Talk:Lust/Archive 1

Science
I think this page badly needs some actual information. It is more or less just a list of how different people feel about the concept of lust and gives no real information reguarding what lust actually is. I actually came to this page seeking a scientific explination of some sort, like maybe some info about what chemicals cause the feelings of lust. If anyone knows anything scientific about what lust actualy is or how it works, I would greatly appreciate it being added. - Mloren 08:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. On the whole this is misconceived and unhelpful. The word 'lust' has a long history and variety of usage, and the subjective impressions in these passages seem a little odd to me and out of context:

''"Lust" conveys a more primal, visceral, tone than other words for sexual desire. "Lust" evokes savage, sweating, gut-wrenching coupling that is not easily associated with the more intellectual, poetic variety of "love-making" described in many texts and dictionaries.''

Some people see lust as the purest form of love

many people acknowledge that feelings of lust do not always imply feelings of love,etc.,etc..

And some of the links are, to put it bluntly, ridiculously irrelevant

However,'lust' is not a particularly scientific word, this would better be covered by a links to 'libido' for reference to psychology, and 'sexual attraction' for its physiological information. --220.240.38.109 01:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, to borrow a phrase from the Love article:
 * "Recent studies in neuroscience have indicated that a consistent number of chemicals are present in the brain when people testify to feeling love. These chemicals include; Testosterone, Oestrogen, Dopamine, Norepinephrine, Serotonin, Oxytocin, and Vasopressin. More specifically, higher levels of Testosterone and Oestrogen are present during the lustful phase of a relationship. Dopamine, Norepinephrine, and Seretonin are more commonly found during the attraction phase of a relationship. Oxytocin, and Vasopressin seemed to be more closely linked to long term bonding and relationships characterized by strong attachments."
 * So "lust" IS becoming (if it isn't already) a definable biological term. Perhaps some of this information should be on here? Esn 09:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Lot of weasel words in this article
"Some people say," "It is said that," etc. etc..--Foot Dragoon 05:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's called good writing.

No, that is called inaccurate sourcing.

It is hard to define love, very often it is a strong feeling of extreem hapiness with mix of sexual attraction but more on the level where soul, body and mind become a whole with another person and both parties are so clicked in together, they are in each other's zone (place) that no one can see or understand, only each other. From the side only people can say they're into each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.33.40.3 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 2 March 2007

Off topic
It seems to me that this is more about what Christians think about lust than the idea of lust. It needs to be cleaned up with major grouping distinctions between the two different sub-topics. Denis Diderot II 21:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This article has a serious lack of focus because it doesn't really have a topic. All of the etymology stuff belongs in Wiktionary, and the rest is synonymous with Erotic love.  What do you think of doing a merge and killing the Lust article altogether? ~ Booya Bazooka 00:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

From Eendrijder I am really dissapointed. I wanted to gain some insite into the various emotions and this one lust has added nohing to my knowledge. I agree with Booyabazooka but not to kill it, but do a rewrite without references to the various religions. Lust has nothing to do with religion. It is an emotion not a teaching. Eendrijder


 * I agree with Denis Diderot II. And there seems to be too much religion involved.   LustDoctor Talk to the Doc 15:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.
I thoroughly agree with everyone's complaints over this article. I came on Wikipedia to research Lust and find information on it’s scientific definition as well as it's use in important and/or classic literature. Unfortunately, this article makes no reference to how lust is used in any kind of literature whatsoever, which I'm sure it is. Thankfully, Esn's comment helped me greatly in my search for a biological definition to Lust. But I am still stumped on how to creatively describe lust. I know that Shakespeare uses Lust in his plays, but where else? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.167.115.80 (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Boldness
Decided to Be Bold and remove all the blatantly POV, as well as the unsourced, material from this article. Also weeded through the links and killed the obviously biased ones. Didn't have time to listen to that NPR story, so I just left the link for someone else to evaluate. Obviously, this leaves the page somewhat lacking. Still, I believe that a little bit of useful information is much better than a lot of garbage. unless 09:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Greek Translation
The Greek translation to the word "lust" is "lagneea" ("λαγνεία"), or more correctly "layneea", with "y" pronounced as in "yearn" and "ee" as in "bee". The word "epithymia" ("επιθυμία") means simply "desire". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.74.65.67 (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Redirection From Sexual Drive
Should sexual drive be redirected to the lust article? I think sexual drive is more related to libido, which is the physiological / psychological need for sex. Lust implies a bad connotation whereas sexual drive is simply a technical term.


 * I went ahead and fixed that. --201.9.49.9 10:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sikikapoon
Googled it and the only place it exists on the internet is on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.39.186 (talk) 06:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

11.05.08
Oops, fixed by me. Forgot to sign in first. - NemFX (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Love definition
The article sattes "Love in its pure form is said to be concerned with the well-being of the other,". I do not think this statement gives a good definition of love. It is only one type of love. I am changing the article to give love a broader description which will still have the contrasting effect against lust. Hobo 03:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Love cannot be properly defined. And love, in the purest of forms, contains lust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.150.7.19 (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Dante's inferno merged into christianity?
Dante's inferno is inspired and perhaps has most of its information based from the Catholic's 7 deadly sins, and the Catholic religion in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.106.3 (talk) 05:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Concupiscence
"Concupiscence" and "lust" are synonyms; there is no encyclopedic difference between the two terms. There is no reason for these terms to have separate articles. The concupiscence article is so poorly written that it is unlikely that much information (if any) is salvageable, but the namespace should nonetheless redirect to lust. Neelix (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Neelix; I disagree; "Concupiscence" is an historically important theological term, and often encompasses more than the the narrow connotations of mere "lust" in English, and for that matter, in the way similar terms have been in use through time; having etymologically synonymous terms does not mean that the concepts those terms get applied to are synonymous. The WP:Merge guideline says "A merger is a non-automated process by which two similar or redundant pages are united on one page", but the term "lust" does not encompass the doctrinal concepts of "Concupiscence" in Historical or Doctrinal terms in-context of Christianity (as stated above). Hope that helps! tooMuchData 02:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheResearchPersona (talk • contribs)

