For the married, is it permissible to send intimate photos to your spouse?

[Hawkeye916]

Can we get @edward_george1 back in here for his thoughts?? Haha

 

[edward_george1]

I refer everyone to the Catechism:

Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials. (2523)

Now, we have to remember that at the time this was written, in the mid-1990s, sending digital pictures to someone wasn’t really a widely available technology, as it is now. So you can’t say that this refers only to pornography as a commercial product, but that anything else would be fine. We can’t be fundamentalists when it comes to reading the Catechism and assume it’s only talking about this very specific matter at a very specific time. The issue has evolved quite a lot, and so to talk about this we have to realize that there’s a moral principle in play here.

The principle is precisely that marital intimacy is supposed to be a reflection of those goods of marriage, namely “permanent, exclusive, and fruitful.” This is why we say that the marital embrace is supposed to be ordered toward the couple mutually expressing love in a unitive and procreative way. Hence the catechism takes issue with pornography because it removes something that belongs to the intimacy of marriage from its proper context, and allows it to be viewed by a third party.

The argument would then be: why would it be wrong for spouses to send intimate photos to one another, if it’s not intended for a third party? Others have already commented on how, regardless of intent, a third party may wind up in possession of such photos, and actually already does (most phones now upload everything to the cloud, so if you take that picture, even if you never show another living soul on purpose, it’s out there on the internet, in someone else’s possession). I think the issue is not whether or not the photos are shared, but rather that some piece of that marital intimacy has been broken off and objectified. You might say “what about other acts, i.e. spouses enticing one another in some way or another before one heads off to work?” But that isn’t imprinted into any kind of record, photographic or otherwise. It isn’t made an object of, it is still a relational activity. You might argue that taking photos is a relational activity, but I do not see how it is on a par with acts that are done together.

 

[edward_george1]

In short, intimate photos, even between spouses, take out of their proper context the acts proper to marriage, and the language of the body. Just as sacraments cannot take place over the phone remotely, so also must the marital embrace, and the things leading up to it, be expressed relationally and not apart from their immediate context. You’ll probably tell me that I’m wrong because what if spouses talk to one another on the phone or whatever, but there is a clear difference between that sort of action and a concrete objectification of another person in a photo.

My thoughts on the matter. I welcome legitimate criticism.

 

[Beryllos]

@Theresalux, you asked a very similar question last year:

Can husbands/wives look at provocative pictures of their spouses? Moral Theology

Is it morally permissible for people to look at or send provocative pictures to their spouses?

What did you get out of that thread? What more do we need to discuss?

 

[Irishmom2]

Last year, she wasn’t married. Maybe this year she is?
I thought this sounded familiar though.

 

[drac16]

I can only share my personal opinion. My opinion is that it’s not a good idea. What if your spouse loses his/her phone? you will be haunted by the fear that someone, somewhere is masturbating to your pic(s).

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

CatholicSooner:

Is it also sinful for my wife to kiss me goodbye and whisper about how she is excited for that night? Bc it creates anticipation and arrousal?

Perhaps not because she’s giving you a kiss goodbye. You are able to embrace (even though not sexually)

But sending a picture to you while at work is really no different than having phone sex.

Wow dude. Just wow

I stand by what I have stated based on the education I received first hand from Dr. Peter Kleponis, several Catholic Men’s conferences, & priests & deacons.

NOTE: I’m not even talking about “traditionalist priests.” Just your typical parish priests & deacons.

God Bless

 

[tafan2]

Fr, would an “intimate” photo between spouses necessarily be pornographic? I could imagine a suggestive pose, not nude, which may not be according to the above definition.

Also, other posters seem to assume it can only lead to lust. But sexual desire of one’s spouse is not necessarily lust. And it could just lead to that. I am thinking of some scenario, say I am at work, and my wife shoots me a quick pose as a means to suggest I come home . Which may not be that different than how she might initiate intimacy if I am, say, watching a football game.

Now, I am not advocating any if this, just wondering if we are putting too hard of a interpretation to the OP. And perhaps just playing devil’s advocate.

