Jessa, Ben, and Spurgeon part 5

[lascuba]

13 hours ago, Kira said:

Peole are saying that this means the marriage is doomed. Ben going to a concert could be a "bad sign" and he should expect ramifications from Jessa(L.O.L.) I just find some of the comments odd. We want the Duggars/Dillards/Seewald to do normal thing and forget Gothard(and Duggar) rules, but we seem upset or unhappy when we get our wish.

 

 

Well, no. Sure, it would be nice if the Duggar girls branched out, but that's not what's happening here. Ben went to a concert. Without Jessa. Jessa, while claiming to be totally fine with Ben's interest in rap, gave every sign that she is extremely uncomfortable both with the music and with the people making that music. So it makes completely sense to wonder what the concert could mean. It could be a sign of growth and maturity for the couple. Or it could be a sign of Ben pulling the headship card and doing what he wants and to hell with Jessa's feelings. That concert is a huge departure from what the Duggars have told us repeatedly of their beliefs...since the kidults won't publicly admit that they disagre with their parents on anything, the logical assumption is that this could be a sign of conflict in that relationship. 

[SassyPants]

9 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

They probably weren't consciously trying to stunt their kids. They probably sincerely thought of themselves as protecting.  They confused their own needs (to be in control, to impress everyone with their superiority, to reassure themselves that they weren't going to hell) with their kids' needs. And they raised a bunch of emotionally and intellectually crippled young people.  But that was a side effect, not a goal.  It doesn't make the kids any less the victims of their parents' bad system of raising children.

At some point along the way it did become an accepted, if not initially planned for, goal.

JB and M might have started on the path with decent intentions, but as the older kids matured, they never advanced their parenting approach to encourage age appropriate experiences and skills for those older kids. And, no, raising your parents' kids and monitoring your mom's cycles in order to prompt PG testing, are not age appropriate experiences, or skills attainment.

 Continuing to have kid after kid somehow, encouraged/induced the Duggars to parents ALL of their kids at the pre-school level...laziness and doing what is easiest is clearly a strong genetic trait in both JB and M's DNA. [Just think of a teenage Joy riding the kiddie train as she and Hannie celebrated their joint October birthdays.] Continuing to have children WAS a goal as evidenced by the "AND COUNTING" moniker used in their show's headline.

9 hours ago, Mercer said:

I also think some of it was just a concession to high-volume parenting. It takes a lot of effort, attention, and time invested in an individual to shape a young person into an independent moral decision-maker. It takes virtually none to just send another child along to tattle if they misbehave. I think there was some element of frankly just taking the path of least resistance with nineteen children to raise, rather than fully investing in helping each individual child grow into their maximum adult potential.

Yep.

Path of least resistance...JB and M parented to the infant stage and then left the rest to the pack of kids. In all honesty, those kids likely received less parental parenting than most, if not all, of us.

The lack of age appropriate parental input is criminal.

If those kids had been raised and educated to work and think independently, there would not be a cast of 20 somethings living at home, doing nothing.

[Kira]

2 hours ago, lascuba said:

Well, no. Sure, it would be nice if the Duggar girls branched out, but that's not what's happening here. Ben went to a concert. Without Jessa. Jessa, while claiming to be totally fine with Ben's interest in rap, gave every sign that she is extremely uncomfortable both with the music and with the people making that music. So it makes completely sense to wonder what the concert could mean. It could be a sign of growth and maturity for the couple. Or it could be a sign of Ben pulling the headship card and doing what he wants and to hell with Jessa's feelings. That concert is a huge departure from what the Duggars have told us repeatedly of their beliefs...since the kidults won't publicly admit that they disagre with their parents on anything, the logical assumption is that this could be a sign of conflict in that relationship. 

The married kids have done many things that the Duggars have said are against their beliefs .Isn't that usually what happens when fundie kids get married? I would say Jill and Jessa are branching out, a litt bit. Didn't Jessa and Ben go to a country music concert last year? Israel loves to dance! Jill, who admitted only knowing hymns, was learning nursery rhymes. Jill and Derick saw Cinderella on Broadway and went to a wine festival(?). Have Jessa and Jill donthings without their husbands(and children)? We don't know

I don't think Ben going to a concert means anything.  He went with friends of the Duggars. If Ben's interest in Christian rap music was a problem would they have dedicated an episode of their tv show to Ben's love for Christian rap music.?

 

6 hours ago, Ungodly Grandma said:

This IS a snark site.

I know. I'm not talking about snark. Some of the comments in this entire thread are weird.  

