Nude Photo's of My Wife

[snorky]

I have a question that is really nagging me. If I was to take some semi nude photo’s of my wife, FOR ONLY ME TO SEE AND NO ONE ELSE., and they are not pornographic but done in taste. Is this wrong? I love my wife dearly, I find her the most beautiful woman in the world, and truly enjoy looking at her. These would be done with a digital camera so no one has to develop them also insuring only I would see them.
Thanks
Snorky

 

[tjm8]

Go for it but be careful. You can never be sure that there are no eyes around .

 

[aurora77]

I don’t know about the morality of it, but I tend to be paranoid. I don’t write anything or take pictures of anything I wouldn’t want others to see. Just because they are digital, you can’t guarantee no one else would see them. If I were your wife, I’d say no. Say something happens to you and your wife, would you want family members to go through your computer and find the pictures or if you print them out, would you want others to find them?

 

[dulcissima]

There is a possibility it could be OK, but I would really urge you not to. Appreciate your wife in person. Appreciate all that she is to you. If you spend your time looking at nude photos of her, you run a very big risk of objectifying her which in turn could put a strain on your initimacy and ultimately cause serious problems in your relationship. I just want to add that even if you are able to look at nude photos of your wife in a truly loving and appreciative way, she might not really know that is what you are doing. She might begin to think that you are just using her as an object and that could cause a rift between you eventually. I just don’t think it is worth the risk.

 

[dulcissima]

I don’t know about the morality of it, but I tend to be paranoid. I don’t write anything or take pictures of anything I wouldn’t want others to see. Just because they are digital, you can’t guarantee no one else would see them. If I were your wife, I’d say no. Say something happens to you and your wife, would you want family members to go through your computer and find the pictures or if you print them out, would you want others to find them?

Good point. What if your kids find them?

 

[Joan_M]

I have a question that is really nagging me. If I was to take some semi nude photo’s of my wife, FOR ONLY ME TO SEE AND NO ONE ELSE., and they are not pornographic but done in taste. Is this wrong? I love my wife dearly, I find her the most beautiful woman in the world, and truly enjoy looking at her. These would be done with a digital camera so no one has to develop them also insuring only I would see them.
Thanks
Snorky

Why do you want “semi nude” photos? It gives the impression that what you are indulging in is lust. If you love your wife you should not want to use her, and that is what indulging in looking at semi nude photos would most likely be, after all - if she was present, you would not need the photos, so it appears that you will be looking at these photos outside the home… What does that tell you?

 

[estesbob]

I have a question that is really nagging me. If I was to take some semi nude photo’s of my wife, FOR ONLY ME TO SEE AND NO ONE ELSE., and they are not pornographic but done in taste. Is this wrong? I love my wife dearly, I find her the most beautiful woman in the world, and truly enjoy looking at her. These would be done with a digital camera so no one has to develop them also insuring only I would see them.
Thanks
Snorky

Odds are regardless of how careful you are they will end up on the internet.

 

[Seeks_God]

I would tend to look at it this way: What’s the point? You enjoy looking at your wife, you say? Then make her dinner, candlelit, of course and enjoy each other…I’m sure you could gander at eachother all you want given the right circumstance or situation. Love and affection, at least to me, is to be shared between 2 people and photos just seem sort of one-sided…

But I’m not sure either…

SG

 

[Saint_Sinner]

This is very dangerous territory. Although images of the naked body are not sinful per se it is very easy for these images to affect others.

First for you it is very important what your motives are…if you intend on using the images for self abuse taking them would be sinful for you and sinful cooperation by your wife.

It is possible you need images for an art class for example where to participants would be working on a painting after the model has to leave. You can not control what others do with an image such as this so you would have to be very careful.

There is also a potential for scandal if you are Christian/Catholic. If others learn of you activities you may lead them to think that pornography is not a serious matter. Paul said something about not doing an action even if allowed so as not to lead others into sin.

Just my 2cents.

 

[RC1960]

“estesbob” lays out the odds.

IMHO, you’d be objectifying your wife’s body rather than glorifying God through an art form. To do so would diminish your spirituality=mortal sin.

I sense an underlying motivation, the good thing is that you asked here first, so you probably already knew what the “right” answer was but at times like these “Seeks God” has a better course of action by expressing appreciation-doing something for another is the best way.

