Naked pictures to spouse

[thewanderer]

In the nakedness of the marital act the couple is giving themselves to each other, physically. The pleasure involved in the marital act, foreplay, etc, is good, it was put there by God.

A picture is not a person. A picture cannot give itself to the other person. The other person cannot receive the naked person by holding their picture. It is objectifying whether the person realizes it or not.

FYI, if you read Love and Responsibility you will see that lust is even possible within marriage, even with regards to the marital act, but that is not what I am talking about here, and it isn’t something for us to go crazy about, just something to make sure we educate ourselves on to make sure we love our spouses as we should.

Yes, I realize that a picture is not a person. However, the quote that you brought up seemed to imply that it is always and everywhere wrong to allow nakedness to incite desire. That is clearly false. If you wish to make a distinction between looking at a picture and looking at ones spouse then you will need to modify your original post.

Also, I have no idea why you are implying that I think it is impossible for lust to exist within marriage. Of course it can (and all too often does).

 

[28562]

I agree with he (or she) whose name has a number sequence that probably has more meaning than mine.

That would be a he…and it’s a zip code.

Now I have told ALL my secrets…

 

[clem456]

A PICTURE doesn’t reduce someone to an object. A PERSON however, can, in their minds and hearts, reduce someone to an object at any given time. Whether in picture or in person.

Like TheBucket said… if a husband has/had issues with impurity/lust/porn/etc etc, I can see how it would be easier to objectify someone through picture vs in person.

Well to be as accurate as I am able:
the viewer of the picture does not have the ability to reduce the other to an object in God’s eyes. But, the other person becomes an object **to the viewer **of the picture. The end of the sexuality is titilation, not spousal love. It is a use of a person for selfish ends, when sexualtiy is meant to bring two people together in an embrace. To the viewer, the spouse becomes an object for lust. Or can be.

Don’t take this discussion too personally please, I am not directing it at you.
In my life…small selfish pleasures can lead to huge problems. In anybody’s life really, they can. What seems like innocent one-off pleasures for some people awaken in others a willfullnes and disobedience that develops into a real issue. Basically, if I’m aware of a pleasure I should not be indulging in, and I choose to cater to it anywaym,that is trouble. Do my wife and I engage in good fun in privacy? Sure we do. But as I have gotten older and been burnt by lust, I do not go where I shouldn’t. My wife in the flesh is enough for me. I don’t introduce outside influences into the bedroom, I don’t expect sexual talk over the phone from her when I am gone on a trip. It just gets me revved up at a time when I don’t want to be. It has no point when I am not with her.

For some of these same reasons the reasons the Church does not allow contraception. It rids the act of the good end that God has given it… openness to life, and makes sex about pleasure first. My wife then becomes an object of pleasure for me, rather than a participant in a full spousal relationship.

 

[thewanderer]

In the nakedness of the marital act the couple is giving themselves to each other, physically. The pleasure involved in the marital act, foreplay, etc, is good, it was put there by God.

A picture is not a person. A picture cannot give itself to the other person. The other person cannot receive the naked person by holding their picture. It is objectifying whether the person realizes it or not.
FYI, if you read Love and Responsibility you will see that lust is even possible within marriage, even with regards to the marital act, but that is not what I am talking about here, and it isn’t something for us to go crazy about, just something to make sure we educate ourselves on to make sure we love our spouses as we should.

The pp was asking about nakedness in sex, so I was referring to that. Of course it isn’t sinful for a married couple to be naked in front of each other without sex. That being said, a piece of paper with the picture of your naked spouse is not the same thing as being with your naked spouse.

The reason I asked for that clarification is because the pp made it sound as though nakedness is always sinful if it is aimed at inciting desire in another, which is absolutely false. I understand that there is a difference between a person and a picture and I have read Love and Responsibility and am well aware that lust can, and sadly often does, exist within marriage. I certainly agree with what many have been saying that it is easier to objectify a picture rather than ones actual spouse, but both could and neither will necessarily happen, so I think those who are saying that looking at a picture is objectifiying a person are overgeneralizing. Yes, looking at a naked picture of ones spouse could certainly lead to objectifying one’s spouse, but it will not necessarily do so.

 

[thewanderer]

Well to be as accurate as I am able:
the viewer of the picture does not have the ability to reduce the other to an object in God’s eyes. But, the other person becomes an object **to the viewer **of the picture. The end of the sexuality is titilation, not spousal love. It is a use of a person for selfish ends, when sexualtiy is meant to bring two people together in an embrace. To the viewer, the spouse becomes an object for lust. Or can be.

I have to agree with Debora on this one. Looking at a person of someone does not automatically make it so that the viewer of the image is objectifying that person. It turns into objectification when the viewer begins to look at the picture and think only of a hot body which he/she desires rather than thinking of the entirety of the person of their spouse. The objectification comes in when the viewer begins to view the person viewed as an object for their own use rather than as a person. This is not something that necessarily happens whenever somebody looks at a picture so it is not necessarily objectifying for a man to look at a naked picture of his wife. While great caution is needed with pictures as the removal of the picture makes it easier for a person to look on the other person as an object rather than as a person, there is not necessarily any objectification involved.