 

[phil19034]

Wow just wow

This is just ridiculous. For starters, we aren’t talking about orgasming to a picture Phil

Then, what’s the purpose of looking at pictures of your wife naked or in sexy lingerie? What’s the goal of sending those pictures other than turning on one’s spouse?

• Turning spouse on in person - fine.
• Turning spouse on when he/she cannot do anything about it - puts your spouse in a near occasion of sin (because they can have lustful thoughts) and places the spouse who sent them in the sin of scandal.

This is my understanding from Moral Theology and Theology of the Body.

 

[phil19034]

Fr, would an “intimate” photo between spouses necessarily be pornographic? I could imagine a suggestive pose, not nude, which may not be according to the above definition.

Perhaps there is a difference of definitions here: But when I see the word “intimate photo” I assume nude, sexy lingerie, or some other suggestive picture that you would not want your kids, parents, or priest to see.

To me, an “intimate photo” is not the same as a “romantic photo.” Romantic photos would be totally fine.

 

[KyrieVarLee]

Yikes…I’ve sent these kinds of pictures to my husband…I thought it totally fine…… guess I’ll have to mention it in my next confession.

 

[tafan2]

I certainly assume it would be private between spouses, not something that I would want my priest or family or anyone to see. But I can imagine not necessarily nude or lingerie. Perhaps the former if not see thru, perhaps in bed covered with a blanket but obviously nude underneath, “suggestive” is still the word that comes to mind, and I would think suggestive is included in “intimate”.

 

[tafan2]

• Turning spouse on in person - fine.
• Turning spouse on when he/she cannot do anything about it - puts your spouse in a near occasion of sin (because they can have lustful thoughts) and places the spouse who sent them in the sin of scandal.

I agree with this completely, only saying that it could be used in a scenario where he/she can do something about it.

 

[phil19034]

I certainly assume it would be private between spouses, not something that I would want my priest or family or anyone to see. But I can imagine not necessarily nude or lingerie. Perhaps the former if not see thru, perhaps in bed covered with a blanket but obviously nude underneath, “suggestive” is still the word that comes to mind, and I would think suggestive is included in “intimate”.

Here is the question: What is the purpose of sending suggestive pictures? What is the goal? Is there a chaste answer?

 

[CatholicSooner]

CatholicSooner:

Wow just wow

This is just ridiculous. For starters, we aren’t talking about orgasming to a picture Phil

Then, what’s the purpose of looking at pictures of your wife naked or in sexy lingerie? What’s the goal of sending those pictures other than turning on one’s spouse?

• Turning spouse on in person - fine.
• Turning spouse on when he/she cannot do anything about it - puts your spouse in a near occasion of sin (because they can have lustful thoughts) and places the spouse who sent them in the sin of scandal.

This is my understanding from Moral Theology and Theology of the Body.

Again the only difference is time. The marital embrace will happen. It’s seems like if the difference is time, time isn’t sinful

Just bc something may lead one to sin doesn’t make it a sin. I guess buying a bag of Doritos is sinful Bc it could create the occasion of sin of gluttony if I decide to sit down and eat the whole bag while watching g tv

The fact is that this is a loaded question and it very much depends on the couple and the circumstances. My wife and I would be in no way tempted to master bate bc of the picture. But maybe a younger couple that has marital issues would be.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

• Turning spouse on in person - fine.
• Turning spouse on when he/she cannot do anything about it - puts your spouse in a near occasion of sin (because they can have lustful thoughts) and places the spouse who sent them in the sin of scandal.

I agree with this completely, only saying that it could be used in a scenario where he/she can do something about it.

Sending pictures from upstairs to get husband off TV is totally different than sending when he’s at work or traveling.

Or sending to him when he’s on his way home to insure he doesn’t take his time getting home is also different than sending in the middle of the work day.

PERSONALLY - I don’t think sending pics at all is wise. However, yes - there is a difference when spouse can do something about it vs becoming sexually frustrated and/or resulting in sexual sin.

