Anna Duggar and the M kids part 6

[DuggarWatch]

1 minute ago, OrchidBlossom said:

Sorry, I meant that one time she said it was a "release" for her or whatever. I over-stated her enthusiasm.

I must have missed her saying that.   In fact, I can't picture the ultra-modest Michelle even thinking that. 

[lascuba]

From what people here who've read it said, that sex-ed book fundies give to their about-to-be-married children does talk about the importance of wives enjoying sex. While I'm sure plenty of men are happy to ignore that, women's pleasure doesn't seem to be completely unimportant among Gothardites. 

 

[OrchidBlossom]

41 minutes ago, DuggarWatch said:

I must have missed her saying that.   In fact, I can't picture the ultra-modest Michelle even thinking that. 

Yeah I mean it's bizarre but she did say something to that effect and she has talked about how great and generally enjoyable sex is supposed to be in the marriage relationship.

31 minutes ago, lascuba said:

From what people here who've read it said, that sex-ed book fundies give to their about-to-be-married children does talk about the importance of wives enjoying sex. While I'm sure plenty of men are happy to ignore that, women's pleasure doesn't seem to be completely unimportant among Gothardites. 

 

I've heard that as well, but since they also tell women that it is their job to "joyfully submit" I wonder how often it translates. Or I guess what I mean to say is that I think that men are told their wives should enjoy sex and they should try to make sure their wives enjoy it, but then they turn around and tell the wives that they are the problem if they aren't enjoying it, so the wives are still the ones who get screwed over in this equation. 

I also know/have heard that "enjoying" is not well defined in fundie appropriate literature. So I'm not sure it translates as well as we may be imagining to like "pleasure" or "orgasm" so much as it is "doesn't actively resist" and going back to the whole joyfully submitting idea, that enjoying may be defined more as having a cheerful countenance type stuff.

ETA: I haven't read the sex-ed book myself, though. So maybe it does go into detail about giving your wife an orgasm. Doesn't fix my concern that women are expected to orgasm from lackluster penetrative sex and that there is something wrong with them if they don't, but it would be better than not saying it at all.

[Bad Wolf]

I'd like to read that sex ed book, or maybe I wouldn't. Do wives get a copy, too or is it just the men? Was that what JB gave Josh? Josh probably knew more than JB at that point.

[OrchidBlossom]

2 minutes ago, Bad Wolf said:

I'd like to read that sex ed book, or maybe I wouldn't. Do wives get a copy, too or is it just the men? Was that what JB gave Josh? Josh probably knew more than JB at that point.

I know there is a book that I think the men get. Smuggs and Anna also got a book on tape they are shown listening to as tehy drive away from their wedding.

[Bad Wolf]

I cannot imagine as a virgin on my wedding night, listening to a how to tape. 

[DuggarWatch]

17 minutes ago, OrchidBlossom said:

Yeah I mean it's bizarre but she did say something to that effect and she has talked about how great and generally enjoyable sex is supposed to be in the marriage relationship.

I've heard that as well, but since they also tell women that it is their job to "joyfully submit" I wonder how often it translates. Or I guess what I mean to say is that I think that men are told their wives should enjoy sex and they should try to make sure their wives enjoy it, but then they turn around and tell the wives that they are the problem if they aren't enjoying it, so the wives are still the ones who get screwed over in this equation. 

I also know/have heard that "enjoying" is not well defined in fundie appropriate literature. So I'm not sure it translates as well as we may be imagining to like "pleasure" or "orgasm" so much as it is "doesn't actively resist" and going back to the whole joyfully submitting idea, that enjoying may be defined more as having a cheerful countenance type stuff.

ETA: I haven't read the sex-ed book myself, though. So maybe it does go into detail about giving your wife an orgasm. Doesn't fix my concern that women are expected to orgasm from lackluster penetrative sex and that there is something wrong with them if they don't, but it would be better than not saying it at all.

