Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
"Lust has a certain negative connotation. You typically don't say you lust after your girlfriend or wife,"
Lust
noun
very strong sexual desire
verb
have a very strong sexual desire for someone
I have no problem saying that I lust after my wife occasionally. You're attaching a negative connotation to the word that has more to do with your subjective religious beliefs than the how the word is defined. Even if I felt lust for a complete stranger I wouldn't consider this wrong in any way as long I didn't fixate on it, or act on it. I'd be stunned if my wife had never experienced lust towards another man. The problem arises because theists are indoctrinated from childhood into believing sexual urges are somehow wrong or "sinful" rather than addressing how we, especially men, deal with those urges in a way that respects the rights of others. Hence you get the absurd misogyny that prompted this thread, and no one can defend that person's comments here.
I'd add the caveat that any sexual attraction to a child or minor is harmful, and anyone experiencing such desire should seek help, indeed has a duty to do so.
I'll say this in higher case so we understand the problem here....NOTHING WOMEN WEAR OR EVEN DO MAKES THEM CULPABLE FOR MEN FORCING OR COERCING THEM INTO SEX. It's this simple as men we have a choice, to claim our sexual urges render us slaves to those urges is absurd nonsense.
A definition is not the same as a connotation. If I said my wife is slim but yours is scrawny, you can tell which is worse even though both words mean thin.
I find it also interesting that religion keeps being blamed for the negative connotation. Idk if the UK is anything like the US, but if so then religion is by far the majority. Even if it isn't, England's history is by far more religious than Americas. That means two things. First, if most people around you are religious, that means most people around you use lust negatively. Secondly, since religion is so old in your country, that means you weren't around before lust took on such a bad connotation.
Now, unless you've been reading tons of erotic books, which poeticize the word, I doubt you've even heard a regular person use the word lust in a positive light.
"A definition is not the same a connotation. "
Which is why I said quite clearly that you were arbitrarily attaching a connotation based on your religious beliefs to the word lust that the definition in no way implies.
--------------------------------------------
"I find it also interesting that religion keeps being blamed for the negative connotation."
>>Do you? That's hard to credit given religions think lust is somehow "sinful", and the opening post show a deeply pernicious attitude towards women and sexual desire motivated entirely by religious beliefs?
---------------------------------------------
"if the UK is anything like the US, but if so then religion is by far the majority. Even if it isn't, England history is by far more religious than Americas. "
>>I don't live in England, but the UK across the board has been becoming more and more secular, I seriously doubt that belief in God among the general population is anywhere near that of the US where it runs at around 96%. Church attendances have dropped away steadily for decades.
Here is one piece of research: "People of no religion outnumber Christians in England and Wales"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/23/no-religion-outnumber-chri...
This is from a 2011 census "A snapshot of religious affiliations throughout England and Wales in 2011. Despite falling numbers, Christianity remained the largest religion with 59.3% of the population identifying themselves as Christian. Muslims made up the second largest religious group with 4.8% of the population. Between 2001 and 2011 there has been a decrease in the proportion of people who identify as Christian and an increase in those reporting to have no religion."
------------------------------------------------------
"First, if most people are religious, that means most people use the word lust in the way I've described. That means the negative connotation by far exceeds any good one. Secondly, since religion is so old, that means you weren't born before lust got a bad connotation."
Well your first premise is flawed since as we see in the UK atheists are outnumbering theists according to some census reports. Your second premise is irrelevant as the definition is in the dictionary so has not changed, despite a skewed religious perception of it. The meaning is clear and it's a physical or sexual attraction, the negative connotation is derived entirely from religious beliefs about sexual desire, and nothing to do with the meaning of the word.
--------------------------------
"Well that's the thing about lust, it's not the same as attraction or even a wrong desire. To lust after someone in a sense means you are fixated."
>>No it doesn't...here once again is the Oxford English dictionary
NOUN
Strong sexual desire.
VERB
Have strong sexual desire for someone.
You have added fixation arbitrarily, and it is not part of the definition. Religious beliefs may view the word in this way but who cares. They're wrong, and as we can see from this thread, and the opening post it's a very unhealthy distortion as well.