 

[thewanderer]

That said, Debora, I wouldn’t do it if I were you, mostly because of the possibility that others could gain access to said pictures, I would not be comfortable with that, but you have already gotten plenty of (name removed by moderator)ut on that front earlier in this thread.

 

[clem456]

I have to agree with Debora on this one. Looking at a person of someone does not automatically make it so that the viewer of the image is objectifying that person. It turns into objectification when the viewer begins to look at the picture and think only of a hot body which he/she desires rather than thinking of the entirety of the person of their spouse. The objectification comes in when the viewer begins to view the person viewed as an object for their own use rather than as a person. This is not something that necessarily happens whenever somebody looks at a picture so it is not necessarily objectifying for a man to look at a naked picture of his wife. While great caution is needed with pictures as the removal of the picture makes it easier for a person to look on the other person as an object rather than as a person, there is not necessarily any objectification involved.

You are 100% correct that it does not automatically make in all cases.

 

[sstrider]

Just curious, but are you implying that it is wrong for spouses to be naked in front of each other as part of their preperation for the marital act? There is a difference between nakedness aimed at inciting desire among the general populus and nakedness aimed at inciting desire in ones own spouse.

Hi

Being naked is one thing. But what is the end?

Pope Pius XII

On the part of Catholics, We must urge the wide dissemination of the principle, firmly founded on truth, that the only way to protect the physical and moral health of the family and of society is through whole-hearted obedience to the laws of nature, or rather of the Creator, and most of all by fostering a sacred, heart-felt respect for them.

Show how nature has given, truly, the instinctive desire for pleasure and sanctions it in the lawful marriage, not as an end in itself, but rather for the service of life.

(bold added, italic added, Address to Large Families, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession)

 

[thewanderer]

Hi

Being naked is one thing. But what is the end?

Pope Pius XII

On the part of Catholics, We must urge the wide dissemination of the principle, firmly founded on truth, that the only way to protect the physical and moral health of the family and of society is through whole-hearted obedience to the laws of nature, or rather of the Creator, and most of all by fostering a sacred, heart-felt respect for them.

Show how nature has given, truly, the instinctive desire for pleasure and sanctions it in the lawful marriage, not as an end in itself, but rather for the service of life.

(bold added, italic added, Address to Large Families, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession)

I really don’t understand how this quote applies to what you are saying. I agree with this quote entirely and do not see how it is saying that it is always immoral to look at a naked picture of your spouse. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say, and if so I am sorry for the misunderstanding, but if that is what you are trying to say then I must disagree completely with you. While I definitely agree that such a scenario has a certain amount of danger that one needs to be careful of and really isn’t something that I would advise most people to go ahead with, it is not something that is in itself immoral.

 

[OrangeOwl]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=668467

I’m going to have to agree with what Chevalier and LilyM said there.

 

[sstrider]

I really don’t understand how this quote applies to what you are saying. I agree with this quote entirely and do not see how it is saying that it is always immoral to look at a naked picture of your spouse. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say, and if so I am sorry for the misunderstanding, but if that is what you are trying to say then I must disagree completely with you. While I definitely agree that such a scenario has a certain amount of danger that one needs to be careful of and really isn’t something that I would advise most people to go ahead with, it is not something that is in itself immoral.

Hi

Maybe words I used do not forbid people to look at naked pictures or press another person close to the breast or wrap arms around another person. This is about purpose. What is the purpose in a situation?

What is the end?

In this area, I included some words.

“Show how nature has given, truly, the instinctive desire for pleasure and sanctions it in the lawful marriage, not as an end in itself, but rather for the service of life.” (Pope Pius XII, bold added)

 

[thewanderer]

Hi

Maybe words I used do not forbid people to look at naked pictures or press another person close to the breast or wrap arms around another person. This is about purpose. What is the purpose in a situation?

What is the end?

In this area, I included some words.

“Show how nature has given, truly, the instinctive desire for pleasure and sanctions it in the lawful marriage, not as an end in itself, but rather for the service of life.” (Pope Pius XII, bold added)

Yes, I read those, and I understand entirely what you are saying about the purpose behind it being very important. I realize that in many cases the purpose behind it is not entirely pure and in such cases it is, of course, something that ought to be avoided. I cannot answer your question of what the end is precisely because I am not the one making this decision and there are actually many, many reasons why one might do such a thing, some of which are clearly sinful, others of which are not. So I agree with you that the purpose is extremely important in determining whether or not such an action is appropriate. If that is all you are trying to say then there is no disagreement here.

 

[sstrider]

Yes, I read those, and I understand entirely what you are saying about the purpose behind it being very important. I realize that in many cases the purpose behind it is not entirely pure and in such cases it is, of course, something that ought to be avoided. I cannot answer your question of what the end is precisely because I am not the one making this decision and there are actually many, many reasons why one might do such a thing, some of which are clearly sinful, others of which are not. So I agree with you that the purpose is extremely important in determining whether or not such an action is appropriate. If that is all you are trying to say then there is no disagreement here.

Nice

Even if I can inform about purpose, who am I to judge?