I do know that when Josh got married and Jim Bob was giving marriage advice, Jim Bob said that sex was the most important thing to a man in marriage and that, for women, the most important thing was talking to her husband and having him act like he was interested.  I think that's also the accurate description of the JimBob/Michelle relationship.  (Notice that he didn't mention God or having children.)

[OrchidBlossom]

2 minutes ago, DuggarWatch said:

I do know that when Josh got married and Jim Bob was giving marriage advice, Jim Bob said that sex was the most important thing to a man in marriage and that, for women, the most important thing was talking to her husband and having him act like he was interested.  I think that's also the accurate description of the JimBob/Michelle relationship.  (Notice that he didn't mention God or having children.)

I do distinctly remember that.

Also is it J'chelle or some other fundie who has consistently said that when you are married you need to put your relationship to your spouse above your relationship to your kids? Like I always found that really interesting. It makes a lot of sense in the God > Headship > Helpmeet > kids context but when you consider how important kids are to the quiverfull movement, it's still an odd juxtaposition.

[cranky_kong]

I wonder if JB and Michelle 'counseled' Josh and Anna with the same 'activity' book they went through with J'erick? The one that talked about family relationships, how to handle stress and the intimate side of marriage? (I just watched that episode).
I would love to know what book they use and see what the intimate part contained.

[OrchidBlossom]

21 minutes ago, Bad Wolf said:

I cannot imagine as a virgin on my wedding night, listening to a how to tape. 

Pretty sure I would have jumped out of the car if I were Anna. Sex is great but listening to someone else describe sex is often uncomfortable at the best of times.

6 minutes ago, cranky_kong said:

I wonder if JB and Michelle 'counseled' Josh and Anna with the same 'activity' book they went through with J'erick? The one that talked about family relationships, how to handle stress and the intimate side of marriage? (I just watched that episode).
I would love to know what book they use and see what the intimate part contained.

Have you checked the fundie blogs? I bet someone has a reference to it, I would start with the Duggar blog or the Dillard blog. They all use the same like 5 books, can't be too hard to track down.

[cranky_kong]

This is the Sex chapter in that book (In case anyone was wondering what guide lines it had)

Sex has to be one of God’s greatest inventions. God’s plan is for sex to be a phenomenal part of a marriage, providing the couple with emotional and physical highs, loads of fun, and a deep sense of love and oneness. Be happy with your wife and find your joy with the girl you married – pretty and graceful as a deer – let her charms keep you happy, let her surround you with her love (Prov 5v18-19 GNB).

Of course, the devil is out to distort and corrupt any good thing that God has made, and sex is no exception. Because God says that sex is designed only for the context of marriage, the devil’s plan is to get you having sex outside of marriage, and then to minimize the amount of sex that you have inside marriage.

The physical relationship before marriage Scripture tells us that the commitment of marriage is the prerequisite for sex. In terms of the physical side of the relationship, what is permissible during engagement?

People tend to either have little or no self control (unfortunately this is usually the norm probably in our cultural context) and can end up with major regret, or they are bound up in a rigid legalistic approach to purity based on do’s and dont's and the corresponding guilt and condemnation associated with failure.

I believe that the correct attitude is not ‘how much can we get away with’ but ‘how can we best glorify God & honour my future spouse?’ Rather than asking, “What can we get away with?” we should ask, “How can we use our engagement to prepare us for the best experience of sex in marriage?” Waiting does, as many will testify. A good motto is ‘clothes on, hands off’. Ask the Holy Spirit to help you as he will not lead you to gratify the desires of the sinful nature (Galatians 5v16). Scripture also speaks of the fact that there is a proper time for sexual passion to be aroused, and that time is not before marriage (Song of Songs2v7). By sexually arousing each other, you’ve taken each other to a point where you can no longer ful fill the desires you’ve awakened - is this a loving thing to do? When in doubt, leave it out. You’ll have plenty of time once married to awaken, arouse and enjoy one another – don’t step outside of God’s plans now only to regret it later on.

