Quoting Quiverfull: Undressing America?

QUOTING QUIVERFULL is a regular feature of NLQ – we present the actual words of noted Quiverfull leaders and ask 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.

From Vision Forum: Jeff Pollard’s book “Christian Modesty” pages 17 – 18

This led me to examine modesty in general and then swimwear in particular. Why swimwear? Because Scriptural evidence convinced me that modern swimwear is immodest nakedness; and historical evidence convinced me that it was designed to be so. After a good bit of research I discovered that the fashion industry employed swimwear to change public opinion about modesty. In other words, fashion designers used swimwear to undress America. And this is diametrically opposed to Christian modesty.

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
  • http://alisoncummins.com Alison Cummins

    This seems so convoluted and paranoid. And also suggests a need for everything to have an external director. We wear clothes because God told us to. We take them off because the Fashion Industry told us to.

    Not — human beings use clothing for comfort, practicality and social signalling. Apparently nothing can have a purpose on its own, it must be decided by an external force. Individuals who make private choices like how covered they want to be in what weather and what social context are actually choosing which external entity they are going to obey, not what is sensible and pleasing as judged by themselves.

    In this interpretation of the world where each decision, no matter how minor, is made in obedience to some external entity, just getting up in the morning must require lots of reading and study to find out how to do it in the way the correct entity told you to. Argh!

    Disconnecting people from their own judgement is one of the worst things you can do to them.

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

      Fundy logic = http://youtu.be/2PSueHOY-Jk

      A bit of cursing, but the convoluted logic fits perfectly!

      • http://calulu.blogspot.com Calulu

        Lucreza that is hysterical!

  • Nightshade

    In a perfect world decisions about clothing or lack thereof would be made in a purely independent fashion, based on practical considerations (temperature, need for protection, etc.) and what the wearer likes, with complete disregard for what others think is ‘proper.’ The actual choice is almost invariably affected by the opinions of others, however, so the next question to be raised is who will be allowed to influence that choice? Following whatever is in style makes little sense to me, never has, maybe I’m weird that way, I dunno. What real difference is there between wearing the latest ‘style’ and conforming to someone’s interpretation of what their god wants you to wear? Allowing someone else to decide for you, just marching to a different drummer. It’s really not all that different except there’s more guilty subtext when religion is judging for you, and whatever fun one finds in attire is eliminated entirely. Better to preserve what independence can be done where clothing is concerned and make that choice yourself. If other people don’t like it, for whatever reason, they don’t have to keep looking!

  • Petticoat Philosopher

    This just highlights the absurdity of using a bunch of several-thousand-year-old texts and the societies they came from to determine the practical standards by which we must live today. Is the fact that modern swimwear would have been considered immodest in the Roman Empire/ancient near east supposed to be some kind of revelation to us? I don’t need “scriptural evidence” for that, I need a shred of historicity and a little common sense. The question is…so what? You know what else would have looked awfully silly and gotten some stares in those societies? Men wearing pants! No really, Jeff Pollard, go check out the scriptural evidence. Pants are totally unbiblical. You will not find one man in the bible who ever wore pants. Therefore, Good Christians (TM) must fight the evil modern scourge of pants!

    Just ridiculous…

    • http://wayofcats.com WereBear

      ~Therefore, Good Christians (TM) must fight the evil modern scourge of pants!~

      This cracked me up! This Very Obvious Point has completely passed them by!

      I remember my own astonishment when my mother informed me I was supposed to wear a skirt because “it was more modest.” What? Something that could, at a moment’s notice, expose my underwear to anyone who cared to look, was more modest than pants, which couldn’t?

      It never made any sense to me.

    • Rae

      Actually, in many other parts of the world, and particularly in many ancient cultures (especially including, but not limited to, Rome) the fact that you’re *wearing* something to swim in would be what was unusual… granted, many of those instances might be in single-gender situations, but I still doubt that QF leaders would be fine with skinny-dipping if it was single-gender. Heck, in some parts of the world, what’s usually advertised as “modest swimwear” in QF circles will get people saying “no, you can’t wear street clothes in the pool, you have to wear stuff that’s made for swimming.”

  • Sarah

    Does the author provide any sort of documentation for the claim that “the fashion industry” deliberately set out to change society’s ideas of modesty? Or did he find it out simply by reading the claim in some other work of fundamentalist literature?

  • Andrew

    Genesis 2:25
    Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

    That was how God intend things to be originally. It is because of sin we are self conscience of our bodies. The funny thing is that although the NT talks about modest clothing, it doesn’t define it.

    • http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com krwordgazer

      Good point– and to the extent the NT does talk about modesty, it is much more along the lines of not being showy with wealth than it is about not revealing skin.

  • Karen

    Modesty is in the eye of the beholder and his/her culture — I’ve seen pictures of women in hijab and abayas playing in the ocean. OTOH, there are lots of places, especially in Europe, where tops are optional for women as well as men. There’s even a nude beach less than an hour’s drive from where I live, but I can’t imagine people actually use it much; I live in Northern California where beaches are generally cold places, and I don’t think I’ve ever walked one without a jacket. I do water exercise in an outdoor pool with a t-shirt covering my swimsuit, because that reduces the area required for sunscreen, which I need even in winter. (Damned Nordic genes.)

    The point is that trying to apply modern cultural notions of modesty based on the bible is a fruitless exercise. We’ve redefined modesty with almost every generation; it’s one of the ways culture evolves. Get over it.

  • madame

    Anything that is remotely comfortable for swimming in and that allows for getting out of the pool comfortably will definitely be labeled “immodest” by the fundy crowd. It doesn’t matter how covered up you are when you step into the pool, as soon as you step out, it will all be clinging.

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

    I couldn’t help laughing at his use of the phrase “After quite a bit of research” – research from where? The Sports Illusrated swimsuit edition?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X