Expanded
I've expanded this article considerably. Much of the information was gleaned from the French article (which I had translated). Therefore, I do not necessarily have references for some of this information. I have a feeling that someone is going to complain that the definition is too 'harsh'. However, according to Merriam-Webster, lust is a sexual desire especially of a violent self-indulgent character. Even the French article, German article, other encyclopedias, etc. all have a definition that is anything but moderate. This is the definiton of lust. I'm very sorry if this disappoints anyone. -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, if someone wishes to add a section on Islam, please add it. I know that this is a tender debate in Muslim circles, and believe that my rendering of their laws will result in a troll-like tirade. Thus, it would be better for a Muslim to write this section, as they know much more than I do. I am ignorant regarding the topic. -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 World Reality
Jesus used the Word Lust! That was 2000 years ago. The concept of the word Lust was clarified at that time per our ENGLISH Lang. That is what we understand of this world as of this date. There was also other concepts of what this word "LUST" meant 2000 years ago just as there is today.

QUOTE: "I also think this page badly needs some actual information." Any would help? How about doing per time frame at least like per 500 years from the start as to what the word means per the greek word then to modern == Science == views? Everything is based upon brain chemicals so then we move on from there. Something at least Please!!!!!

"Everything is based upon brain chemicals." What are the criteria for this claim? Materialism is a metaphysical theory, as is a belief in the Christian, or any other, God. If you think lust is just a matter of brain chemistry, then possibly you should think that this article - headed by the word "lust" - should be about the use of the word historically, which to some degree it is already, and you can at the samee time write your own, or refer yourself to, an article headed with preferred terminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.31.155 (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"All Abrahamic Religions."
It says it's a sin in all Abrahamic religions and then goes on to only mention Christianity and Judaism. I think that unless it can be cited as a sin in Islam that line should be changed to reflect on Christianity and Judaism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.159.148 (talk) 04:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My knowledge of Islam is minimal (as I've stated in the previous thread). If you can provide some text stating that it is not a sin or impure act in Islam, then we will change it. --Ambrosiaster (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Fornication is sinful in Islam, and the hadith explain that fornication is not just the act of intercourse. Similar to Christianity, lustful glances or thoughts are also wrong. As Abu Hurairah reports in Sahih Muslim, the Prophet said, 'The fornication of the eyes is to look with lust; the fornication of the tongue is to speak lustful things; the fornication of the hands is to touch with lust; the fornication of the feet is to walk towards lust; the fornication of the heart is to desire evil.'" --Ambrosiaster (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

A definition
Dictionary Entry -- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lust The concept of lust representing a strength of passion beyond the norm seems to be an agreed upon central point in this discussion. Let's build on that. 97.94.111.180 (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)rogertdj

Why is lust defined as a craving for sex? I've always read that lust is defined as a strong desire for anything (sex just usually happens to be that thing). Emperor001 (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Lust and Christianity
I would like to make the distinction in how Christianity defines lust as a sin. Lust is not a sin if applied to one's spouse. 1 Corinthians 7:4-5 makes it very clear that sex is a critical part of a married relationship, and that neither spouse should deny the other. "4 The wife doesn't have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise also the husband doesn't have authority over his own body, but the wife. 5 Don't deprive one another, unless it is by consent for a season, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer, and may be together again, that Satan doesn't tempt you because of your lack of self-control."

Lust, however, is a sin if applied to someone other than one's spouse, or if it becomes more important than your devotion to God. Ziiv 00:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You state a common protestant view that doesn't stand up. It suggests that every married couple committed adultery before they were married simply because they desired each other so strongly that they wanted to spend their entire lives together!?! This is one reason why intelligent people tend to avoid Christianity.


 * What I've been discovering is that the word lust was apparently invented centuries after the Bible was written. I just can't yet cite quality sources. But this is what needs to go in this article.
 * --StudiousReader (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that christiantity has a variety of sects, and many interpret things differently. Some dispute the translation of your version of the bible, others think it is no longer applicable. Fundamentalist christians, and catholics would probably not agree with you, saying that sexual pleasure for non-procreative reasons was sinful. More moderate christians might agree with you, saying that sex for pleasure with ones spouse is acceptable. Atom 10:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is the alternate translation of the verse you are talking about? Back up your statements. Or, for that matter, show us a Bible verse that condemns sex or pleasure in general.

For an alternate look that is not dependent on "different interpretations," look at the book Song of Solomon - described by Wikipedia itself, "The book consists of a cycle of poems about erotic love..." Serialized 06:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

--> This is a one sided article, showing mostly only the Christian point of view. Would be nie if the subject was broadened. Lust, in an of itself, is not exclusively a SIN persay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.150.7.19 (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the word "Lust" ??
What I REALLY want to know is: What is the origin of the word "lust"? Can anyone help me with that? --StudiousReader (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Online Etymology Dictionary has a page on "lust", though I'm not very familiar with the site so don't know how reliable a source it is considered to be. Loganberry (Talk) 00:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes, that's what I cited. If you know anything more, like tighter linkage between "lustrum" and lust, I'd love to find out. --StudiousReader (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Mitzvah?
"When one lusts after their spouse, lust is not only not sinful, but a mitzvah." A mitzvah is a good deed. I think this is vandalism so I am deleting it. Chexmix53 (talk) 02:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why you deleted that, unless it was outside the Judaism section. In even Orthodox Judaism, healthy sexual desire for one's spouse is in fact a mitzvah, better translated as "joy" or "act joyful to G-d" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.181.34 (talk) 07:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Religious Documentation and "Fact"
I've noticed several citations of religious documents being declared "Citation Required" subsequent to removal. This is true of Koran citations, the Catholic Encyclopedia, and the Bible. So I have a question. In what sense is a religious document on which millions base their faith NOT a citation???? Let me ask that again for emphasis. How do religious documents of faith not substantiate the description of that faith??? What more substantive citation is possible?

Is it something simple like the editor doesn't know how to use the religious notation to look up and verify the relevant verse or paragraph? Koran references are certainly different than Biblical refs. Is that it?

