Although Andrew Tate is less relevant to online Christian discourse, one of the recurrent debates that has replaced it is whether redeemed prostitutes, digital or otherwise, make good wives or are marriageable material. The number of high-profile e-whores who have converted make these types of debates inevitable. The decline in marriage and fertility is largely driven by women who disproportionately do not seek these things despite the ontological significance. The staunchest advocates for wife-ing up redeemed e-girls assert that their detractors are denying the Gospel’s power to redeem, whereas those against marrying e-girls correctly assert that their sin still has consequences and that such women, even when redeemed, are still suboptimal options.
The divide appears to be more generational, with clearly married men advocating men wed former whores, something they rarely did themselves. This time around, more women, many of whom former whores themselves, chimed in to accuse their opponents of being porn addicts, suggesting that opposition to marrying former whores is because one is struggling with porn.
This divide is not just about former whores, but could be applied to other issues, whether they be single mothers, girl-bosses, former drug addicts, older women—ones that used to be called spinsters, or women who have had abortions. Each of these options is suboptimal for various reasons. So too is the travel girl, another debate in Christian circles since many who were wedded before dating apps do not understand how the affinity of traveling in young women is used as a substitute for a personality while also demonstrating myopic, materialistic tendencies. In other words, they spend their money on adventures rather than pay off student loans or save for a future family. This is not to rehash the prior iterations of this debate, but mainly the latest developments.
Beta Buck
The debate reignited when Tom Buck argued that Rahab being in the lineage of Christ was proof that formerly promiscuous women are not “damaged goods.”
Rahab is not the prooftext people think it is, simply because they ignore the obviously patriarchal society in which Rahab was wedded. The spies vowed to her protection, so her marriage was only means to guarantee her long-term safety as she would be ingratiated into Israel. It was probably not an ideal arrangement, but a necessary one. One could also question why the spies had gone to a brothel in the first place.
Buck attempts to say that one cannot question it, but that it is permissible to ask questions. For a pastor, he should know the importance of the 5th Commandment and the role of parents in the marriage of their children. But to invoke the lineage of Christ as an argument to suggest that such redeemed sinners are never “damaged” is ridiculous and inconsistent.
To paraphrase Thomas Aquinas, Christ’s redemptive work returns the sinner to a state of grace and immunity from the debt of sin, yet the sinner “never returns to his former dignity of innocence, and so something always remains from his past sin.” The damage and consequences of past sin still remain despite salvation.
Nobody would say that Christ cannot redeem the child molester, but that does not give license for the sex offender to be around children in the church, nor does salvation make him marriageable. This is generally acknowledged until it comes to the sins of women.
Trevor Sheatz
Trevor Sheatz is the guy who married the redeemed prostitute. Essentially, Sheatz posted online about his wife, who was a former camgirl that God redeemed and now they are married with children. He himself was a virgin on his wedding day, but he described her as “more pure than most virgins, as biblical purity has less to with past sins (though they certainly matter) and more to do with one’s current posture of the heart and daily decisions to honor the Lord (Matt. 5:8).”
The photo of Sheatz and his wife make him the embodiment of a “soy-jack” meme, which is hardly a good marketing ploy that marrying such a woman is what masculine men do. He proves many Red-pill talking points of being the “Beta Buck” she settles down with. Other clips of his wife describing her testimony in which she could not count the number of men she had been with and “wanted to find a godly man,” which she found at church. There is a lot of discourse about the Church’s role in dating, but one aversion men have is that they will be the “Beta Buck” to the “alpha widow,” which is the phenomenon where the woman is unable to get over the “Alpha” male in her past. This is more likely if women are approaching or older than thirty. This was a major issue in the failure of Josh Harris’s marriage, but it also speaks to why sexual history matters, especially for the woman. Things working out for Trevor Sheatz do not negate the need for discretion and asking questions prior to marriage.
A study by the Institute for Family Studies found that premarital sex is a significant predictor of whether a marriage will end in divorce. The probability of divorce is 5% within the first five years for those with no premarital sexual partners, significantly lower than every other statistical grouping. A study by the Wheatley Institute (BYU) released in 2023 found favorable correlations between relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and emotional connection with marital couples with only one sexual partner (their spouse) than couples who had multiple sexual partners. Regardless of one’s profession, the risks of failure are higher with prior promiscuity; thus, they are statistically worse choices.
This post went viral as some lambasted him for publicly posting about his wife’s sin, that even though it is public, is wrong since it does not cherish his wife to speak of her past sins. Sheatz also runs an online “Christian” marketing company which some have called his viral post a cynical marketing ploy.