Keep reminding each other that the best is yet to come!

Someone once said the devil does all that he can to get you into bed before you get married, and then all he can to keep you out of bed once you are married!

 

http://www.solidground.org.za/retired/images/Downloads/Getting_Ready_For_Marriage.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/reader/0840733208?_encoding=UTF8&page=33#reader_0840733208

 

[OrchidBlossom]

27 minutes ago, cranky_kong said:

This is the Sex chapter in that book (In case anyone was wondering what guide lines it had)

Sex has to be one of God’s greatest inventions. God’s plan is for sex to be a phenomenal part of a marriage, providing the couple with emotional and physical highs, loads of fun, and a deep sense of love and oneness. Be happy with your wife and find your joy with the girl you married – pretty and graceful as a deer – let her charms keep you happy, let her surround you with her love (Prov 5v18-19 GNB).

Of course, the devil is out to distort and corrupt any good thing that God has made, and sex is no exception. Because God says that sex is designed only for the context of marriage, the devil’s plan is to get you having sex outside of marriage, and then to minimize the amount of sex that you have inside marriage.

The physical relationship before marriage Scripture tells us that the commitment of marriage is the prerequisite for sex. In terms of the physical side of the relationship, what is permissible during engagement?

People tend to either have little or no self control (unfortunately this is usually the norm probably in our cultural context) and can end up with major regret, or they are bound up in a rigid legalistic approach to purity based on do’s and dont's and the corresponding guilt and condemnation associated with failure.

I believe that the correct attitude is not ‘how much can we get away with’ but ‘how can we best glorify God & honour my future spouse?’ Rather than asking, “What can we get away with?” we should ask, “How can we use our engagement to prepare us for the best experience of sex in marriage?” Waiting does, as many will testify. A good motto is ‘clothes on, hands off’. Ask the Holy Spirit to help you as he will not lead you to gratify the desires of the sinful nature (Galatians 5v16). Scripture also speaks of the fact that there is a proper time for sexual passion to be aroused, and that time is not before marriage (Song of Songs2v7). By sexually arousing each other, you’ve taken each other to a point where you can no longer ful fill the desires you’ve awakened - is this a loving thing to do? When in doubt, leave it out. You’ll have plenty of time once married to awaken, arouse and enjoy one another – don’t step outside of God’s plans now only to regret it later on.

Keep reminding each other that the best is yet to come!

Someone once said the devil does all that he can to get you into bed before you get married, and then all he can to keep you out of bed once you are married!

 

http://www.solidground.org.za/retired/images/Downloads/Getting_Ready_For_Marriage.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/reader/0840733208?_encoding=UTF8&page=33#reader_0840733208

 

All right but if it's "clothes on, hands off" does that mean that "clothes off, hands on"? Methinks I have found a loophole! 

But seriously that is so vague. Talk about unhelpful.

[ClaraOswin]

1 hour ago, DuggarWatch said:

I do know that when Josh got married and Jim Bob was giving marriage advice, Jim Bob said that sex was the most important thing to a man in marriage and that, for women, the most important thing was talking to her husband and having him act like he was interested.  I think that's also the accurate description of the JimBob/Michelle relationship.  (Notice that he didn't mention God or having children.)

In a more recent episode, JB and Michelle met with those "Relationship coaches" Chris and Anne Hogan on vacation somewhere. And they basically said the same things. Men care about the physical side of a relationship and women care about emotions. Chris also said that women don't care how interesting men are...they just care about how interested they are and how well they listen. Um...it doesn't have to be one or the other, you idiot.

1 hour ago, cranky_kong said:

People tend to either have little or no self control

Someone once said the devil does all that he can to get you into bed before you get married, and then all he can to keep you out of bed once you are married!

 

http://www.solidground.org.za/retired/images/Downloads/Getting_Ready_For_Marriage.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/reader/0840733208?_encoding=UTF8&page=33#reader_0840733208

 

I snipped and left the two parts that fill me with rage. 

