here were very open about finding her physically desirable...even though they knew just as well as you that she isn't theirs...would that bother you? would you feel a little bit threatened by that?

i suggest (if you're not already) that you guys start getting a little more protective of your women.

Nix...let me state again...that i don't disagree with you. i think you're wise beyond your years, even when i do disagree with you. i'm just trying to add some perspective to this, because i've forever heard that flirting and checking people out is harmless...and i really don't believe it is. if desire exists (biblically) for the purpose and pleasure of something as sacred as marriage, then we need to treat desire carefully...so as not to get into a place of desiring things we shouldn't desire.

and i think that's the whole point that sembro was getting at (though i could be wrong...i'll let him correct me if i'm mistaken) :very simply, that we as a culture have accepted this idea that it's not wrong to look at a woman and desire her (or conversely, to look at a man and desire him)...we have come to believe that it's our right to look at and desire someone that we may have no interaction with...no interest in...no commitment to. and with that kind of a standard, how can you even begin to tackle the problem of pornography? i don't think you can, unless you're willing to set a standard as to when desire is appropriate.

i dunno. :shrug: did i mention that i wasn't in disagreement with ya, Nix? i'm really not. i just think this is a huge topic.

and guys...just...a word from a gal...

we like feeling like a guy desires us...but usually, for us, that attaches to the idea of commitment (and it's already been noted that this doesn't always [or even usually] enter the discussion as far as the guy is concerned)...

you would get a lot farther...with a gal...by approaching her with a kind smile...and telling her honestly, "you look lovely today." or "your smile has captivated me." or some other honest and sincere compliment...instead of just staring at her. if you're truly interested, chances are she's going to really appreciate the compliment....i mean, unless you wink and nudge and say "hubba hubba" or something creepy like that. :shrug:

just two cents.

i still don't disagree with ya, Nix. just adding a feminine opinion. :smile:

[semmie]

actually, I believe the scripture she is referring to is actually ICorinthians 6:18 where it literally states "Flee from sexual immorality."
actually, i was referring to several different verses. he chose to tackle one of them, which was fun for a moment...but it didn't do anything to undermine what i actually said, or the other verses i offered. :shrug:

i like muz. he's my bud.

and your heat pun stunk, jojo. :poke: :hehe:

[Xmansmommy]

Several have tried to define lust here in this thread and I believe we must do so in order to determine if someone is guilty of it. I personally don't believe looking at another person to acknowledge or even ponder for a moment that you would be interested in them sexually is inherently, lustful. I believe it becomes lustful when we actively and intentionally pursue thoughts or actions which lead us to respond sexually, privately or openly. It's those thoughts after time, that are very likely to lead to some attempt, however grand or small, to sexual interaction especially if reciprocated.

Unfortuntatly, I speak from experience. I've witnessed this process in my own life time and time again and know very well how it works. There are many times that people consider it in passing and put the thought out of their mind so as to not cultivate fertile ground. I do think that we need to consider also that not everyone is at the same place when it comes to understanding this process. If you are the type of person who cannot look at someone you're attracted to, consider them briefly and not lust, you shouldn't do it. But there are people who can look, acknowledge, consider and still not lust. They have built up some immunity if you will, by having struggled with it in their pasts. They have matured and have been able to overcome (although they may always have moments of struggle) because they have failed and know their particular red flags and warning signs. That's my perspective on it and I believe explains why some say it's not possible to look and not lust and some say it is.

On another note, the analogy used for lust being conceived (James 1:14-15) is an excellent picture of how lust begins and is nurtured. Conception of lust and therefore sin, cannot take place unless enticing thoughts progress, unless a man/woman allow themself to be drawn away of their own desires. That drawing is not a mere thought but rather a consistent move toward the fulfilling of such desire. Much like physical conception/birth, it don't happen unless certain conditions have been met.

To further the thought, if a couple decides to have a baby, they must first experience the physical act of sex. It usually takes more than one try (although there are exceptions :shifty:) before an egg is fertilized and then the conception is fulfilled leading to the stages of pregnancy and eventually to the culmination, birth. If say by miscarriage or abortion, that process is interrupted the fruit of the labor cannot be born out and it dies. Sorry to use such a vivid description but I do think that is the point being made in James. I don't believe it's any different for the spiritual conception, labor and birth of lust or any other sin for that matter.

[Warcraft3]

Several have tried to define lust here in this thread and I believe we must do so in order to determine if someone is guilty of it. I personally don't believe looking at another person to acknowledge or even ponder for a moment that you would be interested in them sexually is inherently, lustful. I believe it becomes lustful when we actively and intentionally pursue thoughts or actions which lead us to respond sexually, privately or openly. It's those thoughts after time, that are very likely to lead to some attempt, however grand or small, to sexual interaction especially if reciprocated.


Exactly....this is a very Biblical, practical, and realistic approach.

There are several comments in this thread that have been very naive and immature, which is why I am thankful that you posted what you did. Your post was a mature and knowledgable way to look at a topic that far too many people get so emotional about that they start babbling like an idiot.

You'll be getting pearls for this post...





Russ

[semmie]

On another note, the analogy used for lust being conceived (James 1:14-15) is an excellent picture of how lust begins and is nurtured. Conception of lust and therefore sin, cannot take place unless enticing thoughts progress, unless a man/woman allow themself to be drawn away of their own desires. That drawing is not a mere thought but rather a consistent move toward the fulfilling of such desire. Much like physical conception/birth, it don't happen unless certain conditions have been met.

i don't disagree with everything you said, but i disagree with your reading (and usage) of this verse, as far as i understand you. this passage does not describe lust simply being conceived. the key here is that lust is conceived of lust. i'm not really great with greek, but i'm seeing the same word used in two places:

But each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

my point is, yes--you're right that the dragging away and being enticed leads to lust; but you're mistaken...because james says that the lust (the desire, which is quantified in the greek, as far as i understand [though i'm open to being wrong], as being an evil or sinful desire) is there to begin with. and that initial desire wasn't good to begin with.

again, i don't know much about greek, and maybe you or someone else could offer some insight on this particular word. but this is what i'm seeing--that the before the birthing of death, before the birthing of sin, before the conception of lust, before we are dragged away and enticed...it is that desire that is declared evil.

i do very much agree with the progression you're describing, though...in as far as lust actually goes. i'm just disagreeing with where it comes from, or when it begins.

pax,
sarah

[Warcraft3]

if you knew your future wife already, and you knew she was going to be your wife...say she's here at Tweb!...and all the other single guys here were very open about finding her physically desirable...even though they knew just as well as you that she isn't theirs...would that bother you? would you feel a little bit threatened by that?

It wouldn't bother me at all and I wouldn't feel threatened.....my wife is attractive and she gets noticed. Why should that bother someone?

and guys...just...a word from a gal...

we like feeling like a guy desires us...but usually, for us, that attaches to the idea of commitment (and it's already been noted that this doesn't always [or even usually] enter the discussion as far as the guy is concerned)...

This statement is about as far from the real world as any I have heard....most women (Christian and non Christian alike) do not attach the idea of commitment with being desired or being seen as sexy and attractive. No woman I know has ever expressed this or acted in a way to confirm this.

This might be true for you personally, although I highly doubt it, but it doesnt seem true for anyone else....

[semmie]

Exactly....this is a very Biblical, practical, and realistic approach.

There are several comments in this thread that have been very naive and immature, which is why I am thankful that you posted what you did. Your post was a mature and knowledgable way to look at a topic that far too many people get so emotional about that they start babbling like an idiot.

You'll be getting pearls for this post...
you know...you have added nothing to this conversation. if you're going to throw insults, make it worth your effort. jump in and say something beneficial that we can learn from. seriously.

[semmie]

This statement is about as far from the real world as any I have heard....most women (Christian and non Christian alike) do not attach the idea of commitment with being desired or being seen as sexy and attractive. No woman I know has ever expressed this or acted in a way to confirm this.

This might be true for you personally, although I highly doubt it, but it doesnt seem true for anyone else....
so because you've never observed it, or been told this...i must be mistaken.

great logic. :thumb:

[Warcraft3]

you know...you have added nothing to this conversation. if you're going to throw insults, make it worth your effort. jump in and say something beneficial that we can learn from. seriously.

Have you read my posts?

Ive tried to correct some of the ridiculous thinking about lust and "looking" at someone in this thread....

Some of the posts are like reading things a 13 year old would write in youth group...overly dramatic and unrealistic.

[Warcraft3]

so because you've never observed it, or been told this...i must be mistaken.

great logic. :thumb:

Its mistaken because it doesnt make sense...

Women dont make themselves look nice to find commitment....

Women who are married and are in serious relationships still want to be desired and thought of as attractive, but that doesnt mean they want some kind of "commitment" from people....

Why do you think things like makeup, sexy outfits, push up bras, plastic surgery, weight loss programs, etc are such big business? If you think women (or men) are looking for a "commitment" attached to looking attractive, then you are living in a fantasy land.

[semmie]

Have you read my posts? i sure have.

Ive tried to correct some of the ridiculous thinking about lust and "looking" at someone in this thread....and others have tried to correct you. no harm, no foul. stop calling names.

Some of the posts are like reading things a 13 year old would write in youth group...overly dramatic and unrealistic.and you're the class bully who thinks everyone will respect him more if he makes the most noise and hurts the most feelings...is that it?

it's a hard topic. we're trying. i'm trying--even if you disagree with me. deal us some grace, eh?

[Xmansmommy]

i don't disagree with everything you said, but i disagree with your reading (and usage) of this verse, as far as i understand you. this passage does not describe lust simply being conceived. the key here is that lust is conceived of lust. i'm not really great with greek, but i'm seeing the same word used in two places:

But each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

my point is, yes--you're right that the dragging away and being enticed leads to lust; but you're mistaken...because james says that the lust (the desire, which is quantified in the greek, as far as i understand [though i'm open to being wrong], as being an evil or sinful desire) is there to begin with. and that initial desire wasn't good to begin with.

again, i don't know much about greek, and maybe you or someone else could offer some insight on this particular word. but this is what i'm seeing--that the before the birthing of death, before the birthing of sin, before the conception of lust, before we are dragged away and enticed...it is that desire that is declared evil.

i do very much agree with the progression you're describing, though...in as far as lust actually goes. i'm just disagreeing with where it comes from, or when it begins.

pax,
sarah

I'm no biblical scholar and I'm not one to know much about the Greek, Sarah, but realistically I would have to ask, if the desire is already evil as you've said, what does it mean that lust is conceived? Also when and how does that take place? Where does it come from? I believe James uses the analogy of physical conception to paint a specific picture of how the process happens. We can't get physically pregnant without some effort and attempt at trying. :blush:

And it's ok if you disagree. I was hoping to shed a little light on the subject from more of a logical, practical and personal experience than anything else. But at the same time connecting that process with James' biblical analogy. I think anyone who has struggled with lusting knows how the process works so I'm really not sharing anything new. Take care.

[TuckEverlasting]

Its mistaken because it doesnt make sense...

Sure it does. It's not intuitive to a man, but it makes sense once you think about it from a different perspective.

Women dont make themselves look nice to find commitment....

C'mon, Russ - like you know what goes on in the mind of a woman? If there's one thing I've learned from these threads, it's that women think way differently than men do, and that you can go a whole lifetime without ever knowing it unless they tell you.

[Gabby]

isn't rape a form of uncontrolled desire? So wouldn't that make it lustful if you were to rape your wife?


I just want to interject and say rape is NOT about uncontrolled desire. It is ALL about controling, dominating and power tripping over the other person.

[Xmansmommy]

I just want to interject and say rape is NOT about uncontrolled desire. It is ALL about controling, dominating and power tripping over the other person.

Amen!

[nomad]

Here's something that might interest you. It's from John Cassian's 'On the eight vices' (which is posted in greater length in the study room, about 4 pages back), 4th or 5th century.


No virtue makes flesh-bound man so like a spiritual angel as does self-restraint, for it enables those still living on earth to become, as the Apostle says, 'citizens of heaven'. A sign that we have acquired this virtue perfectly is that our soul ignores those images which the defiled fantasy produces during sleep; for even if the production of such images is not a sin, nevertheless it is a sign that the soul is ill and has not been freed from passion. We should therefore regard the defiled fantasies that arise in use during sleep as proof of the previous indolence and weakness still existing in us, since the emission which takes place while we are relaxed in sleep reveals the sickness that lies hidden in our souls. Because of this the Doctor of our souls has also placed the remedy in the hidden regions of the soul, recognizing that the cause of our sickness lies there when He says: 'Whoever looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart'. He seeks to correct not so much our inquisitive and unchaste eyes as the soul while has its seat within and makes bad use of the eyes which God gave it for good purposes. That is why the Book of Proverbs in its wisdom does not say 'Guard your eyes with all diligence'. but 'Guard your heart with all diligence', imposing the remedy of diligence in the first instance upon that which makes use of the eyes for whatever purpose it desires.

The way to keep guard over our heart is immediately to expel from the mind every demon-inspired recollection of women - even of mother or sister or any other devout woman - lest by dwelling on it for too long the mind is thrown headlong by the deceiver into debased and pernicious thoughts. The commandment given by God to the first man, Adam, told him to keep watch over the head of the serpent, that is, over the first inklings of the pernicious thoughts by means of which the serpent tries to creep into our souls. If we do not admit the serpent's head, which is the provocation of the thought, we will not admit the rest of its body - that is, the assent to the sensual pleasure which the thought suggests - and so debase the mind towards the illicit act itself.


the entire passage is good, but this has more direct reference to this thread.

[Shadow Phoenix]

but now you're making a distinction of a committed relationship that is pursuant of marriage. and a general attitude that it's okay to "check out" women...doesn't usually include wedding bells. i absolutely think physical attraction (and desire) belongs in the relationship headed toward marriage. and you're right--it's kept in check until the appropriate time.

Well, when I'm looking for a mate, I do think physical attraction is something important. This person is going to be the person I wake up seeing every morning. I want it to be someone that I naturally desire.

but tell me this, Nix...

Ask and you shall receive.

if you knew your future wife already, and you knew she was going to be your wife...say she's here at Tweb!...and all the other single guys here were very open about finding her physically desirable...even though they knew just as well as you that she isn't theirs...would that bother you? would you feel a little bit threatened by that?

Not at all! If I knew she was going to be mine, I'd be complimented instead. If I decided to go after these guys in some way, that would show insecurity on my part. I need to look with trust and realize that she loves me and I love her and it's going to take a lot more than a little flirting from someone else to woo her away.

Hey. If a guy lets me know that my girl is beautiful, that is a great compliment to my taste.

i suggest (if you're not already) that you guys start getting a little more protective of your women.

Now this is something different....

This is an example I'd do with a girl even if she wasn't my girlfriend. For instance, I used to work at a movie theater at a mall and we wouldn't get out til after midnight usually. I'm leaving with college age and high school age girls when I go out. I always made sure of one thing. I would walk them to their cars and make sure their cars started before I left. I always told them that if anything ever happened, I wanted them to run. I didn't want them to worry about me. They can call 911 when they get to their cars of course, but I want them to run until they are safe.

If my girl is beautiful, guys will notice and I realize that. However, if anyone dared to decide that he wanted to force himself on my girl or threaten her in some way, the gloves come off. At that point, I would do all I could to defend the honor of my lady.

Nix...let me state again...that i don't disagree with you. i think you're wise beyond your years, even when i do disagree with you. i'm just trying to add some perspective to this, because i've forever heard that flirting and checking people out is harmless...and i really don't believe it is. if desire exists (biblically) for the purpose and pleasure of something as sacred as marriage, then we need to treat desire carefully...so as not to get into a place of desiring things we shouldn't desire.

But Semmie, the first step to asking someone out does start with desire. The only reason I would ask a girl out is because I desire her. It could be for her personality or it could be for what I see physically. (I will note that in the case of physical attraction, I would make sure at least she was a Christian first.) This is my point of contention Semmie. Desire is a good thing and sexual desire is a good thing. It's how we handle the desires. For instance, the desire of food is a good thing. Gluttony is not.

and i think that's the whole point that sembro was getting at (though i could be wrong...i'll let him correct me if i'm mistaken) :very simply, that we as a culture have accepted this idea that it's not wrong to look at a woman and desire her (or conversely, to look at a man and desire him)...we have come to believe that it's our right to look at and desire someone that we may have no interaction with...no interest in...no commitment to. and with that kind of a standard, how can you even begin to tackle the problem of pornography? i don't think you can, unless you're willing to set a standard as to when desire is appropriate.

I think you're setting the bar at a level it can't be reached. For me again, I see a beautiful girl for instance and I think, "I'd like to get to know her a little better." It does start with desire. All relationships really start with some form of desire. My question for you Semmie would be when desire becomes okay. If you say thuogh, "When you say I do," I will have to disagree.



we like feeling like a guy desires us...but usually, for us, that attaches to the idea of commitment (and it's already been noted that this doesn't always [or even usually] enter the discussion as far as the guy is concerned)...

psssssh. Now this is where I don't think you know a lot of us. The decent guys like myself get a bad rep from all the sex fiends out there. Now, I do think about sex and I do think about it often, but I also realize the sacredness to it.

If anything, I think we are too hesitant to commit today simply because of the dating system. I don't think it's the best system. I think it's based on mistrust instead of trust. Still, this is where I live and this is what I have to do. I do think though that we can learn something from the system of arranged marriages.

you would get a lot farther...with a gal...by approaching her with a kind smile...and telling her honestly, "you look lovely today." or "your smile has captivated me." or some other honest and sincere compliment...instead of just staring at her. if you're truly interested, chances are she's going to really appreciate the compliment....i mean, unless you wink and nudge and say "hubba hubba" or something creepy like that. :shrug:

just two cents.

i still don't disagree with ya, Nix. just adding a feminine opinion. :smile:

I am in utter awe of the lovely beauty of women. From the perspective of an apologist, I have an argument with a missing premise that is one of the most convincing in my eyes. YOu will either get this or you won't.

