Counting On (everyone being civil in...) - part 2

[SportsgalAnnie]

17 hours ago, Kittikatz said:

Yes, please. The mommy wars deserve a special hell board somewhere far away from FJ. I vote we stick to snarking on stupid stuff fundies do and/or believe with occasional diversions into areas that have an off chance of being fun or enjoyably informative.

thats why I've been quiet lately.

[FundieFarmer]

thats why I've been quiet lately.

Come back!! We like friends!

[AnnaRuk09]

10 hours ago, doubleT said:

 

When Sierra first made an appearance on the show, she was said to be a close friend of Anna's.  They had babies close together.  I'm sure over the last coupe of years with I also think both Derick and Ben are regretting jumping into marriage and babies and this family.  Derick came across to me as a pretty independent guy before Jill.  Now she won't leave his side. 

Ben is just lost.  

 

I agree. In my opinion, Jill has always come across as being real clingy to him. She's always latched on to somewhere on him. Quite the contrary with Ben and Jessa. Jessa seems to pay more attention to SES and Ben is just too cheesy when it comes to romance. 

[SportsgalAnnie]

3 hours ago, FundieFarmer said:

Come back!! We like friends!

I'm here, just sick of fighting  

[Kittikatz]

@SportsgalAnnie I get it. I found some of the mamadrama was just too difficult to even process, so much so that I couldn't figure out how to participate in any of the non-baby related portions of the thread, or if it were even safe to attempt to talk about the supposed thread topic. I'm very grateful to the admins for moving the mommywars elsewhere and I'm glad you are back and posting

[SportsgalAnnie]

10 minutes ago, Kittikatz said:

@SportsgalAnnie I get it. I found some of the mamadrama was just too difficult to even process, so much so that I couldn't figure out how to participate in any of the non-baby related portions of the thread, or if it were even safe to attempt to talk about the supposed thread topic. I'm very grateful to the admins for moving the mommywars elsewhere and I'm glad you are back and posting

same, I don't have kids so I dont feel like I had a dog in the fight. 

[LawsonBatesEgo]

3 hours ago, AnnaRuk09 said:

I agree. In my opinion, Jill has always come across as being real clingy to him. She's always latched on to somewhere on him. Quite the contrary with Ben and Jessa. Jessa seems to pay more attention to SES and Ben is just too cheesy when it comes to romance. 

I got the impression during the courtship/engagement that Jessa didn't really like the grand romantic gestures, but felt obliged to coo over them. I get it. I'm not unaffectionate or an ice queen of anything, but I'm the type who'd be embarrassed by some of those grand romantic cheesy gestures. I'm not at all uninterested in my boyfriends, but I hate really grand/public/cheesy displays of love and prefer more subtle shows of it. And I'm the same in giving affection. 

I don't know, I'd rather a guy show me he cares by privately buying me a thoughtful present in the middle of exam period when I'm stressed af that shows he pays attention to what I like (like a book I've mentioned I want to read or a pair of shoes he saw me try on and really want but didn't buy because I was broke) than buying me some obnoxiously huge white teddy bear and roses (despite me not really liking roses!) just because the calendar says Feb 14. Bin seems like the type to do the latter. 

 

[IrishCarrie]

Personally, I'd prefer if he'd clean the bathroom/mop the floors/cook dinner - all with being asked AND without expecting two hours of praise and a blowjob for it.

Aahhh, romance......

[19 cats and counting]

On 3/25/2016 at 10:22 AM, LawsonBatesEgo said:

I get the impression that Derick genuinely liked Jill herself and not just the show, but the problem is that he never got to truly get to know her until after they were married....in in their case, also pregnant. How can you truly evaluate whether you will be happy living in a marriage with someone when you can't even have a private conversation with them or go on a date with them without having their 12 year old sibling tag along. It also means that you don't really get to see someone's flaws or the things that could be dealbreakers. 

In the real world, there are plenty of times a guy will have a genuine interest in a girl because she seems cool/fun/smart/whatever, so he asks her out and they date and have actual conversations with each other and he realises she is not really 'right' for him or vice versa or both feel that way. But Derick and Jill never really got that chance (and neither did Bin and Jessa, but I think the difference was that Bin DID just want the show and the "hot girlfriend") and perhaps, now they are both suffering because of it and are trapped in a relationship that in normal cirumstances may not have ever gotten to the point where they are married with child in a culture where divorce is a no-go. 

