Intimate Photos with spouse

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, ldsister said:

Having never looked at porn, I'm not qualified to argue whether what the OP is asking falls into that camp or not. It sounds like it to me, and I'd certainly feel like I was being asked to produce porn if my husband asked me to send him intimate (which I'm assuming means at least top frontal nudity) photos of myself, but I won't die on that terminology. 

Very good points. 

Obviously I don't speak for LadyGator but I think she'd have the same reaction. She would be less than thrilled with the suggestion, as well. It sounds disrespectful to her. 

But again, we (LG and I) make that decision for us. Others don't have to live by our rules. 

Edited August 31, 2016 by MormonGator

[ldsister]

11 minutes ago, rpframe said:

For all we know his wife may have suggested it and he's just wondering how other people think about it.

But you're right that she needs to be fully on board or its not a good idea.

This is the last I'll say on this because I don't have a dog in this fight, but this question doesn't smell like a "we're both on board" question. It's clear that OP already thinks it's okay, so who's he seeking confirmation of its okayness for? I'm guessing his wife, and if his wife is hesitant, then he needs to let it go. Nothing good comes of pushing people into sexual situations they don't feel good about. 

[Windseeker]

There are proper and improper ways of sharing intimacy. The proper ways will bless and strengthen the marriage. The improper ways have their consequences, regardless of Joe and Jane Internets opinion and no matter how consensual the act is. 

A greater number of extremely secular millennials are discovering and speaking out about the pitfalls of indulging in pornography. There are even studies now showing how it affects the brain. Theses studies have lead to discoveries that show the chemicals released when engaging in sexual activity remotely vs physically are different. Specifically there are chemicals when men and women are together which counteracts and calms the impact of dopamine. 

My point is if the secular world is waking up to the dangers inherent with certain activities and their relation to depression and the negative impact it has on our ability to perform physically then surely LDS people who have been counseled to follow the spirit and maintain a spiritually healthy relationship ought to know better than to proclaim any and every consensual means of attaining climax in marriage is blessed from above. 

Since intimacy is about sharing, what exactly are you sharing with your spouse by engaging in solo intimacy while looking at a sexualized picture of her? How is it not selfish?

Edited August 31, 2016 by Windseeker

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, ldsister said:

 I'm guessing his wife, and if his wife is hesitant, then he needs to let it go. 

She's absolutely right. If the wife isn't into it, you need to drop it immediately and never bring it up again.  

[rpframe]

9 minutes ago, ldsister said:

This is the last I'll say on this because I don't have a dog in this fight, but this question doesn't smell like a "we're both on board" question. It's clear that OP already thinks it's okay, so who's he seeking confirmation of its okayness for? I'm guessing his wife, and if his wife is hesitant, then he needs to let it go. Nothing good comes of pushing people into sexual situations they don't feel good about. 

 

19 hours ago, dz2003 said:

Both of us have Temple Recommends and so it isn't something "bad" we did to put ourselves in this situation we knew already going into this that it would be the case and prayed and received and answer that it was right.  And so while we wait for us to be reunited one day, the idea and thought was there.  We have discussed it for sometime, and just wanted to see what the general feel of it was, and I apologize if I seemed rude at any moment,

This really doesn't sound like he's trying to justify it, or that he's asking her to do something she isn't interested in. It sounds like they had had plenty of talks and wanted to know how others felt about it.

At least that's how I'm reading it.

[zil]

16 minutes ago, rpframe said:

This really doesn't sound like he's trying to justify it, or that he's asking her to do something she isn't interested in. It sounds like they had had plenty of talks and wanted to know how others felt about it.

At least that's how I'm reading it.

I respect that there's a different opinion - with stuff on the internet, it's so hard to know how to interpret it, so hearing multiple interpretations is useful.

But my mind keeps wondering: if husband is good with it (totally comfortable, no reservations at all) and wife is good with it (ditto), why would they feel the need to ask anyone else's opinion?  IMO, the only reason to do that is if one or both has reservations, at which point, the better question would probably be, what is the source of those reservations?

