Topic: what IS sex?

[Tikhon.of.Colorado]

I had an interesting debate with my mother about what sex is.  I know I'm just 15, but I know enough from TV, school, and my four pregnant friends.  you see, my mother and I have DRASTICALLY different views of sex.  I believe that sex is how two devoted people consumate their marriage, sortof "sealing the deal".  this means that their together, they've become one.  I also believe that the reason sex feels good, and we want to do it, is so that we want to reproduce.  it's basic science. 

my mother feels that casual sex should be like "going to dinner".  it doesn't matter if people just do it to do it.  she also says people want to have sex to have sex, and it stops there (whereas I believe people want to to have children).  my mother also believes that you shouldn't have to marry to have sex a/o live together. and that people shouldn't be stuck with just one lover for the rest of their lives.  I ask her if she condones polygamy, and she does not.  she believes that people can just casually have sex with anyone they care about, and not have to own up to any commitment.

who is correct?!  am I to conservative when it comes to this?  is my mother too liberal? 

[Asteriktos]

Well, if I understand correctly... you seem more Orthodox in your views. However, I would agree with some of what your mother believes. For example, many people do have sex without wanting to have children--or even wanting not to have children. On the other hand, I think it's inconsistent to be ok with casual sex, but not be ok with polyamory... but maybe that's just me.

[Fabio Leite]

Sex is not sacred nor banal. It has a spiritual aspect to it, but it is something of the body.

Psychologically, we feel attached to the person we have sex with. "Liberal" people think this is childish and something to be outgrown from in order to do it just like friends have drinks. It is not. It is what sex is meant to be: something that makes us feel closer to our partner. To "outgrow" this feeling, is the same as to "outgrow" the sensation of pain when we touch fire or the sensation of pleasure when feeling the wind blow on a sunny summer morning. It mutilates our spirit. That is why promiscuity is considered a sin. Not because it is a crime, but because it numbs an important "sixth sense", that of bodily communion with our beloved. This perception is not naivete, but a subtle pleasure that the "liberals" have long forgotten, possibly because they were very hurt precisely in this aspect. Most people have been, because it is one of the most fragile points of our souls.

Sex before marriage is wrong, not because it is "against the tradition" but because it *will* attach you spiritually to a person who may hurt you. Or not. It's a lottery, and our heart is too precious to be bet in a lottery. Sex after marriage, in theory, will have this attachment occur with a person who you already know and, of your own free will, have chosen to be attached with, not forgetting that it is a relation that has already received the blessing of the Lord.

About your mother, she is offering you what she thinks is best for you out of love. Respect and look up to this love. Just remember that she too is a human being and may be wrong and you don't have to label her anything for that. Although she is wrong in this, I'm sure she is also about other things.

[ialmisry]

I had an interesting debate with my mother about what sex is.  I know I'm just 15, but I know enough from TV, school, and my four pregnant friends.  you see, my mother and I have DRASTICALLY different views of sex.  I believe that sex is how two devoted people consumate their marriage, sortof "sealing the deal".  this means that their together, they've become one.  I also believe that the reason sex feels good, and we want to do it, is so that we want to reproduce.  it's basic science. 

my mother feels that casual sex should be like "going to dinner".  it doesn't matter if people just do it to do it.  she also says people want to have sex to have sex, and it stops there (whereas I believe people want to to have children).  my mother also believes that you shouldn't have to marry to have sex a/o live together. and that people shouldn't be stuck with just one lover for the rest of their lives.  I ask her if she condones polygamy, and she does not.  she believes that people can just casually have sex with anyone they care about, and not have to own up to any commitment.

who is correct?!  am I to conservative when it comes to this?  is my mother too liberal? 

You. No. Yes.

One simple fact, backed by secular statistics: your philosophy (i.e. the Church's) has no fall out.  The fall out from your mother's is legion.

[Tikhon.of.Colorado]

I had an interesting debate with my mother about what sex is.  I know I'm just 15, but I know enough from TV, school, and my four pregnant friends.  you see, my mother and I have DRASTICALLY different views of sex.  I believe that sex is how two devoted people consumate their marriage, sortof "sealing the deal".  this means that their together, they've become one.  I also believe that the reason sex feels good, and we want to do it, is so that we want to reproduce.  it's basic science. 

my mother feels that casual sex should be like "going to dinner".  it doesn't matter if people just do it to do it.  she also says people want to have sex to have sex, and it stops there (whereas I believe people want to to have children).  my mother also believes that you shouldn't have to marry to have sex a/o live together. and that people shouldn't be stuck with just one lover for the rest of their lives.  I ask her if she condones polygamy, and she does not.  she believes that people can just casually have sex with anyone they care about, and not have to own up to any commitment.

who is correct?!  am I to conservative when it comes to this?  is my mother too liberal? 