Josh and Anna never had that chance either, and look at what became of their marriage.   

Problem is that they don't get to know each other organically, as friends before deciding to court.  And JB is the decision maker, not the couple.  If I want to enter a romantic relationship with someone, I want to know them as a friend first to see if we get along, have something in common, etc.  And that's something that has to happen on my terms.  IF I can't be someone's friend I'm not going to be more.

Ben and Josh were both clearly too young and immature to get married (both could not legally have a beer at the time they married).  (IIRC JB/M married as teens too).  Josh was pushed into an arranged marriage to find a legit outlet for his sex addiction.  Ben married so he could have sex with a hot celebrity.  The only guy who was mature enough for marriage was Derick (25?) but that seemed to go by the wayside too.  Derick and Jill are a good match, but IMO they should have waited longer and set relationship boundaries (ie time alone) which is hard to do with a kid sibling in tow.  (I believe they had only met in person once or twice before he bought the ring).

AS for alone time, I get the temptations of sex, kissing, etc, but I think they should at least be allowed private phone calls.  

I'm not sure what the Bates family did, but you have 4 married couples who (publicly) seem to be a very good match for each other.  Michael and Brandon met in 2009, courted in 2013, and married in 2015.   Chad and Erin I believe met in 2010/2011.  Even the newest Bates couple (Nathan and Ashley) had a getting to know each other period.  None of these couples were set up by parents.  

I don't think I'm ungodly or a heathen to believe that you need to know someone very well (including their flaws) before you commit to spend the rest of your life with them.  

[VelociRapture]

25 minutes ago, 19 cats and counting said:

Josh and Anna never had that chance either, and look at what became of their marriage.   

Problem is that they don't get to know each other organically, as friends before deciding to court.  And JB is the decision maker, not the couple.  If I want to enter a romantic relationship with someone, I want to know them as a friend first to see if we get along, have something in common, etc.  And that's something that has to happen on my terms.  IF I can't be someone's friend I'm not going to be more.

Ben and Josh were both clearly too young and immature to get married (both could not legally have a beer at the time they married).  (IIRC JB/M married as teens too).  Josh was pushed into an arranged marriage to find a legit outlet for his sex addiction.  Ben married so he could have sex with a hot celebrity.  The only guy who was mature enough for marriage was Derick (25?) but that seemed to go by the wayside too.  Derick and Jill are a good match, but IMO they should have waited longer and set relationship boundaries (ie time alone) which is hard to do with a kid sibling in tow.  (I believe they had only met in person once or twice before he bought the ring).

AS for alone time, I get the temptations of sex, kissing, etc, but I think they should at least be allowed private phone calls.  

I'm not sure what the Bates family did, but you have 4 married couples who (publicly) seem to be a very good match for each other.  Michael and Brandon met in 2009, courted in 2013, and married in 2015.   Chad and Erin I believe met in 2010/2011.  Even the newest Bates couple (Nathan and Ashley) had a getting to know each other period.  None of these couples were set up by parents.  

I don't think I'm ungodly or a heathen to believe that you need to know someone very well (including their flaws) before you commit to spend the rest of your life with them.  

I've been thinking over the differences between those two families for a bit. And honestly, I don't think it's any major differences in parenting styles. I don't want to speculate too much due to sensitive subject matter - but I honestly think that certain actions of a certain Duggar offspring and the investigation related to it had a far more lasting reach and impression on all of them then they realize... Things the Bates family never needed to deal with (I very seriously hope.) Plus the tv show, differences in finances, and how often both families needed to interact with outsiders in general.

I feel like the Duggars almost had to be more cautious with their kids courting for a lot of reasons that the Bates parents just didn't need to deal with.

[Cleopatra7]

59 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

I've been thinking over the differences between those two families for a bit. And honestly, I don't think it's any major differences in parenting styles. I don't want to speculate too much due to sensitive subject matter - but I honestly think that certain actions of a certain Duggar offspring and the investigation related to it had a far more lasting reach and impression on all of them then they realize... Things the Bates family never needed to deal with (I very seriously hope.) Plus the tv show, differences in finances, and how often both families needed to interact with outsiders in general.