Beautiful women exist.
Therefore, God exists.

[docjam]

I disagree.....when people say "lust" they usually mean "strong sexual desire" not "uncontrollable desire".

again, I post this stragiht from our good friend webster who wrote this little thing called the dictionary: LUST: an uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; OR a passionate or overmastering desire or craving

stupid comments deserved to be called stupid...
and we all deserve to go to hell, what's your point. It's not about what you deserve but about what Christ so adamantly left room for grace for. If we all got what we deserved, we'd all be in a heap of trouble. If you can't leave room for grace, that's between you and God and who am I to step in between the two of you. However, this is a debate forum and not politics so again I ask to leave any uneccessary name calling out of this thread.

you would get a lot farther...with a gal...by approaching her with a kind smile...and telling her honestly, "you look lovely today." or "your smile has captivated me." or some other honest and sincere compliment...instead of just staring at her.

or opening the car door for her, or looking her deep into the eyes instead of deeply into her chest, or simply being the man God intended you to be for her instead of the beast that satan's created you to be...just to throw in a few more

actually, i was referring to several different verses
yeah, I realized that after

and your heat pun stunk, jojo :poke:
that's why I will now return to the rec room to never be seen again

I just want to interject and say rape is NOT about uncontrolled desire. It is ALL about controling, dominating and power tripping over the other person. true...to a point. There are two issues of control involved in rape. One is that rape is about having control over the one you are raping and having that dominance over them, but personal desires are also involved in rape. When one gets to the point where they are raping someone, they've lost control of their own desires. If you could control your own personal desires, you would have no need to rape someone.

[semmie]

Well, when I'm looking for a mate, I do think physical attraction is something important. This person is going to be the person I wake up no, Nix...the woman you wake up to in the morning will not look physically the same as she does the first time you set eyes on her. you know this. but having said that, i want to remind you that i didn't say physical attraction was not a point to consider when looking for a mate. in fact, i said the opposite.

Not at all! If I knew she was going to be mine, I'd be complimented instead.you'd be complimented if you knew the other guys at Tweb were looking at your woman and desiring her?

If I decided to go after these guys in some way, that would show insecurity on my part. I need to look with trust and realize that she loves me and I love her and it's going to take a lot more than a little flirting from someone else to woo her away. we're not talking about flirting. we're talking about about other men desiring your wife.

Hey. If a guy lets me know that my girl is beautiful, that is a great compliment to my taste. saying a woman is beautiful is not what we're talking about, either.

If my girl is beautiful, guys will notice and I realize that. However, if anyone dared to decide that he wanted to force himself on my girl or threaten her in some way, the gloves come off. At that point, I would do all I could to defend the honor of my lady. what about defending the honor of a woman whose entire identity in this society is about her use as a means of sexual gratification for men?

But Semmie, the first step to asking someone out does start with desire. The only reason I would ask a girl out is because I desire her.
and Nix...if you're not going to pursue her, then in what way does desiring her glorify god or the body of christ, or honor her as a daughter of the king?

Desire is a good thing
Nix...i did not say that physical desire was innately bad. in fact, again, i said that there is a place for it.

and sexual desire is a good thing.
again, i never said otherwise. but if you are in a place of desiring (sexually) a woman that is not your wife, then no, it isn't a good thing at that point. and the question is, how did you get to that point? did it begin when you were checking her out innocently? a lot of people seem to be of the impression that "checking out" is harmless. i happen to strongly disagree. i've seen nothing in this thread that indicates any positive effect of "checking out" another person. as christians, we're supposed to be living for more than just pleasure...and more than just fulfilling our desires. that's what i think, anyway. but apparently i'm in the minority on this. :shrug:

It's how we handle the desires.
i'm not sure it's about handling desires, so much as it is about being controlled by something other than your desires.

For instance, the desire of food is a good thing. Gluttony not. you can, however, live without checking out the next hot chick that walks by. you won't survive long without food. they may both be natural desires, but they don't really relate in this way.

I think you're setting the bar at a level it can't be reached.you're entitled to that opinion. i would rather set a high standard and slip up on occasion...than to let myself be controlled by a desire that i'm very aware is part of my pre-christ perception of life and gratification. that's my personal conviction on the matter. i'm not offended if it's not your conviction. but don't tell me it's unattainable, because it is my goal, nonetheless, and it is my goal precisely because i know how the desiring looks of men have affected myself and the other women in my life, and i'm further aware of how desiring men for their appearances has affected myself and the other women in my life. i really think a higher standard is preferable.

My question for you Semmie would be when desire becomes okay. If you say thuogh, "When you say I do," I will have to disagree. truthfully, Nix...i hope you'll forgive me, but i'm going to opt out of this question. i don't get the impression that many people in this discussion really take me seriously...or think my perspective is even a practical one. this is a difficult topic, and it's a personal one...and i'm more than happy to discuss it on grounds where i'm not open to the kind of disregard that's been happening in this thread. if you think it's an unrealistic standard, then why does it honestly matter when i think desire is okay? :shrug:

but because it's you, Nix...i'll say this much: i don't think it's matter of when desire is acceptable. i think, more than anything, it's a matter of having the right relationship to desire, and putting it where it belongs.

psssssh. Now this is where I don't think you know a lot of us.
right back at ya.

The decent guys like myself get a bad rep from all the sex fiends out there. Now, I do think about sex and I do think about it often, but I also realize the sacredness to it. i didn't accuse you of being a sex fiend.

I am in utter awe of the lovely beauty of women. but do you desire every beautiful woman you see? and do you naturally want to pursue every beautiful woman that you desire? and that is exactly my point.

i think i'm ducking out now.

[Gabby]

true...to a point. There are two issues of control involved in rape. One is that rape is about having control over the one you are raping and having that dominance over them, but personal desires are also involved in rape. When one gets to the point where they are raping someone, they've lost control of their own desires. If you could control your own personal desires, you would have no need to rape someone.

I disagree, rape may have desires but they are not sexual desires. If they were, a person would just go get the nearest floozey at the bar or pick up a hooker.

[Shadow Phoenix]

no, Nix...the woman you wake up to in the morning will not look physically the same as she does the first time you set eyes on her. you know this. but having said that, i want to remind you that i didn't say physical attraction was not a point to consider when looking for a mate. in fact, i said the opposite.

Of course she won't, but the physical is where it usually starts. Do you want to be close to someone who doesn't regularly put on deodorant for instance?

you'd be complimented if you knew the other guys at Tweb were looking at your woman and desiring her?

Yes I would. That is saying that I have someone who is worth chasing after. We men will often look at the women our male friends have and think "He's doing well." Seriously, if my lady is desirable, why should it surprise me that other men desire her?

Now if they try to act on those desires in a serious way, that's when we have a problem. If a man winks at my lady to get her attention, why should I go berserk though? I know my lady loves me in that case and that she won't run away just because some other guy makes a pass at her. To be concerned would show insecurity on my part. I'd choose to rest in the confidence that I am man enough for the lady I love.

we're not talking about flirting. we're talking about about other men desiring your wife.

It's not like they're gonna get her.

saying a woman is beautiful is not what we're talking about, either.

Really. Why should I be so insecure? I should rest in the fact that if I have a lady who loves me, that love is not flippant. I should believe that she's with me for a reason instead of that other guy. Of course she knows there are other guys out there, but she has chosen me for a reason.

what about defending the honor of a woman whose entire identity in this society is about her use as a means of sexual gratification for men?

There is a point where this would show insecurity. Now if a guy walked up to my lady and tried to kiss her, now that would be something different. If he made over-the-top lewd comments, that would be something as well. If a guy just winks at her or something, I'm not gonna go punch his lights out. I'm more secure than that.


and Nix...if you're not going to pursue her, then in what way does desiring her glorify god or the body of christ, or honor her as a daughter of the king?

In what way does it not?! THe body is a good thing! It's nothing that we should be ashamed of. God gave her a good and beautiful body if I have a lady and I do desire that body. How could I not? The point seems to assume that desire for sex is something evil. I would really recommend going to a bookstore and getting a copy of Lauren Winner's "Real Sex: The Naked Truth About Chastity."


Nix...i did not say that physical desire was innately bad. in fact, again, i said that there is a place for it.

I'm saying this place is not only in marriage. This place is all throughout the physical relationship. Anytime a guy is pursuing a relationship of a romantic nature with a female, it will involve physical and sexual desire. In fact, it would be a problem if it didn't.


again, i never said otherwise. but if you are in a place of desiring (sexually) a woman that is not your wife, then no, it isn't a good thing at that point. and the question is, how did you get to that point? did it begin when you were checking her out innocently? a lot of people seem to be of the impression that "checking out" is harmless. i happen to strongly disagree. i've seen nothing in this thread that indicates any positive effect of "checking out" another person. as christians, we're supposed to be living for more than just pleasure...and more than just fulfilling our desires. that's what i think, anyway. but apparently i'm in the minority on this. :shrug:

But pleasure and desire are not bad things. If I have a desire for sex, then the proper thing to do is to get married. What am I to think? That all physical and sexual desire is to be shut off until the honeymoon? No Semmie. A lot more damage will be caused to people's psyches by doing that. Do you know how many women have a hard time with sex after they get married because they are taught to view desire as a bad thing and then all of a sudden they're alone in that honeymoon suite and have to switch to desiring their husband?


i'm not sure it's about handling desires, so much as it is about being controlled by something other than your desires.

I would agree. We should control our desires. They should not control us. We should not view our desires as bad things though. Sexual desire is good and God gave it for a reason.

you can, however, live without checking out the next hot chick that walks by. you won't survive long without food. they may both be natural desires, but they don't really relate in this way.

Sorry Semmie. I don't agree. I believe God made masculinity and made me to function as a male. I don't believe there's anything wrong in noticing a beautiful lady that goes by and pondering, "If I knew more about this lady, is this the kind of lady I'd like to go out with?" That's how it starts usually in fact. You see a lady who is beautiful as a guy and then you try to find out some basic stuff about her and then you ask her out.

you're entitled to that opinion. i would rather set a high standard and slip up on occasion...than to let myself be controlled by a desire that i'm very aware is part of my pre-christ perception of life and gratification. that's my personal conviction on the matter. i'm not offended if it's not your conviction. but don't tell me it's unattainable, because it is my goal, nonetheless, and it is my goal precisely because i know how the desiring looks of men have affected myself and the other women in my life, and i'm further aware of how desiring men for their appearances has affected myself and the other women in my life. i really think a higher standard is preferable.

And I know how the opposite has had a hard effect on myself and other men. It's quite difficult to be a young teenager with raging hormones and seem to receive the message "Looking at beautiful women is wrong." Sexuality is a key aspect of who we are. Even if we never marry and have sex, we are still sexual beings. I believe in the golden mean. There is a place where desire goes too far, but some desire is important.

truthfully, Nix...i hope you'll forgive me, but i'm going to opt out of this question. i don't get the impression that many people in this discussion really take me seriously...or think my perspective is even a practical one. this is a difficult topic, and it's a personal one...and i'm more than happy to discuss it on grounds where i'm not open to the kind of disregard that's been happening in this thread. if you think it's an unrealistic standard, then why does it honestly matter when i think desire is okay? :shrug:

This is the problem then. This gets me to believe that it's wrong for you to think about sex with a person you're dating, but once you get to the honeymoon it'll be okay. Do you know what kind of paradigm shift that involves? This gives some couples a hard time having a healthy sexual relationship. Sex is a good thing. THe desire for it is a good thing. The hormones God gave us are good things. The problem is none of those three. The problem is us.

but because it's you, Nix...i'll say this much: i don't think it's matter of when desire is acceptable. i think, more than anything, it's a matter of having the right relationship to desire, and putting it where it belongs.

And who would disagree?




i didn't accuse you of being a sex fiend.

Never said ya did, but the view of many of us good men is colored by the negative portrayals that are seen especially in the media. Men are seen as creatures who have sexual thoughts every 7 seconds and should take several cold showers throughout the day. While we do have a lot of sexual thoughts, we are not all about sex.

but do you desire every beautiful woman you see? and do you naturally want to pursue every beautiful woman that you desire? and that is exactly my point.

i think i'm ducking out now.

No. Only those that I believe are worth pursuing. It doesn't happen as often as you'd think, but I only go after someone if I think they stand out above the rest.

[semmie]

you missed almost everything i said, Nix.

sorry to have confused the topic so badly.

but stop pretending you understand my stance, because your response clearly indicates to me that you do not. and now you're misrepresenting me. if you need some clarification, ask for it. but stop assuming and projecting into what i've said. in fact, nick...i've agreed with you more than i've disagreed with you. did you catch that?

[spiritmech]

Here's a prayer for when I catch myself lusting a little too much:

"Whatever it is I'm really looking for now, let me please find it in You." A little practical advice around all this philosophizing :wink:
sm

[vballer8]

again, let's not call names here. I ask you to remember also Michael, as a personal request, that there are some people out there who are very young in their faith. They want to grow and try to get into a debate and learn from it and maybe they have a very valid point and just, because of a lack of their biblical training or young faith, just aren't sure exaclty how to go about getting that point across. Please keep this in mind. People can get offended easily by remarks like this and never want to debate again. Don't be the one who causes a person young in their faith to not want to grow anymore. We've talked through private messages and she was pretty upset with this. She later explained her point to me and it made sense. Though the analogy isn't necessarily the best to go with the topic and may seem a little melo-dramatic, try to be a little more patient with people, especially those younger in their faith. I appreciate it, thanks :)

Just because I post just 1 sentence doesnt necessarly mean that I am "young in faith." I am very knowledgeable about the topic and many other Biblical topics. Although I do have a life and when I posted my two posts (which everyone attacked) I posted them when I only had 2 minutes of spare time in which I could not sit down and write a legitimate or long reply. I WAS going to post replys explaining myself and my standing but I do have a job to get to, I do have school to go to, and I do have a family. I am sorry that I do not LIVE on theologyweb like some people do. Maybe I am young in faith compared to some people, but give me a little bit of credit here. There is more to faith than just memorizing bible verses. There is more to faith than just knowing everything about every Bible character. I believe that faith and knowledge are two different issues. But you know what, I dont feel like I need to prove anything to anybody because in all reality it does not matter what other people think.

[Vigilante]

I haven't read every page yet but I wanted to say a few things.

[/B]About lust:[/B]
It seems the bulk of people hear say "lust is bad, except for your wife". Well ok, but how do you NOT lust after your girlfriend before marriage? When you get engaged, can you still not lust yet?
Second, since the idea of lust is about commiting adultery in your heart, how can you commit adultery by lust if you are not married yet? Or even commited to someone?
A single guy or girl lusting after someone commits adultery against....whom?
So in that light, is lusting still adultery? Still sin?
If it is sin to fantasize about someone (for a single person), and they want to avoid it, what about if they dream it? Do you sin in your sleep?

I'm not advocating lust is good, but how is a single guy who is not committed to anyone, if he lusts for someone, a bad thing? Or if he really really likes a girl, how can he dream about her or fantasize without lust? Can he not even THINK to himself about her qualities? Is there healthy outside-of-marriage lust? If so, what's it called?

If this was already discussed, I'm sorry. Maybe someone could sum up any points made on the subject.

Have a nice day!

[Durthorin]

After reading thru this thread.. I happy I'm a Pagan.

[James Peter]

I haven't read every page yet but I wanted to say a few things.

[/B]About lust:[/B]
It seems the bulk of people hear say "lust is bad, except for your wife". Well ok, but how do you NOT lust after your girlfriend before marriage? When you get engaged, can you still not lust yet?
Second, since the idea of lust is about commiting adultery in your heart, how can you commit adultery by lust if you are not married yet? Or even commited to someone?
A single guy or girl lusting after someone commits adultery against....whom?
So in that light, is lusting still adultery? Still sin?
If it is sin to fantasize about someone (for a single person), and they want to avoid it, what about if they dream it? Do you sin in your sleep?

I'm not advocating lust is good, but how is a single guy who is not committed to anyone, if he lusts for someone, a bad thing? Or if he really really likes a girl, how can he dream about her or fantasize without lust? Can he not even THINK to himself about her qualities? Is there healthy outside-of-marriage lust? If so, what's it called?

If this was already discussed, I'm sorry. Maybe someone could sum up any points made on the subject.

Have a nice day!

A point quite a few of us have been making is that there is a difference between desire and lust. Lust is 'excessive desire' or really 'bad desire'. It is an intrinsically negative thing. It would be like saying there there is 'good sin', 'good lust' is an oxymoron (unless lust is being used figuratively not literally of course).

On adultery of the heart... adultery is with another man's wife. You actually can't commit adultery (technically by biblical rather than modern definitions) with a single woman. It may be 'pornea' (sexual immorality) but it isn't adultery.

Desiring is fine, lusting is not. Some here are advocating there is no distinction between the two but frankly that seems pretty rediculous to me. They are both on a spectrum and there is an area of grey between them but not all desire is lust.

[spiritmech]

To me it really depends on the person. Some people are dyed-in-the-wool hardcore lust-aholics. Other people can see an attractive girl and move on, no big deal.

sm

A point quite a few of us have been making is that there is a difference between desire and lust. Lust is 'excessive desire' or really 'bad desire'. It is an intrinsically negative thing. It would be like saying there there is 'good sin', 'good lust' is an oxymoron (unless lust is being used figuratively not literally of course).

