Duggars: Women ‘Defraud’ Men by Dressing Immodestly

I‘ve written very little about the whole Duggar thing with the son and his sisters. I’m much more concerned, honestly, about the toxic theology and ideology that the family pushes, which would be true regardless of this latest sensational story. Here’s a perfect example, from a 2011 book they published:

We believe that a man’s physical drives are excited by what he sees, and it is defrauding for a woman to wear clothing that accents her body, instead of bringing attention to her countenance. Defrauding means “stirring up sensual desires that cannot be righteously fulfilled.” We know that certain desires are a normal part of adolescence and adulthood, but as much as possible, we want to help our children to learn to have self-control over their desires. And we don’t want to defraud others. The Bible tells us not to be a “stumbling block” (Romans 14:13. So we choose to dress modestly.

There’s just so much wrong with this. As always with fundamentalists, the burden is entirely on the woman not to tempt the man, never on the man to control his own actions (not his desires). There’s nothing wrong with a man seeing a woman, regardless of how modestly or immodestly she dresses and feeling sexually aroused, but they certainly can control what they do about that. This treats men as sexual automatons who have no control over themselves at all.

But it equally treats women as nothing more than temptations for men. What about a woman’s sexual desires? They are treated as if they don’t exist. In this twisted ideology, men have sexual desires and women are just sexual objects, not independent people who have their own sexuality and their own feelings. Women can look at men and be just as sexually aroused, but there’s never any attention paid to how men dress, only to how women dress. All of this is really about controlling female sexuality by locking it away and pretending it doesn’t exist.

Oh, and they have no idea what the word ‘defraud’ means either.

POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • John Pieret

    Why don’t they just get on with it and have all their girls wear burqas?

  • Alverant

    “This treats men as sexual automatons who have no control over themselves at all.”

    Worse. It acts like men have no obligation to control themselves when it comes to sex, that somehow if a woman excites them she is obligated to satisfy him. The burden is on her, not him. It’s like MRAs before it became a thing.

  • Larry

    I mean, what is a brother to do when his 8 year old sister is asleep in her bed wearing her pajamas like some street walking tart. She’s just asking for some, uh, attention.

  • blf

    Are these people “sovereign citizens” by any chance? The reason I ask is that set of kooks is notorious for redefining well-understood words to mean whatever they want it to mean; that is what seems to be happening with that wacky definition of defrauding.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    and it is defrauding for a woman to wear clothing that accents her body, instead of bringing attention to her countenance.

    What if faces turn us on?*

     

    I like big face and I cannot lie.

    You other brothers can’t deny.

    When a girl walks in with an undefined waist and a countenance in your face

    You get sprung…

  • arakasi

    Furthermore, the Duggars have made a big point about his sisters forgiving him. What they didn’t mention in that statement is that refusing to forgive him is also considered a sin. That’s a nice little permanent “Get out of jail free” card

  • lldayo

    @1 John Pieret

    Why don’t they just get on with it and have all their girls wear burqas?

    Because that would make them indistinguishable to muslim fundamentalists. BTW, your last name I pronounce as “pirate”. AARGH!

  • annaelizabeth

    I am beyond weary of these fucking religious assholes telling me how to dress, whom I can sleep with, and what should happen to me if I don’t listen.

    And then when the religious assholes are proven to be child rapists, or facilitators of child rape, I kind of lose my cool.

    Fuck you, Duggars. Fuck you, Protestants, Catholics, and all of you other idiot cultists.

    Fuck you, *this* Bisexual chick is going to live, dress, and do as she likes.

  • http://festeringscabofrealityblogspot.com fifthdentist

    Are you an immigrant to the United States who misses the flavor of the Middle East? Pining for those minarets you remember from youth in your homeland?

    Then try our new product: “I can’t believe it’s not Islam.” With 99 percent of the religiously motivated bombings removed but 100 percent of the misogyny, I can’t believe it’s not Islam will satisfy your need to have your sexual frustrations taken out out on those slutty tarts who dare to flash an ankle and who put you at full mast because they’re half dressed.

  • Nemo

    Yeah, I don’t see why they don’t just use the word “tempt” here, which is much more on point, well-understood, and a popular Chrsitian classic. There must be some twisted logic to it.