You. No. Yes.

One simple fact, backed by secular statistics: your philosophy (i.e. the Church's) has no fall out.  The fall out from your mother's is legion.

thank you  

[Heorhij]

As far as I understand, the Orthodox worldview does not know the concept of the so-called "sex." There definitely is the concept of marriage, which includes marital relationships, i.e. the arousal, the erection (in males and females), the copulation, the ejaculation, the climax, etc. Also, there are concepts of fornication and adultery (same as above except these events happen to people who are not married to each other).

[EofK]

As far as I understand, the Orthodox worldview does not know the concept of the so-called "sex." There definitely is the concept of marriage, which includes marital relationships, i.e. the arousal, the erection (in males and females), the copulation, the ejaculation, the climax, etc. Also, there are concepts of fornication and adultery (same as above except these events happen to people who are not married to each other).

It seems to me the Orthodox view takes into account the whole of marriage and doesn't try to dissect marriage into emtional intimacy versus physical intimacy.  Sex, like Heorhij explains, is part of the whole and not something that can be extracted or isolated.  It seems to me that when a person tries to isolate physical intimacy and claim that sex can be casual, someone in the couple is going to expect more and be deeply hurt.  Furthermore, I think it's pretty selfish to expect a partner to gratify physical desires and then just go away. 

[Quinault]

Sex is for unity, not just procreation. Otherwise your idea of sex is correct IMO.

Your mother is basically a hedonist.

[Jetavan]

Your mother is basically a hedonist.

I don't think this is the place for "Yo mama" jokes.

[ytterbiumanalyst]

Your mother is basically a hedonist.

I don't think this is the place for "Yo mama" jokes.

In context, it's quite clear that Quinault is not making a joke.

[Wyatt]

Your mother is basically a hedonist.

I don't think this is the place for "Yo mama" jokes.

In context, it's quite clear that Quinault is not making a joke.

It's also clear that Jetavan was.

[tuesdayschild]

It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

[tuesdayschild]

^ joke

[ytterbiumanalyst]

Your mother is basically a hedonist.

I don't think this is the place for "Yo mama" jokes.

In context, it's quite clear that Quinault is not making a joke.

It's also clear that Jetavan was.

And also that this thread is a very serious issue for the OP, and should be treated seriously.

[Tikhon.of.Colorado]

Sex is for unity, not just procreation. Otherwise your idea of sex is correct IMO.

Your mother is basically a hedonist.

exactly, and this is what I tell her.  sex creates a bond between people.  it can't be as simple or casual as "going out to dinner".

[Quinault]

Although I am sure it is difficult, I would avoid talking to her about this issue. It sounds like you have a good grasp of how to see sex. Continuing to discuss this issue could put you into a position to be disrespectful to your mother. Respect doesn't mean that you have to agree with someone. Just keep the knowledge in the back of your head that your mother comes to most issues from the position of hedonism and filter her "advice" that way. You are not obligated to do what your mother espouses, but you do need to maintain respect towards her.

Growing up I had a difficult time respecting my mother. I was angry that she wasn't the mom I thought she was "supposed to be." I lived my life comparing the mother I had, to the mother I thought I should have. I had the mother I was supposed to have. Arguing with my mom so she could understand what was "right" was only hurting my relationship with her. As an adult now I maintain respect for my mother. I listen and don't argue, if she asks me if I agree I will politely tell her why I do not. But if she doesn't ask, I don't tell her why/how I disagree. There is an amount of saluting the office that you have to do. She is your mother, she always will be. Pray for her, don't try and change how she thinks. This is a great practice in humility and obedience. You will have to discern what to ignore respectfully, and what to obey. She can't make you behave as a hedonist. She can make you do the dishes

A child is a gift to the parents and it is a heavy responsibility, you have a lot more power then you realize. We want to think that as mothers we are affecting all the change/growth. The reality is quite different, a child teaches the parent more then the parent teaches the child. You can be a good influence by doing less arguing and behaving well 

[Tikhon.of.Colorado]

Although I am sure it is difficult, I would avoid talking to her about this issue. It sounds like you have a good grasp of how to see sex. Continuing to discuss this issue could put you into a position to be disrespectful to your mother. Respect doesn't mean that you have to agree with someone. Just keep the knowledge in the back of your head that your mother comes to most issues from the position of hedonism and filter her "advice" that way. You are not obligated to do what your mother espouses, but you do need to maintain respect towards her.

