Hyper-sexualization: Why Can’t We Be Friends?
Taken from Knowing and Being Known by Erin Moniz
IVP reached out to see if I would share a guest post from Erin Moniz’s book, Knowing and Being Known. They picked a section with a familiar heading to some of my OG readers!
Adapted from Chapter 2, “How the Western World Co-Opted Our Identities”
Hyper-sexualization: Why Can’t We Be Friends?
The cultural values that justify consuming as much as I desire, with the least responsibility or entanglements, do not lend themselves to a discrete moderation of behavior. They require a narrative that supports the centrality of sex in romance idolatry. One of the most effective narratives is that humans are sexual animals that need sex. This uncontrollable, primal urge must be met for adults, especially men, to fully mature into recognizable adults. The “sex machine” vision of masculinity is a long-perpetuated narrative,[1] one that narrative reduces men to their sexual desire by consistently harping on the uncontrollable pull of lust and the idea that men need regular sexual release to function. To effectively sell this message, males must be objectified and reduced to mere animals with little discernment or self-control. Boys will be boys. But modernity has expanded this message and now women are not exempt from being defined by their sexual desires either. The rise of sexual empowerment in second-wave feminism provides an equitable balance where both men and women are told that sex is an evolutionary drive that must be prioritized and acquired . . . or else.
Mutual objectification is just one problem created by hyper-sexualization. But along with this comes the inability to ascribe value to non-carnal relationships. Again, this starts early. Jonny and Suzie are friends, but they can’t just be friends. Whether it’s kids singing about “sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G” or the adult version where we badger them about why they aren’t dating, hyper-sexualization limits relational options. Any healthy, platonic relationship must fight against the pressure to be sexualized. Friendship is cast in a supporting role, yet again. It is a mere steppingstone to the prime actualization: landing a sexual partner.
Using the phrase “I can live without sex, but I cannot live without intimacy,” you can see how controversial the first half of the claim is. Hyper-sexualization requires that sex is a priority. I need it to be happy. I need it to be seen as an adult. I need it because my innards will burst if I don’t partake (or something like that). If I fail to have sex regularly, will I be (gasp!) repressed? There is no way a human life can be meaningful or successful if there is no sex involved, right? Wouldn’t such a person be irrevocably messed up? Isn’t there some kind of medical repercussion if you live without sex? Surely this prospect is not just odd, but counter to our biology.
These narratives that support our sex-centric romance idolatry have resulted in devastating extremes. In October of 2022, an Ohio man was apprehended attempting to kill as many as 3,000 women at a local university. His reasons: they wouldn’t have sex with him. This man claimed identification with the incel (or involuntarily celibate) movement.[2] This fast-growing global movement attracts men who “blame women for their lack of sexual and/or romantic success.” While this movement has gained attention due to the hateful rhetoric and violence it produces, there are psychological studies and even cultural sympathies for why these men burn with frustration.[3] When we perpetuate the idea that it is our right to have personal freedoms and to pursue our desires, all the while claiming that our sexual desires are the most important and essential parts of our adulthood, how can this not be a result? It is maddening that our attempts to stem the excesses of rape culture and sexual violence are often dismissed in our efforts to protect our right to autonomy and sex. It is very difficult to condemn someone for expecting access to sex without creating guardrails that might curtail our own sexual appetites. If you are wondering where consent falls in this, don’t worry, I am getting to it.
In the meantime, Freitas observes that while colleges and universities are seen as harbors of human rights education, when it comes to sexual behavior among college-aged students, they
learn to treat others as objects existing for the sole purpose of providing them a certain good, to be disposed of or put aside once they are done. Within a dominant culture of hooking up, it is normal— typical even—to use others as if they were without feelings or value. The sheer amount of repression and suppression of emotion required for living in the context of hookup culture teaches young adults (or tries to teach them) not to feel at all.[4]
As a college chaplain, I regularly witness the resounding truth of this observation. The chief end of our entitlement and sex-essentialism is the commodification of ourselves and others.
The adage that “sex sells” is an understatement when cataloging the industrialization of romance idolatry. Without question, we have an entire industry built on consumption. From the promotion of hookup culture in television, music, and movies to the variety of dating apps, we are primed to commodify and consume each other.
