Adultery is usually not about the “Lust of the Flesh”

Watched “Casanova” on HBO last night.  Hilarious movie, I enjoyed it very much.

But it brought up a question.  Why do horn-dogs want to have sex with so many women?   For exactly the same reason a dog licks its balls?  Because it can.

No, I don’t mean that men have a lot of sex because they can.  I mean that they seduce many women because they can.  It is not that they need the sex, it is the fact that they can get so many women in bed with them.  The fact of the seduction proves their power.  It is not about lust, it is about pride.

Witness what Not-yet-President Trump said to Billy Bush.

I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. I just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

So, according to our president, the reason that he has committed so much adultery is not that his wife is not sexy enough (for sure, Melania Trump is one of the hottest women on the planet) but, rather, that his conquests of women show how famous he is.  It feeds his narcissism.

But porn and erotica is not about pride.  There is nothing about porn that feeds your ego.  It only makes you feel good physically.  Since it is not about the lust of the flesh (Do I really need to explain Cartesian Body-Soul dualism again?) it is simply the acting out of a physical desire, like eating or sleeping.


Lust and Sexual Arousal are not the same thing

Lust and Love are not opposites
This is a nonsense question. What if it is simply lawful desire

It frustrates me to see Christians and Pornographers agree on a complete lie.  Sexual arousal is not LUST.   It’s just desire.  If I see a good looking woman and get a woody, I have not lusted.  The only way for me to lust is if I make plans (or wish that I could make plans ) to get in her pants.

The comedian Bill Burr does a great job with this on one of his Netflix specials.  He talks about how Tiger Wood and Arnold Schwarzenegger were attacked because they cheated on their wives.   He makes it clear that the difference between Tiger and Arnold and the men attacking them was access.  Many of the men attacking them would be committing adultery also if any woman wanted them.  I agree.

Just because you haven’t committed adultery doesn’t mean that you haven’t lusted.   If you want to commit adultery, if you make plans to have sex with other women – or if you WOULD make plans if you didn’t know that you would get caught – then you are lusting.

But the mere fact of physical arousal at the sight of a woman is not lust.  Looking at Sports Illustrated Swimsuit addition is not lust, even if you get hard.  Watching Daenarys Stormborn and liking her breasts (hubba, hubba, they are really great!) is not lust

Thank you God for letting me see those babies
I am not trying to get in bed with Emilia Clarke.  I don’t want to have an affair with her.  I wouldn’t do so even if my wife gave me a “pass.”    I am not lusting.  But, yes, I have definitely had some orgasms while looking.

The error of equating arousal and lust is an old heresy called “Cartesian mind-body dualism.”  (Wikipedia link here)  It is the belief that God is in the realm of the spirit and sin is in the realm of the flesh or body.  This is a heresy that all mainstream Christian leaders know to avoid, yet for some reason, when it comes to physical arousal, they forget all of their Seminary lessons.  (Maybe because they are thinking with their balls instead of their brains).