Feeling Betrayed

[mdfxdb]

"So, looking at other women is wrong? Or is it the context in which you look at them that is wrong? Are there 2 sins here? One would be lying, and the other would be taking pictures??? "

That is what we are told in the Sermon on the Mount...This person chose a hobby that seems to do exactly that. This isn't random, wayward glances that we are talking about. It is him seeking women out (via flirting, etc.) to get them to take their clothes off so he can take pictures. Maybe he can keep his mind pure and clean through it all - if so he's one of the strongest men I know of.

you are reading a lot into it. Of course if someone is "firting" and "getting them to take their clothes off" then there is a problem...

My point is he lied.

He lied about taking a certain type of pictures, but he lied. So, again are there 2 sins here?

I think it is entirely possible to take pictures and not sin...same as going to the beach. Do people think all photographers are perverts? Or only the ones that take pictures of pretty girls?

[Windseeker]

So, looking at other women is wrong? Or is it the context in which you look at them that is wrong? Are there 2 sins here? One would be lying, and the other would be taking pictures???

Obviously the context -

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28).

I can't count the hundred possibly thousands of peoples private body parts my wife has touched of both men and women.

Context: She's a Doctor

If she was trying to stimulate them or herself or others then there would be problem.

...eww

I don't think taking photos of girls in bras, panties, swimsuits for ads or a fashion spread would be a appropriate choice for an occupation for Priesthood holder let alone being alone with a girl and guiding them thru alluring and sexy poses.

[MrShorty]

Like others, there are two parts of this issue:

1) Is the husband's "hobby" sinful relative to God's laws? This question, to me, might look a lot like discussions we've had before on whether nudity or erotic themes are appropriate in art (http://www.lds.net/forums/advice-board/28702-being-artist-lds-nudity-art.html, http://www.lds.net/forums/advice-board/36910-artwork-models.html among others). It seems that we are generally less comfortable with nudity/erotica in photography than other media (painting, sculpture, literature). Maybe, in the context of a discussion like this we are less comfortable with it involving a married man rather than a single man. In general, it would appear that we are mostly saying that the husband's actions are sinful (a less conservative group might not come to this conclusion).

If we do deem the husband's behavior as sinful, what is the wife's role in policing/enforcing the behavior? Is she supposed to educate the husband? punish the husband?

2) 2nd aspect is the lying about it. For anyone who is familiar with Dr. Harley's approach to marriage therapy (marriagebuilders.com), Dr. Harley expects couples to adhere to what he calls the Policy of Radical Honesty. Not everyone agrees with "radical" honesty, but almost everyone agrees that building intimacy is about knowing someone and being known by them. Lying about a hobby like this is not very conducive to building intimacy.

The hardest part of lying might be for the OP deciding what she really wants to do about it. If she takes a hard line approach about the sinfulness of his "hobby" and takes it upon herself to police and punish him for it, then he will be more likely to continue to lie about it (unless and until he comes around and agrees with her). The OP may need to decide which is worse - the lying or the hobby.

In the end, I think the question about an ultimatum might be important (don't want to escalate to an ultimatum too quickly, but it could be important for the OP to consider). You may need to sit down with yourself and decide whether or not you can be married to a man with this hobby or not. I would encourage you not to accept your first knee-jerk response without careful deliberation. If the answer is, no, you cannot live with some practicing this hobby, then this needs to be carefully communicated to the husband so he can decide if he is willing to give up this (small??) part of his hobby for his marriage or if he would prefer to give up his marriage. If you decide that you can tolerate while disapproving of his hobby (the way some wives tolerate but disapprove of golf, football, fishing, hunting, or other stereotypically male hobby/interest), then you will need to develop skills and attitudes that will allow you to tolerate his hobby in a way that will encourage him to be transparent about it and that will not result in building up resentment in yourself.

I don't think it is an easy question. Know that I have framed the response in response to the OP. The response would probably look somewhat different if the OP's husband were asking the question.

[Wingnut]

If this were my situation I would casually mention my husband's homosexuality helping him to have a greater feeling of the art of his work, without any lusty thoughts interrupting the purity. But that's just me.

