Well, considering my name is in the thread Subject, I am one of the principal actors in the topic- so I invite you to stay and post without fear of reprisal ForeverHers. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

LOL Suzet: Porn, Religion and Science!? What a formula! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Perhaps you can move it to the General Board? I was about done with the topic of religious debate. I feel it's becoming one-sided and defensive. Feel free to change it if you'd like! He doesn't want to answer any questions I pose, so I'm not getting much out of hearing myself think aloud on a message board!

Before we go on FH, I should save you some time and let you know that passages of rhetorical, religious or political dogma, I skim.

Now, what do I want as proof? This may sound hysterical, but I want proof on digital media. There's enough cameras around to capture miracles, dancing Suns or resurrections. Where's the physical emanations of Gods' influence, people being pushed out of the way of speeding trains or injury-defying falls?

Instead all I see is people jumping from twin towers, blown up in schools, or crushed in tidals waves of garbage. Certainly more disasters than good, enough to not only account for Gods' hand in miracles, but statistical chance as well. Sorry, but until I see a bit more to make me believe... I don't believe in any conscious omnipotent entity.

EndlessHorizons, you can't be serious. You relegate ALL of history prior to "digital media" to the "unproveable and therefore 'false'" with such a ridiculous statement.

I said you were an intellgent man, but maybe I should reconsider that assessment. Let's just look at ONE example that will not meet your "criterion" for "proof;" George Washington. There are NO digital records of 'ol George around, so his "place in history" and the things that he did are "false" and "unproveable" by your standards.

On the other hand, if "digital proof" is what you want, would you take the "digital encoding" of information that is "captured" in our DNA?

Beyond that, you resort to the ridiculous in order to "reject Christ." With no willingness for an honest examination Jesus Christ and an outright rejection of virtually all recognized forms of proof, there is little to discuss with you. You can live in "fantasy land" if that makes you happy, but it certainly does not lend itself to intellectual honesty. It is small wonder to me, then, why you think Porn is okay and that all we have to live for is our own "desires."

By the way, have any 8x10 glossies of "creation by random chance?" How about a digital "snapshot" of a totally new "kind" of animal springing to life? Without such proof I guess we just have to reject evolution as the "way" things got here, especially living things.


EH, why should I answer any questions when you respond to a legitmate request for what you would consider to be proof with such inane drivel?

But I'll give you one answer to start out. The resurrection of Jesus Christ was recorded, his appearances to many people post-resurrection were recorded, and they were recorded in the "digital media" of the day. What makes that "recording" invalid to you?

Yes, EH, I generally find it "impossible" to argue with anyone. Serious discussion is not arguing unless you want to use the generic definition for "argument."

[color:"blue"][/i]"I don't question Mr. Washington because he's not claiming to be reborn, is he!? Ergo, I am NOT relegating ALL history to the same criteria![/"[/i][/color]

Ahhhh...I see now....it's the mere "claim" that you consider unproveable simply because it's a claim that you don't like. Very interesting. So if you happened to be a modern day "flat earther" who claimed that the earth was flat, not round, you would reject the claim of someone claiming to have sailed around the world and found that they world was really round, not flat....simply because you didn't "like" the claim, not because you examined the "proof" that might substantiate that claim. Talk about being ruled by emotions and NOT logic or reason!

However, Jesus didn't claim to be "Reborn" either. He stated that WE (humans) must be reborn of the Spirit, not that we have to "crawl back into the womb and be born by woman a second time." You should know that. So to ascribe such a claim indicates that either you don't know much about the person you choose to reject, or you are deliberately trying to berate and belittle believers in general, and me in specific. So which is it?

Oh ya, I forgot. [color:"blue"]"Ergo, I am NOT relegating ALL history to the same criteria!"[/color]

No. You are just "relegating" ONLY Christ to the whimsical criteria you established, refusing to use the same standards of proof in His case that you'd use for a "toothless wonder" like Georgie. Is that how the "enlightened" mind "investigates" something fairly? Or is it merely another excuse to NOT have to address Jesus because of some fear?



Interesting photo, but it proves little, and it certainly doesn't prove evolution. At best it "proves" the second Law of Thermodynamics.