Mutual objectification is not a cultural liturgy touted in media. The veneer of romantic storylines obscures how sex-on-demand treats people like functions. But, to make room for sex to be readily accessible, it is necessary that men and women are reduced to body parts. The rise in sexting and sending nude selfies to everyone from strangers to acquaintances to classmates highlights the popular exchange of people as parts for our gratification. If the participants are content with this mutual objectification, everyone can walk away getting what they wanted. In other words, relationships become transactional.
But it’s okay because both parties consented to this reduction of self, right?
In sexual or romantic relationships, consent is the first moral rung to hang onto. It is a critically important rung. The problem is that it is also a particularly low rung. Consent is one way to manage expectations to ensure that everyone is exerting their agency and there is no exploitation. Even the culture of consent, however, has resulted in a messy confluence of moral assertions. The problem with consent is that it is not as straight-forward as it often seems. I counsel young women on a regular basis who technically consented to sex when actually their yes was coerced, manipulated, or gained through veiled threats.
Now, don’t get me wrong; consent is very important. No one, married or unmarried, should endure any actions on their person they do not consent to. But if consent is the only mechanism for ethical, healthy intimacy, it will not bear up under the weight of this expectation. Mere consent does not make for a healthy or valuable encounter. In fact, the notion that consent is all one needs has caused frustration and confusion for many college students who were led to believe that a willing partner was all that was required for safety and fun. In the end, the social contract of ambivalence and detachment leads to additional pressure and anxiety, not trust building or safety.
Relationships cannot have humanizing or healthy intimacy if they must sacrifice to the gods of autonomy, entitlement, and productivity. Commodification is inevitable, which makes the relationships transactional. Commodifying sex is like any other consumer industry. I could do the work of growing tomatoes from seed, or I could just buy a tomato and have it delivered within the hour. Commodification allows for instant gratification with little personal effort or vulnerability.
Taken from Knowing and Being Known by Erin Moniz. ©2025 by Erin Moniz. Used by permission of InterVarsity Press. www.ivpress.com.
[1] Zachary Wagner, Non-Toxic Masculinity: Recovering Healthy Male Sexuality (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2023), 49.
[2] Luke Barr and Meredith Deliso, “Ohio ‘Incel’ Pleads Guilty to Plotting Mass Shooting Against Women at University: DOJ,” ABC News, October 12, 2022, https:// abcnews.go.com/US/ohio-incel-pleads-guilty-plotting-mass-shooting-women/story? id=91388041.
[3] Mark Travers, “A Psychologist Breaks Down the Storm That Creates ‘Incel’ Men–And Offers a Solution,” Forbes, April 10, 2023, www.forbes.com/sites/traversmark/2023/04 /10/a-psychologist-breaks-down-the-storm-that-creates-incel-men--and-offers-a-solution/.
[4] Donna Freitas, The End of Sex: How Hookup Culture Is Leaving a Generation Unhappy, Sexually Unfulfilled, and Confused About Intimacy (New York: Basic Books, 2013), 31.
This article is so good at showing that some segments of the church while loudly proclaiming themselves as countercultural, standing against the tide of our "godless" society, have capitulated at a theoretical or philosophical level to the same presuppositions as our culture. As the church, how often are we going with the tide? It makes me wonder how often we are in the same place as the "cultural morass" we decry, even though we "sanctify" our practices.
Amen.
With a caveat: Second-wave feminism explored topics that included sexuality, but few second-wave feminist authors framed sex as an “evolutionary drive” (e.g., as a biologically hardwired behavior).
Rather, second-wave feminists objected to the emphasis on men’s pleasure being centered in the sex act in a way that women’s pleasure was not. (One can see such male-centered focus in books by and for Christians, such as Ed Wheat’s *Intended for Pleasure*.) Second-wavers often emphasized social, political, and cultural factors shaping women’s sexuality rather than a purely biological or evolutionary explanation. In fact many second-wave feminists were even critical of biological determinism, seeing it as a tool used to justify patriarchy.