Edited August 31, 2016 by zil

[estradling75]

15 minutes ago, rpframe said:

 

This really doesn't sound like he's trying to justify it, or that he's asking her to do something she isn't interested in. It sounds like they had had plenty of talks and wanted to know how others felt about it.

At least that's how I'm reading it.

And that is what he is getting...  guess what... some posters think is it pretty much porn and would be personally be against it so that is what they are saying...

[Guest MormonGator]

18 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

And that is what he is getting...  guess what... some posters think is it pretty much porn and would be personally be against it so that is what they are saying...

 Right. 

In my view only,  I think porn is watching unmarried strangers engaging in sexual acts for your own gratification.  Not a perfect definition by any means, but for the sake of this argument, I'm sticking with it. 

This isn't porn because you are two aren't strangers. 

Edited August 31, 2016 by MormonGator

[rpframe]

7 minutes ago, zil said:

I respect that there's a different opinion - with stuff on the internet, it's so hard to know how to interpret it, so hearing multiple interpretations is useful.

But my mind keeps wondering: if husband is good with it (totally comfortable, no reservations at all) and wife is good with it (ditto), why would they feel the need to ask anyone else's opinion?  IMO, the only reason to do that is if one or both has reservations, at which point, the better question would probably be, what is the source of those reservations?

 

5 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

And that is what he is getting...  guess what... some posters think is it pretty much porn and would be personally be against it so that is what they are saying...

I think its great that he is getting varying opinions. I think discussing the various red flags that it could bring up to also be helpful, like Zil does.
I think @ldsister and I were mostly just discussing assumptions being made about the intention of the question.

Anyway.. @zil, won't know for sure unless @dz2003 tells us for sure, but I get the feeling they feel like its something they could/want to do, but just want to not feel alone in the Mormon universe of perceived perfection. Which I guess means that I have to agree with ldsister's guess that he is looking for validation, but I disagree with the reason behind it.

[Windseeker]

5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 Right. 

In my view only,  I think porn is watching unmarried strangers engaging in sexual acts for your own gratification.  Not a perfect definition, but for the sake of this argument, I'm sticking with it. 

This isn't porn because you are two aren't strangers. 

Generally I agree, but I think its naive to believe that porn affects how men view and treat women but nakid pictures of my spouse won't affect how I view or treat her. 

 

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, Windseeker said:

Generally I agree, but I think its naive to believe that porn affects how men view and treat women but nakid pictures of my spouse won't affect how I view or treat her. 

 

 I don't disagree with you. 

[yjacket]

2 hours ago, rpframe said:

Concerning concerns about talking with your bishop... your bishop is not always a trained relationship expert or a psychologist. Yes he could possibly help you with revelation, but I think that this probably falls under things that you're better off talking to a marriage counselor about if you feel the need.

This IMO is some of the worst advice.  I see this bantered about all the time, the Bishop isn't trained to be a relationship expert, he only deals with spiritual matters, not temporal matters. What absolute rubbish.  As I've said before there is a really evil thinking in the current modern day world that the only place to get good relationship, marriage advice from is someone who has three letters behind their name or has a degree in it. This is absolute utter trash.  The best relationship advice I've ever gotten is from my parents, who have been married for over 30 years, with grown kids having dealt with all the ups and downs of life, hair-pulling, I want out of here to I can't live without you.

In fact, you'll find that the best relationship advice you'll ever get is from people who have walked the walk and talked the talk. I'm going to get relationship advice from some hot-shot PhD out of school who has 5-10 years of experience??  Who may or may not have been married to the same woman with kids during that time frame? I don't think so.

Just because someone went to school and has a degree doesn't make them an expert, it simply means someone else says they are an expert-whether they really are is a big ?.

