Jill & Jessa Special, Sunday, December 20

[apandaaries]

22 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

Children are children.

They shouldn't have the intimate details of their lives exposed to the world for time and eternity.  They should not be working.  They can't consent to any of this.

Blanket statements, I know, but no way around it.  The Klein children aren't any different than any other children.

Even when it's not reality TV, kids on-screen don't tend to do very well in their later years.  Garnering value for being cute and precocious and young can make it very hard to age well.  The single greatest argument, in my mind, against children being actors is Kim Richards, whose devolution was fairly well-documented on the Real Housewives; her wiki page is a good cheat sheet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Richards  Mara Wilson (from Matilda) and Mayim Bialik seem to have done well, but they are rare exceptions.  

[Cerealgirl]

Can we back up a bit and talk about Anna's words Sunday?

"In my heart, when I got married, I vowed to God first and then to Joshua, 'For better or for worse. 'Til death do we part,' I pray that through all of this that I would be an extension of God's love to Joshua, that I would love him and forgive him and wait patiently and allow God to work through our hearts." 
 

Why does she have to show God's love to Josh?  Has Sir Smuggles lost his faith?  Does he need to be reminded that Jesus loves him? Why does God have to work on their hearts? If she has forgiven him, and committed to maintaining their marriage, then the only party that needs magic heart healing is Josh.

Anna is waiting on Josh to say whether their marriage will succeed. 

I appreciate her wanting to be a vehicle for God's love. That could be admirable. It's a shame she will only ever waste that energy on someone who betrayed any chance of ever deserving it again, and that she won't extend that same Christian loving spirit to gays, transgender people, women in poverty that need an abortion, etc.

@buzzard think about the question you posed though. Based on philosophy and logic - neither trait which the Duggars employ.

[Cerealgirl]

How many more births do we have to watch in the "starter home?" Did you see the clip? With the outdoor prayer closet? 

 

I'm starting a betting pool of when they will turn the starter house into fundie birthing center. ...Actually, they could establish it as a non profit religious org and have a steady grifting gig for Jill, Jana and Anna to run. There you go, girls.

[Cerealgirl]

40 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said: I can't imagine that would be a good enough reason for BC to them.  Remember they think BC is murder.  Maybe it would be a reason for natural family planning . . .Part of me feels like Jessa is the type of person who will do some mental gymnastics in order to make excuses so she can do what she wants to do. I realize she's been indoctrinated into thinking birth control pills equal murder from day one, but maybe the reality of having two babies to raise (yes, I'm counting Ben as a baby because he seems not only a few cards shy of a full deck but also pretty checked out now) will be what pushes her to toss aside some of her belief system. Honestly, I think anything is possible at this point.  

.

Their entire belief system is mental gymnastics. They'll make anything fit if they want to. Wait till spud becomes a toddler and she has another infant. Her hands will be full. I can't see her having 4 or 5 under 5 like Anna. And considering intellectual conversation isn't keeping them out of the bedroom, they better start figuring out some natural family planning tactics.

[Bad Wolf]

I agree that children should not be on reality tv, or at least their appearances should be restricted. I'm thinking of Josie's blow out which was filmed. There forever. So unfair to do that to a child.

[SassyPants]

49 minutes ago, Cerealgirl said:

 

Part of me feels like Jessa is the type of person who will do some mental gymnastics in order to make excuses so she can do what she wants to do. I realize she's been indoctrinated into thinking birth control pills equal murder from day one, but maybe the reality of having two babies to raise (yes, I'm counting Ben as a baby because he seems not only a few cards shy of a full deck but also pretty checked out now) will be what pushes her to toss aside some of her belief system. Honestly, I think anything is possible at this point.  

Their entire belief system is mental gymnastics. They'll make anything fit if they want to. Wait till spud becomes a toddler and she has another infant. Her hands will be full. I can't see her having 4 or 5 under 5 like Anna. And considering intellectual conversation isn't keeping them out of the bedroom, they better start figuring out some natural family planning tactics.

ABSOFREAKINGLUTELY

[Imrlgoddess]

Rerun of the second episode on now on TLC for those who missed it or just want some extra snark.

[SilverBeach]

5 hours ago, EmmieJ said:

In other words, especially in the Kleins case where they have decent incomes, why risk it? 