------------------------------------
"Lust appears voluntary and desirous. If I lust after your wife, it means I'm consciously and willfully adding fuel to my attraction. "
>> No it doesn't, it's up to you how you react to the desire, I can experience sexual attraction without fixation if it were inappropriate I would be aware of that, as it might become pernicious. Do you not have self control? You're staring to sound like the guy that kicked this thread off with his interview.
----------------------------------------
"It's not the same as finding your wife attractive and then moving on with my life."
I don't react to it in the same way, because I love my wife, and that goes beyond the mere physical. You're also adding the word "after" to lust to skew the definition. The "after" part would be how a person chose to react to the lust, and why a harmless emotion is skewed into something that might become harmful. This ability to recognise the difference is why some theists make the kind of misogynistic and asinine claims that started this thread. Lust is both natural and harmless, it's what we do with it that changes that.
No matter how the word lust is defined by each of us, it remains a person’s own responsibility how they respond to sexual urges. The pastor in the OP story seems to be suggesting that men cannot be in control of themselves and that it is the responsibility of women to help them in that. I find it fascinating that this pastor likely considers himself (and is allowed to be) a leader yet becomes so much less in control when in proximity to something so mild as another’s articles of clothing.
I agree wholeheartedly, but the word is defined int he dictionary, the negative connotation is purely a part of religious dogma. I think this thread has shown that unequivocally.
I completely agree, Sheldon, that religions have tainted both the word lust and its ineluctably.
Definitions, however, differ from person to person and from dictionary to dictionary. This is why, as I mentioned in another thread, it is critical to get a picture of how someone is using a particular word or phrase. Without that description, we seem to run really fast but with one foot nailed to the floor.
100% cyberLN
This is what makes me sick as a male myself, "we can't control ourselves" that's a bullshit excuse!
How about this one I lust after a lot of people yet I am married? I also lust for my wife! Here is the problem that I see, why is it bad if you lust after someone who is married? I will not act on this, but to pretend like you are not attracted to someone is a lie and also a sin right breezy? Lust is a natural human tendency, just because we put rings on and said an I do, does not mean that we no longer find others attractive, imagine them in sexual acts with us. Why is it wrong to think? Why is it ok to lie? My wife loves me from what she says, yet I have no issue that when she watches magic mike she gets sexually aroused and lusts after the guys in the movie. I feel mast people would rather be lied to then face the truth!
I mentioned earlier how "lusting after your wife" isn't a phrase people use no matter how attracted they are to her. Yet, since it is possible to sexually assault your own wife, I'll grant it is also possible to lust after her, but again, that is not generally seen as a good thing.
I do want to ask you something else, putting aside the negative connotations. When you say you lust after a lot of people, is it in the same way that you lust for your wife? Or is there a distinction?
I do agree that lust, even the negative kind, is a natural human tendency. Lying is also natural. Laziness. Anger. Hate. Even homicidal thoughts are natural. But are you familiar with the naturalistic fallacy?
John, you wrote, “I mentioned earlier how "lusting after your wife" isn't a phrase people use no matter how attracted they are to her. ”
I’m calling BS on that. It’s a sweeping statement that I’d bet you cannot back up.
You also assert the lusting after one’s partner is not generally seen as a good thing. Perhaps that is the case for you, but it is certainly not the case for me. Additionally, to assert what is “generally seen” would put an onus of proof on you to provide.
Laziness is natural? Interesting. Upon what data do you base that? You also mention that anger is natural. Are you suggesting that anger is wrong? I’ll not go on, hopefully you get the picture.
You, as well as everyone else on the planet, sees the world, so to speak, through their own set of eyes. You arguing that their use of the word lust describes a negative thing is simply, IMO, self righteous.
First of all, I don't equate natural with correctness, since I view all of human behavior, from the most deranged to the most admirable, as natural.
Secondly, are you familiar with nobel laureate Richard Thaler? Most of his work hinges on the idea that people are lazy, that if you want people to do something, you have to make it easy, nudging them down the path of least resistance. For example, automatically signing people up for something, like emails, which they then have to go unsubscribe to.
