Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
network
network
All contents © Noisy Creek, Inc.
1101 East Pike St. Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98122
1101 East Pike St. Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98122
So if he repents for the dildo fiasco, does he get a pass for that?
The majority of this letter is (to me) in the murky grey area between right and wrong; there's just not enough evidence for me to condemn this guy for taking some racey pictures.
The dildo however? That is wrong. Wrong, wrong, WRONG. It should have been obvious even to the most sex addled brain that taking your girlfriends specially made dildo and lending it to another woman to use (why didn't she provide her own toy?) for any reason is just not okay.
For the record Dan, I've been reading your colomn for years, have listened to every episode of the Lovecast, and almost always agree with you.
If he isn't touching them, or sleeping with them, but he is (with his partners permission) seeing them completely nude in various erotic positions, I dont understanrd how a photograph of a body part he can likely see anyway as she gets into other poses really matters.. other than maybe the art he produces isn't to his partners taste, which sounds like her problem, and completely unfair policing of a loved ones artwork.
Additionally, while using the completely unused sex toy in a photoshoot might hurt feelings, it sounds to me more like she's looking for more reasons to be upset, because her original complaint of not finding his artwork artsy enough, is a completely subjective point, that in my opinion doesn't hold enough weight to end a relationship.
Sounds like shes trying to get back at him by holding this over his head the way her emotional attachment to another man was held over hers.
If i'm an erotic photographer,i make it clear to my models that i have a BYOD policy. I find myself wondering how it is that the excalibur of dildos ended up at the shoot in the first place... did he TELL the model he had it in advance? did he bring it quietly hoping a model would say "if only there were something here that i could put inside me..." curiouser and curiouser
That's not a universal rule. The dildos I strap on - those are my cocks, regardless of whose holes they have penetrated. If I fuck a girl with them, that doesn't give her the right to say who I fuck next with them.
Not saying the guy was right to use the dildo without her; he knew she wouldn't want him to and he wasn't willing to talk to her about it and find a compromise. But there's no general rule that the person penetrated with a dildo is the one who controls its use.
They bought it to play with together, back when she had an excited, hopeful view of their sexual future together. It's not your run of the mill silicone toy that's going to wear out and need to be replaced eventually; it's glass, and more than that, it was special ordered...it's *art*. So not only did they buy this toy for sex but it is the sexual equivalent of a diamond ring. And yes, people DO get attached to special jewels of all sorts if they were chosen with care and with emotional investment and if they mean something. She says she had still held out hope that someday they'd really use it--so what if she doesn't know that bodies don't work that way and that it won't get any easier over time, she *thought* it might, which means that the glass dildo was a physical symbol of her hopes for the sexual relationship she longs for coming to fruition.
And it ended up inside another woman.
NOW do you see why this is a huge deal?
I mean, I think the whole thing is kind of horrific if I look at it from my own perspective. But from hers, she doesn't seem hung up on the dildo as much as the lying and his response not being what she wants it to be.
As for the model, you have to be trusting, naive or obtuse to let a stranger hand you a dildo and believe him when he says that it's clean (assuming she even asked).
*smirk*
Well, it might bring back good memories for one of them.
Letter writer clearly has another one of her "purely emotional" relationships with the dildo, probably keeps it as a proxy for that love-buddy whom she supposedly never fucked.
But obviously people get real attached to them. A glass one sounds kinda cute.
That " P E" relationship was ten flaming yrs ago.
Him: "oh great so Tuesday at 4:30 is open and to confirm ur ok w/ photos being taken of a dildo inserted in ur vaginal and/or anus, right?"
'Model': "well I guess so, but I would have to charge u $900 per hour. I bring a couple of toys to use..."
Him: "no, no no need to...my girlfri, uhh...I mean the...uhh, stock room, yea the stock room has several to choose from."
'Model': "alright fine, but I insist on disinfecting them myself before using it"
Him: "so tell me, r u able to take an extra large dildo?" *Unzip...followed by a rhythmic slapping noise*
....and scene
Maybe he cleaned the dildo before but licked it after?
In other words, standard relationship issues, imo. Nothing new here. Or they could break up.
You're being an insulting asshole to me. I'm not sure why you'd imagine I'd grant your "request".
It's cruel and it's selfish. And it's a very, very bad sign.
And it is never cool to lend out your partner's sex toy without asking, even if it is jointly owned, especially if you're creating *photographic evidence* of the fact. That's just gauche.
@41, I know this is very late and you probably won't see it. But I think the 'ordered it from the States' thing indicates they are in Canada. It is actually still very expensive and often a *huge* hassle to get things shipped up here if it's anything other than Amazon. Plus customs often open things to inspect them... it's not ideal.
So yeah, her best option now, instead of immediately pulling the plug on their 10-year marriage, is to follow Dan's advice and make an effort to check whether the husband could want to be kinky with her. But I think that's the last thing he'll want. They've grown apart.
As for the posters claiming that the qualities she's looked for in him are those of an employee and not those of a lover : are you kidding ? The basis of any relationship is mutual trust and honesty, and you're fools if you think that a love relationship can go without those two qualities, because *love*. Love alone isn't enough for a long-lasting relationship.
FROM ME: would you prefer to be with him? if so, try to see his side, and work it out. Unfortunately, people today tend to think the other person being who he/she is ruins the relationship. You must have picked him because you loved him, so love him for this side of him, too. Only a shallow person dumps a mate over fairly minor issues -- but if controlling him is a major issue to him, maybe you need to trade him in on a slave.
She needs to trade him in for a man who is honest. Not a sneak. Not some creep who gets his models to flash their pussies at him and sit on his wife's dildo.
And stop wasting her life on a lying piece of shit.
Gonna grab my gun, kill my baby,
Nobody's business but mine
Ain't nobody's doggone business, how my baby treat me,
Nobody's business but my own
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SMQ1aoy…
RIP Mississippi John Hurt
He obviously does not see taking photos, or having photos taken, no matter the level of nudity, cheating, as long as there is no physical contact (which since the writer didn't mention, we have to assume never happened.) If she considers it cheating, he needs to stop all photography, because that line is vague at best. This can be worked on, but it might be something like photography is OK, but there must always be a bra and panties on and no outside objects. Something like that. And he must adhere to that agreement. He must also admit that what he did broke their trust.
The entire dildo thing is secondary. It's gross, he admits it was wrong, everyone is in agreement on that. It's a silly addition which complicates the issue.
Also, the lines between boudoir and porn may be blurry, but going "Hey, for your private hobby please don't use pictures that feature women's lower genitalia as the central focus or have photos with women performing sex acts" is pretty specific. And I think we owe it to the LW to assume that she at very least said 'no sex acts'. She set up a boundary and he crossed it all the way.
He wasn't ignorant of her feelings. He ignored them.
He had to set up the shoot. He could have said no. He could have just said he doesn't take those types of photos and not lost any credibility. He had to get a toy. He could have asked her to provide her own. He could have once again said he doesn't take those types of photos. He had a bunch of chances to not do this and he deliberately made the choice over and over and over again full well knowing that if his partner found out she would be hurt.
He wasn't sorry he used the dildo. He's sorry he got caught. DTMFA
Maybe I will get heat on this one, but I think that when most people say they are going to be monogamous, that includes watching other people (in person) do sex-acts. Obviously there are exceptions, say people who work in the porn industry, but in my experience the standard issue form of monogamy draws the boundary somewhere between privately consuming pornography that features strangers and watching someone you know personally engage in penetration. Obviously many people need to re-negotiate the standard package because it interferes with their jobs or hobbies, but that re-negotiation (you can continue taking sexy photos, but please stop taking sexual ones) was not honored.
10 years of good marriage is a lot to give up over an indiscretion, especially if most of the components are satisfying for you. This is an opportunity to re-negotiate your terms, and establish whether you are able to forgive and trust him after this. LW made a mistake (i think a comparable, if not smaller one) that she was eventually forgiven for. I think he might deserve forgiveness too, but only if he is truly, deeply, sincerely understanding of how much he fucked up.
Here is what the LW said happened after he showed her the forklift pix:
"I told him at the time that I thought that pictures that left nothing to the imagination were no longer art but rather pornography and that I didn’t like him taking such shots of other women. (We were occasionally doing naughty photo sessions of our own at the time.) Since then, when he has shown me the fruits of his creative endeavors, it has always been of sexy, edgy images that qualified as art."
So, she says she told him that she didn't like him taking pornographic pictures of other women and, after that, he only shared pictures of the type she found unobjectionable. There is no indication of what, if anything, he said in response to her saying that she didn't like him taking those pictures. I think she would have mentioned it if his response was "I'm sorry, honey. I'll never do it again." It's not even clear that she demanded that he take no further pornographic pictures.
It's also worth mentioning that his claim that during the dildo shoot "he was not aroused and that it was all business, not pleasure, and that her husband was present" at least suggests that he was being paid to take these pictures. It's not exactly unheard of for couples to pay for boudoir photos of a woman, often for the enjoyment of her partner. In such photography, it is my impression that the paying customers would generally expect to have some control over the nature of the photos, although they presumably wouldn't expect to be able to demand the use of the sex toy that the photographer and his wife had custom-made.
So, by all means, feel free to attack the guy and scream "DTMFA," but if you think he broke a promise or lied, you might want to re-read the letter and see if you can find where the LW actually said that.
The implication that he agreed is there. Everyone is assuming that because had he disagreed, they would have had this out already.
