Is it Lust to annouce what attracts you to women?


#1

Hello, I'm 15 and I was talking to my friends and as we are teenagers somebody started the conversation on girls.
And they asked me what attracted me more to women their breasts or Bottom, I answered the question with a bit of both, but then followed to say that it is more the personality of the women/girl that attracts me to her not so much with her looks.

But now I have thought about it by answering that question with an answer based on physical looks is that Lust? I truly do feel it is more about what is underneath the skin which is right but by answering what physical aspect I prefer is that considered Lust?

I must add that I do not fantasize or desire any women due to these physical aspects but I am just kinda stressing in case I have committed Lust?


#2

[quote="Blackspur7, post:1, topic:319162"]
Hello, I'm 15 and I was talking to my friends and as we are teenagers somebody started the conversation on girls.
And they asked me what attracted me more to women their breasts or Bottom, I answered the question with a bit of both, but then followed to say that it is more the personality of the women/girl that attracts me to her not so much with her looks.

But now I have thought about it by answering that question with an answer based on physical looks is that Lust? I truly do feel it is more about what is underneath the skin which is right but by answering what physical aspect I prefer is that considered Lust?

I must add that I do not fantasize or desire any women due to these physical aspects but I am just kinda stressing in case I have committed Lust?

[/quote]

Yes, that was a lewd conversation, and likely quite sinful. To be asking such a question would be basically asking, "What part of her body arouses you more, body part A or body part B?" This is objectifying the girls to things to be enjoyed and used instead of persons to be respected and loved.

The personality of a girl or woman should be, in my opinion, the deciding factor in looking upon them as a potential spouse. Their beauty, of course, is a definite bonus, and God put it there to be appreciated as beauty, but it should not be the entire purpose of a friendship/marriage.


#3

[quote="Blackspur7, post:1, topic:319162"]
Hello, I'm 15 and I was talking to my friends and as we are teenagers somebody started the conversation on girls.
And they asked me what attracted me more to women their breasts or Bottom, I answered the question with a bit of both, but then followed to say that it is more the personality of the women/girl that attracts me to her not so much with her looks.

But now I have thought about it by answering that question with an answer based on physical looks is that Lust? I truly do feel it is more about what is underneath the skin which is right but by answering what physical aspect I prefer is that considered Lust?

I must add that I do not fantasize or desire any women due to these physical aspects but I am just kinda stressing in case I have committed Lust?

[/quote]

Physical attraction is different than lust. Acknowledging whether to yourself or someone else, what aspects of a woman are physically attractive is just being honest. Lust is when you desire or are attracted to someone in a disordered way, in other words, when you begin to look at them not as a person but as an object for your pleasure and gratification.

However, that said, this kind of conversation is quite lewd and this way of thining about women, dividing them up into attractive body parts, is very very often lustful. So, while no one here can answer for you whether or not you iin particular where lusting it is not a good idea to encourage such discussions by participating in them as it can ggive the impression that you condone the lustful attitudes that most often accompany such a discussion. I hope that helps. :)


#4

It is not so much lustful as disrespectful to talk about girls/women this way. Many teenage boys do this to try to sound more grownup or adult or to hide their insecurities by demeaning girls.


#5

I used to think like this.

When I was a 15 year old fundamentalist.

I really fail to see how that’s lust. Lust is “the inordinate craving for, or indulgence of, the carnal pleasure which is experienced in the human organs of generation,” according to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

There’s nothing wrong with finding young women’s bodies attractive. “Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love.”

“Behold, you are beautiful, my love,
behold, you are beautiful!
Your eyes are doves
behind your veil.
Your hair is like a flock of goats
leaping down the slopes of Gilead.
Your teeth are like a flock of shorn ewes
that have come up from the washing,
all of which bear twins,
and not one among them has lost its young.
Your lips are like a scarlet thread,
and your mouth is lovely.
Your cheeks are like halves of a pomegranate
behind your veil.
Your neck is like the tower of David,
built in rows of stone;[a]
on it hang a thousand shields,
all of them shields of warriors.
Your two breasts are like two fawns,
twins of a gazelle,
that graze among the lilies.”

Obviously, Solomon was a boob guy, and not a butt man.

When you take these sexual desires and do inappropriate things with them, that is when it becomes lust. It has to be disordered. A 15 year old man finding a woman’s body attractive is not disordered. It’s normal and natural and how babies come about. Having sex with someone not your spouse? Lust. Homosexual behavior? Lust. Contracepted sex? Lust.

A 15 year old acknowledging that he finds women’s buttocks and breasts about equally as appealing? Incorrect (obviously butts are better), but not sinful. It would be sinful, let’s say, if he were having an intentionally erotic and enticing phone conversation with a young woman not his wife about sexual acts they wanted to perform on each other, but really, this is definitely not comparable.

You’ll have to do a much better job of showing me that this sort of thing is disordered.

My opinion, not lust. Innocent conversation about what you find physically attractive in a woman. There’s nothing wrong with finding women physically attractive. Don’t feel guilty. And don’t feel guilty for acknowledging it. As I said about, lust has to be disordered. I don’t see anything disordered about a young man liking young women’s bodies.

As for your comment about personality, King Solomon had this to say: “Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.”

A woman can have a great personality (that’s what he means by charm) and be super hot, but her life choices are far more important.


#6

There's a vitally important dimension missing in this discussion: legs!


#7

[quote="Blackspur7, post:1, topic:319162"]
Hello, I'm 15 and I was talking to my friends and as we are teenagers somebody started the conversation on girls.
And they asked me what attracted me more to women their breasts or Bottom, I answered the question with a bit of both, but then followed to say that it is more the personality of the women/girl that attracts me to her not so much with her looks.

But now I have thought about it by answering that question with an answer based on physical looks is that Lust? I truly do feel it is more about what is underneath the skin which is right but by answering what physical aspect I prefer is that considered Lust?

I must add that I do not fantasize or desire any women due to these physical aspects but I am just kinda stressing in case I have committed Lust?

[/quote]

It sounds like you did a pretty good job of steering the conversation towards what is really important. You acknowledged that you find women attractive (nothing wrong with this), even certain physical aspects that you may prefer (nothing wrong with this per se, but conversation needs to be careful from here), but then emphasised personality as being more important.

I don't see anything lustful or sinful based on what you've described. I wish more 15 years old males thought like you do.


#8

I know that this is a foreign concept to many males, whether age 15 or 51, but the important part of that conversation is not whether it is lustful, but the fact that it should not be taking place at all. To talk about women, or girls, that way is horribly disrespectful. No girl, or woman, who has any self respect would appreciate knowing that male people were talking about her this way. To participate in such a conversation condones this behavior, and encourages it. It is likely that if you can understand this idea at all you could not convince your fellow conversationalists, because intrinsic in our modern society is the notion that there is no higher calling than to be sexually attractive. This is totally wrong in so many ways.

The lustful part is not announcing what physically attracts you to women, but to look at women in terms of their sexual attractiveness. Announcing it just makes it worse.


#9

[quote="RSD, post:8, topic:319162"]
The lustful part is not announcing what physically attracts you to women, but to look at women in terms of their sexual attractiveness. Announcing it just makes it worse.

[/quote]

It's wrong to look at women *only *in terms of their sexual attractiveness. But the OP did not do that. He emphasised personality ahead of physical attractiveness. He set a good example for his friends in doing so.

The bible in various parts talks about the qualities of a good woman/wife, including song of songs as noted above, and yes including physical attributes. Why is it wrong for men to discuss such things, in a respectful manner? And vice versa for women? How can something included in the word of God be considered unsuitable for respectful conversation?


#10

[quote="underacloud, post:9, topic:319162"]
It's wrong to look at women *only *in terms of their sexual attractiveness. But the OP did not do that. He emphasised personality ahead of physical attractiveness. He set a good example for his friends in doing so.

[/quote]

No:

[quote="Blackspur7, post:1, topic:319162"]

And they asked me what attracted me more to women their breasts or Bottom,** I answered the question with a bit of both**, but then followed to say that it is more the personality of the women/girl that attracts me to her not so much with her looks.

[/quote]

He did participate in the objectification a little.


#11

Let's try bolding another part instead...

[quote="Blackspur7, post:1, topic:319162"]
And they asked me what attracted me more to women their breasts or Bottom, I answered the question with a bit of both, but then followed to say that it is more the personality of the women/girl that attracts me to her not so much with her looks.

[/quote]

I don't see any objectification here. He has not reduced women to nothing more than their physical attributes. He has emphasised the importance of personality over the physical.

Was Solomon objectifying a little when he talked about his love's breasts?


#12

I’m not sure what you missed.

This 15 year old said that he said “little bit of both” and then justified himself by saying that he changed the conversation to personality. I laud him for changing the angle of the conversation, but I know 15 year old speak, and since he touched on the point of what he did wrong and then immediately moved on, I know that it wasn’t just a passing remark, he actually said to the group of boys that he was aroused by both the said body parts.

I never said he was wrong in changing the topic to the right direction; I was remarking that he DID participate in the objectifying part of the conversation before he changed it.

Now, if you don’t see that, then I can’t convince you that the sky is blue.


#13

[quote="underacloud, post:11, topic:319162"]
Let's try bolding another part instead...

I don't see any objectification here. He has not reduced women to nothing more than their physical attributes. He has emphasised the importance of personality over the physical.

Was Solomon objectifying a little when he talked about his love's breasts?