 

[joshua1]

I dont know, why look at pictures when you can look at the real thing. In my mind if you are looking at pictures of your wife say while she is at work, ask yourself why? I mean it doesnt make sense to me. If it is for arousal, you mean a picture is more stimulating than the real person? I also think that you can lust after your wife. I feel that lust and love are two different things.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I’m fascinated that so many art masterpieces involve nudity or semi-nudity, including those in churches and cathedrals, while we seem very confused over our feeling about paintings, photos, and other depictions of naked bodies.

I see no harm in taking a few photos for man and wife to look at themselves in that medium, but unless every one is destroyed upon viewing, there will also be a chance they will find their way to unintended audiences, as others have said. Also if the photos are attractive, I wonder if they might even become temptations for “showing them off” to others at some point, sooner or later. Maybe that’s way off-base, but I can imagine it.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I dont know, why look at pictures when you can look at the real thing. In my mind if you are looking at pictures of your wife say while she is at work, ask yourself why? I mean it doesnt make sense to me. If it is for arousal, you mean a picture is more stimulating than the real person? I also think that you can lust after your wife. I feel that lust and love are two different things.

You have a good point, but doesn’t your argument apply to all photos and not just those with ostensible “lewd” content? Certainly a man can become aroused over “normal” photos of a woman (especially one with whom he is personally involved) without regard to the pose or manner of dress. One then might ask whether any images or momentos of any kind are allowed when the “real thing” isn’t available.

Alan

 

[Skribilo]

Sorry if it has been addressed, but the word “photos” should be used in order to be grammatically correct. No offense, I just like to be helpful. No apostrophe is needed.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

You have a good point, but doesn’t your argument apply to all photos and not just those with ostensible “lewd” content? Certainly a man can become aroused over “normal” photos of a woman (especially one with whom he is personally involved) without regard to the pose or manner of dress. One then might ask whether any images or momentos of any kind are allowed when the “real thing” isn’t available.

So then . . . . having a nice, framed studio portrait of my wife could
be a sin? Gee…

 

[TimOliv]

Good point. What if your kids find them?

Then they have an awesome defense if they ever go on trial for…well…anything.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

So then . . . . having a nice, framed studio portrait of my wife could
be a sin? Gee…

Yes, that actually was my point. One way I try to discover spiritual truths is to consider them taken to the extreme. Most would say they could discern “tasteful” from “provocative” but the distinction is subjective and therefore I claim cannot be accurately judged. What is lewd? Is it a low neck line? A really, really low neckline?

This kid of talk is often attacked as being relativist, but I don’t buy it because if somebody thinks there is an absolute distinction between a studio portrait and pornography, then they are wrong because there isn’t. To attempt to define it in words is an extension of the law of sin and death. That doesn’t mean we can’t follow societal norms and practices, and for those we generally have a feel for what goes where. It does mean, though, that we cannot “blame” one measurement of the photo as to its “pornicity” or something, on whether or not it causes sin in our hearts.

Personally, if I see a photo of my wife and perhaps become aroused, it is not maybe because I wish to have a strange relationship to the photo, but because the photo has pointed to a truth greater than itself, which is the wife that I love and who can legitimately have that effect on me. In the case of pornography, I don’t know whether men desire the photo itself or the women they represent – but I do have one friend with a porn “problem” so maybe this gives me an excuse to open another discussion with him about it.

As a totally opposite example, in the Real Presence of the Eucharist we have the actual body of Christ right there, whom we love, although the bread does not show a physical image of Christ to the Communicant – except for a lucky few who have such visions. Here we have a wholesome love object, but visually the bread is completley abstract.

What I think is important is what goes on in the heart. Within the context of a marriage, I cannot see that taking photos in itself would be a sin, although it certainly could be problematic for any number of reasons we discussed.

No matter what it is, studio shot or nude, we might do well to remind ourselves what St. Paul said about being dominated by things:
1 Cor 6:12:

“Everything is lawful for me,” but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is lawful for me,” but I will not let myself be dominated by anything.

Alan

 

[Tonks40]

My husband has a great photo of me he likes to stare at - fully clothed, with make-up, done at a professional studio (it was a publicity photo for singers’ showcases I used to perform at). But he has a better time looking at the real thing!

Point is (and I may echo other people’s opinions on this), why would you want to have a semi-nude photo of your wife to admire her outer beauty when true beauty can be found within one’s soul?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I don’t know what the women think, but as a guy, I would urge you not to act on this impulse. It seems to have the effect of objectifying your wife, which I think the Church regards as a sin.

 

[mosher]

Your desire for your wife is commendable but I also have to throw my hat in with the ring that is stating objectification. Enjoy the whole person and not just an image of that person in a sexual way.