Boudoir Photography - is this a sin?

[Vtbunny]

I am a female photographer and started my business shooting families and children. I had never been aware of boudoir photography until I got into the business and at first wasn’t sure what to make of it. I thought it was inappropriate and objectified women. Just recently it peaked my interest and I offered to photograph several of my friends who had expressed interest. The photos were of women for their husbands and while they were all sensual in nature none of the women were photographed in anything less than something you would see in an underwear catalog. When the session was over I realized that this was an art I really enjoyed - all of the women felt beautiful and looked beautiful, regardless of their body type or image.

So now I am struggling. I would love to go into this business, but I wonder if this is a sin? Not just for me, but for these women? I wouldn’t want to cause someone else to fall into sin, and I certainly wouldn’t want to be committing sin myself. I can certainly see how this may not be appropriate and after completing the session I do see it as a true art, not as pornography. I edit my images privately in my home and would never share the images without my clients permission.

 

[Loving_disciple]

If it tempts someone with the sin of lust then yes are committing sin. However if the people in it are fully clothed then it may not be considered sin.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

You said that all the women gave their consent, and were taking the pictures for their husbands. That’s pretty much as much as you need to know for it not to be a sin. So long as you are not lusting after the women as you photograph them I don’t think this would be considered a sin on your part, as you said, it’s art. Nudity isn’t automatically immoral, and these women weren’t nude; simply provocative; which I also don’t believe is a sin, so long as their provocation is directed towards their spouse.

I’m no authority on the subject, this is just my two cents.

 

[nodito]

Are you prepared to turn down potential clients who are not married? Something to think about.

I’m not sure myself where I stand on this and am looking forward to reading the arguments in favor or against.

 

[JackieMom]

I don’t think it’s really your business what people do with the photos once they are taken. You provide a service that is not inherantly immoral. As long as te photos are not porn and you are comfortable taking them, I see no problem.

Do the salesladies Victoria’s Secret know if the sexy lingerie they sell will be worn for a husband, a boyfriend, or worse? No. And it’s not their business anyway. Your job is to provide a service, their conscience determines how they utilize it. We’d have to stop selling everything if we quizzed customers on what they were going to do with the purchases.

 

[RoseMary131]

So now I am struggling. I would love to go into this business, but I wonder if this is a sin? Not just for me, but for these women? .

I think this deserves the most given response when posters ask about sin…talk with a priest.

You may need to have several appointments with a priest for guidance and suggestions on how to maintain the level of art you are wanting for your clients and yourself.

Take time to actually list your own rules for what and how you will photograph clients. You don’t want to be forming your rules in the middle of a photo shoot.

St. Veronica - Patroness of Photographer - Pray for us.

 

[mandajane]

I’m getting married in 7 months, and a few of the photographers I interviewed tried to push this on me. Others may not agree with me, but I, personally, feel like it’s wrong, because:

1. 
   *]Your husband will not be the only one to see these pictures. They will be seen by the photographers staff, and possibly used in adverts (depending on the photographer).
   *]Once the picture is taken, it exists, and you cannot control the random chance of where those pictures might end up.
   *]The purpose of the pictures is to serve as soft core pornography, and a ‘teaser’ for your husband. Hence, inciting lust. Normally these pictures are taken with this in mind.
   *]They are a physical embodiment of how you used to look, and as the years pass may leave uncomfortable comparison if time/pregnancy/life are not kind.
   *]Lastly, it’s you objectifying yourself. In a lot of example shots I’ve seen, the woman’s face is obscured or moved to the edge of the frame, the emphasis is put on her body. This tells you nothing about the woman or her personality. It’s literally just “look at my body”.
   
   So yeah it feels wrong to me. YMMV, though. I would definitely talk to a priest.

 

[AnneTeresa]

I think it’s wrong and I was shocked when I learned how mainstream accepted this has become, even among some Christians. It is clearly objectifying the woman imho.