But, since you are into such things, have you studied the theories of Quantum Mechanics. Very interesting hypothesis that the universe, and all that is in it, came into being by a "bubble" that formed in nothingness. In essence, ex nihilo. Now WHERE might we have heard that long before there were geniuses to think up Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Theory?

If Physics won't do, how about the number 42? THGTTG provided that as the answer to every question in the universe.



Oh come on. Fractals "prove" nothing, and certainly NOT that ANY universe but the one we are in exists. All you are doing is engaging in fantasy speculation sans ANY proof.

I HAVE plated out many bacteria cultures and I can tell you unequivocably, that there is NO other universe than the one the bacteria AND us are in. The bacteria "obey" the laws of THIS universe, not some speculative "other universe."

But once more, all of that is IRRELEVANT to the central question of "Is Jesus Christ who he said he is?"

All you are doing is resorting to "Red Herrings" to avoid the honest evaluation and appraisal of Jesus Christ. In point of fact, if one assumes (or accepts) that Jesus IS God, He could create other universes if he so chose. In fact, there may BE at least one other universe that is eternally separated from this one and from the "original" universe. So there may well be 3 "universes" coexisting right now. Heaven, ******, and our present physical universe. IF you want to "argue" for "other universes," based on fractals or anything else you want, I guess I could give you Heaven and ****** as a point of "agreement."

So let's go back to you request; [color:"blue"]"Where's the physical emanations of Gods' influence"[/color]?

Let me propose ONE "physical emanation of God's influence" would be LIFE itself. Throughout all of biology, one tenet reigns supreme....LIFE begets LIFE. It does NOT spontaneously generate. But the "sticky point" of "origins" of the "first life" is where things pass from "science" into "faith." Rejection of God and the Creative act by volition of a living Creator, leaves only one other alternative, despite ALL evidence to the contrary, life CAN spring into being from "non-life" AND become self-replicating and survivable. NOW who's "living in faith and not reality?"

Yes FH, I know, but it doesn’t prevent me from asking ideas on a possible thread title to accommodate the new discussions - nothing wrong with that! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Horizon, I don’t have any fear of “reprisal” anyone (whatever you mean by that <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />), but since you want me to stay and post, I just want to remind you that I’m still waiting for a response on this post. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Hi!
New to posting here, but not to the subject of porn.
First, let me say that I am married to a man that has finally admitted after 12 years of marriage that he is a porn addict. He finds every opportunity to use it. He has come close to destroying our marriage because of his behavior with it. He is now seeking treatment for it.
You all can have your opinions about the moral issues of if it is right or wrong, or if it is good for a marriage or not. But from where I sit, it can become an addiction just like alcohol and drugs. I have watched it destroy my husbands self-worth.
My husband and I have been at this issue for most of our marriage as our sex life has never been really great. Without going into great detail, let's just say that something was missing when we would make love. I would ask him about it and he would give me some excuse about being tired or whatever. I think I actually knew all along. He had already spent his morning or afternoon looking and masterbating to his porn mags or online. There wasn't anything left for me. He had lied and broken my trust and now has to work really hard to earn that part of our relationship back. His porn use has stolen what should have been intimate and loving time with me. He made the whole act feel cheap for me and like it or not, I am not able to get past it or live with it. He now understands what pain it has caused me and our marriage and is seeking professional help as he doesn't want a divorce.

I would like to ask the men out there, that if you are using this way of arousing yourselves, do you understand that you too could become or are addicted to pornography?

Do you understand that this can cause your wife to lose self-esteem? That you are forfeiting the ability to become aroused by your wife?
The people on those videos, etc. are not your normal looking people. They are airbrushed and usually picked because they have larger assets(ie;breasts, penises) They also will never grow old like your wife will. Her breasts may have fed your children. No one on the screen has any personality or life outside of their actions on the screen.

My last question is, Would you be using porn if you knew that it was your daughter, sister or mother on the screen?
I really don't want to hear what God has to say about this as I am agnostic and do not follow any faith. What I want to hear is that people understand that YES a husband and wife can get divorce over this issue. It is a self satisfying disease.
I still love my husband and am working with him to overcome this. I will stand by him as long as he is seeking help and I expect that there will be relapses. I also have to work on me. I can't picture my life without him in it.