[James Peter]

To me it really depends on the person. Some people are dyed-in-the-wool hardcore lust-aholics. Other people can see an attractive girl and move on, no big deal.

sm

Exactly. But just because some people always lust doesn't mean that lust is the same as desire.

[spiritmech]

Exactly. But just because some people always lust doesn't mean that lust is the same as desire.

Never contradicted you there. :thumb:
sm

[Vigilante]

A point quite a few of us have been making is that there is a difference between desire and lust. Lust is 'excessive desire' or really 'bad desire'. It is an intrinsically negative thing. It would be like saying there there is 'good sin', 'good lust' is an oxymoron (unless lust is being used figuratively not literally of course).

On adultery of the heart... adultery is with another man's wife. You actually can't commit adultery (technically by biblical rather than modern definitions) with a single woman. It may be 'pornea' (sexual immorality) but it isn't adultery.

Desiring is fine, lusting is not. Some here are advocating there is no distinction between the two but frankly that seems pretty rediculous to me. They are both on a spectrum and there is an area of grey between them but not all desire is lust.
Thanks, I always appreciate the sage advice of a Jedi.

So I wonder, then, if there is a point, between desire and lust at which it becomes plainly obvious the boundaries are being breached? Is the concepts of both desire and lust entirely mental in nature? Or does moving from desire to lust involve the physical?
Seems to me if desire and lust were encompassing 'NOT sinning', and 'sinning', there should be an obvious line between them that is recognizable and detectable.

So let's say I see a pretty lady, I'm a single guy, she's alone, in the mall or something. My first thoughts are that she is pretty, I like her smile, I wonder what she's thinking, I wonder if she has a boyfriend, I wonder if I could talk to her, etc... Have I reached desire yet?
So I walk around her pretending to be shopping, and I try to notice her closer up without being seen. I like what I see, she smells good too! So I finally say "hi" and try to introduce myself. I can't help noticing she seems to be just the right build for me, just the right size to complement my own size, I envision perhaps holding her or cuddling on the couch, just for kicks. Like trying on for size you know. Desire? Lust?
So I try to talk to her, she answers and has a wry smile on her face and tries not to pay attention to me, maybe playing hard to get? Now I'm psychoanalyzing her.

I finally say I noticed her from across the building and had to come say something, she thinks that's sweet of me. Now I feel desperate. I ask her if she might like to go out some time, she ends up saying yes!! I get her number or whatever and maybe talk some more.
Now of course I day-dream the rest of the day and night about her. Desire? Lust?
I go on the date and we hit it off pretty good, she actually wears a dress, of sorts, and looks really nice, kinda sexy and foxy I think. And smells oh so nice! I start to notice more about her smile, her eyes, her hair, her skin. I try to control my thoughts, and have a nice time, get to know her.
When the date is over, I'd like to hug her or kiss her cheek, I want to feel her skin on my lips. Desire? Lust? But instead I shake her hand and escort her to her car. I tell her I'll keep in touch and I'd love to hang out some more if it's ok, maybe we'll see a movie next time.
Now the rest of my night I think about her, smell her, envision her. I even imagine conversations we didn't have. Not that they were naughty or anything :lol:
I replay the conversations that we DID have. I smack myself for the times I was an idiot, I remember her laugh.
What am I doing now?

Well this novel has gone on long enough, lol. I'm just wondering who draws the lines, and how one detects when one has gone to far? If you love a girl, dated her for years, want to marry her, but have NOT lusted for her, ever, is that a good sign or bad sign after all?

I guess this is one of those gray areas I hear about from time to time. I imagine it is very subjective, some people might lust if they see some girl's thong in public when she bends over. But as for me, I HAVE seen that, shoot I see that at Starbucks when the girl gets a cup out of the cabinet and I see her little black lacy thong sticking out of her pants. But that doesn't make me lust. I don't exactly shoot my eyes away either. Actually I kinda think it's funny and have to keep from smiling to myself. I have probably seen the butt cracks of most females I know, to be honest. Ladies I don't think you realize how short your clothes really are these days! Perhaps this is the fault of designers and not the girls themselves. But it doesn't cause me to stumble or lust, these are my friends or family or co-workers.
To be honest I don't think I'd lust even if I saw a naked lady in a picture of a magazine in the trash. There is no point, I don't know her, I CAN'T know her, I can't have her. Pictures are faked and heavily edited, these woman starve themselves and go through hell to be where they are, to make a few bucks. I think it's a sad sad industry. I find I might only lust if it's a woman within my reach, a woman with which I might have a chance. But I don't know. I just find it hardly to think I can't lust after my own betrothed, for example. Or have such thoughts of my girlfriend, wherever she may be.
Interesting subject in any case.


Continue....

[semmie]

i just want to point out that nobody has made the claim that desire and lust are the same thing--except in reference to the passage quoted from james, where the word being translated actually is the same in v. 14 and 15...but that's a pretty specific discussion...and i'm more than willing to be taught something on that passage.

otherwise, nobody's making this claim about lust and desire being the same.

[Shadow Phoenix]

I thought about that today also at the mall finishing my Christmas shopping. I can see a beautiful lady and really admire her physical beauty without thinking, "Wow. I'd really like to take off all her clothes," or something of that sort. It's just a recognition that she is a beauty of God's creation.

I think there has to be some desire though. If thinking about sex is wrong if you're not married, then every normal single guy that I've met that's been through puberty is in a lot of trouble. No. This is a good desire that God gave us, but a good desire for a good time.

Of course, I try to be careful. I make it a point to try to look away when I see the lady bend over at the counter for instance. I know the way my mind can think if I let it. I want to honor the lady's physicality, but I don't want it to be simply a tool to feed my desire. The desire is strong enough on its own without my adding to it.

And I'm thinking Vigilante will agree with me. The instance I've decided and the instance in the OP of the water fountain are not intentional on the part of the women. However, if a lady is extra showy with what she's got, it is completely unattractive. No. I want a girl to have mystery in her modesty. It makes her far more appealing.

[docjam]

does moving from desire to lust involve the physical?
not necessarily. While physicalness can be an attribute of lust, I don't think there has to be physicalness in order for a man to lust.

I'm just wondering who draws the lines, and how one detects when one has gone too far
You've got to decide in your heart what's right and what God intended to be pure. If you can look at a woman and say, hey she's pretty and not lust after her then great, go ahead and do so. My opinion is that you've gone too far when you can't control your train of thought anymore. If you're desiring something of a sexual nature with a woman, that's too far. If a girl walks by and you look and admire her butt the whole way thinking to yourself, my, that's a thing of beauty, you're fooling nobody but yourself. That's lustful. Looking at her for her beauty there is nothing wrong with, looking at her for her body is lustful.

some people might lust if they see some girl's thong in public when she bends over. But as for me, I HAVE seen that, shoot I see that at Starbucks when the girl gets a cup out of the cabinet and I see her little black lacy thong sticking out of her pants. But that doesn't make me lust.

seeing I don't believe is wrong, but if you continue to look and "admire" then I think it is. If you read the story i put in here somewhere of the pastor, he very accidentall came across a photo of a nakes woman. Was he wrong in doing so? I don't think so. However he let the photo and the image stay with him and that is when he became sinful.

[Warcraft3]

i sure have.

Okay.....

and others have tried to correct you. no harm, no foul. stop calling names.

I havent called any individual a name....only their ideas or arguements...

and you're the class bully who thinks everyone will respect him more if he makes the most noise and hurts the most feelings...is that it?

Um.....no.....thats not "it"...

Im the guy that isnt afraid to point out stupidity, regardless if it is shrouded under a Christian label or not.

Christ is not stupid and He is not naive either, so I speak up when Christians say unrealistic or idiotic things especially when they claim to have a scriptural foundation holding up their viewpoint....

it's a hard topic. we're trying. i'm trying--even if you disagree with me. deal us some grace, eh?

I dont think the topic is really that difficult or dramatic....what are people trying? I dont understand part of your comment...please explain.

[Warcraft3]

Sure it does. It's not intuitive to a man, but it makes sense once you think about it from a different perspective.

It isnt intuitive to anyone because it is ridiculous.....its one of the silliest things Ive ever heard ad doesnt conform to real people living in the real world.

The only perspective that it makes sense in is a fantasy one....



C'mon, Russ - like you know what goes on in the mind of a woman? If there's one thing I've learned from these threads, it's that women think way differently than men do, and that you can go a whole lifetime without ever knowing it unless they tell you.

Well thats you....not me.

I do know how most women (and people in general) think about certain things from life experience.

Life experience from counseling, preaching, leading Bible Studies, being a member of the military, going to one of the largest college campuses in the US, etc..

All my life experiences have shown me that most women do not connect committment with being attractive or sexually desirable. There are many different reasons why people want to be attractive and be seen as attractive, but connecting that desire to committment is ridiculous.

Honestly...you dont have to be a mind reader to figure out why women want to be attractive...anyone with common sense or life experience beyond High school should realise this.....

[YoungOne]

I had a very similar experinances. I am a college at a Christian college and supposely most of the guys and girl are supposely Christians. My 'favorite' activity is too watch guys, good guys, my friends, watch as a very pretty girl walks in. Sadly, they are much as the same as non christian. They don't guard there eyes. They fall into the same traps and temptations of lust. I'll be honest I have caught myself doing it and get angry at myself. I am not perfect but now that I am aware of it I try to shield my eyes. I also try to call my friend on it and make them aware of what they are doing.

[Warcraft3]

again, I post this stragiht from our good friend webster who wrote this little thing called the dictionary: LUST: an uncontrolled or illicit sexual desire or appetite; OR a passionate or overmastering desire or craving

First of all....the definition that I used in an earlier post was from a dictionary...

While the definition you use is technically a definition for "lust", most people just dont use the word to mean something uncontrolled or overmastering...most people just use it to mean "strong sexual desire" and thats it.


and we all deserve to go to hell, what's your point. It's not about what you deserve but about what Christ so adamantly left room for grace for. If we all got what we deserved, we'd all be in a heap of trouble. If you can't leave room for grace, that's between you and God and who am I to step in between the two of you. However, this is a debate forum and not politics so again I ask to leave any uneccessary name calling out of this thread.

Amazing how you manage to make references to hell, grace, politics, and my personal perspective on grace when answering my saying that stupid comments deserve to be called so.

Amazing how you also say "who am I to step in between the two of you (meaning me and God)" in a way that accuses me of having some kind of problem with grace.

I havent called any person any names, so Im not sure where that comes from either......

Can we stop being overly dramatic please? I feel like Im back talking to the 13 year old girls in youth group for crying out loud....

A stupid comment can be called stupid without calling the person making the comment stupid.

[semmie]

Okay.....



I havent called any individual a name....only their ideas or arguements...



Um.....no.....thats not "it"...

Im the guy that isnt afraid to point out stupidity, regardless if it is shrouded under a Christian label or not.

Christ is not stupid and He is not naive either, so I speak up when Christians say unrealistic or idiotic things especially when they claim to have a scriptural foundation holding up their viewpoint....

I dont think the topic is really that difficult or dramatic....what are people trying? I dont understand part of your comment...please explain.
you go, girl! :thumb:

quack quack quack!

[TuckEverlasting]

It isnt intuitive to anyone

It seems as though it is to the person who said it. :shrug:

because it is ridiculous..... its one of the silliest things Ive ever heard

It isn't ridiculous, Russ... to be honest, it's one of the simplest things I've heard about women in a while.

I learned from another thread that a woman's feeling of self-worth is greatly influenced by her self-image - her conception of her physical beauty. I've also heard and read that one of a woman's deepest desires is for a man's commitment to her. But, she fears she will never get that commitment unless she is worthy of it, and since her feelings of self-worth are tied up in her physical self-image, she feels she will only get a decent man to commit to her if she is physically attractive.

I doubt that all women feel this way, or feel this way to the same extent, but even so... I'd be interested in hearing from women besides semmie about what they think of it.

I do know how most women... think about certain things from life experience.

You honestly don't feel it's a little bit presumptuous to believe you know how 'most women' think?

Honestly...you dont have to be a mind reader to figure out why women want to be attractive...anyone with common sense or life experience beyond High school should realise this.....

Well then, why don't you explain to us why you think women want to be attractive? I think there can be more than one reason; IOW, I think it can be because she wants to find a commitment in addition to other reasons. :nsm:

[Xmansmommy]

I am not sure exactly what the issues are regarding women and connecting attractiveness with desiring committment. My two cents for what they're worth, I personally have never connected/equated the two. At least not in terms of physical attractiveness. That's not to say some women don't.

Tuck, I think women as well as men desire to be physically attractive to the opposite sex because we like to be desired. That may or not involve a desire for committment but to say that is the norm I think goes against what reality shows us. Sure, I imagine there are exceptions to the rule though.

[semmie]

so you just want to be wanted. XMM?

[Vigilante]

Thanks for the thoughts directed at me. Ya Pheonix I agree with your last paragraph. If a woman is "trying" to "be" attractive by simply dressing more immodest, that turns me off as well.
Don't get me wrong, the male in me likes it well enough, but I'm on the hunt for a girl with more respect for herself. At the same time, I don't want to judge her for her choice of clothes in public. Well it's a balancing act I suppose.
In the words of Jimminy Cricket, "let your conscience be your guide". Most guys I think can feel that "point" where they know it can go overboard.
That point doesn't happen to me in public, because just seeing some girls belly or thong in plublic can't really "lead" to anything, because I don't know her. And I'm not going to go ask her for a one night stand. But similarly, seeing something on the Internet can lead to click here, click there, and pretty soon your deep in it. So my eyes bounce when I know they should, and they'll admire a beautiful girl when I probably won't see her again anyway.

Just a note, I didn't want to equate desire with lust, if that's what anybody thought. I was just wondering if those were the only two terms, two extremes, we are dealing with here. Between the sinful act of lust or the OK act of desire, and the line between them. Because if desire is what you have when you first see a pretty lady and want to introduce yourself, and desire is also all you get when you're a week away from your wedding, full of anticipation, then we are perhaps missing some middle ground?

[Xmansmommy]

Sarah, I wanted to be wanted, yes. Whenever I dressed to physically attract a man I wanted to be desired. I never dressed to be physically attractive to a man whom I didn't desire sexually.

Please define what you mean by dressing to attract a man, Sarah? If you're talking about dressing like a slut, then no. I've never been one to dress immodestly.

Do you think it's entirely possible that we're two different women with different reasons for dressing to attract a man and that it's not appropriate to impose each other's motives onto the other?

[semmie]

Sarah, I wanted to be wanted, yes. Whenever I dressed to physically attract a man I wanted to be desired. I never dressed to be physically attractive to a man whom I didn't desire sexually.when you use the words "desire sexually," do you mean that he is someone you would (under the right circumstances) engage in sexual activity with?

Please define what you mean by dressing to attract a man, Sarah? If you're talking about dressing like a slut, then no. I've never been one to dress immodestly.i wasn't actually talking about dressing to attract men. i was talking specifically about women wanting to be desired. i made the statement that wanting to be desired (for women) involves an element of desiring commitment...i should've added that this may not be a conscious element, but i do believe it's there.

russ disagreed with me, and said he knows no woman who acts in a manner that would imply this.

you stated that for you, the topics are not intertwined.

but now you're telling me that you have (not always, but on occasion, i understand; and not immodestly, i get that, too) dressed to make yourself more sexually attractive to men that you are sexually attracted to. unless you don't view sexual activity between a man and a woman as intimate and involving some sort of commitment, then i don't understand how you disagree with what i stated earlier.

i'm not harping...i'm trying to understand you. i appreciate you taking the time to offer another feminine voice in the matter.


Do you think it's entirely possible that we're two different women with different reasons for dressing to attract a man and that it's not appropriate to impose each other's motives onto the other?again, i wasn't talking specifically about dressing to attract men. i was talking specifically about wanting to be desired. overlapping? perhaps. identical? no. and i don't mind you being different from me. what i mind is being told that my perspective was completely fantasaical...and then reading from another woman (who disagreed with me) a view that very much implies commitment from where i'm sitting. i'm just seeking clarity on the matter. i don't mind us being different.

[James Peter]

Just a note, I didn't want to equate desire with lust, if that's what anybody thought. I was just wondering if those were the only two terms, two extremes, we are dealing with here. Between the sinful act of lust or the OK act of desire, and the line between them. Because if desire is what you have when you first see a pretty lady and want to introduce yourself, and desire is also all you get when you're a week away from your wedding, full of anticipation, then we are perhaps missing some middle ground?

Desire isn't the opposite end of the spectrum to Lust, it is really the entire spectrum. Lust is still a form of desire. Think of it as a scale running from Disinterest through 'Interest' to 'Too Interested'. It becomes Lust when it becomes 'too much'. That is inevitably and unavoidably subjective. It is between us and the one who knows our heart to determine. It is a question of attitude rather than action to respond to your earlier story. Nothing that the guy did is implicitly wrong, it all depends on his attitude and motivation for doing it.

Not having lusted is certainly a good thing because it means that you have developed good self-control. Not having desired at all would be a bad thing.

A couple of thoughts in closing...

As our relationship with somebody changes what is or is not 'appropriate desire' may change. Obviously the appropriate desire towards my wife includes being 'allowed' to miss her and when I'm away from her desiring to be back with her and even to look forward to particular physical activities after a day at work. None of that has to implicitly be lustful. Now if I was thinking about the same things but with my best friend's wife...obviously that is illicit and thus is lust. Similarly if I've just dated somebody a couple of times it may be inappropriate to be thinking about having sex with them but a week before our wedding night is it wrong for me to be anticipating and looking forward to it? I don't think so. It is not an illicit desire and so as long as it remains 'controlled' rather than being overwhelming...

