My username sums it up; I'm in shock

[ChickiePops]

Okay, then let me pose this question:

 

If the husband had asked his wife if he could video her while she was doing daily activities such as using the bathroom, putting on makeup, undressing/dressing, masturbating, and having sex with him so that he could get enjoyment from those tapes later.....plus promising to let her have full control over those videos....

 

....and she said yes,

 

then where is there an issue?

 

If the wife and husband shared an interest in such a "fetish," then how would this be "weird?"

 

Hence, my point is that this being a violation of privacy is the biggest and possibly only issue.

 

Maybe bolding, underlining, and italics DO help!

 

Sure..if both spouses share the fetish then of course it's not weird.

 

But he didn't ask. He didn't even tell her later..he was caught. So what's your point?

 

If he was going around sticking his camera up girls skirts at the grocery store...would it be ok? You think it's different because she's his wife but she didn't give her permission just like a girl at the store wouldn't have, so there is no difference. It's creepy.

[dreamingoftigers]

Seriously everyone, James M isn't advocating that OP's husband is totally okay here.

 

He isn't advocating that her husband do upskirt stuff or that "it's all good if it turns out to be legal."

 

James M is probably one of the few well-adjusted people on the whole forum LOL.

[privategal]

Yes, I have thought about reporting this. I took all the tapes and dvds and have them locked in a safe deposit box.

 

I feel sure he has copies on flash drives somewhere though.

 

Right now I am not taking to police for the sake of our boys. The embarrassment and devastation it would cause them.

 

 

I think you might want to change that thought...for the sake of your boys, you need to call the police.

Its nearly like rape. He humiliated you, took away your privacy, your husband stalked you and you have been majorly violated.

I absolutely would not feel safe there and its a deal breaker as far as even the THOUGHT of working this out ever or staying married.

I feel he should be arrested...NOW, then file for divorce.

Your boys cannot be rasised by this man. Don't care if up until this point he has been father of the year, he should not be around them, Id have a counseling appointment for them and maybe a professional explain it to them to help you.

Oh my god. Im just so sorry but please get out of there and contact authorities. Its not an option. Your head is going to need to prevail over your heart right now.

[SoleMate]

In addition to a counselor, I suggest a lawyer, security expert, and/or investigator to see how far this has gone and where exactly those videos might be floating. I'd confiscate every device and demand passwords. I'd go so far as locking him out of the house and getting a restraining order to keep him out and away from the devices. It is that serious.

 

For all them men saying, "Why the big fuss over such a cute, charming little kink?" Because.....it is sickening, invasive, disgusting, and completely dishonest. Also, strong chance that these videos have already been shared, to be slobbered over by equally sickening violators. Don't overlook the many lies told and the trust violated over decades.

[JamesM]

Sure..if both spouses share the fetish then of course it's not weird.

 

But he didn't ask. He didn't even tell her later..he was caught. So what's your point?

 

 

Please go reread what SincereOnlineGuy said as to what the issues were. It seems that he thinks even if approved, then this husband is still doing weird things as compared to taping cats defecating.

 

I am well aware that the husband did not ask and this is the biggest issue here. I do not advocate what he did at all.

 

For some reason, it appears that bits and pieces of my responses are being critiqued without reading the whole post.

 

My point is that he didn't ask. If he did and she approved, then this thread would not exist.

 

There is no other issue than an invasion of privacy which violates every aspect of the trust that we all have in our marriages. Yes, it is wrong.

[BettyDraper]

Please go reread what SincereOnlineGuy said as to what the issues were. It seems that he thinks even if approved, then this husband is still doing weird things as compared to taping cats defecating.

 

I am well aware that the husband did not ask and this is the biggest issue here. I do not advocate what he did at all.

 

For some reason, it appears that bits and pieces of my responses are being critiqued without reading the whole post.

 

My point is that he didn't ask. If he did and she approved, then this thread would not exist.

 

There is no other issue than an invasion of privacy which violates every aspect of the trust that we all have in our marriages. Yes, it is wrong.

 

This. What a couple does with complete consent and in the privacy of their own home is not up for judgement from others.

 

The problem is that the OP's husband did not ask for permission and he tried to make her anger seem unjustified.

[xxoo]

The ask/not ask debate is irrelevant, because he wouldn't ask. Really, who asks, "Can I film you in the bathroom?"

 

And who agrees???

[BlueIris]

I agree that if she had agreed this thread wouldn’t exist.

