Nala Rey, Her Conversion, and The Manosphere

Why the skepticism? What to do?

I’d never heard of OnlyFans until a few years ago, when I saw a news article about someone getting fired from a job because a co-worker reported her to HR for having an OF account.

I didn’t realize how big that site was.

But recently, I’ve seen some news stories regarding some prominent OF “creators” (I guess that’s what they’re called.). One of them, Nala Rey—who had made millions of dollars per year as a “creator”—became a Christian and left her old job behind.

Almost immediately, many men in the Manosphere began questioning the legitimacy of her conversion to Christianity, although, if anything, she lost money over it. Some took the fact that she does not articulate Trinitarian theology as evidence that she’s not really saved. (I guess that means we need to dismiss everyone who affirms Eternal Subordination of the Son.)

Seriously, most PASTORS don’t even get the Trinity; so color me skeptical over these clowns who want to throw dirt on Nala.

More recently, though, we have a sector of the Manosphere who takes issue with Nala for not giving away all of her money that she earned in the porn industry.

But why should she? While we would agree that her prior profession was a terrible one, Nala committed no crime. Unlike Zaccheus, she did not defraud anyone. She stole from no one. Everyone who paid to look at Nala, knew exactly what they were getting.

I see a lot of men insisting that Nala apologize to the men whose lives were ruined by the porn industry. But I've seen no calls for Christian men--who once used her body for their fantasies--to apologize to her for using her that way.

Yes, Nala was involved in a horrible industry. But let's be honest: so were the men--many of them Christian and MARRIED--who consumed her pictures and videos and whatever.

It's like a lot of these men want it both ways: they want to lead women, but they want women to be responsible for their sins and vices.

How about this: I don't give a rat's petoot what your sex is, you are responsible for your own sins and vices.

Calling people to responsibility is recognizing them as adults; we can do that without shaming anyone.

This is true for Nala; it is also true for those who are entangled in porn.

As for Nala, she obviously has a crap-ton of baggage that she'll be unpacking for a long time. But we don't need to make it harder for her than it already is. I'd say the same for the men (and women) who have porn issues.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist--which I am--to note that we have a large segment of people in the Church who are drowning in porn. Getting untangled often requires getting to the bottom of what drives that entanglement in the first place. Shaming folks over it? That just gives us more of what we have now.

We should welcome Nala. We should also confront the shame-based culture that has added gasoline to the fire that powers this epidemic.

Responsibility: 👍

Shaming: 👎

---

In response to that, I was confronted with someone who insisted that Zaccheus JOYFULLY returned his monies, and that they don’t see Nala JOYFULLY giving back her money.

For one thing, these men are on a mission to steal Nala’s joy. For another, I’m still not buying that comparison they make.

Why not?

Looking at Zaccheus, what were his fundamental sins?

Being a tax collector WAS NOT, in and of itself, a sin. But the way tax collectors enriched themselves WAS.

Zaccheus used the power of the Roman Empire to extort money from taxpayers way beyond the required taxes.

It was good for Rome and really good for Zaccheus. He was a bottom-feeder who stole from people using the tip of the government spear. He had sold his identity as a son of Abraham for a nice living. (Notice how Jesus called him a "son of Abraham" in pronouncing his salvation.)

So when we read of his fruits of repentance, he gave back to people from whom he extorted money. He was repenting of his actual sin.

As for Nala, what was her actual sin? I think we would all agree that it was a high-tech form of prostitution.

None of us is disputing that Nala’s prior line of work was a sinful and dishonorable one. She sold her body for the pleasure of others, making a lot of money in the process.

But Nala didn't steal any of that money.

The Scriptures never impose on prostitutes the burden of giving their earnings away. So why do Nala’s critics do this to her?

Personally, I see a few things going on here:

(1) A lot of men--and more than a few women--are entangled in the porn world, finding victory over that addiction elusive. Many of them have spent big money to fuel their habits; some have even gone broke doing this. And for many of them, Nala was probably a recipient of their money.

(2) Men are used to being shamed over porn use. Just as pastors love to dunk on women who have abortions, they also dunk on men who use porn. (Even though many of those same pastors are themselves big users of it.)

Ergo, when a lot of these men see someone like Nala--who was a big star in that industry--receiving Christ and being welcomed, all while they get shamed, a lot of them respond with contempt.

Rather than confront the shame-based culture that feeds the problem--which actually requires work that you can’t do with a sound bite--contempt comes easier.

(3) That contempt often moves them to engage in a form of DARVO: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. Why do I say that? They deny the legitimacy of her conversion, attack her for not "repenting" according to their arbitrary standards, and then cast themselves as victims of people like her.

I suggested that her Christian customers may owe NALA an apology for using her body for their pleasure. To that, one respondent suggested that would be tantamount to telling a drug addict to apologize to the dealer who got him into drugs.

I’m calling full stop on that.

Whoever introduced you to porn, it wasn't Nala. It was likely your father--who kept porn mags and videos around in the house, or whom you walked in on while he was watching it on the Web--or another family member or someone else who may have used it as a grooming tool. Or it could have been a classmate who brought his magazines to school. Or a friend who showed it to you.

You owe none of them an apology. But your PARENTS may owe YOU an apology for their porn use that became a snare to you.

(Yes, ladies and gentlemen: you are accountable for your porn use. And if your kids get exposed to it because of your use of it, then you have a lot of baggage you need to own, especially if it causes them deep problems in adulthood.)

But Nala isn't the culprit; she's not the one who pulled you into that net.

Nala will, as she unpacks her baggage, likely spend a lot of money on therapy. Probably well into six figures. And as she has left her prior life, she will need to forge a new life. That will also require investment.

Given that none of us are in her circle, those particulars are none of our business. Unless Nala asks for my advice on that front, I won't give her any. And given that she and I don't even know each other, I don't see her reaching out to me anytime soon. 😂

Seriously, I had not even heard of Nala until the firestorm over her conversion began. But from what I’ve observed, I don’t see a good reason to question the legitimacy of her conversion.

So I extend the same welcome to Nala that I would for any man who comes to the fold. And as such, I put no burdens on her that I wouldn't put on anyone else.

As for the larger issue of stewardship—what she does with her money—that is something that all Christians must practice. And HOW we do that is paradoxically both a matter of liberty and sacred responsibility.

That goes for you and me; just as it goes for Nala. But HOW we flesh that out in particular is between each one of us and God.