Anger is not wrong, except for where it leads to wrong behavior. Just like attraction is not wrong, except for where it leads to lust and other inappropriate behavior. If you want technicality, the amygdala is in charge for the feeling of anger, and the frontal cortex is in charge with suppression of anger. You can look at the brains of convicted murderers, and see that prefrontal activity is typically lower, whereas the amygdala is usually higher.
If you think I'm self-righteous for the way I describe lust, so be it lol. Not my problem.
"Just like attraction is not wrong, except for where it leads to lust"
Well lust is a physical attraction to another. Also why is it wrong to experience a sexual desire for someone, as long as you exhibit self control? This seems like words games to me. Ex[plain to me why lust is wrong with recourse to anything but supernatural like "sin"?
Read over all my comments again.
No point, you have not shown any objective reason why is it wrong to experience a sexual desire for someone, as long as you exhibit self control?
Read my comments again.
No need, as I said you have not shown any objective reason why is it wrong to experience a sexual desire for someone, as long as you exhibit self control. thus there is nothing wrong with lust, only how we react to it.
Suit yourself.
BYB, you wrote, “...I have no issue that when she watches magic mike she gets sexually aroused and lusts after the guys in the movie.”
Spoken like a well-grounded, sane, and self-assured individual! :)
Thank you cyberLN
I cannot tell you how many guys try to justify porn to their wife's yet freak out at the thought of her watching porn as well.
I'm always intrigued by the elaborate dress codes imposed on female VIPs for meetings with popes, Islamic leaders, etc. It's as if the sight of a woman's hair or knees or bare arms might cause the old farts to lapse into incontrollable lust. And of course, that would be the woman's fault.
All you beautiful ladies are just instruments of Satan!
When I use lust it means a strong sexual attraction, are you familiar with sexual attraction? Yes I am aware of naturalistic fallacy yet I feel there is no issue with sex. I will also add as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. Look I do not know how you view sex, but as I have said before I see no issue with looking thinking and if both sides are wanting and willing then acting. If you act know that you are breaking a promise that could or could not hurt the other in your own relationship. And breezy before you answer look into the Bible and see if god ever allowed more than one woman for a man?... I personally feel like this should go both ways, so if a woman wanted multiple husbands then that's fine. As long as there is an open line of communication why can't married people express sexual desires with others to their spouse?
Oh and to directly answer your question yes I lust for my wife like I lust for others, the difference is with my wife I act on said lust and with others it's just thoughts. Yet if I was single I would act as long as the other party wanted to act as well.
"I will also add as long as it doesn't hurt someone else."
Do you feel that way about peeping toms? What about child pornography? You can argue there is harm behind the camera, but surely looking at it adds no more harm. Better yet, do you feel that way about sex dolls made to look like children? These dolls don't hurt anyone, yet the thought alone is distasteful.
Lastly, about lusting after other women the way you lust after your wife. Do you think those woman would feel comfortable if you divulged that information? You do not need to touch a woman to make them feel sexually harassed. I've asked my friends before if they can tell when a guy is checking them out, and they've said yes, and that it makes them uncomfortable. I keep telling you there is a fine line between attraction and lust. I don't know why you want to blur the lines.
Answer my questions instead of avoiding them sir
The idea of children is an entirely different issue
Also to answer your question about peeping toms and you are not looking at a woman who is dressed a certain way you are now invading her privacy totally different subject
This is the big issue I have with Christians and you continually avoid the actual question or subject at hand and bring in a totally Nother subject that has nothing to do with what we're talking about if you want to talk about what we are then you'll answer my questions if you do not want to talk about it then you will bring up a random scenarios that have nothing to do with it
"Do you feel that way about peeping toms? What about child pornography? You can argue there is harm behind the camera, but surely looking at it adds no more harm."
You're describing pernicious desires, these are not harmless by definition. Lust is the sexual attraction, being a peeping Tom is what someone chooses to do with it. Child pornography victimises children in the most damaging and abhorrent way.
John, do you think that pastor is correct?
No, I mentioned earlier we are all accountable for our own thoughts and emotions and are not to blame others for it.
I would like you to answer my previous post... but I ask you this as well:
What do feel is wrong with lust if we define it as a strong sexual desire or attraction to another?
Pages