Yeah, but that makes you look like a little bit of a schmuck. :)

Obviously the context -

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28).

I can't count the hundred possibly thousands of peoples private body parts my wife has touched of both men and women.

Context: She's a Doctor

If she was trying to stimulate them or herself or others then there would be problem.

...eww

I don't think taking photos of girls in bras, panties, swimsuits for ads or a fashion spread would be a appropriate choice for an occupation for Priesthood holder let alone being alone with a girl and guiding them thru alluring and sexy poses.

You're assuming that a male boudoir photographer is automatically lusting after his clients. While this may be true in some cases, and it certainly sounds like it is in the OP's case, it's not a universal truth.

[Wingnut]

Like others, there are two parts of this issue:

1) Is the husband's "hobby" sinful relative to God's laws? This question, to me, might look a lot like discussions we've had before on whether nudity or erotic themes are appropriate in art (http://www.lds.net/forums/advice-board/28702-being-artist-lds-nudity-art.html, http://www.lds.net/forums/advice-board/36910-artwork-models.html among others). It seems that we are generally less comfortable with nudity/erotica in photography than other media (painting, sculpture, literature). Maybe, in the context of a discussion like this we are less comfortable with it involving a married man rather than a single man. In general, it would appear that we are mostly saying that the husband's actions are sinful (a less conservative group might not come to this conclusion).

We've actually had the conversation on this forum about boudoir photography specifically. I suspect you're right -- we view photography as a lesser art than we view "real" art. Most people don't have a problem with the Venus di Milo or Venus and Adonis 1614, because they're classical art. A photograph is too "real" for most people's comfort zones, particularly conservative and traditional people.

[Windseeker]

Yeah, but that makes you look like a little bit of a schmuck. :)

You're assuming that a male boudoir photographer is automatically lusting after his clients. While this may be true in some cases, and it certainly sounds like it is in the OP's case, it's not a universal truth.

Actually I don't care whether or not he finds his client attractive. I think a man looking at a women and puting her in sexually intimate and alluring poses is wrong regardless.

I don't have a problem with an LDS male fashion photographer but it depends on what he's shooting and what he's trying to elicit out of the viewer.

Obvious some may scoff and chortle at the thought that these types of photos are anything other then serious art and an academic contemplation of the human form but I think if anyone is being honest the purpose of them is to provoke and stimulate sexual thoughts.

[NeuroTypical]

A third issue - his considerations for his wife's feelings seem to be a bit below par.

My wife works with troubled young people on drugs. She often works with them one on one, driving them to AA meetings, spending hours talking to them, etc. The only reason she does this, is because she has my full understanding and support. She says often that if such things bugged me, she wouldn't do it, or would not work with guys. She is transparent about her activities - there are no lies or surprises. There's no discovering things she didn't tell me about. Occasionally she'll invite me to read her email, or ask my advice on something.

I support her, because she is good at it, finds tremendous fulfillment in it, she can change hearts and save lives, and it's quite arguable that God sends her some of these kids because of her unique ability to make a positive difference where parents, churches, shrinks, drug counselors, and the justice system all fail.

So yeah, when my wife spends an entire night with a suicidal drunken lesbian, I cheer and wish the girl the best. When the guy who takes sexy pictures of other women, lies about it, the wife has a big honkin' problem and most of us can understand why. Do you see the difference?

[Finrock]

Good afternoon mdfxdb. I hope you are doing well! :)

You cite the husband as looking at other women partially nude as not being "right". What if he went to a beach, what then? What if he decides to go to Hooters for lunch? I'm not defending the OP husbands actions, because it is clear to me that he wronged in his lie to his wife. Husbands shouldn't lie to their wifes, but a blanket condemnation of his other actions without knowing any particulars seems a little over the top.

When I envision myself as a true disciple of Jesus Christ, I don't see myself taking and viewing photos of partially nude women who are not my wife. In my vision of a true disciple of Jesus Christ, I avoid nude beaches and when I am at the beach, my mind, my heart, and my eyes belong to my wife and to the interest of righteousness. Given other options for food and nutrition, I don't see Jesus or His disciples needing or desiring to go to Hooters for lunch. But, even so, would a true disciple go in to a Hooters and while there take time to admire the women's bodies?