Many of my ancestors were Bishops, some for long periods of time (20+ years), they dealt with everything. Now I'm not suggesting that every Bishop is qualified, nor am I suggesting that every counselor is disqualified.  I'm simply saying that to dismiss the Bishop out of hand as a relationship expert is ludicrous. He is a relationship expert, with his own wife!! Which is more than many marriage counselors can say. In fact, the only relationship with whom one can have any real expertise with is one's own spouse. No one will ever know your spouse more than the person who is married to them, yes there are things that are similar among different cases, but ultimately everyone is different and therefore each relationship is different. I am also not suggesting that everyone burden the Bishop with every single problem.

What I am saying is that if a Bishop has the qualities as it states in Timothy then sign me up for marriage advice from him, b/c it will be better advice than you'll get from 99% of the world and counselors. And a good Bishop will know when he is over his head.

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

 

 

[Vort]

2 hours ago, rpframe said:

What happens consensually with your spouse is no one's darn business.

True but irrelevant. Morality is not determined by whether something is someone's business or not.

2 hours ago, rpframe said:

If you both decide and feel good about being intimate in person, over the phone, over text, over webchat, over snapchat, over picture messaging, over maritime signal flags, over smoke signals, or over morse code then I feel like you can do that with a clear conscience.

I do not believe that "feeling good" is the shibboleth for determining morality, unless that is a code phrase meaning "confirmed by the Spirit". Too many people claim to "feel good" about too many unsavory things (e.g. homosexual relations, adultery, polyamory) for that to be a reliable method for determining the morality of an activity.

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

I do not believe that "feeling good" is the shibboleth for determining morality, unless that is a code phrase meaning "confirmed by the Spirit". 

So true Vort. A man might run off with his secretary because they both think it "feels right". 

[rpframe]

9 minutes ago, yjacket said:

What I am saying is that if a Bishop has the qualities as it states in Timothy then sign me up for marriage advice from him, b/c it will be better advice than you'll get from 99% of the world and counselors. And a good Bishop will know when he is over his head.

Don't disagree with anything that you said. But my main point is that there are bad bishops too. And if I didn't feel comfortable with my bishop for whatever reason, I wouldn't talk to him about this, and wouldn't feel bad about it. Also, if I made it sound like I was trying to give advice then I apologize. Just stating my opinion.

 

11 minutes ago, Windseeker said:

Generally I agree, but I think its naive to believe that porn affects how men view and treat women but naked pictures of my spouse won't affect how I view or treat her. 

I personally see very little difference between seeing my spouse in person and in a picture.

[yjacket]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

True but irrelevant. Morality is not determined by whether something is someone's business or not.

Whether or not there should be a law against it (i.e. as a society we are going to use force to stop or make people doing xyz) is a completely different animal.

Morality however is as you said not determined by whether it is someone's else business.

[yjacket]

3 minutes ago, rpframe said:

Don't disagree with anything that you said. But my main point is that there are bad bishops too.

Completely agree, just like there are bad counselors; we need to be very selective about who we receive advice from. For me, I want advice from people who have personal experience in walking the walk. I'd rather trust my Bishop who shares my same faith than a marriage counselor who may not. Now if you are fortunate to have a marriage counselor of the LDS faith who is very experienced in their own marriage, then that is someone who I could also trust.

[rpframe]

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

True but irrelevant. Morality is not determined by whether something is someone's business or not.

I do not believe that "feeling good" is the shibboleth for determining morality, unless that is a code phrase meaning "confirmed by the Spirit". Too many people claim to "feel good" about too many unsavory things (e.g. homosexual relations, adultery, polyamory) for that to be a reliable method for determining the morality of an activity.

I agree to both of those statements. I wasn't using those statements as evidence of the morality of it as a whole. Additionally I meant "feel good about it" as equivalent to "both whole heartedly consenting".

[Windseeker]

13 minutes ago, rpframe said:

Don't disagree with anything that you said. But my main point is that there are bad bishops too. And if I didn't feel comfortable with my bishop for whatever reason, I wouldn't talk to him about this, and wouldn't feel bad about it. Also, if I made it sound like I was trying to give advice then I apologize. Just stating my opinion.