 

[bookreader]

I don’t think it’s really your business what people do with the photos once they are taken. You provide a service that is not inherantly immoral. As long as te photos are not porn and you are comfortable taking them, I see no problem.

Do the salesladies Victoria’s Secret know if the sexy lingerie they sell will be worn for a husband, a boyfriend, or worse? No. And it’s not their business anyway. Your job is to provide a service, their conscience determines how they utilize it. We’d have to stop selling everything if we quizzed customers on what they were going to do with the purchases.

Amen! I can’t speak for anyone else, but I am tired of people who tell others that they are responsible for the actions of others. It is a little too reminiscent of the pronouncements of Muslim clerics who say that a woman’s uncovered face leads men to lustful behavior. Just this week one of them said that infant girls should be covered lest they provoke lust in grown men. Absurd!!!

 

[bookreader]

I’m getting married in 7 months, and a few of the photographers I interviewed tried to push this on me. Others may not agree with me, but I, personally, feel like it’s wrong, because:

1. 
   *]Your husband will not be the only one to see these pictures. They will be seen by the photographers staff, and possibly used in adverts (depending on the photographer).
   *]Once the picture is taken, it exists, and you cannot control the random chance of where those pictures might end up.
   *]The purpose of the pictures is to serve as soft core pornography, and a ‘teaser’ for your husband. Hence, inciting lust. Normally these pictures are taken with this in mind.
   *]They are a physical embodiment of how you used to look, and as the years pass may leave uncomfortable comparison if time/pregnancy/life are not kind.
   *]Lastly, it’s you objectifying yourself. In a lot of example shots I’ve seen, the woman’s face is obscured or moved to the edge of the frame, the emphasis is put on her body. This tells you nothing about the woman or her personality. It’s literally just “look at my body”.
   
   So yeah it feels wrong to me. YMMV, though. I would definitely talk to a priest.

1. 
   So how about if you just don’t do this if you feel this way but don’t try to tell this photographer that she shouldn’t and should go see a priest. You are NOT your brother’s (or SISTER’S) keeper.

 

[JackieMom]

So how about if you just don’t do this if you feel this way but don’t try to tell this photographer that she shouldn’t and should go see a priest. You are NOT your brother’s (or SISTER’S) keeper.

You have to remember that American Catholics are still subject to the lasting effects of Puritanism. I doubt our faith in this country will ever be totally free of its ramifications and infiltration. Our European counterparts tend to be much more comfortable with the human body and don’t become scrupulous about modesty like we do. I don’t get the obsession with not “inciting lust” in a husband, either. Enjoy it while you can, I say.

 

[EasterJoy]

… I thought it was inappropriate and objectified women… When the session was over I realized that this was an art I really enjoyed - all of the women felt beautiful and looked beautiful, regardless of their body type or image.

If you look at the art the Vatican owns, I think you’ll agree that there are depictions of a woman’s body that are quite explicitly depictions of a woman’s body that do not violate moral law. IOW, an artist can depict the beauty of woman’s body without violating moral law. Not every picture of a woman has to bring to mind a depiction of Madonna and Child.

I think you’re doing pictures that a mother would not be embarrassed to show to her daughter. It is the kind of pictures that would be legitimate as advertising of intimate apparel that would be fine for a Catholic woman to own…in other words, pictures that an unmarried Catholic woman could pose for without violating moral law, pictures that could have been sent out in the mail in the 1930 Sears Catalog!

Let us not get scrupulous, here. If you stick to your current boundaries, I don’t see anything wrong with the pictures you are taking. The truth is, I think the kind of pictures you are talking about illustrate the difference between a woman making an object of herself and a woman wanting to look like a woman for her husband.

I would consider, however, offering to sell the rights to the pictures as part of the package, and certainly to offer to destroy the electronic “negatives”, if the client requests it. IOW, make it possible for the client to be the sole owner of all electronic copies of intimate picture shoots. Also make it possible for the client to view and order prints without ever putting them on the internet.