Man, I hate these people so much!!!!

[OrchidBlossom]

48 minutes ago, ClaraOswin said:

In a more recent episode, JB and Michelle met with those "Relationship coaches" Chris and Anne Hogan on vacation somewhere. And they basically said the same things. Men care about the physical side of a relationship and women care about emotions. Chris also said that women don't care how interesting men are...they just care about how interested they are and how well they listen. Um...it doesn't have to be one or the other, you idiot.

 

I vaguely remember that. Doesn't make sense at all. If I wanted to just hear myself talk I own a mirror and a cat. Why would I want to have to invest time and energy into someone if they didn't have something of value (by which I mean interesting company) to give back to me? What is my return on an investment if someone can't even hold a conversation?

ETA: I am joking about the people as investment thing, but my point is serious.

[ClaraOswin]

I still wonder if Chris and Anne Hogan will be giving Josh and Anna marriage advice now. Yuck.

[VeryNikeSeamstress]

10 hours ago, NeverAFundie said:

Question that I'm sure has been discussed a billion times here over the years, but would it be a sin to ejaculate during oral sex if the wife is already pregnant?  I would imagine that before the AM scandal, Anna seems as though she would have been fairly likely to consider some of the things Josh included in his profile.  But now?  I would think that for the rest of her life, she will worry that whatever boundaries she pushes won't be enough compared to what goes in the porn Josh watched, strip clubs, etc.

Also, count me in the group of people who think that some of these fundies (especially Chad Paine) could very well be engaging in Joshley-esque "non kink" like rose petals and shared baths.

WARNING: EXPLICIT

Good question. What about when the woman is on her period? According to the biblical rules they follow, a couple is supposed to abstain during menstruation. What about the 'husband's needs' while the wife is bleeding? If every sperm is sacred, He technically should't be shedding seeds outside of sexual intercourse ( but the wife is expected to joyfully submit (he's not getting that sandwich anywhere else). Is the wife expected to give head to the headship when she is not otherwise available?

Ewwww. 

[Bad Wolf]

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great. If a sperm gets wasted, God gets quite irate. 

Love the Python @VeryNikeSeamstress

[Iokaste]

Seriously this whole "men are physical/women are emotional"- shit has to die! In and out of fundie-world.

When do men (and women, and everyone else) figure out that no, women are not any less interested in sex than men are, but women are not encouraged to get to know their own sexuality, preferences and kinks the way men are. Instead they are presented with a pattern that goes something like:
"one day you'll meet a man and he will turn on certain feelings and emotions and if you are lucky he will make you come, otherwise just fake it, because masculine sexuality is so fragile (don't ever say that out loud though!), that they will need you to cater to their ego. If you climax good, but it really is an unnecessary bonus that shouldn't be expected"

It sets all of us poor hetero-people up to fail and it masks the fact that when women will more often than men (generally speaking) turn down sex, it's not that we don't want sex, it's that we don't want the boring p-in-v, he comes, we both roll over and sleep stuff, that is on offer! 
In short: it's not sex we don't want, it's sex with you! 

Rant over... 

[Cleopatra7]

2 hours ago, Iokaste said:

Seriously this whole "men are physical/women are emotional"- shit has to die! In and out of fundie-world.

When do men (and women, and everyone else) figure out that no, women are not any less interested in sex than men are, but women are not encouraged to get to know their own sexuality, preferences and kinks the way men are. Instead they are presented with a pattern that goes something like:
"one day you'll meet a man and he will turn on certain feelings and emotions and if you are lucky he will make you come, otherwise just fake it, because masculine sexuality is so fragile (don't ever say that out loud though!), that they will need you to cater to their ego. If you climax good, but it really is an unnecessary bonus that shouldn't be expected"

It sets all of us poor hetero-people up to fail and it masks the fact that when women will more often than men (generally speaking) turn down sex, it's not that we don't want sex, it's that we don't want the boring p-in-v, he comes, we both roll over and sleep stuff, that is on offer! 
In short: it's not sex we don't want, it's sex with you! 

