Jill Duggar and Derick Dillard Engaged! - Part 2

[ViolaSebastian]

Allergic to sperm? Is that really a thing? Like is there really a protein in sperm that could be an allergen?

Yep! And, in a cruel twist of fate, a man can allergic to his OWN sperm.

http://healthland.time.com/2011/01/19/c ... own-semen/

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

Yep! And, in a cruel twist of fate, a man can allergic to his OWN sperm.

http://healthland.time.com/2011/01/19/c ... own-semen/

That's. How is that even possible?!

[lascuba]

Off topic, but got my wondering. What if Jill and Derrick or other fundies have "problems" like being allergic to sperm or vaginismus? Would they know what to do? Would they go to a doctor to get checked? Use condoms?

Jill and Derrick specifically, I think would seek medical help for vaginismus. I just think the Duggar girls wouldn't be so repressed and ignorant about their bodies that they wouldn't go to a doctor, especially since sex in marriage is so fundamentally important. Condoms for a sperm allergy? That might be trickier, since they don't believe in fertility treatments, that would mean no pregnancies. And allergic reactions tend to get worse with time and repeated exposure, so just putting up with it without a condom wouldn't be a safe option.

I read a memoir of an ex-Orthodox Jewish women who had suffered from vaginismus. The way she described her knowledge of her body and sex seems so much worse than the Duggars, and she still got medical help eventually because of community pressure. (EVERYONE knew that she hadn't had sex with her husband yet.)

[IReallyAmHopewell]

Jill and Derrick specifically, I think would seek medical help for vaginismus. I just think the Duggar girls wouldn't be so repressed and ignorant about their bodies that they wouldn't go to a doctor, especially since sex in marriage is so fundamentally important.

Since their God-given purpose is to bear children OF COURSE they would go to the doctor. I honestly doubt any of them will have any problems with sex. My goodness! People went from zero to intercourse on the wedding night for ...oh?...CENTURIES?? :angry-banghead:

One of the things I WILL give the Duggars--Michelle has gone to the hospital most times and,while she may not listen on the "too many kids" thing, she has acted wisely otherwise. Many other such families would have had a martyr mother instead. Jim-Bob did at least allow her to go to a real ob-gyn. I don't imagine he there will be any problem with one of the girls getting medical help.

[tralala]

Keep in mind Jill also studies Midwifery, which I can only think would be beneficial for her in the long run. But I think the fact that they strongly encourage sex as a healthy thing, within the confines of marriage of course. I think the duggar girls will be fine.

[Georgiana]

Since their God-given purpose is to bear children OF COURSE they would go to the doctor. I honestly doubt any of them will have any problems with sex. My goodness! People went from zero to intercourse on the wedding night for ...oh?...CENTURIES?? :angry-banghead:

One of the things I WILL give the Duggars--Michelle has gone to the hospital most times and,while she may not listen on the "too many kids" thing, she has acted wisely otherwise. Many other such families would have had a martyr mother instead. Jim-Bob did at least allow her to go to a real ob-gyn. I don't imagine he there will be any problem with one of the girls getting medical help.

With each other, yes. But pre and extra marital sex was far, far more common than the prudish Victorians who re-wrote/edited history would have you believe. Unfortunately, they did a fairly comprehensive job of this revision and editing in regards to the Western world, so people do tend to be under this impression.

Men throughout Western history were never really expected to be inexperienced on their wedding nights. There are many accounts of people specifically taking young men to a prostitute before their wedding because they had to learn how to perform their "husbandly duties". It was a sign of close friendship/brotherhood to have introduced a man to his first lover, especially in the upper classes, so it gets bragged about in personal letters.

For women, except in cases where women were kept extremely isolated or married off as soon as they bled, pre-marital purity throughout history was probably the same then as it is today. Ladies chambers in the middle ages and through Tudor/Stewart times were known to frequently be quite risque and bawdy! And lets just say there was never a time when contraceptives and abortificants went out of demand.

The real exception to both of these is cases of extremely young or child marriage, but given time to reach sexual maturity, there's plenty of indication that people did not really save it for marriage until fairly recently and then only within certain classes.

And those isolated women/prudish Victorians/etc who did save it had a slough of sexual issues when they finally did marry. The sexual issues of sexually repressed Victorian elite are both humorous and sad to read. Yes, some were fine, but there were many, MANY sexual issues that came out of the Victorian sexual repression.