Growing up I had a difficult time respecting my mother. I was angry that she wasn't the mom I thought she was "supposed to be." I lived my life comparing the mother I had to the mother I thought I should have. I had the mother I was supposed to have. Arguing with my mom so she understand what was "right" was only hurting my relationship with her. As an adult now I maintain respect for my mother. I listen and don't argue, if she asks me if I agree I will politely tell her why I do not. But if she doesn't ask, I don't tell her otherwise. There is an amount of saluting the office that you have to do. She is your mother, she always will be. Pray for her, don't try and change how she thinks. This is a great practice in humility and obedience. You will have to discern what to ignore respectfully, and what to obey. She can't make you behave as a hedonist. She can make you do the dishes

I can relate to this, totally.  I confess, I envy others when they complain about what their parents won't let them do, how they make them be home by 9pm, how they drag them to Church, etc.  but I do need to accept my mother for who she is.  I suppose this is easier when you don't live with your mother 24/7 anymore. 

[Quinault]

It is to some extent easier AND harder. My mother makes less and less sense to me as I grow older. There is more room for her to be offended since I am not following her example in parenting with my children now or her example in how to be a Godly wife. So it is easier for me to offend her (and her me) now then it was when I was younger and living at home. She thinks herself an expert on marriage and parenting so I get a lot of bad unsolicited advice. I grieve more now for what she is lacking. I can see how much happier she would/could be if she could just re-orient her world so that she isn't the center/focal point.

[Tikhon.of.Colorado]

It is to some extent easier AND harder. My mother makes less and less sense to me as I grow older. And there is more room for her to be offended since I am not following her example in parenting with my children now. So it is easier for me to offend her (and her me) now then it was when I was younger and living at home.

well, I guess that goes to show us, our mothers are only people.  not quite the superheros they were when we were 5  
I'm just afraid that my mother will one day find out how I feel about abortion.  she gets very...heated...to say the least when it comes to that.  for example, when I was going to a Catholic church (before ever going into an EO Church) my dad mentioned to my mom that I wanted to take catechism classes or join a Catholic youth group.  he assurred me she wouldn't care, but it was not so.  she yelled at me about how "wrong" they are.  and she asks "don't you believe that a woman can do anything she wants with her body?!"  I said yes.  then she responds "well then, they would never accept you."    

I really thank God for leading me to Orthodoxy, as my continued flirtation with Catholicism would have eventually pulled apart my mother and myself.  now, I tell her what the Church believes.  if she doesn't agree, she's pretty vocal.  but I think that she realizes that I'm at the age where I can make SOME of my own decisions.

[Fr. George]

I have to develop the language more fully, but I'm starting to describe the situation of many Orthodox in the world viz-a-viz sex (and love, for that matter) as being victims of a sort of Stockholm Syndrome (not to belittle those who have undergone the terror of being captives in the flesh, mind you).  When surrounded with a perverted view of love, friendship, and sex/sexuality, many have begun to side with the captor to the point of animosity toward the traditional Orthodox POV.  It is a sad situation.

[Alive]

Sex is form of lust.

Sex in marriage is low form of lust, same like nice tea, fresh water in hot day etc.

[Jetavan]

Sex is form of lust.

Sex in marriage is low form of lust, same like nice tea, fresh water in hot day etc.

I would say sex in marriage is a higher (more self-sacrificial) form of lust.

[Fr. George]

Sex in marriage is not generally a form of lust.  Goodness gracious, people.  It can be used to diminish lust in one's life, it can be detrimental if it is too self-centered; but if the people's hearts are in the right place, I believe that lust has nothing to do with it.

[Jetavan]

Sex in marriage is not generally a form of lust.  Goodness gracious, people.  It can be used to diminish lust in one's life, it can be detrimental if it is too self-centered; but if the people's hearts are in the right place, I believe that lust has nothing to do with it.

"Lust" these days is used mostly to refer to sinful, or degrading, passions; but I'm using the original meaning of the word: "pleasure, desire".

From John Foxe, 1500s: "For he and his Father, who are all one, giveth abundantly of all goodness unto all men, and upbraideth nobody for his unworthiness. But if we intend to obtain of Him, we must, all doubtfulness (as I said before) put apart, with a sure confidence of his mercy, ask of him what we would have...praying [asking] Jesus, that we all may lust for that which is most pleasing to him."