 

[clem456]

Theology of the Body
Chapters 60 - 63
A small quote from this section:

A problem with very deep roots

Let us now reflect—with regard to Christ’s words in the Sermon on the Mount—on the problem of the ethos of the human body in works of artistic culture. This problem has very deep roots. It is opportune to recall here the series of analyses carried out in connection with Christ’s reference to the beginning, and subsequently to the reference he made to the human heart, in the Sermon on the Mount. The human body—**the naked human body in the whole truth of its masculinity and femininity—has the meaning of a gift of the person to the person. ****The ethos of the body, that is, the ethical norms that govern its nakedness, because of the dignity of the personal subject, is closely connected with that system of reference. **This is understood as the nuptial system, in which the giving of one party meets the appropriate and adequate response of the other party to the gift. This response decides the reciprocity of the gift.

The artistic objectivation [sic] of the human body in its male and female nakedness, in order to make it first of all a model and then the subject of the work of art, is always to a certain extent a going outside of this original and, for the body, its specific configuration of interpersonal donation. In a way, that constitutes an uprooting of the human body from this configuration and its transfer to the dimension of artistic objectivation—the specific dimension of the work of art or of the reproduction typical of the film and photographic techniques of our time.

It seems the only question here is, does this apply to a married couple? I fail to see how marriage prevents objectification. Many people are objectified in marriages.

 

[Debora123]

Well to be as accurate as I am able:
the viewer of the picture does not have the ability to reduce the other to an object in God’s eyes. But, the other person becomes an object **to the viewer **of the picture. The end of the sexuality is titilation, not spousal love. It is a use of a person for selfish ends, when sexualtiy is meant to bring two people together in an embrace. To the viewer, the spouse becomes an object for lust. Or can be.

Don’t take this discussion too personally please, I am not directing it at you.
In my life…small selfish pleasures can lead to huge problems. In anybody’s life really, they can. What seems like innocent one-off pleasures for some people awaken in others a willfullnes and disobedience that develops into a real issue. Basically, if I’m aware of a pleasure I should not be indulging in, and I choose to cater to it anywaym,that is trouble. Do my wife and I engage in good fun in privacy? Sure we do. But as I have gotten older and been burnt by lust, I do not go where I shouldn’t. My wife in the flesh is enough for me. I don’t introduce outside influences into the bedroom, I don’t expect sexual talk over the phone from her when I am gone on a trip. It just gets me revved up at a time when I don’t want to be. It has no point when I am not with her.

For some of these same reasons the reasons the Church does not allow contraception. It rids the act of the good end that God has given it… openness to life, and makes sex about pleasure first. My wife then becomes an object of pleasure for me, rather than a participant in a full spousal relationship.

Hi.

No worries about personally offending me, I know you’re just looking out.

Obviously I can’t speak for what’s going on in your head, but I totally disagree with your blanket statements and one size fits all statements. Perhaps that’s how things are to you, and maybe in your particular case it wouldn’t be a good idea for your wife to send such photos. But it doesn’t mean it’s the same way for every man in every situation.

Thank you for sharing. I’ll spare you my thoughts, mainly because I’d be repeating myself yet again at this point, lol.

 

[Debora123]

I certainly agree with what many have been saying that it is easier to objectify a picture rather than ones actual spouse, but both could and neither will necessarily happen, so I think those who are saying that looking at a picture is objectifiying a person are overgeneralizing. Yes, looking at a naked picture of ones spouse could certainly lead to objectifying one’s spouse, but it will not necessarily do so.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Debora123]

I have to agree with Debora on this one. Looking at a person of someone does not automatically make it so that the viewer of the image is objectifying that person. It turns into objectification when the viewer begins to look at the picture and think only of a hot body which he/she desires rather than thinking of the entirety of the person of their spouse. The objectification comes in when the viewer begins to view the person viewed as an object for their own use rather than as a person. This is not something that necessarily happens whenever somebody looks at a picture so it is not necessarily objectifying for a man to look at a naked picture of his wife. While great caution is needed with pictures as the removal of the picture makes it easier for a person to look on the other person as an object rather than as a person, there is not necessarily any objectification involved.

 

[Debora123]

That said, Debora, I wouldn’t do it if I were you, mostly because of the possibility that others could gain access to said pictures, I would not be comfortable with that, but you have already gotten plenty of (name removed by moderator)ut on that front earlier in this thread.

Thanks girl. It’s definitely made me weary.

 

[AnneTeresa]

Lol, he doesn’t.

And besides, he’s currently in Officer Training for the Air Force. It’s like a boot camp except harder. Even if he did struggle with impurity, he wouldn’t have the energy, time, or privacy to do anything about it.

Then what is the point of sending them? Why not send a clothed photo and a loving message? It seems like teasing or flaunting… without a way to morally act on what the pix suggest.

 

[Debora123]

Theology of the Body
Chapters 60 - 63
A small quote from this section:

It seems the only question here is, does this apply to a married couple? I fail to see how marriage prevents objectification. Many people are objectified in marriages.

Thanks. I don’t understand how this quote applies though.

And of course marriage doesn’t prevent objectification. But like has been repeated a number of times, a husband won’t automatically objectify his wife when he sees a naked picture of her.