18 Dec 04
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI think you and he are saying the same thing. Without the arousal
I think it's a question of definition.
You could consider the pornographic image to be the temptation, and thus arousal would be failure to resist that temptation.
Or, as you say, arousal could be a prerequisite for being faced with real sexual tempation, and also evidence that you have thus far refrained from fully succumbing (I hope that w ...[text shortened]... o temptation, since to succumb to the temptation would result in a disappearance of the arousal.
result, the temptation was, well, not tempting.
Or at least that is how I understood what XanthosNZ posted.
Nemesio
18 Dec 04
Originally posted by nemesio
I think you and he are saying the same thing. Without the arousal
result, the temptation was, well, not tempting.
Oh, I hadn't considered that.
I don't think this a proper notion of at least one of 'temptation' and 'sinful arousal'. Temptation must be something that one can either overcome or give in to. If all temptations yielded arousals by definition, then it wouldn't be a fair game.
That is, the definitions we choose to analyze this subject should be such that one can both encounter a sexual temptation and fail to get aroused by it. Otherwise, it makes no sense to ask if arousal is a sin, for even an accidental glimpse at the wrong picture might thereby be sinful.
18 Dec 04
nemesio is right. Without arousal what is there to be tempted with? And what's so sinful about being aroused anyway? Mostly it's just our culture saying so. All I remember from religion was "not giving in to the sins of the flesh" I took that to mean giving in to arousal not having it in the first place.
18 Dec 04
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZI don't think you two are understanding each other.
nemesio is right.
I think Nemesio thinks that you are saying that if a sexual stimulus doesn't arouse you, it should not count as a temptation. Here, the sinfulness of arousal is in question.
I think that you are saying that if you are not in a state of arousal, you have no risk of acting on any sexual temptation. To be blunt, you're saying that if you're not hard, you have no risk of putting your member anywhere it doesn't belong. Here, the sinfulness of acting on your arousal is in question.
18 Dec 04
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI'm not so sure, Doc. At least, I'm not sure you understood me
I don't think this a proper notion of at least one of 'temptation' and 'sinful arousal'. Temptation must be something that one can either overcome or give in to. If all temptations yielded arousals by definition, then it wouldn't be a fair game.
That is, the definitions we choose to analyze this subject should be such that one can both enco ...[text shortened]... f arousal is a sin, for even an accidental glimpse at the wrong picture might thereby be sinful.
(or my understanding of XanthosNZ).
For example: I do not drink, at all. This is not morally motivated
(i.e., I do not believe that alcohol is intrinsically immoral). It's
just that my personality is such that the comsumption of alcohol
appears to have no worthwhile benefit, but the avoidance of it
does. (This is from my perspective, of course, and I am not making
a moral judgment upon those who do drink.)
As a result, when someone offers me a beer, there is no arousal (it
is met with disinterest) and thus no temptation. It simply does not
occur to me to drink the beer.
If an adult were a eunich from a prepubescent age (that is, with no
sexual reflex), then pornography would have no effect upon the person.
He would not be aroused by the sexuality displayed, and as a result there
would be no temptation to either seek it out for the purposes of becoming
aroused. Nor would the accidental exposure to such material result in
subsequent temptation, such as masturbation.
Temptation needs arousal in order to have teeth, I think.
Nemesio
18 Dec 04
2 edits
Originally posted by nemesioBut if we choose a definition of temptation that logically entails arousal, the only way to avoid the sin of arousal is to never encounter the temptation. Under your definition I could force you to sin, provided you are regularly around by sexual images but willfully avoid them in order to avoid sin, by pinning your eyeballs upon and thrusting such an image before you. I have circumvented your free will, but the sin remains upon your account, for you are the one aroused, such arousal following logically from the temptation.
Temptation needs arousal in order to have teeth, I think.
Nemesio
18 Dec 04
Originally posted by kirksey957Theist perspective, as best as I can guess it:
Along the lines of another thread on alcoholism: sin or disease, I will open up this thread and we will see what happens. To the theists on the site, I pose the question to you: "Do feelings of arousal (notice I did not use the term lust) come from God or the Devil?"
Once upon a time, just about all churches deemed sexual gratification
with sin. It is suggested by St Paul in a number of places. By
extension, arousal, which is directly associated with sexual gratification
was also deemed the product of the devil.
In recent times, churches have largely rescinded this point of view;
sexual gratification in the 'proper' context is a gift from God, but
like all gifts from God it can be abused. Typically such abuse is
defined as sexual gratification that occurs outside the context of
a marriage between a man and woman (and, in some cases, that
gratification should only take place in, shall we say, traditional,
um, positions).
By extension, arousal should only take place in that context as
well. Sexual gratification is considered just one part of a 'holy
union,' the most powerful expression of love between husband
and wife. So, looking a naked pictures of your wife and becoming
aroused is not out of that 'holy union,' but out of lust and is
therefore bad.