--StudiousReader (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

A citation to the Bible or Qu'ran can't truly capture how the religion is practiced now, only how it once did and how it should perfectly be (seen, of course, through the smudged lens of pre-Gutenberg hand-copying.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.181.34 (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Serious POV Problems
This article seems to be less about lust and more about how various religions or groups of people think that it's a bad thing. Essentially no space is given to the massive legion of people who think lust is good, or even tolerable. Unless someone has a serious objection, I'm gonna tag this article for POV. unless 01:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Ithink that this page is not talking about lust. Moresoever it is talking about how loving is a good thing and what religions say that.Unless you want to say an objection to this comment you should probably agree with me because this page is not any good. If you want to know about lust the best way to do it is look it upp in the bible.24.237.123.159 03:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC) unknown24.237.123.159 03:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC) 7:15 15 March

What "various" religions? I only see Christianity represented. Unless other religions are represented I definitely would have to agree that there's a POV problem with this article.--74.244.37.227 (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This article approaches religious propaganda in its slant. Lust is a word to be defined, and in its individual contexts. There simply be a "rationalist" view of it. There also might be a tie-in somewhere to the concept of "free love". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.40.20 (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the first bullet in the "Christian" section suggests that the lust concept doesn't really exist in the Christian bible since there's no unique word for the concept. It should therefore be treated as a rationalist issue. The etymological origins section also supports this view, i.e. it was invented in the 4th century as part of the priestly celibacy movement politics. It was then picked up by other religions.

I personally would like to draw that conclusion. But if we do so, I think that becomes POV or even OR. Is that correct?

So as not to destroy a delicate balance, I urge that all positions be presented to allow the reader to decide. Creating a "Rationalist" section would make an EXCELLENT addition to this article.

--StudiousReader (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverted Attempted Deletion of Roman Catholic Section
I don't know why Gabr-El attempted to delete the Roman Catholic section and turn it into a mere sub-point in the preceding discussion. I'm sure it was a mistake. So I reverted. Perhaps he means something else. Please note its subheading depth. --StudiousReader (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"Therefore, O Arjuna, best of the Bhāratas, in the very beginning curb this great symbol of sin [lust] by regulating the senses, and slay this destroyer of knowledge and self-realization. PURPORT The Lord advised Arjuna to regulate the senses from the very beginning so that he could curb the greatest sinful enemy, lust, which destroys the urge for self-realization and specific knowledge of the self. Jñāna refers to knowledge of self as distinguished from non-self, or in other words, knowledge that the spirit soul is not the body. Vijñāna refers to specific knowledge of the spirit soul's constitutional position and his relationship to the Supreme Soul. It is explained thus in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (2.9.31): jñānaḿ parama-guhyaḿ me yad vijñāna-samanvitam sa-rahasyaḿ tad-ańgaḿ ca gṛhāṇa gaditaḿ mayā "The knowledge of the self and Supreme Self is very confidential and mysterious, but such knowledge and specific realization can be understood if explained with their various aspects by the Lord Himself." Bhagavad-gītā gives us that general and specific knowledge of the self. The living entities are parts and parcels of the Lord, and therefore they are simply meant to serve the Lord. This consciousness is called Kṛṣṇa consciousness. So, from the very beginning of life one has to learn this Kṛṣṇa consciousness, and thereby one may become fully Kṛṣṇa conscious and act accordingly. Lust is only the perverted reflection of the love of God which is natural for every living entity. But if one is educated in Kṛṣṇa consciousness from the very beginning, that natural love of God cannot deteriorate into lust. When love of God deteriorates into lust, it is very difficult to return to the normal condition. Nonetheless, Kṛṣṇa consciousness is so powerful that even a late beginner can become a lover of God by following the regulative principles of devotional service. So, from any stage of life, or from the time of understanding its urgency, one can begin regulating the senses in Kṛṣṇa consciousness, devotional service of the Lord, and turn the lust into love of Godhead — the highest perfectional stage of human life." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.181.71 (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Main Top Pictorial Caption Is a Problem
This is an excellent picture for an article on exclusively modern Western lust as popular colloquialisms define it.

However, this article attempts to address the huge pluralism of variations existing throughout world societies and all of social and religious history. It would therefore be a mistake to caption this photograph with exclusively any single narrow perspective, especially something WP:NPOV.

To make this point more clear, it might be better to use an old (public domain) National Geographic of two people from some aboriginal tribe engaging in mutual heterosexual desire. Another choice might be an image of a classical Greek, Roman, or Asian treatment of physical desire. Consider, for example, the strange (to our eyes) facial makeup used by Helen of Troy.

Another choice might be to move the picture into the Christianity section. However, huge differences have existed throughout history even in Biblical perspectives alone. The same is true in Roman Catholic history. See Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica statements on marriage.

This makes the caption (and even the picture itself) to be a difficult problem. --StudiousReader (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Pure propaganda
The article is essentially some repressed person's heavily and selectively edited catalog of superstitious anti-sex propaganda. The vast majority of it leans on religious texts with virtually no psychological or scientific description of the mechanics of this particular emotional state.

This is straightforward religious propaganda designed to reinforce a negative perception of sex and sexuality. The point of view here is extremely unbalanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jungjugend (talk • contribs) 00:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you would prefer that this article be secular humanist propaganda? -- First, the definition was gleaned from the Unabridged Merriam-Webster dictionary, which defines lust as, "sexual desire especially of a violent self-indulgent character." Second, all of the sections endeavour to give a history of each religion's perception and understanding of lust. You're welcome to expand the Psychology section, which would be complimentary to 20th-century ideas on lust. Bear in mind that this is a sensitive topic, which has a fairly extensive history in all of the world religions, philosophy, literature and psychology. To simply craft this article to meet the standards of a 20th century secular humanist would be even more propagandistic than you now claim it to be. For, it is now, at least, explicitly stated that each section is simply summarizing the idea of lust to a certain subjective world-view (i.e. Catholicism, Protestantism, Hinduism, etc.) -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Lust wanting only intercourse?
Struck me as odd, reading the first sentence here. I'd learned that lust was a sexual desire, but must it necessarily be intercourse? Is it called something different if their is a sexual desire that does not include coitus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.237.222 (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have therefore changed "sexual intercourse" to "carnal pleasure." -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Lust the definition
"Lust is an inordinate craving for carnal pleasure, which can sometimes assume a violent or self-indulgent character. In the three major Abrahamic religions, it is considered a sin."

