Is glamor photography a forbidden field to go into for a catholic, Is the rest of the fashion industry not encouraged for Catholics to go into, I take any field of photography an art but is this one bad? I’m really considering it too. I do not lust I believe, I think I really just give an admiration to the beauty I see with no fantasizing, I don’t know how I am not able to think such thoughts that make you sin when just thinking of them.
Glamour Photography is okay, but bear in mind that it is different from “boudoir photography” which is generally lingerie stuff and would not be wise since it is certain to be an occasion of sin to someone.
Glamour is elegant and beautiful, but the other adds a sexual dimension that would be wrong.
Oh…and I am a retired photographer, so I know…
Thanks, your post helps on several points. But what would lingerie be, could that mean bikini clad girls too, I thought such a style was glamor like?
At one time, women were considered glamorous who had obvious physical beauty but they were considered whole persons, not just a collection of body parts. Lingerie photography is designed to sell a product. A young lady I knew who competed in beauty contests told me: “I don’t want people seeing me in my underwear.” For her, a one-piece bathing suit was appropriate, but not an underwear-like two piece. Generally, lingerie photography appeared in catalogs and other publications and was designed to show women how the product looked. Glamour should include the personality and modesty of the person. Generally, I think the line between glamorous, intelligent and having a modest demeanor has been crossed and too many young celebrities appear in what can only be called trashy photographs and/or are encouraged to act without modesty or shame.
Boudoir photography has no real purpose outside of exciting lust. The bedroom was meant to be the private sanctuary of the husband and wife and peeping toms were not allowed.
Bettie Page was a woman of God.
I believe God put women like her on this earth for a reason: to show that religious women, too can be sexy. If God gives us the gift of sexiness, we should use our talent for our good and the good of mankind. When I am earning good money from this, I plan to give a lot more to charity and to the church.
I am trying to get a career in modelling. But I am not tall enough for high fashion stuff. Therefore Lingerie, Boudoir, Glamour and fetish/alternative modelling are my only options. I draw the line at porn, which the Catholic church defines as depictions of sexual acts only. This is why I will not go into that area.
There is so much misinformation out there as to the catechism’s guidelines. I have looked into the matter and am satisfied that my work will not involve anything that the church advises against. God does not require prudishness of his people, and prudishness is what is strangling our church.
Bettie Page became a woman of God after her slowly becoming exploited. First, she was a glamour model and was associated with “art photography” and “how to draw” publications. Then she would be exploited in bondage photos, and, finally, burlesque - whose only purpose is to incite lust.
Sexiness is not a talent. It is an aspect of a whole person.
Immodest, lewd and lust inducing photos have replaced anything artistic or appropriate. I drew nude models in my life drawing class in college but the model was never to be viewed as a sex object.
Well then, perhaps we should bring back Magdalene laundries for women like me because even when fully clothed and minding my own business I “incite lust”-evidence of this is from the sheer numbers of men who ask me out and persist in doing so even though they know perfectly well I have a boyfriend.
Oh yeah, whatever you do, don’t blame the men for their lustful behaviour toward me. Blame women for how they look! And being female my purpose in life is of course to be controlled, so making any money from this aspect of myself entitles them to treat me like an object, thanks for enlightening me. You’re an artist? Well so am I. Wonder whether you have sold more paintings than me…
If I understand where you are coming from I really appreciate your view on the matters.
I find old sculptures of nude beautiful people to be very intriguing and highly artistic. There was a way once to show beauty in a very raw natural form without making it hyper-sexualized or to-inspire-lust. Somewhere in time that line was crossed and the nude beauty of the human form was turned into something purely sexual and all artistic nature of the body was buried beneath it.
If we can value a person’s intelligence, a person’s great faith, a person’s musical gift- then why should we not be able to appreciate a person’s raw beauty in a whole and chaste way? After all, physical beauty is just one of the many gifts that God can bless us with.
In summary: the nude body can be art, it can also be purely sexual. It all depends on the intention and portrayal. Just my opinions.
Ite in pace,
Please. There is no need to turn this into a mud-slinging fight. Let’s try to keep this cordial and respectful. Disagreements are bound to happen, but let’s please try to handle it gracefully.
Every photographer may choose was sort of job he or she accepts. Every model may do the same when it comes to shoots. You may find that even work involving nudity or near nudity does not incite lust, when you are trying to get the job done, and everyone is acting professionally. But if you are working with catalogues, web pages, advertising, the client does want something sexy. Sex sells product. You end up creating sexualized images. You develop an eye and talent for that, even if it does not incite lust in you, if you are to be successful. You need to reconcile that fact in your mind that you are producing work which will inspire lust, even if it does not in you.
I worked as a model in college, and I was often offered underwear and swimsuit jobs. I did a few. The money was good for little work. Some of the shots “spiced up” my portfolio, and even more offers came in. Apparently my nearly naked body sold underwear. On reflection, I decided to stop doing that work, and drew the line and being shirtless, and then decided that even shirtless was really intended to inspire lust.
What appeals to you about glamor photography? I am assuming that you mean fashion photography, when you say that. There have been a few true glamor photographers who specialized in portraiture and high fashion. But only a few of them.
There are many rewarding areas in photography.
What this poster is saying is - as I understand it - a gross misinterpretation of Church teaching.
To say that you - draw the line at porn - Implies a mentality that implies that anything else is acceptable.
