I have to admit. I too, just like Sierra, have a problem with Michelle Duggar and her recent comments on the beach and clothing that doesn’t fall into the realm of her idea of modesty.
These are the only Duggar-approved swimwear available. You might as well be wearing a burkini, at least the burkini is more attractive and modest than these things.
Here’s my rant about it. I never made it to the intellectual depths that Sierra did on the long term repercussions for the Duggar children. It struck me as more of the ‘Sex on the brain’ syndrome that certain strains of fundamentalism seems to dwell on.
After reading this about the Duggars yesterday I’d just about reached a boiling point. The whole modesty issue is so twisted by the right wing and the fundamentalists in this nation. The Duggars seem to sum up the more conservative views on dress and appropriateness. Which goes beyond ridiculousness, or at least it seems that way to me on a day when the temps here are going to go triple digit.
Now, I’m not advocating running to the Super K Mart in booty shorts and pasties over your ta-tas, even if it’s tempting on a day like today. Use some discretion when you dress and dress for the occasion, your body and the weather. Nothing about Fundie Dress 101 takes any of those factors into consideration. It’s all about not tempting some poor weak-minded male into not having a boner after viewing your knees and being reminded you have breasts. Potato sacks of varying degrees lest you reveal the shape of your God-given body.
None of these modesty types seem to realize that to normal atheist worldly men the sight of a slipped bra strap or a knee is NOT going to be sexually exciting at all. Again, with the fundamentalists, it’s all about sex. For people that seem to think sex is only right between a husband and wife for the purposes of conception they spent way more time thinking about sex than even the average pervert or porn addict. Sex. Sex. Sex!!!
I notice that Michelle Duggar has a new fundy buzzword to use when discussing going to the beach and modest clothing – Defraud. The way she uses it is if you get someone else sexually excited via your lack of clothing and you’re obviously not going to do the nasty with them in a righteous way then you have defrauded them. Personally I think she’s seriously misusing the word, but then again much of the word secret handshake fundamentalist usage is misuse. So what does Webster’s give as a definition of ‘Defraud’?
to deprive of something by deception or fraud
It is a stretch to say that luring a guy into lust by your clothing is defrauding him.
Another thing that just pisses me off about patriarchy is that there is no responsibility for the male. All the onus for lust is put on something done by a female as if males are little weaklings that cannot control their own urges and lusts or minds. It reduces men to little more than rutting animals, to lesser beings and is one of the most insulting towards their sex misconceptions held by the conservative arm of the church.
Knees are not breasts and men can control how they react to possible sexual triggers in public.
I pity the Duggar gals this week with the widespread heatwave throughout much of the US, bringing triple digit heat. There’s no way I would be wearing sleeves or long skirts in those temps.
Comments open below
Calulu lives near Washington DC , was raised Catholic in South Louisiana before falling in with a bunch of fallen Catholics whom had formed their own part Fundamentalist, part Evangelical church. After fifteen uncomfortable years drinking that Koolaid she left nearly 6 years ago. Her blog is Calulu – Roadkill on the Internet Superhighway
NLQ Recommended Reading …
‘Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment‘ by Janet Heimlich
‘Quivering Daughters‘ by Hillary McFarland
‘Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement‘ by Kathryn Joyce