Do you need to recover from purity culture?
This is a first for me–but I wrote a foreword to a book!
Dr. Camden Morgante’s first book Recovering from Purity Culture launches next week, and I’m so excited about it. Dr. Camden is a clinical psychologist (in other words, she’s QUALIFIED and TRAINED to write this, which is a big value here at Bare Marriage!), and she’s written a book with exercises to help you actually heal from purity culture.
It’s such a great companion for both She Deserves Better and The Great Sex Rescue. We helped you realize what was toxic, but she has exercises, similar to the ones you’d get in a counseling office, that actually take you through the steps to get to the other side.
So if you’ve felt stuck, this is the book for you!
Or if you just want to understand how purity culture may have affected you, this will help so much.
So excited for this book to launch–and to host Dr. Camden on my blog today.
Have you ever seen a purity culture object lesson?
A rose was a common symbol in these demonstrations. Typically a married male pastor stands on stage in front of a large audience of teenagers, plucking petals off a rose one by one. Each petal represents a sexual indiscretion, making the rose less beautiful, less desirable with each loss. A rose stripped of all its petals represents the ultimate fall from grace: the loss of virginity.
“This is what you will be like if you have sex,” he tells his audience as he removes petal after petal.
Whether it was a rose, a heart-shaped piece of paper torn into shreds, tape that lost its stickiness, a cup of water that had been spit into, or a chewed-up piece of gum, the message was clear. Sex irrevocably and wholly changes you. If you “give this gift” too early, you are no longer acceptable. You are unwanted and unclean. And because of that, you should be ashamed.
Purity culture taught us that we are soiled and unworthy if we have premarital sex, go “too far”, or even if we experience sexual trauma at the hands of someone else. I call this the Damaged Goods Myth, and I believe this is the most harmful of the five myths of purity culture I uncover in my book, Recovering from Purity Culture:
The 5 Myths of Purity Culture
- The Spiritual Barometer Myth: Your worth, identity, and spiritual maturity, especially for women, is your virginity.
- The Fairy-Tale Myth: If you remain pure, God will bless you with a loving spouse and marriage.
- The Flipped Switch Myth: Your sex life will be instantly pleasurable and satisfying if you wait until marriage.
- The Gatekeepers Myth: Men are more sexual and can’t control themselves, therefore it is up to women to enforce boundaries before marriage and meet their husband’s sexual needs after marriage.
- The Damaged Goods Myth: If you have premarital sex, you are broken and damaged.
Uncovering Shame
You don’t have to have premarital sex to feel shame. Shame is the universal experience of purity culture. No purity culture survivor—male or female, single or married, virgin or not—can escape shame. It is powerful, insidious, and destructive. It whispers lies to us that we’re not good enough, not pure enough or holy enough, that we are damaged goods.
But I believe Jesus wants you to experience healing and be set free from these lies. Shame is not from God. When God looks at us, he does not see a damaged rose, he sees his beloved child.
If we can see ourselves as God sees us, we can begin to heal. Here are some ways to overcome the shame of purity culture:
1. Recognize shame vs. guilt.
Guilt is a focus on behavior: “I made a mistake” or “I did something wrong.” Shame, on the other hand, says, “I am a mistake” or “I am bad.” While guilt can be healthy and adaptive, shame never is. To heal shame, you can start with recognizing it in yourself, slowing down to notice the physiological sensations and urges you feel, and differentiate it from guilt.
2. Check the facts.
When you feel shame, ask yourself, “Does this fit the facts of the situation?” Practice critical awareness of shame. Reality check the messages and expectations that are driving it. Where did they come from?
3. Evaluate your values.
Guilt can be healthy when we realize that our actions violate our personal beliefs and values. So, evaluate if your actions are aligned with your values and then make changes if they are not.
4. Practice of self-compassion.
Give yourself kindness recognizing that you are not alone. Because shame cannot survive empathy, self-compassion is a way to offer empathy to ourselves.
5. Connect with others
Reaching out for connection and being vulnerable with others dissolve shame. This includes our connection to God. Many Christians coming out of legalistic religion do not view a loving, merciful God. You may picture a wrathful God waiting to throw thunderbolts down from heaven. But Scripture reassures us, “There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1).
