My question is more on the issue of whether this is a practical choice, not a moral one. These are pictures you don’t want to show anyone, you obviously cannot keep them on display, so you want to go through the effort of taking (or having taken) nude photos, then the continued effort of keeping them concealed. Just seems like a lot of leg work with little return. That’s just me, though.
Thing about the whole lust when it is his wife is that, well, he doesn’t need to lust after his wife. If someone should get aroused by an image (even a desk photo) of his wife, then go home and have intercourse, there is no sin being committed (we are assuming for the sake of this discussion that the couple does not employ any artificial birth control methods). I fail to see the peril in it, since this is not stashing a playboy under the mattress, it is his own wife and they are free to make love.
I understand that, however it is only lust if someone objectifies their spouse. In this thread “lust” is being used to describe any form of arousal, which is not the case.
Thing is, the “old and flabby” test could be applied to one’s wedding photos. Are those to be regarded as an occasion of sin too? As pointed out by another poster, there is a vital difference between legitimate marital arousal and objectification / lust, but there is a tendency in this and similar threads to blur that distinction and equate all arousal with lust. Surely legitimate marital intimacy anticipates a level of romance, passion, and excitement inherent in the act that should not be equated with unchastity nor prohibited in the name of a fear-based cool rationalistic detachment.
We had acquaintances a few years back who apparently thought it would be fun to make videos of their passion. These videos were inadvertently discovered by their teenage kids “friends,” who took it upon themselves to steal–then distribute and play the films around town. The teens, of course, were in the wrong, but I can’t begin to describe the humiliation this couple suffered. Common sense rule #1: Don’t commit to film images you wouldn’t want to share with your neighbors, friends and kids.
Best post in this thread.
I completely agree. I’m shocked that so many people have said it’s okay, veiling the real desire (lust) under the pretext of good (marital love).
so sexual desire for even your own spouse is now wrong?!
No – which is why I didn’t say that. Objectifying one’s spouse by printing her near-naked (and certainly vulnerable) body on a piece of paper for the purpose of sexual arousal in her absence constitutes lust (disordered sexual desire) and is therefore sinful.
while i thank you for clarifying that, i might imagine there are times when this would not be considered wrong, however he (the thread originator) has not said much else besides his basic question.