 

[CatholicSooner]

phil19034:

• Turning spouse on in person - fine.
• Turning spouse on when he/she cannot do anything about it - puts your spouse in a near occasion of sin (because they can have lustful thoughts) and places the spouse who sent them in the sin of scandal.

I agree with this completely, only saying that it could be used in a scenario where he/she can do something about it.

I disagree.

If turning your wife on is a sin, it’s a sin no matter when and how you do it.

If it is fine for my wife to turn me on at the house, it is fine for her to turn me on over the phone. As long as we both know that it is oriented to the marital embrace. Either when I get home or when the kids go to bed.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

CatholicSooner:

Wow just wow

This is just ridiculous. For starters, we aren’t talking about orgasming to a picture Phil

Then, what’s the purpose of looking at pictures of your wife naked or in sexy lingerie? What’s the goal of sending those pictures other than turning on one’s spouse?

• Turning spouse on in person - fine.
• Turning spouse on when he/she cannot do anything about it - puts your spouse in a near occasion of sin (because they can have lustful thoughts) and places the spouse who sent them in the sin of scandal.

This is my understanding from Moral Theology and Theology of the Body.

Again the only difference is time. The marital embrace will happen. It’s seems like if the difference is time, time isn’t sinful

Just bc something may lead one to sin doesn’t make it a sin. I guess buying a bag of Doritos is sinful Bc it could create the occasion of sin of gluttony if I decide to sit down and eat the whole bag while watching g tv

The fact is that this is a loaded question and it very much depends on the couple and the circumstances. My wife and I would be in no way tempted to master bate bc of the picture. But maybe a younger couple that has marital issues would be.

No. It’s not time.

It’s purpose.

What is the purpose and goal of sending sexy pictures to your spouse during lunch when he still have ~6 hours before getting home?

What is the sender trying to accomplish and what is actually accomplished by doing it?

 

[CatholicSooner]

tafan2:

phil19034:

• Turning spouse on in person - fine.
• Turning spouse on when he/she cannot do anything about it - puts your spouse in a near occasion of sin (because they can have lustful thoughts) and places the spouse who sent them in the sin of scandal.

I agree with this completely, only saying that it could be used in a scenario where he/she can do something about it.

Sending pictures from upstairs to get husband off TV is totally different than sending when he’s at work or traveling.

Or sending to him when he’s on his way home to insure he doesn’t take his time getting home is also different than sending in the middle of the work day.

PERSONALLY - I don’t think sending pics at all is wise. However, yes - there is a difference when spouse can do something about it vs becoming sexually frustrated and/or resulting in sexual sin.

Once again, you are assuming that the spouse is becoming sexually frustrated.

I think we can all agree that if sending intimate photos creates frustration it isn’t healthy and shouldn’t be done.

 

[CatholicSooner]

CatholicSooner:

phil19034:

CatholicSooner:

Wow just wow

This is just ridiculous. For starters, we aren’t talking about orgasming to a picture Phil

Then, what’s the purpose of looking at pictures of your wife naked or in sexy lingerie? What’s the goal of sending those pictures other than turning on one’s spouse?

• Turning spouse on in person - fine.
• Turning spouse on when he/she cannot do anything about it - puts your spouse in a near occasion of sin (because they can have lustful thoughts) and places the spouse who sent them in the sin of scandal.

This is my understanding from Moral Theology and Theology of the Body.

Again the only difference is time. The marital embrace will happen. It’s seems like if the difference is time, time isn’t sinful

Just bc something may lead one to sin doesn’t make it a sin. I guess buying a bag of Doritos is sinful Bc it could create the occasion of sin of gluttony if I decide to sit down and eat the whole bag while watching g tv

The fact is that this is a loaded question and it very much depends on the couple and the circumstances. My wife and I would be in no way tempted to master bate bc of the picture. But maybe a younger couple that has marital issues would be.

No. It’s not time.

It’s purpose.

What is the purpose and goal of sending sexy pictures to your spouse during lunch when he still have ~6 hours before getting home?

What is the sender trying to accomplish and what is actually accomplished by doing it?

Are you married?

The purpose is the build up and anticipation of the marital embrace.