Sexual Arousal An Occasion Of Sin

[Poorly Catechized Convert]

I want to say ahead of time that I'm sorry if this question isn't appropriate. I need to ask, so I had to try posting; anyway, similar topics have been discussed, so I'm assuming it's fine.

So I often hear that if you're in a situation that cuases arousal you should try to get out of it and/or avoid it in the future. Is this always that case? Would arousal always indicate and occasion of sin? Is this because it may be enjoyed or because it could lead to sexual thoughts? I ask because I often have it happen, but I never have a sexual thought or the temptation to engage in one. Even if the situation indicated an occasion of sin, it would affect me in the same way as a purely random one. So how should I interpenetrat this situation?

Again, I'm sorry if this lost wasn't an appropriate discussion topic.

[puellapaschalis]

I'll preface this by saying that I'm a woman. I've heard that women and men deal with arousal differently, physiologically, so ymmv.

 

Years back I learnt of the practice of very slowly reciting three Hail Marys (at night) for purity. When I find myself in that kind of situation, I'll try to pray at least one. On a practical level this gives me time to figure out what any stimulus might be, or what exactly it is about the place/time/circumstances I'm in which is dangerous, and then I get out of there and do something else.

 

From what I understand, arousal itself is not a sin: it's something your body does, a feeling you have, and like all feelings and sensations, you can learn to be detached from it and just let it pass by without acting on it. Arousal is not something you do.

 

The body uses arousal to ready itself for sex. So acting upon arousal unless with your husband/wife in the proper way (masturbation, fornication, e.g.), would be sinful, as that would be acting on temptation.

 

Similarly, because arousal is geared towards sex, deliberately doing something to cause arousal (reading saucy novels, perhaps some films, noticing someone you see and letting your imagination run, e.g.) would also be sinful. That would be putting yourself or someone else in a position of temptation.

 

Everyone's threshold is different in terms of what they can be aroused by, and what they can 'resist'. It is nonetheless good to be prudent and avoid situations when you can tell beforehand that there's a likely chance you or others will be brought into temptation by it.

 

The best way of strengthening yourself against temptation - any temptation, not just sexual - is to flee it, rather than take it on. Staying close to the Sacraments, holy reading (not saying you can't read anything else though), daily Rosary - these are some things that enable to withstand the garbage.

 

Hope this helps a little. I'm not an expert, just someone who's been there.

[Catherine Therese]

Q. Where does the sin reside?
A. Being aroused briefly without choosing to be so is not sinful at all. If you choose to indulge in whatever caused the arousal or to allow it to perpetuate, then it becomes sinful. The sexual faculty is ordered towards expressing marital love in a manner that is open to life. Deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside of a married context is an ABuse of a gift from God that is an integral part of you. So it is not only a sin against God, but it is actually an offence against your very self. You might not THINK you're doing yourself any harm, but your innermost being is damaged by the mis-application of your will.

Q. What can you do in a situation where you find yourself inadvertently aroused?

A. I agree with Puella that flight is better than fight on this type of issue.

Recommend having half a dozen or so fantastic movies that DONT contain content that causes arousal on standby. If you find that you're allowing either arousal or imagination to run away with you, a good movie is instant distraction.

Maybe have a handful of other things to do up your sleeve so that you can distract yourself right away if you're not necessarily in a place where you can watch a movie.

I also agree that filling your mind with good and holy material in the meantime is a helpful, healthy thing - but if you're in the MIDST of temptation, a slightly more lowbrow solution is probably going to be more effective in the first instance. And when you're past that temptation, give thanks to Him, because it is a victory won in Him for His sake!

[marigold]

I'll preface this by saying that I'm a woman. I've heard that women and men deal with arousal differently, physiologically, so ymmv.

Years back I learnt of the practice of very slowly reciting three Hail Marys (at night) for purity. When I find myself in that kind of situation, I'll try to pray at least one. On a practical level this gives me time to figure out what any stimulus might be, or what exactly it is about the place/time/circumstances I'm in which is dangerous, and then I get out of there and do something else.

From what I understand, arousal itself is not a sin: it's something your body does, a feeling you have, and like all feelings and sensations, you can learn to be detached from it and just let it pass by without acting on it. Arousal is not something you do.

The body uses arousal to ready itself for sex. So acting upon arousal unless with your husband/wife in the proper way (masturbation, fornication, e.g.), would be sinful, as that would be acting on temptation.

Similarly, because arousal is geared towards sex, deliberately doing something to cause arousal (reading saucy novels, perhaps some films, noticing someone you see and letting your imagination run, e.g.) would also be sinful. That would be putting yourself or someone else in a position of temptation.

Everyone's threshold is different in terms of what they can be aroused by, and what they can 'resist'. It is nonetheless good to be prudent and avoid situations when you can tell beforehand that there's a likely chance you or others will be brought into temptation by it.

The best way of strengthening yourself against temptation - any temptation, not just sexual - is to flee it, rather than take it on. Staying close to the Sacraments, holy reading (not saying you can't read anything else though), daily Rosary - these are some things that enable to withstand the garbage.