  • John Hinkle

    It’s a good thing conservatives are all about personal responsibility.

  • otrame

    I figured out when I was about 17 that the main purpose of religion, ALL of them AFAIK, is to control women. No matter what they say, the outcome of religion is the control of women. Men, not so much. Men can do pretty much what they want. If their actions are against the dictates of the religion, they just blame it on women and that is the end of it.

    I little later I figured out that the second purpose of religion is to funnel money, and thus power, to a few people. When I was a kid it was mostly the Catholic Church that made this obvious, as most of the protestant churches I knew anything about were small. These days it is pretty obvious everywhere.

  • Abby Normal

    Oh, and they have no idea what the word ‘defraud’ means either.

    Using common words in alternative ways is one of the hallmarks of a cult. The psychology is fascinating. It helps create feelings confusion and uncertainty. The authority figure then provides a new definition, restoring stability. This pattern of creating and resolving uncertainty is repeated again in again in a number of different ways. It establishes the leader as the sole source of security in a chaotic world. The unique language that develops also helps to separate the in-group from the rest of society.

  • cptdoom

    n this twisted ideology, men have sexual desires and women are just sexual objects, not independent people who have their own sexuality and their own feelings.

    Well, Mama Duggar has actually said that wives cannot refuse sex to their husbands, so that part’s not even hidden – it’s a feature, not a bug.

  • erichoug

    So, here’s a helpful time saver, when you see the following phrases or any variations of

    1) The Duggar’s said…

    2) The Duggar’s feel that…

    yeah, you can stop reading.

  • Pen

    They don’t give a toss about men ‘defrauding’ women and girls by being sexually alluring, because they take it for granted that women won’t be able to do anything about it, especially without putting themselves at risk. Occasionally, this turns out not to be true, but in those cases, their ideology allows them to look down on the male victims just as readily as on the more common female victims but for different reasons.

  • Francisco Bacopa

    I think they know exactly what “defraud” means and are using it correctly to describe their horrible view of human sexuality. it’s like this: If a woman causes sexual desire in a man, she is obligated to satisfy that desire. Therefore, if she cannot or will not satisfy that desire because of her righteousness, she has committed fraud.

  • Trebuchet

    I mean, what is a brother to do when his 8 year old sister is asleep in her bed wearing her pajamas like some street walking tart. She’s just asking for some, uh, attention.

    I think it’s pretty safe to say that the “counselling” the girls got after being molested pretty much amounted to the above. Blame and shame.

  • busterggi

    “it is defrauding for a woman to wear clothing that accents her body, instead of bringing attention to her countenance. Defrauding means “stirring up sensual desires that cannot be righteously fulfilled.”

    I guess they figure –

    a) women don’t have attractive countenances

    b) looking attractive is evil

    So when are all these good Christians going to start attacking men who dress well & look successful?

  • llewelly

    Unfortunately this ideology is not limited to extremists like the Duggars. It’s common to nearly all conservative Christians, and even many Christians who are not particularly conservative.

    It also turns up in largely secular arguments about rape: “what was she wearing?” , and it turns up again in all that MRA crap about makeup being deceptive.

  • caseloweraz

    One of the ads here touts a cure for what it calls “toxic gut syndrome.” Too bad there’s no pill to take for “toxic god syndrome.”

  • annaelizabeth

    @ llewelly – agreed. My Dad was one for all the “modesty-shaming”, he was a Deacon in the Southern Baptists.

    And, I do use makeup to play up my assets and downplay my flaws, but I don’t give a fuck what MRAs think or say about it.

  • caseloweraz

    Nemo: Yeah, I don’t see why they don’t just use the word “tempt” here, which is much more on point, well-understood, and a popular Chrsitian classic.

    Yes, it’s right there at the beginning: “The woman tempted me, and I did eat.”

  • caseloweraz

    Wow! Lots of intense discussion around the Amazon one-star reviews of the Duggars’ book A Love that Multiplies.

    Yes, the Duggars can multiply, but they apparently can’t add two and two.

  • Die Anyway

    > “…but they certainly can control what they do about that.”