[/quote]

Certainly the Song of Songs is meant to be a metaphor. Whether a metaphor is meant to be taken literally is open to question. Even if it is, there is quite a difference between a man saying to his wife, to whom he is already committed in heart, mind and body, "I find this aspect of your body to be attractive" vs. boys talking ABOUT (not with) girls to whom they have no commitment. They are treating the female body as an object for their own pleasure.


#14

[quote="dshix, post:12, topic:319162"]
I'm not sure what you missed.

This 15 year old said that he said "little bit of both" and then justified himself by saying that he changed the conversation to personality. I laud him for changing the angle of the conversation, but I know 15 year old speak, and since he touched on the point of what he did wrong and then immediately moved on, I know that it wasn't just a passing remark, he actually said to the group of boys that he was aroused by both the said body parts.

[/quote]

He did not say "aroused by". He said "attracted". There's a massive difference.

[quote="dshix, post:12, topic:319162"]
Now, if you don't see that, then I can't convince you that the sky is blue.

[/quote]

Let's leave out this sort of condescension please.


#15

[quote="RSD, post:13, topic:319162"]
Certainly the Song of Songs is meant to be a metaphor. Whether a metaphor is meant to be taken literally is open to question. Even if it is, there is quite a difference between a man saying to his wife, to whom he is already committed in heart, mind and body, "I find this aspect of your body to be attractive" vs. boys talking ABOUT (not with) girls to whom they have no commitment. They are treating the female body as an object for their own pleasure.

[/quote]

I can't see how they are treating the female body as an object for their own pleasure here. They are talking about what they find attractive...not what they find arousing or fantasise about or use as fodder to engage in impure thoughts and actions (at least the OP doesn't say as much).

As for Solomon, he is talking *about *his wife as much as he is talking to her, since this is not merely private correspondence but poetry open to a wide audience. Hoes does his focus on a particular body part not objectify his wife? Or are husbands allowed to objectify? (that's rhetorical, of course they are not)

The point being that talking about what is physically attractive in women need not be objectifying. It is when the physical is the sole focus, with no regard to personality, character, virtues, etc, that there is a problem. But the OP did not focus solely on the physical and made a point of emphasising personality.


#16

[quote="underacloud, post:14, topic:319162"]
He did not say "aroused by". He said "attracted". There's a massive difference.

[/quote]

When dealing with a person of this age in this vague a post, it is necessary to draw from personal experience to read between the lines.


#17

Or you could just ask the OP to clarify.

Or you could speak to both and say attraction is OK/natural/God-intended, whereas arousal is lustful.

Either way, you don’t have to presume the worst of the OP and all 15 year old males in general.


#18

[quote="underacloud, post:17, topic:319162"]
Or you could just ask the OP to clarify.

Or you could speak to both and say attraction is OK/natural/God-intended, whereas arousal is lustful.

Either way, you don't have to presume the worst of the OP and all 15 year old males in general.

[/quote]

I did not presume anything, I read his post.

This is a fruitless conversation.


#19

[quote="dshix, post:16, topic:319162"]
When dealing with a person of this age in this vague a post, it is necessary to draw from personal experience to read between the lines.

[/quote]

Hello, when they asked I think my friends where hinting at what part of the body arouses them sexually, I merley answered in the fact that I find those physical aspects attracting but was not answering as what part aroused me. Hence why i diverted the convosation as although I find the physical looks of a women and those aspects mentioned attracting, I much prefer a women to have a nice persoanlity as beauty isn't only skin deep.

To clarify they was talking about arousal, i answered with attraction. I must also add is I did not bring this convosation up, in hindsight I know I should of answered personality first but when I mentioned those physical aspects that was what attracts me to a women in physical beauty, not what aroses me.

Hope this helps you.


#20

[quote="Blackspur7, post:19, topic:319162"]
Hello, when they asked I think my friends where hinting at what part of the body arouses them sexually, I merley answered in the fact that I find those physical aspects attracting but was not answering as what part aroused me. Hence why i diverted the convosation as although I find the physical looks of a women and those aspects mentioned attracting, I much prefer a women to have a nice persoanlity as beauty isn't only skin deep.

To clarify they was talking about arousal, i answered with attraction. I must also add is I did not bring this convosation up, in hindsight I know I should of answered personality first but when I mentioned those physical aspects that was what attracts me to a women in physical beauty, not what aroses me.

Hope this helps you.

[/quote]

Honestly, it really doesn't sound to me like you were lusting or participating in lust. And the fact that you tried to redirect them to personality is great because that would be a sign to them that you don't approve of their apparantly lustful (we can't judge souls) attitudes. So it sounds like you didn't even fall into the category of causing scandal by appearing to approve of lustful attitudes. Yes, it probably would have been even better to simply bring up their personalities, to put even more emphasis on that, but hindsight is always 20-20. Speak with a priest about it if you are still unsure, but to me it does not sound as though you were being lustful. :)


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