Objectification
is at the heart of Lust. That, and enculturation. What one tribe or people or
continent finds appealing can be off-putting to another. We are taught to see
beauty, to want certain things above others, and to feel unsatisfied until the
object of our desire is attained, particularly in the grip of lust, of our
sexual desire. Lust does not truly love, does not carefully consider the person
behind the looks, does not take into account the feelings beyond the flesh;
lust gets focused much on gratifying the self. Love goes awry.
Perhaps
more of a male problem than a female, at least as far as popular culture will
have it, lust as a symptom arises in failed relationships, broken marriages, heartbroken
teenagers, and unwarranted bravado. Lust excuses abuse. Males do much with
lust. Females too, but males are more aggressive, more open about it. And
advertising caters very much to lust; most images are of sexually desirable
females, rather than males, especially if the advert can promote the item along
with scantily clad 'beauties'. Females have suffered greatly under the guise of
appealing to men. Chinese women with their feet bound. African women with their
necks elongated. American women with their chests enhanced. Men with uncertain
egos ready to buy a female's attentions. Lust is very evidently a trade, an
industry, a commodity, a plaything. It is cheap and expensive at the same time.
And it is so endemic to our culture that our movie posters glare with it.
Children are raised with the precepts of becoming desirable according to the
constructs of coquetry, of looks, of fashion, of attitude and behaviour. What
once made a man or women a wastrel may now make him or her 'really cool'. And
attracting lust, an art form of itself, becomes an industry perpetuated by
those who would take advantage of our wants, desires, wallets, and instincts.
'Sexy' is our ubiquitous barter.
Instinctual
lust is likely atavistic, as ancient as our origins in order to perpetuate the
species. Birds and bees do it. Animals preen and puff with attractors. But man
is now sophisticated, and if sophistication be thought of as the ability to
conceive of what the consequences to another might be, then essential
curtailment of instinctual selfishness might more readily come to mind than
enacting or even pursuing the thoughts that would demean, objectify, and render
another little more than self-gratifying. At root of man's inability to control
his mind, his desires, his instincts, is selfishness. Sophistication would have
it that we consider the other. And the difference between having sex and making
love is vast indeed. Love is a spiritual affirmation of emotion; sex is
temporal.
Celibacy
is easiest sustained by one who has 'been there, done that' and is imbued with
such love that in the beloved's absence there is intention not to betray the
monogamy, however long. Virgin priests practice celibacy, honouring The Ideal
Love (and would that such souls be ancient enough for such abstention easily to
be undertaken offhandedly). Self-sacrifice is best practiced with peace and
contentment. The man who flagellates himself, who hurts himself in agonies in
order one day to get into heaven? He best be a willing participant, a conscious
chooser, or what's a heaven for? To deny sex is not to deny love. Lust in our
virginal teens is not the same as lust when we are experienced adults. And when
we are yet more caring, yet more aware of the impact of our very thoughts and
instincts upon another, so do we realize that lust, as a thing of what was once
essentially selfish, is but a thing now to be invested in no more. One evolves,
gradually. After all, in the lust for life, love, an unconditional ingredient,
takes finding.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your contribution, by way of comment toward The Health of the Whole, always!