 

[12345678]

You have to remember that American Catholics are still subject to the lasting effects of Puritanism. I doubt our faith in this country will ever be totally free of its ramifications and infiltration. Our European counterparts tend to be much more comfortable with the human body and don’t become scrupulous about modesty like we do. I don’t get the obsession with not “inciting lust” in a husband, either. Enjoy it while you can, I say.

Hmm, Puritanism may have had negative effects on our culture’s view of marital sex (“dirty” etc), but I think our culture has more problems in the immodest/indecency area than being overly decent/pure:

2521 Purity requires modesty, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity.

2522 Modesty protects the mystery of persons and their love. It encourages patience and moderation in loving relationships; it requires that the conditions for the definitive giving and commitment of man and woman to one another be fulfilled. Modesty is decency. It inspires one’s choice of clothing. It keeps silence or reserve where there is evident risk of unhealthy curiosity. It is discreet.

Being careful about purity and modesty (which we should be careful with) does not mean we are not comfortable (and grateful) for our bodies! In fact, it means that we are taking care of our bodies, respecting our body in protecting the “intimate center of the person”. Interestingly, if you ask non-Catholics, I bet a lot would admit that many boudoir pictures are probably meant to be provocative (the very nature of them, usually females in underwear posing to try to look attractive or “sexy”), and that they can very well incite lust.
Let’s say some women are trying to look pretty and do not want to incite lust/arousal in their husbands, they want a pure picture celebrating their womanhood (not sure why it has to be in underwear, but ok). Fine, but what are you going to do when other women are clearly trying to take provocative pictures?

From Christopher West:
n his theology of the body, John Paul II wrote that some works of art (such as the Sistine Chapel) portray the naked body in a manner that “allows one to concentrate in some way on the whole truth of man, on the dignity and beauty — even ‘suprasensual’ beauty — of his masculinity and femininity” (TOB 63:5). In contrast to this kind of authentic art, pornographic portrayals of the body raise objection, the pope insists, not because they expose the human body per se. The human body in itself always retains its inalienable dignity. Rather, pornography raises objections because of the way in which the human body is portrayed (see TOB 63:5). Pornographers portray the body with the explicit intention of arousing lust — or, as theologians would say, “concupiscence” — in the viewer. This was not the intention of Michelangelo.

Also, please look into lust in marriage. Blessed Pope John Paul II explains it very well in some of his writings, how easily we can fall into this. It is very realistic to assume that a couple can have issues with this, it is something we all have to guard against.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

You have to remember that American Catholics are still subject to the lasting effects of Puritanism. I doubt our faith in this country will ever be totally free of its ramifications and infiltration. Our European counterparts tend to be much more comfortable with the human body and don’t become scrupulous about modesty like we do. I don’t get the obsession with not “inciting lust” in a husband, either. Enjoy it while you can, I say.

While I agree for the most part, I think the distinction should be made between “inciting lust” and “inciting desire”

The former is an attempt to induce your partner to view you as a purely sexual being, whose primary purpose is sexual gratification (that is, after all, what Lust does, which is why it is such a grave sin).

The latter is an attempt to induce your partner to desire you, not just on a physical level; but on a spiritual one as well. The desire should not be for sexual gratification, but rather for you and your partner to become one flesh and spirit.

 

[EasterJoy]

From Christopher West:
In his theology of the body, John Paul II wrote that some works of art (such as the Sistine Chapel) portray the naked body in a manner that “allows one to concentrate in some way on the whole truth of man, on the dignity and beauty — even ‘suprasensual’ beauty — of his masculinity and femininity” (TOB 63:5)…

Also, please look into lust in marriage. Blessed Pope John Paul II explains it very well in some of his writings, how easily we can fall into this. It is very realistic to assume that a couple can have issues with this, it is something we all have to guard against.

