Quoting Quiverfull: It’s Good For Men to Objectify Women?

Quoting Quiverfull: It’s Good For Men to Objectify Women? June 30, 2017

quotingquiverfullby Larry Solomon from Biblical Gender Roles – Why it is NOT Wrong For Men to See Women as Sex Objects

Editor’s note: Every single time I think Larry cannot possibly get any viler in his beliefs he ups the ante. I’m skipping all the squishy sex parts in this because I hate throwing up.

Human beings use other human beings every day

Whether we realize it or not, every day we use other human beings as objects. When we get in a taxi we are using that taxi cab driver (an animate object) in conjunction with his car (an inanimate object) to take us to the destination we need to go to.

When you go to a sandwich shop and have the worker construct your sandwich just as you like it – you are using that person as an object to make your sandwich.  When you go to get you hair cut – you are using that barber or hair dresser as object to cut and style your hair.

Farmers use human beings as objects all the time.  During the harvest season a farmer may hire many temporary workers to harvest his crops before they go bad.  He may have machines (inanimate objects) to do some harvesting and for other harvesting he may use animate objects (human beings).

These are just a small fraction of the way we use other human beings in our everyday lives.

Now that we have discussed that human beings are indeed objects and that human beings may use other human beings for various purposes we now need to discuss the rules and boundaries for the use of animate or inanimate objects.

We must have the right to use objects!

Here’s a few examples of Larry’s ideas on why wives own husbands sex upon demand by reducing it to a job like taking photos at a wedding or being a manicurist. No, just no!

Must we account for human feelings before using another human being?

We have shown that God determines what our usage rights are when it comes to all types of objects both animate and inanimate. But just because we have the right to use another human being – does that mean we can do so without regard for their feelings of whether they wish to be used or not?

The answer is in most cases is that human feelings are irrelevant when it comes to the use of one human being by another.

If you hired a photographer to photograph your wedding and on the day of the wedding he just had a fight with his wife or girlfriend and does not feel like working that day is it ok if he does not take your wedding photos? Do you have to take his feelings into account to use him as an object to take photos of your wedding? The answer is no.  In fact you would expect him to have a smile on his face and not trouble you with problems on your wedding day.  He was hired to do a job and he should do his duty regardless of his personal feelings or issues.

What if you and are your girlfriends planned a day to go to your favorite nail salon.  Just before you get there the three ladies who would do your nails got into a big fight and they just want to go home and not do anyone’s nails.  Would that be ok with you? Or would you expect them as their employer would expect them to do their duty with a smile on their face? We know the answer to this. You would expect them to do their duty with a smile on their face and for them to hide any ill-will or bad feelings they had as you used them as object to do your nails.

So here is the truth of the matter as far as humans using other humans is concerned.  If one human has the right to use another human being for a specific purpose then then human being using the other human being has no obligation whatsoever to take into account the feelings of that human being as to whether they want to be used for that function.  And from the perspective of the human being who is to be used for a certain purpose – they must always realize that their duty to perform their function as an object always trumps their feelings.

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.

moreRead more by Larry Solomon

Feminism is a Cult

Stay in touch! Like No Longer Quivering on Facebook:

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

Copyright notice: If you use any content from NLQ, including any of our research or Quoting Quiverfull quotes, please give us credit and a link back to this site. All original content is owned by No Longer Quivering and Patheos.com

Read our hate mail at Jerks 4 Jesus

Check out today’s NLQ News at NLQ Newspaper

Contact NLQ at SuzanneNLQ@gmail.com

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!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Melody

    Ugh, that doesn’t make them objects…. It just means they provide the service that you pay for. You are the customer, you pay for the service. They provide it; they are still people….

    They are not your friends, but they are not objects either…

  • Anthrotheist

    May I fix that for you?

    “I’m skipping all the squishy sex parts in this because I hate throwing up twice.”

  • koolaidyarn

    If you hired a photographer to photograph your wedding and on the day of the wedding he just had a fight with his wife or girlfriend and does not feel like working that day is it ok if he does not take your wedding photos? Do you have to take his feelings into account to use him as an object to take photos of your wedding? The answer is no. In fact you would expect him to have a smile on his face and not trouble you with problems on your wedding day. He was hired to do a job and he should do his duty regardless of his personal feelings or issues.

    I can’t help but wonder how he feels about people actually hired to do a service for a wedding, like photography or baking a wedding cake, if it’s for the wrong kind of wedding.

  • Hannah

    The song ‘Dehumanization’ by Arch Enemy popped into my head as I read this, (spelt with a Z and not an S. *shudders* My spell check doesn’t like it!) Nothing like some Swedish death metal to get the blood pumping in the morning!


    Anyway, I think it suits Mr Creepula rather well. He is a damned, misled child. Something must have gone badly wrong in his upbringing if he thinks objectifying living, breathing human beings like this is acceptable.

    We thank you for your tireless work dredging through that cesspit Suzanne, you do it so we don’t have to. *Passes brain bleach.*

  • Hannah

    Ooh, good catch! I wonder what he thinks of as the wrong kind of wedding? The obvious one is a same sex couple getting married, possibly a pagan or humanist ceremony, a heterosexual couple entering into a civil partnership, because both parties being equal in law would just be wrong! *sarcasm* Anything that doesn’t tie in with his exact set of beliefs is most likely. The possibilities are endless!

  • Saraquill

    Translation: I wanna remain an asshole. If I stretch this thought out into several paragraphs, I’ll look intelligent and convincing.

  • Rachel

    *jumping over the fact that paying someone for a service doesn’t make them an object because someone else already made the point*

    Um, even if someone does provide a service for you, you’re still expected to treat them with dignity and respect. So yes, we do consider their feelings, because if they’re having a bad day then you don’t want to pile onto it, and if they’re having a good day then you don’t want to wreck it. Because guess what? They’re human beings! Not everybody follows this, but those people are generally considered a$$holes.

    Oh yeah, and wife isn’t a job title.

  • bekabot

    Larry Solomon will earn the right to make this point the day he hires a wife and agrees to pay her. (And even then, if he wants to keep propriety on his side, he’ll have to stick to whatever bargain he makes.) Until then, though he may be her boss in a Biblical sense, he’s not her boss in the sense he wants to claim. She’s not his employee.

  • Trellia

    Exactly. Guess what, Larry, people who treat me like I’m an object get the minimum amount of service. (Or end up getting bad cameos in stories.) People who treat me like a person? I’ll find you a bargain book and save you ten bucks. I’ll find an extra coupon in my drawer. I’ll tell you when the book goes on sale and if it’s better to wait. (My brother has something similar at his work where he can tweak prices or not. He calls it the ‘@$$hole tax’.)

  • lady_black

    NO. Actually, Larry, the photographer could cheerfully refund your deposit and tell you to go whistle for a wedding photographer, and you’re such an asshole that he would be justified in doing so.
    So you think you have a “right” to use people? NO YOU DON’T. You have to pay them for their time, and they retain the right to tell you to go screw a cactus if they don’t want to work for you.
    Marriage is not the same as ownership papers. And YES YOU DO need to take your wife’s feelings into consideration, unless, as I suspect, she is a blow-up doll. That’s about your speed.

  • lady_black

    It’s not working.

  • igotbanned999

    How much do you want to bet he opposes legalizing slavery again and doesn’t see the contradiction?

  • Rachel

    I don’t know, somehow I see him being a part of the “slavery wasn’t so bad” crowd a la Doug Wilson.

  • B.A.

    He probably thinks any wedding not in his own fundie faith is the wrong kind,whether a gay wedding,Jewish wedding,Muslin,Buddhist,atheist,etc.

  • B.A.

    I wouldn’t put it past him. I mean being part of the “slavery wasn’t so bad” crowd;forgot to clarify.

