In the landscape of human ideas, we have capitalism, feminism, hedonism, and countless other “-isms” that define systems of thought and belief. But what about “lustism”? While not a term you’ll find in dictionaries or academic textbooks, it sparks intriguing questions about how we conceptualize desire, power, and human nature. Let’s explore this phantom concept and its philosophical shadows.

“The body is not a thing, it is a situation: it is our grasp on the world and our sketch of our project.”
— Simone de Beauvoir

What Might “Lustism” Mean?

Without formal definition, we can imagine three potential interpretations of this neologism:

1. A Philosophy of Desire: As a doctrine, lustism might position sexual desire as life’s central driving force – a liberation from repressive norms. It echoes elements of hedonism but with specific focus on erotic energy as creative and transformative.
2. A System of Power: Could lustism describe a societal structure where sexual capital dictates hierarchy? Here, desirability becomes currency, influence, and access – a disturbing reflection of aspects already present in consumer culture and media.
3. A Form of Prejudice: As discrimination, “lustism” might target those deemed excessively lustful or insufficiently desirable – shaming asexuals, polyamorous people, or those not meeting conventional beauty standards.

Why “Lustism” Remains Unofficial

Unlike established “-isms,” lustism lacks coherence because lust itself resists systemization. Desire is too fluid, too personal, too culturally variable to anchor a unified philosophy. As philosopher Michel Foucault observed:

“Where there is power, there is resistance… Sex is not a property of the body, but a historical product.”
— Michel Foucault

Lust operates in tension with society – simultaneously suppressed and commodified, celebrated and pathologized. Any attempt to elevate it to an “-ism” risks oversimplifying this complexity.

Established Concepts That Fill the Void

While “lustism” remains speculative, these established frameworks address similar terrain:

• Hedonism: The pursuit of pleasure as life’s chief good. As Epicurus noted: “Do not spoil what you have by desiring what you have not; remember that what you now have was once among the things you only hoped for.”
• Sex-Positivity: A movement embracing sexual diversity and autonomy. Audre Lorde captured its spirit: “The erotic is the nurturer or nursemaid of all our deepest knowledge.”
• Lookism: Discrimination based on appearance. Naomi Wolf warned: “Beauty is a currency system like the gold standard… [it] determines not just marriage and sexual possibilities but jobs and promotions.”
• Objectification Theory: Examines how reducing people to bodies harms both subject and observer. As bell hooks wrote: “The commodification of other people’s bodies… is central to the maintenance of imperialist, white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy.”

The Value of the Unnamed

“The mystery of love is greater than the mystery of death.”
— Oscar Wilde

Perhaps “lustism” remains undefined because lust itself defies categorization. It’s not a system to be adopted or rejected, but a fundamental human experience – messy, irrational, and deeply personal. Its power lies partly in its resistance to ideological packaging.

In exploring this phantom concept, we confront deeper questions: How do we reconcile desire with dignity? How do we build societies that neither suppress nor exploit sexuality? The absence of “lustism” in our lexicon reminds us that some aspects of human experience are better lived than labeled.

This philosophical exploration reflects on an undefined concept. For further reading, consider works by Foucault, de Beauvoir, Lorde, and contemporary theorists in sexuality studies.