 

However, I don’t think that the invasion of privacy is the only issue. I think that the active deceit and extremely long time period that it took place is equally shocking. I can’t think of any instances in which a 25-year-long deceit and active concealment about something involving the other spouse would not send a shockwave through the marriage and severely damage trust.

 

Now add to that the password-protection on the computer and his defensiveness once “caught,” and things are even worse. A loving caring spouse would, at minimum, take that password protection off that instant and show his activities- especially because it involved her- to comfort her and confirm that he has not done more than he claims. He’s lied to her, on top of violating her privacy.

 

Now, maybe he could work through all of these in therapy, maybe not. Maybe he could save this marriage, voluntarily come clean because he cares about her more than he cares about his cache of videos, and he could rebuild her trust. Maybe. But it’s on him.

[JamesM]

Really, who asks, "Can I film you in the bathroom?"

 

And who agrees???

 

You know...I have asked this question about may things that I find weird. And yet many people enjoy different sexual and non-sexual things that I find...well, unusual.

 

Who in their right mind would want to be whipped for sexual pleasure and what woman would allow a man to do it to her? What kind of man would want to be dominated by a woman and treated like a dog? Why would a man or woman allow someone to urinate on them?

 

Now go to your TV and look at the many reality shows where people agree to be filmed while doing all sorts of every day activities.

 

And the list goes on.

 

But since he didn't ask, then this is why we have this thread. And yes, it is not a one time thing, but a twenty year invasion so that now everything in the marriage is questioned.

 

Whether he was a voyeur before marriage or whether he shared this videos is unknown. What we do know is that he took away the trust that his wife had in him, and the question becomes: Can this marriage be saved?

 

Personally, I doubt it at this point based on what has been said and how the OP feels, but then I don't know either person IRL.

 

I am not a woman so I cannot say how it compares to rape, but I do know that when someone violates my trust in any way, then the feelings I have are anger, sadness, disbelief, frustration and more. My feelings for that person change. I suspect that when it also involves an invasion of one's most intimate moments when one feels safe and alone, then it goes even deeper.

[xxoo]

You know...I have asked this question about may things that I find weird. And yet many people enjoy different sexual and non-sexual things that I find...well, unusual.

 

Who in their right mind would want to be whipped for sexual pleasure and what woman would allow a man to do it to her? What kind of man would want to be dominated by a woman and treated like a dog? Why would a man or woman allow someone to urinate on them?

 

Now go to your TV and look at the many reality shows where people agree to be filmed while doing all sorts of every day activities.

 

And the list goes on.

 

But since he didn't ask, then this is why we have this thread.

 

Whether he was a voyeur before marriage or whether he shared this videos is unknown. What we do know is that he took away the trust that his wife had in him, and the question becomes: Can this marriage be saved?

 

Personally, I doubt it at this point based on what has been said and how the OP feels, but then I don't know either person IRL.

 

I am not a woman so I cannot say how it compares to rape, but I do know that when someone violates my trust in any way, then the feelings I have are anger, sadness, disbelief, frustration and more. My feelings for that person change. I suspect that when it also involves an invasion of one's most intimate moments when one feels safe and alone, then it goes even deeper.

 

I get that people have kinks and kinks can be matched up.

 

But in the case of voyeurism, violation is the kink. How does one agree to that? If she'd agreed, it may not have satisfied the kink. Thus, this kind of person won't ask.

 

Comparing this situation to a consensual fetish is irrelevant, imo, because the nonconsent is the kink.

[dreamingoftigers]

The ask/not ask debate is irrelevant, because he wouldn't ask. Really, who asks, "Can I film you in the bathroom?"

 

And who agrees???

 

Well, honestly, I personally have had some pretty weird requests in my history. I once let a bf saran wrap me from neck to ankles just to massage, tickle and suck on my feet.

 

We've seen some weird things go down on the forum over the years. One woman did role play with her husband about getting another man in the bedroom while she was blindfolded. It got to be such a long-term realistic thing that the husband took it seriously (part of the roleplay was the surprise element) and asked the neighbour to come over. Then when she realized that time that there were two sets of hands on her she started screaming. I wonder how that initial "hey, wanna come over and do my wife" convo ever happened.

 

These types of conversations DO occur.

 

Honestly, probably if my husband was into that, I'd probably let him do it once or twice. It would weird me out a bit. And of course it wouldn't be natural or anything, I wouldn't be plucking my eyebrows or anything. But hmm, if we had a lot of years under our belts together, maaaaaybbbbeeee.

