here is an essay i did for an ethics class on the topic of lust. thought some people here might find it interesting...

In the anthology Wicked Pleasures: Meditations on the Seven Deadly Sins, there is a predominant attitude that the vices proscribed by this Christian concept are not so bad as to be called deadly. Robert Solomon reflects this attitude in his introduction to the anthology when he points out the absurdity of believing that a deity who is everywhere and in everything would really care whether or not a single human being indulged too much in these vices. The essays following the introduction demonstrate that, in the modern world, an uncompromising view of the sins as being absolutely wrong and worthy of eternal damnation is unworkable. For example, the author of the essay on anger shows that, when a person is angered by injustice, this vice can play an important role in bringing about change in the conditions that gave rise to the initial injustice. Thomas Pynchon notes the importance of sloth in the creative process of a writer. It is from this less dogmatic perspective on these sins that William Gass examines the sin of lust. Just like many of the other writers, he attempts to save lust from being absolutely evil. He does this by claiming that there are different ways to feel and express lust. While there are negative ways in which lust may manifest itself, Gass focuses the possibility of another manifestation that is positive and fulfilling on a deep level. The distinction between the negative and positive manifestations of lust seems to lie in the perception of the person or thing that lust is directed at. A person who lusts for another person as another human being will not be wrong in lusting. Good lust, then, manifests itself when the parties involved approach each other with a mutual recognition and respect for the other’s subjective nature and humanity.

When a person lusts after another, what exactly do they desire? Certainly, a physical attraction plays a role. Upon meeting the other, the person’s sexual desire or lack thereof for that other is primarily based on whether or not they find the other physically attractive. At this point, however, it is unclear that the person will always have a recognition or respect of the other’s subjective nature. By subjective nature, I mean that which is a part of anyone’s existence. This includes a certain freedom to act and think as they wish. Immanuel Kant is a good source for discerning how this is so. He states that, since all humans have the rational capacity to think for themselves, they have the right to be ends for themselves, and should never be treated as means. That is, all humans will pursue happiness as an end for themselves. When a person lusts after another, this idea of never treating another as means will determine whether or not the lusting in question is positive or negative. If the person recognizes the other’s freedom and sees him/her as an equal (in terms of also having freedom) then the lust cannot be wrong. If, on the other hand, no recognition or respect takes place, then the other is turned into a mere object to be used for one’s own selfish fulfillment. Mere physical attraction is neither good nor bad, but a natural and necessary occurrence. What makes the difference is how one perceives the other’s existence. Objectifying the other makes them two-dimensional, like a Playboy centerfold that you can whack-off to. All you end up desiring is the image, not a person. The phrase ‘object of desire’ is very true in this case. On the other hand, realizing the subjective nature of the other allows one to experience a lust for another person and could open doors for greater intimacy than just the physical. If one lusts for the other with that recognition and respect, then there is no way to turn this healthy and good form of lust into a mortal sin.

Objectification of the other and domination are closely linked. Domination is exercising one’s will over another. A person must either deny or fail to respect the other’s freedom before he imposes his own freedom on the other. Emma Goldman, in her critique of marriage as an institution, writes that the traditional vows “until death do you part” locks the couple into a relationship that may stagnate over time. In this institution, two dynamic beings that do not have knowledge of the future commit to a relationship. Goldman claims that the current conception of marriage can lead to feelings of ownership over the other person. If one of the people change and are either no longer attracted to the other or attracted to someone totally different, jealousy arises in the other’s heart. Jealousy is a state of a hurt ego as the result of feeling neglected by another person. It consists of one’s desire to dominate the other person and freeze him/her into a position that is pleasing. Jealousy necessarily desires the denial of the other’s freedom and, failing to do so, the one who wishes to dominate the other is hurt. (Goldman, 322-323)

Domination appears in Gass’ essay. He compares lust, traditionally regarded as sin, with other socially acceptable actions which he describes as the real evils: “Hide her behind veils, voluminous folds, body paint, high walls, patriarchal laws, cut her clit, or her hair, slit her nose, trade for cows—these are sins” (Gass, 139). The real sins he names are of male domination. These actions are designed to bring the woman under the domination of her partner. This domination is the result of the wrong type of lust. It is wrong because the man who does these things to the woman does not truly lust after her as an equal, as a fellow human. He denies her subjective and dynamic nature. Before he did these things, it could be inferred that he did not perceive her as an equal. He refused to acknowledge or accept that she was entitled to as much freedom as him. Otherwise, it is hard to imagine how someone could do these things to someone else and be able to sleep at night with a clear conscience. The reason these things happen is because one person does not view the other as an equal, but as something less than human. Instead of a person with a free will and a right to do as they please, the victim is objectified through violence and other forms of domination. If one does not view the other as an equal, then he cannot lust for the other as a human.

second part...

A healthy and good lust does not wish to objectify and dominate the person it lusts after. When defending the possibility of lust being a good thing, Gass uses several phrases that speak to this sort of mutual recognition and respect. He describes the lustful gaze as communicating a message of mutual pleasure for both the one looking and the one looked at. He writes, “we shall merge more usefully than cars on the highway, we shall experience the interiors of one another” (Gass, 138). Other passages include “our heads will rest on one another” and “life shall run through both of us renewed” (Gass, 140). In all of these passages it is we, not I or you. Mutual recognition and respect for each other’s personhood goes hand in hand with mutual pleasure. To use a pop culture example, just look at men and women’s magazines. Publications like Men’s Health and Cosmopolitan almost always have sections on how to improve sex lives. Invariably, communication is cited as a good way to figure out what turns your partner on. Wow! Imagine that! It’s like we somehow forgot, or were too wrapped up in attaining our own satisfaction to notice. Sarcasm aside, this example points to the benefits of a lust that desires a person, not a thing that can provide a function. I understand that I have been addressing consequences of lust instead of lust itself. However, I feel that certain consequences only occur when lust is of a certain nature. In other words, the lust one feels prior to acting can be healthy or unhealthy.

Through the mass media, the mainstream culture tends to encourage the bad type of lust. We are taught to love images on the TV screen and magazines. More blatant, however, is the sort of objectification that goes on in the porn industry. Earlier in this paper I alluded to the Playboy centerfold, whose main purpose serves to arouse lust in the reader. Magazines and movies that depict people engaged in sexual activity is good business in this culture. An effect of this business is a cheapening of these intimate moments. Through the porn industry, we become aroused by mere images, by the purely physical. Gratification usually does not involve another. The people that view porn probably disagree with Gass that “your own hand isn’t a fun date” (Gass, 138). While I don’t think it necessary leads to the sort of objectification that occurs with bad lust, it certainly makes it more possible.

Lust isn’t a sin. Rather, the attitudes and perceptions of the one who is lusting make lust a vice or virtue. There is a sense in which lust can be used to create mutual satisfaction between partners, and another in which one of the partners is disregarded. The difference lies in whether or not the one with lust desires the other as a subject or as something less. When one desires the other as something less than an equal, domination is made possible. If, however, one can lust for another as an equal, then lust becomes, as Gass puts it, “the feeling of life itself” (Gass, 137).

Wordy, but it should get a good mark.

Interesting subject.

seems fairly solid...except for the fact you used the word "whack-off" in an academic essay. If you havent turned that in already I would suggest a revision to i dunno masturbation, self gratification... most educators arent fan's of slang let alone euphimsms about wanking.

yeah, i got an A on it. my prof is an interesting guy. i suggest you all read the essay on lust in the book Wicked Pleasures: Meditations on the Seven Deadly Sins