H- 44
Me- 49
Two kids(boys)13 and 11
Married for 12 years
Immature love says: "I love you because I need you." Mature love says: "I need you because I love you."
-- Erich Fromm

Githa, I see this is your first post on this forum. I just want to say, welcome to MBers although I’m sorry you need to be here. You’re one of many other W’s who are posting here because of their H’s porn problems, so please know that you’re not alone...

Although it must have been extremely painful for you, I’m glad your H has become honest about his porn problem and willing to receive professional help for his addiction…it’s tells me that there is much hope for him and your M and that things can improve. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Please keep posting.

Good questions Githa… Let's see if it will be answered by some of the porn using guys around here...

Hi Githa. Welcome to Marriage Builders and to the discussion. I'm sorry you are going through this difficult experience, but let's see if we can try to answer your questions and, perhaps, help in your decisions and changes that might need to be made to help you get to the "goal" you have in mind.


While I don't use Pornography and consider it destructive, most people who DO use it do NOT see or understand the addictive nature of it. It's addictive in the same way that MOST addictions "creep up" on us....one small step at at time....more and more....until you wake up one day and you ARE an addict. People get addicted to drugs through a "physical addiction" that causes chemical changes in the brain. That physical component, though real, is a "byproduct" of the real reason. The Real Reason is the emotional "high" that they get, and then it takes more and more of the same drug to attain the same high....and the downward spiral into addiction starts.

Once addicted, whether it is to Drugs, an Other Woman/Man, Alcohol, or Pornography there is ONLY one response that works.....TOTAL and COMPLETE ABSTINENCE from the source of the addiction for the rest of the person's natural life.

Around here it's called....No Contact.



Only if the wife (or husband) has a weak "self-image" already. Your "self-esteem" is NOT determined by how others treat you or by what others do, it is determined INTERNALLY by YOU as you see your own "self-worth" and "purpose in life."



That question "won't fly" for most men. Most men are very visual and are "turned on" by an attractive spouse. Often the "sex drives" are different and unless the husband and wife are willing to work together in this area, you will be running headlong into the LACK of meeting your spouse's EMOTIONAL NEED in this area of Sexual Fulfillment.

Men, quite simply, "heat up" a lot faster than most women. Add to that a lot of women "let down" on their appearance and "staying attractive," and an "atmosphere" can be established wherein the man may seek a "harmless" outlet for his "drive." Nevermind that it violates his Marriage Vows. Marriage is a TWO-WAY street, and it takes BOTH marital partners WORKING at maintaining their marriage or the temptation to seek fulfillment of the Emotional Needs OUTSIDE of the marriage WILL be there.

Remember, Githa, that for the most part, MEN are very visual in their response to sexual stimuli, and WOMEN tend to put their response in Emotions, in the actions and things that say "I love you," and sex becomes just the "End Result." For men, sex IS how they say "I love you," even if they are tired (you won't hear too many men say something like; "Not tonight, honey, I'm just too tired." Unless they DON'T feel "in love" or have transferred those emotional feelings to someone or something else).



For me that answer is a definitive NO! For others, like EndlessHorison and what he has previously stated in this thread, the answer is "no, but that's their choice to participate or not to participate." He tries to "play the same game" that you play with "Agnosticism" and hide behind the idea that "no decision, no definitive 'right and wrong'" can be an answer to the "problem" in general. Doesn't fly for Porn, and it doesn't fly for God either. It's simply hiding behind the thought that "it's okay if OTHERS want to engage in that or believe in that, but they are not ME and I choose to go with "no stance other than what I feel is and okay excuse or justification for myself alone.""

The "operative thought" that applies, is "Choose Wisely," but CHOOSE. "Not choosing" is NOT an answer and leaves the individual to the fate and whim of others, becoming a "rudderless ship" carried wherever the waves wish but never arriving at the destination that is "desired" but not worked for or steered to by choice.



An "agnostic" (which is what I used to be in my younger days, is a "cop out" position much like the usage of Porn. "Oh, not making a decision won't hurt, so I'll just feigh superiority and claim that I'm 'sitting on the fence' on the issue of God's existence....Can't say he does exist and can't rule it out either.....I'm waiting for PROOF!"