 

Luckily that's not a place I have to go. Neither do I have to contend with cross dressing or saran wrap.

[anika99]

His act could be illegal , unethical ...

 

But for God sake , why we are always looking at things from black and white perspectives .

 

the guy is not defended legally , but we are hearing one side of the story , op part .

 

if he is rejected sexually or they mismatch ; would it have been better that he cheats or divorce ?

 

he fantsaized about a lady to satisfy his sexual needs; with his own wife , would it be better that he goes to adultary .

 

This is a ridiculous defense. We can take any bad behavior and compare it to a behaviour that is worse. I could light my cat on fire and then say "so what? at least I didn't light a baby on fire. Would it be better to light babies on fire? Would it?" There is always worse bad behaviour but that doesn't excuse bad behaviour

 

I am not accusing op that she is not satisfying him , she knows better if she is ; what I am saying is that he ssems to be HD and his wife LD ; what options he has other than divorcing , or adultary ?

 

again this has nothing to do with the problem. fetishes have nothing to do with a person getting or not getting sex. If voyeurism is his fetish then simply having an affair would still not satisfy that fetish. and he had other options, like he could have talked to his wife about his desire to watch her

 

I respect the guy who sacrificied his own needs to raise a family though his act is not legal or ethical .

 

He didn't sacrifice his own needs. He took what he wanted from the OP without her knowledge or consent. That's not sacrificing, that's taking

 

the issue is not just videotaping her without her permission , the issue is that they are not compatible ; if they were he wouldn't have done it .

 

the issue is that he betrayed his wife's trust and violated her privacy

 

Again , he did a big mistake , but we are human , are we saints?

Op , don't look at the surface , go deeper and try to be in his shoes, you are hurt and have the right for it ; but if this is the facts now , what do you want to do ?

 

you can't change his needs, you need to be frank with yourself and decide if you can adapt and change or not ...

 

Look this guy knows what he was doing was wrong. Otherwise he would have filled his wife in on this fun activity a long time ago. It's not wrong for him to want pictures and videos of his wife, that's not the issue.

[dreamingoftigers]

I get that people have kinks and kinks can be matched up.

 

But in the case of voyeurism, violation is the kink. How does one agree to that? If she'd agreed, it may not have satisfied the kink. Thus, this kind of person won't ask.

 

Comparing this situation to a consensual fetish is irrelevant, imo, because the nonconsent is the kink.

 

That makes sense.

 

Unless it was something along the lines of "I have a kink, its a surprise, so long as I'm not cheating, sharing it with anyone else and you don't know what it is, and you wont be physically harmed in any way, can we do it?"

 

Best I could come up with.

[xxoo]

Well, honestly, I personally have had some pretty weird requests in my history. I once let a bf saran wrap me from neck to ankles just to massage, tickle and suck on my feet.

 

We've seen some weird things go down on the forum over the years. One woman did role play with her husband about getting another man in the bedroom while she was blindfolded. It got to be such a long-term realistic thing that the husband took it seriously (part of the roleplay was the surprise element) and asked the neighbour to come over. Then when she realized that time that there were two sets of hands on her she started screaming. I wonder how that initial "hey, wanna come over and do my wife" convo ever happened.

 

These types of conversations DO occur.

 

Honestly, probably if my husband was into that, I'd probably let him do it once or twice. It would weird me out a bit. And of course it wouldn't be natural or anything, I wouldn't be plucking my eyebrows or anything. But hmm, if we had a lot of years under our belts together, maaaaaybbbbeeee.

 

Luckily that's not a place I have to go. Neither do I have to contend with cross dressing or saran wrap.

 

Again, this whole conversation about mutual, consensual kink is missing the point that voyeurism is about non-consent. No one asks to film private bathroom behaviors because it would remove the thrill for him. The invasion of privacy is the thrill.

[JamesM]

But in the case of voyeurism, violation is the kink. How does one agree to that? If she'd agreed, it may not have satisfied the kink. Thus, this kind of person won't ask.

 

Comparing this situation to a consensual fetish is irrelevant, imo, because the nonconsent is the kink.

 

I agree and yet disagree, because this is circular logic.

 

If he had asked, then it wouldn't by definition be voyeurism. Since he didn't, then it is.

 

As to whether the "kink" for him is the non-consent, that I don't know. I cannot read his mind. Based on what has been revealed...very possibly.

 

Again, without her consent, he invaded her privacy. Whatever it may be called, the main issue is a deception and invasion of privacy that lasted twenty years.