Because they aren't doing it for the money. And I don't think the risks are as high as you think they are, especially with intelligent parents.

5 hours ago, Buzzard said:

Anna is waiting on Josh to say whether their marriage will succeed. 

She is way more of a saint than I am. Oh if the tables were turned...

52 minutes ago, Bad Wolf said:

I agree that children should not be on reality tv, or at least their appearances should be restricted. I'm thinking of Josie's blow out which was filmed. There forever. So unfair to do that to a child.

If a parent objected it would not have been shown. Stupid parents are the problem, not kids on "reality" shows, which are actually a series of arranged scenes and activities.

[SilverBeach]

2 hours ago, amandaaries said:

Even when it's not reality TV, kids on-screen don't tend to do very well in their later years.  Garnering value for being cute and precocious and young can make it very hard to age well.  The single greatest argument, in my mind, against children being actors is Kim Richards, whose devolution was fairly well-documented on the Real Housewives; her wiki page is a good cheat sheet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Richards  Mara Wilson (from Matilda) and Mayim Bialik seem to have done well, but they are rare exceptions.  

And the Klein children are going to be "exceptions" also because their parents are not exploiting them! I simply do not share this absolutism regarding children. Have any of you watched the show? I'm glad some of you are so confident that you are totally right, but no opinion is absolutely right. Now, that's my absolute statement, ha!

8 hours ago, goldfishgoddess said:

Jen seems to be doing this for the cash (build up an estate for her kids in case she and Bill don't make it). 

I agree with your entire post except for this. There is no evidence that this is so. The Kleins likely invest their money wisely to provide for themselves in case they cannot work, and to provide for their children's futures. They could have done that without TLC money.

[paulypepper]

13 hours ago, Marissap said:

I was a huge nerd when I was little (maybe still am?) but I LOVED looking through both the Sears and JCP catalog when they came in the mail. I would seriously look at every single page of that monstrosity. I would sit at my grandparents and they would joke it was the best babysitter because it would take me hours. And I would of course write a list of everything I "wanted". 

The Sears Christmas catalog was to DIE for! I'd read it from cover to cover everyday.

[ThunderRolls]

1 hour ago, Cerealgirl said:

 

Their entire belief system is mental gymnastics. They'll make anything fit if they want to. Wait till spud becomes a toddler and she has another infant. Her hands will be full. I can't see her having 4 or 5 under 5 like Anna. And considering intellectual conversation isn't keeping them out of the bedroom, they better start figuring out some natural family planning tactics.

This is very true. 

[missegeno]

26 minutes ago, Mrsaztx said: This is bananas, I had never realized they side hug everyone, but since this thread brought it up, it opens up a whole other level of creepy. Isn't the reason for the side hug that a normal hug gets the unmarrieds too stirred up? But if they are side hugging sisters, brothers, parents, etc aren't they essentially saying that *any* human contact is sexual? That is just beyond creepy. "Sorry, dad, no hugs in case you get defrauded (aka sexually stimulated, let's not sugar coat it) by your teen daughter" "nope, side hugs amongst sister because I might just go raging incestuous lesbian given the opportunity". What the actual f*ck, you guys?

I am not sure the preference for side hugs is just an issue connected with sexuality.  We hear about it in the sexual context when we hear about the courtships, but it is clearly practiced as a norm in that and other families even in situations where there is no echo of sexuality.  (Mothers hugging daughters, for example.). So what I am seeing with the side hugs is the reluctance to express closeness in public (possibility 1) or just lack of closeness (possibility 2).

Focusing on the first, I have noticed that some people find that too much public affection embarrassing.  Also, in certain social contexts (a party, for example) people may side-hug because to front hug means that both turn their backs on everyone else.  This may seem rude in some contexts.  Addressing the second, people sometimes side-hug as a compromise to not hugging at all.  

Depending on your culture, greeting and saying good bye to people is handled differently.  Some folks hug and kiss relatives, others only hug, others shake hands.   It varies.  So avoidance of front hugs may have to do with more than fear of defrauding.

JB is proclaims that he is happy to hug and kiss (read: dry hump Michelle) in public because he thinks it's important for kids to know daddy loves mommy.

[Cerealgirl]

JB is proclaims that he is happy to hug and kiss (read: dry hump Michelle) in public because he thinks it's important for kids to know daddy loves mommy.