[EmCatlyn]

8 hours ago, nastyhobbitses said:

I mean, perhaps they weren't thinking "muahahaha let's make our children completely unable to function in the real world", but I get the impression that they wanted their children to be ignorant, pliable, and dependent so they'd be easier to control and keep in essentially the Cult of Jim Bob.

Yes, they definitely wanted to control their kids.  The "stunting" was a result of the desire to control, so we agree in this.  My point is that the Duggar parents saw what they were doing as protecting their kids from the real world.  I don't think they wanted their children to be ignorant.  I think that being ignorant themselves, they were suspicious of knowledge that wasn't easy for them (the parents) to grasp.  

Though they were proceeding selfishly, their actions were not intentionally harmful. 

[SassyPants]

14 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

Yes, they definitely wanted to control their kids.  The "stunting" was a result of the desire to control, so we agree in this.  My point is that the Duggar parents saw what they were doing as protecting their kids from the real world.  I don't think they wanted their children to be ignorant.  I think that being ignorant themselves, they were suspicious of knowledge that wasn't easy for them (the parents) to grasp.  

Though they were proceeding selfishly, their actions were not intentionally harmful. 

Continuing on along the same path could be considered "intentionally" harmful. In 2002 when Josh was molesting his sisters+1, the Duggars should have STOPPED PROCREATING and placed their time, attention, talent and treasure on their already born children- 

They failed the kids they already had, so they went on to create 6 (almost 7) more. IMO, that's pretty intentional. In addition, they were both equally irresponsible.

[nastyhobbitses]

4 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

Continuing on along the same path could be considered "intentionally" harmful. In 2002 when Josh was molesting his sisters+1, the Duggars should have STOPPED PROCREATING and placed their time, attention, talent and treasure on their already born children- 

They failed the kids they already had, so they went on to create 6 (almost 7) more. IMO, that's pretty intentional. In addition, they were both equally irresponsible.

It may be a bit controversial to say, but I'm convinced that every kid born after they started getting on TV (so Jackson on down) was born for publicity.

[SassyPants]

3 minutes ago, nastyhobbitses said:

It may be a bit controversial to say, but I'm convinced that every kid born after they started getting on TV (so Jackson on down) was born for publicity.

Certainly to continue the easy $$$$$$ TEVEEEE show.

[EmCatlyn]

13 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

Continuing on along the same path could be considered "intentionally" harmful. In 2002 when Josh was molesting his sisters+1, the Duggars should have STOPPED PROCREATING and placed their time, attention, talent and treasure on their already born children- 

They failed the kids they already had, so they went on to create 6 (almost 7) more. IMO, that's pretty intentional. In addition, they were both equally irresponsible.

Yes, they intentionally minimized the harm to their daughters, covered up for Josh and made all the wrong decisions.  And yes, they intentionally continued to have children.  The mega-family that made it hard for them to take care of their kids was something they chose to have.

That being said, the harm to the kids was not intended.  If I foolishly choose to drive my kids around without car seats or seat belts, and we are in an accident, I consciously did something that caused them harm, but didn't intend to harm them,

It is still wrong and irresponsible of course.

[anotherone]

20 hours ago, Mercer said:

I agree. While it's true that adolescence as it's defined in the United States is a relatively modern concept, there has almost always been some sort of independence process by which a child becomes an adult through taking on more responsibility and being expected to start making good decisions, however a particular culture defines what good decision-making entails.

 

My kid had a condensed book of fairy tales from the ages and in almost all of them, the adventure happens (fights the giant, helps the old lady in the forest who ended up having special powers, becomes the silversmith apprentice, saves the princess, etc.) when he "went off to find his fortune" in the world.  The boys were probably like only 15, but still they were allowed to go off and find their way.  So this holds across centuries and across countries (most were old Europe).

[SassyPants]

14 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

Yes, they intentionally minimized the harm to their daughters, covered up for Josh and made all the wrong decisions.  And yes, they intentionally continued to have children.  The mega-family that made it hard for them to take care of their kids was something they chose to have.

That being said, the harm to the kids was not intended.  If I foolishly choose to drive my kids around without car seats or seat belts, and we are in an accident, I consciously did something that caused them harm, but didn't intend to harm them,

It is still wrong and irresponsible of course.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Using your approach, not much would be considered intent

Drunk driving and killing someone, for example.

If one knows that not suing a car seat is risky, not to mention illegal in some countries/states/cities, how is choosing to not use a car seat not viewed as an "intentional" act, given that one knows that not using such could definitely result in harm?

