There is a name for that. Transactional Sexuality. I did not make that up. It is used on the famous Mars Hill Podcast produced by Christianity Today. It did not make sense to me until I read this article.
Transactional Sexuality
Here is an excerpt
"Transactional Sexuality is a phenomenon within purity culture in which sex is viewed along the gender binary as an economic transaction — men are the consumers, desiring sex like it is a product, while women are the sellers, delivering sex like it is their job. When a man desires sex from a woman, it is because she has in some way advertised herself as being available for sexual relations (even if she did so inexplicitly). This means when men make a sexual offer, it is the duty of women to provide sexual gratification because they are responsible for the regulation of the desires circulating within the sexual economy (even if they do not wish to have sex)....
Evangelical Christians who have grown up in environments that promote things like transactional sexuality have become accustomed to the notion that because of the risk of temptation within this sexual economy, women should be friends with women, and men should be friends with men. This segregation protects Christians from inappropriate or immoral sexual conduct....
(Then, Speaking of Mattt Chandler and his DMs to a woman not his wife, as an example)
Perhaps the reason Chandler felt the need to apologize for these conversations is that he has broken these rules of segregation, theoretically allowing himself to be exposed to another woman’s marketable, desirable and, for him, purchasable sexuality.
This type of relationship, regardless of its true nature, is risky within the boundaries of purity culture because evangelical Christian men have been taught they must be careful not to be tempted by promiscuous women. Christians also are taught that women (and their bodies) are responsible for what happens if they become a sexual temptress.
Although he has clarified in statements that this relationship was not sexual in nature, this is not how evangelical Christians who are informed by purity culture’s teachings of transactional sexuality view it. Chandler’s friendship with this woman is inherently scandalized within the church as something that could not possibly be platonic, even if it is as Chandler claims."
End of quote.
That was a fascinating description of something that I have seen. It may not be a perfect analysis, but it is pretty close.
Men supposedly cannot have any kind of friendship with women, because that tension is always there. And the men tend to interpret any vague phrases, or things that even could remotely be interpreted as leaning in that direction, as promiscuous.
Of course, he will vehemently deny anything of the sort. Calling us all perverted, asinine and any other terms of derision, in order to assert his moral superiority.
Just tellin' it like I see it folks.