That's just his excuse to be a handsy perv.

[nastyhobbitses]

2 hours ago, amandaaries said:

Even when it's not reality TV, kids on-screen don't tend to do very well in their later years.  Garnering value for being cute and precocious and young can make it very hard to age well.  The single greatest argument, in my mind, against children being actors is Kim Richards, whose devolution was fairly well-documented on the Real Housewives; her wiki page is a good cheat sheet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Richards  Mara Wilson (from Matilda) and Mayim Bialik seem to have done well, but they are rare exceptions.  

Mayim Bialik was well educated (homegirl has a PhD in Neuroscience), and so was Mara Wilson. And according to her, her parents were very protective of her and managed her money/career very closely. The ones who had supportive, involved (but not TOO involved) parents who didn't rely on the kid(s) to be the family's primary breadwinner, put education first (by and large the child stars who turned out OK took breaks for their education -- for instance Natalie Portman, Jodie Foster, Brooke Shields, Dakota Fanning, Mara Wilson, Mayim Bialik), and didn't let their kids do anything too exploitative turned out alright.

[Jennifer Hart]

3 hours ago, Artemesia said:

Anna has been personally and publicly humiliated by her pig of a husband and now seems to be under guard at the TTH. No skills, no education, 4 children. What she doesn't realize is that she has all of the power. The pig is responsible for child support and probably some spousal support. Anna could have whatever she wanted just by having a real interview or writing a book and she can do it at anytime. I hope she is keeping notes. JB and the pig should be terrified.

All Anna wants is to be a wife and mother.  

[Cleopatra7]

31 minutes ago, missegeno said:

JB is proclaims that he is happy to hug and kiss (read: dry hump Michelle) in public because he thinks it's important for kids to know daddy loves mommy.

If "daddy" really loved "mommy," he wouldn't feel entitled to treat her like a blow-up doll, and would take her needs and wants into consideration. 

[apandaaries]

3 minutes ago, nastyhobbitses said:

Mayim Bialik was well educated (homegirl has a PhD in Neuroscience), and so was Mara Wilson. And according to her, her parents were very protective of her and managed her money/career very closely. The ones who had supportive, involved (but not TOO involved) parents who didn't rely on the kid(s) to be the family's primary breadwinner, put education first (by and large the child stars who turned out OK took breaks for their education -- for instance Natalie Portman, Jodie Foster, Brooke Shields, Dakota Fanning, Mara Wilson, Mayim Bialik), and didn't let their kids do anything too exploitative turned out alright.

Brooke Shields raised quite a few eyebrows with her early career -- the Calvins ad, and then a nude picture of her from when she was 10 popped up in a 2009 exhibition.  Her mom was fairly controversial, but she did get a good education and seems much more balanced now.  Rather like Drew Barrymore, who was quite the wild child, and now seems settled and sane.  Mara Wilson wrote that piece on child stars going crazy; for some reason, I can only find a cracked link: http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-reasons-child-stars-go-crazy-an-insiders-perspective/  Shirley Temple got a good education and seems to have turned out well, but I had a great aunt who worked as a tutor with other kids on the set and she hated Shirley, saying she was very stuck up and rude to others.  That seems a very believable side effect of fame.  

My encounter with fame: Mayim Bialik and I share an alma mater.  She once bummed a cigarette from me on the library steps during dead week.  Don't worry -- I quit smoking long ago, and I suspect she has, too. 

I'm just very suspicious of fame and its side effect in general.  Haven't the Gosselins spoken about their kids being teased at school?  It doesn't seem like many adults handle fame well, so how would children be better at bearing that physical, emotional, and psychic weight? Even in the best situations, other kids will know what they're up to and usually either lash out in jealousy or kiss up.   What a weird way to try to have a friendship...or a life.  

[StepMonsterInLA]

On December 21, 2015 at 6:14 PM, southernfriedwriter said:

1.  I'm buying stock in an eye liner company. 

2.  Speaking from experience there's nothing quite like learning your husband has been living a lie to help you lose weight.  Anna has definitely dropped the baby weight now and looks good in spite of living in a pressure cooker.

2 me too!  40 lbs of baby weight gone in no time. The bastard came to pick up our baby and asked when was I going to eat. 