Born Again Virginity
One of the central problems in the debate is whether Redemption in Christ restores virginity. Often the “New Creation” verse is cited (2 Corinthians 5:17) to suggest that the past does not matter, which both the Church history (as alluded via Aquinas) and statistical reality dispute. Reason likewise does not conclude that a conversion of faith alleviates consequence, as a convert in jail is not suddenly released for being a New Creation. Sheatz can contend that his wife is more pure than “most virgins” but he is arguing exceptions to prove the norm while castigating something Scripture affirmatively prescribes.
The Old Testament makes clear that virginity is not some nice thing to have or merely a spiritual blessing, but a practical one. Historically, the institution of marriage was predicated on female chastity to ensure the legitimacy of the offspring and justify the exchange of resources for marriage (dowries). The Old Testament Law makes two references to dowries:
“If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall [q]pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.
Exodus 22:16-17 NASB
But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
Deuteronomy 22:20-21
In the case of seduction, the man must remit the dowry for the daughter’s virginity, which is the equivalent of “you break it, you buy it” in the Law. In the second case, in which the virginity is disputed, the punishment for the man is a fine for defamation while the punishment for the woman is to be stoned. There is no equivalent punishment for male promiscuity, which is not to say that it is permissible, but such a sin is more serious in women than in men. In the case where the woman was not found to be a virgin, this is a capital offense in part due to the financial fraud that was committed from the husband having paid the virgin dowry. The law both deters such fraud from being committed while also deterring flippant accusations.
The Catholics actually allow such fraud to be grounds for an annulment, that if a woman lies about her virginity going into the marriage, that the marriage can be ruled invalid. This came up during the Sarah Stock-Elijah Schaffer sex scandal as the husband married Stock under false pretense. Furthermore, had Schaffer’s father-in-law been more judicious regarding Schaffer’s past, deeming his history to be disqualifying, perhaps this divorce could have been avoided.
The other example of virginity in the Law is that of the priests’ wives:
He shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow, or a divorced woman, or one who is profaned by harlotry, these he may not take; but rather he is to marry a virgin of his own people, so that he will not profane his offspring among his people; for I am the Lord who sanctifies him.’”
Leviticus 21:13-15
The Scripture is not talking about “born again virgins,” nor is a redeemed prostitute compliant with this regulation. Based upon the general equity of the law, such a regulation should be especially relevant for those seeking ministry. Scripture clearly contradicts the pretense that the redeemed prostitute is more holy because the wives of the priests were to be pure to avert profaning the worship in Israel. There is both a practical and a spiritual purpose to these provisions.
Despite referring to dating as a “marketplace,” much of the overlooked aspects of this discussion is that of price. In biblical times, and certainly all throughout history, the virgin fetched the premium dowry and those that were fornicators, widows, or redeemed prostitutes could not demand such a price.
In the modern market, there is functionally no difference in price relative to sexual activity. The man is still expected to pay and “going Dutch” is not fashionable in dating culture. The man is still buying the ring, paying for dates, and is expected to be the provider even in the relationship. It makes sense, as these things are enjoined to the duties in marriage. The expectation that the man pays is why male promiscuity is less problematic, which is not to say it is not sinful. Since he is the financier, that means whatever his past, he must build up the resources to court the woman. He must acquire the means to pay for the dates, the wedding, the future home etc. The modern dating market makes no distinction between the virgin and the non-virgin in the expectations of the man. In other words, the price is the same, which is itself an inefficiency and injustice in the market.
The Redpill often employ the metaphor that the man is born at the bottom of the mountain, meaning he must climb to the top and overcome hardships that set him back along the way. The corollary is that the woman is born at the top of the mountain, meaning that her “experiences” do not make her stronger, but can only detract her perceived value. The sexual experience that makes for a flashy testimony adds no value. The child born to a baby daddy adds no value. The history of drug use adds no value. This is not to say these things are inconsequential in men, as they inhibit his assent, but they are more consequential in women as they detract from the value of which men seek in a wife. Essentially, men are being told to summit to the top of the mountain and settle for women who fell to the bottom while paying the same price for such women as they would for the virgin bride. What is worse is that they are being gaslit by men like Tom Buck that these women are as desirable when that is objectively false.
Gooner Bulverism
This time around, women really chimed into the debate, but ultimately their contributions were to accuse men who disagree with them of having a porn addiction. It is another example of Bulverism, where they are ascribing motivations to their opponents without explaining why they are wrong. This argument holds no ground against someone who is happily married with clean browser history but is employed nonetheless by many women who have a slutty past.
Actors like Farmgirl Lizzie, who was a former stripper on her subsequent marriage, who said “I believe the men who shame repentant women for promiscuity before Christ have porn addictions.” In the “gender-war” slop discourse, women will resort to four insults: calling men insecure, calling a man gay, insinuating the size of his genitalia, or calling him an incel. Calling someone a porn addict is another iteration of claiming that they are either an incel or insecure. The four insults revolve around the perception that a man’s value comes from his desirability to women, which is objectively untrue since wealth and status are objective and independent indicators of a man’s value which precede female interest in him.