I think people need to lay off steadale a bit. Whilst semmie's brother may feel that way I doubt even 30% of women would agree that the main reason they like to feel attractive is in order to find committment. Looking good simply makes many people feel good about themselves. It gives them confidence. Can anyone here say that they don't have more confidence and feel a bit better about themselves when they are looking stunning than when they look rough? A fair chunk of women aren't actively looking for committment at any particular point. You've just broken up with a longterm boyfriend and get all dressed up with your girlies and hit the clubs dancing...are you looking good in order to find somebody else or to simply say to the world, and particularly the ex, "Look at me, I'm doing great! I don't need you... Aren't you an idiot for breaking up with me! Fool!" or something to those effects. I think I'd struggle to name a single female friend who hadn't done that at least once. Yes, there comes a stage in every woman's life where what she wants is committment and a stable, loving relationship...but not everybody is always at that stage. Sometimes somebody is quite happily single for a few months or years...but still wants to look good. You don't need to be female to be able to know that, anybody who has a number of close female friends will have seen it and been told it a dozen times or more. Looking good makes you feel good and is often far more bout the person dressing up than it is about its impact on others.

[Xmansmommy]

when you use the words "desire sexually," do you mean that he is someone you would (under the right circumstances) engage in sexual activity with?

No. I'm referring to my past here so let's please take that into consideration. Even still, I mean someone whom I was either actively involved in a physical relationship with already or someone with whom I wanted to be.

i wasn't actually talking about dressing to attract men. i was talking specifically about women wanting to be desired. i made the statement that wanting to be desired (for women) involves an element of desiring commitment...i should've added that this may not be a conscious element, but i do believe it's there.

I'd have to ask precisely what you mean by desired? Do you mean loved, accepted? I'm honestly not sure I'm following you.

russ disagreed with me, and said he knows no woman who acts in a manner that would imply this.

you stated that for you, the topics are not intertwined.

For me, my physical appearance in no way is how I sought committment nor is it now. Perhaps because I put little value on those things, I dunno. I'm still not sure whether you're talking about women who seek to attract committment from a man by dressing up, putting makeup on, doing their hair, nails, showing cleavage, short skirts, etc. I suppose you'll have to clarify what you mean.

but now you're telling me that you have (not always, but on occasion, i understand; and not immodestly, i get that, too) dressed to make yourself more sexually attractive to men that you are sexually attracted to.

Correct.

unless you don't view sexual activity between a man and a woman as intimate and involving some sort of commitment, then i don't understand how you disagree with what i stated earlier.

Sarah, you can view sexual activity between a man and woman intimate and committed knowing full well that it will not lead to marriage. At least on some level. :wink: Or it can simply be a sexual relationship. It's a case by case basis.

i'm not harping...i'm trying to understand you. i appreciate you taking the time to offer another feminine voice in the matter.

I know and you're welcome.

again, i wasn't talking specifically about dressing to attract men.

Ok. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from then.

i was talking specifically about wanting to be desired. overlapping? perhaps. identical? no.

Without further clarification from you I cannot really respond in a helpful manner.

and i don't mind you being different from me.

Cool.

what i mind is being told that my perspective was completely fantasaical...and then reading from another woman (who disagreed with me) a view that very much implies commitment from where i'm sitting. i'm just seeking clarity on the matter. i don't mind us being different.

What you and Russ have going on really isn't my concern. I will ask though Sarah, don't you view his perspective as fantasaical as well?

[Xmansmommy]

Desire isn't the opposite end of the spectrum to Lust, it is really the entire spectrum. Lust is still a form of desire. Think of it as a scale running from Disinterest through 'Interest' to 'Too Interested'. It becomes Lust when it becomes 'too much'. That is inevitably and unavoidably subjective. It is between us and the one who knows our heart to determine. It is a question of attitude rather than action to respond to your earlier story. Nothing that the guy did is implicitly wrong, it all depends on his attitude and motivation for doing it.

Not having lusted is certainly a good thing because it means that you have developed good self-control. Not having desired at all would be a bad thing.

A couple of thoughts in closing...

As our relationship with somebody changes what is or is not 'appropriate desire' may change. Obviously the appropriate desire towards my wife includes being 'allowed' to miss her and when I'm away from her desiring to be back with her and even to look forward to particular physical activities after a day at work. None of that has to implicitly be lustful. Now if I was thinking about the same things but with my best friend's wife...obviously that is illicit and thus is lust. Similarly if I've just dated somebody a couple of times it may be inappropriate to be thinking about having sex with them but a week before our wedding night is it wrong for me to be anticipating and looking forward to it? I don't think so. It is not an illicit desire and so as long as it remains 'controlled' rather than being overwhelming...

I think people need to lay off steadale a bit. Whilst semmie's brother may feel that way I doubt even 30% of women would agree that the main reason they like to feel attractive is in order to find committment. Looking good simply makes many people feel good about themselves. It gives them confidence. Can anyone here say that they don't have more confidence and feel a bit better about themselves when they are looking stunning than when they look rough? A fair chunk of women aren't actively looking for committment at any particular point. You've just broken up with a longterm boyfriend and get all dressed up with your girlies and hit the clubs dancing...are you looking good in order to find somebody else or to simply say to the world, and particularly the ex, "Look at me, I'm doing great! I don't need you... Aren't you an idiot for breaking up with me! Fool!" or something to those effects. I think I'd struggle to name a single female friend who hadn't done that at least once. Yes, there comes a stage in every woman's life where what she wants is committment and a stable, loving relationship...but not everybody is always at that stage. Sometimes somebody is quite happily single for a few months or years...but still wants to look good. You don't need to be female to be able to know that, anybody who has a number of close female friends will have seen it and been told it a dozen times or more. Looking good makes you feel good and is often far more bout the person dressing up than it is about its impact on others.

What a fantastic post! You are very articulate, James Peter. I couldn't have said it better (as always :blush:). Thanks!

[semmie]

No. I'm referring to my past here so let's please take that into consideration. Even still, I mean someone whom I was either actively involved in a physical relationship with already or someone with whom I wanted to be.



I'd have to ask precisely what you mean by desired? Do you mean loved, accepted? I'm honestly not sure I'm following you.



For me, my physical appearance in no way is how I sought committment nor is it now. Perhaps because I put little value on those things, I dunno. I'm still not sure whether you're talking about women who seek to attract committment from a man by dressing up, putting makeup on, doing their hair, nails, showing cleavage, short skirts, etc. I suppose you'll have to clarify what you mean.



Correct.



Sarah, you can view sexual activity between a man and woman intimate and committed knowing full well that it will not lead to marriage. At least on some level. :wink: Or it can simply be a sexual relationship. It's a case by case basis.



I know and you're welcome.



Ok. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from then.



Without further clarification from you I cannot really respond in a helpful manner.



Cool.



What you and Russ have going on really isn't my concern. I will ask though Sarah, don't you view his perspective as fantasaical as well?

it doesn't matter how i view Russ's perspective.

and i've no desire to further clarify this topic.

you've given me exactly the answers i was looking for.

thankya.

[semmie]

I think people need to lay off steadale a bit. that is rich.

Whilst semmie's brother
i am semmie....i'm not sure my brother would agree or disagree with me.

may feel that way I doubt even 30% of women would agree that the main reason they like to feel attractive is in order to find committment. again...that is not what i said.

but thanks for adding your opinion...i doubt even 30% of the people contributing to this thread have given any consideration to why we want to be desired, so i'm not sure i'll take it seriously that you all disagree with me.

quack quack.

[Impresario]

After reading thru this thread.. I happy I'm a Pagan.

Is "porn" in the eye of the beholder? What was it the U.S. Supreme Court said, "You know it when you see it..."?

It should also be noted that not all Christians are prigs!

[Xmansmommy]

it doesn't matter how i view Russ's perspective.

and i've no desire to further clarify this topic.

you've given me exactly the answers i was looking for.

thankya.

You're welcome, Sarah. And regarding your comment about "doubting even 30% of the people contributing to this thread have given any consideration to why we want to be desired" I think is unfounded. Especially in light of the fact that you don't want to clarify so we can see exactly where we differ. I think you give us less credit than we deserve. But that's ok. It happens. God bless you, sis. :hug:

[semmie]

You're welcome, Sarah. And regarding your comment about "doubting even 30% of the people contributing to this thread have given any consideration to why we want to be desired" I think is unfounded. Especially in light of the fact that you don't want to clarify so we can see exactly where we differ. I think you give us less credit than we deserve. But that's ok. It happens. God bless you, sis. :hug:
it's hard for me to give any credence to the idea that my clarification will result in any positive discussion. i've offered clarification on several fronts already, only to be told over and over that i'm wrong. and what makes James Peter's random percentage more viable than my random percentage?

this is a stupid game, Linda...where you disagree with me, and so you (in general...not just you, but the participants of this thread) hold me to some unbelievable standard that you won't hold others to.

you want clarification? i didn't say that we want to feel attractive because we desire commitment. and i didn't say that it was wrong to desire someone.

what i did say...was that women tie together the idea of sex and intimacy; and intimacy with commitment. it is therefore logical to me (and has been my observation) that wanting to be desired by men stems from a desire to have something committed and personal and intimate that a woman lacks without a husband.

now...is that always the case? no. i never claimed that.

now you can disagree with me all you want. but none of you have offered any evidence to the contrary. indeed, you can't, because you've mistaken my posts. i've tried to clarify and to correct my wording and make distinctions so someone can tell me why i'm so wrong...but it's not happening.

so with that...i bid you a happy thread.

[Xmansmommy]

it's hard for me to give any credence to the idea that my clarification will result in any positive discussion.

Do you not think we've had any positive discussion here?

i've offered clarification on several fronts already, only to be told over and over that i'm wrong.

By whom? I can think of one person who considered your view wrong. The rest of us haven't suggested you're wrong. We've spoken from our experiences just as you have. That don't make any of us wrong. It simply means we're sharing our perspective from our worldview. No right or wrong here, Sarah. It helps if we recognize this.

and what makes James Peter's random percentage more viable than my random percentage?

Nothing, other than the fact that he's stated it merely as his experience of women in general, not only on TWeb. You have given a percentage that I believe clearly isn't accurate of this thread.

this is a stupid game, Linda...where you disagree with me, and so you (in general...not just you, but the participants of this thread) hold me to some unbelievable standard that you won't hold others to.

What standard have any of us held of you Sarah other than the same one you expect of us? To take into consideration of the other's views and agree/diasgree where applicable.

you want clarification? i didn't say that we want to feel attractive because we desire commitment. and i didn't say that it was wrong to desire someone.

I never said you did.

what i did say...was that women tie together the idea of sex and intimacy; and intimacy with commitment. it is therefore logical to me (and has been my observation) that wanting to be desired by men stems from a desire to have something committed and personal and intimate that a woman lacks without a husband.

And I'm asking you to consider, (just as I'd ask Russ or anyone else) that your perspective may not be indicative of the entire picture. Glad you clarified below because taken alone, this statement indicates that it is always the case. Which I believe, has been the point of contention all along. Now I think we all better understand your stance. I know I do.

now...is that always the case? no. i never claimed that.

Good, then we're in agreement. :thumb:

now you can disagree with me all you want. but none of you have offered any evidence to the contrary. indeed, you can't, because you've mistaken my posts. i've tried to clarify and to correct my wording and make distinctions so someone can tell me why i'm so wrong...but it's not happening.

Sarah, I've only mistaken them because I felt they weren't clear enough. I know it's frustrating but please try not to jump to conclusions that I'm going to tell you you're wrong when I've not said that once in this discussion. I've given my opinion which is different than yours. That don't make me right and you wrong. It simply means we've had different experiences, personal and otherwise, and we disagree.

so with that...i bid you a happy thread.

It's not my thread but I appreciate the sentiment.

[Warcraft3]

you go, girl! :thumb:

quack quack quack!


Well that was a good answer....:ahem:

[Warcraft3]

It seems as though it is to the person who said it. :shrug:

Um....sure....wherever that idea comes from it isnt real life...



It isn't ridiculous, Russ... to be honest, it's one of the simplest things I've heard about women in a while.

Oh its not just ridiculous....its just plain stupid.

I learned from another thread that a woman's feeling of self-worth is greatly influenced by her self-image - her conception of her physical beauty. I've also heard and read that one of a woman's deepest desires is for a man's commitment to her. But, she fears she will never get that commitment unless she is worthy of it, and since her feelings of self-worth are tied up in her physical self-image, she feels she will only get a decent man to commit to her if she is physically attractive.

I have learned such things through real life, not a discussion board (that isnt to say I havent learned things here at TWEB, because I have learned lots)....and my source for saying that being attractive isnt about committment comes form the same source...real life.

I doubt that all women feel this way, or feel this way to the same extent, but even so... I'd be interested in hearing from women besides semmie about what they think of it.

I have never met any woman or even heard of one who felt that way...it doesnt seem to be realistic....



You honestly don't feel it's a little bit presumptuous to believe you know how 'most women' think?

Um...no. Not if it comes from real life experience and common sense and just being realistic.



Well then, why don't you explain to us why you think women want to be attractive? I think there can be more than one reason; IOW, I think it can be because she wants to find a commitment in addition to other reasons. :nsm:


There are lots of reasons...

self worth, competition with other women, conforming to societies standards, attracting a man, etc etc etc

Usually men and women have a natural desire to be thought of as attractive...just as most people do not like being thought of as ugly and unattractive. It has less to do with committment and more to do with self satisfaction.

Im married and I still like it when women flirt with me and find me attractive... am I looking for committment? No.

My wife still likes it when men look at her and find her attractive...is she looking for committment from those men? No.

In fact every single person I know likes being seen as attractive for the same reason whether they are married, in a relationship, or single. This really is a simple thing and not very complicated at all. I dont know why people have to over dramatize it and make it something complicated....

[semmie]

Well that was a good answer....:ahem:
quack. quack.

quack.

[Durthorin]

Is "porn" in the eye of the beholder?


Pretty much..


What was it the U.S. Supreme Court said, "You know it when you see it..."?


An each person sees a subjectivly different "it"


It should also be noted that not all Christians are prigs!


I'd hope not.. but there does seem to be a higher percentage...


Brighid Bless, Dur

[Warcraft3]

quack. quack.

quack.

Are you calling me a quack or are you pretending to be a duck?

Or are you just acting immature?

[docjam]

While the definition you use is technically a definition for "lust", most people just dont use the word to mean something uncontrolled or overmastering...most people just use it to mean "strong sexual desire" and thats it.
as soon as you act on a desire of any kind it's become uncontrolled. Plus, lust is not controlling your thoughts. If you can't master your lust then you are sinning. If you have lust in your heart at all you are sinning. If you let thoughts of lust stay in your head you are sinning. By letting them stay in your head you are not controlling them. Lust is more than simply desire. I desire a cup of coffee in the morning, I don't lust after it. It's more than simply just a desire. Sinning requires an action and action, or lack thereof in some instances. I know your definition was from the dictionary too, but it's too vague. If your heart has gotten to the point where it is lusting, that is something you can take control over. The reason one continues to lust is because they havent' taken control of their thoughts towards a particular person.

I havent called any person any names, so Im not sure where that comes from either...
I never said you called any names. But you did say that stupid comments DESERVE to be called stupid. Then I went on how we DESERVE hell but don't get it. If you are calling a thought stupid, that's a slap in the face to the person that said it. You're leaving no room for grace for that person or their idead. Name calling does not have to be related to a person, as is the case with stupid comments deserve to be called stupid. If you want to debate a thought, fine debate it but don't call someone's thought stupid, like I said, there's only room for that in politics and this isn't a political thread so leave the personal opinions of someone else's thoughts out.

=steadele] A stupid comment can be called stupid without calling the person making the comment stupid.

that's like saying a man his wife is ugly without insulting him or telling a poor person to not take it personally you just don't talk to people of their status. It's a complete disrepect to that person.

lust is still a form of desire
exactly, it is not the desire itself

As our relationship with somebody changes what is or is not 'appropriate desire' may change
a validly true point. I'm actually somewhat surprised it's not come up until now.

whilst semmie's brother may feel that way I doubt even 30% of women would agree that the main reason they like to feel attractive is in order to find committment

I never recall saying anything about why a woman WANTS to feel attractive, so please don't assume on my behalf.

A fair chunk of women aren't actively looking for committment at any particular point

in all honesty, my personal belief would be they're looking for acceptance and to be loved by a man before they're looking for committment, but that's my personal opinion and nothing more. I'm a man, I don't know what goes through their minds, but I'd say before they ever start thinking about committment from a man, they're wanting to be loved and accepted by him.

it's not my thread but I appreciate the sentiment

according to Xena, it's technically hers, $Cir's and boom's thread but more technically everyone here at tweb, so in a sense, it's your thread as much as anyones.

quack quack quack
well that was a good answer...
actually, she's got a pet duck that really wanted to get in on the conversation. He was just bidding everyone a happy posting day

oh it's not ridiculous...its just plain stupid.

can we really just stop the use of the word stupid, I happen to find it very offensive. Not only that, but you used the wrong form of its, the correct form shuold've been it's. and, it's both cases in the same sentence that you misused the word.