I feel like the Duggars almost had to be more cautious with their kids courting for a lot of reasons that the Bates parents just didn't need to deal with.

I agree. I think the fall-out from the molestations convinced JB and Michelle that none of their children, male or female, could be trusted to conduct themselves with a member of the opposite sex without pre-teen chaperones and group texts. The only reason the Bateses seem less uptight about courting rules in comparison is because they (presumably) haven't had an instance that would justify the more draconian Duggar measures, and can loosen up a bit without seeming less fundie.

[LawsonBatesEgo]

1 hour ago, Cleopatra7 said:

I agree. I think the fall-out from the molestations convinced JB and Michelle that none of their children, male or female, could be trusted to conduct themselves with a member of the opposite sex without pre-teen chaperones and group texts. The only reason the Bateses seem less uptight about courting rules in comparison is because they (presumably) haven't had an instance that would justify the more draconian Duggar measures, and can loosen up a bit without seeming less fundie.

This is definitely a very plausible theory, but I dearly wish they'd realise the potential damage they are causing their children with these archaic courtship rules. They may think they are protecting their children, but what they are actually doing is setting them up to be deeply unhappy in their marriages.....and we've already seen it end awfully for Josh....and by extention, Anna and the M kids. 

If they continue to force their children to get married before they get to know someone properly, they're going to end up with a divorce on their hands, or worse, an abused spouse as well as the general pain of a deeply unhappy child. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

41 minutes ago, LawsonBatesEgo said:

This is definitely a very plausible theory, but I dearly wish they'd realise the potential damage they are causing their children with these archaic courtship rules. They may think they are protecting their children, but what they are actually doing is setting them up to be deeply unhappy in their marriages.....and we've already seen it end awfully for Josh....and by extention, Anna and the M kids. 

If they continue to force their children to get married before they get to know someone properly, they're going to end up with a divorce on their hands, or worse, an abused spouse as well as the general pain of a deeply unhappy child. 

I have no doubt they love their children.  I truly believe that is our species' default, no matter how inept or damaging the parenting techniques of far too many people.

But to the bolded - I honestly believe that people in that cult don't see that as a problem.  They seem to be so focused on rules and making the cut in the afterlife and almost completely indifferent to their kids emotional needs or happiness.

With each of my kids I remember holding them for the first time in the delivery room -  each time I prayed the most fervent prayer that they would be happy, healthy, and safe always.  And that they would always know how very loved they are.  

Then I tossed in a "and pleaaaassse let them love me" because, selfish like that.

People like the Duggars and the Kellers...they may love as fiercely but their goals are different. Their actions show they place little importance on their kids finding their own path in life, being happy, having options so they can strive for personal and professional fulfillment but a tremendous focus on where they will go when they die.  

Tbh if I believed that my kids would be destined to an eternity of torture if they stepped off a path I would care more about that than their happiness in this life, too.  Like it was yesterday I remember holding my firstborn for his vaccinations and the look of betrayal on his face as I held him and let this stranger stick needles into his leg.  At that moment he was very not happy...but it was for his own good so his temporary suffering was preferable to avoiding the shots and risking catastrophic illness.  I think that's how some of them see it.

I think they are wrong.  I think they are dangerous and bringing children into a environment of neglect and abuse.  And I also think some of them know exactly how wrong this is and they don't care because their kids are just an extension of themselves and this cult is a means to retain control.  

All parents make choices - and the scary truth is that I am sure they would feel my choices to let my kids pursue and education, date, chart their own courses in life is just as dangerous as I think theirs are.

[MoonFace]

On 3/15/2016 at 5:01 PM, Bad Wolf said:

Daughter was born in 1978. The nurse told me I should hold her on the way home!!! We drove into the parking lot and got her in the car seat. In1982 when son was born, they wouldn't let us leave without a car seat. They weren't as safe as they are now, and the rules about forward or rear facing were different. We did our best with the knowledge we had then.

I was advised to have a glass or two of wine when I was pregnant with my 2nd child (born in '72)    I know of young mothers who was advised to have a glass of beer before breast feeding - to help them relax more and to produce more milk.  

