Quoting Quiverfull: Riding a Bike?

Quoting Quiverfull: Riding a Bike? January 5, 2013

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.

Jim Bob Duggar from the book “A Love That Multiplies”

“To explain the importance of purity (saving yourself for the one God has made for you), I [Jim Bob] told the other children, “Imagine that your parents are going to surprise with and give you a brand new bike for Christmas. Two weeks before Christmas, they buy your bike and hide it in the strange shed in the back yard. But then the boy next door sneaks into the shed and borrows your new bike; he stunt rides it up and down the back alley. On Christmas morning, your parents lead you out to the shed to reveal the special gift they bought for you, and as they open the door and say ‘Surprise!’ they’re just as surprised as you are. You’re all shocked to see that the bike looks like it’s been thrown off a cliff. The front fender is missing, and the front tire is warped so it rubs on the frame. It’s dirty, the paint is all scratched and chipped, and the seat has a big rip in it. IT looks worse than something you would have bought at a garage sale. I’m sure you would still be grateful for the bike, and you would have fun riding it, but it won’t be in the condition your parents hoped and dreamed it would be when you received it. You would miss out on a lot of enjoyment they meant for you to have.”

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


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Lolly

    This guy ran a used car lot, didn’t he?

  • Nightshade

    To continue this (flawed) analogy…a woman who has been ‘ridden’ previously might be more enjoyable, she might know more what she’s doing and not be totally clueless!

  • Nancy B

    I suppose–to Jim Bob–an intact hymen is something sakin to a shiny fender? Oh Jim Bob. Sex does carry the risk of pregnancy and STD’s. But if a young woman or a young man has a sexual relationship with someone (or someones) before he or she meets “the one,” he or she may be wiser or more jaded, more aware of what he or she needs sexually, or ready just to jettison all thought of those previous lovers and eager to look to monogamy.

    But unless one has been damaged by abuse or rape, the physical act of loving another human being does not leave one ruined, broken and unattractive; does not reduce a special humanity to garbage. Human beings–no matter how many lovers–are not bicycles. And human beings–no matter how chaste–are not angels.

    Perhaps you give too much thought to virginity, Jim Bob. It probably is not a healthy fixation.

  • thank you for yet another reminder that misogyny means ‘hatred of women’. It seems that religious conservatives have no compunction about being open with their hatred.

  • Nea

    So there are two lessons here, and it’s hard to tell which is creepier:

    1) Women are equivalent to passive objects (that you “have fun riding” yet!)
    2) The important thing to focus on about someonething that was kidnapped and abused is that it is now beaten-up and unattractive for you, not that someone committed crimes against it.

  • What if the neighbor boy loved the bike and added things on to it that made it even better than before? Why is it always assumed that someone else will run and damage something? A husband could do the same thing to a woman.

  • I am uncomfortable with the concept of defining purity as “saving yourself for the one God has made for you.”
    Firstly, God never said anyone should “save themselves for another human.” The Bible define sexual purity as something you do for God and for your body, not for another person. The distinction is important, and proves that what he support in this case is not Christian, but just patriarchy: God and his honor takes a back seat, and girls are told to do the things they should do for God and for themselves for men instead.
    Secondly, the Bible makes purity the job of all Christians. Male and female, married and unmarried, those who can say no and the slaves who have no recourse to say no to their masters. (Slaves, both male and female, were often used for sexual purposes in New Testament times.) As such, it seems the New Testament writers did not regard someone as impure for being molested against their will.
    Thirdly, the Bible never said that God made someone especially for you. Even if you believe he made someone for some people, Jesus said some were born to be single. If purity is saving yourself for the one God made for you, and God made nobody for you, there would be no purpose in saving yourself. The idea imply those meant to be single may sleep around.
    Here is a talk about that: http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/what-is-wrong-with-girls-staying-virgins-for-their-future-spouses/

  • Sarah

    This comment needed a drink warning.

  • Chakolate

    Is that how he sees his wife? Like she’s been thrown off a cliff? Damaged goods?
    What a toad.

  • Oh the irony!

  • Tori

    He has an unhealthy obession with his daughters vagina. He is an unfit parent and he is an uncaring husband. I wouldn’t allow him near my child.

  • madame

    Was he only addressing his daughters? I think purity is preached both at girls and boys. Both girls and boys are expected to stay pure and not to have any physical relationships with people of the other sex.
    I find the analogy crude and lacking in any understanding, especially because the whole analogy sounds more like rape than consensual sex. What would a girl or boy who had been molested or raped have to say about this silly bicycle story? Does he think a widow(-er) is also a broken bicycle?

  • invidosa

    Comparing a human being with emotions, thoughts etc. With an inanimate object that you can own such as a bike is insulting at best, and an example of how these people view their chidren (especially their female children) at worst. Someone’s needs to remind them that slavery, although permitted in their precious bible, was outlawed years ago.

  • madame

    Bicycle, you got abused like that because you weren’t modest enough. Had you covered up your shiny fenders and made sure your nicely oiled virgin chain was properly concealed, you would still be shiny and new. Tsk tsk.

  • Rae

    “miss out on a lot of enjoyment you were meant to have”.

    Because comparing women to property just isn’t enough, he’s also implying that men somehow deserve to get enjoyment from their wives’ bodies, and/or are naturally entitled to have a wife.

  • Petticoat Philosopher

    Thing is, describing the bike as severely damaged by use DOES seem much more like a metaphor for rape than it does for consensual sex, doesn’t it? But, of course, the problem with comparing a person to a bike (well, one of the problems. And let’s face it, it’s comparing a woman to a bike. It’s not a coincidence that it was a BOY next door who borrowed it in his analogy) is that a bike is not capable of consenting to being ridden or not. So if the neighbor boy borrows it, is that more comparable to consensual pre-marital sex or to rape? But…details, details! Who really cares if the woman consented to pre-marital sexual contact or not? The important thing is that her vagina is untouched! No need to bother talking about pesky little distractions like consent.

    Oh yes, the Duggars are just so wholesome.

  • saraquill

    That’s what I find perplexing about this sort of analogy. By that logic, even if it’s with your spouse sex more than once is tainted.

  • He’s not implying, he really believes that.

  • ji

    and hiding yourself in the shed isn’t good enough! 😉