Quoting Quiverfull: Patriarchs Can Fantasize About Other Women & Not Sin?

Quoting Quiverfull: Patriarchs Can Fantasize About Other Women & Not Sin? October 14, 2015

quotingquiverfullby Biblical Gender Roles from Biblical Gender Roles.com – The Church, Women and Barbeques

Editor’s note: Yes, yes, BGR compares women to a consumable inanimate object in this post – thick juicy steaks. But he so routinely dehumanizes women to objects that’s not even the shocking part. The shocking part of this entire thing is his claims that God is a-okay with you imagining having sex with your neighbor’s wife. He’s playing Bible Twister again! Anyone can play! Just take a verse out of context, claim is means something other than what most people think it says and then use it to make something sort of maybe at least a tiny bit morally squishy you do perfectly acceptable. Not that there’s anything really wrong with sexual fantasy at all, but trying to make it Biblical is pretty odd.

But while sexual relations between a man and woman are reserved for marriage alone, this does not mean our sexuality itself is reserved for marriage alone. In other words the focus of all one’s sexual thoughts and sexual energy does not have to be solely directed at one’s spouse.

The Bible does NOT forbid sexual fantasy and sexual imagination. Rather the Bible forbids sexual covetousness which is also referred to as adultery of the heart (mental adultery) or lust.

The Bible condemns sexual imagination that is evil, but not all sexual imagination. We are forbidden from imagining ourselves in sexual acts that are a violation of God’s design of sex. God designed heterosexual sex(sex between a man and a woman), but things like homosexual sex, orgies and bestiality are corruptions of God’s design for sex. Even thoughts of heterosexual sex can be become sinful if they become covetous imaginations(adulterous thoughts).

But aren’t all heterosexual thoughts outside of marriage sinful?

As we just stated God designed sexual relations between a man and woman to be ONLY within marriage.  Some people reason from this that even imaginations of heterosexual sex are reserved only for marriage and only about the person you are married to.  They would say that just as it is wrong to have homosexual imaginations or imaginations about bestiality it is equally wrong to have heterosexual thoughts about someone you are not married to.

But thoughts of heterosexual sex are not wrong in and of themselves.  God created us to desire and think about heterosexual sex – it is his gift to us. It is always the context of heterosexual thoughts that makes them right or wrong.

QUOTING QUIVERFULL is a regular feature of NLQ – we present the actual words of noted Quiverfull leaders, cultural enforcers and those that seek to keep women submitted to men 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.

If this is your first time visiting NLQ please read our Welcome page and our Comment Policy!

Comments open below

NLQ Recommended Reading …

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement by Kathryn Joyce

13:24 – A Story of Faith and Obsession by M Dolon Hickmon


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


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

    Is this man trying to justify affairs/sexually harassing anyone who looks remotely female?

  • Jennifer Frieda

    Oooh, wait. So if I see a hot guy and fantasize having sex with him that’s ok as long as I ALSO fantasize we’re married?? It could work!! No limits there!

  • Melody

    It is wrong… no it isn’t… yes, it is… I don’t think he knows his own opinion on this one. Sounds like: it’s wrong for everyone else but me…

  • Antoinette Herrera

    I’m going with yes.

  • Antoinette Herrera

    Pretty sure that El Gran Pendejo would let women know that they’re not free to look at, or fantasize about, other men.

  • Antoinette Herrera

    Shorter El Gran Pendejo: It’s not committing adultery of the heart when I scope out hotties, or imagine sexing them up. (Don’t get any bright ideas, ladies.)

    And hey, I’m all about the ladies. Not the dudes. Not the man on dog action. I am absolutely, positively, 100% straight, manly, and Godly. No deviating from the norm here. (Nobody better imply that I’m overcompensating…)

  • Nightshade

    ‘We are forbidden from imagining ourselves in sexual acts that are a violation of God’s design of sex.’ And imagining ourselves having sex with a partner we aren’t married to is A-OK, so apparently sex outside of marriage doesn’t violate his god’s design?

    Also in the course of his writing Mr. BGR ends up advocating polygamy…no surprise there.

  • BlueVibe

    No, look, sorry, we’re now in complete BS-Ville. When every “rule” has a long list of exceptions, conditions, and qualifiers, it’s no longer a rule. It’s somebody trying to have his or her cake, eat it, too, and make sure nobody else gets any.

  • Jennifer L.

    I would imagine his wife’s mind isn’t always “present” either. Wonder what he would think of that?

  • gimpi1

    Biblical Twister®. I love it! Let’s all play. Quick, find some verses that glorify greed, the GOP needs them stat.

  • mayarend

    “It’s wrong for everyone else, but I want to do it so it can’t be wrong for me let’s find a way to say it’s not wrong to me”

  • mayarend

    i’m going to say the looks don’t matter as much as having the ~right~ body parts, in his book.

  • Julia Childress

    Ha, ha – whatever fantasies I enjoy, God says says okay, enjoy. Whatever fantasies I find icky, God finds icky. How transparently self-serving is that?

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    He seemed to be saying in other parts I didn’t quote that if there is no male to female penetration then it’s not adultery..