[KBN1]

Although I am sure it is difficult, I would avoid talking to her about this issue.

Trevor, I would expand this advice to include most anyone who has views similar to your mother.  Such teachings about sex can be very subtle and seductive and have a way of "making sense".  Don't start, or participate in arguments though.  Let your own life be your proof. 

[Heorhij]

Sex in marriage is not generally a form of lust.  Goodness gracious, people.  It can be used to diminish lust in one's life, it can be detrimental if it is too self-centered; but if the people's hearts are in the right place, I believe that lust has nothing to do with it.

Father George - I agree 100%. Well said.

[Alive]

Sex is form of lust.

Sex in marriage is low form of lust, same like nice tea, fresh water in hot day etc.

I would say sex in marriage is a higher (more self-sacrificial) form of lust.

“Low” – mean “small”. It easier to diagnose and corrupting us less. So, “low form” of lust.

Define “higher” pls.
you mean “high” more complicated and sophisticated?
“more self-sacrificial” – I not get it at all.



We get pleasure eating food (even simple bread) – it is low form of lust, for it can grow and lead into high lust.

It is same as illness, low form, may be hard to diagnose but easy to treat, could be well controlled and some time it not effecting our wellbeing any way.  High form of illness (chronic condition) – deferent , it is could be deadly.

[mike]

God commanded people to multiply while creating us in a way that sex is the key to people's multiplication. You say sex in marriage is a sin so according to your logic God commanded us to sin. Did I miss something?

[Alive]

God commanded people to multiply while creating us in a way that sex is the key to people's multiplication. You say sex in marriage is a sin so according to your logic God commanded us to sin. Did I miss something?

1. Do not mix yourself with Adam in Edem. befor fall.


Psalm 50:7(51:5-6)

[Alive]

God commanded people to multiply while creating us in a way that sex is the key to people's multiplication. You say sex in marriage is a sin so according to your logic God commanded us to sin. Did I miss something?

2. Multiply and have sex – not synonyms.

[Punch]

Sex in marriage is not generally a form of lust.  Goodness gracious, people.  It can be used to diminish lust in one's life, it can be detrimental if it is too self-centered; but if the people's hearts are in the right place, I believe that lust has nothing to do with it.

Father George - I agree 100%. Well said.

My golly Heorhij, I agree, too.  If we both agree, it must be the truth 

[Jetavan]

Sex is form of lust.

Sex in marriage is low form of lust, same like nice tea, fresh water in hot day etc.

I would say sex in marriage is a higher (more self-sacrificial) form of lust.

“Low” – mean “small”. It easier to diagnose and corrupting us less. So, “low form” of lust.

Define “higher” pls.
you mean “high” more complicated and sophisticated?
“more self-sacrificial” – I not get it at all.

By "higher", I mean "more conducive to theosis".

[Alive]

By "higher", I mean "more conducive to theosis".

Strongly disagree.
No lust can be conducive to theosis.

Such form lust as sex in the marriage same as pleasure from basic food.
It is have minimum harm (to no harm) if well managed.

But I not see what way flesh may be “conducive to theosis”.

Spirit – gives life, flesh no use. (John 6:63)

[Asteriktos]

But I not see what way flesh may be “conducive to theosis”.

Spirit – gives life, flesh no use. (John 6:63)

I do not think that this passage can be understood in the way you are presenting. We see the Gospel written with our eyes, we hear the Gospel preached with our ears, and we share the Gospel with our words and actions. These are all things accomplished through our flesh. The body can be used for good, and thus we cannot take the words of Jesus in this passage in a woodenly literal way to mean that the flesh is really of no value.

[WetCatechumen]

It is to some extent easier AND harder. My mother makes less and less sense to me as I grow older. And there is more room for her to be offended since I am not following her example in parenting with my children now. So it is easier for me to offend her (and her me) now then it was when I was younger and living at home.

well, I guess that goes to show us, our mothers are only people.  not quite the superheros they were when we were 5  
I'm just afraid that my mother will one day find out how I feel about abortion.  she gets very...heated...to say the least when it comes to that.  for example, when I was going to a Catholic church (before ever going into an EO Church) my dad mentioned to my mom that I wanted to take catechism classes or join a Catholic youth group.  he assurred me she wouldn't care, but it was not so.  she yelled at me about how "wrong" they are.  and she asks "don't you believe that a woman can do anything she wants with her body?!"  I said yes.  then she responds "well then, they would never accept you."    