I think that what is often described as prudishness is generally just morality.
Your comments reflect radical feminist thinking. You know, starting in the 1970s, the National Organization for Women could have educated both men and women regarding the very real problems that existed between some of them. Instead, they chose not to. In the 1970s, the millions of dollars put into hiring models, filmmakers, and photographers, and for printing and distributing magazines and films showing mostly women being graphically treated as sex objects should have encouraged NOW to protest Adult Bookstores, Topless Bars and Strip Clubs, but they chose not to. While at the same time, calling men “male chauvenist pigs” because they treated women like ‘sex objects.’
But, you know what? What was considered dirty and sinful, gradually became more and more prominent in the mainstream media, including movies and TV shows.
What did NOW actually do? They convinced some women that all men were the enemy. That they were out to control and abuse all women.
The blame does not lie in men approaching you because they find you attractive - the radical feminists, the so-called Women’s Movement - failed in its duty – in its real opportunity – to convince men that women should be treated with the utmost respect, and that knowing you have a boyfriend matters.
They lied. Thanks to the internet, women, especially women, are being exploited as in no time in the history of mankind.
And they rejected, along with the media, the things I was taught in the 1960s:
There was dating. No sexual intercourse allowed.
There was going steady if both parties were agreeable.
Then, if trust and understanding and compatibility existed, it could go on to courtship.
Still, no sexual intercourse.
You showed affection for each other. I bought my last girlfriend flowers. I opened doors for her. We sent each other amusing and affectionate cards. Aside from appreciating how she looked, and her comments about me, we just enjoyed each other’s company, no matter what we were doing together.
Then, if things were still going well. There was engagement where you shared your hopes, dreams and expectations with each other. The man then sat down with the young lady’s father, who had been his age once, and was asked the practical questions, since he fully understood youth and hormones and the partially intoxicating nature of it all.
Then, there was the marriage ceremony, and it was drilled into our heads: no sexual intercourse until after the ceremony. And the father told his daughter: “If you have any doubts, you don’t have to go through with this. I’ll back you up.”
Today, it’s have sex first, or live with her and have sex, or at least, take her for a ‘test drive’ to make sure the sex will be good after the ceremony.
Real love is sacrificial, a giving of your whole self to the other whole (meaning more than her looks) person.
Now it’s a guy walking into work and announcing to everyone: “I got laid last night!”
Glamour photography is dead. It died the moment gynecologist type photos were published in large quantities. Oh sure, regular clothes, undergarments, all that’s fine. But what’s the market for fetish photos - male perverts?
Too many men are convinced that like the absolutely beautiful actress I saw on TV, a sexual encounter is ‘just sex,’ like going to the bathroom. So, if you see another guy you like, it could be ‘just sex’ again. You see? That is the wrong mindset being promoted 24/7. Human dignity requires respect for the opposite sex, not her exploitation.
Agreed - 110%
Well, Joshua. Today, there is no room for it. It’s been crowded out by the purely sexual. People don’t go anywhere to see purely nude bodies for any chaste reason I can think of. And I’m referring to average people only. Not doctors and those whose medical specialty requires partial or complete nudity, like an X-Ray tech.
The nude body as art is never displayed for casual viewing today. It can assist artists to learn about the human body and medical students, but that’s it.
The fact that most people overly sexualize the human body does not mean that on an individual level one cannot appreciate the human body in an appropriate manner. It is a sad commentary on our society, to be sure, that this situation exists.
I have studied life drawing with a master artist (a catholic).
I think the portrayal of the human body is very different in painting than in nude photography.
I think if you are being serious about the art you are creating the dignity of the model is the most important thing…
I am perfectly comfortable with nudity in social situations, with friends and family, or at a nude beach, or in the wilderness. It would not bother me to walk down the streets of Barcelona or San Francisco where public nudity is legal. But I do think that the reason for nudity in most advertising photography is sexual prurience.
“appreciate the human body” how? Where? It’s bad enough that beautiful women allow themselves to be exploited and oversexualized. I’ll mention one magazine cover where a beautiful actress posed in a modest dress and with minimal makeup but she obviously did not wear a bra, and allows immoral photos of herself to be published. Another beautiful actress posed on a magazine cover but she allows herself to be photographed in purely sexual ways as well.
You can’t separate the two. There is nothing sad about our society in this regard. The sadness should be directed at those who compel people to do these things, and expect us to pay money for it. Don’t buy it. Don’t buy into the thinking behind it.
I think there is a definite difference between appreciation of the human body and the type of thing we are now discussing.
Nude/life drawing and painting and studying the human form from an artistic perspective is perfectly fine from a catholic perspective. The issue is with taking digital/photographic images and spreading these around in the mass media.
More often than not - people are using sex appeal to sell a product. This is not ok. You are degrading yourself and justifying the use of the body as a sales tool.
thats my :twocents:
Fetish modeling exists for only one reason. You might want to rethink that one…
Confidence in ourselves and appearance is healthy.
Being attractive can be a blessing and a curse. I will say that being asked out by large numbers of men is not necessarily an indicator of heightened beauty. I’ve known many beautiful women who were rarely asked out on dates and ones that were so- so attractive asked out quite frequently. Many times the men were too intimidated to ask out the more attractive ones and the pretty ones who were attractive, but not beautiful- their behavior, mannerisms and presentation probably had more to do with the number of dates they were asked to go out on… Just a thought.