[lascuba]

2 hours ago, Kira said:

The married kids have done many things that the Duggars have said are against their beliefs .Isn't that usually what happens when fundie kids get married? I would say Jill and Jessa are branching out, a litt bit. Didn't Jessa and Ben go to a country music concert last year? Israel loves to dance! Jill, who admitted only knowing hymns, was learning nursery rhymes. Jill and Derick saw Cinderella on Broadway and went to a wine festival(?). Have Jessa and Jill donthings without their husbands(and children)? We don't know

I don't think Ben going to a concert means anything.  He went with friends of the Duggars. If Ben's interest in Christian rap music was a problem would they have dedicated an episode of their tv show to Ben's love for Christian rap music.?

 

 

I think there's very little these people wouldn't do for that TLC money. It's also very possible that the concert is really not a big deal, definitely. Though considering what JB/Michelle have said about music and dancing in the past, I doubt it. As a general rule, I think when there's a financial incentive to say or do certain things, it's best to take those things with huge grains of salt. It's really impossible for us to know where the line is with these people. Did she say this thing because it makes them look more relatable to the general public? Did he say that thing because he really believes it or he just doesn't want to give the impression that he's criticizing his belief system? What the Duggars actually believe and what they're willing to do for the sake of their brand is a mess of a clusterfuck. Personally--and this is about me only and not what I think anyone else should feel--anything short of dropping the "ministry" business will fail to impress me much. Concerts, dancing, pants, short hair...whatever. It's interesting in the sense that it's fun imagining how much JB and Michelle must hate it, but as long as they're trying to convert people and supporting politicians like Huckabee, they're all garbage human beings. 

[Hera]

Glad to know I'm not the only one who regularly craves some no-husband allowed friend, hobby or just alone time! 

I do think it's significant that Ben went to a concert without Jessa because, to my knowledge, that's not something JB and M would do - go somewhere for entertainment without the other (maybe even go somewhere for entertainment that isn't basically church, for that matter). I don't think it necessarily means anything bad for their marriage, though. I do believe that both Ben and Jessa take that "till death do us part" vow very seriously. Absent something extraordinary, I don't see a divorce happening. If anything, Ben wanting to do more fun things like people his age do and possibly realizing that babies are a huge responsibility might push them away from Gothardism and the  QF lifestyle and more toward mainstream conservative Christianity.  Every little bit helps and if they can get to a place where their kids go to real school and can get real educations and jobs, then the cycle JB and M started will be broken. And that's a good thing!  I'd much rather see this than watch Jill and Derrick drown in the koolaide.

[EmCatlyn]

27 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Using your approach, not much would be considered intent

Drunk driving and killing someone, for example.

If one knows that not suing a car seat is risky, not to mention illegal in some countries/states/cities, how is choosing to not use a car seat not viewed as an "intentional" act, given that one knows that not using such could definitely result in harm?

Yes, let's agree to disagree.  The difference is that you seem to be saying that if a person intentionally does X and X does harm, then the person intended to harm even if the person believed no harm would come from his choice.

I am saying that if a person does X, believing that it does not do harm, and it does do harm, the person did not intend to do harm.

Example:  A friend of mine is severely allergic to something in vaccines.  Her family didn't know, so she nearly died. Neither the parents nor the doctors intended harm. The choice to vaccinate her harmed my friend, but the parents meant well.

A cousin of this friend got a really bad case of measles (which has affected her eyesight). Her parents did not have their kids vaccinated because they believed the risk of a reaction like my friend had was greater than the risk of childhood diseases. (The doctors did not agree.) So the choice not to vaccinate this child harmed her, but the parents met well.

In both cases, the parents have responsibility for causing harm through not knowing the real risk.  In both cases, in my opinion, they did not "intend to cause harm."

As I said, let's agree to disagree. I just wanted to show what I meant by "intend/not intend."

[imokit]

10 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

Yes, let's agree to disagree.  The difference is that you seem to be saying that if a person intentionally does X and X does harm, then the person intended to harm even if the person believed no harm would come from his choice.

I am saying that if a person does X, believing that it does not do harm, and it does do harm, the person did not intend to do harm.

Example:  A friend of mine is severely allergic to something in vaccines.  Her family didn't know, so she nearly died. Neither the parents nor the doctors intended harm. The choice to vaccinate her harmed my friend, but the parents meant well.

A cousin of this friend got a really bad case of measles (which has affected her eyesight). Her parents did not have their kids vaccinated because they believed the risk of a reaction like my friend had was greater than the risk of childhood diseases. (The doctors did not agree.) So the choice not to vaccinate this child harmed her, but the parents met well.