Car seats were optional.    

No wonder that whole generation is messed up.    LOL

 

[Bad Wolf]

3 hours ago, MoonFace said:

I was advised to have a glass or two of wine when I was pregnant with my 2nd child (born in '72)    I know of young mothers who was advised to have a glass of beer before breast feeding - to help them relax more and to produce more milk.  

Car seats were optional.    

No wonder that whole generation is messed up.    LOL

 

I'd forgotten about the wine. With baby one they said it was fine to have a glass of wine with dinner. Baby 2, four years later (1982), no alcohol at all. Didn't need the beer, I could have fed the whole nursery. 

[Duggarite]

I always wonder where those rules come from. My own grandmother in Spain, a very catholic country, would not have met those standards. She did not go out a lot but she told me a couple of stories about going out with my grandad and other friends when they were young and knowing each other. Mind you, they were not courting at all and she was a very catholic young girl. That happened in the forties. 

When did those rules happened in the "good old days"? In the 18th century? 

[nastyhobbitses]

On 3/25/2016 at 5:54 AM, LawsonBatesEgo said:

I got the impression during the courtship/engagement that Jessa didn't really like the grand romantic gestures, but felt obliged to coo over them. I get it. I'm not unaffectionate or an ice queen of anything, but I'm the type who'd be embarrassed by some of those grand romantic cheesy gestures. I'm not at all uninterested in my boyfriends, but I hate really grand/public/cheesy displays of love and prefer more subtle shows of it. And I'm the same in giving affection. 

I don't know, I'd rather a guy show me he cares by privately buying me a thoughtful present in the middle of exam period when I'm stressed af that shows he pays attention to what I like (like a book I've mentioned I want to read or a pair of shoes he saw me try on and really want but didn't buy because I was broke) than buying me some obnoxiously huge white teddy bear and roses (despite me not really liking roses!) just because the calendar says Feb 14. Bin seems like the type to do the latter. 

 

Those grand romantic gestures strike me as "this is a thing that movies and TV told me that girls like, so I'll do it because the person I like having sex with/want to have sex with is a girl and as a girl she has to like this thing because she is a girl". It's what guys do when they don't bother to learn about their significant other's actual personality, likes, and dislikes. I think Ben sees Jessa as a Wife (and before that, a Girlfriend), not really as Jessa.

[foreign fundie]

10 hours ago, Duggarite said:

I always wonder where those rules come from. My own grandmother in Spain, a very catholic country, would not have met those standards. She did not go out a lot but she told me a couple of stories about going out with my grandad and other friends when they were young and knowing each other. Mind you, they were not courting at all and she was a very catholic young girl. That happened in the forties. 

When did those rules happened in the "good old days"? In the 18th century? 

My grandparents, super conservative religious in the thirties (fundies didn't exist back then), managed to get pregnant before they married (and then of course promptly married). This tells me that even back then in extremely controlled circles, young people were allowed alone time and enough privacy to do things that could result in babies (although that last thing was not approved of and had consequences). 

I cannot think of any example in Europe or America in real life or in literature,  in any century where a couple was not allowed to converse in private for fear of them loosing their 'purity'. It is a notion you see in Islam rather then in Christianity. In conservative Islam women are pictured as temptresses and men as lacking self control. Thus they have to be kept apart to prevent immoral behavior and women have to cover up. 

In the Bible it is clear that sex is meant for a married couple. But there are no rules at all about keeping men and women seperate or not allowing them to have private conversations. Not even in the Old Testament. 

Men and women are expected to behave responsible and are taken as capable of doing so. There is no blaming the conditions for 'accidental' immorality. 

The Duggars' courtship rules are not about being old-fashioned, conservative or wanting to follow the Bible. They are about misguided control of youngsters who should, and can, control themselves if they want. And if they don't want to control themselves, courtship rules only postpone immorality until after marriage.

[Timetostoplurking]

I have always thought courtship (at least the type of courtship that the Duggars do) has a lack of trust element to it.  I mean seriously, a couple can't even hug!?!  What?!?  How untrustworthy are these kids anyway?  There is nothing wrong with saving sex for marriage but to not even be able to talk (during the day, with the person you plan to spend the rest of your life with) alone.   That's just mind blowing.   Why is there no trust in that family?  After all the parents raised them perfectly! Right?   (Eye roll!).  A couple that both agree on waiting for marriage should be able to control themselves on a date.  If they need a 12 year old to come along to be an acountabilibuddy then......how "good" was their training anyway?  Just another example of infantalizing of adults! 