[Toothfairy]

Allergic to sperm? Is that really a thing? Like is there really a protein in sperm that could be an allergen?

Yep it's real. I read that it can cause the genitals to inflame and can be painful. It's often hard to diagnose. Usually women can't get have sex or conceive the natural way since she is allergic. The sperm has to be washed first and she can conceive through other means. Almost every time a condom has to be used.

At least they aren't "that" dumb

[singsingsing]

For women, except in cases where women were kept extremely isolated or married off as soon as they bled, pre-marital purity throughout history was probably the same then as it is today. Ladies chambers in the middle ages and through Tudor/Stewart times were known to frequently be quite risque and bawdy! And lets just say there was never a time when contraceptives and abortificants went out of demand.

The real exception to both of these is cases of extremely young or child marriage, but given time to reach sexual maturity, there's plenty of indication that people did not really save it for marriage until fairly recently and then only within certain classes.

While I whole-heartedly agree that premarital sex (for both sexes) was far, far more common in past eras than people today assume, the above quoted is an exaggeration, for sure. Before the advent of reliable birth control, and in the context of patriarchal societies, there were very practical reasons for not having sex until marriage or strictly limiting one's sexual partners. There's no way that premarital sex was as common as it is now, and there's certainly no indication that saving it for marriage is a modern invention.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

While I whole-heartedly agree that premarital sex (for both sexes) was far, far more common in past eras than people today assume, the above quoted is an exaggeration, for sure. Before the advent of reliable birth control, and in the context of patriarchal societies, there were very practical reasons for not having sex until marriage or strictly limiting one's sexual partners. There's no way that premarital sex was as common as it is now, and there's certainly no indication that saving it for marriage is a modern invention.

Contraceptive devices and medicines are talked about in Ancient Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, and Ancient Greece (so far those are the three I've studied it could be in more ancient societies that I haven't studied yet). In fact, the first tampon was used as a contraceptive device. And, in Ancient Mesopotamia, they used a medicinal concoction, particularly for women who worked in brothels. We don't have any way of testing the old medicine's effectiveness, though, as there are very few texts available that have plant names written in more than one language, so most recipes (even for food) are lost despite having the texts. Plus, there's the whole problem of the plants may no longer exist (or at least in the same manner they did at the time).

I think it's foolish to think that we are the only society to have reliable birth control. Especially when prostitution was such a common occurrence in past societies, and prostitutes loose money when they're pregnant.

[Mela99]

Yep it's real. I read that it can cause the genitals to inflame and can be painful. It's often hard to diagnose. Usually women can't get have sex or conceive the natural way since she is allergic. The sperm has to be washed first and she can conceive through other means. Almost every time a condom has to be used.

At least they aren't "that" dumb

One of my mom's cousins had this issue with her husband many moons ago. They had her stop having sex with him for almost a year to see if that would help.

[lascuba]

While I whole-heartedly agree that premarital sex (for both sexes) was far, far more common in past eras than people today assume, the above quoted is an exaggeration, for sure. Before the advent of reliable birth control, and in the context of patriarchal societies, there were very practical reasons for not having sex until marriage or strictly limiting one's sexual partners. There's no way that premarital sex was as common as it is now, and there's certainly no indication that saving it for marriage is a modern invention.

I think that was more true for upper-class women. Men have never in the history of ever been expected to stay celibate, and for people where inheritance wasn't an issue because they had nothing to to leave to their children anyway, a women's virginity was unimportant.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

One of my mom's cousins had this issue with her husband many moons ago. They had her stop having sex with him for almost a year to see if that would help.

Did it?

[lilith]

I think that was more true for upper-class women. Men have never in the history of ever been expected to stay celibate, and for people where inheritance wasn't an issue because they had nothing to to leave to their children anyway, a women's virginity was unimportant.

There's also the fact that for farmers and small business owners/tradesmen children were a vital asset, both to help with family work and revenue and to support ageing parents. An infertile wife could be economically devastating. So, especially in rural communities, brides were often pregnant when they walked down the aisle. Proven fertility was far more important than proven chastity. And chastity really couldn't be easily proven in the case of young women who had been working and interacting with men since childhood the way it could be with the sequestered and chaperoned daughters of the aristocracy.