  • Anonyme

    Wow, until now I only heard the phrase “usage rights” used for software and copyrighted media…not people.

  • Tawreos

    “…Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” Matt 25:40

    I guess that he treats his god as an object to be used as well. I know most of them do, but they are not usually this bold about it.

  • Mirella222

    Also, in many cases people are not REQUIRED to provide you service at all. Freelancers can back out it they decide that they don’t want to/can’t do that particular job anymore; taxi drivers are not required to accept or continue a ride if a customer is violent, misbehaving, offensive, etc; and most if not all stores and restaurants will have you removed if you are acting poorly, being violent or threatening, being offensive, etc. In other words, you have to respect the feelings of the people around you (including the people providing the service) if you don’t want them to back out or get yourself kicked out!

  • AFo

    Something tells me Larry is a complete asshole to any service workers unfortunate enough to have to deal with him. I hope his restaurant servers spit in his food.

    Also, for his business comparison to make even a little sense re: sex, the woman in question would have to be a prostitute; only in that situation is sex a purchaseable commodity. This should be common sense, but you shouldn’t handle sex with your spouse like that.

  • Emersonian

    First thought I had–I bet Larry would turn around and argue that the photographers’s feelings are paramount if those feelings are “gays are evil.”

  • paganheart

    I was thinking the exact same thing.
    Larry is probably the Customer From Hell to just about every person he does business with. Yes, in the world of work you often have to cheerfully and professionally serve your clients even when you’re having a shitty day. But I know that when I’m having a shitty day, clients who are pleasant and polite can make the day better or at least manageable. On the other hand, customers who treat me like I’m less than human (like Larry probably does) just make things worse.

    And any male who thinks a wife should be a sex-on-demand object doesn’t deserve a blow-up doll, much less a wife.

  • Kathi

    Larry did not think through his examples very well. You pay a photographer for a service. You pay a hair stylist for a service. You pay a cab driver for a service. Sounds like Larry is okay with prostitution…Is he willing to pay his wife for sex since it’s only a service to him?

  • Illithid

    I literally call my employees “nameless, faceless cogs in the [restaurant] machine” and tell them that I’m just nice to them because happy people work better. And they laugh, and they do work well.

    I think this guy would really mean it.

  • Astreja

    Good catch!

    Larry, you are *so* busted.

  • Only Some Stardust

    Erm, if someone had a massive fight with their girlfriend, or their girlfriend just died or something, I would in fact be willing to accept that they couldn’t do the job / were too emotionally compromised to just stand there and smile. I would expect a refund, but if someone is too weepy to take photos, then someone is too weepy to take photos. I’ll just get someone else to do it, it’s not like cameras are rare foreign objects that must be flown in from India.
    What kind of sick bastard uses service people as objects with no thought to their feelings, anyway?

  • mordred

    I fear he might see it this way. Isn’t “My work pays for the roof over your head and the food on your table, so you must all obey me!” quite often said by patriarchs?

  • Jim Jones

    There’s nothing wrong with sexual attractiveness however this guy’s argument is ridiculous.

    You want a sex partner to find you sexually attractive. You don’t need that from your mechanic – or doctor.

  • Jennny

    I realised after leaving the fundy world, that it objectifies in a lot of ways, not just the obvious de-humanising of women. I can’t put this well, but it reminds me of the horrible Steve Anderson who says things like, ‘preached in the street and 44 got saved, then another 3 in a restaurant’. It’s like he doesn’t see PEOPLE, just ‘souls to be saved’, they’re just notches on his belt with no normal social interaction involved. My fundy relative does this, he ‘witnesses’ inappropriately on trains etc and counts heads of folk he’s sure are now ‘very close to the kingdom’. But he hasn’t actually enjoyed meeting them and getting to know them. I think I was guilty of this when, in a small church, we were always delighted to see a new person and love-bombed them…we needed ‘bums on seats’ as we say in the UK to keep open and that trumped our ability to interact normally with them sometimes.