The point is that the OP is photographing these women in a way that seems to her entirely in keeping with the higher aims of feminine depictions in art. These women are not asking her to capture them in shameful poses or shameful attire. Their poses are intimate, yes, but still dignified. There is no reason for her to rashly assume that she is putting these women or their husbands in a near occasion of sin by cooperating with the women’s desire to have themselves portrayed in art in the way that this artist is doing it.

I wouldn’t give a blanket OK to boudoir photography, but I think what we have here is a photographer that “gets it”.

 

[JackieMom]

While I agree for the most part, I think the distinction should be made between “inciting lust” and “inciting desire”

The former is an attempt to induce your partner to view you as a purely sexual being, whose primary purpose is sexual gratification (that is, after all, what Lust does, which is why it is such a grave sin).

The latter is an attempt to induce your partner to desire you, not just on a physical level; but on a spiritual one as well. The desire should not be for sexual gratification, but rather for you and your partner to become one flesh and spirit.

It’s semantics. If my husband is good to me, kind, generous, works like a dog for his family, is respectful and shows appreciation for what I do. If I know he’d swim through shark infested waters to bring me an iced tea if I asked, I’m totally fine with him thinking I’m hot stuff and wanting to rip my clothes off and take me to bed all hot and bothered : )

 

[Vtbunny]

I’m getting married in 7 months, and a few of the photographers I interviewed tried to push this on me. Others may not agree with me, but I, personally, feel like it’s wrong, because:

1. 
   *]Your husband will not be the only one to see these pictures. They will be seen by the photographers staff, and possibly used in adverts (depending on the photographer).
   *]Once the picture is taken, it exists, and you cannot control the random chance of where those pictures might end up.
   *]The purpose of the pictures is to serve as soft core pornography, and a ‘teaser’ for your husband. Hence, inciting lust. Normally these pictures are taken with this in mind.
   *]They are a physical embodiment of how you used to look, and as the years pass may leave uncomfortable comparison if time/pregnancy/life are not kind.
   *]Lastly, it’s you objectifying yourself. In a lot of example shots I’ve seen, the woman’s face is obscured or moved to the edge of the frame, the emphasis is put on her body. This tells you nothing about the woman or her personality. It’s literally just “look at my body”.
   
   So yeah it feels wrong to me. YMMV, though. I would definitely talk to a priest.

1. 
   You bring up great points. Many of these women already having children of their own and are actually celebrating their post-baby bodies. Regarding the first item, I don’t have assistants who work for me, I’m a one person show, however if the images were to be printed at a professional lab they would be viewed by others (which is concerning). With regards to the last bullet, no where in my photography have I (or would I) focus on the body part. All of the images I take put the woman’s face as the main focus of the image.
   

   I would consider, however, offering to sell the rights to the pictures as part of the package, and certainly to offer to destroy the electronic “negatives”, if the client requests it. IOW, make it possible for the client to be the sole owner of all electronic copies of intimate picture shoots. Also make it possible for the client to view and order prints without ever putting them on the internet.

   Another great suggestion. I do offer the digital rights to my images and in the contract that I have drafted it states that all images will be deleted from memory after 30 days to protect the privacy of my clients.
   
   This is such a hard topic for me. And don’t get me wrong, my first instinct was to think this was a very, very, bad thing. But in the moment of shooting these women they became happy and comfortable in their own skin. While they say these images are for their husbands I think they are just as much in part for them, to celebrate their beauty. That, however, brings up the issue of vanity. Is it a sin for any women to want to feel or look beautiful by styling their hair and makeup or dressing up in something fancy?

 

[chevalier]

I understand your more emotional/intuitive sentiments, while also sharing your more intellectual realisation that there should be a strong and clear argument for deciding that something is a sin (materially, of course, not subjectively, which is a different area).