You want your husband, and through your questions the rest of us MEN to be honest with you about PORN, but you refuse to be honest with yourself on THIS very vital issue. So let me put one question back to you.....on the subject of personal STANDARDS (those things that you will not allow yourself to do to others and HOW you will conduct your life and interactions with others)....[color:"blue"]Who's STANDARDS will you accept as "authoritative" in your life that you will submit your life to them NO MATTER WHAT?[/color] The standards of society? That same society that says "porn is okay," "adultery is 'no fault' and okay," that the slaughter of millions of innocents each year on the altar of personal selfishness is "okay" and just a "RIGHT" of women AND men have NO SAY in the matter?

Let me rephrase one of you questions and direct it back to you to illustrate this and perhaps get you thinking just as you would like your husband and other men to think about porn usage.

I would like to ask Githa, that if you are using this way of denying reality to allow you to behave however you wish, do you understand that others have the same right to pursue whatever they FEEL and WANT regardless of "your standards" and that you, too, could become, or are, addicted to the "world's ever changing and 'situational' standards concerning ethics and morality"?

Githa, ALL actions and decisions have consequences. That is something that perhaps you need to think about too.

Most people, quite frankly, don't want to address the issue of Jesus Christ simply because they KNOW that if they were to accept the fact of a God who is "greater than themselves," they would no longer have an excuse to "do as they please" and would have to measure their choices against the Standards of God.



Okay, you'll hear it from me. Porn usage IS a form of "marital unfaithfulness" and IS grounds for divorce, either secular divorce or Christian divorce. It is a FALSE sense of "self-satisfaction" that violates God's intention and purpose for marriage and for the roles of husbands and wives.



Sure you can picture your life "without him." You just don't "prefer" that future right now.

"I still love my husband and am working with him to overcome this. I will stand by him as long as he is seeking help" Perhaps you need to "rethink" this statement. It is tantamount to changing "...until death do us part" to "...until I no longer feel loving toward you. More on that thought in a minute.



Get out the Barf Bags!!!! What inane drivel based TOTALLY on "feelings." Love is a CHOICE, not a feeling. LOVE can be, and is, commanded, unlike feelings and emotions. Feelings and emotions (i.e., "I feel 'in-love' with you") come AFTER the choice TO love is made, not before.

Any such "Feelings" that preceed love are LUST, not love.

Erich Fromm is simply stating another "worldly philosophy" that doesn't "hold water."

Just looking at Emotional Needs for a minute (as you can read all about on this site) shows the falacy of Fromm's statement quite clearly. We all have Emotional Needs. The meeting of those needs by another will begin to stimulate "good feelings" in the recipient, and "deposits" will begin to be made into the so-called "Love Bank." After enough deposits and "viola!," there are FEELINGS and Emotional Responses that say "I think I'm 'in-love'." But those feelings ALWAYS follow the action, the CHOICE to love to act in loving ways toward someone. In short, the Marriage Builders philosophy of Emotional Needs and the Love Bank are in complete agreement with what Fromm dismisses as "immature: "I love you because I need you."

It IS in the fulfillment of NEEDS that feelings of love DO grow.

To carry Fromm's nonsense to it's logical conclusion in "worldly thought," "I need you because I love you" easily becomes the justifiable excuse for Adultery and Divorce...."I no longer need you because I no longer "feel in-love" emotional feelings for you, so I can replace you with someone else who I lust after and can call that lust "love.""

So tell me Githa, WHY wouldn't you want to climb down off the Agnostic fence and take a hard look at the source of true LOVE?

Actually spectography can detect what elements the particles of the star matter is comprised of, and this says alot about starstuff and chance turning into life. There's nothing magical about it, really, especially considering the countless eons it had a chance to form... Entropy has really nothing to do with it (see below). Finding bacteria on Mars would be indeed wonderful. We shall see. http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marslife.html

However, my hypothesis still stands in regards to the potentiality of the star becoming and producing the starstuff of life, despite Entrophy. Being contained within a fractal universe would have us seen swallowed whole by another entity/universe/dimension (your God, or mine?), in which Starstuff spews forth. Again, I'm not denying god, just your God.