[calimojo]

Sorry if this has been brought up, but I just can't get over the fact that Anna is living in the girls dorm.  That just seems so demoralizing to me, adding insult to injury that her husband is a jerk, now she is living like that?  I know that Anna came from humble beginnings, so even the TTH probably seems luxurious to her, but still, it is just sad. 

 

I would love to know why she isn't in that house that Josh bought.  I know it was sold, but why?  Was she too distraught to live on her own?  Did they have to  sell it in order to get money to pay for his "treatment"?  Did JB force her to live with them so she could be kept under control?   

 

I mean, aside from the pending lawsuit,  Josh should have had money.  He probably made good money from FRC and he made money from the show.  I get that she probably would have needed help with all the kids, but still it seems like it would have made more sense to send Jana to her or Jinger, and let her stay in her own home. 

 

Oops, just realized people are discussing this under the Anna Thread. 

 

[Kittikatz]

30 minutes ago, amandaaries said:

 

I'm just very suspicious of fame and its side effect in general.  Haven't the Gosselins spoken about their kids being teased at school?  It doesn't seem like many adults handle fame well, so how would children be better at bearing that physical, emotional, and psychic weight? Even in the best situations, other kids will know what they're up to and usually either lash out in jealousy or kiss up.   What a weird way to try to have a friendship...or a life.  

I'm with you on this. There seem to be a large percentage of child stars who have some fairly massive meltdowns and/or crack-ups, and even more who seem to be, at best, coasting along and underachieving  in the Hollywood Z list. But there is a critcal difference between child tv/movie stars and children in reality shows, and that main difference is that the line between work and personal is almost unavoidably blurred. Child actors know that when they go on set, it is pretend. They go to a studio, have makeup, costume, set/green screen, acting coaches and a script that must be followed. Despite this, many have rocky transitions to adulthood, and fail to thrive in the real world...

Child reality stars have none of those cues to aid in differentiation between reality and fantasy, there just isnt that visible demarkation or much psycological boundaries in reality tv, and I doubt very much that children who are living in a very grey "your lives are our entertainment" reality tv environment are fully capible of comprehending that fantasy/reality  line or its importance to their overall well-being. One may hope that good parents will make intelligent decisions on the part of their children, but this is a new field -  one with few legal protections available for children in this situation, and little practical guidance available for their guardians. This fluid/wild west environment could easily mean that even intellegent  parents with the best of intentions could get caught up in blurred lines of their own and make a serious misstep that could have lasting consequences for their children. The newness of this style of show means that there are not many examples either way with how this group of Child performers will do in the future, so time will tell. But it strikes me as a costly experiment.

This is the reason I've become increasingly concerned about children in reality TV shows. From what I have seen on the LC, Ben and Jen seem like good people, probably with the best of intentions. But how this show is going to impact their family and children in the future is not something we can know. For that matter, we don't even know how the Gossling brood is truly faring (much less how they will fare in the future), and I would be reluctant to even guess which way the Duggar children are going to fold out when the dust settles. There are too many variables and changing personalities in flow, and not enough hard data, making outcomes impossible to predict. I really wish that this sector was much better regulated and that child participants in these series had legal protections. Until that happens, I can't believe that children being featured in reality TV shows is a good thing.

[StepMonsterInLA]

4 hours ago, Bad Wolf said:

I agree that children should not be on reality tv, or at least their appearances should be restricted. I'm thinking of Josie's blow out which was filmed. There forever. So unfair to do that to a child.

Just a thought...many, many snarked upon families on FJ expose their kids to the masses through the Internet. Some are "paid" through ads on their blogs. I don't really see the difference. Fame, whether compensated by tv dollars, Instagram followers/likes, Facebook posts, YouTube views, or blog traffic has become rather parallel in my head. Exposure or exploit, regardless of the vehicle, happens all the time. 

[EyeQueue]

I agree with whomever said above that Anna staying in the "girls dorm" is demoralizing. And also infantilizing. She's a grown-ass woman who should be out on her own taking care of her kids, and not kowtowing to the Duggar money machine.

I feel really sorry for her that she's had to swallow this line of bull that tells her she needs an "umbrella of protection." At the same time, I think she's been exposed enough to the world at this point to have seen some alternatives, so I do put part of the blame on her for continuing to fall for this crap.