Hope this helps a little. I'm not an expert, just someone who's been there.

Said arousal so many times it's stopped looking like a word. Otherwise good.

[puellapaschalis]

Said arousal so many times it's stopped looking like a word. Otherwise good.

 

Will try better next time. Where's my thesaurus....

[Poorly Catechized Convert]

Thanks for the replies! :) I don't really have any further questions. Thanks again.

[John Ryan]

It seems to me that spontaneous sexual arousal is natural and makes the world a much more beautiful place.

[Credo in Deum]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Sexual arousal is morally neutral in itself. To pursue sexual arousal outside the context of intercourse is a sin (a mortal one, actually).

 

Here's a blog post that touches on the subject in a specific scenario: http://taylormarshall.com/2010/11/is-french-kissing-mortal-sin-pope.html

 

Of course, a person might be in a situation where they are aroused accidentally, but not pursuing arousal. In this case, yes, it would be an occasion of sin for them to continue doing what aroused them. Some people may be hyper-sensative. If hand-holding arouses you, I'd recommend praying - in that moment - for the person you're with and otherwise not stressing it. Obviously, that doesn't apply to everything. There are some things that, unlike hand-holding, are naturally arousing. You shouldn't be doing those things outside the context of intercourse.

 

We always need to remember that occasions of sin differ from one person to another. If you put me in an empty building with a lighter and a gas can, I won't sin. An arsonist would. Humbly knowing yourself will do a lot.

[Poorly Catechized Convert]

Ok. Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Poorly Catechized Convert

[Catherine Therese]

It seems to me that spontaneous sexual arousal is natural and makes the world a much more beautiful place.

I'd agree with that, when it only WILFULLY occurs within the context to which it is ordered.

If outside the context of marital love, and if the will, intellect and imagination are all brought into the equation to deliberately prolong the experience, you find yourself in murky waters... that becomes an intellectually driven variation on masturbation, i.e. an abuse of that which is natural and which should be making the world a beautiful place.

[John Ryan]

If outside the context of marital love, and if the will, intellect and imagination are all brought into the equation to deliberately prolong the experience, you find yourself in murky waters... that becomes an intellectually driven variation on masturbation, i.e. an abuse of that which is natural and which should be making the world a beautiful place.

 

I am not sure the concept of masturbation can be extended to the intellect, will or imagination. I think the human race would die out if people did not fantasize about the other sex with their will, intellect and imagination outside of the bonds of marriage. 

[Credo in Deum]

Goodness gracious, this entire thread is an occasion of sin!!

 

I'm out!

 

[Poorly Catechized Convert]

OK, so I'm going to reword somethings to be more clear. First, my purpose in asking was to discern something about mysepf via answers based on Catholic theological explanations. I'm sorry for not mentioning that and that my question didn't convey that. I find this line of conversation awkward and I don't know what to say, but I needed to ask some things.

Next, I want to emphasize something's about my previous post. Despite arousal I've never had sexual temptation or anything close. So I guess I'll ask this: given that, should I treat arousal as an occasion of sin? Using the previous example of hand holding: if I were to do that, I'd probably become aroused. Although, it would have no emotional or mental impact on me. There'd be no fantasies or anything. The only thought would be, "oh no, I hope it doesn't look like I want sex."

Lastly, I want to add another question. How should temptation be identified? I aks because I have never noticed any and I'm 20 and have had a lot of crushes.

[Poorly Catechized Convert]

Please discount that last post-- I think it may be better to ask my confessor about all of these things, despite my embarrassment. Thanks for the replies; I really did appreciate them. I hope no one feels tgat I wasted their time. Now I think it's best to let this thread die. Thanks again.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Poorly Catechized Convert

[cappie]

Quickly, as a confessor............the arousal in and of itself is never a sin....it's your motivation...concupiscence is not a sin, but when it turns to lust, it turns to sin.

[Glory to God]

Yep, All male ob/gyns should read this post. To somehow believe they, doctors of medicine, have conquered lust while our Doctors of the Church struggled till the end. Why do Catholic hospitals allow male ob/gyns?

 

[Lilllabettt]

3 hours ago, Glory to God said:

Yep, All male ob/gyns should read this post. To somehow believe they, doctors of medicine, have conquered lust while our Doctors of the Church struggled till the end. Why do Catholic hospitals allow male ob/gyns?

 

That's rather a weird thing to say.

If you're implying obgyns are turned on by looking at vaginas, I wouldn't worry about that. Although there is a potential for sickos in every profession, which is why my obgyn (a male) never examines patients without a nurse being present - safety for us both. Think about a jeweler getting excited by diamond solitaires or a pastry chef getting excited to make a batch of jelly donuts... its another day at the office for them. Another hour, another vagina. When you spend all day trying to solve vagina problems and considering whether this, the 45th vagina of the week, is presenting normally or abnormally ... the sexual charge is lost. Then there is the other chunk of things obgyns do day after day, which is deliver human bowling balls thru the vagina.  For normal people this is not a sexually titillating "view" in the least.