They say these things not to convey truth but to manipulate and shame men. It is slop discourse that ultimately is designed to advance feminism in the Church since they use this bulverism to deny the legitimacy of male authority, whether in marriage or society at large. Plenty of men speak out on porn usage and its damage to society, even celebrating the death of the OnlyFans CEO, so there is no truth in these insults but rather their intent is to further placate and coddle the depravity of female promiscuity.
Conclusion
The Church is ultimately putting women on a pedestal and in doing so, reduces marriage to a moral hazard for bailing out women when God intended this institution to be so much more. They undermine the purpose of virginity by insulting women who actually maintain their purity. These women ought to be celebrated as examples, not former porn stars whose sin was rooted in a pursuit of validation. Instead, they are being treated the same as the former porn star and thus failing to convey the notion to young women that actions have consequences.
It is a great shame that these pastors fail to understand church teaching on marriage and the value of virginity leading into marriage, something that was never a mystery to any other generation. The Fifth Commandment gives broad authority to fathers over the marriages of their children, yet this is rarely taught in churches. Instead, Paul’s instructions for widows to “free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord” is abused to apply to all women.
This is not proper theology, but using theology to rationalize the current debased culture. Too many women have whored themselves out, so theology has been used to rationalize why they are ideal for marriage. Rather than seek to change the culture, these leaders are rationalizing modernity and chastising young men for thinking that such women, even if redeemed, are suboptimal wives.
If the institution of marriage is to be restored in the culture, then the church needs to have the most robust view of marriage that is not only rooted in truth but also aspirational.
3 Responses
> The man is still expected to pay and “going Dutch” is not fashionable in dating culture. The man is still buying the ring, paying for dates, and is expected to be the provider even in the relationship.
The “ring” itself is an invention by diamond maker De Beers (founded in 1888) and didn’t exist before 1946. Literally everything that Evangelical church culture told you is “Conservative” and “Christian tradition” didn’t exist before post-WW2 including the “male provider” thing which also didn’t get fashionable until the 1950s.
In the times of Hebrew scripture a woman was a liability for any male (including her father) and was privileged to be married. For that she had to do something (read WORK HARD) to stay within her father’s house or married, as otherwise she had to live off selling her body. Any illicit child meant death of starvation for both the child and the mother. The idea of a man as walking wallet (and later credit card) is absurd both in Hebrew and Greek/Latin tradition and didn’t exist before the invention of fiat money, which came into existence in 1971 for the U.S. Dollar and a few decades earlier for everyone else.
This whole post-war “Evangelical American Dream” cited by boomer pastors already broke apart as inevitable fiat money devaluation to almost zero cancelled the whole “provider” spiel for Gen-Z men. They can’t afford homes, paying dates and especially not buying literally useless diamonds. They also can’t afford feeding churches, staff and useless theologians, that’s why the whole world of Evangelicalism comes crashing down now. It’s inevitable and due to simple central banking squeezing out anything non-essential.
Technically, wedding rings as a practice goes back to Rome, but the diamond as the preferred gem was De Beers. That said, I bring up the modern dating culture as a critique which persists regardless of low-church or high church. If we went further back to the Victorian Era (think Pride and Prejudice), the courtship process was often safeguarded and preselected to avoid unchaste women and men of bad reputation. These safeguards are removed, and much like Chesterton’s Fence, we are seeing the consequences. The solution is greater parental involvement in the process, as is their duty from God, and, whether Evangelical or Papist, I don’t see any denomination championing the truly biblical solution.
There is lots of stuff, which is just boomer “tradition”: It also wasn’t until the 1950s, before adult birthday parties became fashionable (as extension of child birthday parties which weren’t heard of until a few decades earlier). Before that most humans didn’t even know their actual birthdate and usually commemorated some saint’s day instead of themselves.
The modern (paired) wedding ring made of gold not much older than De Beers itself: late 19th to early 20th century, came up pretty much with industrial mass production of jewelry thanks to colonization. Before industrialization marital rings made of precious metal were as common as nowadays the wedding private jet and the wedding private island is.
Due to central banking all this is going away again as the commoner can no longer afford it and with it goes all the fancy (church) culture including commoners pretending being Victorian nobles. The problem just “solves” itself economically: the whole “provider” dating “tradition” already did go out of the window for gen-z, which church boomers haven’t noticed yet. No need to further discuss Evangelical “courtship”: The economical necessities demand sexual restraint and it is already showing in contraception use falling of a cliff. Down the line contraceptive pills are going to become unaffordable as well and so will abortion (the medical procedure) putting an end to Margaret Sanger’s legacy.