Personally, while I appreciate the form of the human body and I can be on the record saying that few things in the world are prettier than a pretty girl (men can be nice to look at too, although full body shots tend to gross me out unless it’s Donatello’s David or something), and there’s nothing at all inherently sinful in that form or even in the appreciation of it, I tend to become uneasy when it involves sensuality. Also, while I could look without feeling guilty (and without really having even a temptation to sinful thoughts as long as it really is art), I would definitely feel shame if, let’s say, my hypothetical daughter or wife decided to pose. And I say this as a person who doesn’t attach much weight to similar considerations when it comes to medical procedures or circumstances such as rescue actions or even misfortunate accidents like someone thinks he or she is alone in the room etc.

…But I just can’t understand the motivation to pose on purpose, the necessity to show the resulting image to other people, or the justification for involving the photographer, painter, sculptor or some other person in the intimacy and inevitable sensuality of the whole thing. While it’s great that we can rise above prudishness and behave like normal people when it comes to aforementioned necessities or accidents, I am extremely distrustful towards the need to show one’s body to others (even on the premise of realising that it has some aesthetical value for others). I would be inclined to want to analyse that person’s mind for personality issues, traumas etc. and some form of determined behaviours.

This said, it’s different when the photographer is of the same sex, the shots aren’t in the nude and aren’t intended for anybody other than the spouse to see. (Although it’s perfectly possible for e.g. fully nude ancient statues to be less scandalous than modern underwear advertisements.)

But still, while there is the easily noticeable issue of exclusivity of the spouses (not very long ago it was still spoken of in terms of “right in/to the body”), there is also the problem that we are not supposed to find excitement in our imagination or fantasies–even of our spouses–but only in real contact. I don’t really want to be too far on the prude side here and insisting to make it wrong at all cost (let alone massively wrong), but I don’t like it really. I mean, maybe if it’s mostly aesthetical or sentimental value. But otherwise it renders me distrustful, triggers some primordial fears or anxieties. I was dead pale when one of the most recent special ladies in my life made a joke about such photographs. I basically freaked out and it let to an emotional confrontation.

Therefore I understand how you feel. And I think if it gives you such emotional distress, perhaps you should give up on that part of your practice as a photographer.

I’m a translator (went to law school but mostly changed fields since graduation) and there are contracts I don’t take, even if I can’t really put my hand on a very concrete violation. Some time ago I excused myself and told the agency lady that the descriptions in a perfume ad were too suggestive (they were far on the primordial side) and I’d feel uncomfortable as a person with a rather conservative Catholic mindset. She was understanding and didn’t hold it against me or understand me as outright criticising the material I was supposed to work on.

 

[RedSparklyShoes]

How is “inciting lust” in my husband with a photograph any different than a little tease of pressing my body against his at a time when we both know that having sex isn’t a possibility? Part of my desire for my husband comes from the teasing he does to me when we can’t fulfil it and the same goes for him.

I wouldn’t do it unless I really really REALLY trusted the photographer. I’ve got a friend who made her own catalogue like Victoria Secret where she was the model and gave it to her husband. I’m considering something like this, but not sure yet.

 

[chevalier]

How is “inciting lust” in my husband with a photograph any different than a little tease of pressing my body against his at a time when we both know that having sex isn’t a possibility? Part of my desire for my husband comes from the teasing he does to me when we can’t fulfil it and the same goes for him.

That’s a good question but from the perspective from a person who’s more of a hairsplitter in such things: images of a person can be separated from the person, as in interacting with an image of a person, which interacts with our imagination, as opposed to interacting with the person himself or herself.

A light tease of a photograph is probably little different from a light verbal tease over the phone, which would be hard to see as sinful. But in the situation of, shall we say, a husband-far-away spending hours with a sensual photo of his wife, I’d be worried. It does ultimately come down to the issue of fantasies (imagination) giving satisfaction rather than the actual interaction with a person.

Please take the above as an exercise in theorising. I feel very uncomfortable commenting on behaviours which people claim as their own. No pretence to judging anybody’s behaviour here.