It's a bit like these uncontacted tribes that have their women walking around with breasts hanging out. In their culture women's breasts have no sexual charge and they aren't arousing to men within that culture, they are just a part of the furniture.

I personally prefer having a male obgyn. They seem to take my concerns more seriously. Or, I know how to manipulate them better   My obgyn isn't Catholic either. I know my faith and I don't have any issues being pushed around.

[Glory to God]

Most of those bare breasted tribes practice sexual promiscuity. Is porn not addictive? You think the more a man is stimulated, the less he enjoys? On the past, christian societies have put to death men other than husbands entering the birthing chamber. Let's look at the high morels of modern medicine. Birth control, ivf, abortion, pelvic exams by students while patients are under anastisia- without consent! The last on is legally rape of the 1st degree, and these med students do it 20 to 60 times! Serial rapists! Read what the Doctors of the Church say about lust and how to avoid it. No mention about going to med school. Honestly, women have a hard time understanding the male drive in regards to lust. Many reputable articles on the med student pelvic exams without consent. You should also look up the FBI's legal definition of rape. 

 Before women had the majority role for doctors on ob/gyn, men made women have pelvics for yeast infections, annual paps, ect. Doctor chat sites comment on fighting their urges. They are just men. My urologist was a truck driver before he went to school, still the same guy. One study showed attractive patients had more scheduled male gyno visits than there other patients. Our own church tells us this; unlike the other deadly sins, lust cannot be battled with a counter virtue. The only way a soul may survive is to flee and ray to the mother of God. Even the greatest of saints would flee such temptations that the ob/gyn schedules.

 

 

[Lilllabettt]

1 hour ago, Glory to God said:

Most of those bare breasted tribes practice sexual promiscuity. Is porn not addictive? You think the more a man is stimulated, the less he enjoys? On the past, christian societies have put to death men other than husbands entering the birthing chamber. Let's look at the high morels of modern medicine. Birth control, ivf, abortion, pelvic exams by students while patients are under anastisia- without consent! The last on is legally rape of the 1st degree, and these med students do it 20 to 60 times! Serial rapists! Read what the Doctors of the Church say about lust and how to avoid it. No mention about going to med school. Honestly, women have a hard time understanding the male drive in regards to lust. Many reputable articles on the med student pelvic exams without consent. You should also look up the FBI's legal definition of rape. 

 Before women had the majority role for doctors on ob/gyn, men made women have pelvics for yeast infections, annual paps, ect. Doctor chat sites comment on fighting their urges. They are just men. My urologist was a truck driver before he went to school, still the same guy. One study showed attractive patients had more scheduled male gyno visits than there other patients. Our own church tells us this; unlike the other deadly sins, lust cannot be battled with a counter virtue. The only way a soul may survive is to flee and ray to the mother of God. Even the greatest of saints would flee such temptations that the ob/gyn schedules.

 

 

I will explain about the tribes once and then let it go, since I think you may be of a type that is not open to new information. Women's breasts are not sex organs. They are sexually erogenous zones, like the neck or ear.  In western society, women's breasts are sexually titillating because we as a society treat them as "private parts" which are revealed only during the sex act.  In our society they are thus immodest to reveal.  In societies in which human female breasts are seen as equivalent to cow utters - an organ with a childcare function - they do not have a role in developing sex norms you describe as "promiscuous." They attract the fascination and interest of children - not grown men. Interest in women's breasts is considered childish and unmasculine. Women in these very hot and primitive tribal environments nevertheless devise the means to cover their actual sex organs - their genitalia.

On to male obgyns...

It is true there is a long shameful history in medicine of physicians, and surgeons especially, performing procedures without a patient's consent. I am thinking of tubal ligation especially. A doctor - obgyn or not, male or not, has the opportunity to violate patients, especially when they are unconscious. In the recent past, western medicine had a paternalistic perspective on lay people overall and women especially. Doctors would not tell a patient if they had a terminal diagnosis, for example.  Physicians in the east - China, Japan, etc. still act this way.

While one might hope to avoid paternalism by opting for female doctors, I have not found this to be the case. Rather, female obgyns may have a gender-informed paternalism; with female doctors I have encountered the idea that as females with medical education they can "know" my experience better even than myself. Whereas in my experience, with male physicians there is some respect and reverence for the mystery of what being female is.  This is anecdotal but my point is, you cannot find safety from either perversion or paternalistic medicine by seeing a female physician. 

Lastly, to answer your question about Catholic hospitals. Patients may legally discriminate against doctors for racial reasons, gender reasons, whatever. Catholic hospitals really cannot express a prejudice against black doctors, male doctors, in whatever sub-specialty. Although in both popular culture and in traditionalist Catholic circles there is sometimes an unspoken assumption that males are more apt to commit sins re: concupiscence, there is no justification for this prejudice in the deposit of our faith. Therefore catholic hospitals cannot express prejudice against male obgyns on religious grounds.  Islamic religion on the other hand, does have this type of prejudice baked in (one of the reasons Islamic women in say, Saudi Arabia, are not permitted to even sit at a table with a man they are not related to.)
 

 

Edited November 17, 2020 by Lilllabettt