Quoting Quiverful: Natural Use of a Woman?

QUOTING QUIVERFULL is a regular feature of NLQ – we present the actual words of noted Quiverfull leaders and aks our readers: What do you think? Agree? Disagree? This is the place to state your opinion. Please, let’s keep it respectful – but at the same time, we encourage readers to examine the ideas of Quiverfull honestly and thoughtfully.

Quiverfull movement leader, Mary Pride, in her seminal book, The Way Home: Beyond Feminism and Back to Reality

 

Since the word used for female is connected so strongly with the idea of nursing babies, whereas it has no connection at all with the idea of sexual activity, I believe that God is saying here that when women exchange their natural function of childbearing and motherliness for that which is “against nature” (that is, trying to behave sexually like a man), the men tend to abandon the natural sexual use of the women and turn to homosexuality. (pp. 27-28)

 

Comments open below

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

 

About Suzanne Calulu
  • Cldg

    Yeah, that’s not how it works.

  • seculargal

    There nothing a woman can do in a heterosexual relationship with a man that will EVER make him turn to another man for sex. Nothing! How can a woman, not being “womanly” enough turn a man into a homosexual? If she’s not womanly enough, then you’d think he’d go look for a “womanly” woman, not some masculine man! Mary Pride’s basic knowledge of human sexuality is lacking and her logic is flawed. I’m sure this woman has never read a book on human sexuality, nor has she ever met a homosexual man & asked him what “made” him gay. I can tell you what I know from all the gay boys I met in college – there was nothing a girl could do to make them NOT gay. They were gay and most of them from a very young age knew that they were gay & that was that.

  • http://Alisoncummins.com Alison Cummins

    On the Internet we call that “making s**t up.”

  • Karen

    I…just….what?

  • Rae

    So, if men can’t have sex with women who might get pregnant as a result… they’re going to have sex with someone who will most definitely never ever get pregnant?

    But really, what do they think happens after women go through menopause? That every man with a 50+ wife is just going to start having sex with other men because his wife can have sex without risking pregnancy? Does this lady even think that infertile women exist?

  • heather

    apologies, for some reason my shift key is broken. no uppercase for me :( “hmmm, my wife is being too masculine for my tastes. time to go have sex with something even more masculine.” said by no none. ever.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lucrezaborgia lucrezaborgia

    I’m guessing she never heard of pegging…

  • JetGirl

    Wow. I read a bit about Mary Pride, and she is an engineer with degrees from top colleges. What on earth happened to turn her from scholar to fruitcake? Is this a Unabomber thing? Sadly, she has done far more damage to women than Kaczynski ever did.
    What a betrayal.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lucrezaborgia lucrezaborgia

    Not only this, but she basically advocates for women not having the choices she did.

  • Saraquill

    I have no idea what this woman means by a woman behaving sexually like a man, but I imagine that she imagines it to be a very narrow role.

    More importantly, not every woman is cut out for child rearing, and it’s very offputting to be thought of only as an incubator.

  • JetGirl

    That’s the betrayal. I mean, if you don’t want an education, and dream of being a mom to a lot of kids and being in a patriarchal relationship, fine. But that’s your choice. Why impose it on more than 3 billion humans?

  • Brennan

    Even leaving aside her . . . questionable . . . beliefs about sexual orientation, she’s basically saying that women wanting to have sex makes men *less* likely to have sex with them. I’m no expert, but having spent some time on college campuses, I’m pretty confident that it doesn’t work that way.

  • mary

    I read “The Way Home” recently. I’m not trying to be uncharitable, but if it wasn’t so sad that people actually believe that s**t it would be freaking hilarious. She says elsewhere that women who wear lingerie for their husbands or themselves are encouraging perversion in their husbands. (because lingerie is SO perverted, y’all!) =) Says Ms. Pride, “your husband isn’t attracted to you when you wear lingerie; he’s enticed by the thrill of the hint of sinful, perverted naughtiness” or something like that. So, since she believes that homosexuality is the last step in perversion, she concludes that wearing lingerie around your man can make him gay.
    I’m sorry, but that’s one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. “Guys, being an attractive, adventurous woman and wearing pretty things turned my husband gay” said no one ever.
    If I believed a word of it, I might write the dear woman and request a list of all the stuff that could possibly make my husband gay. Because the lists seems pretty extensive, and I’d feel safer knowing them all….. (sarcasm)

  • persephone

    It’s the curse of Lilith writ anew. Lilith wanted sex cowgirl style, instead of always being on the bottom. For that she was cursed and thrown out of Eden, giving birth to demons. God that gave Eve to Adam, who apparently was submissive enough, but that didn’t work out either.

  • persephone

    I’d really like to know more about her husband and her marriage. The answer should be there.

    Or it could be as simple as her not wanting to deal with the competition of working in her field, tied to a general distast for sex (either because she doesn’t like it or there are issues with her husband). Maybe someone formerly Quiverfull has some insight?

  • Lusy

    If the word used for female has no connection at all with the idea of sexual activity, then clearly there is no need for women to cover their bodies up in public so as to protect men from “stumbling”.

  • Sarah Morehouse

    That doesn’t even bear a passing resemblance to something that makes sense.

    Bear in mind that our culture is a little bit of an oddity in considering men the “sexual” sex. Up to a couple hundred years ago, Western Europeans and their new world counterparts felt that proper men could take sex or leave it, but women just couldn’t help their cravings. The Victorians changed that, partly because (middle and upper class white) women wanted to have some moral leverage to wield in shaping the public sphere from within the private sphere. To assume that the Bible meant something that backs up their 21st century American belief system is to assume that it was written specifically for them and for nobody else. That’s not how scriptures are meant to work.

  • http://existingbetween.wordpress.com/ Joy F

    Right and the scriptures on modesty are completely taken out of context – Rachel Held Evans goes into those in depth in her book “A Year of Biblical Womanhood” for about the best explanation I’ve seen in a while – basically the passages about modesty were referring to materialism; not sexuality. Paul wasn’t saying “cover up you’ll make someone stumble” (also taken out of context because the ‘stumble’ passage is about food, not clothing) he was saying “if you are wealthy, don’t flaunt it, be modest” gold was a symbol of wealth, not of sex. “Braided hair and jewelry” had nothing to do with sex, it had everything to do with the wealthy women flaunting how much money they had and making the poor feel unwelcome.

  • Katie

    I’ve been reading NLQ for quite a while now, but this is the first time I’ve posted. I’d just like to say that the phrase “natural use of a woman” immediatley makes me think of rape. Really, though, if it we’re a QF husband raping his wife, I’m sure a few patriarchs would consider it “natural use of a woman.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X