I don’t really understand why you are trying to dissect what I have said in such an aggressive manner, but here goes.
Sorry if I came across as overly aggressive.
This movement to give-oneself wholly to another is an internal movement which expressess itself through external actions, it is essentially the desire to give oneself completely, to reaffirm ones complete and unconditional gift of self to other. Since it is an internal movement it cannot be judged solely by external actions.
So I see here you’re focusing on the
internal desire, rather than any external/physical “act”. I find this hard to swallow, as you acknowledge that while it’s an “
internal movement” it still “
expresses itself through external actions”. I do understand that willing/desiring the good of the other does not always necessarily or automatically result in a physical action, but how else does one express such will?
You seem to disregard the external aspect quite abruptly by stating:
Since it is an internal movement it cannot be judged solely by external actions.
Now while I agree that you cannot judge it
solely on external actions, you really didn’t give much clarification as to why it’s predominately an “internal movement” either, other than that it’s “
essentially the desire to give oneself completely, to reaffirm ones complete and unconditional gift of self to other.” < but as you just said, this is
expressed through external/physical actions.
In short, what I have gathered from this is: while we can will/desire(internally) the good of the other, we must express this through some kind of external action (charity, compassion, physical affection etc.) and (correct me if I’m wrong) you take the external act of photographing ones naked body for their spouse to fulfil this “external action” adequately?
To clear this up a bit (and in reference to Catholic Theology of the body) we can define both the internal and external aspects of the nuptial system as two sides of one coin. The disagreement here is what facilitates a sufficient “external” aspect to this nuptial system, and you are arguing in favour of “uploading a nude image of ones self” (for their spouse). Or is it that you take the external aspect to be wholly insignificant?
“I seriously do not see how anyone could assert that such a desire could never come about from looking at a picture.”
How is the recipient to “act” on such a desire? Would it be the same way he/she would act if it was a loving text message they were responding to? If so, then why the need for a naked image of oneself?
An adequate response, therefore, to a nude photo of ones spouse which is** intended as a sign of ones desire to completely give oneself **would be the mirrored desire of a reciprocal self-gift. I seriously do not see how anyone could assert that such a desire could never come about from looking at a picture.
You mention that the photo is; “intended as a sign of ones desire to completely give oneself”. I find this interesting.
You believe that this “nude image” works as a “sign” when the prerequisites of such a “sign” do not
at all need to include the naked body of either spouse uploaded to a digital device. The naked human form is not an abstract thought, it is not a 3D computer design and it’s not a handful of pixels; it is very much a
physical thing. Taking it out of its physical context so it can become a “sign” or “signifier” of “desire” for your spouse is blatantly reducing its significance. I don’t see how anyone can disagree with this.
Why take something so paramount to the nuptial system as the physical naked body and reduce it to the digital format for such a purpose, when there
are other alternatives?
Is there something which makes the naked form more important than these alternatives? As we already know, removing it from its intended natural/physical context can have
many unintended consequences.
You believe that a photograph is incapable of eliciting an adequate response, I do not. Since I believe a photograph is capable of eliciting an ‘adequate response’ I see no contradiction between JPII’s statement and the conclusion that there is nothing intrinsically immoral about spouses looking at nude photos of each other.
The “adequate response” JPII references in his ‘Theology of the Body’, is of paramount importance to the nuptial system. As I mentioned briefly before, if a mere “photograph” is sufficient for providing an “adequate response” then it would be theoretically possible to have a complete nuptial system without any physical contact whatsoever; (which is absurd).
I would also imply that the nuptial system relies on both the internal as much as the external (two sides of the one coin), and that while the internal desire may be present during the exchange of photographs, the external aspect is profoundly lacking.
In the end, I believe this key distinction of the importance of nakedness is something which we must not ignore. “To be fun, romantic, and give him a reason to want to hurry home” is not a sufficient reason to compromise the nuptial system.
I’m sorry, but the condescension in this remark is not exactly appreciated, especially since I have explicitly said this same thing multiple times throughout this thread.
Sorry brother, I actually didn’t mean to come across as condescending, more of a light-hearted riff at the end of a long-winded reply.
) and it got me thinking about another possible reason, which might seem like more of a legitimate reason to those who believe naked pictures should never be shared, even between spouses. Well, I guess it would be more correct to say the questions asking why a naked picture rather than a clothed pictures are really what got me thinking about all this. Well, in order to answer that question why not look at what role nakedness plays within the marital relationship (we are talking about married couples after all
). Within marriage, nakedness has a special, I would claim even sacred, position. Rrevealing oneself and standing naked and vulnerable before ones spouse is one of the very unique and special ways that couples show their openness to each other and their willingness to give themselves completely and entirely, heart, body, mind, and soul, to their spouse. So why send a naked picture instead of a clothed one? To show that despite the distance one is still opening themselves up to their spouse, becoming vulnerable before them, and is still willing to give their entire selves, every aspect of their very being, to their spouse. It would be a special reminder that despite the distance they still belong entirely to their spouse and are still commited to giving themselves completely in this special and sacred way.