So arousal in and of itself is not intrinsically evil, but the context
in which it comes up is what qualifies it. Arousal is a part of that
gift from God which is given not to be abused. So, 'holy union'
arousal is good and blessed by God, and 'lusty' arousal is bad and
motivated by the temptations of the devil.
So I am led to understand.
Nemesio
18 Dec 04
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI didn't mean to suggest this. I don't think arousal
Here, the sinfulness of arousal is in question.
in and of itself has any moral quality, but the context
in which it occurs.
The existence of temptation rests on the notion of arousal.
If something doesn't excite you, you are going to be
tempted to seek it out or experience it.
Nemesio
18 Dec 04
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI suppose my definition of temptation rests upon the notion
I have circumvented your free will, but the sin remains upon your account, for you are the one aroused, such arousal following logically from the temptation.
that a person's free will is not compromised. For example,
I do not think a married woman commits adultery if she is
sexually assaulted.
Nemesio
18 Dec 04
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI've decided this statement doesn't really make any sense.
I have circumvented your free will, but the sin remains upon your account, for you are the one aroused, such arousal following logically from the temptation.
My dictionary reads:
Tempt:
1. to entice to do wrong by promise of pleasure or gain;
2. to try presumptuously;
3. to risk the dangers of;
4. to induce to do something;
5. to cause to be strongly inclined.
(see 'Lure'😉
These all necessarily involve free will. If you take away
free will, there can't be temptation! It becomes imposed
or forced or some other thing.
Nemesio
18 Dec 04
3 edits
Originally posted by nemesioLet us reexamine the intent of this thread. Kirksey asked whether arousal, which I take to mean either the state of being aroused or the act of becoming aroused, is a sin.
These all necessarily involve free will. If you take away
free will, there can't be temptation!
Your proposed notion of temptation is one that says all temptation yields arousal; if there is no arousal, there was no temptation.
With respect to the question posed by this thread, whether arousal is sinful, your definition is taking away free will, for you are saying that under your notions of temptation and arousal, arousal always follows from tempation.
I argue that since we are debating whether arousal is sinful, the notion of tempation that we agree on to discuss this must be one that allows a person to either give in to the tempation (i.e., become aroused) or not give in to it. Under your notion of temptation, if the person doesn't give in, you would say that it wasn't temptation in the first place, and if the person does give in, I would say he didn't have a choice. In either case, your notion of temptation allows no room for us to discuss whether arousal is sinful; either arousal didn't happen due to a lack of temptation in the first place, or arousal did happen but without the sinner's free will since the temptation logically entailed arousal.
Dr. S
18 Dec 04
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI'm lost with this statment. My concept of temptation is that
Under your notion of temptation, if the person doesn't give in, you would say that it wasn't temptation in the first place, and if the person does give in, I would say he didn't have a choice.
there is always a choice. Temptation was there, they just chose
not to yield to it. I'm not sure why you would say that there wasn't
a choice.
Let's look at a few examples.
1) TMediterranian accidentally sees porn, is not aroused, is not
tempted to self-pleasure, thus does not sin.
2) SirWalter accidentally sees porn, is aroused, is tempted to self-
pleasure, chooses not to do so, thus does not sin.
3) CaptainKirk accidentally sees porn, is aroused, is tempted to
self-pleasure, does so, and thus does sin.
4) KinglyPeacock seeks out porn (in an active desire to become
aroused), succeeds, becomes aroused, is tempted to self-stimulate,
does so, and thus sins twice (once for being succumbing to the
temptation of looking for porn, the second for attending to his
arousal as a result of sin #1).
And, of course, my example above of someone who is assaulted
where choice is taken out, is obviously not a sin.
Nemesio
18 Dec 04
1 edit
I am curious as to why you did not participate in the thread on "Arousal" as it seems a perfect opportunity for you to discuss what you said in your post.
Don't know. The topic simply doesn't interest me. I will add one comment however, perhaps it may strike a cord with certain individuals.
I once (as a teenager) liked a girl . (well many to be honest), but this particular girl instead of causing me to be extra excited, cause my sex drive to be quite the opposite. The emotions I felt for this girl were synonomous with feelings of companionship (instead of sexual lust), they actually overrode my sex drive. Hug, cuddle, holding hands, kisses ect. Infact, no thoughts of sex were associated with my feelings towards her. I believe this to be what many refer to as 'being in love'.
The opposite I believe we all know. It is thrown at us everyday in magazines, tv adds, mtv, when out clubbing. This is the stuff masterbation is catered for. That I refer to as 'lust'. It is also a very powerfull emotion. It is however the type of emotion that one will get saturated from, an emotion that deminishes over time. Scoring with a supermodel may be highly enjoyable, but in the long run it will become boring. No relationship can last on lust.
Simply put my advice to any young lady would be that if they want to get a long term boyfriend, the penis is not the best place to start.