Recovering the Truth
The Damaged Goods Myth is the toxic mold of purity culture, contaminating the beauty of God’s heart for sex and feeding our shame. But Jesus’s offer of forgiveness, wholeness, and restoration is available to all of us.
The truth is that no matter what you’ve done or what’s been done to you, you are not damaged goods. You are a precious child of God, made in his image, and nothing can take away or add to your intrinsic value and worth.
No matter your sins, sexual or otherwise, you are a human—one in need of forgiveness and grace.
You are more than your sexual past—your experience or inexperience. Your identity is not in your virginity or loss of virginity. Your worthiness is not determined by what you wear. Your value is not diminished by what you have done. Your wholeness is not broken by what’s been done to you. Jesus says you are worthy; the fact that you are made in his image gives you value. And your salvation through Christ is what makes you whole—that and that alone.
Join Dr. Camden and Sheila for a FREE Webinar!
To learn more about healing shame from the myths of purity culture, I hope you’ll pick up my book, Recovering from Purity Culture, publishing October 15 by Baker Books! With over 30 therapy skills, tools, and exercises, my book will help you integrate your mind and body and move forward in your faith and sexuality. And you can enjoy the foreword to the book, written by Sheila herself.
And you can even get some pre-order bonuses, too–including a free audiobook if you order the paperback or ebook now, plus group discussion questions and more!
* Portions of this essay were adapted from Camden Morgante, Recovering from Purity Culture: Dismantle the Myths, Reject Shame-Based Sexuality, and Move Forward in Your Faith (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2024).
What do you think? Did the Damaged Goods Myth affect you? Or is there another that seems to resonate more? Let’s talk in the comments!
I had premarital sex with the guy who became my husband. I felt intense shame because *I* was not strong enough of a gatekeeper to stop it. I then felt shame because I was around other, more pure people than me. I ultimately married him because I felt I had to- we had had sex so there really wasn’t any other option because I was ruined for anyone else. I knew *he* could find someone, but not me.
Once we were married, I tried to be happy- I was at times, but often I wasn’t, and that increased over the years- but I felt that any unhappiness was a result of my lost purity… so I deserved what I got. God needed to punish me after all, right?
Now, a few decades later and I am having to put in a lot of work to try to rid myself of the idea that I brought all this misery on myself for not being pure. It takes so much more work to undo decades of belief.
I do believe that we should not have premarital sex, but I think God did that to help us establish healthy boundaries and for safety, not simply because He had a rule and wants to beat all down who broke it. But my first thought on the rose analogy was that, having worked at a florist for a short while, we always plucked a few petals off the outide of the rose because they were smaller, gnarled, or torn. By taking a few petals off, it actually looked more beautiful. I think people for centuries have tried so hard to emulate Jesus by sharing parable-like stories, but they have fallen so far short and done a lot of damage in doing so. Good intentions but bad outcome.
Nessie,
I, too, felt I had to marry my first husband because I had sex with him even though we were already engaged and had a date set. In public school sex ed, I was taught the rose analogy. This was in girls’ gym and a female sex ed teacher taught this. I thought the rose petal analogy applied to both boys and girls, then 30 years later I discover this was taught in youth group by usually, male pastors.
I love that you added your experience about working in a floral shop as this has brought light to breaking off petals.
It’s not only teen girls growing up in youth group that suffered from this crap.
I didn’t become a Christian until I was twenty-one, and I was not a virgin at that point. The tremendous shame and guilt that I felt in consequence was terrible, and especially after Mr. R asked me to marry him. I continued to feel that shame and guilt for at least fifteen years into our marriage.
Just more of the “if you’re not perfect, you’re worthless” theology that allows men to dictate to women. Yes, I said it and I won’t apologize for it, because men who do exactly what I did get a free pass with “boys will be boys.” 🙄 🤮
Is it too hard to be normal around teenagers when discussing sex?
Don’t engage in baby-making activities if you wouldn’t have a baby with this person. Yes contraception exists but most teenagers are terrible at using it. Sex has a tremendous emotional impact on people (and it can be quite negative, even if you’re married).