I really thank God for leading me to Orthodoxy, as my continued flirtation with Catholicism would have eventually pulled apart my mother and myself.  now, I tell her what the Church believes.  if she doesn't agree, she's pretty vocal.  but I think that she realizes that I'm at the age where I can make SOME of my own decisions.

Except that the Orthodox Church believes the exact same things concerning sexuality as the Catholic Church, with the exception of contraception, but that is a very recent change in the Orthodox Church's practices (but that can be discussed in the Catholic-Orthodox forum - everyone is free to disagree with me).

It seems strange that she should be less angry about Orthodoxy. My parents are the same way. Orthodoxy would have been a much easier pill for them to swallow.

[Alive]

Except that the Orthodox Church believes the exact same things concerning sexuality as the Catholic Church, with the exception of contraception, but that is a very recent change in the Orthodox Church's practices (but that can be discussed in the Catholic-Orthodox forum - everyone is free to disagree with me).

It seems strange that she should be less angry about Orthodoxy. My parents are the same way. Orthodoxy would have been a much easier pill for them to swallow.

1.   Not catholic, Latinas, Romans, Popists etc….no way you people are Catholics, we are, not you. Since when Rome – is whole world?
2.   We not believe.
3.   No way Orthodox(real Catholic) present sex and contraception as it presented by Pop.  You people promote sex with Jesus (Teresa of Ávila, Thérèse of Lisieux etc)

[Alive]

But I not see what way flesh may be “conducive to theosis”.

Spirit – gives life, flesh no use. (John 6:63)

I do not think that this passage can be understood in the way you are presenting. We see the Gospel written with our eyes, we hear the Gospel preached with our ears, and we share the Gospel with our words and actions. These are all things accomplished through our flesh. The body can be used for good, and thus we cannot take the words of Jesus in this passage in a woodenly literal way to mean that the flesh is really of no value.

We have talk about theosis and flesh. Precisely - Sex and theosis.
So phrase above was related to Sex and theosis issue. Not about can we use flesh as good tools or not.

[Asteriktos]

We have talk about theosis and flesh. Precisely - Sex and theosis.
So phrase above was related to Sex and theosis issue. Not about can we use flesh as good tools or not.

I suppose that's where we diverge, because I don't see sex as lust, but rather (in the proper context and with the proper motives) as a healthy and natural expression of love between two people. St. John Chrysostom spoke of sex in a positive light in a number of passages, sometimes even mentioning the "pleasure" in the act:

"And how become they one flesh? As if you should take away the purest part of gold, and mingle it with other gold; so in truth here also the woman as it were receiving the richest part fused by pleasure, nourishes it and cherishes it, and withal contributing her own share, restores it back a Man." - St. John Chrysostom, Homily 12 on Colossians

[Asteriktos]

I might also add that the Church Fathers saw sexual relations within marriage as a way of avoiding lust, not as an indulging of lust. So to did St. Paul, I think:

"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband." - 1 Cor. 7:1-3

[Alive]

We have talk about theosis and flesh. Precisely - Sex and theosis.
So phrase above was related to Sex and theosis issue. Not about can we use flesh as good tools or not.

I suppose that's where we diverge, because I don't see sex as lust, but rather (in the proper context and with the proper motives) as a healthy and natural expression of love between two people. St. John Chrysostom spoke of sex in a positive light in a number of passages, sometimes even mentioning the "pleasure" in the act:

"And how become they one flesh? As if you should take away the purest part of gold, and mingle it with other gold; so in truth here also the woman as it were receiving the richest part fused by pleasure, nourishes it and cherishes it, and withal contributing her own share, restores it back a Man." - St. John Chrysostom, Homily 12 on Colossians

 
1.   Ap. Paul not refer to lust but adultery.
2.   St. John , with all my respect have no sexual experience, and would not teach about nature of sexual intercourse publicly …. even then it could be his personal theological opinion.

Let see what St. John speaking about in real:

What way one flesh occur?
Same way if you obtain most pure gold and mix it with other gold. So here we have some thing simular….. wife receive “melted like” fruit substance in hit pleasure moment, than feed it and keep it warm, give to it all needed and produce (new) man.  And baby serve as some sort of bridge , so it is three combining in one flesh, for child connecting one side with other.


amour à trois ??  no way St. John say it.

