Quoting Quiverfull: Shop Window Porn?

Quoting Quiverfull: Shop Window Porn? April 5, 2014

by Veronika Winkels from Ladies Against Feminism and Mercatornet.com – Shop-Window Porn Violates Children’s Rights, So Let’s Fight It

My sister Anna and her husband Jacob have four young children, all daughters whom they are trying to raise to value their own dignity and face the world with self-esteem and confidence.

This, they have discovered, is becoming a full time job, since today’s culture seems bent on actively hindering their efforts at cultivating these virtues in their girls.

If that sounds like a sensationalist spin on the challenges of parenting today, consider this example. While driving her eldest daughter Lucia home from her first piano lesson one afternoon, Anna stops at a red light on a busy intersection in Melbourne.

As the car stands stationary, Anna notices Lucia quietly observing something outside her window. Following her gaze Anna sees, to her utter dismay, a large advertisement on the corner building depicting a pornographic scene in which two women, clad in nothing but scanty black lingerie, are sexually positioned. I personally think Anna would have been justified in running the red.

This is not an isolated incident but an indication of the permissiveness of our culture, a virtue championed only by secularist fundamentalists. More than that, permissiveness breeds apathy towards the task of nurturing a future generation with strong characters and moral integrity. This endeavour is often rejected as fostering intolerance and small-mindedness, but that too, I consider unapologetically as blatant idiocy, and the scapegoat through which one may shirk this duty.

(Editor’s note: While there is no way to determine if the original author is Christian or Quiverfull this is a prime example of Quiverfull beliefs being pervasive in our culture at a core level. Plus it’s a good example of the grasping at any straws Ladies Against Feminism do to justify their own stance against anything not straight out of Quiverfull thought)

Comments open below

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 and Spiritual Abuse honestly and thoughtfully

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!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • centaurie

    Acknowledging that people wear underwear that is sometimes more on the sexy side is scandalous now????
    (I’m not liking the sexualization of women and girls in general advertisement either, but I can sorta make an exception for *lingerie*????)

  • Joy

    “I personally think Anna would have been justified in running the red.”

    Author, I really hope you don’t mean that literally. You think she should have risked her life, her daughter’s life, and the lives of anyone else going through the intersection just to avoid a lingerie display?

  • Edie Moore McGee

    My mother used to say that the Victoria’s Secret windows were “porn.” We used to laugh at her behind her back. Then, one of her granddaughters got a job there….

  • Anne

    These people say they’re helping their children stay pure by protecting them from these images, but all they’re really doing is hyper-sensitizing. I see ads for underwear and (what these people would call) skimpy clothing all the time and don’t even notice them. When they insist on girls covering up more than the mainstream culture does they’re setting their children up for “failure”. Whenever they see an ad for it they’re immediately going to notice it because they’ve been told not to and then feel horrible guilt. It’s awful.

    On a side note, I don’t know if any of you’ve read Passion and Purity by Elisabeth Elliot, but when I was 15 or so I remember that book being so almost shamefully erotic to me. Was it? No, it was just talking about them on a lonely beach, but for my overprotected mind it was a big deal.

  • bekabot

    R-rated ads aren’t championed by “secularist fundamentalists”; I am one, and I know. “Secularist fundamentalists” are often indifferent toward that kind of stuff, but many of them would be happy to see less of it, because in secularist-fundamentalist circles the prevailing feeling is (as I can testify) that it’s profoundly manipulative and that it borders on being disrespectful. (The prevailing feeling in secularist-fundamentalist circles is pretty accurate, IMO.) In rare cases where “secularist fundamentalists” do indeed have emotions which are spoken to by ads like the one which is described here the experience is not guaranteed to be pleasant or life-affirming, since there are many people who aren’t comforted by seeing things they regard as mightily private displayed on street corners. (My belief, which I can’t prove, is that there are no fewer modest souls in secularist-fundamentalist circles than in reelio-troolio-fundamentalist ones. Heck, there may even be more.) It isn’t “secularist fundamentalists” who pack the infosphere and the public square with recherché ads, it’s businesspeople, who have found out that ads that raise eyebrows are great buzz-creators and who have also found out that when all else fails the possibility remains that you can get some conventicle of bible-thumpers or League of Concerned Mothers to pitch a fit and partially recoup. If the “secularist fundamentalist” world ignores you, turn toward the legions of worried parents who are convinced their kids are being attacked: they’ll make all the noise you could ask for, and they’ll keep on making it for a long, long time.

  • Nea

    It’s the hyper sensitivity that makes me wonder if it was really all that bad in the first place, much less bad enough to break traffic laws (and endanger the kid physically) to escape. I’ve said several times over at Libby Anne’s that the “soft core porn” Debi Pearl describes a pre-teen boy somehow finding for free in a hotel sounds awfully like any given detective or lawyer show.

    If you make it a huge deal, you. Not only hyper-sensitize the kids, you make it forbidden fruit, which is 100x more attractive. If you’re calm,,the kids will be too. Which is better when raising kids, calmness or setting them up to be over sensitive and over curious?

  • persephone

    I don’t have a problem with lingerie ads; I have a problem with objectification of women and their sexuality, which is related to patriarchy. If men were advertising underwear, it’s highly unlikely they would have them posed in a sexualized way with another man. If my kids were in the car with me and we passed something like that (unlikely here in the U.S. of pornographized violence and repressed sexuality), I’d probably say something like, “Yep, sex sells. I wonder if those models are even of legal age.”

  • Em

    And the solution to objectification? Take away all women’s rights! It makes sense if you don’t think about it.

  • Nea

    Highly unlikely? It’s the standard for Benetton and International Male.

  • One does wonder just which mind is the dirty one!

  • Not to mention that most of the really sexualized underwear ads are for designer brands. Ads for low- or mid-price brands tend to focus on how comfortable they are; Calvin Klein focuses on how sexy the model is. Because if you’re going to ask $30 for one pair of white cotton panties you have to strongly suggest that they do something else beyond cover up your ladybits, and what they’re suggesting is that they’ll get you laid.

    Edit: shoot, this was supposed to be a reply to NeaDods and Persephone.

  • Petticoat Philosopher

    I’d be far more concerned about how photo-shopped the bodies in that lingerie likely are. Especially since children of these modesty-obsessed people will likely have little-to-no exposure to real, adult human bodies until they develop their own and/or see those of their spouses. That’s not a recipe for some major complexes at all!

    Still not enough to make me blow through a red light though. Good grief!

  • aim2misbehave

    Yes, this was exactly what I was thinking! She’s worried about her daughter seeing women in underwear – which she’ll see plenty of in the mirror when she’s older – but she’s not worried about the fact that those women’s highly digitally altered bodies are being presented as “normal”?

  • LisaP

    She’s worried that her DAUGHTER is looking at WOMEN’S underwear. Because…….that kind is “bad”, she’s worried her kid will become a lesbian, it’s inappropriate for a girl to think about wearing lingerie? I don’t get this at all. And I really hope that “running a red light” is not a serious solution to the author. Ugh! This kind of stuff drives me up the wall! I actually knew people that would remove the “bad” magazines from the front rack, make a scene and then throw (I’m not exaggerating) them into the magazine aisle all over the floor. If you honestly have an issue with this kind of stuff, can’t you be an adult, go home and call the company and voice a complaint.