If you’re older (beyond college), dating seriously, and want to have sex, it begs the question why you aren’t just getting engaged and getting married. Not because if you “stumble,” you can only make it right by getting married; it’s because if you like each other a lot, are in a long term and committed relationship, and want to bang each other, why aren’t you getting married? If the answer is “incompatibility on big life goals,” maybe you should have broken it off earlier in the relationship.
Why go through all this “used chewing gum” garbage, except to shame people?
Has anyone come across an alternative illustration on this theme with positive messages?
I think part of the problem is that any illustration at all is going to make it sound like any error is completely and forever unrecoverable. That there is no amount of repentance one can do, that there is no forgiveness available, that in this one area alone, His mercies are not actually new every morning.
What other particular sin, or general area of sin, is treated this way? Which of these sins from 2 Timothy 3 is considered as a permanent issue in a person’s life, regardless of repentance: “lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God”?
Not one of those is thought of in the same way as a *woman* who has sex outside of marriage. (Men get a free pass for nonmarital sex because of course.) Even pastoral sexual abuse is not treated as unrecoverable. After a couple months of “counseling” or “soul work” or whatever they call it, a man can just step right back in the pulpit like nothing happened.
But a woman sinning sexually is permanently tainted, permanently ruining her current or future marriage, permanently lacking character. 🤔
Maybe my question wasn’t clear, but I really don’t understand this comment at all:
“any illustration at all is going to make it sound like any error is completely and forever unrecoverable.”
I agree with everything else you said, but why couldn’t there be an illustration that doesn’t communicate any of that? Obviously I don’t have a specific idea, hence my post. But surely the problem is using bad illustrations (the rose, crumpled paper etc) not illustrations per se.
My 2 cents fwiw,
The people who don’t believe this myth (that a women is forever tainted, used goods, etc.) are more likely healthy enough to deal with this problem because they have the emotional intelligence to be able to speak openly about this issue without needing an illustration. They don’t need to create “word pictures” as FotF tells women to use to get through to dense husbands when direct speech doen’t work.
If anyone has ever heard a positive illustration for this, I know at least I’ve never heard of it. I’d be curious to hear one from anyone.
But what would any positive illustration, well, illustrate?
That a piece of a woman (and only the woman, never the man) is permanently lost or damaged, and that that loss or damage is irreparable?
Even breaking off a dating relationship that never included sex is described as a woman (but not the man) having given away something she’ll never be able to give to a future, and perhaps hypothetical, husband.
What kind of illustration can show that yes, damage can occur but that that damage can be repaired? Maybe restoration of an art masterpiece? Home repair after a hurricane? Even the latter has associated baggage of a trauma that will always linger no matter how well the physical damage is fixed.
And again, a woman’s sexual sin is the only one I can think of that is considered as practically the “unforgivable sin.” (Of course, it’s morning here, and my imagination is marginal at the best of times.)
> But what would any positive illustration, well, illustrate?
Off the top of my head:
– sex is a good gift from God
– when done in the wrong context, it often causes pain and harm
– it’s wise and Biblical to save it for marriage
– like the marriage itself, the sexual relationship should be defined by mutual self-giving love and is both for procreation and for the pleasure and joy of both partners.
– need for mutual consent.
Etc etc. (obviously unlikely any metaphor will cover all of those – I know how illustrations work!)
Thinking back, I vaguely remember someone using fire as a metaphor (lots of positive effects, but can be very harmful if used unwisely, etc). It probably has more negative connotations than what I’d ideally like, but has a few connotations that I think are quite helpful:
– whether it causes good or harm is mostly determined by wise (or not) selection of an appropriate time and place for it.
– when there is harm, it can be very serious and can have impacts beyond those who lit the fire (just as many forms of sexual harm can affect a whole community), but will mostly heal with time and appropriate therapy
– the potential for harm if used inappropriately is inherent to it (i.e. our sexual attitudes/behaviours within marriage can harm our spouse, not just casual sex etc).
– no undertones that imply different expectations between the genders.
Your art image has something about it too, as do some of Kevin’s below.
Fire is excellent, Tim.
Would you say that as fire can do permanent damage and leave lasting scars, so can sex before marriage? 🤔
I’m not convinced. Especially when there are soooo many women who were virgins at marriage and struggled mightily, which struggle itself leaves scars, some of which may be permanent.