[Asteriktos]

1.   Ap. Paul not refer to lust but adultery.

It's clear from the context that St. Paul is talking about lust, not adultery. Adultery is something that would come after someone got married, whereas St. Paul was saying that this thing that he was talking about (avoiding lust) was a reason to get married in the first place. His thought is: it's good to remain celibate, but if it comes down to you choosing between 1) burning with lust or 2) getting married, then you should marry. And obviously it wouldn't help you avoid fornication (ie. lust) if you were married but not having sex: if anything, it would exacerbate the problem.

2.   St. John , with all my respect have no sexual experience, and would not teach about nature of sexual intercourse publicly …. even then it could be his personal theological opinion.

It could be his personal opinion, except that, as I understand it, it's what the Church as a whole teaches. To quote another Church Father:

"Let no one think however that herein we depreciate marriage as an institution. We are well aware that it is not a stranger to God's blessing. But since the common instincts of mankind can plead sufficiently on its behalf, instincts which prompt by a spontaneous bias to take the high road of marriage for the procreation of children" - St. Gregory Nyssa, On Virginity, 8

St. Gregory here not only says that marriage is blessed by God and a "high road," but talks about how humans naturally ("common instincts") are attracted to one another. Since he goes on to talk about the procreation of children I believe we can infer that St. Gregory is not just talking about desire for companionship or love, but also sexual attraction.

Also, according to Orthodox epistemology one does not have to have direct experience of everything to understand the nature of man. One need not experience homosexuality to understand it, or the use of contraception, or what it's like to be someone of the opposite gender. Now, certainly experience counts for a lot, I am not arguing with that. However, when the tarnished image of God in someone is cleaned up, and they make great spiritual strides, they begin to understand the deeper mysteries (human nature, salvation, etc.) And I think that many people would agree that, of all the Church Fathers, St. John was one of the best at being pastorally sensitive and understanding humans as they really are in reality (not just in theory).

Let see what St. John speaking about in real:

What way one flesh occur?
Same way if you obtain most pure gold and mix it with other gold. So here we have some thing simular….. wife receive “melted like” fruit substance in hit pleasure moment, than feed it and keep it warm, give to it all needed and produce (new) man.  And baby serve as some sort of bridge , so it is three combining in one flesh, for child connecting one side with other.

amour à trois ??  no way St. John say it.

No, St. John was talking about the child being a bridge between the two parents (and not a necessary one for marriage to have meaning, as St. John also says). He wasn't being literal, nor do I see how he could have been literal...?

[Alive]

1.   Ap. Paul not refer to lust but adultery.

It's clear from the context that St. Paul is talking about lust, not adultery. Adultery is something that would come after someone got married, whereas St. Paul was saying that this thing that he was talking about (avoiding lust) was a reason to get married in the first place. His thought is: it's good to remain celibate, but if it comes down to you choosing between 1) burning with lust or 2) getting married, then you should marry. And obviously it wouldn't help you avoid fornication (ie. lust) if you were married but not having sex: if anything, it would exacerbate the problem.

Paul talking about sexual intercourse. You may call it any way you like.

Lust – is not just sexual desire.
Lust is any form of flesh pleasure desire.

Of course you may disagree, and build your own world of meaning, then we have no thing in common to talk about.

[Asteriktos]

Paul talking about sexual intercourse. You may call it any way you like.

Lust – is not just sexual desire.
Lust is any form of flesh pleasure desire.

Of course you may disagree, and build your own world of meaning, then we have no thing in common to talk about.

You're not dealing with the points that I'm making, you're just restating your opinion. Sts. Gregory the Dialogist, Augustine, Jerome and Caesarius of Arles may have agreed with you, but they'd have been incorrect. And Orthodoxy certainly doesn't teach that "any form of flesh pleasure desire" is lust.

[Alive]

You regulary speculating on Church Fathers as  well you twisting my statements.

I do not disrespect marriage.

We talk her about sexual intercourse as form of pleasure.
Any flesh pressure is lust, food, sex etc.
No matter you excepting it or not.

Flesh and blood do not belong to Heavenly Kingdom.
Any pleasure form things which not belong to Heavenly Kingdom and it  desire such pleasure called lust.
Some lust – insignificant and could be easy managed, some deadly.

You may ignore it , but it would not change it.

[Alive]

Paul talking about sexual intercourse. You may call it any way you like.

Lust – is not just sexual desire.
Lust is any form of flesh pleasure desire.

Of course you may disagree, and build your own world of meaning, then we have no thing in common to talk about.

You're not dealing with the points that I'm making, you're just restating your opinion. And Orthodoxy certainly doesn't teach that "any form of flesh pleasure desire" is lust.

Sorry for you, as you not familiar with orthodoxy then…