Personal Decisions: Lust Right Or Wrong?

Right and wrong are unlike measurements that are good and bad. Something right or wrong is either one or the other while something good or bad is in between and thus good and bad are more lenient than cases that are sometimes right or sometimes wrong. To say that something is sometimes wrong instead of sometimes bad tends to emphasize caution; however, both mean the same thing (they can both be wrong, good, bad, or right) so consider them the same thing for now. In any case, to say that something is never wrong but always bad is to say that something is never wrong, right, or good, only bad. People who believe that something is always wrong or always bad may be more mentally stressed as a result of being too hard on themselves and even fall into depression for thinking too negatively. Lust is not always wrong but it can be depending on the amount of lust, the amount of control, and the situation at hand. For example, if a husband doesn't hurt his wife during sex when she is willing to have sex, then his lust might receive approval if she enjoys it. However, if he ends up hurting her because his lust is overwhelming him, then his feelings may be regarded as bad, while if he hurts her when she is not willing, then his feelings may be regarded as wrong. Lust is a lesser degree of love because it is temporary. However, to keep a relationship alive it is necessary to have lust. In other words, lust can be good for relationships, but lust can be wrong and especially dangerous if a relationship lacks love or commitment. Lust is sometimes wrong because it can be good or bad for relationships. To make things right, the amount of lust expressed should be according to the degree of commitment and love. Whether or not a ceremony is necessary to prove if two people are committed enough or are committed at all can be determined according to context, belief, and/or religious appeal. Showing commitment is different from the time of Adam and Eve when a wedding ceremony may not have been necessary, although God may have blessed them so that they were married by our standards: Eve was made for Adam after all and their tie resembles today's arranged marriages the most, but Adam was still blessed with the companion of his liking. In arranged marriages now, people get to decide whether or not they want to marry the person they meet and they sometimes have multiple options to choose from, which their parents did not have 23 years ago. Simply put the Bible, after the time of Adam and Eve, has marriages by law, and it did not permit multiple, unlawful partners. In the U.S. today, the question to marry is a personal choice and a religious and cultural one, too.

Why do today's marriages in the United States require a wedding, witnesses, and a license issued by the state? In Western Europe the government officially became involved in marriage because it (1) guaranteed property rights as well as provided for family members, and (2) it was involved in the responsible upbringing of children. Marriage used to be institutional, that is, based on dutiful adherence to the time-honored marriage premise of permanence, where marriage was a functional partnership rather than a romantic relationship. Marriage today is also expected to be permanent. In fact, marriage in the United States is individualized: People often marry on a basis of self-interest. The expected rewards involve communication, emotional intimacy, and, well, love. Individualized marriages are also optional. The Bible says that it is better to marry in lust, that is, to commit, than not to marry at all, "for it is better to marry than to burn" (1 Corinthians 7:9). Whether or not marriage requires a ceremony is both culturally, religiously, and personally tied. However, the Bible during this time required to be bound by law, as Corinthians 7:39 portrays, or the person would be stoned to death for being sexually intimate. The penalty then affected how harshly people viewed premarital sex, and today there are still people who will judge every situation of sex before marriage as wrong. How else may the Bible have influenced the way in which people severely perceive right and wrong? Ironically, the Bible supports lustful marriages when lust is a temporary emotion and marriage is perceived as non-temporary. Although people may become confused at putting two opposing ideas together, Corinthians 7:9 may be reasonably understood to desire that people who marry in lust fall in love to remain together. It doesn't seem right if somebody married to experience lust for one night, divorced soon after, and were not damned in comparison to an unmarried couple who married later on and did not divorce but were damned for not marrying to begin with. It makes no sense. Personal beliefs, customs, and practices should be taken into consideration along with the laws of the land. This includes national and state laws as well as household rules. Although problems can erupt when a child has a different religion or viewpoint from a parent, tying together the different levels of rules/ordinances/laws and boundaries/respect can help clear the problem. Besides, how different would the Bible be today if it were not written by Romans or Jews but by somebody else during their time? Although not every Christian is affected as drastically by the Bible's scrupulous tone, people who get caught up too much can react eccentrically like this woman:

Still, the Bible may have less influence on people's perceptions/beliefs/cultures than believed. U.S. citizens who practice sex before marriage are not put to death. Although people in the Bible could divorce according to the laws that were mentioned, a person living during the Tudor regime of England was not allowed to divorce and remarry. In addition, Catholic churches today do not recognize remarriages after divorce unless the first marriage has been annulled, a system that stems from Tudor years, while Mormons perform temple marriages in order to be married in the afterlife although they can divorce in this life to prevent an eternal marriage. Other religions have ceremonies that last until death forces them to part although I'm sure some stay together anyway. After Adam and Eve had children, a tradition eventually formed in order to prove and show a person's commitment/status of availability even though some people today choose to elope. Ceremonies are necessary although not vital displays of unavailability, while marriage itself is an institution used to measure and prove permanence.

With today's marriage comes the responsibility of striving to stay together, where marriage is the best means to objectively measure permanence, especially from one's partner. So what does striving really mean? According to Linda Wait, couples may be in the lowest grouping on marital satisfaction, but if they don't divorce, 5 years later two-thirds of the unhappily married couples describe themselves as "very happy." Those who divorce usually remarry within 4 years on average. The remarriage is likelier to end in divorce than the previous one. To know what striving means, a person has to know what they are getting into, to know that it can take as long as 5 years to work out a single problem. Cohabitation is an arrangement in which a man and a woman live together in a committed sexual relationship but are not formally married. Cohabitants and premarital sex partners are likelier to divorce if they marry somebody else or were previously with somebody else in either fashion before they married. This means that the first choice counts the most for cohabitants. The same pattern is seen in people who remarry, where divorce rates are higher than previous marriages, so the same goes for married couples too. People in sexual relationships should strive for permanence to make things right, good, or not as bad if commitment or committing can unwrong, although not undo, a situation. Commitment may sound tough, but it only deepens with age. Commitment can make things better as well as lust and love. Love protects from lust, but lust enhances love while keeping the relationship alive. Although divorces were not allowed in Tudor times, the Bible gives permission and for good reason: It is sometimes dangerous to stay committed. Today, it can be dangerous without some form of love or to stay committed by feeding off of lust (the irony), so choose the first partner wisely. Be aware more than anything else. Make the first choice count because they will make the best bet. Love comes in many forms and sometimes marriages have to fall back on love's friendship form, but lust can keep things exciting, especially when the relationship is higher than the friendship form.

Marriages show the strongest amounts of commitment, but because marriages do not always involve love, questions asked may be--"How much commitment is needed to express lust sexually: permanence according to the Tudors or striving according to today?" The answer can swing either way because it is a question that is influenced by culture and religion as well as upbringing and other social factors impacting the decision-making process. As a result, answers will vary. Nevertheless, there is a way to address this question universally. Because a majority of the world today marries out of love, it can be expected that whether or not two people stay together forever that they will both respect each other as well as their beliefs. How much respect two people have regardless of not loving each other may help determine how committed both can remain even though respect and love are not good aids in determining for how long. Marriage is optional, but it is the best means to objectively measure commitment, and I leave it at that because subjective measurements require personal awareness, and I am no god. Another question asked may be if marriage is the only means to express lust sexually. Religious appeals would say that marriage is the only means to be sexually active regardless if it's lust or love, and the U.S. government would say to go ahead and get married for the benefits they offer. I would consider the following formula for every circumstance:

Love + Commitment May = General Permission

Having sex without commitment is irresponsible. Rape is disrespectful, unloving, and against the law. Avoiding lustful marriages may help avoid situations that are fickle and shady; however, spousal rape can still occur, and it is not against the law in every country. Times have changed. Some people may need to prove their commitment to each other or to themselves by marrying; so on a more positive note, the above formula also means that if two people love each other enough and are committed to each other, then they might go ahead and marry. Others may wait 4-5 years or until they finish college. Today's marriages are actually being delayed more due to higher costs of living, and although a good education is needed to provide for a family as well, Biblical direction would say to wait to have sex. Nobody can measure another person's commitment subjectively and not everybody cares if times are changing, especially if morality has to sink with it; however, in certain cases being too scrupulous can be crazy for this day and age. Still, religions aren't known to be lenient. Besides, a couple who was committed before they married and then married later on may or may not be damned as I see it. It all depends on how God sees it.

"I simplified the article by placing key phrases in bold. This will help understand the message of the article and aid in answering the question, but the answer choice at the end is still a personal decision. Is it wrong to lust? To say it is always wrong is to say that lusting is never right or good but bad to the degree of being wrong. To say it is never wrong to lust is to say that lusting can be good, right, or bad in any circumstance but not to the degree of being wrong. To say that lust is sometimes wrong is to say that lust can be wrong, bad, good, or right in any circumstance. To say that lust is never wrong but always bad is to say that lust is always permissible but always unhealthy in any circumstance. It is improper to say that something is always wrong and always bad because adding that something is always bad is unnecessary if it is always wrong. To interpret something that is always wrong and always bad would mean that it is wrong and unhealthy and never right or good although something that is always wrong is also always unhealthy and never right or good. It is incorrect to say sometimes wrong and always bad because if it is sometimes wrong then it cannot always be lenient. I wrote the article to influence readers and hoped to alleviate the guilt experienced but according to the article's three-dimensional view. I kept the question simple: Is it wrong to lust? There is no answer choice like "other" because the question is ultimately limited to being wrong, and I am deeply afraid that people will want to say lusting is always right when its equivalent would be lusting is always wrong. I included the word "bad" because to a degree it can be wrong but not always. Rereading the bold should help understand my perspective. Again, the answer is a personal decision. Is right a paradox: culture stripped to its bare minimum for universal truth?"