[singsingsing]

Yes, but the point was not that women in past ages were often not virgins when they married; it was the notion that 'pre-marital purity throughout history was probably the same then as it is today', and 'there's plenty of indication that people did not really save it for marriage until fairly recently'. That is simply untrue. We live in a world where women are more empowered than basically any point in Western history, where we have easy access to contraception that is almost 100% reliable at preventing pregnancy and STDs, we have access to legal and safe abortion, we can be confident that people will come to our baby shower and congratulate us and that little Aiden won't be ostracized from society just because Mummy and Daddy weren't married when they had him, and because of all this there is not even remotely the same kind of pressure to marry the first person you have sex with, nor the shame or secrecy that often surrounded sexual relationships due to societal pressures and the risk of illegitimate children and a whole plethora of other things. Yes, many men and women were not virgins when they married, but it's ludicrous to argue that the sexual environment in the Renaissance or the Middle Ages or the Roman Republic or any other past period was basically the same as it is now.

[lilith]

Yes, but the point was not that women in past ages were often not virgins when they married; it was the notion that 'pre-marital purity throughout history was probably the same then as it is today', and 'there's plenty of indication that people did not really save it for marriage until fairly recently'. That is simply untrue. We live in a world where women are more empowered than basically any point in Western history, where we have easy access to contraception that is almost 100% reliable at preventing pregnancy and STDs, we have access to legal and safe abortion, we can be confident that people will come to our baby shower and congratulate us and that little Aiden won't be ostracized from society just because Mummy and Daddy weren't married when they had him, and because of all this there is not even remotely the same kind of pressure to marry the first person you have sex with, nor the shame or secrecy that often surrounded sexual relationships due to societal pressures and the risk of illegitimate children and a whole plethora of other things. Yes, many men and women were not virgins when they married, but it's ludicrous to argue that the sexual environment in the Renaissance or the Middle Ages or the Roman Republic or any other past period was basically the same as it is now.

I don't think most of us are arguing that, just saying that the history of human sexual behaviour isn't as black and white as the fundies make it out to be. In their world view, until the sexual revolution of the sixties ( that they claim ruined society) men and women married as virgins, shared their first kiss at the alter, joyfully accepted all the children god sent them and then the mother educated them round the dining room table while the father worked hard to provide for his household.

While there have always been families who followed this narrative it has never been the norm for the majority in any society.

[lascuba]

Dude, the Romans were freaky as hell! :lol:

It's all to common to assume that the practices of a very specific demographic, in a period of a time that was incredibly short when you think about how long humans have been on this planet, is how things have always been for the vast majority--probably because it was the people in power who lived that life. Like the way conservatives love to talk about the good old days of Leave it to Beaver, when mom staying at home with the kids while dad worked, when the lifestyle they're talking about really only existed for upper middle class white people in the mid-20th century. Every other woman on earth actually had to work for a living, whether that work was bringing in an income or not.

[Black Aliss]

Mullet said that Derick was in Nepal doing humanitarian work and didn't say anything about mission work, I wonder what that was about.

A lot of countries won't issue a visa to do missionary work, but they will let you in to do humanitarian work. It's not uncommon for religious groups to use this mild deception. You do, of course, risk getting thrown out or thrown in jail if they catch you trying to convert people.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

A lot of countries won't issue a visa to do missionary work, but they will let you in to do humanitarian work. It's not uncommon for religious groups to use this mild deception. You do, of course, risk getting thrown out or thrown in jail if they catch you trying to convert people.

As I stated in an earlier post, a quick google search will show a lot of organizations acting under the term "missionary" in Nepal. And, Nepal has an R Visa class for religious workers. You have to be a member of a legitimate religion for at least 2 years to qualify and it'll allow you to:

Carry on the vocation of a minister of the religious denomination; or

Work in a professional capacity in a religious vocation or occupation or organization within the denomination; or

Work in a religious vocation or occupation for an organization within the denomination, or for a bona fide organization which is affiliated with the religious denomination. Bona fide religious organizations in the United States must have tax exempt status as an organization described in section 501©(3) of the InternalRevenue Code of 1986.

And, since the Duggars have no problem saying someone is doing mission work, I rather suspect he wasn't doing mission work but rather humanitarian work.

[Mela99]

Did it?

