Content Advisory: When I talk about Evangelicals, inadequate sex ed, and rape culture, I tend to cuss a little, and if that’s what offends you about this piece, you probably aren’t its primary audience. Also, I’m writing this from a straight male perspective, so I welcome input on how female and LGBT readers have experienced this culture differently. Lastly, please note that this article speaks to meetings between adults; minors require a different (and very necessary) set of protections.

I grew up in an Evangelical bubble, and the abstinence-only sex ed I received at church and school did not address rape or molestation or power dynamics. It assumed a world where it’s always men who pursue women (never the other way around), and once you get married, you can have all the sex you want! (And yes, that was the big selling point of our school’s abstinence-only sex ed assembly: get married first so you can have incredible sex three times a day!) This sex ed never mentioned birth control, and it taught that condoms were not 100% effective, so they shouldn’t be trusted at all. It focused on avoiding porn not because porn can fuel male entitlement and the commodification of sex, but because we need to “keep ourselves holy.” Knowing that too deep a dive into the Bible would create way more questions about “biblical marriage,” our church’s sex ed relied on scare tactics about STDs and suggested people who “give themselves away too early” would feel guilty forever. It assumed everyone was straight; it promoted the narrative that men are inherently more sexually aggressive (without actually discouraging said aggression); and it established sex as the glorious end destination of relationships rather than just one aspect of them.

In other words, the Evangelical sex ed I received was a giant steaming pile of shit that encouraged treating sex like some sacred taboo and didn’t acknowledge women’s agency in the slightest. It kept us from talking about sex. It gave us no framework for consent. And it forged an association between sex and guilt which, for some couples, has even ruined sex within marriage. And while I don’t think inadequate Evangelical sex ed is to blame for Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and Donald Trump, it’s certainly adding to the problem and creating a culture where people like them can thrive. When sex is put on a pedestal, when consent is never discussed, and when everything is being taught from a straight male perspective, can it really lead to anything but rape culture? Rather than address all this underlying crap, Evangelicals lift up the “Billy Graham Rule,” and with the recent revelations about Harvey Weinstein, this rule has been dragged out into the spotlight once again.

The Billy Graham Rule –or, as many now know it, the Mike Pence Rule– states that a male leader, particularly a pastor, should never meet alone with an adult woman who isn’t his wife lest something inappropriate occur between them. The rule is dubious since it ignores women’s agency and assigns all the power to men’s sex drives. Still, when I was in church-based ministry, I did observe this rule, just not for the traditional reasons.

You see, I already have my own guidelines in place. When meeting with anyone, I remember that the person I’m talking to is a person, not an object. I also don’t assume every person I meet is attracted to me, just as I am not attracted to every person I meet. I don’t act on every impulse, and I find that people who do tend to be shitty people. I don’t derive pleasure from exerting authority, and I think the people who do (Weinstein, Trump, etc.) shouldn’t have authority. I have just enough self awareness that, if I do feel attraction to a person and sense attraction in return, I know to refer that person to another minister or professional counselor rather than continue to meet. And of course, on top of all this, I also have an incredible fiancee, and we’ve pretty well established that molesting people is a deal-breaker. So, given all these guidelines, why did I need to observe the rule?

Well, no one can gossip like church folk, and I discovered early in my career that just being seen with a woman meant I would get a million questions from my church. Funnier still, since I was single during much of my youth ministry days, not being seen with a woman from time to time meant hearing whispered speculation about my sexuality. So for seven years I had to play this bizarre game where I kept my private life private except when it was prudent to “be spotted” with my girlfriend at a movie or “accidentally” let her name slip in conversation. It was completely ridiculous of course, but it was the game I had to play to keep doing work I was passionate about. So I get why the Billy Graham Rule is there: it’s the nuclear option to prevent church gossip.

The Billy Graham Rule is sexist as hell, comes from a place of paranoia, and is only exacerbating Evangelicalism’s sex ed problem, but I can’t deny that the rule kept a lot of people from spreading a lot of rumors about me over the years. Some guidelines are good, and I still prefer to have all my meetings in public spaces just to make sure no one’s getting the wrong idea. As for the Billy Graham Rule, it’s only necessary in two situations:

#1- You’re in a setting where you need to be protected from shitty people’s gossip.
#2- You’re a shitty person yourself, and people need to be protected from you.

If you’re in situation #1, I’m sorry you’re going through this. I’ve been there, and it sucks. If you can get out, I promise there are better opportunities out there, but if you can’t, just make sure your office has a really big window and that your policies to prevent sexual misconduct are known and followed. I hope to see Evangelical attitudes toward sex and gender shift, and maybe you can be a part of that effort, but if not, know that there are far healthier conversations happening beyond the bubble.

If you’re in situation #2, well, have you ever considered not being a shitty person?