This is the wrong definition for a number of reasons.

Firstly the above definition is defining a stage of 'Lusting' not Lust itself. A definition should define the noun and not the verb. I appreciate that the dictionaries don't do any better in this case, but that is because they who wrote them didn't define it rightly, probably based on religions confused definitions. None of the religions clearly differentiate between the attraction between the sexes and the thinking about that attraction. The obscuring of the origin of Lust is the cause of confusion.

Secondly the above definition doesn't clearly define the difference between (a) the psychological action of 'wanting', 'thinking' and 'imagining' sex which is the action of reflecting on the abstract pure sexuality in the body and stirring it into a troublesome emotional 'entity'. And (b) the naturally sensational abstract state of Love in the body, which is what the pure sexuality is.

Thirdly the definition uses the phrase 'carnal pleasure'. This is misleading because the phrase 'carnal pleasure' could refer to the pure sexuality of the body. There is nothing wrong with the pure sexuality, is natural and right. It is the unpolluted state of the sensational reality to be found in every body. In other words the sense of love in every body is the beautiful pure sexuality untouched by the mind.

The problem with this above definition is that it promotes the confusion surrounding the distinction between sex and love.

Therefore I see the below definition as more clear as to the origin of the initial movement of lust/sex: in essence it is that Lust comes from the thinking about sex. And this needs to be made clear, if you agree.

"Lust is an emotional force that arises from the psychological action of thinking about sex. It is distinct from the natural desire for sexual love inherent in the body. The action of 'Lusting' can induce a violent or self-indulgent psychic condition to arise which is why in the three major Abrahamic religions, it is considered a sin."

Please note that this definition defines lust as an emotional force. It states why and how this force arises, through fantasising/thinking. It states that the feelings/emotions coming from the thinking about sex are distinct from the natural 'stillness' of sensational attraction to the opposite gender. Note this is the beginning of transcending the person and reconnecting with the intelligence of the body, the intelligence of life beyond the person.

It is vitally important to define Lust really so as not to burden the Earth's people any longer with guilt derived from religions inability to differentiate between physical love and sex. If people can identify the original action i.e. the thinking and fantasising about sex, that calls up this devilishly seductive force then they can be free of it in their own experience.124.184.179.148 (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTDICT issues here
Lust is not a universal concept, it is a word in the English language. Many of the disputes here are simply over definitions. Better to do them in Wiktionary. If you want to talk about some Christian concept of Lust, there's already Seven Deadly Sins, though I'd support a separate article for each of those, if need be. To assume that other cultures, using different languages, are expressing precisely the same feeling as the word "lust", in the various ecclesiastical commentaries, is simply ethnocentric. Much of the material in this article really belongs in more culturally specific articles. Yakushima (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It looks like an encyclopedia article rather than a dictionary article. Lust is a fact in every body's experience, it is a concept of a universal psychological reality. It is the judgement of that concept that is not universal.121.216.99.183 (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think different people, and different parts of the article, use the term 'lust' in different ways, and a lot of the article consists of waffling about which definition people are thinking about. Consider the opening:

''This article is about the physical desire. For other uses, see Lust (disambiguation)

Lust is an emotion or feeling of intense desire in the body.''

It then goes on to contradict what was just said:

The lust can take any form such as the lust for knowledge, the lust for sex or the lust for power.

Compare that to Wiktionary:

1. A feeling of strong desire, especially of a sexual nature. Upon seeing Kim, I was filled with lust. 2. (archaic) A general want or longing not necessarily sexual or devious. The boarders hide their lust to go home. 3. (archaic) A delightful cause of joy, pleasure. An ideal son is his father's lasting lust.

The first paragraph of this Wikipedia article conflates 1 and 2. I think relating both of them to 3 is helpful.

Paganism
This is the current entry under scrutiny:

"Few ancient, pagan religions have actually considered lust to be a vice. The most famous example of a widespread religious movement practicing lust as a ritual would be the Bacchanalias of the Ancient Roman Bacchantes. However, this activity was soon outlawed by the Roman Senate in 186 BC in the decree Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus. The practice of sacred prostitution, however, continued to be an activity practiced often by the Dionysians."

Here 'Lust' is being misused as a synonym for 'promiscuous sex' and/or 'drunken revelry'. The condition of Lust may well induce these actions but they are not Lust itself, and it is misleading to say so. Lust is a psychological action and not a physical one.

I don't see anything worth keeping in this section. Any comments...?121.216.99.183 (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not a Roman Catholic Page
The Roman Catholic definition of lust (in the opening section) needs to go in the Roman Catholic section...especially considering this definition has had many different renditions throughout Roman Catholic history. Most of us are not Roman Catholic. Further, the definition isn't even a Biblical reference. This statement constitutes "reason given". --ClickStudent (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Moreover, if rendering the source (Pope John Paul) in the text "detracts from the citation" as suggested by the earlier editor, then that earlier editor is freely conceding that its a bad citation source. I mean, LOL, naming the source should IMPROVE the quote. --ClickStudent (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason that I put this; "Lust is distinctly different from the natural desire for sexual love inherent in the bodies of man and woman. " in the definition was:

a) that there has been a gross injustice done by the authorities of religions in that they have insinuated, as well as said outright, that all physical expressions of love are impure and unholy (see the religious sections of the article). They have fudged the definition of lust to include physical acts, when it is clear that lust is a psychological act, or as the quote from the pope says "an interior act". And b) The beauty of finding the pope negating all that priestly mis-interpretation was very pleasing to me.

I can understand that you and another editor see it is unnecessary for it to be included in the definition. It is a fact that these religions have separated people from their pure sexuality with a wrong definition of lust. This happens when the components of sexual desire become conflated. This is what has happened in all the religious definitions. They have conflated thinking about sex with the sexual act. They are not the same.

