Part II: Culturally Normalized Does Not Mean True or Relationally Ethical

In Part I of this series, we looked at sexual behavior being heavily influenced by the social scripts one adopts. Cultural scripts can become so familiar that we stop recognizing them as scripts. We begin to experience them as “the way things are.” Once that happens, we may stop examining the beliefs we have internalized and the ways those beliefs affect how we treat one another. This is especially important when those beliefs shape sexuality, marriage, consent, and expectations about what one person is entitled to from another.

It is our position at Center for Peace that culture can explain the origin and normalization of a belief, however it does not establish truth, morality, or ethical legitimacy. Cultural scripts influence how people understand relationships, sexuality, entitlement, and consent, but they do not remove individual responsibility for how those beliefs are examined and enacted. Thus, ethical intimacy requires recognizing one’s spouse as a separate agent whose consent remains their own, regardless of marital status, sexual history, expectation or prior agreement.

Culture Explains; It does not excuse

Human beings are meaning makers – yearning to know why things happen to us and what these events and experiences mean. We are also social beings, who thrive in community where we maintain our sense of belonging. It is within these communities and socialities that we feel ‘normal’ – or as we suggest, it is where we can feel most grounded and centered in ourselves. 

As we interact in our various relationships, we can become conditioned by the values and ideals of others. Rather than examining these influences and deciding for ourselves what we believe, we can allow cultural narratives to become our standard. We organize ourselves around meanings we have never really questioned and sometimes surrender our judgment to voices we assume have authority—science, mental health, religious leaders, or other institutions.The consequences become particularly visible in the way we understand sexuality, marriage, and human relationships. 

Regardless of what human beings adopt as sexual beliefs, rights, entitlements, or rules of negotiation, these scripts do not excuse one from the responsibility of choice. Left unexamined, it is easy to default to an idea that may lead one to act on coercive narratives.

Socially Constructed Ideas do not Establish Moral Truth

To clarify our positions, let’s briefly define “Social Ontology,” which provides a useful way to examine how human beings collectively construct, recognize, and reproduce social realities; and the way we view some institutions and categories as reality – this is largely because people collectively assign meaning to them and continue to act according to that meaning. 

This is true for money, the assignment of state or country lines, and many other non-concrete elements of the world in which we live. Money as an example highlights our collective recognition with its value and the system used to exchange funds for goods and services. Borders work in a similar way. Our socially constructed reality does not mean it is imaginary or inconsequential. It means that human beings have maintained a shared understanding and agreement for how we organize ourselves around lived conditions. 

Understanding how a belief was constructed helps us understand why people believe it. But knowing where a belief came from does not make the belief true, just, or ethical. An idea that has been widely accepted, historically reproduced, or institutionally reinforced does not establish the belief to be true, just, or relationally ethical. What might be common or assumed to be ‘normal’ does not justify acting on it when known harms or social wrongs are evident in the outcomes of those decisions. 

In addition to how reality is formed, let’s consider the construct of being relationally ethical as the way we engage another person in such a way as to both recognize and honor their inherent dignity, autonomy, agency, and right to self-determination; coupled with taking personal responsibility for how one’s own thoughts, desires, choices, and behaviors affect the relational environment. In this mindset, we consider not only our own internal framework, values and incorporated scripts, as well as agency and personal accountability in our interactions with others.

Marriage and Sex

To maintain the focus of this series, we will constrain this analysis to sex within marriage, and hope that those who have other relational constructions can find application within the points presented due to space constraints here that limit addressing the matter more granularly. Additionally, this section will focus on normalized expectations that can position husbands as sexually entitled to wives, the underlying ethical principle is not gender-exclusive. We strongly note that no spouse has authority over the other spouse’s sexual consent.

As we follow the progression from desire and expectation to perceived entitlement, we can see how pressure and coercion can emerge within marital relations. Our position holds that sexual desire in and of itself is not the problem. However, issues can arise when one holds expectations of their partner that lead to pressure for sex rather than healthy requests for sexual connection. Additionally, we note that men’s disappointment in a wife’s refusal to sexually connect must be managed within themselves so as not to result in coercion. 

One of the greatest gifts we have as human beings is the intimate and physical sharing of ourselves with someone we love and care for. In the context of marriage, sex and intimacy can have a variety of meanings and values, depending on the individual’s beliefs, attitudes and personal value systems. 

For example, a man who believes his wife is an extension of himself, or his property, may believe sex is owed to him. This belief may have been reinforced and internalized through his family, community, religious traditions or other social influences. Understanding informs how we learn and acquire beliefs and values, but it does not determine what is done with those acquired ideas. In contrast, his wife may hold an opposite viewpoint due to her own inculturation experiences in life. If these meanings and expectations are not openly examined and communicated, differences in sexual desire and meaning can become fuel for conflict, resentment, coercion, and abuse. 

