What is Lust?

Sex is never dormant. Yet as the days get hotter and more clothes are either shed or even denied access to tantalizing flesh, sex becomes more of a focus. Admittedly, a string bikini can be sighted on any day of the year in any media, but from April onwards the sight becomes a hell of a lot more realistic. (Watching, say, "Bikini Island" in the dead of winter may be fun and dream-inspiring, but watching it in the summer adds a dimension of reality to those dreams.) And, hot damn, our culture does love women in string bikinis, or any other derivative. Or, rather, it just loves the women who willingly objectify themselves in order to perpetuate the notion that the female is sex and nothing else. A jump? Maybe, but bear with me.

Our culture has two basic assumptions that are yet again laid bare by the oncoming season of bare flesh. The first is, as mentioned above, women are sex. The second is the startling (perhaps even defendable) belief that men are uncontrollable sex fiends.

Needless to say, these two assumptions are the source of the incredible lack of right and true communication about sex in our society and in the Church.

Women are sex. While how this assumption is incorrect is completely obvious, let's just state the obvious. We are sexual creatures. Women are sexual creatures. As are men. Yet we are not exclusively sexual. Sex defines us, yet it does not equate us. So, disproving that was pretty easy. High-fives all around. But why does our world view women as sexual objects and why, in an unbelievable correlation, does society then refuse women their sexuality?

I'm only retreading new ground here, so this is all assuredly mundane. These are complex questions which have been explored ad infinitum. However, there is one simple way to answer both questions. Women are objectified sexually because they are denied their sexuality, and conversely are denied their sexuality because they are so sexually objectified. Make sense? (If a person's sexuality is not given to them, they more easily fulfill and satisfy the sexual demands of others. When sexuality and the inherent individuality therein are denied, the sexual identity of those we objectify becomes that of the collective and not the individual.) Our world, but for very few instances, has been ruled by men. And men? Well, they do stupid shit. Especially without the influence of the supposed counter balance, women, and with the absurd encouragement of the supposedly penis loving Bible. Yet even that statement leans upon that men are creatures made dumb by sex. How we can separate and more further explore these assumptions I do not know. However, there can be no doubt these assumptions are inherently intertwined.

Men are sex fiends. Why are men seen as the sex starved animals that use women as objects for their lust, all the while denying women sexual equality? Are men...such? Can a man not look at a woman without lusting over her, taking her in his mind? Have we not based our entire culture on this premise, that man both needs woman for his pleasure and his dominance? I think the answer to that question is an obvious affirmative that finds source in two facets of our society. One, our culture. Who cannot see this affirmation in every billboard, movie, music video, and magazine? I doubt very much that every consumer in the world is either a lesbian or a straight man, either with a raging libido. Yet our media presents itself with the underlying assumption that every target is a 30 year old straight man. Look at the demographics which executives all over the world dream about - it's all about men. The young female demagraphic is a mysterious, hollowed ground. I've heard and read countless stories citing the excitement of capturing the fabled female market. No one knows what women want (except Mel Gibson, of course). Yet all those executives certainly seem to think they know what young men want and need: tits and explosions, with some comedy thrown in. It isn't just the media (and politicians) who haven't a clue about the woman and completely understand the man. The second "Yes" that I see, and in part my influence to write this, emanates from the Church. The Church demands modesty for a variety of reasons. The first, but not chief (we hope), among them is that by dressing modestly, women would not cause men to stumble, or lust. Implicitly, the greatest religious institution on earth acknowledges: "Men are dogs, insatiable whores - and women need to make sure that they curb their inner slut so men can rule the roost without a knobbly thing leading them." I'm paraphrasing of course.

So our world seems to be defined by the fact that men cannot control themselves around women who own their sexuality. Is it right? Does this make sense? Is our entire culture defined by a premise and assumptions that are false?

Every cliche has at its core a truth that has lasted through time. 'tis why there cliches. There is undoubtedly truth to the assumption that men cannot control themselves sexually. Yet what that truth is I don't know. My mind, for the moment or forever, is coloured by too many years of tacitly accepting assumptions. Even now when I have denied those assumptions as truth, I cannot escape what seems to be the truth behind such assumptions. It seems too easy to say, "Of course the assumptions about men are true, we have an entire history of the earth to justify them and damn men." Way too easy to declare the truth behind those assumptions as reason enough for them. But I have even used some of those assumptions in my writing today. As for the truths that may lay behind those assumptions, certainly there are some that pop into my head. Men are more visual than women - the defense for men watching pornography. That's one. But even that is wrapped around and between the assumptions of who and what men and women are in today's culture.

What is lust? That's the question I first wanted to ask and Lust is the driving force of capitalism and the horror of churches. We should be damn well sure of what it is. Both for us as individuals and as a collective.

We all certainly know what lust is, objectively, right? The greedy, proud thing some of us are easily capable of.

Yet, I ask the question about lust because the word has another connotation. Sex has become lust, or lust sex, in the world at large. To the world, sex is lust and it is good! To the Church, sex is lust and it is bad!

We have no idea what sex is. At least, they *he makes a grand gesture of waving his arm in a large semi-circle* don't.

So the world derives most of its business from sex

The church is running scared from sex.

And they don't have a clue as to what sex really is.

There is such an incredible miscommunication about sex and sexuality. We objectify and condone thrusting upon an individual the presumed sexuality of a society, all in one neat little bundle. The only way we can stop this and verify the truth of sexuality is by understanding the truth of ourselves and who we are. Now, personally I would argue that for anyone to truly understand themselves, they must seek God first. Not the most popular sentiment, I'm sure.

However, we still must seek that truth of self. But truth of self will never suffer the indignity of our culture unless acceptance preceedes it. If we can't accept the other, how can we possibly accept the self? (And with such a question follows, how can we find comfort in our own sexuality if another's sexuality, which in large part is a projection of our own, weirds us the hell out?)

There are strictly accepted definitions of femininity and masculinity. The female is motherly, quiet, soft, and placating. The male is courageous, hard, action-orientated, and passionate. Generalities are fine, and even accurate for most men and women as they may fall into those general and ambiguous definitions. Yet a problem arises for two reasons. The first, these gender definitions are strict. The second proceeds from the first. Because such definitions are given no chance to breathe, society at large does not accept anyone who exists outside those definitions. The butch female, the feminine man. These are unacceptable visions of manhood and womanhood in the eyes of the world. Yet these visions inherently deny the complexity of humanity. Men are strong but weak. Women are weak but strong. Men are passionate yet rational. Women are placating yet passionate. We are defined, I would argue, by the hypocrisies of our nature that defy definitions.

The girl will know this well - I call myself a hypocrite by nature. I pray to God I am not the hypocrite Christ damned. Yet I will proudly lay claim to the title of hypocrite if, by the title, all of my complexities, absurdities, and twisting speech are understood not as false things because of inherent (assumed) contradictions, but rather incredibly true things that are inherently human; contradictions and hypocricies that make me more of a real man than I ever could be by "straightening" myself out to common standards.

(I'm not quite sure how to end this, so I just will. I'm also not exactly sure what this is, beyond a simple experiment in thought. So...here it is.)