Therefore I considered it necessary to include this 'clarifyer' of innocence of the natural desire for love as expressed physically in with the definition of lust because lust is so mixed up with the inherent natural desire for love, which is not lust and is holy and right. It just so happened that the pope's quote said exactly that! So who better to correct the situation than the kindly old gentleman himself. Good on him for setting the record straight (at last).121.218.64.7 (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I respect your analysis and attempts to draw proper lines of division between lust and love. But I think you need a more careful analysis of the intellectual history of the concepts. For example, romance (divorced from physical desire) is a modern concept, dating possibly from Shakespeare. The original word, IIRC means seduction in the Roman way, hence the word Roman as its root. Also see Pope Sixtus III disdain for marriage in the Etymology section. There wasn't a word for "lust" in Koine Greek, the ancient Greek of the original New Testament. The closest they had was the familiar "eros", which includes both physical and emotional desire. In other words, the "conflation" was wired into the original languages. This took me awhile to accept. I urge you to research the issue and satisfy yourself. The origins of the "lust" concept are interesting indeed. I still have many questions. (btw: The word "eros" does not appear anywhere in the Greek New Testament in any version!! Odd that the Christian Bible is thought to condemn eroticism!?!) --ClickStudent (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Well you have obviously researched it well. For me the reality of the words is their application to my life now. 203.51.111.205 (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Lust is not Lechery, but lechery redirects to here
Lechery is not the same as lust. Lust is an interior, psychological action. Lechery is behaviour, a physical manifestation or behavioural pattern of an interior condition(lust). Lust does not necessarily result in the action of lechery. They are not the same.121.217.165.254 (talk) 10:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. However, the wording in your section sounds more like a comment that should go in this talk page rather than a section. Perhaps you should start an actual stand-alone page on "Lechery", put in reciprocal links to this page, etc. Anybody object? I wonder what the etymology of "lechery" is. --ClickStudent (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Alphabetical Order for Religion Section
I really think the religion section needs to stay in alphabetical order so no one religion is favored, as per NPOV. Also, Protestantism really isn't part of Roman Catholicism. The dictionaries clearly list RC reverence for the Pope, and Protestantism defined as rejection of the Pope. (The originals, Martin Luther, etc. required the belief that the Pope was the Antichrist, etc. Some protestant groups still firmly believe that.) So they're clearly pretty different. --ClickStudent (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC) Should the new entry under Meher Baba go first because it alphabetically precedes Buddhism? I think alphabetical order is a good idea. (And Brahma Kumaris should maybe go after Judaism?). I will volunteer to do this in a few weeks if no one objects. (I'm assuming Meher and Brahma are titles, not names.) --ClickStudent (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Section:In Religion:Christianity "Commonly translated as lust"
This section is very confused.

The Greek epithumia (Strong's 1939) is used 37 times and is translated as "lust" only 5 times in the popular NIV. That can't be "commonly". The cited verse at the bottom of the section doesn't even use epithumia. It used epithumeo, Strong's number 1937. This Greek epithumeo is used 16 times and is translated as "lust" only once. This is even less "commonly". Then the section lapses into what one particular denomination, Roman Catholicism, says about the word, which has changed throughout history. This section desperately needs a rewrite. At best it should say "occasionally translated as lust", nothing more.

The Pagan section also needs modification due to the concept of "lustration" as in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica for its discussion of paganism and lust.

I think this issue is critical since Henry Charles Lea, the 19th C. Christian historian suggests that Roman Catholicism tried to insert the concept during its invention of priestly celibacy during the 4th-5th century.

--StudiousReader (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I added the Koine Greek note about emphatic voice being accomplished with verbal doubling. This makes it clear that Mt 5:18 is not about intense desire, merely generic ordinary desire. This begs several questions. But an answer to those questions seems clearly POV, unless we were to itemize every logically consistent conclusion. I'm guessing that would be too much.

Also, MNT (Montgomery's New Testament) and the Twentieth Century New Testament don't seem to be mentioned in Wikipedia. So those are dangling links.

--StudiousReader (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't need verbal doubling for ἐπιθυμέω to refer to an intense desire, a longing, setting your heart on something - that's in the root meaning of the word. But it is not specifically sexual desire. Louw and Nida give the following glosses for ἐπιθυμέω: a desire greatly 25.12 b lust	25.20 LSJ gives this definition: A. set one's heart upon a thing, long for, covet, desire, c. gen. rei, Hdt.2.66, A.Ag.216, etc.: also c. gen. pers., Lys.3.5, X.An.4.1.14 (later c. acc. pers., [Men.] ap.Clem.Al.Strom.5.119, Tab.Defix. Aud.271.45 (Hadrumetum, iii A.D.)); of political attachments, τῶν “ἡμετέρων πολεμίων” And.4.28; “ὀλιγαρχίας” Lys.20.3: c. inf., desire to do, “πλῶσαι” Hdt.1.24; ἀπικνέεσθαι ib.116; “περισσὰ δρᾶν” S.Tr.617, etc.: abs., desire, covet, Th.6.92; “ὁ ἀεὶ-ῶν” Pl.Prt.313d, etc.; τὸ ἐπιθυμοῦν τοῦ πλοῦ, = ἐπιθυμία, eagerness for it, Th.6.24:—Pass., to be desired, τὰ “ἐπιθυμούμενα” Pl.Phlb.35d. Jonathan.robie (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it would be 'too much' to list every logically consistent conclusion. However, the point of each section is to be 'POV,' as it is relating the perspective (or viewpoint) of a given religion. If you have any contention, please list your own religion, faith, etc. and write about its beliefs accordingly. -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I didn't say what I meant very well. I see 3 possibilities, not all within mainline Christianity:
 * (1) One is never to desire a female EVER...exactly as believed by the Cathars, Old Roman Catholics, Chrysostom (or was it Origen?), etc.
 * (2) The word "woman" (gune) really just means another man's wife, hence the word "adultery". (my preference for the meaning).
 * (3) Homosexuality is endorsed. (As currently taught by some small groups of homosexual Christians).
 * I just meant "Christianity" is really big, and especially so on this topic. (I wonder if the Christian nudists have a different spin on this?) I was taught several different ways. They tended to be incomplete and mutually exclusive. I've tossed them all and now believe the whole concept of "lust" is a non-biblical misdirection.
 * Oddly, rendering this as the recently (c. 1600) invented word "lust" (as in almost ALL English bibles) isn't one of the choices. :-)
 * Should I list these? Should I mention ALL the ways I was taught as a young adolescent? One would need a large subsection on each to properly develop each.
 * BTW: Your user page looks compellingly interesting. I could spend some time there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StudiousReader (talk • contribs) 06:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