I have never met any woman or even heard of one who felt that way...it doesnt seem to be realistic....

funny, they said Jesus wasn't real right before they crucified Him too. It doesn't matter how real something seems to you, you're not a woman so unless you've taken a recent poll or done some major research on the thoughts of women, it might be better to refrain from what they think and how their minds work

In fact every single person I know likes being seen as attractive for the same reason whether they are married, in a relationship, or single. This really is a simple thing and not very complicated at all. I dont know why people have to over dramatize it and make it something complicated.... [quote/]

[quote=steadele] it has less to do with committment and more to do with self-satisfaction

actually, I could care less who thinks I am attractive. Being pure in the eyes of God is all that matters to me. I seriuosly could care less if there are 10,000 women or if there's not a single woman who finds me attractive. My feelings of attractiveness and being attractive doesn't have a single thing to do with my self-satisfaction. That comes completely from God and nothing else.

[Warcraft3]

as soon as you act on a desire of any kind it's become uncontrolled. Plus, lust is not controlling your thoughts. If you can't master your lust then you are sinning. If you have lust in your heart at all you are sinning. If you let thoughts of lust stay in your head you are sinning. By letting them stay in your head you are not controlling them. Lust is more than simply desire. I desire a cup of coffee in the morning, I don't lust after it. It's more than simply just a desire. Sinning requires an action and action, or lack thereof in some instances. I know your definition was from the dictionary too, but it's too vague. If your heart has gotten to the point where it is lusting, that is something you can take control over. The reason one continues to lust is because they havent' taken control of their thoughts towards a particular person.

As soon as you act on a desire it's become uncontrolled? :rofl: Where do you come up with these definitions? Lusting after ones wife is not a sin dude...i don't know who told you otherwise...

And acting on a desire doesnt cause it to be uncoltrolled...where in the world are you getting this stuff?


I never said you called any names. But you did say that stupid comments DESERVE to be called stupid. Then I went on how we DESERVE hell but don't get it. If you are calling a thought stupid, that's a slap in the face to the person that said it. You're leaving no room for grace for that person or their idead. Name calling does not have to be related to a person, as is the case with stupid comments deserve to be called stupid. If you want to debate a thought, fine debate it but don't call someone's thought stupid, like I said, there's only room for that in politics and this isn't a political thread so leave the personal opinions of someone else's thoughts out.

Sorry, but this is a debate forum....if I think something is stupid I call it so. Stop being so overly sensitive...if people dont like being ridiculed then a forum like TWEB is not for them.

Every thing I post is a personal opinion of someone else's thoughts...that what debate is all about. Im also not sure where you get the idea that politics is the only area where we can call peoples stupid ideas stupid.

that's like saying a man his wife is ugly without insulting him or telling a poor person to not take it personally you just don't talk to people of their status. It's a complete disrepect to that person.

Of course calling someones comment stupid is disrespectful....you have to earn respect...especially after you make a stupid comment....


actually, she's got a pet duck that really wanted to get in on the conversation. He was just bidding everyone a happy posting day

I doubt that......it is likely that she just doesn't like it when someone calls something she says naive...but this isnt a church meeting or youth group event where people can say ridiculous things and we all just nod our heads or dont disagree for fear of "offending" someone..

Its nothing personal I have against anyone...Im sure everyone here is a nice, likeable person...but some of her comments seem quite silly.

can we really just stop the use of the word stupid, I happen to find it very offensive. Not only that, but you used the wrong form of its, the correct form shuold've been it's. and, it's both cases in the same sentence that you misused the word.

Okay....how about idiotic or moronic?

funny, they said Jesus wasn't real right before they crucified Him too. It doesn't matter how real something seems to you, you're not a woman so unless you've taken a recent poll or done some major research on the thoughts of women, it might be better to refrain from what they think and how their minds work

Amazing how you continue to try and use Christ as a debating tool...its quite sad when Christians try to manipulate other Christians or score points by using Christ...we aren't talking about the crucifixtion here we are talking about being attractive and motivations for wanting it....

One does not have to take a poll or do major research to have common sense...

actually, I could care less who thinks I am attractive. Being pure in the eyes of God is all that matters to me. I seriuosly could care less if there are 10,000 women or if there's not a single woman who finds me attractive. My feelings of attractiveness and being attractive doesn't have a single thing to do with my self-satisfaction. That comes completely from God and nothing else.

:rofl:

Yeah...sure..... Please stop with the "Im so spiritual and holy that I no longer have natural human desires" garbage.....

I dont believe for one second that "being pure in the eyes of god is all that matters to you"...that sounds like some youth group babble to me....

Dont overestimate your spiritual standing to the point where you believe you no longer feel natural human desires. If you truly dont feel those desires then you would be the most spiritual person to walk the earth since Christ....spare me the "Im so spiritual" stuff....

[semmie]

I doubt that......it is likely that she just doesn't like it when someone calls something she says naive...but this isnt a church meeting or youth group event where people can say ridiculous things and we all just nod our heads or dont disagree for fear of "offending" someone..

Its nothing personal I have against anyone...Im sure everyone here is a nice, likeable person...but some of her comments seem quite silly.
nah, russ...i don't mind if you think my opinion is naive...or silly...or immature. that really doesn't amount to a whole lot, if you know what i mean. you're a complete stranger to me, and you've not given me much reason to take you seriously. if you said "look sarah...i'm not sure where this idea of yours came from, but here's why i think you're wrong..." then i would've respected you enough to consider your words. but...when you approach the others in the thread with the attitude (and this is how your attitude is coming across to at least myself and a couple of others) that you are right, there is no chance you could be wrong, there's no chance you could have misunderstood, there's no chance i could have a valid reason for thinking what i think, and therefore my opinion is stupid and naive and silly....well...that's not a respectable approach to discussion or debate. it benefits no one. all it does, in my opinion, is piss people off...and make you look like a jackass.

now you may be a great guy...i don't know you well enough to say. but i do know that there are deeper issues going on here...than me (or anyone else) simply saying stupid things. you have been tactless and rude and condescending, and you refuse to consider that that has anything to do with the fact that others don't want to consider any correction or clarification you have to offer.

so quack quack, baby. it's not an insult. it means that i'm done. your words (whether valid correction or insult) have become water to duck's feathers.

take it easy, kiddo.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I never said the woman has no responsibility. But she doesn't have all or even most of it. That falls on us dudes.The proper question is: The responsibility for WHAT?
The responsibility for a woman dressing immodestly belongs one hundred percent, entirely, without dilution or delegation, to the woman. The man bears absolutely none of that.

The responsibility for what happens in connection with this may be shared, and in the case of lusting at the said woman, it lies mostly with the person doing the lusting. But we need to realise that there is more than one responsibility bearing act going on.

[docjam]

Sorry, but this is a debate forum....
exactly, a debate forum, not a personal attack forum. As a Christian if you want to debate it should be done in love and respect and not as an attack on a person or their thoughts. If you want to show someone they're wrong fine, but don't do so in a spiteful way.

you have to earn respect...especially after you make a stupid comment....
exaclty how Christ would've done it too, and I'm sure you can point out biblically where it is when Christ walked this earth that he made people earn his respect. I'm sure that you can tell me exaclty where in the bible Christ called someone or their thoughts stupid instead of loving them. To be a christian, in it's more basic form, is to be Christ-like so when you can point me directly to scripture that shows that Christ made people earn their respect, I'm listening, until the I don't believe respect is earned. I believe respect should be given as a courtesy and an act of love, as Christ would've done.

we all just nod our heads or dont disagree for fear of "offending" someone..
I agree that people need to be "offended" sometimes. If we never were we'd never grow. But I do believe, as Christ would, it should be done in a loving way and not negatively. Here's my problem with you. I don't think that you make invalid points and I don't think anything you say shouldn't be taken into consideration and I've quite honestly enjoyed conversed with you. The thing that bugs me is that you can't expect to help people in their walks by calling them stupid, calling their thought stupid, saying they're idiotic or moronic. Instead, try loving on them and discussing with them in a loving fashion.

Amazing how you continue to try and use Christ as a debating tool as opposed to using real life. Let's use my life, that's full of sin by nature and in every essence of the word as unholy, instead of the example of Christ who was perfect in every sense of the word. You were talking about being real or using common sense and using the things of life and everything that's happening to base your opinions off of, to use common sense. My point was that the "common sense" of the cruxificition was that Christ needed to die. The "common sense" of the world falsely accused Christ. I'm not saying there's no room for common sense at all, I'm saying to not rely soley on it. That particular post was about the thoughts of women too, and had nothing to do at the moment being attractive, I was simply stating that Christ wasn't attractive to the world. He "seemed" unattractive to the world, yet that really didn't matter much in the long run huh. You "seem" to know the thoughts of women apparently because it's common sense. Another thing, common sense to a man is way different to common sense to a woman so you can't base what goes through a woman's mind based on what seems right to you.

Yeah...sure..... Please stop with the "Im so spiritual and holy that I no longer have natural human desires" garbage.....
that's got to be the most disrepectful thing you've said to date. I never said i was so spiritual and i never said I was so holy and i never said I don't have any human desires. I simply said that my self-worth comes from God and has nothing to do with how the world views me or finds me attractive.

I dont believe for one second that "being pure in the eyes of god is all that matters to you"
believe or don't believe, that's up to you. I didn't say that I AM pure in the sight of God, but that is what I do strive for.

If you truly dont feel those desires then you would be the most spiritual person to walk the earth since Christ....spare me the "Im so spiritual" stuff....
This was a post about self-satisfaction and nothing to do with desire
again, I never said I don't have desires, I just said my self-satisfaction and sense of worth come from God and God alone. That's not the "I'm so spiritual" stuff you're referring to, that's simply being Christian. Don't be so judgemental of me and my life unless you really know me and know my character and know my life routine.

Dont overestimate your spiritual standing to the point where you believe you no longer feel natural human desires

I don't recall saying anything about my spiritual standing, and I surely never implied, let alone stated, that I don't have any human desires. I simply said I don't care if the world finds me attractive.

[sc_q_jayce]

Not at all! If I knew she was going to be mine, I'd be complimented instead. If I decided to go after these guys in some way, that would show insecurity on my part. I need to look with trust and realize that she loves me and I love her and it's going to take a lot more than a little flirting from someone else to woo her away.

...

Hey. If a guy lets me know that my girl is beautiful, that is a great compliment to my taste.I will say one and only one thing here, regarding your post above and Post 135.

Your comments here reveal your thoughtlessness towards your wife, beaming with pride when others mention (whether directly or indirectly) how much they'd want to have sex with her. I can only wonder how your wife would feel to know you react in that way. Your wife's reaction is also a package that comes with the 'compliment.' Winks and all.

[OneFollowingHim]

A couple of random comments...

Lots of good posting. The first look is not necessarily lust. But every additional look definitely is and most subsequent thoughts are. Avoiding the subsequent looks and subsequent thoughts are hard work. It takes conscious, purposeful and intentional effort.

I also hate when men talk about a woman lustfully and use double-entrende with reference to a woman's anatomy. And for me to say that kind of thing is wrong makes me an outcast.

There was one occasion where a (married) co-worker was looking at something on his computer with naked women on it and as I completely avoided participating with the group that began to assemble (among them other married men), I was the odd man out (obviously). My remark was, "That's the last thing I need to see." But the response I got back was that was the first thing the rest needed to see.

Honestly, I wish I didn't have that constant battle. The more sad thing though is that far too many do not see the danger in how casually they treat and willfully participate in it.

[Warcraft3]

nah, russ...i don't mind if you think my opinion is naive...or silly...or immature. that really doesn't amount to a whole lot, if you know what i mean. you're a complete stranger to me, and you've not given me much reason to take you seriously. if you said "look sarah...i'm not sure where this idea of yours came from, but here's why i think you're wrong..." then i would've respected you enough to consider your words. but...when you approach the others in the thread with the attitude (and this is how your attitude is coming across to at least myself and a couple of others) that you are right, there is no chance you could be wrong, there's no chance you could have misunderstood, there's no chance i could have a valid reason for thinking what i think, and therefore my opinion is stupid and naive and silly....well...that's not a respectable approach to discussion or debate. it benefits no one. all it does, in my opinion, is piss people off...and make you look like a jackass.

Sorry....some of the comments werent deserving of respect...

now you may be a great guy...i don't know you well enough to say. but i do know that there are deeper issues going on here...than me (or anyone else) simply saying stupid things. you have been tactless and rude and condescending, and you refuse to consider that that has anything to do with the fact that others don't want to consider any correction or clarification you have to offer.

Ill have to take your word for it that there are "deeper" issues going on..

so quack quack, baby. it's not an insult. it means that i'm done. your words (whether valid correction or insult) have become water to duck's feathers.

take it easy, kiddo.


Funny you calling me kiddo.....

[Warcraft3]

exactly, a debate forum, not a personal attack forum. As a Christian if you want to debate it should be done in love and respect and not as an attack on a person or their thoughts. If you want to show someone they're wrong fine, but don't do so in a spiteful way.

Please spare me the drama...can we gorw up a bit and act like an adult when someone calls an idea stupid?

Can we please have a bit of a thicker skin and not act like a teenager when someone calls an idea stupid?

Im not being spiteful, hateful, or mean in anyway....the drama is ridiculous.


exaclty how Christ would've done it too, and I'm sure you can point out biblically where it is when Christ walked this earth that he made people earn his respect. I'm sure that you can tell me exaclty where in the bible Christ called someone or their thoughts stupid instead of loving them. To be a christian, in it's more basic form, is to be Christ-like so when you can point me directly to scripture that shows that Christ made people earn their respect, I'm listening, until the I don't believe respect is earned. I believe respect should be given as a courtesy and an act of love, as Christ would've done.

There you go again....playing the Christ card with your fellow Christians to try and prove your debating point....trying to compare your "oh so Christ like" reply on an internet debate forum to my "oh so not Christ like" reply on an internet debate forum.

Please get over yourself and try not to take yourself so seriously....then you wont make idiotic comments like " I'm sure that you can tell me exaclty where in the bible Christ called someone or their thoughts stupid instead of loving them. " Its not an either/or situation...I can love someone and still tell them that they are being stupid.

Here I'll demonstrate...

I love you as a person and you are being stupid. See how easy that was?

I agree that people need to be "offended" sometimes. If we never were we'd never grow. But I do believe, as Christ would, it should be done in a loving way and not negatively. Here's my problem with you. I don't think that you make invalid points and I don't think anything you say shouldn't be taken into consideration and I've quite honestly enjoyed conversed with you. The thing that bugs me is that you can't expect to help people in their walks by calling them stupid, calling their thought stupid, saying they're idiotic or moronic. Instead, try loving on them and discussing with them in a loving fashion.

Its good to know that you "believe as Christ would"...

Im glad you are here to make my posting on an internet forum more "christ like"...whatever that means...

Maybe you should be more Christ like and stop spending time and money on an internet forum and start ministering to the poor, the needy, the homeless, the lost, etc.

Im not expecting to help people in their walks by telling them their views are stupid...Im expecting them to get offended at first and then hopefully reflect on why their ideas are stupid and unrealistic.

Of course...time itself should show them that anyway...

as opposed to using real life. Let's use my life, that's full of sin by nature and in every essence of the word as unholy, instead of the example of Christ who was perfect in every sense of the word. You were talking about being real or using common sense and using the things of life and everything that's happening to base your opinions off of, to use common sense. My point was that the "common sense" of the cruxificition was that Christ needed to die. The "common sense" of the world falsely accused Christ. I'm not saying there's no room for common sense at all, I'm saying to not rely soley on it. That particular post was about the thoughts of women too, and had nothing to do at the moment being attractive, I was simply stating that Christ wasn't attractive to the world. He "seemed" unattractive to the world, yet that really didn't matter much in the long run huh. You "seem" to know the thoughts of women apparently because it's common sense. Another thing, common sense to a man is way different to common sense to a woman so you can't base what goes through a woman's mind based on what seems right to you.

Oh brother...I love it when christians try and do this kind of stuff to people...using Christ as debating tool again I see...I hope you dont do this in person because it is just pathetic.


that's got to be the most disrepectful thing you've said to date. I never said i was so spiritual and i never said I was so holy and i never said I don't have any human desires. I simply said that my self-worth comes from God and has nothing to do with how the world views me or finds me attractive.

You certainly implied it....as if you are so spiritual that you have moved beyond wanting to be seen as attractive by people.....heres a news flash...those desires will never completely go away as long as you are human. So if you claim they have then you are full of yourself and full of some other stuff too....


believe or don't believe, that's up to you. I didn't say that I AM pure in the sight of God, but that is what I do strive for.

Of course there are other things that matter to you....we never completely conquer our flesh and anyone who claims to have done so it an idiot.


again, I never said I don't have desires, I just said my self-satisfaction and sense of worth come from God and God alone. That's not the "I'm so spiritual" stuff you're referring to, that's simply being Christian. Don't be so judgemental of me and my life unless you really know me and know my character and know my life routine.

You implied that you are somehow "above" such struggles, which is pure garbage



I don't recall saying anything about my spiritual standing, and I surely never implied, let alone stated, that I don't have any human desires. I simply said I don't care if the world finds me attractive.

You dont care? Yeah....sure you dont.

Those desires will never be completely conquered this side of heaven...so no I certainly do not believe you.

[Shadow Phoenix]

I will say one and only one thing here, regarding your post above and Post 135.

Your comments here reveal your thoughtlessness towards your wife, beaming with pride when others mention (whether directly or indirectly) how much they'd want to have sex with her. I can only wonder how your wife would feel to know you react in that way. Your wife's reaction is also a package that comes with the 'compliment.' Winks and all.

Jayce. I do not believe you realize what I am saying.

There is a point where the line is crossed yes, but I will not be insecure to want to punch someone's lights out for noticing my wife. If someone came up and tried to kiss her for instance, it's on. However, I am not the green-eyed monster. I know a lot of guys would say that they draw swords as soon as someone even looks at the lady that they love, but what will that accomplish? I think it'll end up hurting both you and her.