[quiverofdoubt]

39 minutes ago, Timetostoplurking said:

I have always thought courtship (at least the type of courtship that the Duggars do) has a lack of trust element to it.  I mean seriously, a couple can't even hug!?!  What?!?  How untrustworthy are these kids anyway?  There is nothing wrong with saving sex for marriage but to not even be able to talk (during the day, with the person you plan to spend the rest of your life with) alone.   That's just mind blowing.   Why is there no trust in that family?  After all the parents raised them perfectly! Right?   (Eye roll!).  A couple that both agree on waiting for marriage should be able to control themselves on a date.  If they need a 12 year old to come along to be an acountabilibuddy then......how "good" was their training anyway?  Just another example of infantalizing of adults! 

Agreed.  So frustrating to be the perfect fundie kid for years, pour your heart and thoughtlife out to your parents, always be accountable, agree to the courtship rules, and STILL not be trusted, as a grown adult, to go on a private date.

but I can see how the parents can twist it too, seeing as the buddy is standard procedure.

J: "mom, we'd like to go on a date with out a buddy"

Parent: "but why?"

J: "well, we're adults, and for privacy"

P:"why do you need privacy? there's nothing the two of you can't do in front of your little brother"

J: "just....you know...to be alone..."

P: "to do what? what do you have planned? There must be a reason you don't want someone there to see"

J: "no, we just want to talk alone"

P: "You need to share anything you two talk about with us, might as well take a buddy just to help you keep in line. It sounds like you two have plans. Clearly, you can't be trusted."

[Defrauding Feminist ESQ]

On ‎3‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 2:55 PM, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I have no doubt they love their children.  I truly believe that is our species' default, no matter how inept or damaging the parenting techniques of far too many people.

But to the bolded - I honestly believe that people in that cult don't see that as a problem.  They seem to be so focused on rules and making the cut in the afterlife and almost completely indifferent to their kids emotional needs or happiness.

With each of my kids I remember holding them for the first time in the delivery room -  each time I prayed the most fervent prayer that they would be happy, healthy, and safe always.  And that they would always know how very loved they are.  

Then I tossed in a "and pleaaaassse let them love me" because, selfish like that.

People like the Duggars and the Kellers...they may love as fiercely but their goals are different. Their actions show they place little importance on their kids finding their own path in life, being happy, having options so they can strive for personal and professional fulfillment but a tremendous focus on where they will go when they die.  

Tbh if I believed that my kids would be destined to an eternity of torture if they stepped off a path I would care more about that than their happiness in this life, too.  Like it was yesterday I remember holding my firstborn for his vaccinations and the look of betrayal on his face as I held him and let this stranger stick needles into his leg.  At that moment he was very not happy...but it was for his own good so his temporary suffering was preferable to avoiding the shots and risking catastrophic illness.  I think that's how some of them see it.

I think they are wrong.  I think they are dangerous and bringing children into a environment of neglect and abuse.  And I also think some of them know exactly how wrong this is and they don't care because their kids are just an extension of themselves and this cult is a means to retain control.  

All parents make choices - and the scary truth is that I am sure they would feel my choices to let my kids pursue and education, date, chart their own courses in life is just as dangerous as I think theirs are.

Do the first bolded - that just made me smile.  I have no idea what I'll do when I first hold my future babies, but I hope it's something like that (and I don't think praying that they will love you is selfish)

 

To the second bolded - my mom has told me about how horrible it was to take me to the hospital for treatment when I had meningitis at age 2 or so.  She said she can still hear me screaming from my spinal tap.  But thank God she and my dad did, because I got healthy.  I don't think I'll be able to truly appreciate how horrible it was to see me that sick or in that much pain unless (God forbid) I'm ever in a similar situation.

[CorruptionInc.]

On 3/26/2016 at 1:01 PM, AnnaRuk09 said:

I agree. In my opinion, Jill has always come across as being real clingy to him. She's always latched on to somewhere on him. 