I was really hopeful when I read in Buzzard's recap when she said, "Josh was my first love."  And now I can't remember if she actually used the past tense, but even so, "first" opens up the possibility for their being a "second," or even--God forbid!--a "third." Why did she not just immediately say, "Josh is my *only* love", instead of throwing that in immediately afterwards?

Maybe there's still hope for her to break away.

[RabbitKM]

I just finally watched both the first and second special.  I thought the second one was much better than the first.  The first one was boring, as you all said, even during the interesting parts where they talk about the scandals.  I think it is because they are so brainwashed that they are literally repeating each other with the same stupid phrases.  Can they stop saying "walking through this"??? And I guess they are no longer buying used and saving the difference?  I'm sure they could have tripled the amount of clothes they could have gotten for the orphanage by not shopping at a fancy boutique like that.  Even Macy's has amazing deals with the coupons and such.  When Anna said she was to be an extension of God's love my mouth dropped.  I dont know why I was so surprised, but it just seemed like an odd thing for her to say.  Also I despised how none of them, but especially Anna, use the third person to talk about their OWN feelings.  An example is when Anna said something like, "when a spouse does this, its a betrayal".  Ok, it could be a betrayal, but do YOU feel betrayed? 

Ugh.  I hope the last one is the final one for them.   Enough.

[JenniferJuniper]

2 hours ago, nastyhobbitses said:

Mayim Bialik was well educated (homegirl has a PhD in Neuroscience), and so was Mara Wilson. And according to her, her parents were very protective of her and managed her money/career very closely. The ones who had supportive, involved (but not TOO involved) parents who didn't rely on the kid(s) to be the family's primary breadwinner, put education first (by and large the child stars who turned out OK took breaks for their education -- for instance Natalie Portman, Jodie Foster, Brooke Shields, Dakota Fanning, Mara Wilson, Mayim Bialik), and didn't let their kids do anything too exploitative turned out alright.

The child stars who do well in adulthood are usually those who are able to transition into meaningful lives post-childhood, whether it be as actors or in some other capacity. 

Most child stars are cast aside as soon as they are no longer cute and for many the fall from stardom is abrupt and hard. To quote Bobby Driscoll, one of the finest child actors of the 20th century who died of a heroin overdose in his 20's, "I was carried on a silver cushion and dumped straight into the garbage can."

Most reality show kids aren't really stars though.  Their later issues seem to stem from resentment over having their private childhood moments broadcast to the world, feeling exploited by their parents, or otherwise ripped off in some fashion. Jacob Roloff being the latest example.

And then there is the negative impact long running - sometimes even not-so-long running -reality shows have on families as a whole.  Lives aren't meant to be lived on camera. 

I get that people like the Little Couple, but I am willing to bet that the longer the show goes on the greater the likelihood there will be trouble for them.  

[apandaaries]

50 minutes ago, StepMonsterInLA said:

Just a thought...many, many snarked upon families on FJ expose their kids to the masses through the Internet. Some are "paid" through ads on their blogs. I don't really see the difference. Fame, whether compensated by tv dollars, Instagram followers/likes, Facebook posts, YouTube views, or blog traffic has become rather parallel in my head. Exposure or exploit, regardless of the vehicle, happens all the time. 

There's a lot of bad stuff that happens all the time, but that doesn't mean that it should.  I think that line between exposure and exploitation is really freaking close, dangerously so.  I post pics of my kid almost nonstop on FB and Insta, but those accounts are also locked down as firmly and securely as possible.  That doesn't mean I'm immune to hackers, nor that my friends' various accounts are immune to exploitation/hacking, but I think of it as part of the cultural shift of the Internet.  Even though I think my kid is amazing and brilliant, I don't want her out there, exposed to the anonymous masses, so I try to implement preventative measures.  I don't want to look at her as a product to be maximized or exploited; I want her to be a kid who grows up in this (albeit complicated) world.  

To be fair, we're all living post-recession, where the top 1% has amassed more than what most of us could spend in 3-300 lifetimes, so I don't want to hate too heavily on families who are trying to make it with whatever income streams they can put together.  But I can't do it.  To quote Helen Lovejoy of The Simpsons, "won't someone think of the children?"