Although I have had my issues with the content Matt Fradd has put out in recent years, I will always remember attending a talk he gave where a sex worker stood up in the middle to interrupt him and shout him down - saying how she didn't agree with his anti-porn stance and that she was happy with the choices she had made. Her bravado was a thin disguise of course, but Matt treated her incredibly kindly and patiently, ultimately saying "I think at this moment I respect you much more than you respect yourself. I think you're worth more than this." and THAT to me is the right response, the only response - affirming of humanity dignity, again and again, not shame or judgement.
Great article, Rachael. I wonder why Walsh (or anyone) seems more intent on shaming the soccer moms performing on OF rather than the soccer dads spending their money on it?
Yep, that was one of my main concerns as well. He does say at one point in the article that men should also be held responsible, but it felt pale compared to the strong language elsewhere.
For the same reason so many men are intent on speaking about women who don't sleep with them as whores and sluts: a deep hatred. This article wasn't and shouldn't be about Walsh as a person. But honestly, the way so many men speak specifically about OF models and women they *think* to be OF models, or women they *accuse* of being OF models comes from a place of deep hatred of women, specifically of women who do things they don't find feminine or womanly or becoming of women.
OF is not good for women at all. But a good litmus test of a man is how he speaks about women who are ""undesireable"" and especially in reference to the men who "use" those ""undesireable"" women.
This seems like an unfair assessment. Given everything I know about Walsh (and I've followed him for more than a decade), I would wager he thinks the men and the women engaging in porn, both its production and its consumption, deserve equal shame.
I’d argue the men consuming it, spending their dollars and time and energy on it deserve more shame than the women who feel it’s a necessary means of living because it pays more than anything else. And the reason it pays more? The gross men who fund it.
The reality of the situation is that only a very small number of these women actually make a lot of money from selling sex. I'm working from memory, but a year or two ago, I think the average amount earned by onlyfans women was a little over $100/mo. That's hardly a living. A minimum wage fast food job pays that in a single day. Pretending that people actually think this is a necessary means to make a living, rather than that they fall for the propaganda that they can get rich quick selling their body, is not doing anyone any favors.
I'm not here to quibble over who deserves more guilt and shame. Both parties, the men and the women, are engaging in this stuff willingly. Both parties have also been lied to by a sex-obsessed society and told repeatedly that this is a fine thing to do. The men are told that it's natural, and the women are told that it's empowering. It's also obvious to anyone who does their due diligence to inform their conscience of right and wrong that this stuff is no good. That, again, applies to both the men and the women.
Perhaps arguments could be made that one side deserves more shame than the other, but I think the main idea is that both sexes deserve shame or their engagement with pornography, and quite a lot of it.
I have to admit I didn’t know about only fans, DW or any of the particulars (my medieval living under a rock mentality!) but your piece, Rachael, is so true of so many of the behaviors we see so commonly in our society.
No one who knows the worth of their soul, or the price paid for it, would engage in such behaviors. It only ever comes from being deeply wounded and a lack of interior peace.
There is a beautiful story from a long time ago - (I hope I get the details correct, mea culpa if not)
A nun in Italy was drawn into an affair with a local man. She eventually left the convent to be with him, he eventually deserted her but she had become completely addicted to sensual pleasures and lust. After a significant period of time, she realized her mistake and gravity of actions so she snuck back into the convent, donned her habit and went to speak with the Mother Superior.
She couldn’t understand why her fellow nuns were treating her so kindly and with such reverence and respect; she wept and Mother Mary appeared to her and revealed that in the time the sister had been gone, she had taken her place so no one would know of her actions or how far she had fallen. This nun went on to become a saint and Our Lady never shamed her daughter.
This is not to say that shame doesn’t have its place etc etc but the story has always stayed with me. God Bless and Mary keep you, for your work Rachael.
Wow. That article is…something. I will only say this -
“If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.”
He said “ women like this have ruined their chances to have a good husband “. He lost me there. The whole POINT of Christianity is redemption. That we are ALL sinners. There is never someone too far gone. Women and men alike can have lived a terribly sinful life and still turn it around. And here’s a hard one for some people to swallow - she is no less loved. I pray for her every time she comes up online.
Shame doesn't work. It only adds to the pain, which only serves to exacerbate the desire for relief. I usually like Walsh's opinions, but he missed the mark on this one. The behaviors are bad, yes. The people are not. They're broken, just like the rest of us. We need to be instruments of healing in their lives, in the ways God calls us to do this work, whether up close or from afar.
1. I don't think shame works either...at least, not the shame that looks like is being advocated here, and certainly not in the direction he's advocating (towards women only).
2. https://nordicmodelnow.org/what-is-the-nordic-model/ I wish more people understood this model as a means of opposing the sex 'trade' and simultaneously trying to uphold women's dignity. Women on OF are responding to a demand, and it's no use just berating the women because they are the ones with their faces on the screen without berating those who create the demand. I find the push to punish women for being part of any sex 'trade' without wanting to at least simultaneously punish the men a very similar scenario to how in certain religious circles it's only ever the woman who has to publicly confess and bear the shame of the group if she gets pregnant out of wedlock. The women always bear the public brunt of the shame and the men fade into the background.
3. “The duty of every man is to uphold the dignity of every woman.” - JPII said this, and I think of it wistfully every time I see a commenter speak badly of women who have made bad choices. Matt Walsh says some right things, but is so swept up in the online-provocateur schtick that he forgets the dignity of those he rails against. Not all the time, but enough times for me not to particularly like his work. I love the story Katie related in another comment about Matt Fradd's response.
Wonderful article. I recently saw someone share an opinion that we need to return to a “shame based” society and I got instantly nauseated at the idea.
Walsh often has good ideas (we need to get rid of porn, certainly…it is a cancer), but where he often falls flat is his continual lack of mercy and grace.
What a sad but great article. One quote that really stood out to me.
"Her brokenness should move us to mercy, pity and prayer, not judgment and satirical jabs."
I couldn't agree more, people caught up in that line of work are already selling their dignity for material wealth. They don't need anyone else taking away what little they have left.
Loved this. Reminds me of how many people think the first step to accepting the Gospel is realizing how sinful you are. Lol, no. That not how it works.
I wasn’t able to read Walsh’s article behind the paywall but based on this response - the lack of focus to the MEN paying for this is unbelievable. If anything, that should be the focus. I agree that shame isn’t the right approach, but why did his focus seem to be shaming the women, who are in some ways victims, and not the men participating? Crazy and strikes me very much as a “boys will be boys” mentality
I actually posted a note about this this morning. I had concerns about the lack in his piece as well, but upon more reflection, I just have a hard time with the men vs. women thing on this, partly because I work with women in recovery from sexual addiction (and yes, they consume content on OF too). Additionally, there are plenty of men who are victimized by the porn industry as well. It just feels like too big of a beast to gender, if that makes sense.
But, I agree with you, a lot of the "boys will be boys" mentality absolutely exists in these discussions. Both producing and consuming are heinous acts against the dignity of the person, but both can be influenced by trauma. There's a need for healing on all grounds.
Yes! Very good point, men trapped in sex/porn addiction are victims too. We need to remember as women to have mercy and speak of THEIR (men’s’) dignity and “redeemability” too. Both sexes’ behavior on OF is shameful but every person involved is just that, a person.
Horse feathers. The only way to improve or increase your self-esteem is to commit esteemable acts. You deny free will with your pity for people who take the easy road of sex “work” —your example of the woman who liked the money is a great example of my point. Her greed overcame her desire to work at something more fitting; we are right to shun that behavior as abominable and teach children that it only leads to self-hate and society’s rightful judgement. Jesus showed the sinner a better path, and they gave up their sinful ways and acted better; He didn’t love them unconditionally.
The one thing that shame does, however, is prevent future behaviors… as inelegant as Matt Walsh’s position is, there is something quite powerful about telling young men and young women that any participation in pornography is shameful and exploitative. Yes, there is a road to repentance, but you will judge yourself much more harshly than Jesus, and that self-judgment will lead to more destructive behaviors.
There's actually a lot of evidence in the sexual addiction/compulsivity realm that shame is a driver of more compulsion, not a preventative measure. I think with other areas of vice, this might be true, but there's a deep psychological complexity to these sins that shame only seems to compound. Teaching a proper sense of guilt and repentance is hard without teaching shame, but it can be done!
What some people call shame, others call guilt. If there is no sense of “having done wrong”, then how do we course-correct? Not to mention that the use of pornographic images is a huge part of men offending against women, so in performing pornography, women are actually enabling the next generation of sex offenders. Not only that, but they distort the normal relationship between men and women and actually make it harder for women to say “ no” to their partners who want them to engage in adventurous activities that make them uncomfortable, or make them feel demeaned.
It’s not that I don’t want OnlyFans girls to get out of the business, but that I don’t think that they have been forced to confront the very real harm they are doing to women and girls everywhere.
I don't think defending the dignity of OF models and the people who consume their content (both men and women in both camps), and letting that be the launching pad of teaching morality and entreating them to choose differently, is ignoring the harm. I was in no way saying there should be no sense of this being wrong, in fact, I note otherwise.
If you do harm to others, you should feel a level of shame, even if you did not intend to harm. Shame and guilt are not an affront to dignity, they are part of the process of repentance. I have more respect for people who have overcome their past than for people who have walked the narrow path, which includes me. I have more respect for what the former drug addict, prostitute, alcoholic, homeless have had to do to overcome their difficulties than for myself who never had those struggles, so it is not about pointing fingers. But it is about lighting the path… and sometimes, when you shine a light, you see things that you wish you couldn’t see. Some people choose to keep the light turned off, while others courageously confront their demons, I respect the latter.
I think there is confusion due to the different ways "shame" is used these days. Oftentimes it is not used in the sense of socially ostracizing people or humiliating them for the things they've done, but for claiming what they are doing is morally wrong or even for simply not affirming them in their decisions. E.g. you are "slut-shaming" if you say sexual promiscuity is morally wrong or not likely to lead to flourishing outcomes, because this might make people who engage in sexual promiscuity feel bad. As such, I think we need to be wary of the rhetorical trick played by those who want to normalize immoral behavior - they don't mean "shame" in the sense Rachael uses it but seek to encompass any disapprobation as equivalent to shaming.
I see this point for sure. I think part of the issue with Walsh's piece is he does inherently "shame" in the sense of disregarding women's stories and dignity in the way that he speaks and doesn't qualify his definition of shame very well. If he means more of what you're saying--a re-establishment of moral order and culpability--I wish he had said such, and used language that underpinned that rather than debasing.
I appreciate your balanced approach! The purity culture
Calling sexual sin the ultimate evil created a poisonous atmosphere, and that atmosphere is absolutely something the Church is complicit in causing. However, we cannot keep refusing to call unrighteous sexual behavior as a sin. We do great disservice to those trapped within the industry by only focusing on the content. Victims should never be blamed. But, by refusing to speak out on porn itself as a sin, it's easier to shift the focus on victims, and imply that they might not be, that they enjoy it.
Although I have had my issues with the content Matt Fradd has put out in recent years, I will always remember attending a talk he gave where a sex worker stood up in the middle to interrupt him and shout him down - saying how she didn't agree with his anti-porn stance and that she was happy with the choices she had made. Her bravado was a thin disguise of course, but Matt treated her incredibly kindly and patiently, ultimately saying "I think at this moment I respect you much more than you respect yourself. I think you're worth more than this." and THAT to me is the right response, the only response - affirming of humanity dignity, again and again, not shame or judgement.
Matt does an excellent job with this, agreed. That's an exemplary response!
Great article, Rachael. I wonder why Walsh (or anyone) seems more intent on shaming the soccer moms performing on OF rather than the soccer dads spending their money on it?
Yep, that was one of my main concerns as well. He does say at one point in the article that men should also be held responsible, but it felt pale compared to the strong language elsewhere.
For the same reason so many men are intent on speaking about women who don't sleep with them as whores and sluts: a deep hatred. This article wasn't and shouldn't be about Walsh as a person. But honestly, the way so many men speak specifically about OF models and women they *think* to be OF models, or women they *accuse* of being OF models comes from a place of deep hatred of women, specifically of women who do things they don't find feminine or womanly or becoming of women.
OF is not good for women at all. But a good litmus test of a man is how he speaks about women who are ""undesireable"" and especially in reference to the men who "use" those ""undesireable"" women.
This seems like an unfair assessment. Given everything I know about Walsh (and I've followed him for more than a decade), I would wager he thinks the men and the women engaging in porn, both its production and its consumption, deserve equal shame.
I’d argue the men consuming it, spending their dollars and time and energy on it deserve more shame than the women who feel it’s a necessary means of living because it pays more than anything else. And the reason it pays more? The gross men who fund it.
The reality of the situation is that only a very small number of these women actually make a lot of money from selling sex. I'm working from memory, but a year or two ago, I think the average amount earned by onlyfans women was a little over $100/mo. That's hardly a living. A minimum wage fast food job pays that in a single day. Pretending that people actually think this is a necessary means to make a living, rather than that they fall for the propaganda that they can get rich quick selling their body, is not doing anyone any favors.
I'm not here to quibble over who deserves more guilt and shame. Both parties, the men and the women, are engaging in this stuff willingly. Both parties have also been lied to by a sex-obsessed society and told repeatedly that this is a fine thing to do. The men are told that it's natural, and the women are told that it's empowering. It's also obvious to anyone who does their due diligence to inform their conscience of right and wrong that this stuff is no good. That, again, applies to both the men and the women.
Perhaps arguments could be made that one side deserves more shame than the other, but I think the main idea is that both sexes deserve shame or their engagement with pornography, and quite a lot of it.
I have to admit I didn’t know about only fans, DW or any of the particulars (my medieval living under a rock mentality!) but your piece, Rachael, is so true of so many of the behaviors we see so commonly in our society.
No one who knows the worth of their soul, or the price paid for it, would engage in such behaviors. It only ever comes from being deeply wounded and a lack of interior peace.
There is a beautiful story from a long time ago - (I hope I get the details correct, mea culpa if not)
A nun in Italy was drawn into an affair with a local man. She eventually left the convent to be with him, he eventually deserted her but she had become completely addicted to sensual pleasures and lust. After a significant period of time, she realized her mistake and gravity of actions so she snuck back into the convent, donned her habit and went to speak with the Mother Superior.
She couldn’t understand why her fellow nuns were treating her so kindly and with such reverence and respect; she wept and Mother Mary appeared to her and revealed that in the time the sister had been gone, she had taken her place so no one would know of her actions or how far she had fallen. This nun went on to become a saint and Our Lady never shamed her daughter.
This is not to say that shame doesn’t have its place etc etc but the story has always stayed with me. God Bless and Mary keep you, for your work Rachael.
Wow. That article is…something. I will only say this -
“If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.”
Amen.
He said “ women like this have ruined their chances to have a good husband “. He lost me there. The whole POINT of Christianity is redemption. That we are ALL sinners. There is never someone too far gone. Women and men alike can have lived a terribly sinful life and still turn it around. And here’s a hard one for some people to swallow - she is no less loved. I pray for her every time she comes up online.
Shame doesn't work. It only adds to the pain, which only serves to exacerbate the desire for relief. I usually like Walsh's opinions, but he missed the mark on this one. The behaviors are bad, yes. The people are not. They're broken, just like the rest of us. We need to be instruments of healing in their lives, in the ways God calls us to do this work, whether up close or from afar.
Three thoughts...
1. I don't think shame works either...at least, not the shame that looks like is being advocated here, and certainly not in the direction he's advocating (towards women only).
2. https://nordicmodelnow.org/what-is-the-nordic-model/ I wish more people understood this model as a means of opposing the sex 'trade' and simultaneously trying to uphold women's dignity. Women on OF are responding to a demand, and it's no use just berating the women because they are the ones with their faces on the screen without berating those who create the demand. I find the push to punish women for being part of any sex 'trade' without wanting to at least simultaneously punish the men a very similar scenario to how in certain religious circles it's only ever the woman who has to publicly confess and bear the shame of the group if she gets pregnant out of wedlock. The women always bear the public brunt of the shame and the men fade into the background.
3. “The duty of every man is to uphold the dignity of every woman.” - JPII said this, and I think of it wistfully every time I see a commenter speak badly of women who have made bad choices. Matt Walsh says some right things, but is so swept up in the online-provocateur schtick that he forgets the dignity of those he rails against. Not all the time, but enough times for me not to particularly like his work. I love the story Katie related in another comment about Matt Fradd's response.
Wonderful article. I recently saw someone share an opinion that we need to return to a “shame based” society and I got instantly nauseated at the idea.
Walsh often has good ideas (we need to get rid of porn, certainly…it is a cancer), but where he often falls flat is his continual lack of mercy and grace.
I’ve seen that idea floating around too… immediate no from me
What a sad but great article. One quote that really stood out to me.
"Her brokenness should move us to mercy, pity and prayer, not judgment and satirical jabs."
I couldn't agree more, people caught up in that line of work are already selling their dignity for material wealth. They don't need anyone else taking away what little they have left.
Yeah Walsh missed the mark with this one. Good article.
Loved this. Reminds me of how many people think the first step to accepting the Gospel is realizing how sinful you are. Lol, no. That not how it works.
I wasn’t able to read Walsh’s article behind the paywall but based on this response - the lack of focus to the MEN paying for this is unbelievable. If anything, that should be the focus. I agree that shame isn’t the right approach, but why did his focus seem to be shaming the women, who are in some ways victims, and not the men participating? Crazy and strikes me very much as a “boys will be boys” mentality
I actually posted a note about this this morning. I had concerns about the lack in his piece as well, but upon more reflection, I just have a hard time with the men vs. women thing on this, partly because I work with women in recovery from sexual addiction (and yes, they consume content on OF too). Additionally, there are plenty of men who are victimized by the porn industry as well. It just feels like too big of a beast to gender, if that makes sense.
But, I agree with you, a lot of the "boys will be boys" mentality absolutely exists in these discussions. Both producing and consuming are heinous acts against the dignity of the person, but both can be influenced by trauma. There's a need for healing on all grounds.
What a great point. Thank you for sharing
Thanks for reading!
Yes! Very good point, men trapped in sex/porn addiction are victims too. We need to remember as women to have mercy and speak of THEIR (men’s’) dignity and “redeemability” too. Both sexes’ behavior on OF is shameful but every person involved is just that, a person.
Horse feathers. The only way to improve or increase your self-esteem is to commit esteemable acts. You deny free will with your pity for people who take the easy road of sex “work” —your example of the woman who liked the money is a great example of my point. Her greed overcame her desire to work at something more fitting; we are right to shun that behavior as abominable and teach children that it only leads to self-hate and society’s rightful judgement. Jesus showed the sinner a better path, and they gave up their sinful ways and acted better; He didn’t love them unconditionally.
Ummm…yes he very much did and does love them and everyone unconditionally …he literally died for all of us. All of us sinners.
His conditions for their salvation was to follow Him, and adhere to His Commandments.
The one thing that shame does, however, is prevent future behaviors… as inelegant as Matt Walsh’s position is, there is something quite powerful about telling young men and young women that any participation in pornography is shameful and exploitative. Yes, there is a road to repentance, but you will judge yourself much more harshly than Jesus, and that self-judgment will lead to more destructive behaviors.
There's actually a lot of evidence in the sexual addiction/compulsivity realm that shame is a driver of more compulsion, not a preventative measure. I think with other areas of vice, this might be true, but there's a deep psychological complexity to these sins that shame only seems to compound. Teaching a proper sense of guilt and repentance is hard without teaching shame, but it can be done!
What some people call shame, others call guilt. If there is no sense of “having done wrong”, then how do we course-correct? Not to mention that the use of pornographic images is a huge part of men offending against women, so in performing pornography, women are actually enabling the next generation of sex offenders. Not only that, but they distort the normal relationship between men and women and actually make it harder for women to say “ no” to their partners who want them to engage in adventurous activities that make them uncomfortable, or make them feel demeaned.
It’s not that I don’t want OnlyFans girls to get out of the business, but that I don’t think that they have been forced to confront the very real harm they are doing to women and girls everywhere.
I don't think defending the dignity of OF models and the people who consume their content (both men and women in both camps), and letting that be the launching pad of teaching morality and entreating them to choose differently, is ignoring the harm. I was in no way saying there should be no sense of this being wrong, in fact, I note otherwise.
If you do harm to others, you should feel a level of shame, even if you did not intend to harm. Shame and guilt are not an affront to dignity, they are part of the process of repentance. I have more respect for people who have overcome their past than for people who have walked the narrow path, which includes me. I have more respect for what the former drug addict, prostitute, alcoholic, homeless have had to do to overcome their difficulties than for myself who never had those struggles, so it is not about pointing fingers. But it is about lighting the path… and sometimes, when you shine a light, you see things that you wish you couldn’t see. Some people choose to keep the light turned off, while others courageously confront their demons, I respect the latter.
I think there is confusion due to the different ways "shame" is used these days. Oftentimes it is not used in the sense of socially ostracizing people or humiliating them for the things they've done, but for claiming what they are doing is morally wrong or even for simply not affirming them in their decisions. E.g. you are "slut-shaming" if you say sexual promiscuity is morally wrong or not likely to lead to flourishing outcomes, because this might make people who engage in sexual promiscuity feel bad. As such, I think we need to be wary of the rhetorical trick played by those who want to normalize immoral behavior - they don't mean "shame" in the sense Rachael uses it but seek to encompass any disapprobation as equivalent to shaming.
I see this point for sure. I think part of the issue with Walsh's piece is he does inherently "shame" in the sense of disregarding women's stories and dignity in the way that he speaks and doesn't qualify his definition of shame very well. If he means more of what you're saying--a re-establishment of moral order and culpability--I wish he had said such, and used language that underpinned that rather than debasing.
I appreciate your balanced approach! The purity culture
Calling sexual sin the ultimate evil created a poisonous atmosphere, and that atmosphere is absolutely something the Church is complicit in causing. However, we cannot keep refusing to call unrighteous sexual behavior as a sin. We do great disservice to those trapped within the industry by only focusing on the content. Victims should never be blamed. But, by refusing to speak out on porn itself as a sin, it's easier to shift the focus on victims, and imply that they might not be, that they enjoy it.