I was in seminary for 6 years and have an MA in Theology.
To the best of my knowledge, nude photography is morally unacceptable for a few reasons. We all know that pornography is evil because it reduces the person to an object for pleasure/use. However many people make the argument that within the promer context and intention nude photography could be acceptable (modeling for the sake of studying the human form or women’s empowerment and confidence building) One of my good friends is a photographer who I continually debate on this.
It was once explained to me that the difference between a nude painting and a nude photograph is that the painting has been filtered through the artist’s mind/interpretation and what the world sees in the art is the mind of the artist and not the person themself. And that the problem with nude photography is that it gives a raw look into the intimacies of a person’s body which is not filtered by interpretation. This “raw material”, you could say, can therefore always be used according to the viewer’s intentions and is much more malleable than the Michelangelo Sistine Chapel art, for example.
To my friend, who argues he has no issues lusting after the models whom he photographs nude, I usually argue that he doesn’t have the right to that type/level of intimacy with them. Only one’s spouse ought to have access to the full disclosure of oneself (at least bodily in regards to one’s spouse, whereas full spiritual disclosure might be appropriate with one’s confessor).
Among the many other arguments as to the problematic nature of nude photos as discussed on the forum in other articles, can anyone help me backup/better found my argument? I’m not sure how to proceed or if there is some resource that could help in this regard.
Basically, to restate my question: I cannot think of any good reason who nude photography would ever be permissible and not contradict my previously stated argument. What do you think?