Arousal: Does it Equate Lust?

Here’s a thing that confuses the heck out of me: in order to lust, one must intend to do so. However, arousal seems uncontrollable.

So I’m filling somebody’s car at work, and a person who looked attractive came. I was determined not to lust, so I drove any impure thoughts out. However, at one point I got rather aroused, but I feel I did not intend it because I did not want to lust.

I assume that I did not sin, but I just don’t understand where arousal fits into lust. :confused:

No. I read this on Feser’s blog recently

Aquinas provides illuminating guidance on our subject in his discussion in the Summa Theologiae of the eight “daughters” or effects of lust. Keep in mind that “lust,” when used pejoratively by Aquinas and other natural law theorists and moral theologians, does not mean “sexual arousal.” There is nothing wrong with sexual arousal, even intense sexual arousal, in itself. Rather, “lust” is used in natural law theory and moral theology as a technical term for sexual desire that is in some way disordered…

Arousal is a physical phenomenon. Lust is an act of the will. It is possible for arousal to occur without you willing it, but simply due to natural causes. In the circumstance you described, it seems to be that you distinctly did NOT choose lustful thoughts, so you didn’t lust.

Thanks for the replies! I did not know that bit about arousal. I always thought it went hand in hand with lust. Thanks for clearing that up! :thumbsup:

An unmarried person is not to* consent *to such if it occurs out of the blue…

Turn to some other good thing…

Ones confessor can guide one.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit