Lust and Desire

By -
A couple of months ago, I was surprised to see, and the discussion I had a conservative website, that a number of "conservative" apparently had no idea what lust is, or why it is not a good thing. It is really not that hard to characterize.

Lust is sexual desire left undisciplined to the point that one is willing to use another person as a means to fulfill one's desire without any regards for the good of that person. Basically, it is when one uses (or wants to use) another person as a sort of blowup sex doll.

Comments

  1. Samson Corwell8:08 PM

    So treating them as a means instead of an end in themselves?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah9:42 PM

      Exactly. When your desire has taken control to the point you want someone simply to satisfy that desire, rather than because you actually want to be intimate with that person: lust.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more