I don’t know. Neither option seems great from where I sit.
> Would you say that as fire can do permanent damage and leave lasting scars, so can sex before marriage?
‘Damage’ is a bit loaded in this context, so I’m going to read that as ‘consequences’.
Not a doctor, but I’m pretty sure a number of STIs are either incurable or have irreversible effects (e.g. infertility).
And obviously if sex results in a baby then that’s a lifelong commitment for both parents (though of course not all parents and especially not all dads honour that commitment).
Both of those apply to sex per se, i.e. not specific to pre/extra marital sex. But assuming a healthy and monogamous marriage then STIs are pretty much out of the picture and there’s a stable home to welcome any babies, even if unplanned.
So I’m going to say ‘yes’, but I’m also wondering if I’m answering a different question to the one you meant to ask! Feel free to try again if I’ve misunderstood.
Ah, yes, the obvious consequences of pregnancy and STDs.
I actually wasn’t even considering those. I mean, they are the obvious ones, but I didn’t even think of them, partly because they’re so obvious but also partly because I didn’t experience either (sorry for the TMI).
I was thinking more of the relational, emotional, mental, and other issues that may possibly arise. Are those types of things because a person had sex, or because the person had an involvement with another person?
How many of us have been betrayed in a relationship that didn’t involve sex? Parents, siblings, BFFs, coworkers, and even complete strangers can all cause major damage in the psychological, emotional, mental, and other areas.
I guess I’m wondering (but again, it’s early morning here and I’m a quart low on caffeine), does nonmarital sex itself cause problems, or is it ANY interaction between two humans? Sex could intensify a negative response or reaction, of course, but there’s at least one commenter (I think her handle is Perfect Number) who is glad she had sex before marriage, as it allowed her to discover both her vaginismus and her asexuality before she married (I can’t remember if she said she’d had sex with her eventual husband or with someone else). One of her comments related how absolutely horrible it would have been to find out those two things on her honeymoon. And given the incidence of vaginismus in the church, she’s hardly the only one who might have been glad to know that before the wedding.
Again, it’s early and I’m currently decaffeinated. But I have to wonder, if sex is so important in marriage, why WOULDN’T we want to have some experience with it beforehand? Imagine starting any other serious endeavor with absolutely no experience. Yeah, I think I’ll wander into an operating room and do a little brain surgery. Or hit one of the ports and run one of those container cranes. Ooh, I’ll hop into a jumbo jet cockpit and head to the runway.
The experts always say, ‘Well, with sex, you learn with your spouse.” And that goes right back to what so many women, again, especially in the church, say: “My husband isn’t interested in learning. He’s getting his, my female body works differently than his, and he can’t be bothered to assist my experience.”
Someone once commented (I believe it was the incomparable Jane Eyre) that if a boyfriend is bad in bed and makes no effort to please his girlfriend, she can kick his sorry butt to the curb.
Women who are married to men who (theoretically) are committed to Christlikeness don’t have that option. 🤷
I think that’s a good question. We can certainly have broken hearts from a breakup even if there was no sex. Does sex make those things worse? I think studies have shown that this may be the case, but it’s not like without sex we wouldn’t be hurt.
@Jo – I agree with Sheila’s point.
We need to find a healthy middle ground between the idea that sex is just another form of social interaction in the one hand and similarly nonsensical opposite extremes like ‘soul ties’ etc. Sex naturally leads to a heightened level of connection and emotion (for better or worse) and needs to be treated with care and respect because of that, as well as the health reasons.
The other points you make are all valid concerns, but I’d argue the solution is more love, better education, and eliminating misogyny in the church (and society), not abandoning the Biblical sexual ethic. Though I can certainly understand people like yourself who’ve been deeply hurt by this stuff wanting to tug on all the threads to see where they unravel.
Yeah, well, I don’t see how a woman can properly vet a man when the one thing that so much of the church, in its current state, insists on (to wit, lots of sex) cannot be checked for quality or ability before the wedding.
And of course, after the wedding, those same churches make it very difficult or even impossible for HER to divorce for “bad sex” or, arguably, what isn’t sex at all. Yet those same churches would turn around on the woman who says no to all that one-sided sex and would insist she have sex when he wants it, lest she deprive HIM, when SHE is the one being deprived.
It’s going to take decades if not centuries for that level of bull pucky to be fully uprooted from the church.
I honestly don’t think it ever will be completely demolished. The current system benefits men too much, and any change would require work and effort by a huge number of men.
Shrug.
> the one thing that so much of the church, in its current state, insists on (to wit, lots of sex) cannot be checked for quality or ability before the wedding.
Obviously I can’t speak from experience, but is ability the issue? It’s hard to imagine someone who *can’t* please their wife, if both are willing. And surely there are ways to tell if someone is uncaring or self-absorbed before marriage?
Re the rest, I totally get your sense of despair and overwhelm. I think all we can do is make changes in the communities we’re a part of – and obviously that responsibility rests primarily with men as the communities where these things are major problems are like that because they don’t value women’s voices.
Probably “willingness” would be a better word than “ability.”
And even willingness isn’t enough, given the number of women who have commented here that if she “takes too long,” he gives up. That’s backed up by the results from Sheila’s surveys that both men AND women think he does enough foreplay even though she doesn’t orgasm regularly.
It’s also too easy for a man to put on a show of consideration, generosity, unselfishness, and other desirable traits for six months or a year, then take that mask off and revert to his true self after the wedding.
Is there really any way for a woman to truly vet a man? (And I’ll add the obligatory “vice versa,” of course.)
The best advice I’ve seen is to tell a man “no” as early and often as possible. Say no to his choice of restaurant or movie, tell him no for a date on a given day, tell him no about anything, then see how he reacts.
Zawn (zawnv on Facebook, zawn on substack) has some good stuff, as do her commenters. But please do clutch your pearls before you open any of her posts, as she’s fond of those words ending in hard consonants.
> It’s also too easy for a man to put on a show of consideration, generosity, unselfishness, and other desirable traits for six months or a year, then take that mask off and revert to his true self after the wedding.
So if the issue is selfishness and lack of consideration and generosity (which I think is broadly pretty fair, though acknowledging that people are complex), and those things are:
(A) able to be hidden for a few months at least, whether consciously or as a result of the ‘in love’ experience and
(B) character traits that will show up in various areas of life, not just (or even primarily) sex…
Then how is sex before marriage a solution?
Saying ‘no’ often is good advice though. I’ll pass that on to my daughters when they’re older.
I also think the common Christian advice (in some circles) to have a short dating/engagement period is questionable at best, and pretty dangerous when coupled with theology/sub cultures that excuse controlling behavior from men.
If a husband is unwilling to do what it takes to help his wife orgasm (while simultaneously insisting on HER helping HIM orgasm), would he be willing to exert the required level of effort as a mere boyfriend?
Whether a boyfriend acted that way through selfishness or indifference, that action would help show the woman who the guy really is. The mask falls off. She is then better able to realize whether he is actually selfish in other areas as well. (If he is merely ignorant about beinging her to orgasm, she gets to see how much effort he puts into improving. That’s also useful information. Is he a self-starter in learning new things? Will he take instruction FROM HER? Will he argue that she doesn’t need to orgasm? That she shouldn’t even be expecting to?)
That’s partly why saying no extremely early in the relationship to one of his suggestions, even a trivial one, is such a good idea. Does he go with the flow? Does he crank up the persuasion machine? Does he argue about it? Does he get mad? Does he refuse to discuss it? Does he hang up or storm out?
Yeah, no adult woman wants to date, let alone marry, what turns out to be a toddler who throws a temper tantrum when he’s told no.
—
Bottom line? Marriage is a complete crapshoot. I hate to say that, but there’s no point in women gaslighting ourselves about it.
Here’s a taste of what women go through, not so much for you, Tim, because you’ve shown you get it. But there are other men here who don’t, and there are way too many women who are doing the above-named self-gaslighting to realize just how bad things are. There are also single women here, whether currently without a partner or in a dating relationship, and those women could use some eye-opening clarity.
Again, please pre-clutch your pearls because Zawn does not mince words.
https://zawn.substack.com/p/signs-your-partner-doesnt-actually
(And for those who want to complain that Zawn is being harsh, well, the truth hurts. She’s describing what so many women go through, and, what’s worse, what so many Christian women go through, because too many Christian men show these traits and behaviors.)
Have I encountered a positive illustration? No. Have I encountered healthy sex ed? Yes. Has the healthy sex ed contained object lessons? No. Maybe sex ed is not best taught in a large group that requires an object lesson to keep the attention of teenagers.
I think Psalm 51 would be an excellent place to look for illustrations. Below are several I can see, none of which indicate a permanent defect that can never be corrected.
vs. 1, 9 transgression (crossing boundary) that can be blotted out
vs. 2 iniquity (guilt) that can be washed thoroughly
vs. 2 sin (missing the mark) that can be cleansed
vs. 7 purging with hyssop (used in cleansing of a leper)
vs. 7 washing to whiter than snow
vs. 8,12 restoration of joy after grief
vs. 8 healing of broken bones
vs. 9 sin that God hides his face from (no longer looks at)
vs. 10 creation of a clean heart
vs. 10 renewing of a steadfast (stable) spirit
vs. 14 guilt that one can be delivered from
vs. 12-19 have a general theme of return to right relationship and worship and usefulness in serving others
For a “positive” illustration, I guess it depends what message you want to get across. I once read an article on Scarleteen (https://www.scarleteen.com/read/sex-sexuality/slide-or-slice-finding-positive-sexual-metaphor ) which didn’t like the “baseball” metaphor of sex (ie, 1st base, 2nd base, etc) and presented another metaphor “sex is like pizza.” Because there are different kinds of pizza, you can enjoy it with a partner or by yourself, and not everybody likes pizza.
In purity-culture contexts, I’ve also heard that sex is like fire, or sex is like a car you’re only supposed to drive on the racetrack of marriage. The point is, it’s a good thing, and very powerful, but dangerous if it’s used wrong. But I don’t like these metaphors, because I think it’s really harmful to believe that *knowing about my own body* can be dangerous. My body belongs to me first, and then I choose to do sexual things with my partner. I don’t like metaphors which say that my body is not really mine and I need to follow someone else’s rules because I’m not capable of making good decisions.
The treatment of guilt vs. shame here is too simplistic, although I agree with what the author is saying about its misuse in purity culture. But guilt, shame, and fear are all results of sin, and are all legitimate responses to sin. Guilt is more individualistic, while shame is communal (someone else sees me as dirty/bad which makes me feel ashamed). Both are used to help run a healthy society. Shame is quite often the only reason people behave themselves; not everyone has a strong enough conscience to do what’s right of their own volition. By way of a simple example, I might be more likely to return the shopping cart to the cart corral in the parking lot when I see someone is watching me, even if they’re strangers–in fact, people may more likely behave well in front of strangers than in front of their loved ones, with whom they feel comfortable.
There’s a whole boatload of theology tracing guilt, shame and fear and its corresponding Biblical solutions: righteousness, honor, and power throughout the biblical narrative. I just had to add this because shame is not, in itself, bad. It’s also not always a result of sin. I would feel shame if someone accidentally saw me naked, even if I didn’t sin and there is nothing inherently sinful about my body. I wouldn’t try to do mental gymnastics to convince myself NOT to feel shame afterward. Shame is a mechanism for healthy communities. Of course, it can be mis-used as it has been in purity culture! But there are times people SHOULD feel ashamed–like the pastors who abuse others–and when they don’t, something is very very wrong with that person.
If the author was writing a dissertation about the differences between guilt and shame, absolutely it’s too simple. What I see in the author’s words though is a firm grasp of what is and how shame has been used against those raised in purity culture. I see someone who knows her audience has been do’s and don’t’s to death especially by those who like to “mansplain,” and instead needs the matter put succinctly.
I also can’t say I agree with your assessment of shame vs. guilt vs. fear. With the author’s words, I feel freedom and the opportunity to breathe and absorb that I do not need to have shame heaped upon me endlessly until I die. With your explanation, I begin to feel that shame creeping back in to condemn me for sins I have already brought before God because you so heavily tie it to sin in all circumstances.
Those who understand a subject- and those who have been hurt by it- can explain it simply so the target audience can understand and heal. I really appreciate that about the excerpt/summary I have read in this blogpost.
At the risk of getting into semantics here, I’d contrast conviction (“godly sorrow that leads to repentance”) with guilt, shame and fear and argue that none of the last three are helpful or appropriate for a follower of Jesus.
You can recognise you’ve made a mistake, identify the harm it’s done to you and others, make amends for that harm as best you can, seek forgiveness from God and others, and make practical steps to change your behaviour and the attitudes that lead to it without feeling any of those emotions. There is no condemnation in Christ!
I can get on board with that, Tim- but I also cannot say I’ve ever heard the word “conviction” used in the purity culture this book is addressing. Shame, definitely, and definitively as a permanent state. Guilt, yes, to a lesser degree. Sin- absolutely, but always in an unbalanced way in that the female is irrevocably a sinner AND tainted, versus the male version of being able to be forgiven and not forever damaged goods.
I’m curious if any books were printed specifically geared towards warning boys of the dangers of premarital sexual encounters of varying kinds, and what words were most used to define how they should feel? I feel like convicted might be in that list for males, but not for females.
It’s a good question. The obvious book that comes to mind is ‘Every Young Man’s Battle’, which I haven’t read but from what I’ve heard is just as shame-driven.
There must have been *some* good books around but maybe they weren’t the popular ones? I mostly skirted around the sides of purity culture fortunately so I can’t really speak from experience.
If you (or anyone else) are interested, I got curious and did a quick word study. There are three NT Greek words that get translated as ‘shame’ in English:
*Aischyne* (alternative translations: disgrace or shameful)
This is probably the closest to what we mean by ‘shame’. It’s used of a character in a parable in Luke 14 and in a similar context in Rev 3. All other references are either to shameful behavior etc by non believers (e.g. Phil 3:19, Jude 13), or to *not* feeling shame (e.g. in Hebrews 12 Jesus disregards the shame if the cross, 2 Cor 4:2 is kind of similar)
*Kataischyno* (to shame, dishonor, disgrace, humiliate, disappoint, embarrass, primarily in the sense of causing those reactions in others)
There’s the weird thing in 1 Cor 11 about disgracing one’s head by praying publicly while dressed in a culturally inappropriate way (or at least that’s the most sense I’ve been able to make out of that passage). In 2 Cor Paul mentions a couple of situations where he hypothetically could have been humiliated/embarrassed by things the Corinthians could have done. A few more references to shame/humiliation felt by unbelievers (e.g. Luke 13:17, 1 Peter 3:16). But most uses of this word are in the phrase “everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame” (from Isaiah 28 and quoted a bunch of times in the NT including Romans 9&10 and 1 Peter 2)
*Entrope* (the root word of the scientific term entropy, meaning disorder, which is its alternative meaning)
This is the only one that’s ever used positively (i.e. as something a believer *should* feel. In 1 Cor 6 and 15 Paul uses the phrase “I say this to your shame” in relation to what he sees as extreme cases (neither to do with sexuality, fwiw – one about believers taking legal action against each other, and the other about denying the resurrection). Maybe I’m making too much of the connection with the English word entropy, but the implication is “this is chaos, sort it out!”
Those are the only two uses of that word in the NT.
So maybe I was slightly too black and white in my original comment, but I think that broadly backs up my point. At the least, you’d have to say the NT suggests shame (in the sense we mostly use it in English, a negative emotion experienced after making a mistake) should be a very rare experience for a Christian.
thanks Nessie, I agree that this blog isn’t really the place to point out all the differences. It’s a topic that fascinates me so I brought up some of the differences between shame & guilt but didn’t mean to say that as believers we should live in a state of continual shame. Actually, one of the things that fascinates me personally is that shame is one result of sin, but not only sin (like the situation where someone sees me naked accidentally, or the woman who bled for 12 years whom Jesus healed–no sin involved), AND that with shame, unlike guilt, the innocent person is usually the one experiencing it, especially in sexual sins. It’s so easy for the perpetrator to heap all the shame on their victim and walk away with no consequences. So I definitely don’t mean Person A sins=Person A feels shame. Person A could feel shame without sin; person A could feel shame with sin; or person A can sin and person B bear the shame. But Jesus took all our guilt, shame, and fear to the cross (I’ve read arguments that he felt the shame & fear much more viscerally than the guilt; Jesus bearing our guilt feels more nebulous and vague because he never sinned, but the shame and fear were so very real).
Perhaps we need another, lighter word for the kind of shame I mean as a social mechanism. like the motivation to behave well in public when others are watching, which isn’t usually a “sin” issue, more like a question of politeness/social norms.
For me, the “shame” which you bring up, such as being seen naked, is what I call embarassment. But the English language is multi-faceted and ever-evolving, with subtleties and such based on many factors, including the part of the world/country/state/provence/county, etc. you are.
I’ve heard many people get into the minutiae of the differences and by the end of the conversation, have gotten so sidetracked they were no longer remotely thinking about the original subject at hand which was the hurt, shame, and belittling of people. I would hate to see hurting people get lost in a game of semantics.
Please don’t hear me saying this is the case with you, but I have too often witnessed those picking apart words to be doing so as an intentional method of distracting others from the victims of varying problems. (I’ve had too many gifted gas-lighters in my life, I suppose.) That’s why I appreciate the author kkeeping things simple- it keeps a forward-focus on those who have been hurt so deeply.
Thanks!
JoR has already touched on this above, and I’ve said it a few times, but it’s important enough to repeat.
A big problem with the “damaged goods” myth is that it makes pre-marital sex (by a woman, of course, never the man) to be worse than sin. For example, a church elder who harassed and assaulted women can be forgiving, and the entire church cheers for him as he’s back in the good graces of God and it’s as if it never happened. Now, the woman or women he abused are often blamed for it all, isolated, turned on, and left to be broken and traumatized alone, but that’s another layer to be explored elsewhere.
On the other hand, if a woman has pre-marital sex, even against her will, she can be forgiven, but the “taint” is forever and can NEVER be washed away, no matter what. That’s just a horrific attitude.
I come at this from a slightly different angle. I followed all of the rules to a T. Married my first boyfriend. First kiss ever at the alter. Etc. However, I still carry shame. I used to carry shame because among my non Christian peers I was somewhat of a “freak” for being a 30yo virgin. My coworkers would not outright say it, but I was definitely viewed as weird. Of course, I would assure myself that God can’t be mocked, and if I do things God’s way, I will reap the rewards of a blessed marriage. I remember talking to a guy who was challenging my religious views about sex and he said that two virgins won’t know what to do. I confidently replied with the Evangelical counter-argument that we would figure it out together. Fast forward 2 decades, and it turns out I was played a fool. The fact that all my non Christian peers were right and I was so stupid fills me with shame. If I ever bumped into that guy again, I would have to put on a happy face and pretend that everything turned out good, rather than let him know that he was right. That’s how much shame I carry. It’s shameful to be a 43yo woman and not have ever experienced “good” sex. I can’t join in conversations with my peers about sex and orgasms because I have nothing to add to the conversation. It’s like a deep, dark secret that I carry. That all of my former confidence was shown to be 🐂💩. I find it hard to even be honest with my gynecologist. She would be like, “Wait, what?” So when I ask for a referral for a pelvic floor physiotherapist, the reason I give is “incontinence from having 3 kids” and not “vaginismus” because the first is a pretty common physical condition and the latter only affects “fundamentalist weirdos.” And I think as I deconstruct, it’s becoming easier for me to admit how badly Christianity screwed me over. Like it would be easier today to ask for help from my gynecologist because I could blame it on “I used to be indoctrinated by fundamentalist Christianity” and I imagine the gym would nod and say, “Oh, ok. That explains it.” But when I was still a fundamentalist, I had to pretend that everything was good because it was shameful to admit that all of my rule following had produced such poor results. Because, you know, “making the gospel attractive” and such.
I’m wondering if this aspect of shame is covered in the book.
Yes, she definitely talks a lot about that sort of thing. And I’m so sorry, Stefanie. Are you able to get that help now?
I did get the physiotherapist referral, but I never went because running around after 3 little kids didn’t leave a lot of time for self care. And my marriage is not healthy so we haven’t had sex in a few years, so right now it doesn’t matter. Am I growing and getting emotionally stronger? It’s slow, but moving in a positive direction.