I'm NOT saying there's not a god out there that doesn't exist, but the chances IT knows what it is... eh, who knows?

LOL FH was apologizing to you for threadjacking, when in actuality it was snipped by you from a discussion between SoLostagain and I. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />


I was thinking about getting around to it, but I have my hands full here with FH! LOL Time is now short.

What if I look like one of those people on the screen? Actually I'm probably better looking, so if anything, it's a downgrade. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> The people onscreen don't intimidate me or reduce my self-esteem. Get a gym membership and get in better shape for yourself, your body and mind will thank you for it. Release some stress, and either change things or leave the bum.

They will never grow old. No, you're right. Therein lies the fantasy for some perhaps.



Don't listen to this guy! I love how he peppers you with religious barf despite you asking anyone not to! LOL Here's my response regarding the matter. The whole thread is good though, and generally religion-free.

Trust after H lied about porn

EndlessHorizon - your ability to avoid dealing with a direct subject is fascinating. You base your whole belief structure on pure speculation, devoid of any facts, and then you have the comical audacity to accuse me of "peppering" someone with MY faith beliefs!

Gotta hand it to you, you have the "Pot calling the kettle black" down pat.



The "elements" have nothing to do with LIFE, not any more than a brick or a 2x4 stud that makes up part of a house CAUSED the house to be built. The "countless eons" you speak of have been "counted" by scientists and the resulting "estimated age of the universe" is insufficient time for your "trial and error, random chance" hypothesis to actually hold any potential for possibility, much less for fact. The ONLY way that evolutionists try to propagate their "fraud" is to do as you are attempting to do, claim that the very natural physical laws that are held so dear somehow mysteriously don't apply in this case because it would argue against evolution. Hence you get such nonsense as Gould's "punctuated evolution" theory.

Once again, you promulgate your FAITH as fact and then try to ridicule an opposing faith. I submit to you that I will put the person in whom my faith is grounded up for examination....Is Jesus Christ who he said he was, or not?

If you want to claim that he was a "well meaning lunatic" as you stated earlier, feel free to offer your proof of that evaluation for us to study and examine. This thread is not, and most threads are not, "Religion free" when you take on such issues as your concept of God, no God, or inability to decide so you waffle in Agnosticism. Even Atheism is a "religion" in so far as it "touts" a belief in something that can't be proved either. What you, and many others prefer to "exclude" is the "Christian religion." Why that is so I am not entirely sure because it does nothing to remove "religion" from the discussions, just a particular "religious faith." But I suspect it has a LOT to with "who sits on the throne of one's life and does whatever they want to do."

As I said before, I will not get into a discussion about my choice of beliefs here. I will discuss the issue of porn as an addiction only, as it pertains to my marriage ONLY. If you want to discuss religion, you won't find me willing EVER.
ForEverHers,
You seem to do alot of babbling, so much so, that I have to go back and re-read alot of what you are trying to say. Speak in terms that the laymen can understand, would be appreciated.
I understand that I married my husband, as you say, for better or worse. (we wrote our own vows, which did not include the traditional words) This is the worst right now. I have seen him through alcohol addiction and drug addiction and now I am there for him through this addiction. He has an addictive personality and this addiction is one that is on a more personal level than the others.
My issue here is that men seem to think it is ok to view pornography without understanding what it does to their relationship to their wives. I have lived it and I am not a prude by no means. I loved sex!... until I felt replaced. I got to the point where I no longer felt needed in that area and it was extremely hurtful. In his disease, he didn't think it was hurting me or anyone. But it was killing the intimacy of our relationship to the point that we were just room mates. He wonders why I am still wanting to be married to him after all the hurt he found he caused me. He is now living the pain that I had lived for so long. I am hurting again, watching the man I love, deal with this addiction.
I am not here for the "Oh I am so sorry's". I am here to find myself some healing. In writing to other's about this problem, I find that it helps me to understand that it I can help to keep my relationship with my best friend throught this and come out a better friend, lover and wife.
Thank you Suzet for the kind words.

I'd be happy to, Githa.

I believe that PORN is not only wrong, it is harmful, yes, destructive to a marriage.