There is truly no need to write about the matter in such great length -- specifying every useless, etymological tittle. I'd recommend that you clean up the 'Christianity' section. Moreover, I should confess that a section on 'Christianity' being above a section on 'Roman Catholicism' seems fairly absurd. Rather, Catholicism should be addressed in the Christianity and section, as well as Protestantism. -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm open to suggestions on how to do that. My impression has been that people have fought over these subtleties...and separation from RCism. Maybe there should be a Prot. section and an RC section??
 * I'm assuming you want these condensed. Is that what you mean? Do you have a target size in mind?
 * Which parts do you consider to be most useless?
 * Which parts meet the quality standards the least?  --StudiousReader (talk) 13:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Etymology
The etymology section doesn't include any actual etymology; it just gives a history of the usage of the word. The fact that 'lustrum' is phonetically similar is irrelevant. It has caused people to reflect on the relation between both, which is interesting, but doesn't tell us anything about the origin of the word. The New Oxford American Dictionary says 'lust' has a Germanic origin. To link it with the Latin 'lustrum' because it sounds similar is thus quite far fetched. It would be like comparing 'car' and 'carton'. 134.58.253.55 (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's more to the comparison than just the phonetics. Lustration was for (among other things) sexual intercourse. See the Encyc Britannica citation for more on this. ClickStudent (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the stuff that has nothing to do with etymology, including the "phonetically similar" stuff, which is not a statement about etymology. 24.211.251.205 (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Attempted Blanket Replacement of the Protestantism Section
Perhaps Jonathan.Robie is unaware of of Wikipedia etiquette, but it is usually inappropriate to do blanket replacement of large sections without discussion with other editors.

It is also troubling that Jonathan.Robie represented that section has having few references when citations came from videos, the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Engish-Greek Interlinear, the "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" book, multiple versions of the Bible, and others. I note also that the new Jonathan.Robie section seems to have no such external references...not even other Wikipedia sections.

If Jonathan Robie wishes to protest, then he should file for a referee to decide the issue.

If the absence of citations are truly the issue, then he should request them in those places he thinks are necessary. On this topic, relevant citations abound. For example, Martin Luther is interesting on this topic.

I think I should also recommend he read the previous discussions in this talk page. ClickStudent (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of Wikipedia policy - see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.

And see below for my next step in following the above approach. Jonathan.robie (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Support for my changes? Suggested compromises?
ClickStudent undid 3 of my changes, detailed here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lust&diff=490387476&oldid=490370994

Justification for the change I made is given in the section below. How do we move forward?

I imagined that this advice gave me permission to attempt a rewrite of those sections. "Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes. Prior versions of pages are saved, so any mistakes can be corrected."

I don't want to get into an editing war, but I do think the section I replaced had lots of problems, listed below, and I think my rewrite fixed those problems.

One possibility: my section was on the New Testament, his had the title Protestantism.

Perhaps we could restore my section on the New Testament?

Perhaps he or someone else could write a section that is actually about Protestantism and Lust, with some references to historical overviews or theological overviews of Protestantism on this topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.robie (talk • contribs) 21:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Is the offer for "compromise" still open?

 * I was about to thank you for your apparent willingness for compromise. I wish you could have waited just 24 hours.ClickStudent
 * I'm definitely interested in improving the quality of this article, and working together to do so. Jonathan.robie (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was brought up believing the narrow/modern interpretation of the verses you cite. But I started studying the history of theology and doctrine on this topic in the last 5-10 years. I discovered I was uninformed. For example, our modern concepts of lust, of romance, and of marriage dates only from Protestant Reformation and the late Middle Ages. Before that lust was inseparable from the blanket catchall term "sodomy", marriage was a sin, and romance simply meant seduction in the Roman way...which is why the word "Roman" is in it. Bibliography is available on all these concepts. For example, it was widely debated among Roman Catholic scholars whether sex and sexual desire with/for ones wife was more sinful than sex and sexual desire with/for a prostitute. Thomas Aquinas is eloquent on this. St Ambrose wrote circa 360ad, "Marriage is a moral crime,more dreadful than any punishment or any death". When we study this history, modern marriage partners can begin to celebrate their own oneness. ClickStudent


 * You don't say much about what I actually wrote, you speak mostly in sweeping generalizations. I focused mostly on the meaning of one Greek word, and was not very complete even there. It would also be interested to see if the word is used in the Song of Songs, and how. I'm more familiar with the development of concepts of love in the late Middle Ages than you might think, I have read Minnesang and Meistersang and studied Medieval German literature, but that was a long time ago. I'm also somewhat familiar with early church writings. There's more complexity here than you acknowledge; for instance, how would you distinguish sexual desire in the Song of Song from modern sexual desire? Clearly, sexual desire was celebrated even in the Bible, especially in the Song of Songs. Many early church fathers were against marriage, but many were not. You are focusing on the writings of a few who took a particularly extreme position. Jonathan.robie (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Allow me to offer a compromise in line with your suggestion. Your use of those particular verses does not apply to many Christian groups both historical and modern. A separate section might usefully cover these historical origins...more than etymology...less than a rigidly modern approach.ClickStudent


 * It might be useful to look at various periods - early church, medieval, development in the Eastern Church and Catholicism, development in Protestantism. But these are very distinct, what is true of how lust was regarded in one of these periods is not true of another, and they shouldn't be mixed together as though they all described the same things. Even in any one period, there is often more than one view. I think we should start small, doing all of this would be really ambitious. FWIW, this phrase "rigidly modern approach" doesn't really describe what I was doing in looking carefully at usage in ancient Greek. Jonathan.robie (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I am not interested in an "edit war" either. I was merely hoping for dialog and cooperation. Is that still possible?ClickStudent


 * I sure hope so. Jonathan.robie (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please don't wipe history away. You're not helping even your own religion. ClickStudent (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not about whose religious views are right, this is about whether what is written in a section is about the theme of the section, whether facts are established, etc. But there is no way to wipe history away, everything you have written is still there and can be recovered. I do think there were serious editorial problems that required some sweeping edits. I've tried to be clear about what they were. If you disagree, the next step is probably to bring in some third opinions. Jonathan.robie (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Big problems in the "Protestantism" section
I apologize for not coordinating before doing a blanket replacement. I think the Protestantism section has a number of problems.