 

I personally see very little difference between seeing my spouse in person and in a picture.

Well frankly there ought to be.

[Vort]

8 minutes ago, rpframe said:

I wasn't using those statements as evidence of the morality of it as a whole.

But that was the issue being addressed:

21 hours ago, dz2003 said:

Maybe I was not afforded the ability to share what I am thinking correctly,  So there are 2 topics:

1.  How private/bad idea/can people see them/etc.

2.  Is it morally bad to do so?

I am looking at number 2 for right now

 

8 minutes ago, rpframe said:

Additionally I meant "feel good about it" as equivalent to "both whole heartedly consenting".

Again, this is not relevant. Even if my wife and I both wholeheartedly consent to bringing a third person into our sexual union, it's still immoral.

[rpframe]

But that was the issue being addressed:

Again, this is not relevant. Even if my wife and I both wholeheartedly consent to bringing a third person into our sexual union, it's still immoral.

Apparently the portions of the issue that I was addressing are not clear.

"1) How private/bad idea"

I was addressing that it can be reasonably private, and that I don't think its an inherently bad idea

2) Morality

You're right, consent does not make it moral, but lack of consent makes it immoral and that's why I bothered to mention it.

[Vort]

42 minutes ago, rpframe said:

Apparently the portions of the issue that I was addressing are not clear.

"1) How private/bad idea"

I was addressing that it can be reasonably private, and that I don't think its an inherently bad idea

2) Morality

You're right, consent does not make it moral, but lack of consent makes it immoral and that's why I bothered to mention it.

I agree with what you have written above, and I am the first to admit that sometimes I might be overly literal in my interpretation of what people write. But I did not get the above from your original response:

Quote

What happens consensually with your spouse is no one's darn business. If you both decide and feel good about being intimate in person, over the phone, over text, over webchat, over snapchat, over picture messaging, over maritime signal flags, over smoke signals, or over morse code then I feel like you can do that with a clear conscience.

The OP said his primary concern was with the morality of the idea of keeping pictures of one's spouse in the raw. While it is debatable whether or not the mere act of having a nude photograph of a spouse is immoral (and I think that most of us have come down on the side of "not"), the fact that both agreed with the idea does not therefore make it morally acceptable. Nor does the fact that it's no one else's business but theirs (which I am not convinced is a true statement, anyway) make it morally acceptable. I can think of all sorts of things that a couple might mutually agree to and that might not be anyone else's business that would still be deeply immoral. That was my only point.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, MormonGator said:

His behavior is out of control. We got trouble my friends. Right here in River City! 

I think we need an intervention.

[SilentOne]

7 hours ago, MormonGator said:

His behavior is out of control. We got trouble my friends. Right here in River City! 

With a capital T and that rhymes with P and that stands for Photo.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

14 hours ago, yjacket said:

This IMO is some of the worst advice.  I see this bantered about all the time, the Bishop isn't trained to be a relationship expert, he only deals with spiritual matters, not temporal matters. What absolute rubbish.  As I've said before there is a really evil thinking in the current modern day world that the only place to get good relationship, marriage advice from is someone who has three letters behind their name or has a degree in it. This is absolute utter trash.  The best relationship advice I've ever gotten is from my parents, who have been married for over 30 years, with grown kids having dealt with all the ups and downs of life, hair-pulling, I want out of here to I can't live without you.

There is value in counseling with your Bishop when there are relationship problems (many of which have a root in spiritual problems) but there are limits on the kind of help he can give. LDS Family Services was started up for a reason. Bishops are advised to not offer solutions but to lead you to finding the solution yourself with 'how do you feel about that' type questions.  They are not supposed to probe about the intimate details of a marriage, and if asked if a particular intimate act is OK or not they are to say that if it bothers you that much that you feel a need to ask him then perhaps you shouldn't do it.