Not as far as I'm aware. She was never able to get pregnant by him. They divorced eventually, and she remarried.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

Not as far as I'm aware. She was never able to get pregnant by him. They divorced eventually, and she remarried.

That sucks :/

[lascuba]

Since their God-given purpose is to bear children OF COURSE they would go to the doctor. I honestly doubt any of them will have any problems with sex. My goodness! People went from zero to intercourse on the wedding night for ...oh?...CENTURIES?? :angry-banghead:

One of the things I WILL give the Duggars--Michelle has gone to the hospital most times and,while she may not listen on the "too many kids" thing, she has acted wisely otherwise. Many other such families would have had a martyr mother instead. Jim-Bob did at least allow her to go to a real ob-gyn. I don't imagine he there will be any problem with one of the girls getting medical help.

There have been enough accounts by ex-fundie/orthodox women AND men about the sexual dysfunction they suffered because of their beliefs that it's safe to assume it's a pretty wide-spread problem. Maybe not for the majority, but it's common enough that the speculation here isn't baseless.

It's not going from zero to intercourse that's the problem--it's growing up being told that anything remotely sexual, even casual physical contact and private conversations, even your private thoughts, is a horrible sin outside of marriage. Imagine growing up in that environment and then all of sudden your supposed to have sex--it'd actually be a sin not to, now that your married. That you're supposed to go from repressing your sexuality to acting out on it enthusiastically. That's a huge mental and emotional leap to make, even though you believe intellectually that it's ok now that their married.

[roddma]

I think here is a difference in being a mainstream virgin and being one in a shame based Patriarchal society. I am not saying Fundie kids know nothing about their bodies. Mainstream virgin would likely knows more of what to expect and not just basic mechanics . I do agree the time periods Fundies idolize aren't so innocent. " I believe the book "A midwife's Tale' has been mentioned here before talking about the babies from rapes and out-of-wedlock births in the 18th and early 19th centuries..

[louisa05]

It's not going from zero to intercourse that's the problem--it's growing up being told that anything remotely sexual, even casual physical contact and private conversations, even your private thoughts, is a horrible sin outside of marriage. Imagine growing up in that environment and then all of sudden your supposed to have sex--it'd actually be a sin not to, now that your married. That you're supposed to go from repressing your sexuality to acting out on it enthusiastically. That's a huge mental and emotional leap to make, even though you believe intellectually that it's ok now that their married.

I know two women who had a very difficult time early in their marriages because of that message. One of my best friends, who grew up evangelical, struggled in the months just prior to her marriage (even though they dated like normal people for nearly two years, had kissed, hugged and held hands, and she was 29 years old) because she was sexually attracted to her fiance and had been taught that she should not be attracted to him at all until the minister pronounced them married. Things were not easy or smooth for them after the wedding, either. It was not at all a matter of not knowing what to expect. You can't be taught that sex is evil and horrifying and the greatest of sins for 29 years and instantly understand it as good and acceptable in a single moment at the wedding ceremony--even when not going from zero to intercourse as they were not.

[MrsFoxx]

I know two women who had a very difficult time early in their marriages because of that message. One of my best friends, who grew up evangelical, struggled in the months just prior to her marriage (even though they dated like normal people for nearly two years, had kissed, hugged and held hands, and she was 29 years old) because she was sexually attracted to her fiance and had been taught that she should not be attracted to him at all until the minister pronounced them married. Things were not easy or smooth for them after the wedding, either. It was not at all a matter of not knowing what to expect. You can't be taught that sex is evil and horrifying and the greatest of sins for 29 years and instantly understand it as good and acceptable in a single moment at the wedding ceremony--even when not going from zero to intercourse as they were not.

Amen to this. I speak from the experience of a conservative Christian college - lots of shame before marriage does NOT make for am easy transition. Girls who had done some experimenting (or who married guys who had slept with other people fared better but had more guilt and shame.

[KitCatCadillac]

I'm allergic to semen. It's not fun, for sure. And tangentially related, losing my virginity was super traumatic, even though it was voluntary. I bled like a stuck pig. Eventually I had to go to the doctor and get a steroid cream for the RIP IN MY VAGINAL WALL. This was followed by six weeks of no sex. Once I was allowed to do it, I had vaginismus. Needless to say, my sexual awakening was rough going. Luckily I now have a wonderful, patient, understanding, orally gifted boyfriend, and sex is wonderful, if not quick and spontaneous.