Rant over... 

If men and women are diametrically opposed as complementarians claim what's the point of even getting heterosexuality married? It seems that you'd be better off in a same sex relationship where you and your partner will have the same mindset, temperaments, and likes (I know all men and all women are not the same, but in funded literature, it like all men and all women are virtually interchangeable and any "godly" couple should work if you try hard enough).

[foreign fundie]

The stunning fundie simplification of manhood, womanhood and their desired  roles in life has always, well, stunned me.

Today my husband had a rough day. So he talked and I listened. We cracked some sarcastic jokes about what happened. We laughed. He didn't ask for sweet fellowship. So there must be something wrong with him?

Honestly, 'men are physical and women emotional' is like you deny half of both of their humanity. Women have a body. Men have a heart. I can love with my body and my heart and want to be loved that way too. For really, if I just wanted someone to listen to me, my mum could do that. But only he can make me that special sandwich. Or whatever.

[Bad Wolf]

2 hours ago, Cleopatra7 said:

If men and women are diametrically opposed as complementarians claim what's the point of even getting heterosexuality married? It seems that you'd be better off in a same sex relationship where you and your partner will have the same mindset, temperaments, and likes (I know all men and all women are not the same, but in funded literature, it like all men and all women are virtually interchangeable and any "godly" couple should work if you try hard enough).

How would you fit the Legos together? 

[OrchidBlossom]

3 hours ago, Cleopatra7 said:

If men and women are diametrically opposed as complementarians claim what's the point of even getting heterosexuality married? It seems that you'd be better off in a same sex relationship where you and your partner will have the same mindset, temperaments, and likes (I know all men and all women are not the same, but in funded literature, it like all men and all women are virtually interchangeable and any "godly" couple should work if you try hard enough).

God created each man and woman in His image, but different parts of His image, so you need to marry of the opposite gender so as to complete the Godly picture. Or something.

[RoseWilder]

14 hours ago, ClaraOswin said:

Chris also said that women don't care how interesting men are...they just care about how interested they are and how well they listen. Um...it doesn't have to be one or the other, you idiot.

Wow, that's a really flattering portrait Chris paints of women. According to him, we're all just a bunch of narcissists who don't care what anyone else has to say. It just all about us All. The. Time. Even when Fundie men aren't being total jerks, their extremely low opinion of women just still comes oozing out of them every time they talk. 

I've attempted to have friendships and dating relationships with people who don't have anything interesting to say ever, and not only does every interaction with them feel hollow and empty, but it's also exhausting. I ended up spending the whole time I was around them thinking, Could you contribute something here. Do I really have to do all the work here to make this fun and interesting. It fascinates me that these fundie marriage "counselors" actually encourage men to be boring and obsessed with sex.

[Dandruff]

Adam and Eve sinned greatly against the Lord, so the Lord decided there should be billions more just like them.  It wouldn't happen unless at least one of them enjoyed it though.  While both had the capacity to enjoy, reproduction was (and is) contingent only upon male enjoyment...and female submission.  So, for "go forth and multiply" to work, men must enjoy and women must submit.  I don't think fundies mind if females enjoy, and I expect many want to enjoy, but conception can occur with or without it.

[ksgranola1]

39 minutes ago, Dandruff said:

Adam and Eve sinned greatly against the Lord, so the Lord decided there should be billions more just like them.  It wouldn't happen unless at least one of them enjoyed it though.  While both had the capacity to enjoy, reproduction was (and is) contingent only upon male enjoyment...and female submission.  So, for "go forth and multiply" to work, men must enjoy and women must submit.  I don't think fundies mind if females enjoy, and I expect many want to enjoy, but conception can occur with or without it.

Unless, of course you know according to congress, "Women have a way to shut that whole thing down."