    Several of the ‘clothing optional’ resorts in this area have sponsored 5K races at their facilities. As a runner, I have competed in some of those races. One of the things that is made clear is that just because you (as a male) see a woman naked doesn’t mean that she is sexually available. Hundreds of nude men and women mingled and chatted while waiting for the race to start and did so again at the post-race refreshments and awards. No one was groping, grabbing, rubbing, or anything else remotely suggestive. Men *can* learn to accept that seeing skin does not equal sex, and *can* control themselves. It’s a matter of training and understanding but America’s Victorian attitude doesn’t help.

  • Rabidtreeweasel

    This was really confusing for me as a kid. I’m a lesbian, but I didn’t know I was a lesbian. I believed that the reason I didn’t feel sexual desire towards men was because women experience attraction differently. I was taught that women feel romantic desire instead of sexual desire, so I just assumed my lack of desire for men was proof those teachings were true.

    As for the sex dreams I was having about women, well, that was just something that I assumed everyone has to deal with. After all, I was taught that being gay is a sin, so I assumed everyone was tempted in the same way.

    All of these things fucked me up for a very long time, to the extent that I married a very abusive man because I thought that marriage would make me magically want to have sex with him. Because that’s another thing we were taught- that married sex is way better than unmarried sex. I thought marriage would cure my lack of desire, and that if I desired my husband, then I wouldn’t be tempted by women anymore. Those beliefs still confuse me to this day.

    The whole Duggar scandal is one of many unfortunate outcomes of this toxic belief system. We should stop being so surprised when these things are made public and just assume that, where these beliefs exist, horrible things are happening to the psyches of the children involved.

  • Rabidtreeweasel

    Apparently I don’t know how to block quote. Please ignore my poorly wrought html code in #26.

  • http://wanderinweeta.blogspot.com Susannah

    The word “defraud” comes from the King James Version of the Bible. Misinterpreted, of course.

    Here it is, in context, 1 Cor; 7:

    Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

    2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

    3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

    4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

    5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

    In other words, married couples owe each other sex, without need of consent; “the wife hath not power of her own body…” Somehow, modern Christians skip the second half of that equation.

    And consent, when it is needed, is not to have sex, but to permit opting out, even temporarily.

    They then extrapolate that to refer to how a womanfemale looks and acts toward men not her husband, and now, to excite desire in a man – any man – when he is not her owner is “defrauding” him.

    Now, it seems ridiculous, but my whole life was shaped around this rule, for decades.

  • carpenterman

    This just ties in to the last post. So many fundie Christians just plain hate sex. They think it’s BAD, and if you enjoy it, you are BAD too. So they want to do all they can to make sure NO ONE enjoys sex because it’s BAD, so if you do it, something BAD should happen to you. They don’t want contraception or reproductive health care because they genuinely believe that if you have sex, you should get pregnant or catch a disease. Because you had sex. And that’s BAD.

  • noe1951

    It always amazes me that these poor, poor, men – who can’t seem to control themselves if they see a woman, think they should be able to control others. Soo sad /s

  • Pierce R. Butler

    Daddy Duggar, while running for the US Senate in 2002 (even as little Josh diddled his sisters):

    Rape and incest represent heinous crimes and as such should be treated as capital crimes.

  • hexidecima

    how unsurprising, a hypocrite Chrisitan running for political office/

    thanks, Suzanna for the King James clarification.

  • Zmidponk

    Hmm.

    We know that certain desires are a normal part of adolescence and adulthood, but as much as possible, we want to help our children to learn to have self-control over their desires.

    In order to learn self-control over these desires, the desires actually have to be there to be controlled, so Isn’t having women cover themselves up so that they don’t create and/or provoke those desires actually the worst way of teaching this self-control?

  • http://wanderinweeta.blogspot.com Susannah

    In order to learn self-control over these desires, the desires actually have to be there to be controlled, so Isn’t having women cover themselves up so that they don’t create and/or provoke those desires actually the worst way of teaching this self-control?

    No, no, no! You’ve got it all backwards! It’s the women who create those desires, so therefore, it’s the women who have to have self-control. (Not that they have any “selves” of their own to deal with; they don’t. It’s that they are responsible, in all matters sexual, for controlling the men’s “selves”.)