Complete chastity before marriage and complete fidelity after marriage are God's standard.

It is true that we have appetites and passions that have been given to us as gifts from God. Artistic expressions of all variety are a powerful way for us to express those feelings and emotions. However, always and forever, our appetites, and our passions, and our artistic expressions, need to be maintained within the bounds that God has set.

Regards,

Finrock

[Wingnut]

Obvious some may scoff and chortle at the thought that these types of photos are anything other then serious art and an academic contemplation of the human form but I think if anyone is being honest the purpose of them is to provoke and stimulate sexual thoughts.

I agree that that is their purpose. The intent is generally for the client/subject to give them to her husband. How is it wrong for a man to be provokes and stimulated sexually by photos of his wife?

A photographer doesn't charge a client money so that the photographer can be stimulated by his/her clientele. And a professional and competent photographer is capable of exercising self-control (as are many people). Clearly the OP's husband doesn't fall into either category: controlling himself or charging money.

[Windseeker]

I agree that that is their purpose. The intent is generally for the client/subject to give them to her husband. How is it wrong for a man to be provokes and stimulated sexually by photos of his wife?

A photographer doesn't charge a client money so that the photographer can be stimulated by his/her clientele. And a professional and competent photographer is capable of exercising self-control (as are many people).

That's just it, when you have photographer involved it's not private between you and your husband anymore is it.

What do you think is going thru any photographers mind when he's posing a client for boudoir photos? You think he's going to shoot something that he thinks isn't sexy? Something he has no feeling for one way or the other? If you have ever seen a professional fashion shoot, it's all about passion and emotion. In the context of the boudoir your in denial if you don't think lust plays a large part.

How would you honestly feel about your husband shooting private boudoir photos of beautiful women he solicited on facebook?

[Wingnut]

What do you think is going thru any photographers mind when he's posing a client for boudoir photos? You think he's going to shoot something that he thinks isn't sexy? Something he has no feeling for one way or the other? If you have ever seen a professional fashion shoot, it's all about passion and emotion. In the context of the boudoir your in denial if you don't think lust plays a large part.

As previously stated, I am a photographer, and while I don't currently shoot boudoir, I do have some interest in exploring it in the future. As the photographer, my main concern would be with making sure the woman I'm shooting feels comfortable in her own skin, and that she is posed flattering to her body, that the light is falling right, and that my focus is exact, etc. In other words, I'm not pointing, shooting, and drooling. Art has an element of science.

How would you honestly feel about your husband shooting private boudoir photos of beautiful women he solicited on facebook?

*Sigh* I've repeatedly said that this behavior is inappropriate. I don't understand why you think otherwise.

[ADoyle90815]

I agree that that is their purpose. The intent is generally for the client/subject to give them to her husband. How is it wrong for a man to be provokes and stimulated sexually by photos of his wife?

A photographer doesn't charge a client money so that the photographer can be stimulated by his/her clientele. And a professional and competent photographer is capable of exercising self-control (as are many people). Clearly the OP's husband doesn't fall into either category: controlling himself or charging money.

This. A professional photographer is able to have self-control when taking pictures of semi-nude or even nude people. Photography is like any other profession where someone might work with people of the opposite gender, they treat clients professionally and avoid anything that could be considered sexual harassment, so they don't flirt in order to get clients.

The OP's husband doesn't sound like a professional, and it's an issue because not only has he lied about his hobby, he doesn't stop taking pictures that make his wife uncomfortable, and he flirts to get clients. If he was taking pictures of women in swimsuits at the beach and it made his wife uncomfortable, he really should stop, just as he should have stopped taking boudoir photos when the OP asked him to stop.

[Wingnut]

This. A professional photographer is able to have self-control when taking pictures of semi-nude or even nude people. Photography is like any other profession where someone might work with people of the opposite gender, they treat clients professionally and avoid anything that could be considered sexual harassment, so they don't flirt in order to get clients.

Additionally, a professional photographer has a signed contract with his clients, a model release detailing the allowed uses of the photos by the photographer, and spelling out payment terms. The OP's husband seems to be using the old "let's go to my darkroom and see what develops" line, and is far from professional. He can't even be referred to as an advanced amateur.

