I believe that lust has received bad press in recent centuries; this is in sync with the highly sexualized character of our contemporary culture. Sex has lost its public shamefulness and, in the name of moral progressiveness, its social boundaries no longer exist, and overt sexuality now drives much of our entertainment, advertising, and cultural conservation. How is lust to be separated from all of these?
Let us go back in time to the ancient world. The compiling of the seven deadly sins was where lust faced its first opposition. Alongside lust, we have pride, greed, envy, gluttony, anger, and slot. These deadly sins, especially lust, met their pernicious opponent in Christendom; the seven heavenly virtues and temperance limits lust. The Stoic philosophers fanned this flame of hurt for lust with the motto “nothing for pleasure sake.” This directed moral scrutiny to sexual pleasure itself, not just to what might be considered excess. However, there are numerous thoughts on the subject of lust. The great Philosopher, Socrates, believed that sexual desire is the first step towards righteousness. In Plato’s dialogue, the symposium, Socrates recalls the teaching of the priestess Diotima of Mantinea, who said the desire for one man’s body is the first step towards true-body appreciation. Therefore it is a means to appreciating the abstract idea. The ideology is based on the notion that individuals follow a rational chain of thought. From admiring the physical beauty of the one you desire, you can appreciate the beauty in others since humanity is composed of the same type of matter in different proportions. Then one can move to the beauty lying beyond appearances, the beauty in wisdom, knowledge, and beautiful minds, even if they happen to dwell in bodies that are not so attractive. The last step is to come to appreciate beauty itself. This form of beauty comes with the moral qualities of goodness. Hence from lust, one can come to the verifiable knowledge of beauty. Socrates makes us see that to advance the higher understanding of beauty, one must start from the basis, which is lust, hence the importance of lust.
Read – Worry About the Inside Not the Outside – An Article by Luqmaan Rawat, South Africa
Catholicism, the oldest Christian religion, considers lust as a disordered desire for sexual pleasure, where sexual pleasure is “sought for itself, and isolated from its procreative and unity purpose.” It is quick to point out that sexual desire on its own is good and is considered part of God’s plan for humanity. The Christian faith has a different view of the thought of lust. Sin is an act but proceeds from thought. Sexual desire, as thought, is necessary according to Christianity, but seeking sexual pleasure for its end is considered a sin. A modern philosopher, Blackburn from Oxford University, defines lust as “the enthusiastic desire that infuses the body, for sexual activity and its pleasure for their own sake.” This definition considers several terms like enthusiasm, desire, sexual activity, and pleasure but emphasizes sexual pleasure for its own sake. What is clear from both the Christian and Blackburn definitions is that, in our world today, lust has been represented as the elevation of sexual desire stripped of moral context and boundaries.
At what point is the line drawn? Is it in lust itself that the problem lies or in humanity?
Scientific studies have been able to relate sexual desires to hormones in the body, although these studies are complicated because hormones are involved with the interaction of psychological and social factors. These hormones, depending on their level, have been known to control the level of sexual desire. Estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone are high on this list of stimulants for sexual desire. If any varying factors affecting sexual desire, then it should vary from one person to another. That which is considered excess for one might not be for the other, but there is no doubt that there should be a limit.
Augustine, a fourth-century bishop, has influenced Christian schools of thought for centuries on sexuality. Due to his personal experience, he denied that sexual pleasure was part of the Creator’s design for human sexuality, but that is very difficult to know without a doubt since there is no knowledge of sexual activity before the fall. Thomas Aquinas, however, says sexuality is both in scripture and found in nature. The unnatural sexual desire is only evident in humans.
Sexual desire for its own sake is desire stripped of its natural purpose and stolen from its moral context. Lust surely need to be discussed further, and the need to be elaborated to understand it in our contemporary world. Its poor name needs to be redeemed because there needs to be sexual desire to carry out the sexual act, but its excess is, to some extent, subjective. However, a redirection needs to be done, to help us see sexual desire as a means to understand beauty itself. Seeking the pleasure of sex should be given a different name since it depends on individual intention. The proper understanding of lust, derived from a secular world where sexuality is commonplace, has become blurry. One thing noticeable is that lust has reckoned to take different meanings depending on an individual point of view. Another is lust devoid of moral context human sexuality would be debased lower than that of the animal kingdom. History has made that very clear. In our modern world, there needs to be another look at lust to enhance understanding its place, possibly, a reversal to its meaning by the philosophers of old.
Published in the September 2021 Edition of the WSA Magazine