I didn't say never respond. My stance is just that it's appropriate to know when to and when not to. If I have a wife who is offended when other guys look at her, that will be something different. It's not about me though. It's about her.

[Shadow Phoenix]

I was talking to a friend about the topic of desire just now and thought of the distinction that's been stated but hasn't been indicated too much that there is a difference between desiring a person as a person and desiring a person as an object. The first point is simple. One treats the person as they are. The other doesn't.

I can also admire a beauty without desiring. I can meet a friend of mine who is married and see his wife for the first time. I can look at her and see how beautiful she is and think, "He is a blessed guy," or "He did well." There isn't a desire there to take her away from him and have her for my own.

But I also find that when you truly do care about someone, you do desire them as them and that's so much involved with sexual desire. You want to know this person's likes and dislikes. You want to know their idiosyncracies. You want to know their hopes and dreams and their fears and aspirations. You want to know what makes them happy and what makes them sad. You want to know what makes them tick.

How dare we say the body is irrelevant to this. We cannot say "I want to know them, but I care nothing about their body." That is part of who they are for God created them that way. To deny the goodness of the body is to deny a central aspect of God's creation, an aspect so central that the second person of the Trinity took on one.

So as I desire their person, I do desire them physically for I think of how it would be to have no secrets between us and to be able to be completely open and trusting of each other.

But do you see this? The physical is then mirroring the other sides. They all come at the same time. More trust in emotional connectivity leads to more in physical connectivity. Physical actions are ways of expressing concepts that words themselves are inadequate to do. A man kisses his lady because words cannot contain the power of emotion that he feels then.

Thus, the picture of sex is one of open trust where there are no secrets. What messages are being conveyed in that act then! This is why it dare not be entered into lightly and definitely not without a covenant. The act is too powerful for it to be played with. It is as if splitting an atom. We know when we did that what raw power was unleashed. If breaking physical laws has that much effect, what about breaking laws of the emotional, physical, spiritual, and relational bond?

This is my concern then with too many. They are playing with fire and they are going to get burned. The reason why we do not have sex outside of marriage as Christians is not that we have a low view of sex. It is because we have a high view. It is the contrary view that is low in that it treats sex as common. We treat sex as sacred and thus dare not take it lightly!

[Gabby]

I can also admire a beauty without desiring. I can meet a friend of mine who is married and see his wife for the first time. I can look at her and see how beautiful she is and think, "He is a blessed guy," or "He did well." There isn't a desire there to take her away from him and have her for my own.


Nick I have a question about your comment here. What do you "say" or think when you see a guy who is married to someone who you consider homely or just kinda plain Jane? Do you consider him lucky or that he has "done well" for himself?

[Shadow Phoenix]

Nick I have a question about your comment here. What do you "say" or think when you see a guy who is married to someone who you consider homely or just kinda plain Jane? Do you consider him lucky or that he has "done well" for himself?

homely or plain Jane? Why Gab. Those are usually the ones that are the most beautiful ones of all actually. I don't know what look you'd really count as homely, but the plain Janes are some of the best as they'd be described. Their personalities shine through.

[Gabby]

homely or plain Jane? Why Gab. Those are usually the ones that are the most beautiful ones of all actually. I don't know what look you'd really count as homely, but the plain Janes are some of the best as they'd be described. Their personalities shine through.

Ok, well maybe I misunderstood. The thread has been discussing lusting after someone so I just assumed that everyone was talking about the physical :shrug: Also if I may, I'd say it's kinda hard to know a persons personality when you've just met them.

Anyways, if your not referring to the physical I have no qualms.

chris

[Shadow Phoenix]

Ok, well maybe I misunderstood. The thread has been discussing lusting after someone so I just assumed that everyone was talking about the physical :shrug: Also if I may, I'd say it's kinda hard to know a persons personality when you've just met them.

Anyways, if your not referring to the physical I have no qualms.

chris

I am though. I find those girls can be quite dazzling physically. It's their modesty that's so awesome.

[Jillyn'Toast]

homely or plain Jane? Why Gab. Those are usually the ones that are the most beautiful ones of all actually. I don't know what look you'd really count as homely, but the plain Janes are some of the best as they'd be described. Their personalities shine through.

Nick... you've made me think... It seems like you're buying into all of the stereotypes, here. Maybe I'm wrong? But, if the girl is beautiful, you'll admire her beauty... if the girl is plain, you'll admire her personality. For some reason I dislike that entirely. But, it makes me wonder... what if a man marries a woman who is plain and has no amazing personality? Did he lose all the way around?

I don't like how you comment about wives, Nick, I'll be honest. In your previous posts you said that should it have been your wife other men were commenting on, you would take that as a compliment. I see it differently. It's completely disrespectful and inappropriate. Not just on her part, but on yours as well. To allow them shows a disregard for your relationship.

I won't say I have great things to contribute to this thread. But, semmie and gabbailey and other women have had good things to say. I think you should listen to them and take it into serious consideration. You can only know your side of things, Nick. Maybe if you read some of the other posts, and think seriously about them, understanding that they come from a woman's opinion, you might change some of your own thoughts on the matter?

[Darth Executor]

i suggest (if you're not already) that you guys start getting a little more protective of your women.


That never works out for me. I recommend that all the women have a conference and reach a consensus about what they want then let all the men know. If we're nice, we're wimps or boring. If we try to dominate we're chauvinistic wife beaters. I watch people interact a lot and it takes an insane amount of skill and concentration to really get a woman's attention in more than just a polite way. Or maybe I live too close to far too many liberals. :nsm:

[Jillyn'Toast]

That never works out for me. I recommend that all the women have a conference and reach a consensus about what they want then let all the men know. If we're nice, we're wimps or boring. If we try to dominate we're chauvinistic wife beaters. I watch people interact a lot and it takes an insane amount of skill and concentration to really get a woman's attention in more than just a polite way. Or maybe I live too close to far too many liberals. :nsm:

:sigh: Darth, I don't think she meant to be dominating. Being protective over the relationship you have with a person is a completely different thing. It's more like trying to preserve it. I agree with semmie, it's something more should do.

I think your misunderstanding and extreme examples are partly the fault of how society allows women to behave. Women are encouraged to be "free". So, if a man expresses some sort of healthy jealousy over his wife, we say she doesn't have to "put up" with such a thing. This sort of dedication only limits our freedom, right? It's such a horrible way of thinking. We train ourselves to throw away relationships. (I'm not saying that there aren't valid reasons for leaving or that sometimes men show inappropriate jealousy and protectiveness, but I'm not addressing that.) We start dating at a young age, so by the time a woman is ready to be married, she's already thrown away at least one boyfriend. It's this "if you don't like it, leave" mentality. It carries over into our marriages then. Women leave their husbands easily. I've heard often, women that I know leaving their husbands because they don't "pay attention" to them anymore. This is a problem, yes, but leaving is a disproportionate response. But, we're given that option so readily. There needs to be a protectiveness of the relationship from both sides. Whether it's a trivial comment made by someone else or something larger, they need to be protective and responsible.

[Rubia Warren]

I don't understand what you mean by "protective"?

And will you clarify what you mean by women being "free"? Free in what way?

[Darth Executor]

:sigh: Darth, I don't think she meant to be dominating.

I didn't say she did. It was rhetoric used to make a point.

Women are encouraged to be "free". So, if a man expresses some sort of healthy jealousy over his wife, we say she doesn't have to "put up" with such a thing. This sort of dedication only limits our freedom, right? It's such a horrible way of thinking.

Yes it is, but it's still happening and can't be ignored.

We train ourselves to throw away relationships. (I'm not saying that there aren't valid reasons for leaving or that sometimes men show inappropriate jealousy and protectiveness, but I'm not addressing that.) We start dating at a young age, so by the time a woman is ready to be married, she's already thrown away at least one boyfriend. It's this "if you don't like it, leave" mentality. It carries over into our marriages then. Women leave their husbands easily. I've heard often, women that I know leaving their husbands because they don't "pay attention" to them anymore. This is a problem, yes, but leaving is a disproportionate response. But, we're given that option so readily. There needs to be a protectiveness of the relationship from both sides. Whether it's a trivial comment made by someone else or something larger, they need to be protective and responsible.

I agree. But it ain't happening. :nsm:

[Jillyn'Toast]

I don't understand what you mean by "protective"?

just "protecting of", lol. Really, I think healthy "protectiveness" will be more like preserving or keeping the thing safe.

And will you clarify what you mean by women being "free"? Free in what way?

It's more of a mindset of like keeping your options open and not limiting yourself. :shrug: I see it a lot... but, I could be wrong.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Nick... you've made me think... It seems like you're buying into all of the stereotypes, here. Maybe I'm wrong? But, if the girl is beautiful, you'll admire her beauty... if the girl is plain, you'll admire her personality. For some reason I dislike that entirely. But, it makes me wonder... what if a man marries a woman who is plain and has no amazing personality? Did he lose all the way around?

In all honesty, they are certainly physically beautiful. It really is difficult for a guy to describe what he sees as physical beauty. There are just as many stereotypes that the guy only wants the girl with the hourglass figure. This really isn't so. There are different things every guy likes. Some we will be attracted to and some we won't be.

I don't like how you comment about wives, Nick, I'll be honest. In your previous posts you said that should it have been your wife other men were commenting on, you would take that as a compliment. I see it differently. It's completely disrespectful and inappropriate. Not just on her part, but on yours as well. To allow them shows a disregard for your relationship.

Let's look at this one closer.

I have a friend who got married recently and I haven't seen his wife. If he comes to me with her and says "I'd like you to meet my wife," and I shake her hand and tell her that I think she really is beautiful and that my friend is a blessed guy, is that grounds for him to punch me out immediately?

Secondly, suppose I have a girl and I'm walking through a place like the mall with her. I see that there are several other men noticing her. Does this mean that I go ballistic on each one or do I walk on? What is really gained by going off on every guy who looks at my girl?

Now another scenario though. I am walking through and a guy comes up and tries to kiss her for instance or makes a lewd comment that definitely crosses the line. When it comes to that point, we are going to talk. My only problem has been guys that go into some warrior mode every time some other guy in so much looks at his lady.

I won't say I have great things to contribute to this thread. But, semmie and gabbailey and other women have had good things to say. I think you should listen to them and take it into serious consideration. You can only know your side of things, Nick. Maybe if you read some of the other posts, and think seriously about them, understanding that they come from a woman's opinion, you might change some of your own thoughts on the matter?

Maybe, but it honestly seems that people seem to think that any guy could say anything they wanted to a lady of mine or do anything and I'd be entirely passive. Not at all. It's just knowing which battles are worth fighting. Should I view everyone else who looks at her as a threat? Not at all.

[Jillyn'Toast]

In all honesty, they are certainly physically beautiful. It really is difficult for a guy to describe what he sees as physical beauty. There are just as many stereotypes that the guy only wants the girl with the hourglass figure. This really isn't so. There are different things every guy likes. Some we will be attracted to and some we won't be.

That's not the issue at all. You're dodging the question. The question isn't if her husband finds her attractive, it's an objectivity. If the girl is truly plain and lacking in personality, would you say her husband lost out? I don't necessarily need a direct answer. I just want to know how your thinking is on that one... maybe it's getting entirely off topic.



Let's look at this one closer.

I have a friend who got married recently and I haven't seen his wife. If he comes to me with her and says "I'd like you to meet my wife," and I shake her hand and tell her that I think she really is beautiful and that my friend is a blessed guy, is that grounds for him to punch me out immediately?

No, those are bland compliments. If you looked at his wife and made a comment that implied some sort of interest in her, that's what would be inappropriate. I'd also like to say that being protective does NOT mean punching someone out. It doesn't even have to be a physical action. It just means that if such a comment is made, there should be an appropriate response.

Secondly, suppose I have a girl and I'm walking through a place like the mall with her. I see that there are several other men noticing her. Does this mean that I go ballistic on each one or do I walk on? What is really gained by going off on every guy who looks at my girl?

Nick, did you know that if I am working in the library and a man looks at me and it makes me uncomfortable, that's grounds for sexual harrassment? It's part of our personnel code. Even in secular society, certain looks are inappropriate. That doesn't mean you start karate kicking each guy in the face. It means you address the issue appropriately.

Now another scenario though. I am walking through and a guy comes up and tries to kiss her for instance or makes a lewd comment that definitely crosses the line. When it comes to that point, we are going to talk. My only problem has been guys that go into some warrior mode every time some other guy in so much looks at his lady.

That's an extreme example... but lets take the "lewd comments". Why should a lewd comment cross the line, but a leering look not? The thought and intention are both there. I'd like to say again, being protective over your relationship doesn't mean shouting at everyone who looks at your girlfriend or wife. It's appropriate responses, whether with the woman involved, or the person offending.


Maybe,

Maybe? Why maybe? Why not look at their responses as genuine and valid, coming from wise women?

but it honestly seems that people seem to think that any guy could say anything they wanted to a lady of mine or do anything and I'd be entirely passive. Not at all. It's just knowing which battles are worth fighting. Should I view everyone else who looks at her as a threat? Not at all.

That's not what people are saying at all. That's why I think you need to examine these posts a little better. Some battles aren't worth fighting, you're correct. So a guy leers at your wife. It's inappropriate to go over and smack his forehead. It is appropriate to talk with your wife about it. You shouldn't view them as a threat, but you should learn how to appropriately address situations so that it will protect your relationship.

Oy... relationship advice coming from me :doh: irony.

[Rubia Warren]

just "protecting of", lol. Really, I think healthy "protectiveness" will be more like preserving or keeping the thing safe.

I was thinking you were talking about when another man notices a guy's woman, for whatever reason, and then makes a comment or something. If I had it right, then I'd say that action expected should be depending on the comment.



It's more of a mindset of like keeping your options open and not limiting yourself. :shrug: I see it a lot... but, I could be wrong.
I'm sorry then. It just sorta sounded to me like women's lib was the core of the problem.
I had a knee-jerk reaction to that because I'm rather fond of having property & voting rights, and knowing that I don't have to stay with a man if I don't want to. I even enjoy knowing that, if I just got up on the wrong side of the bed in the morning today, I could technically just pack up and leave on that whim, because I am free to do so. For this to me, is what makes love-- freedom. This to me is what now keeps me coming back to my husband day after day after day, after many years of staying out of some false sense of obligation and imagined opression (don't take that as a general statement-- in my case it's very specific and has to do directly with substance abuse).

You know the old saying, if you set something free and it comes back to you, it belongs to you. If it doesn't come back, it was never yours to begin with. Freedom is the best part of what it means to truly love. I think freedom gets a bad rap, sometimes.

I think part of the problem that our society has is not that women are free, loose, or even free-spirited, but that as a whole it is affected by billions upon billions of dollars spent on reaching out to us daily, wherever we may be, in whatever format will work, to sell us an idea of individuality and to spark a desire in every one of us to cast cares to the side and fulfill these commitments to the whims of the heart. Just do it..... because you're worth it.... for everything else, there's visa........ I believe that these things do carry over into love lives and all relationships.

Of course mankind's propensity to serve self first would exist even without advertising and marketing to help it along, but I cannot deny the impact that I perceive has shaped our society by following it to become never-satisfied, driven by snotty self-importance, bratty little islands unto ourselves who foolishly believe that only I matter and no one is affected by what I choose and if they are they should get a life.

[semmie]

That never works out for me. I recommend that all the women have a conference and reach a consensus about what they want then let all the men know. If we're nice, we're wimps or boring. If we try to dominate we're chauvinistic wife beaters. I watch people interact a lot and it takes an insane amount of skill and concentration to really get a woman's attention in more than just a polite way. Or maybe I live too close to far too many liberals. :nsm:
hey DE--

i really appreciate your response to that comment, and i appreciate the frustration i'm hearing from you. seriously. i want to mention a couple of things really quick.

A: jilly makes a good point...there is probably something on the spectrum in between "wimp" and "wife-beater."

B: nix makes a good point also...there are some battles you fight, and some you don't. no one on a message board is able to tell you which battles belong in which category. sorry about that. :shrug:

C: the issue of protection likely manifests in different ways for each couple, which is probably part of the reason women can't come to a consensus on it. i don't think it always means whipping out your sword and lopping off heads.

D: i think that most women have an underlying desire to be protected in some manner or another, but i don't think most (or even many) women recognize that desire anymore.

sorry i can't be more help to you. you're a smart guy, DE...when you're ready, and when you've found the right girl (or the right kind of girl, if you prefer), you'll be just fine.

pax,
sarah

[Shadow Phoenix]

That's not the issue at all. You're dodging the question. The question isn't if her husband finds her attractive, it's an objectivity. If the girl is truly plain and lacking in personality, would you say her husband lost out? I don't necessarily need a direct answer. I just want to know how your thinking is on that one... maybe it's getting entirely off topic.

It probably is. These are the things I would look for. Believe it or not, it's not if a girl is a size 3 or is built like a supermodel. Most guys really aren't like that.

If you ask most guys, all we would seek is that our lady does care for herself. Looks aren't everything, but they do exist, and it means a lot that a lady does make an effort in this area. I would say the same for personality. Each of them is a facet of who the person is and neither can be entirely ignored.




No, those are bland compliments. If you looked at his wife and made a comment that implied some sort of interest in her, that's what would be inappropriate. I'd also like to say that being protective does NOT mean punching someone out. It doesn't even have to be a physical action. It just means that if such a comment is made, there should be an appropriate response.

To this, I agree. I'm thinking back when I hear this to a thread we had in the Frat once on how a guy would respond and how so many guys said something along the lines of physical action of that sort. It doesn't have to be. It could be simply turning and walking another way. It could be my shooting back my own look if need be.



Nick, did you know that if I am working in the library and a man looks at me and it makes me uncomfortable, that's grounds for sexual harrassment? It's part of our personnel code. Even in secular society, certain looks are inappropriate. That doesn't mean you start karate kicking each guy in the face. It means you address the issue appropriately.

To which I do agree. Let us suppose that I am out with a lady I'm in a serious relationship at a restaurant. I look across the table at my date and I notice she seems to be looking beyond me and is troubled. I ask what it is and I get told "That guy behind you is staring at me." Knowing that it does make her uncomfortable, I will deal with the situation in some way be it going and speaking to him, rearranging our seats, or moving to a different table if need be.



That's an extreme example... but lets take the "lewd comments". Why should a lewd comment cross the line, but a leering look not? The thought and intention are both there. I'd like to say again, being protective over your relationship doesn't mean shouting at everyone who looks at your girlfriend or wife. It's appropriate responses, whether with the woman involved, or the person offending.

A comment is not the same as a look. The comment is far more forward. I'd have no hesitation in such a case. My sister was once a dancer in a show at Dollywood. They had "celebrity" guests come each week. I was told later that one such guest said to her that it was great to see her in her outfit, but it'd better to see her if she wasn't in her outfit. Naturally, had I been there to hear such a thing, there would have definitely been a response.

As you've said, I'm the one who knows me and if anyone thinks for a moment that I don't care about the honor of the lady, then they are thinking incorrectly.




Maybe? Why maybe? Why not look at their responses as genuine and valid, coming from wise women?

Because I also do talk with other women on this topic. In all seriousness, I did see making a response to you as taking a direct physical action of some sort based on what I've noticed from other guys before.



That's not what people are saying at all. That's why I think you need to examine these posts a little better. Some battles aren't worth fighting, you're correct. So a guy leers at your wife. It's inappropriate to go over and smack his forehead. It is appropriate to talk with your wife about it. You shouldn't view them as a threat, but you should learn how to appropriately address situations so that it will protect your relationship.

Oy... relationship advice coming from me :doh: irony.

Who said I wouldn't talk to her about it? If she was bothered by anything, I would definitely talk to her about it.

[Rubia Warren]

D: i think that most women have an underlying desire to be protected in some manner or another, but i don't think most (or even many) women recognize that desire anymore.



Maybe most women do. I think I have an underlying desire to be protected in situations that I'm not physically able to handle. At the age of 32, I've no desire to be "protected" from someone shouting "woo, baby!" out their car window at me (which happened to me not too long ago, and at my age, I wrote that puppy down :yes:). my husband and I both laughed. :nsm:

When I dated and was young, it was different. There were many many times I wanted to be found attractive with an underlying desire for commitment, though kinda indirectly. Many times I was just enjoying my youth, though.

But as a woman who is aging, and going on 10 years of the same commitment to the same man, there are more rules placed upon me than for you spring chickens. There are things that you can get away with. Things that you can get away with wearing, and it's perceived as cute, or because of your youth, it is simply brushed off. Whereas when/if I wear it or appear that way publicly, it would......... not be well received. To say the least.

So if you'll all foorgive me...... I'll take any "woo,baby!" shouted to me from a car window and let it make me smile...... and guys..... if you tell my husband I am hot, he won't beat you up for it, he'll take it as a compliment.

[Spinyn00bman]

I would like to jump in for a second if I could with an important announcement.........


MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT. ALWAYS HAVE BEEN, ALWAYS WILL BE!


Thank you.


You may now continue.

[Spinyn00bman]

Maybe most women do. I think I have an underlying desire to be protected in situations that I'm not physically able to handle. At the age of 32, I've no desire to be "protected" from someone shouting "woo, baby!" out their car window at me (which happened to me not too long ago, and at my age, I wrote that puppy down :yes:). my husband and I both laughed. :nsm:

When I dated and was young, it was different. There were many many times I wanted to be found attractive with an underlying desire for commitment, though kinda indirectly. Many times I was just enjoying my youth, though.

But as a woman who is aging, and going on 10 years of the same commitment to the same man, there are more rules placed upon me than for you spring chickens. There are things that you can get away with. Things that you can get away with wearing, and it's perceived as cute, or because of your youth, it is simply brushed off. Whereas when/if I wear it or appear that way publicly, it would......... not be well received. To say the least.

So if you'll all foorgive me...... I'll take any "woo,baby!" shouted to me from a car window and let it make me smile...... and guys..... if you tell my husband I am hot, he won't beat you up for it, he'll take it as a compliment.


Tell your husband I said you are hot.

**Typed with my wife standing over my shoulder laughing for all you morality police types.

[semmie]

Maybe most women do. I think I have an underlying desire to be protected in situations that I'm not physically able to handle. At the age of 32, I've no desire to be "protected" from someone shouting "woo, baby!" out their car window at me (which happened to me not too long ago, and at my age, I wrote that puppy down :yes:). my husband and I both laughed. :nsm:

When I dated and was young, it was different. There were many many times I wanted to be found attractive with an underlying desire for commitment, though kinda indirectly. Many times I was just enjoying my youth, though.

But as a woman who is aging, and going on 10 years of the same commitment to the same man, there are more rules placed upon me than for you spring chickens. There are things that you can get away with. Things that you can get away with wearing, and it's perceived as cute, or because of your youth, it is simply brushed off. Whereas when/if I wear it or appear that way publicly, it would......... not be well received. To say the least.

So if you'll all foorgive me...... I'll take any "woo,baby!" shouted to me from a car window and let it make me smile...... and guys..... if you tell my husband I am hot, he won't beat you up for it, he'll take it as a compliment.

would your husband take it as a compliment if *i* told him you were hot??

cause you are... :wink:

[Rubia Warren]

:lol:

Tell your wife I said thanks, Spiny.

[Rubia Warren]

would your husband take it as a compliment if *i* told him you were hot??

cause you are... :wink:

Thank you, baby. :wink:


See? What started out a thread over pornography ends just as it should-- with a general concensus transcending genders that Rubia Z. Lookingood is hot. I think I can be they key that finally brings men and women to the same page after thousands of years of misunderstanding.

'nuff. said. Issue resolved. We can all go home now. :yipee:

[Alien]

Maybe most women do. I think I have an underlying desire to be protected in situations that I'm not physically able to handle. At the age of 32, I've no desire to be "protected" from someone shouting "woo, baby!" out their car window at me (which happened to me not too long ago, and at my age, I wrote that puppy down :yes:). my husband and I both laughed. :nsm:

When I dated and was young, it was different. There were many many times I wanted to be found attractive with an underlying desire for commitment, though kinda indirectly. Many times I was just enjoying my youth, though.

But as a woman who is aging, and going on 10 years of the same commitment to the same man, there are more rules placed upon me than for you spring chickens. There are things that you can get away with. Things that you can get away with wearing, and it's perceived as cute, or because of your youth, it is simply brushed off. Whereas when/if I wear it or appear that way publicly, it would......... not be well received. To say the least.

I've kept out of this thread so far, and probably will continue to do so after this, even though I find the subject matter very interesting.

I'll just say this .... it has been fascinating to note the difference between the opinions of those "older folks" who have had a lot of direct experience with relationships, and our younger friends. I'm not pointing any fingers, or saying that anyone is right or wrong, just reporting my impressions. We all grow older, we all have experiences that challenge the way we think "things should be" and we all (or most of us) learn from those experiences.

I predict at least one person will take offence from what I just said. No offence was intended.


So if you'll all foorgive me...... I'll take any "woo,baby!" shouted to me from a car window and let it make me smile...... and guys..... if you tell my husband I am hot, he won't beat you up for it, he'll take it as a compliment.

*Winds down window* Woo baby!!!! (Oh, and tell your husband from me that you are HOT!)



Quoting a stand up comedian, who was commenting on the futility of trying to pick up strange women while driving .... and totally off topic.

"I was driving home, and I noticed a woman driving level with me. I looked over at her and she looked back at me. She slowed down. I slowed down. She wound down her window. I wound down my window ... and drove right into a toll booth!"

[Warcraft3]

Nick... you've made me think... It seems like you're buying into all of the stereotypes, here. Maybe I'm wrong? But, if the girl is beautiful, you'll admire her beauty... if the girl is plain, you'll admire her personality. For some reason I dislike that entirely.

Why?

What is your reason for disliking it?


I don't like how you comment about wives, Nick, I'll be honest. In your previous posts you said that should it have been your wife other men were commenting on, you would take that as a compliment. I see it differently. It's completely disrespectful and inappropriate. Not just on her part, but on yours as well. To allow them shows a disregard for your relationship.

How is it disrespectful? Its a compliment....

How does it show disregard for the relationship?



I won't say I have great things to contribute to this thread. But, semmie and gabbailey and other women have had good things to say. I think you should listen to them and take it into serious consideration. You can only know your side of things, Nick. Maybe if you read some of the other posts, and think seriously about them, understanding that they come from a woman's opinion, you might change some of your own thoughts on the matter?

:rofl:

Actually THATS THE PROBLEM.

Some of the stuff being said in this thread doesnt seem to reflect any womens views or actions I have ever encountered....that includes teenagers, women in their 20's, women in their 30's, and middle aged women.

I have never met a person who didnt want to be seen as attractive...and why wouldnt someone want that? Its a compliment and a positive thing....being a Christian doesnt mean you lose the desire to be physically attractive...but it does mean your focus should not be placed there.

Most women wear makeup, dress attractively, brush their hair, etc...and they dont get up in the morning and say "Gee I want to look attractive so I can find committment from those who find me attractive".



As an side comment...most women I have heard who make a huge issue over guys looking at women usually fall into a few categories:

1. Women who are not attractive
2. Women who are very attractive but are looking for a serious relationship and are sick of getting "hit" on
3. Women who are pursuing a career and find discrimination or sexual harrassment at work.

But no woman in any of these categories has ever told me that they are looking for committment in being attractive.....

Those in category #1 arent attractive anyway and so have nothing to worry about...no guys look at them anyway.

Those in category #2 know they are attractive and actually have to find a man that can see them for who they are on the inside as well. They seek committment beyond their looks..they dont use their looks to get it.

Those in category #3 do not want to be discriminated against or harrassed, but they still want to be attractive because that can be good for your career depending on what line of work you are in...especially if you are interacting with people alot.

[Gabby]

Some of the stuff being said in this thread doesnt seem to reflect any womens views or actions I have ever encountered....that includes teenagers, women in their 20's, women in their 30's, and middle aged women.



Well, I'll vouch for Semmie and Jilly, they are both female and you (whether you like it or not) have encountered them.

[Tladatsi]

It is interesting that the story told by SB is about how women dress and how men respond and the relation to pornography. There was no discussion about how men dress and women respond. While not explicitly stated, there was some assumption that when women dress and behave in a "sexy" fashion that is is bad because it illicits lust in men (intentionally or not). No one thinks it is a problem if men dress in a sexy fashion (which is, needless to say, very different from sexy dress for women and does not usually involve the exposure of flesh) which illicits lust in women. Women certainly "check-out" sexy men, although they are usuallly more discrete than men are.

So what is the problem? Is it lusting, lusting after someone other than one's spouse, inducing lust in others, lusting after others to whom one is not married, allowing one to have lust induced with in? Perhaps, it is women who induce lust in men?

I will tell you a story or two that I think is kind of informative on this topic.

This fellow I met who grew up in the USA but had lived a sufficiently long time in a very conservative Muslim country to have a change of heart about looking a women. The women there were required to wear all covering black garb to prevent men from lusting in their hearts (and other organs). Well this fellow told me that after a while he would see a woman's fingers exposed in the market place and he would think to himself "Wow, she's got great fingers!" I am not kidding, that is what he said. Along the same lines, I remember reading "Elmer Gantry" in high school and remember reading one of the characters lustfully admiring the ankles of a woman.

At the other extreme, there are parts of Africa where women walk about with their breasts exposed. It is not considered shameful at all, but more interestingly, it illicits no lustful respsonces among the local men (tourists on the other hand...). They are not "controlling their lusts", it is just an ordinary day to day sight that is no more exciting than seeing a woman drinking a cup of coffee. However, exposing the thighs is both shameful and lust-inducing. For manys years in China, a woman's feet were considered her most attractive and seductive body part, the smaller the better.

What is considered "sexy" is of course entirely arbitrary and socially defined. Women who dress "sexy" are doing so to make a statement that "I am sexy". They do not dress in this way by accident, it is an intentional statement. Do women have the right to make that statement? Is it a bad statment to make? Is sexual assertiveness wrong for a women? I will take it for granted that no one contests a man's right in this area. I will also take it for granted that any social statement in dress and behavior, such as "I am sexy", can be overstated to the point disrespect to others. This of course changes with time and place.

So what is the issue and is it a "woman's problem" or "person's problem"?


FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, STOP LUSTING

[Spinyn00bman]

I tried to keep my old car from lusting, but once you have one spot of lust, the whole car is pretty much in trouble.

Maybe we need some lustolieum?

[Shadow Phoenix]

Actually, I think it's an important point. The typical view it seems is that only men have libidos. Women can be just as attracted to a guy physically and we should be careful of that. Do we point out that what a lady wears can be too revealing at times and makes us prone to temptation? Yeah. However, how many guys jog in just their shorts where several women can see them? That could be just as much a temptation to a female.

The lust sword does cut both ways.

[Spinyn00bman]

**Sigh....guess I'll just have to keep my rock hard pecs covered up around here.

:glare:

[Gabby]

Actually, I think it's an important point. The typical view it seems is that only men have libidos. Women can be just as attracted to a guy physically and we should be careful of that. Do we point out that what a lady wears can be too revealing at times and makes us prone to temptation? Yeah. However, how many guys jog in just their shorts where several women can see them? That could be just as much a temptation to a female.

The lust sword does cut both ways.

I'll tell ya what, a good looking guy is nice to behold, but for me the real lust comes from a man's actions and demenor more than anything else.

[Rubia Warren]

*Winds down window* Woo baby!!!! (Oh, and tell your husband from me that you are HOT!)



Quoting a stand up comedian, who was commenting on the futility of trying to pick up strange women while driving .... and totally off topic.

"I was driving home, and I noticed a woman driving level with me. I looked over at her and she looked back at me. She slowed down. I slowed down. She wound down her window. I wound down my window ... and drove right into a toll booth!"

:lol:

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Actually, I think it's an important point. The typical view it seems is that only men have libidos. Women can be just as attracted to a guy physically and we should be careful of that. Do we point out that what a lady wears can be too revealing at times and makes us prone to temptation? Yeah. However, how many guys jog in just their shorts where several women can see them? That could be just as much a temptation to a female.

The lust sword does cut both ways.

I once almost got into a head on collision with a woman who was more concerned with staring at a shirtless landscaper than steering her car.

[Warcraft3]

Well, I'll vouch for Semmie and Jilly, they are both female and you (whether you like it or not) have encountered them.


HA!!

Indeed.....you got me on that one....

Touche!!!

[OneFollowingHim]

A couple of random comments...

Lots of good posting. The first look is not necessarily lust. But every additional look definitely is and most subsequent thoughts are. Avoiding the subsequent looks and subsequent thoughts are hard work. It takes conscious, purposeful and intentional effort.

I also hate when men talk about a woman lustfully and use double-entrende with reference to a woman's anatomy. And for me to say that kind of thing is wrong makes me an outcast.

There was one occasion where a (married) co-worker was looking at something on his computer with naked women on it and as I completely avoided participating with the group that began to assemble (among them other married men), I was the odd man out (obviously). My remark was, "That's the last thing I need to see." But the response I got back was that was the first thing the rest needed to see.

Honestly, I wish I didn't have that constant battle. The more sad thing though is that far too many do not see the danger in how casually they treat and willfully participate in it.

My post (#180) got overlookt. :sad: So I will reply to it here and post a follow-up regarding a double standard.

Today in the office we were having lunch and the topic of discussion was boobs. One woman with probably the biggest chest in the entire company was talking about an episode earlier in the day where a male co-worker came up to her and began talkgin to her but looking at the "writing" in on her top. This is the same woman that allows another male co-worker that she doesn't dislike make LARGE jokes in front of her and many other people (of mixed gender). Of course, the double-entendre is in full force.But the obvious is obvious. The double standard makes her and this other gentleman really look foolish in my view. But of course most of the guys enjoy the infatuation.

[arnegrim]

I'll tell ya what, a good looking guy is nice to behold, but for me the real lust comes from a man's actions and demenor more than anything else.

Ok... I'm gonna jump right in the middle of this and hope it makes sense.

Your observations work both ways.

You can take a 'sexy' woman and dress her up 'sexy' and she will remain sexy until she starts talking or until you see the way she acts.

Then again, you can take 'plain' woman and dress her up 'plain' and she can be sexy by the way she talks and acts.

Sexy is so much more then the physical.

[Catatle]

I'm too lazy to read the entire thread, but I did read the first post, and thought of the line 'but the lustful thoughts they were thinking', or something like that. It's the lust that is wrong. But why is it wrong? Obviously because God wills it. Why does God will this? Well I don't claim to know the answer to this, but I would suggest that it is because it makes the other person into an object. But this is telling of an entire way of looking at the world. If there is a problem with lust in your life then you're walking around looking at people thinking 'sex object', 'relationship object', 'old object', 'man object', 'call me in 5 years object' and so on. I'd connect this with 'slave morality', the idea of which we get from nietzsche. This is merely trying to reach God through Eros.

Remember Luther? It is the grace of God that justifies the sinner, not the sinner that makes himself worthy of justification.