[MarginOfError]

I went to school in a city that hosted an art school, and one of the students from MECA was telling me about a woman he knew that enjoyed doing pottery as art. She would put hours and hours of work into these ornate and beautiful pieces that she was very proud of, but she had trouble selling them.

At the same time, she quickly learned that she could spin out dozens of little clay pots that she could sell for $20 a piece at craft shows and they sold like hot cakes. In time, she found herself booking booths at craft shows, selling lots of the smaller pieces, and using the money to support herself and the art she was interested in doing.

I imagine photographers are in a similar boat. There are art forms they are interested in pursuing, but they also have bills to pay. Do I believe a professional photographer can do a photo shoot of a woman in her lingerie without being aroused? Yes, I do. I imagine that, like doctors, it's just something they get used to.

Additionally, I don't see how it would be much different than painting nudes of people. That doesn't seem to be as frowned upon, and if there were a client that wanted to pay an artist to paint a nude portrait, why not take the money?

Where this man seems to have gone of the rails is that he isn't doing this professionally. If he wanted to be professional about it, he'd put out something like a casting call. What this guy is doing is creepy and amateur.

[Guest]

If you're telling me that any heterosexual man, professional or not, can be in a room with a woman in lingerie, putting her in alluring poses, focusing on how the lighting accentuates her best assets, and not get aroused in any way or have any kind of impure thought, ever. . . well, I have a bridge to sell you.

[MarginOfError]

Just because you or I can't imagine it doesn't mean it isn't possible.

[Windseeker]

I imagine that some people are happily married to people who do pornography for a living, anything is possible.

[mdfxdb]

Just so you know all photographers try to photograph and light women so the lighting best accuentuates their "assets". Women buy photographs, and they want to see themselves as they view them selves in their "minds eye". Clothed or not a photographer is going to do their best to show off a womans body to their best advantage. Does this make them a perv? Does it automatically force them to think dirty thoughts? No, it is called them doing their job. Depending on the lighting/setting it doesn't really matter what the person is wearing, a picture can be taken/construed so many ways that it can fall into the realm of extreemly sexy or very conservative without changing outfits at all.

In short, yes a man who is heterosexual can do lingere photos without getting aroused. It is called being professional.

[Guest]

It's in Brooklyn.

"Being aroused" is not the same as "being a perv".That doesn't mean it's acceptable to intentionally put oneself into situations where the objective is to create something alluring.

[Windseeker]

What does being professional have anything to do with the right and wrong of shooting boudoir? You guys keep throwing it out there like the problem is her husband isn't a pro and I don't think the OP agrees with that. I certainly don't.

I would assume that "professionals" who shoot pornography don't get aroused either, it doesn't make what they are doing acceptable especially if they claim to be LDS.

[MarginOfError]

It's in Brooklyn.

"Being aroused" is not the same as "being a perv".That doesn't mean it's acceptable to intentionally put oneself into situations where the objective is to create something alluring.

That's a decision I'm willing to make for myself, and I'm fine letting any person make that decision for themself. But I'm not comfortable making that statement for the world's population.

[MarginOfError]

What does being professional have anything to do with the right and wrong of shooting boudoir? You guys keep throwing it out there like the problem is her husband isn't a pro and I don't think the OP agrees with that. I certainly don't.

I would assume that "professionals" who shoot pornography don't get aroused either, it doesn't make what they are doing acceptable especially if they claim to be LDS.

I guess that depends on if you consider shooting boudoir and shooting pornography to be the same thing.

[Guest]

The One whose opinion matters has already made the decision, but I suppose that's only for those who have ears to hear.

[MarginOfError]

The One whose opinion matters has already made the decision, but I suppose that's only for those who have ears to hear.

YAY! More mormon judgmentality! (see also)

[Guest]

Tell me how you can take sexy pictures of a woman in lingerie without looking at her to lust after her? The objective is to make her lustful, so by default you'd have to be in that mindset! Call me judgmental, but I'll take the word of Christ over philosophies of men any day of the week.