If you want to know why someone (male) thinks PORN is "okay" and "harmless" in a marriage, ask EndlessHorizon.

So now that we've relegated Porn to the level of personal opinion that makes it "okay" depending only upon someone's personal opinion, let's recognize that the removal of "Right and Wrong" barriers allows NO judgment concerning Porn and it's usage. As long as each individual gets to decide for themselves what is "acceptable" and what is "unacceptable," it makes little difference if YOU blame porn for problems in your marriage, or what I think about Porn, or what EndlessHorizon thinks about Porn, for that matter.

In short, when the "measure" of "Right and Wrong" is our own opinion and desire, everyone else gets the same right and no one can suggest, let alone impose, a different Standard that might (horror of horrors) suggest an independent Standard that should apply.

Now I'm done "babbling" and will retire from this thread to let you and EH discuss the pros and cons of Porn to your hearts content, sans any discussion or reference to God or religion.

But you really ought (my opinion, so feel free to consider it "babble" and unimportant) to consider the ramification of one's "belief structure" on how the rest of their life is lived and the basis by which choices are made, let alone the idea of submission to someone else even if you might want to do something different (like use Porn).

Good luck in your marriage and your recovery, I sincerely hope it all works out well for you and your husband.

I’ve heard this many times. From theological view point it is very bothersome to me. Has not every single adult alive looked at at least person of the opposite gender (or the same gender if homosexual) with lust in their heart? Has not EVERYONE committed this sin? Do you think that a person should never look at anyone with lust before they are married, and after they are married look with lust only at the person who they are married to? Is any looking with lust at anyone else prior to marriage just commission of adultery?

You are correct. However, what porn is or is NOT relevant to answer the question I was answering. Recall that the original question promulgated by Suzet* was not what porn IS, but how men VIEW porn:
“What I don’t understand about men who undress girls with their eyes and then fantasize about them (and even masturbating while fantasizing about them)…WHY? WHY are these H’s wife’s not good enough? I mean, they have a wife instead to fantasize about and enjoy good sex with… Why replacing this with fantasizing about other girls and masturbating (unless they're thinking of their own W's while masturbating) in stead”

Thus the answer of how men THINK about porn is simply central to her question. What porn is that way or not is not germane.

Heh, heh,... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Actually, I don’t think that it is an accident, but most likely sampling error on your part. If you happen to be concentrating your reading on postings that relate to porn, and you read my posts, then yes, I’ll probably be writing about porn. If you see my postings on other topics, then I probably wont write about porn.

Why don’t you click on my username and peruse my postings? Most of them are NOT about porn.

If you don’t like my writings on porn, I’d suggest that you don’t focus your reading on forums that deal with porn. Look at other forums! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

In any case, if you think that I like sex or things that are sexual in nature, then you are correct. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

AverageGuy, ALL human beings have sin, so you are correct that probably EVERYONE have committed this sin in their life’s too... No one is without sin and that’s the exact reason why God has sent his Son for our salvation and gave the Bible to help us distinguish right from wrong and to help us stay on the “right and narrow” path.

AverageGuy, I want you to read the following paragraph from the book ”The Purpose Driven Life” which was written by a Rick Warren (a pastor). The paragraphs will give you the perspective of a man, but the perspective of a man who are Christian and want to obey God’s commandments. Here it is:

It is not a sin to be tempted. Jesus was tempted, yet he never sinned. Temptation only becomes a sin when you give in to it. Martin Luther said, “You cannot keep birds from flying over your head but you can keep them from building a nest in your hair.” You can’t keep the Devil from suggesting thoughts, but you can choose not to dwell or act on them.

For example, many people don’t know the difference between physical attraction or sexual arousal, and lust. They are not the same. God made every one of us a sexual being, and that is good. Attraction and arousal are the natural, spontaneous, God-given responses to physical beauty, while lust is a deliberate act of the will. Lust is a choice to commit in your mind what you’d like to do with your body. You can be attracted or even aroused without choosing to sin by lusting. Many people, especially Christian men, feel guilty that their God-given hormones are working. When they automatically notice an attractive woman, they assume it is lust and feel ashamed and condemned. But attraction is not lust until you begin to dwell on it.