Did you somehow miss the references in my rewrite? Mostly to Greek reference works. For establishing the meaning of a Greek word, I don't think any scholar would accept the references in the section that I replaced.

Here is a diff showing what I changed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lust&diff=490387476&oldid=490370994

Here are some problems I attempted to fix:

1. Most of it is not about Protestantism, or any one theme. It's hard to see what the section says about lust in the context of Protestantism. Because most of it seemed to be about lust in the New Testament, I wrote a section that was about that one theme.
 * Not about Protestantism? I disagree to the extent that Protestantism is fundamentally an attempt to rationally interpret biblical writings. Martin Luther's protest in his Diet at Wurms insisted this was the basis for departure from Romanism, i.e. of his protesting. (ClickStudent)


 * This is a red herring. The title implies that the section describes how Protestants view lust. The section did not do that. It was neither a historical overview nor an overview of modern views on lust. Jonathan.robie (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

2. Much of it is about the meaning of ἐπιθυμέω (or ἐπιθυμία), which is really about the meaning of a Greek term and an English term used to translate it one time in the New Testament. Neither term is specifically sexual - I referred to standard Greek lexicons to make that point for Greek. While preparing this, I also used prior discussions on the B-Greek mailing list, a scholarly list for biblical Greek, would posts on such a list be considered references on Wikipedia?
 * I agree. This is the essence of the issue. "Lust" is a modern-day retrofit to the ancient Greek words ἐπιθυμέω and ἐπιθυμία which are not inherently sexual. So how do these verses apply? That's the point. (ClickStudent)
 * In my section, I tried to be clear about the meaning of these words, with some overview of usage, using standard references. For what it's worth, I have a reasonably good background in biblical Greek, I read a chapter or so most days in Greek. How do these verses apply to what? Jonathan.robie (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

3. The section, as written, uses Strong's as though it were a Greek dictionary. It is not. It does not refer to any Greek lexicon. That's why my rewrite did. If you want to know what a Greek word means, it's a good idea to look it up in a standard reference. In general, the section seems to be "expert" Greek advice given by someone who probably does not read Greek. My rewrite also listed several other passages that use the word, including the Septuagint reference to "thou shalt not covet", which Matthew 5 likely refers to.
 * Strong's was the first ancient Greek lexicon for biblical use. It is the most widely used.
 * Strong's is not a Greek dictionary, its glosses merely list the words that the King James translation used in translating each word. As a lexicon, it is limited to the New Testament itself, and not to contemporary literature. From what you write, I assume you don't read Greek. Jonathan.robie (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

4. "In translations of the New Testament" - which translations? Only English translations, presumably. I think the King James and many subsequent translations use this term. Similarly, consider this section: "The word "lust" began being used in the 16th century in the Protestant Reformation's early non-Latin Bible translations. This is despite the fact that the original Koine Greek Bible has no single word that is uniquely translated as heterosexual lust." I assume you mean particular English translations, certainly not non-Latin translations in other languages. But is the King James really a Protestant Reformation translation? What translations did you have in mind?
 * Which translations? They were named. RTFA! (ClickStudent)
 * I read it rather carefully. You did mention some translations, but "In translations of the New Testament" implies that this includes more than the specific translations you happened to mention later. Again, what did you mean by "Protestant Reformation translations"? Jonathan.robie (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

5. The discussion of "several understandings of Matthew 5:27-28" doesn't say why this particular list of notions is given. It is not at all representative of common understandings in Protestantism or among biblical scholars. For instance, I'm not aware of any mainstream Protestant or scholarly view that suggests that this verse demands celibacy, or that it would allow homosexual lust but not heterosexual lust. And one of the mainstream views, that it means one should not 'covet', using the same Greek word used for 'thou shalt not covet' in Exodus, is not represented.
 * Is Coptic, Syriac, or Eastern Orthodoxy a "protestant" view? (ClickStudent)
 * Of course not. Is this a serious question? Jonathan.robie (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And, yes, this verse and several others were used to demand celibacy. See the reference to Henry Charles Lea in the etymology section "Sixtus III barely admits that married persons can obtain eternal life". Did you read the article carefully? (ClickStudent)
 * Surely you don't mean to imply that Pope Sixtus III was Protestant, or that this view has been significant in historical Protestantism? If so, that's an extraordinary claim, and you should provide strong references for it. Yes, I read the article carefully. Popes, the Coptic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, etc. aren't Protestants, you provide no references that attempt to discuss the history of Protestant thought on lust, or to describe representative modern views. Jonathan.robie (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

6. When you refer to the meaning of something in Greek, it's helpful to post the Greek. I did that for several passages.
 * Posting entire ancient Greek sections is too much in an overly long section. I included the references to that. So I disagree. (ClickStudent)
 * The article made assertions about Greek without backing them up, and it gave the distinct impression that it was written by someone who did not understand Greek. If you're going to make claims about Greek, I think there should be enough detail that someone who reads Greek can verify what you say. Jonathan.robie (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

7. You refer vaguely to "several questions in Biblical Hermeneutics" What did you mean by that?
 * Why didn't you ask this BEFORE your blanket replacement? (ClickStudent)
 * I think you meant that it had been interpreted several different ways. But you referred to "Biblical Hermeneutics" as though it were some kind of authority. Jonathan.robie (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