 

It is no small thing for a marriage at all. It strikes at the very core of what it is built upon, and that is trust. What happens from here is uncertain.

[dreamingoftigers]

Again, this whole conversation about mutual, consensual kink is missing the point that voyeurism is about non-consent. No one asks to film private bathroom behaviors because it would remove the thrill for him. The invasion of privacy is the thrill.

 

Oh great, so I put that all on a thread that will never get deleted.

 

Ugh.

 

On the bright side, saran wrap might have a new sales niche if enough people read it.

[dreamingoftigers]

I agree and yet disagree, because this is circular logic.

 

If he had asked, then it wouldn't by definition be voyeurism. Since he didn't, then it is.

 

As to whether the "kink" for him is the non-consent, that I don't know. I cannot read his mind. Based on what has been revealed...very possibly.

 

Again, without her consent, he invaded her privacy. Whatever it may be called, the main issue is a deception and invasion of privacy that lasted twenty years.

 

It is no small thing for a marriage at all. It strikes at the very core of what it is built upon, and that is trust. What happens from here is uncertain.

 

I keep reading voyeurism and voyagerism.

 

I can't help but imagine these French-Canadians carrying canoes and trying to secretly film each other in the woods.

[anika99]

Again, this whole conversation about mutual, consensual kink is missing the point that voyeurism is about non-consent. No one asks to film private bathroom behaviors because it would remove the thrill for him. The invasion of privacy is the thrill.

 

He could tell his wife that he likes to take pictures and videos of her when she is unaware that he is doing it and ask if she is okay with that. He would still be watching her and recording her without at times that she didn't know he was doing it. He just needed to get her general consent, not consent every time he spied on her.

[anika99]

I keep reading voyeurism and voyagerism.

 

I can't help but imagine these French-Canadians carrying canoes and trying to secretly film each other in the woods.

 

That would make a great Monty Python skit.

[JamesM]

Oh great, so I put that all on a thread that will never get deleted.

 

Ugh.

 

On the bright side, saran wrap might have a new sales niche if enough people read it.

 

Sorry OT, but tonight I will be dreaming of tigers wrapped in saran wrap.

[dreamingoftigers]

Sorry OT, but tonight I will be dreaming of tigers wrapped in saran wrap.

 

Be careful, claws

[Mr. Lucky]

I would definitely be worried he'd posted stuff online. There's a chatroom for everything these days and you can't tell me there isn't a gaggle of voyeurs hanging out and sharing videos somewhere in the dark corners of the internet. It fits what they're into perfectly and they don't even have to hide outside in the bushes to see it.

 

If anything, I thing you're under-selling the potential here.

 

Add any pronoun to "porn" and google turns up a ton of sites with many examples of filmed voyeurism, most of which I'd guess is without consent from the subject. All this material comes from somewhere...

 

Mr. Lucky

[ChickiePops]

Please go reread what SincereOnlineGuy said as to what the issues were. It seems that he thinks even if approved, then this husband is still doing weird things as compared to taping cats defecating.

 

I am well aware that the husband did not ask and this is the biggest issue here. I do not advocate what he did at all.

 

For some reason, it appears that bits and pieces of my responses are being critiqued without reading the whole post.

 

My point is that he didn't ask. If he did and she approved, then this thread would not exist.

 

There is no other issue than an invasion of privacy which violates every aspect of the trust that we all have in our marriages. Yes, it is wrong.

 

You're right! I missed the other post. My apologies.

[SincereOnlineGuy]

 

Hence, my point

 

 

You do not have a logical point, and that's the part which you can't grasp.

 

 

While the owner of a weird cat is allowed to just sit idly by, and be amused (and guilt-free) over the weirdness (as the neighbors point and sometimes laugh), the person who once signed-on to mate with someone, owes it to that someone to have disclosed their true identity in every way.

 

That the person victimizing his wife for all these years did not disclose his true self, is his major offense, while any specifics involving how that played out, are secondary.

 

 

The major relevant difference between this OP and Hillary Clinton is that so far our OP doesn't know whether the rest of the world is pointing and laughing, (in this case doubly) at her expense.

[SincereOnlineGuy]

 

I don't understand the concept of not accepting people for who they are.. and loving them unconditionally.

 

 

 

This has nothing to do with "accepting people for who they are".

 

 

This is about not first sharing with your wife just who you are and giving her the chance to drop you like a hot rock before committing to you.