I model. I know many models and photographers. Dildos are not boudoir, that is porn. No question. Just because someone has a camera does not mean that masturbation is suddenly not a sex act, and that the "customer" can demand that be part of the shoot. For that matter, this is a hobby. He's not even being paid. I would venture a guess that for photos like that he's the one paying. Women don't need photos like that for a portfolio, and chances are pretty good that this was not a woman with her husband seeking boudior - those people choose female, professional photographers. Not hobby dude with camera and no assistant. (Have you ever been to a photo shoot? It's hard to be a good photographer. You need help with lights and baffles).
Also, "her husband was there" is a pretty easily identifiable excuse. I doubt it's true, given his other shadiness.
I don't model, I'm not a photographer, I agree the dildo picture doesn't fit with what I think of when I hear "boudoir" and I'm not nominating this guy for sainthood (not by any stretch).
BUT, couples paying photographers to take boudoir pictures of a woman is a real thing. People being paid to do something that they (or at least their partners) call a "hobby" is also a real thing. And there is no hard and fast difference between a professional photographer and "someone [who] has a camera" who is also getting paid to take pictures. You don't need a Ph.D. or a federal license to get paid to take pictures.
The LW says her partner described the shoot as business and the LW never says he was paying models or that he wasn't being paid by his subjects (or their partners). The assumption that he's not being paid and is directing the shoot is just that, an assumption. Sort of like the assumption that telling someone that "I didn’t like him taking such shots of other women" is the same thing as "I demanded that he never do it again and he agreed not to."
I imagine you're right that most couples wanting boudoir photos go to a professional female photographer and it's a good point, but what if what they really wanted was pornographic pictures and the photographer wasn't into that? Then maybe they'd go for the less professional guy. And as for him not having an assistant, do you know what that is? Another assumption. LW wasn't there, probably doesn't know, and certainly didn't tell us whether there was an assistant there. There could have been three for all you or I know.
I don't know what happened with these two or at the photo shoots, but I honestly think the assumption that he promised never to take such pictures again is a terrible one. Most letter writers describing something shitty that happened to them remember to include key facts that support the narrative that the thing was shitty and not at all their fault. For that matter, a pretty high percentage of men breaking promises to their partners about conduct of a sexual nature don't leave the proof of their breach of trust in plain view (although I'm very dubious about the claim that the LW found the photos by accident).
So, I find it at least as likely that the conversation after she saw the forklift photos went something like:
Her:"I don't like you doing that."
Him: "Sorry."
Than that it went like:
Her: "I don't like you doing that. Don't ever do it again and here is a completely unambiguous ten-page description of the differences between boudoir photos and porn put out by the international union of models and photographers."
Him: "I'm terribly sorry that I crossed a line. I promise never to do it again."
tl;dr He uses the word "business," she uses the word "hobby"; nobody says whether anybody was paying anybody else; nobody mentions any promises or lies; nobody says whether there was an assistant there. Using their dildo with someone else was creepy, but neither that nor your experience modeling proves that all of your assumptions are valid.
And really, Dan? The husband is "where she wants him" now, all monogamish and kinky? I see no evidence that the husband is going to be down with his wife having some side fun (he gave her years of hell for a nonsexual emotional attachment) or up for doing something kinky with her, his wife. He's not even photographing his wife any more. I would definitely not call this "where she wants him."
As far as assumptions, yes there are some based on my personal and anecdotal experience, you're right. For instance, the nature of women - have you ever met a woman who let go of something that really chapped her ass at "sorry"? Because it's typically not, "oh, ok, you're sorry? We're cool then."
Your assumptions: what she calls a hobby is in fact a paid gig. No evidence to that other than that he said he wasn't turned on, it was business. She says hobby, he says business, which could easily be not in the "it's my job" but in the "I'm an amateur who likes to think I'm a pro." Your assumption: he never agreed not to. Your evidence: that the lw, who writes in that this was a betrayal and she didn't expect it and she wasn't actively monitoring his hobby didn't say (but strongly implied) that he promised. Taking aside from the fact that he hid them, I'm pretty sure most monogamous men don't think dildo pictures are fair game unless there is a legally binding 20 page contract that states otherwise. I think you're shortchanging men. "I never promised not to watch Sally bang herself! I never promised not to jerk off on my secretary's tits! I never promised not give other women your unused lingerie! I didn't touch her! What's the big deal?" *eye roll* He knew he was being a sneaky little bastard.
My personal experience is that hobbyists who take these sort of pictures kid themselves about their professionalism. A pro upstream and at least one other model have echoed my skepticism that this guy is in any way a pro. And pro or amateur, he still gets to decide what he shoots. Paid or unpaid. And I'm thinking bringing the dildo kinda blows the "they're the client" excuse right out of even marginal credulity.
And if he thought it was so above board, then he would have told her about it. That he kept it a secret is a huge red flag. I'd wager a significant amount that photography is not the only thing he's doing with these women.
This is one of Dan's few blind spots. When kinks/non monogamy is involved, he's way too quick to justify lying and other types of BS. And he seems to not understand the mind of the straight man. I think almost any straight man can read this and see right away that this guy is being sketchy.