 

In Corruption World aka the party house aka where those weird adults live we have a saying:

"NOBODY likes a needy woman."

Jill is the kind of person that is the know-it-all annoying type personality.

If she was in my house, she would've been told to SHUT UP and have a drink already. Or a piece of cake.

[FundieFarmer]

Agreed.  So frustrating to be the perfect fundie kid for years, pour your heart and thoughtlife out to your parents, always be accountable, agree to the courtship rules, and STILL not be trusted, as a grown adult, to go on a private date.

but I can see how the parents can twist it too, seeing as the buddy is standard procedure.

J: "mom, we'd like to go on a date with out a buddy"

Parent: "but why?"

J: "well, we're adults, and for privacy"

P:"why do you need privacy? there's nothing the two of you can't do in front of your little brother"

J: "just....you know...to be alone..."

P: "to do what? what do you have planned? There must be a reason you don't want someone there to see"

J: "no, we just want to talk alone"

P: "You need to share anything you two talk about with us, might as well take a buddy just to help you keep in line. It sounds like you two have plans. Clearly, you can't be trusted."

That's what it was like growing up with my parents.

[Kittikatz]

On 28/03/2016 at 5:58 PM, Duggarite said:

I always wonder where those rules come from. My own grandmother in Spain, a very catholic country, would not have met those standards. She did not go out a lot but she told me a couple of stories about going out with my grandad and other friends when they were young and knowing each other. Mind you, they were not courting at all and she was a very catholic young girl. That happened in the forties. 

When did those rules happened in the "good old days"? In the 18th century? 

The strict courtship rules followed by the Duggars and Batesssssessss never existed in the Western world. They seem to be a idealized version of aristocratic Georgian or Victorian customs, although neither of those were so strict as to restrict private conversations between people who were courting. I also read that these aristocratic courtships involved a certain amount of flexibility, particularly when families were enjoying house parties (which lasted for weeks) at various country houses. The main goal of families seemed to avoid having young women placed in overtly compromising situations, so there were generally chaperones or other people within sight or in adjacent rooms with doors open between...

This sort of rigidity didn't exist in the middle or lower classes. They had to work and function in the real world, and didn't have time or resources to adhere to such formality.

Ironically, with the exception of the Puritans, early American courtship practices were quite liberal, even compared to middle or lower class Europe. This probably had a lot to do with the more egalitarian society, larger distances between farms or settlements and the lesser importance of the church in many communities.

A good example is the use of bundling boards. These boards would have been placed down the middle of a bed, and secured to the headboard and footboard, thus creating the effect of two beds. Courting couples, or anyone else, for that matter, could then spend the night in the same bed in complete respectability. This was regarded as a good way for couples who may be functioning in crowded conditions to get to know each other somewhat privately.

There were a variety of loud opinions as to how high bundling boards should be, however motivated people could simply loosen the cords holding the mattress, and create a dip under the bundling board, which would allow for some touching or cuddling. I suspect that sleep was not priority one for most of these couples.

As America became more socially stratified in the 1800s and Christianity became dominant, courting became somewhat more rule intensive, particularly for the wealthy. Most people, however did not have the time or resources to worry too much about formality and idealized virtue, so for the most part, it was pretty informal and looked a lot like dating appeared to be in the 1950s...

[allthegoodnamesrgone]

On 3/26/2016 at 11:00 PM, Kittikatz said:

@SportsgalAnnie I get it. I found some of the mamadrama was just too difficult to even process, so much so that I couldn't figure out how to participate in any of the non-baby related portions of the thread, or if it were even safe to attempt to talk about the supposed thread topic. I'm very grateful to the admins for moving the mommywars elsewhere and I'm glad you are back and posting

UGH! Mommy wars. My kids are 18 & 16 and I think they've turned out pretty good, and teachers and neighbors and employers think they are good kids, so i guess I did good. So I love to give advice on the right way to raise kids.  I was at a baby shower a few weeks back for a friend who is having her 1st baby, and they had us write out best parenting advice down. Here is what I like to tell new moms "F$CK THEM! its your kid you will be fine.  Ask trusted family and friends for advice when you want it and forget anything unsolicited."   We were just talking about mommywars and to just not worry abou it. So annoying