There is no sin in styling your hair and makeup to feel beautiful or to dress in something fancy.
“…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…”
In short, one can without sin imagine something for the sake of, shall we say, science, or solving a legal or moral theology situation. As an observer, simply put. On the other hand, imagination which is intended to cause venereal pleasure in us is a different thing. You need to consider the goal here. The only licit source of veneral pleasure is actually the intercourse itself, in a broader context and all, but it’s about interaction, not imagination.
That is true.
On the other hand, photographs involve at least the photographer from outside the couple (and I’m no fan of the artist-model relationship) and in some cases a broader audience, as some people do indeed display an artistic nude of themselves in their house for guests to see; which I’m not saying is necessarily immoral but something well outside my zone of comfort, not even really on moral grounds. The monogamous sensuality is one thing but when the sensuality tends to be less focused but more of a general message (basically some kind of lower-level interaction with the general audience or with a stranger, which is still of a somewhat sexual or sensual nature), that is when all of my red lights flare up. That’s something I frankly can’t understand or accept.
We are not even talking about nudes…that’s the other thread. We’re talking about sensual portraiture which depicts a wife in poses she wouldn’t be embarrassed to admit to relatives that she strikes, provided they were old enough to understand the context. In other words, telling a fellow Catholic woman about this kind of thing would not usually be TMI. There’s some friends you wouldn’t talk about it with, but a woman could talk to her mother about these things. A female photographer doing these photos would be fine.
Actually, that’s a similar problem to the issue of, pardon the word, masturbation in marriage. The argument that the connection doesn’t go and off etc. like you’re trying to build doesn’t really work. Just because an intercourse itself was lawful doesn’t give the right to engage in reminiscing about it with the purpose of deriving new sexual excitement from that. Just like having the right to have that intercourse doesn’t justify already deriving sexual satisfaction from imagining the potential future. Similarly to how being engaged doesn’t justify fantasising about the wedding night and already getting satisfaction from that, nor do fantasies of an unmarried person become lawful to have just because that person doesn’t omit imagining himself or herself as married. Just like it wouldn’t be licit to watch a porn film featuring actors who happen to be married to each other.
It’s hard to argue with you when you make exaggerations like that. Please stop it, it’s unfair.
It is hard to argue with me when I make exaggerations like that? You’re trying to tell me *I don’t know what it would feel like *if my husband were to tell me that he thinks it is lustful–per se, mind you, Mr. Attorney!!–to think of me as a beautiful and desirable woman at any time we were not actually in a situation where we can engage in the marital act? It would be unfair if nobody ever warned you how a woman might take your assertion, that is what would be unfair. You deserve to be warned before you get married.
BTW, I find it hard to believe that an attorney can complain with a straight face that the disadvantages of arguing his side of the question makes his opponent’s strategies “unfair.” It is your job to make the jury believe that I’m exaggerating, not my job to concern myself with whether or not* you* are going to accept my arguments. Surely a lawyer can accept that reality as a matter of course.
To clarify: We’re not saying that every couple has to find this kind of picture a good thing for their own relationship. It comes down to the actual effect it has on the two of you. If you or your husband find the pictures lend a pleasant sense of anticipation and gratitude, that’s fine. If either one of you finds that the pictures are more frustrating than anything else, then that is a good reason to avoid them. They aren’t inherently positive or negative, but they do affect the relationships and inner lives of different couples in different ways.
Thank you!!! You are completely right. If this is something I go into I would love to market myself this way and have the upmost respect for the woman and her body.
Yes! This is what I am talking about. I photographed women in their husbands shirts, and another fully clothed in a very tight (yet modest), long sleeve dress that she has worn before with her husband. She was actually 16 weeks pregnant and and looked absolutely stunning. Yes, she was laying on the bed but the only skin that was showing was her face. On the same note I photographed a woman in a thong underwear and panties yet didn’t find the picture as ‘sensual’ because she was laughing in the image.I honestly say “go for it.” You seem to have a legitimate interest in maintaining the dignity of the woman and you are doing it to glorify her natural beauty, particularly for their spouses. You can’t control what people do with the pictures, but as long as you keep it “tasteful boudoir”, then I see no moral wrong as your intentions are pure and good.
Not gonna lie. I had to look it up to make sure I got the right idea and among pictures that I definitely would not call “tasteful”, there really were some gorgeous pictures that just made me go “wow.” Not because I was aroused or anything, but because these “normal” women really were beautiful, and the one I was amazed by was laughing, wearing her husband’s work shirt and a bra and panties. She wasn’t even mostly naked. Finding a photographer with a focus on maintaining the beauty and dignity of the whole person is rare. I actually think you would be doing a good service to women (especially those who are normally not to prone to “exposure”) by doing it. Believe me, what you do could make a woman feel beautiful for a long time, and that is definitely worth a lot! Go for it!
If male gynecologists can do it, I’m sure male photographers can, too. As you point out, they take care to have someone else present while they work. Since the photographs are not inherently wrong and since some male photographers can take them without putting themselves in a near occasion of sin, it can be permissible.
I could see where a photographer might feel that way. Still, if the photographer says, “no couples boudoir photos; one person at a time only”, then she’s in less danger of what you’re concerned about than if she did old-fashioned wedding photos. (And boy, could I see the wisdom of not doing “couples” photos of this kind, for couples married or otherwise! Wow, TMI!!)
No, I would not feel comfortable with this, nor would I photograph a same-sex marriage. I think there are a lot of “what-ifs” that could asked of any businessperson that would have them question their morals. I think those situations would be addressed as needed otherwise we could go crazy drafting contracts on to whom or what services we would offer.
This is an important point, especially since there is not a bright white line between appreciation of beauty, ordinate desires, and lust. The difference is not seated in one place, either: it is both in the intent of the artist and in the effect on the viewer. Someone who is particularly sensitive to temptations will not experience the same effect as someone who is not, even though both look at the same thing.
Gotcha, thanks for your concern. Just to be clear I wouldn’t ever advertise Boudoir as part of my family portrait business. It would be completely word of mouth.