  • Allison the Great

    The personality disorders are strong with this jerk. May his waiters sneeze on his food and may he be thrown out and banned from all retail establishments. May he never be able to find a cab and may all barbers charge him 5 times what they charge everyone else. Even still, this walking pile of shit will never be smart enough to understand that one gets what they give.

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    His wife should charge him double or triple…

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    He has mentioned before on his blog that slavery wasn’t that bad. He totally is.

  • Nightshade

    Naw, he bought his wife, doncha know, and he can do whatever he wants because he owns her now.

  • bekabot

    I dunno. All I’m saying is that he sounds like he’s trying to have the best of two worlds which don’t mix. He’s trying to combine the world of Genesis, in which Eve and Adam have complementary obligations to each other (and in which, though the system may work in Adam’s favor, Adam still owes Eve what he owes her and has a duty to deliver unto her what’s rightfully hers) with the world of corporate management, in which the employer uses the employee as a tool, but recompenses the employee with money as an incentive. Now these two ways of looking at the world don’t blend, and that part of the Goopersphere (to speak roughly and approximately) which flat-out and undisguisedly hates the Enlightenment is always whinging on about how much they don’t blend, and is, in consequence, perpetually recommending that we ditch the post-Enlightenment worldview in favor of the pre-Enlightenment scheme. And much as I dislike that prospect, I have to agree with the people who peddle this recommendation that they do have a point, and a legitimate point. Their legitimate point is that you can’t fuse feudalism with office politics; you have to pick one. That’s as true in the private world as it is in the public world, and what disgusts me most in Larry Solomon’s case is that he thinks he’s superior to the rule (though he’s not). He temporizes; he fails to pick a side. He wants both the loyalty a lord might expect to glean from a serf and the freedom of a action a present-day boss can exhibit towards an employee. In both systems there are costs and benefits, which means that you pay your fee (whatever it is) and make your choice. Larry Solomon doesn’t want to do that, though; he’d rather vacillate, presumably because vacillation affords him an opportunity to grab everything he can get his hands on without paying for any of it. (IOW, IMO, he’s trying to create a cloud of confusion under cover of which he can steal.) I disapprove. We already have too many men of that kind in the secular world, and we don’t need them fouling up the churches too. {/preaching}

  • The Jack of Sandwich

    And no you can’t go get a job to contribute to those costs!

  • The Jack of Sandwich

    In NONE of his examples does he have the RIGHT to use another human being. In each case (other than the marriage) those human beings are freely offering their services for a price.

    But I’ve never seen my marriage as a simple business arrangement.

  • mordred

    Also that. How was the legal situation in the US about that btw.? Here in Germany a man could legally forbid his wife to get a job (or simply go to her employer and quit for her) until the 70s.

  • ConcepcionImmaculadaPantalones

    So….I think the takeaway from all that stuff is that Larry needs to make for himself and then go fuck a sandwich?

    Hope all those condiments are in squeeze bottles not jars.

  • Quinsha

    Beats me. The lady who made my wedding cake was a Christian. She knew it was for a Pagan wedding, and she knew that the theme was Celtic. Now I treated her like I treat most professions that I consider ‘artistic’. With the above information, I gave her a free hand for the decoration of the cake. It had leprechauns and four leaf clovers all over it. The wedding guests, including my Roman Catholic mother loved it, and I know for certain that the cake decorator got three other orders from my pagan guests that day for future events.

    Edit: Spelling

  • zizania

    As the owner of my second-hand book store, I have complete freedom to give discounts or even give books away if necessary. (I don’t accept debit or credit cards, so I have on occasion given a book to a traveler who had no other means of payment.) But one thing I can tell you, people who are friendly and courteous are much more likely to get a discount that the ones who say things like: “Three dollars!!?? I could get that for fifty cents at the thrift store.” By the way, I think I’m way nicer to bus drivers and serving staff than Doofus is to his friends and family.