When the desire for sex overrides the agency, autonomy and consent of the other, problems arise. Expectations founded in notions of entitlement are evidence of poorly navigated cultural scripts. It is critical for the well-being of both husband and wife that there is acceptance that desire does not guarantee sex or intimacy in the marriage. One’s sexual expectations or hopes do not give anyone the right to impose an obligation. A marital status is not permanent consent for sexual relations. To request and express interest is relationally appropriate, however, to pressure, guilt, or cause a partner to meet a presumed obligation is sexual coercion.  

A behavior or belief can be culturally normalized without being true and moral. In sexual relationships, cultural scripts must therefore be examined against the agency, autonomy, dignity, and consent of the people involved. Wanting sex is a natural part of being human, but to believe you are owed sex is an ethical distortion. Marriage creates a relational commitment, not authority over one’s partner’s sexual choices.

Agency, Responsibility and Reciprocity

Belonging to another person by marriage, or to a family, a society, a world, means you are responsible for how you conduct yourself because of those relationships to others. All choices have consequences, and what you think and do can have an impact on others around you. Regardless of what is purported in our cultural narratives, every human being bears the responsibility for the scripts they incorporate and how they act on them. 

When a man adopts a script that he “gets” sex from his wife, the script transforms a mutual act into an entitlement, holding the potential for positioning his wife’s consent as an obstacle to an obligation he believes already exists. These adopted narratives can become the foundation of a power and control dynamic. These mistaken ideas may be embedded in cultural scripts, but they are not permissions to disrespect and coerce consent.  A wife has the agency to say no to sex. A husband is agentically responsible to respond ethically to her no. In short, agency is not simply a decision about what happens with one’s body, it is also a responsibility for what one does with one’s agency in relation to others.

Behavior Matters, Personally and Relationally

Beliefs and attitudes can influence one’s behavior, but they do not determine it – regardless of how repeatedly reinforced cultural narratives seem to permeate. Thoughts are said to be like an internal blueprint for human behavior, shaping what we say, do, and ultimately become over time. Our beliefs influence our behavior, but they do not determine it. What matters relationally is not simply whether our thoughts and actions are consistent, but what those thoughts and actions produce in the lives of others. Repeated choices provide evidence of how a person is exercising their values and responsibilities.

Cultural scripts can provide the rationale through which behavior is interpreted and justified. Between belief and behavior remains human agency. A person may be very aware of entitlement-based sexual scripts and still reject them. Conversely, a person may recognize that a belief is harmful and nevertheless continue to act according to it. This is why behavioral correction requires more than awareness; it requires agency, responsibility, and sustained self-correction.

As we reassess, aligning ourselves with relationally ethical values, we can see the links from adopted social scripts that lead to harmful thoughts and potentially coercive actions. This connection from how and what one thinks to what one does – and the impact of those behaviors on others is inseparable. Scripts can inform one’s attitudes and choices, but they do not determine outcomes disconnected from agency and responsibility. 

Self-Correction and Relational Responsibility

A culture can explain where a belief came from without excusing the individual who chooses to retain it. Culture can explain how ideas and attitudes are formed. Cultural conditioning can constrain perception and choice, but it does not automatically eliminate responsibility for how a person treats another person. However, one’s agency is always present in the adoption and execution of those scripts. How a person uses that agency reveals something about their character. 

To have a self-corrected character, one must be aware of socially fed narratives, and be willing to examine those narratives to determine whether to adopt or reject. There is no space for excuses and justification that reduces responsibility. How one was raised, or how one believes men are taught lets others know how the scripts are acquired, but the actions that affirm those beliefs are evidence of one’s character and values. The origins of one’s beliefs do not make them legitimate or appropriate. 

Personal history or family dynamics are not a pass for the adoption of harmful scripts. To create peaceful relationships we need to identify the harmful narratives we’ve adopted, considering our  social responsibility to others within our influence and the exercise of our agency in a manner that helps to preserve the dignity of others.

Relational peace cannot exist where one person believes they have the right to override the agency of another. A husband cannot experience peace in his marriage by expecting his wife to surrender her agency to meet his perceived needs. And a wife cannot be expected to carry the responsibility for managing her husband’s disappointment when she says no. Peace requires something deeper than stopping harmful behavior. It requires examining the beliefs underneath the behavior and choosing beliefs that support dignity, agency, autonomy, mutuality, and responsibility. Peace is not simply the absence of coercion. It is the presence of relationship practices and intrinsic values that honor the humanity of both people.