I'm getting off track here...not that this post ever was on track. Seeing people as means to an end or object, this is the result of not letting grace work in us. Think of the Stoics, the things that affect us are those things which we have control over. In the same way, so many people look at forgiveness/salvation as something that you trade for a free pass when you get to heaven, but until then it has no real importance apart from the fact that you perhaps don't fear death. No, accept that you are accepted though you are unacceptable, you will no longer be in despair (this is vastly simplified), and you will no longer have to look outside of yourself to the fleeting things of the world to be happy.

Let's come around full circle now. Was it wrong for those guys to look at the girl as an sex object. Yes, BUT it was merely a manifestation of a particular way of looking at the world that treats people as means rather than ends and this world view is the result of not accepting that you are accepted by God though you are unacceptable.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today in the office we were having lunch and the topic of discussion was boobs. One woman with probably the biggest chest in the entire company was talking about an episode earlier in the day where a male co-worker came up to her and began talkgin to her but looking at the "writing" in on her top.I did something like that once, I was starring (I can get a bit absent-minded at times... NO JOKES!!!) at an insignia on a co-workers shirt. I was starring at it so much that I forgot that it could look like I was starring at her chest. That was embarrassing.

Sexy is so much more then the physical.Sexy is in the eye of the looker, whether it be a person looking at themself or someone looking at them. Attractiveness is very subjective.

I think it is funny though, the OP. A guy looking at a gal is hardly "lust". It's a very natural response. What I don't like is gawking (sp?). That is wrong. If you are going to look at a woman that long, you should pay her.

[OneFollowingHim]

I did something like that once, I was starring (I can get a bit absent-minded at times... NO JOKES!!!) at an insignia on a co-workers shirt. I was starring at it so much that I forgot that it could look like I was starring at her chest. That was embarrassing.

In the case I wrote about, the woman didn't have any writing on her top. I said it that way as tongue-in-cheek.

[FreezBee]

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, STOP LUSTING

Ok, ok, cool it., will you? What do you mean by 'lusting'? Isn't that just a silly word invented by religious fanatics?

It's part of Western religion that men lust for women, and that they can't see a woman without wanting to have sex with her. But is that true? Back while I was married, I got tired of reading aboutthose terrible, lustful men and the poor women that had no interest at all in sex, but were hunted to death by the egoistic men. I got so tired that I decided to make an experiment: to not have sex with my wife and then see, if she got happier from that.

In the beginning she only now and then snerred about "the time when men were men and knwe what to use women for", but later she started to suggest that we bought porno films and so on. Af ter a year and a half she dragged me to a therapeut because she wanted a divorce.

So stop talking about all that lust, as if it is some error in men that they simply have to lean to control, and as if women are 'pure' and 'innocent'. Just stop it. Thanks in advance :bow:


- FreezBee

[almightydollar]

You refused to be sexual with your wife for ONE AND A HALF YEARS?! You're yankin' our chains...


I am a little disgusted, though, at the belief people always seem to hold that sex is somehow "dirty", and engaging in sexual behavior makes people "dirty", "tainted", and "worldly". If it weren't for sex, none of us would even be here to argue about it.

[Warcraft3]

I forgot all about this thread.....

As I re-read through it I was astounded at the stupidity of some of the posts...reminds me of some of the stuff I used to hear in youth group 15 years ago...

[FreezBee]

You refused to be sexual with your wife for ONE AND A HALF YEARS?! You're yankin' our chains...

Is that good or bad?

I am a little disgusted, though, at the belief people always seem to hold that sex is somehow "dirty", and engaging in sexual behavior makes people "dirty", "tainted", and "worldly".

I agree with you :thumb:

Why does sex have to be something that only malechauvinistic pigs and their hookers do?


If it weren't for sex, none of us would even be here to argue about it.

Most of us, most of us. Artificial insemination is on the increase among humans. This is a way for homosexuals to get children without having to have sex with a member of the opposite sex.


- FreezBee

[almightydollar]

Is that good or bad?

BAD. Unless you and your wife discussed the possibility that you might one day suddenly decide to emulate a eunuch before the Big Talk about getting married and spending your ives with each other, this was a very bad thing to do. If you actually did this(though I still think you're just making making it up, or exagerrating, or just plain leaving part of the story out), you should be thankful all she wanted to hit you with was a divorce.

[Jon_Day]

The thing I don't understand...

You aren't supposed to lust after someone who isn't your wife.

So were you married from birth? Was there no sexual attraction to this person who was to become your wife? Very strange business this stuff.

[FreezBee]

BAD. Unless you and your wife discussed the possibility that you might one day suddenly decide to emulate a eunuch before the Big Talk about getting married and spending your ives with each other, this was a very bad thing to do. If you actually did this(though I still think you're just making making it up, or exagerrating, or just plain leaving part of the story out), you should be thankful all she wanted to hit you with was a divorce.

It may be different elsewhere, but here in Denmark we are constantly told that women have no interest what so ever in sex, only men have that, and they exploit their wives as sex slaves.

- FreezBee

[FreezBee]

The thing I don't understand...

You aren't supposed to lust after someone who isn't your wife.

So were you married from birth? Was there no sexual attraction to this person who was to become your wife? Very strange business this stuff.

Well, we didn't start out having no sex :smile:

- FreezBee

[spiritmech]

? That's odd.

It may be different elsewhere, but here in Denmark we are constantly told that women have no interest what so ever in sex, only men have that, and they exploit their wives as sex slaves.

- FreezBee

[FreezBee]

? That's odd.

What's odd?

These days, The Revenge of the Women is running in a theater in Copenhagen. It is based og Aristofanes' comedy about, how the Athenensian women went into s sex-strike during the Peloponesian war. I remember the same play from around 15 years ago and with the same idea: peace on earth could be achieved, if women went on sex-strike.

But apparently that wouldn't work, since men can live quite well without sex! And don't forget the increasing number of female soldiers!


- FreezBee

[Mac_Guy]

Its hard not to look at the really beautiful college girls with.... err. lets not go there. But its not impossible. (Yes I look a lot). Porn OTH is defiently a bad idea. But the quick glances at a hot girl is fine, its just what you do with those thoughts that make them sin. Like this

Beautiful girl
"Oh, she looks beautiful" looks away

"Nice rack. Wonder what she feels like. Blah blah blah" I think this follows closer to sin then admiring her beauty.

You can admire a beautiful woman without lusting.

[Jon_Day]

I think this concept is insane. We are biological. We will lust. It is part of our biological framework. Those thoughts you are talking about ignoring are part of what make us human. If that weren't the case...then you wouldn't have to ignore those thoughts...you simply wouldn't have them. It seems the only reason these dogma were added to religion was because it appeased the cultural ideals of the time, and they have been changed over time...to fit whatever changes in society take place. If God didn't want us to have sex before marriage, he would've had us marry before we could have sex.

Think about it like this. Before there was marriage...was it OK to have sex before marriage?

If you are a healthy young adult male, and you look at a "hot" girl without imagining something even remotely sexual...you are most likely either really repressed, or homosexual.

[TolkienFan]

Originally posted by Jon_Day

I think this concept is insane. We are biological. We will lust. It is part of our biological framework.

The capacity to sin is also part of our spiritual framework, but that doesn't make it okay for us to sin.

Originally posted by Jon_Day

Those thoughts you are talking about ignoring are part of what make us human.

That is correct. But that doesn't make lust right.

Originally posted by Jon_Day

It seems the only reason these dogma were added to religion was because it appeased the cultural ideals of the time, and they have been changed over time...to fit whatever changes in society take place.

Satisfied cultural ideals of the time? Could we see some proof? Also, our lives would be so much easier if we didn't have to practice chastity. As some societies (like America's) wax toward making things easy, why wasn't the idea of chastity ditched by Christianity as well, if it just went with the flow?

Originally posted by Jon_Day

If God didn't want us to have sex before marriage, he would've had us marry before we could have sex.

Think about it like this. Before there was marriage...was it OK to have sex before marriage?

If you believe the Genesis account, there was no sex before marriage. In fact, there was hardly anything before marriage. If this account isn't true, I don't know how I'd answer the question.

Originally posted by Jon_Day

If you are a healthy young adult male, and you look at a "hot" girl without imagining something even remotely sexual...you are most likely either really repressed, or homosexual.

Once again, the fact that we all lust doesn't make it right.

[Jon_Day]

The capacity to sin is also part of our spiritual framework, but that doesn't make it okay for us to sin.



That is correct. But that doesn't make lust right.



Satisfied cultural ideals of the time? Could we see some proof? Also, our lives would be so much easier if we didn't have to practice chastity. As some societies (like America's) wax toward making things easy, why wasn't the idea of chastity ditched by Christianity as well, if it just went with the flow?



If you believe the Genesis account, there was no sex before marriage. In fact, there was hardly anything before marriage. If this account isn't true, I don't know how I'd answer the question.



Once again, the fact that we all lust doesn't make it right.

So then what makes it wrong? Some dictation in a book? Was this existent before the creation of the supposed 7 deadly sins? I think you should examine these weak dogmatic principles a little more thoroughly before attempting to boast there validity. Think about it...what constitutes "Sloth"? What constitutes "Lust"? Can we be held responsible for a biological mechanism which exists in our brain? If this is wrong...why is it there? It is not choice...it is biology. I do not "choose" to be attracted to a beautiful female, nor do I choose to be aroused by the idea of a sexual act with said female. This is something which occurs due to impulses in my brain. Anyone who claims that these things do not occur, is simply lying to create a false sense of purity. I agree that one can control what one does "physically" with these thoughts...as in one can stop one's self from acting upon these thoughts in a physical way (with the exception of certain biological functions which automatically occur when these thoughts are present). Natural synapses in the brain are impossible to control without some sort of intense psycho-therapy, or psycho-active chemicals. So what I would like to understand is how something which is completely beyond our control is "wrong". I'm not attempting to advocate pornography, but pornography is a far cry from looking at a girl in a "lustful" manner. First and foremost..."lustful" is about the most subjective term you could use when discussing these things. I suppose regardless we will always disagree...because you believe that there is a specific framework of what is right and wrong, and that this framework has been defined by a higher being. I believe that what is right and wrong can be more easily determined by weighing the negative and positive benefits to a whole, utilizing specific natural processes as the basis for "negative" and "positive". Obviously, in the end, it is still all subjective...but it is a much more realistic position.

As for the fluid state of these supposed "right" and "wrong" principles, and the effect of the cultural principles of the time...I think it's pretty obvious. Take a look at your "new age" type of Christianity. They seem to believe that sex before marriage is perfectly fine.

I cannot accept the concept of Adam and Eve as being factual. It seems pretty metaphoric to me. I doubt that marriage has always existed, considering that for a long portion of our development, we probably couldn't even speak...let alone have the cognitive ability to understand what a "marriage" was.

[TolkienFan]

Originally posted by Jon_Day

So then what makes it wrong? Some dictation in a book?

More correctly, a dictation from God.

Originally posted by Jon_Day

I think you should examine these weak dogmatic principles a little more thoroughly before attempting to boast there validity. Think about it...what constitutes "Sloth"? What constitutes "Lust"?

What makes them weak? Or is that just a label of your own making?

We're not here to talk about "sloth", but this entire thread has been about what constitutes "lust".

Originally posted by Jon_Day

Can we be held responsible for a biological mechanism which exists in our brain?

No, we are held responsible for controlling it though.

Originally posted by Jon_Day

If this is wrong...why is it there?

Sorry, I wasn't clear on my position before. The mechanism that causes sexual attraction is not wrong, but not controlling the desire which stems from it is wrong. (Think, why is rape wrong?)

Originally posted by Jon_Day

I do not "choose" to be attracted to a beautiful female, nor do I choose to be aroused by the idea of a sexual act with said female.

But you do have control over how far that desire goes. You do have control over how much you think about it. We're not hormones, we're human beings (this is coming from a teenager).

Originally posted by Jon_Day

Anyone who claims that these things do not occur, is simply lying to create a false sense of purity.

You and I actually agree on this. But anyone who claims it can't be controlled is lying to give excuses for sin.

Originally posted by Jon_Day

I agree that one can control what one does "physically" with these thoughts...as in one can stop one's self from acting upon these thoughts in a physical way (with the exception of certain biological functions which automatically occur when these thoughts are present). Natural synapses in the brain are impossible to control without some sort of intense psycho-therapy, or psycho-active chemicals. So what I would like to understand is how something which is completely beyond our control is "wrong".

Lust is not completely beyond our control. One can control how far the desire goes. As Minnesota showed, there is a series of things one goes through before they get to true lust. It is not a question of lust or no attraction, but which stage you're at.

Originally posted by Jon_Day

I'm not attempting to advocate pornography, but pornography is a far cry from looking at a girl in a "lustful" manner.

True.

Originally posted by Jon_Day

First and foremost..."lustful" is about the most subjective term you could use when discussing these things. I suppose regardless we will always disagree...because you believe that there is a specific framework of what is right and wrong, and that this framework has been defined by a higher being. I believe that what is right and wrong can be more easily determined by weighing the negative and positive benefits to a whole, utilizing specific natural processes as the basis for "negative" and "positive". Obviously, in the end, it is still all subjective...but it is a much more realistic position.

I agree for the most part. As long as we have different belief systems, there is a certain gulf that won't be crossed in this regard. Obviously, I would have to disagree with the last sentence and that this is all subjective. After all, the position of a true deity shouldn't be simply tossed out as worthless (but of course you and I disagree that the deity of Christianity is the right one).

Originally posted by Jon_Day

As for the fluid state of these supposed "right" and "wrong" principles, and the effect of the cultural principles of the time...I think it's pretty obvious. Take a look at your "new age" type of Christianity. They seem to believe that sex before marriage is perfectly fine.

It's not "my" "new age" type Christianity. It is an unfortunate by-product that has been heavily influenced by our society. But I was referring to the religion as a whole, not just sects of it.

Originally posted by Jon_Day

I cannot accept the concept of Adam and Eve as being factual. It seems pretty metaphoric to me. I doubt that marriage has always existed, considering that for a long portion of our development, we probably couldn't even speak...let alone have the cognitive ability to understand what a "marriage" was.

This is one of those gulfs that will not be crossed as long as we have different presuppositions. But I am seriously curious as to where you think the idea of marriage stemmed from (perhaps you can start a new thread on that).

Pleasure doing business with you.

[{Tim}]

Wow, necro-thread. :ahem:

What I think really needs to be considered, which a few people touched on, was what we actually mean when we talk about "lust". Because if (as some people are taking it) "lust" is simply "sexual attraction", then it IS impossible not to lust involuntarily. But I don't think that's what it means...

IMO, "lust" has more to do with viewing a woman (or a man, if you were female) as a sex object, and not just simply "(s)he is sexually attractive". So in that case, "lust" is something you have control over -- you can look at a woman and automatically notice that she is attractive... but it is your choice then whether to continue looking and start "ogling" her, whether to run mental fantasies through your head of what you would like to do with her. I suggest that this is wrong precisely because you are showing no regard for her as a person -- only as "something I want to have sex with".

[yxboom]

I think this concept is insane. We are biological. We will lust. It is part of our biological framework. Those thoughts you are talking about ignoring are part of what make us human. If that weren't the case...then you wouldn't have to ignore those thoughts...you simply wouldn't have them. It seems the only reason these dogma were added to religion was because it appeased the cultural ideals of the time, and they have been changed over time...to fit whatever changes in society take place. If God didn't want us to have sex before marriage, he would've had us marry before we could have sex.

Think about it like this. Before there was marriage...was it OK to have sex before marriage?

If you are a healthy young adult male, and you look at a "hot" girl without imagining something even remotely sexual...you are most likely either really repressed, or homosexual.

sorry judge, but c'mon she doesnt look like a 15 year old.

[Mudflap]

This thread is useless without pictures :wink:

[Passerby]

I would say divine law is natural law--man in his natural state would be more tended to marriage than lust and adultery. However, man has lost his natural innocence and now tends towards sin and lust. Does this make it acceptable? No, of course not.
Speaking as a woman, there is nothing more disgusting than a man who has given his heart over to lust--even women not as religious as I agree. Lust is a form of murder; it murders the soul of another person at the expense of the body--it makes a person an object to be gained, to be conquered, rather than a person to be loved and cherished. Lust opens the door to other sins--it is one of the 7 deadly sins. A man's heart should be pure, as should his body be chaste.

[Mudflap]

A man's heart should be pure, as should his body be chaste.


I couldn't be chaste, and my heart doesn't feel like a pure man's unless I have at least a little lust in it, we can't be passionless robots.

[Passerby]

I couldn't be chaste, and my heart doesn't feel like a pure man's unless I have at least a little lust in it, we can't be passionless robots.

Then you do not understand what love is.

[Mudflap]

Then you do not understand what love is.


What is love?

[Passerby]

What is love?

God is Love.
Also, see 1 Cor 13 and Song of Solomon.
Love is an act of the will; it is a decision to sacrifice oneself for another, for the greater good. Feelings are fickle; love does not necessarily have erotic elements. The most important thing is the strong desire of self-sacrifice, not a desire for another's body. Love encompasses a whole person, not just one part over the others.

[Mac_Guy]

This thread is useless without pictures :wink:

agreed


----

Is masturbation wrong? Why?

[Passerby]

Masturbation is sinful because the one who masturbates experiences sexual pleasure outside of marriage, which is the only lawful place where any sort of sexual pleasure may occur, and from the spouse alone, not by self-stimulation. It is almost like committing adultery; if you ejaculate, then you have wasted sperm, which is something God struck down a man for doing in the Old Testament. It shows a lack of self-discipline and it also goes against the virtues of chastity and continence--sexual discretion, in essence. Psychologically, it is an addiction to sexual stimulation.

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_df75se.htm