8. "There are several understandings of Mt 5:27–28 that attempt to answer these questions." - are these your own personal understandings? They aren't representative understandings.
 * I strenuously object to this assertion. The Joshua Harris book is a very popular attempt at exactly this. Mandatory celibacy is another, albeit ancient attempt. And the first view has been commonly discussed in liberal protestant churches. (ClickStudent)
 * You could have asked for a tighter reference. Instead you chose blanket replacement and the loss of many historical references. (ClickStudent)
 * Again, this was in a section on Protestant views on lust. Joshua Harris is indeed a Protestant who represents a commonly held view, but you did not precisely explain his views. Mandatory celibacy simply isn't a view of lust that has ever been widely held among Protestants. The "first view", I think, was the third in your article, I don't know which liberal protestant churches have discussed it, but I have not yet run into anyone who seriously argues that Matthew 5:27-28 means it's OK to have male homosexual lust but not heterosexual lust, and your own text says "This final view is rejected by established Roman Catholic and most Mainline (Protestant) authorities. See Heresy." So I don't think it describes a representative Protestant view. Jonathan.robie (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

9. I gave an overview of New Testament usage of the Greek word. I thought it was helpful, since it's at the heart of the discussion.
 * This is one particular overview common among one particular group. What about Christian nudists, the Unitarian Universalists, the early Christian church groups that practiced communion in the nude, and the various flavors of RC and protestant homosexuals, to name just a few. (ClickStudent)
 * In short, you gave your usage. And you ERASED all others outside your awareness. How dare you? (ClickStudent)
 * We are discussing the meaning of a Greek word. Looking up a word in a dictionary is a good way to establish its meaning, much better than your opinion or mine. I quoted from two (there's a third that is better, BDAG, I'll add a bit from that). I gave an overview of the word using standard reference works, and examples that illustrate the usage. You speculate that various people might disagree about the meaning of this word, but I don't know that they would, and if they did, I would want to understand why they disagree with standard Greek reference works. Homosexual scholars have hotly contested the meaning of some other Greek words, but I'm surprised to hear that this is one that has been contested. In fact, you seem to agree with me about what the word means. Jonathan.robie (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Jonathan.robie (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC) ClickStudent (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Courtesans
The section Lust says


 * Courtesan: These were women who lived with married men, but instead of being a wife, they were property. The man owned the women....

This unreferenced assertion of ownership and property strikes me as very dubious, and I can find no comparable assertion in the article Courtesan. Anyone know? Duoduoduo (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Causes
Shouldnt there be a causes part for this page? that lists what causes Lust Mudak568 (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

St. Thomas Aquinas
The elaboration on St. Thomas Aquinas's views toward Lust isn't necessary. His opinions can be summarized much more simply than delving into specific topics and explanations of them. It should be made to be way more concise and have reference to further reading for those interested in his specific views on this topic. In addition, It should be questioned weather he belongs in the philosophy section or under Catholicism subheaded: apologetics. --Frcstr (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)frcstr 4:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitions of Lust
Preoccupation with fine gradations in the definition of lust strikes me as unhealthy.

When I am with my wife, its always different. She says the same. Either of us might individually become the focus for both...or both or even neither of us.

It has always worried me whenever avowed celibates have attempted to rigidly formalize lust, especially when love has no such formal definition. Alfred Kinsey remarked that the study of love (as distinct from lust) was therefore outside of science.

Celibates within Roman Catholicism are even more problematic. Their history on this topic has been "all over the map". Thomas Aquinas (1251) argued in Summa Theologica (ST II-II, q. 10, a. 11) that `If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust.` This was why prostitution was considered necessary to a proper marriage relationship, much in the way a sewer was necessary in a beautiful castle. This metaphor is his!!

And how can a celibate formalize the boundaries of this thing without personal experience?? Would they claim my marriage is "convulsed with lust"? This seems to me reductio ad absurdum at its finest.

BTW: Martin Luther complained in the 16th C about the whorehouses in Rome that specialized in servicing clerics. I have a 19th C travel guide for Rome that implied this practice continued even then! Is this their experiential grounds?!?

This is the problem with rigid formalisms regarding "lust". --ClickStudent (talk) 04:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to look at your Aquinas quotation in context. Where is his metaphor about the sewer and the castle? I can't find it in that section. And he was quoting Augustine, saying in the next sentence that those acts are sinful. It's merely the relief of a greater sin. 216.86.107.44 (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC) [re-edited; I accidentally put it in the middle the first time] 216.86.107.44 (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are word searching for the word lust in Aquinas' in Suma, that won't work since they didn't really have the word "lust" at that time. Instead, it was collectively referred to as "sodomy". Somehow, Catholicism considered all such heterosexual desire to be a species of sodomy. Strange but true.
 * Also, just do a Google search for the main words in the quote and you will find many references.
 * The citation request in bullet one in the Protestant section is probably a good idea. That perspective was used when Ruth Carter Stapleton briefly converted Larry Flynt to Christianity. I just haven't had time to research the lineage of that theological perspective.
 * Also, the citation request in bullet two is probably for the Dept. of Redundancy Dept. The bullet is itself a citation. The only reason to cite a citation is if one believes the citation to be questionable. If one believes the summary to be wrong, one should simply correct the error(s) or include a quote making it obvious the previous summary was wrong.
 * The request for more specification may be similar, but I don't think that's a good idea since this bullet is a "specification" of the protestant "specification" of the religious "specification" of perspectives on Lust...i.e. it would be too much specificity.
 * Finally, if one truly wants to clean up the citations, the Roman Catholic section has had outstanding citation needed requests for a very long time. They are long overdue. (Aside: pursuant to that, the editing would be much more professional if the editor had registered as such, instead of just using their current IP address.) --ClickStudent (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You might wonder on what authority the author speaks of 'prostitution.' Obviously, nobody has ever held that withstanding from something held morally questionable or driven by irrational desires prevents you from understanding the process, or seeking to formalise it. In a sense, distance from such feelings might be necessary before this becomes a question. It does seem that most of this comment was just concerning views on the content of the article, rather than on what is written to to be changed. - 109.175.241.55 (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC).