Maybe I’ve watched too many cop & espionage thrillers but doing unethical stuff to maintain your cover so you can take down an entire operation is in an ethical gray zone rather than being solely unethical. More reason to leave it to the professionals rather than amateur vigilantes (who are porn addicts ?)
First, this is profoundly important and well written. It is a vital conversation to the work of sex trafficking recovery and sexual trauma recovery for victims. Our baked in evangelical permission of male sexualization must be addressed.
To that end, I noticed a couple places where you conflated sexual arousal with sexual desire. This confusion could muddle up what needs to be addressed in a man--namely, what happens in his heart (desire and how he acts on it) versus strictly what happens in his body (arousal). As Emily Nagoski, Dan Allender, and others have pointed out, arousal cannot be assumed to be an indication of desire (arousal non-concordance). Concordance is higher in men than women but still only 50% in men while 10% in women.
For example, you said
"It’s not surprising that someone raised in this context where girls are encouraged to think of themselves as protecting men around them from having sexual feelings (including children to adults) would arrive at a place where he was totally unable to separate female bodies from male arousal – including, but not limited to, a context in which a woman’s body was visible because she was for sale to him."
Arousal may be more autonomic than desire. As Nagoski puts it, "Genital response is specific to sexually revelant stimuli--regardless of if those stimuli are appealing." To be clear, the story of Hutchinson involves violation and abuse, a lot more than simply a body response. He joined his heart to lust and harm. I agree he seemed to clearly have desire (more than body arousal) and followed it into harm.
That one phrase, "Second male voice: I don’t know how wise it was to grab that girl’s boobs, though." has always been uniquely disturbing. The usage of the word "wise" is so Christinese. The whole circumstance isn't wise, especially as more information about the operation has released. Nothing about OUR had been wise to begin with. As such, this event and it's entire proceedings were never even close to the concept of wisdom. Not to mention it's just a seriously stupid thing to say. I wish there was more disgust in the quote, but I guess that's reserved for its readers.
The rules on modesty reminds me of when I was studying to be a paralegal. There was a discussion about laws that ban “lewd and lascivious” behavior as they do not clearly define a prohibited activity but leave it up to a completely subjective standard. The professor joked that the definition of “lewd” was “anything that gave the judge an erection”.
Men need to own their own struggles with lust and not seek to own women. Burkas were designed purely to protect men from themselves and their own failings.
I'm reminded of an anecdote told by Callum of the Lotus Eaters (British news website) when he was adventure touring Taliban Afghanistan. Their taxy driver saw a UAE female journalist in a slightly more revealing--can just see a bit of curve--and the man was aroused/shocked by that "immodesty."
I was hoping you would go there. Thank you for going there. This is exactly what I think, too, and few people will dare go there in the privacy of their own minds, let alone publicly.
Excellent article!! Fantastic!! I wish there was a way I could print this and have a discussion about this with men...a very uncomfortable but necessary discussion. I am frightened about the hypersexualization of women in some of our Christian churches by men...all a woman seemingly needs to do to cause this reaction is to sit and breathe. It's worse when we put women in compromising situations. It's time for men to grow up. We need to...now. How much worse is it when this behavior and hidden propensity becomes concrete when working with marginalized or traumatized women. There has to be an honest and heart-exposing accounting.
I was waiting for you to reveal that Hutchinson watched pornography. It wasn't just unsurprising, but expected. Habitual pornography use always accompanies this sort of sexual abuse. And while you're right that not everyone who habitually watches porn is an abuser, no one who is an abuser refrains from watching porn. I also think that porn will influence thoughts and behaviors over time (like regular consumption of any other kind of media undeniably does).
I hate the way that modesty is understood in the modern culture. Although I tend to agree with clothing rules, my reasons differ from what is usually considered the mainstream reason. It's not about making sure nothing you do arouses others (though you are morally culpable if you do wear intentionally arousing/sexually explicit clothing like bikinis for women or speedos for men), but more about upholding your own dignity as a human person created in the image of God. The posture rules sound ridiculous, and yes, clothing that shifts to accidentally reveal something is unfortunate, but not even in the same ballpark as intentionally sexualized clothing. So too clothing that is somewhat form fitting or accentuates natural beauty. That kind of clothing is actually modest in upholding one's own dignity. I'm thinking here of things like evening gowns or suits or tuxedos. What is modest usually intersects with what is considered by normal people to be tasteful.
But I'm not sure if I'm on board with the notion that purity culture teaches men to be perverted. Rather, it seems more to me that it excuses their perversions instead of forcing them to grow in virtue. The man who admits that he watches pornography isn't shunned or rebuked, and excuses are made for him. We don't make such excuses for any other kinds of grave sins; just sexual ones. Meanwhile the women, even the ones who really are dressing modestly, are often blamed for a man's arousal.
Well, I'm a grown man. I know from personal life experience that my own arousal is my own thing to contend with, and that it can be controlled. It's not even that difficult to control once you start making a bona fide effort (the problem is so very few men make such an effort). Man is a rational animal, meaning that reason and virtue can control the passions and keep them in line with morality. We aren't beasts given over to uncontrollable sensitive appetites.
Anyway, the problem here seems to be a lack of common sense. No one known to engage in habitual pornography use ought to be doing a job like this, for two reasons. First, it indicates a lack of sexual self-control. Second, for the reason you gave regarding martyrdom: these people aren't even ready to spiritually die to their own sinful lusts yet, let alone actually physically die for the sake of goodness and truth.
>If you’re going to go to a place where women and girls are being exploited, and you’re not ready to die for their sake, you should not be there.
The people who go in need to be crusaders, warriors of divine conscious. Lawful Good men, of deep control. Recruitment should be strict, formal, and ideally following a hardcore cadre. We need Paladins. (1e paladins, for those in the know.)
If there's a risk of death for refusal, pair up the front man with a strike team. I don't care if a trafficker dies as a result of this, maybe it'll convince the survivors to get real jobs. Preferably in prison, but just about anything else will do.
If true (and after reading the VICE article, I have no reason to believe it's not), this is very upsetting. I was planning on watching Sound of Freedom when my family got around to paying a subscription.
Personal feelings aside, I think you raise VERY good and needed points about the Achilles heel of purity culture. Like you said, purity culture actually objectifies women by telling men that noticing a woman's body is inherently lustful. As one Babylon Bee headline put it, "Man Suffers Fractured Neck after Bouncing Eyes Too Hard." https://babylonbee.com/news/man-suffers-fractured-neck-bouncing-eyes-hard. While bouncing your eyes is a good strategy, the best pastors and teachers have always made a distinction between noticing a woman's figure and lustful desire. A mentor of mine called this "the second look"; the point at which you give in to your (involuntary) feelings of arousal and let them control your actions. Purity culture often misses this completely, creating young men who think they can't look at a woman for any reason. This makes it easier, not harder, for the Enemy to tempt them. And it prevents them from seeing women as anything other than Potential Temptations.
On the allegations themselves: The anecdote in VICE came from a Davis County (Utah) investigation into O.U.R. which has since closed without charges. Deseret News reported on the investigation but did not link any court records, saying only that "The reviewed charges by Rawlings’ office included communications fraud, witness tampering and retaliation against a witness" and that Rawlings closed the investigation because he thought it "prudent." I was unable to find the court records, but it appears that Ballard and Hutchinson were, not surprisingly, misleading donors about just how flashy and glamorous their work was. Point is: I don't know why the investigation closed without charges, and I'm convinced there's more to the story that VICE isn't telling. HOWEVER, I don't believe the allegations are false, even if they are calculated to inflict massive public relations damage.
Given the occasional hysteria around Christians accused of sexual misconduct, VICE's article was far more balanced and fair than I expected. Take this paragraph, for instance:
"There is no suggestion in the files that Hutchinson’s behavior was aimed at anything but identifying and exposing traffickers, but federal agents with extensive experience working undercover overseas told VICE News that Hutchinson’s methods ran contrary to best practice. For years, experts in the anti-trafficking field have raised concerns about OUR’s methods potentially creating demand for trafficking victims, due to scenarios precisely like this one. Rather than finding minors who were already being trafficked, requesting younger victims while undercover could cause traffickers to try and find people to fill that request. In other words, such a request would not rescue trafficking victims; it could potentially create them."
Lastly, Hutchinson's defense is telling. He argues that the girl was over 18, and he argues that he was forced to (either by a cartel operative moving his hand or out of a felt need to "keep up the act" and ease any suspicions.)
Like you said, neither of these things were true. Ballard, being the veteran DHS officer that he is, should have known better than to let vigilantes do the work of trained law enforcement.
I have thoughts on that too (related to orgs such as IJM), but my comment is already too long, so I'll leave it there.
"If you decide to put yourself in a situation where you have a choice between assaulting a child or dying, maybe you ought to just die."
Wow. As the kids say nowadays, based. Very Based.
Great as usual. Also, subscribed to the Apocalypse Here channel on youtube after reading your last post, and I love it!
Maybe I’ve watched too many cop & espionage thrillers but doing unethical stuff to maintain your cover so you can take down an entire operation is in an ethical gray zone rather than being solely unethical. More reason to leave it to the professionals rather than amateur vigilantes (who are porn addicts ?)
"picking your life is the wrong choice for anyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus. "
"Until we have dealt with these issues in ourselves, maybe we ought to leave the rest of the world alone."
Very well put.
Pulling no punches and speaking powerful truth -- thank you for this article.
First, this is profoundly important and well written. It is a vital conversation to the work of sex trafficking recovery and sexual trauma recovery for victims. Our baked in evangelical permission of male sexualization must be addressed.
To that end, I noticed a couple places where you conflated sexual arousal with sexual desire. This confusion could muddle up what needs to be addressed in a man--namely, what happens in his heart (desire and how he acts on it) versus strictly what happens in his body (arousal). As Emily Nagoski, Dan Allender, and others have pointed out, arousal cannot be assumed to be an indication of desire (arousal non-concordance). Concordance is higher in men than women but still only 50% in men while 10% in women.
For example, you said
"It’s not surprising that someone raised in this context where girls are encouraged to think of themselves as protecting men around them from having sexual feelings (including children to adults) would arrive at a place where he was totally unable to separate female bodies from male arousal – including, but not limited to, a context in which a woman’s body was visible because she was for sale to him."
Arousal may be more autonomic than desire. As Nagoski puts it, "Genital response is specific to sexually revelant stimuli--regardless of if those stimuli are appealing." To be clear, the story of Hutchinson involves violation and abuse, a lot more than simply a body response. He joined his heart to lust and harm. I agree he seemed to clearly have desire (more than body arousal) and followed it into harm.
Thoughts?
That one phrase, "Second male voice: I don’t know how wise it was to grab that girl’s boobs, though." has always been uniquely disturbing. The usage of the word "wise" is so Christinese. The whole circumstance isn't wise, especially as more information about the operation has released. Nothing about OUR had been wise to begin with. As such, this event and it's entire proceedings were never even close to the concept of wisdom. Not to mention it's just a seriously stupid thing to say. I wish there was more disgust in the quote, but I guess that's reserved for its readers.
The rules on modesty reminds me of when I was studying to be a paralegal. There was a discussion about laws that ban “lewd and lascivious” behavior as they do not clearly define a prohibited activity but leave it up to a completely subjective standard. The professor joked that the definition of “lewd” was “anything that gave the judge an erection”.
Men need to own their own struggles with lust and not seek to own women. Burkas were designed purely to protect men from themselves and their own failings.
I'm reminded of an anecdote told by Callum of the Lotus Eaters (British news website) when he was adventure touring Taliban Afghanistan. Their taxy driver saw a UAE female journalist in a slightly more revealing--can just see a bit of curve--and the man was aroused/shocked by that "immodesty."
This is a genuinely outstanding essay and an excellent analysis. Thank you.
I was hoping you would go there. Thank you for going there. This is exactly what I think, too, and few people will dare go there in the privacy of their own minds, let alone publicly.
Excellent article!! Fantastic!! I wish there was a way I could print this and have a discussion about this with men...a very uncomfortable but necessary discussion. I am frightened about the hypersexualization of women in some of our Christian churches by men...all a woman seemingly needs to do to cause this reaction is to sit and breathe. It's worse when we put women in compromising situations. It's time for men to grow up. We need to...now. How much worse is it when this behavior and hidden propensity becomes concrete when working with marginalized or traumatized women. There has to be an honest and heart-exposing accounting.
Wow! What a powerful article!
I was waiting for you to reveal that Hutchinson watched pornography. It wasn't just unsurprising, but expected. Habitual pornography use always accompanies this sort of sexual abuse. And while you're right that not everyone who habitually watches porn is an abuser, no one who is an abuser refrains from watching porn. I also think that porn will influence thoughts and behaviors over time (like regular consumption of any other kind of media undeniably does).
I hate the way that modesty is understood in the modern culture. Although I tend to agree with clothing rules, my reasons differ from what is usually considered the mainstream reason. It's not about making sure nothing you do arouses others (though you are morally culpable if you do wear intentionally arousing/sexually explicit clothing like bikinis for women or speedos for men), but more about upholding your own dignity as a human person created in the image of God. The posture rules sound ridiculous, and yes, clothing that shifts to accidentally reveal something is unfortunate, but not even in the same ballpark as intentionally sexualized clothing. So too clothing that is somewhat form fitting or accentuates natural beauty. That kind of clothing is actually modest in upholding one's own dignity. I'm thinking here of things like evening gowns or suits or tuxedos. What is modest usually intersects with what is considered by normal people to be tasteful.
But I'm not sure if I'm on board with the notion that purity culture teaches men to be perverted. Rather, it seems more to me that it excuses their perversions instead of forcing them to grow in virtue. The man who admits that he watches pornography isn't shunned or rebuked, and excuses are made for him. We don't make such excuses for any other kinds of grave sins; just sexual ones. Meanwhile the women, even the ones who really are dressing modestly, are often blamed for a man's arousal.
Well, I'm a grown man. I know from personal life experience that my own arousal is my own thing to contend with, and that it can be controlled. It's not even that difficult to control once you start making a bona fide effort (the problem is so very few men make such an effort). Man is a rational animal, meaning that reason and virtue can control the passions and keep them in line with morality. We aren't beasts given over to uncontrollable sensitive appetites.
Anyway, the problem here seems to be a lack of common sense. No one known to engage in habitual pornography use ought to be doing a job like this, for two reasons. First, it indicates a lack of sexual self-control. Second, for the reason you gave regarding martyrdom: these people aren't even ready to spiritually die to their own sinful lusts yet, let alone actually physically die for the sake of goodness and truth.
>If you’re going to go to a place where women and girls are being exploited, and you’re not ready to die for their sake, you should not be there.
The people who go in need to be crusaders, warriors of divine conscious. Lawful Good men, of deep control. Recruitment should be strict, formal, and ideally following a hardcore cadre. We need Paladins. (1e paladins, for those in the know.)
If there's a risk of death for refusal, pair up the front man with a strike team. I don't care if a trafficker dies as a result of this, maybe it'll convince the survivors to get real jobs. Preferably in prison, but just about anything else will do.
🔥👏
Well written as usual, thank you for engaging difficult situations with nuance and an empathetic perspective.
Amen and Amen
Blisteringly clear and piercing.
If true (and after reading the VICE article, I have no reason to believe it's not), this is very upsetting. I was planning on watching Sound of Freedom when my family got around to paying a subscription.
Personal feelings aside, I think you raise VERY good and needed points about the Achilles heel of purity culture. Like you said, purity culture actually objectifies women by telling men that noticing a woman's body is inherently lustful. As one Babylon Bee headline put it, "Man Suffers Fractured Neck after Bouncing Eyes Too Hard." https://babylonbee.com/news/man-suffers-fractured-neck-bouncing-eyes-hard. While bouncing your eyes is a good strategy, the best pastors and teachers have always made a distinction between noticing a woman's figure and lustful desire. A mentor of mine called this "the second look"; the point at which you give in to your (involuntary) feelings of arousal and let them control your actions. Purity culture often misses this completely, creating young men who think they can't look at a woman for any reason. This makes it easier, not harder, for the Enemy to tempt them. And it prevents them from seeing women as anything other than Potential Temptations.
On the allegations themselves: The anecdote in VICE came from a Davis County (Utah) investigation into O.U.R. which has since closed without charges. Deseret News reported on the investigation but did not link any court records, saying only that "The reviewed charges by Rawlings’ office included communications fraud, witness tampering and retaliation against a witness" and that Rawlings closed the investigation because he thought it "prudent." I was unable to find the court records, but it appears that Ballard and Hutchinson were, not surprisingly, misleading donors about just how flashy and glamorous their work was. Point is: I don't know why the investigation closed without charges, and I'm convinced there's more to the story that VICE isn't telling. HOWEVER, I don't believe the allegations are false, even if they are calculated to inflict massive public relations damage.
Given the occasional hysteria around Christians accused of sexual misconduct, VICE's article was far more balanced and fair than I expected. Take this paragraph, for instance:
"There is no suggestion in the files that Hutchinson’s behavior was aimed at anything but identifying and exposing traffickers, but federal agents with extensive experience working undercover overseas told VICE News that Hutchinson’s methods ran contrary to best practice. For years, experts in the anti-trafficking field have raised concerns about OUR’s methods potentially creating demand for trafficking victims, due to scenarios precisely like this one. Rather than finding minors who were already being trafficked, requesting younger victims while undercover could cause traffickers to try and find people to fill that request. In other words, such a request would not rescue trafficking victims; it could potentially create them."
Lastly, Hutchinson's defense is telling. He argues that the girl was over 18, and he argues that he was forced to (either by a cartel operative moving his hand or out of a felt need to "keep up the act" and ease any suspicions.)
Like you said, neither of these things were true. Ballard, being the veteran DHS officer that he is, should have known better than to let vigilantes do the work of trained law enforcement.
I have thoughts on that too (related to orgs such as IJM), but my comment is already too long, so I'll leave it there.