  • roooth

    i know these religious liars deny science when its inconvenient to them, but brain studies have shown that imagining an activity lights up the same areas of the brain as actually doing the activity.

  • Anonyme

    “And hey, I’m all about the ladies. Not the dudes”

    Mr. BGR is too afraid to reveal his name, but in his background information he makes sure to emphasize that he’s a straight white male.

  • FrequentFlyer

    Oh, but why would we do that? We aren’t interested in sex like men are. If a woman is fantasizing about it, she is a twisted, unnatural creature. All we have to do is allow the sex to happen. We don’t need to be interested in it.

  • ChrisFromNewEngland

    It’s nice to see Evangelicals make the distinction between human lust and dangerous lust – you know, the way that guy named James did thousands of years ago – but in many cases it’s way too little, way too late.

  • Sarah Anne

    Pretty sure he didn’t even get that far. Women don’t have sexuality of their own.

  • Sarah Anne

    Hey! At least this should alleviate the need for modesty, because dudes thinking about having sex with women ISN’T wrong!

  • Astrin Ymris

    Yes! She’s not “causing him to stumble” if sexual fantasies aren’t a crime, so logically, she should be able to wear pants, shorts, tank tops, and real bathing suits. ;-D

  • Allyson Smith

    I love how when he likes the literal interpretation of specific verses, without any reference to context, we must stick with that interpretation. He found a verse that says that women were created for men? Well, it must be true, and we can’t look at the preceding verse to get any context, and we certainly can’t look at the next verse that says that men are born of women, no siree. He found some verses about wives submitting to husbands? We can’t put those in context by looking at husbandly duties or, worse, by looking at the command that believers submit to one another, and anyone else who tries to do that is a heretic and a latent “feminazi.” But as soon as he sees a verse that appears to forbid him from doing something that he wants to do? Well, we’ve gotta put that in it’s proper context, yes we do!

    On the flip side, at least he’s getting away from the toxic idea that being sexually attracted to someone who isn’t your spouse is a sin, that women have a duty to make themselves appear less attractive and sexy so as not to tempt men, or that being sexually attracted to a woman provides an excuse to stare at her, catcall her, or worse. Of course, he also thinks that women have a duty to always make themselves as hot as possible so that he can ogle them, so there’s some self-interest in that too.

    Okay, he didn’t say that it was so that he could ogle them, but it’s implied. If he’s offended by women who aren’t his wife dressing down and not always looking their best, then we can guess that he thinks that every woman should look hot to please his boner…oops, I mean to honor God.

    Edit: I’m not trying to claim that scriptures are egalitarian by any means. But as BGR’s frequent claims about feminism infiltrating Christianity because pastors don’t think that they can discipline wives who aren’t putting out enough show or because a lot of Christians put forth the idea that wifely submission is voluntary make clear, it’s entirely possible to take a less hardline stance on these issues than BGR does.

  • Women don’t have minds, and if one (by chance) does happen to think, it’s not like her thoughts count or matter. So it’s a total non issue.
    Ugh.

  • AuntKaylea

    My first thought when reading this is that he might be justifying an addiction to pornography.

  • Rachel Heston-Davis

    I can’t even follow what he means. So imagining sex is okay until it becomes “covetous?” What the crap does THAT mean? Maybe if he defined what that meant I would know where to even begin responding. Does “covetous” mean fantasies about a woman who is already with someone else (i.e. that guy’s “property” in the writer’s view)? Does “covetous” mean that if you imagine about many different people it’s okay, but if you get fixated on having to have one certain person it becomes wrong? HELP A GIRL OUT HERE, MR. CONFUSED WRITER MAN! I can’t even tell what you’re saying!

  • AuntKaylea

    The whole concept of “submission” is mostly taught in gross error to the Greek used for the original text. The Biblical term means to “lovingly yield oneself on behalf of another”. Yielding indicates strength, thoughtfulness, and yes, willful choice. And is under the umbrella of community where every Christian is called to so submit to one another.

  • pl1224

    Good point. Allons, mademoiselles et mesdames–to the backs of our closets! Time to dig out the shorts, tank tops, bikinis and slinky LBDs!

  • Allyson Smith

    I think that it means actively plotting to have immoral sex with her. It conveniently gives him a lot of leeway.

  • ConcepcionImmaculadaPantalones

    I’m imagining how much happier his current wife would be if she left this idiot and had fulfilling, satisfying sexual relations when *she* wants, with someone else. Someone who would treat her with respect and never like she’s just a ‘pincushion’.

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    Notice he’s not exactly saying that women can safely fantasize about men…

  • ConcepcionImmaculadaPantalones

    That’s why I’m imagining it for her! 😉 I’m not beholden to what BGR says or thinks! 😉

  • BondGurl7

    Yeah, I am pretty sure Jesus said that if a man looks at a woman with lust, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart. And last time I checked, adultery-having sex outside of one’s marriage, is a sin, period.
    I would also like to point out that this scripture speaks of a MAN’s responsibility in looking lustfully at a woman, but says nothing about a woman forcing him to look at her.