Poll

Okay, I asked Joel for his opinion on this, and- while I can see his point- I can't decide what to do.

One of the reasons I haven't been blogging much is because I've been designing a DVD of my wedding work for prospective clients. I have two sections on the DVD, one that includes six full-length slideshows of my six most recent events and one that shows a one-page collage of my favorite photos from each of the my other weddings. I'm most proud of my six most recent events. I used the highest quality gear, and it's most reflective of the current work I'm doing and what clients could expect if they hire me.

Here's the issue: two of my most recent six events featured on the DVD are same-sex weddings. Joel is advocating pulling the same-sex slide shows off the DVD, and/or making two versions, one with gay weddings, one without.

Here's my side:

I shoot weddings by referral only.
The people who refer clients to me are friends or friends of friends.
I want to carve more of a niche for myself as a photographer for same-sex weddings anyway.
This isn't how I make my living. I can afford to be choosy.
If someone is offended by photos of two men or two women getting married, tough.
The photos are lovely, and in some small way, I think people may be moved and/or think differently about the subject if they see the family-oriented, positive loveliness.

Counterpoint:
Yeah, the couples who hire me may be okay with same-sex marriage, but what if they want to show the sample DVD to their parents, who aren't okay with it. "It's not a good business decision," says Joel.

Granted, it's not THAT hard to make two different versions. On the other hand, I am proud of this work. I am proud to DO this work. I want to be the change I wish to see in the world, and that means same-sex marriages go into the DVD album right next to the hetero ones. Viewers can always opt NOT to view the slideshows with two women's or men's names.

I am putting this question out there for respectful debate. Any Godbag blowhardery and I will swoop down upon you wherever you are (apparating Harry Potter style) and beat you with my radical militant feminist stick. Diverse views and opposing viewpoints welcomed, but please play nicely or I am taking your toys and sending you home. In particular for recently married and engaged people, would seeing same-sex weddings on a sample DVD/website/etc have caused you NOT to hire a vendor? If you have conservative parents, particularly if they helped pay for the wedding, would this have been a deal-breaker?

Scenes from last weekend...

Yeah. I'm behind on the blogging. But my dad came up for a Phillies vs. Mets game, which was a lot of fun.

Mah-wage. Mah-wage is what bwings us togevah today.

The full slide show from Matt and Keith's commitment ceremony is up and running! Please click here!

(Although, just a heads up? All 313 photos are in this slideshow. So unless you're one of the grooms, or you're friends with the grooms and have some extra time, it lasts about ten minutes. I mean, please go look. I'm just sayin.')

Rabbi Boobland

I was so incensed as I was reading this, that I didn't understand what Joel was saying when he told me Joe Rosenthal died at the age of 94.

Joel was like, "How do you not know who Joe Rosenthal is?" (Believe me, Chunky Photojournalist Barbie knows who Joe Rosenthal is. He shot the famous photograph of soldiers raising the flag at Iwo Jima on Feb. 23, 1945.) And I was like, "Oh. OH! Sorry. I'm still distracted here in Rabbi Boobland."

So, seriously... This is SO offensive. This rabbi is what Twisty Faster, one of my heroes here in cyberspace, would call a "Godbag Blowhard." If you aren't feeling very clicky on the links today, I'll just tell you that Rabbi Shmuley blames the fact that one of the couples' he counsels "sex life had died completely" on the wife's "obsession" with breastfeeding her 11-month-old child. Apparently she "turned one of her most attractive body parts into a feeding station, an attractive cafeteria rather than a scintillating piece of flesh."

Some other pearls of wisdom from the article:

"In the end, there are two effects of breast-feeding that we often refuse to acknowledge. One is the de-eroticization of a woman's body, as her husband witnesses one of the most attractive parts of her body serving a utilitarian rather than romantic purpose. This is not to say that breast-feeding isn't sexy."

OH GOOD. Whew. Cause God knows a woman shouldn't do ANYTHING with her body that isn't "sexy." But wait! Two paragraphs later, (after a plug for Rabbi Schmuley's book,) we find a short concession to logic and reason:

Obviously, breast-feeding is not the same as carrying on an extramarital affair.

Ah good to know. However, the next sentence is...

"But when a mother gives her breasts to her son and takes them away from her husband, the effect on the marriage can feel the same."

I wonder, though, what happens when a woman gives her breasts to her DAUGHTER instead of her son. Is that comparable to -gasp!- a lesbian extramarital affair? But WAIT! It's not just boobs that become unsexy when they're used for, like, their BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION. Not even cootchie snorchers are safe from Rabbi Schmuley's "counsel."

"I believe this same problem comes up when men witness childbirth up close. There are certain poses in which a husband should not see his wife. By all means, be there for the entire labor, as I have been for the births of each of my eight children. But I strongly agree with the advice of the ancient rabbis that husbands should not be staring at the actual delivery. That is just too erotic a part of a wife's anatomy for it to become a mere birth canal."

Ah, yes, God forbid the vagina be reduced to being just a "mere birth canal." I really want to click on the "Ask Rabbi Schmuley a Question" button. Rabbi Schmuley, why are you a Godbag Blowhard?