In both cases, the parents have responsibility for causing harm through not knowing the real risk.  In both cases, in my opinion, they did not "intend to cause harm."

As I said, let's agree to disagree. I just wanted to show what I meant by "intend/not intend."

I think there's a difference between and intent to cause harm and responsibility for harm.  

To use an earlier analogy.  You can deliberately not restrain a child in car seat, because you'll think you'll be fine without it.  God will protect, or you won't need it or some such bull.  There's an accident.  The child who was not appropriately restrained is hurt.  In this case there is no intent to cause harm. Yet there is still responsibility (in this case criminal as well as ethical) for the harm caused to the child.

Intent and responsibility don't have to be linked to each other.  You can have one without the other

[SassyPants]

1 hour ago, imokit said:

I think there's a difference between and intent to cause harm and responsibility for harm.  

To use an earlier analogy.  You can deliberately not restrain a child in car seat, because you'll think you'll be fine without it.  God will protect, or you won't need it or some such bull.  There's an accident.  The child who was not appropriately restrained is hurt.  In this case there is no intent to cause harm. Yet there is still responsibility (in this case criminal as well as ethical) for the harm caused to the child.

Intent and responsibility don't have to be linked to each other.  You can have one without the other

I think for me, the key is knowing that harm can and does happen.

When I was working as a RN, knowledge deficits which resulted in bad outcomes were not judged as harshly as incidents where the person knew what they should do, yet chose to do something else.

If after 10,12, 15 kids the Duggar parents did not know that what they were doing was adversely affecting their family and children...I'm sorry, there has to be repercussions for being willingly stupid. Did they seriously not connect the dots with Josh's behaviors on his sisters? Seriously, did they not question their parental approach? 

IMO, they didn't care because they were doing what was easiest for THEM (JB and M).

[2manyKidzzz]

I think it is their obsessive religious zeal and ridiculously egotistical devotion to Jeebus. 

[socalrules]

Kind of makes me wonder of one of the reasons Jill was happy to move to CA was to get Derrick away from the worldly influences of friends. Remember when they went to his friend's wedding where there  as dancing and likely alcohol? I cannot believe that Jill and was ever comfortable around his friends since they weren't fundy. I would expect that she was happy to not have to share him. Let's not forget that she had a hard enough time when he was at work everyday. 

[EmCatlyn]

3 hours ago, imokit said:

I think there's a difference between and intent to cause harm and responsibility for harm.  

To use an earlier analogy.  You can deliberately not restrain a child in car seat, because you'll think you'll be fine without it.  God will protect, or you won't need it or some such bull.  There's an accident.  The child who was not appropriately restrained is hurt.  In this case there is no intent to cause harm. Yet there is still responsibility (in this case criminal as well as ethical) for the harm caused to the child.

Intent and responsibility don't have to be linked to each other.  You can have one without the other

Precisely.  That has been my point. The Duggars are responsible for crippling their children, but they didn't do it intentionally.

[lascuba]

5 hours ago, Hera said:

Glad to know I'm not the only one who regularly craves some no-husband allowed friend, hobby or just alone time! 

I do think it's significant that Ben went to a concert without Jessa because, to my knowledge, that's not something JB and M would do - go somewhere for entertainment without the other (maybe even go somewhere for entertainment that isn't basically church, for that matter). I don't think it necessarily means anything bad for their marriage, though. I do believe that both Ben and Jessa take that "till death do us part" vow very seriously. Absent something extraordinary, I don't see a divorce happening. If anything, Ben wanting to do more fun things like people his age do and possibly realizing that babies are a huge responsibility might push them away from Gothardism and the  QF lifestyle and more toward mainstream conservative Christianity.  Every little bit helps and if they can get to a place where their kids go to real school and can get real educations and jobs, then the cycle JB and M started will be broken. And that's a good thing!  I'd much rather see this than watch Jill and Derrick drown in the koolaide.

I don't think divorce is the worst that could happen. For the Duggar offspring specifically, I think a divorce could be a sign of progress depending on the circumstances, because that would mean that they went against a major belief instead of staying in a shitty marriage. 

The more I think about it, the more conflicted I feel about seeing Ben's more mainstream actions in a positive light. *IF* Jessa is on board with it, then that would be great. But assuming she's not, I'm really uncomfortable with the idea that it's great because as the headship he can say, "No full quiver, no homeschool, music with a beat all the time!" and Jessa will have to go along with it. Because as stupid and dangerous as her beliefs are, I'm not ok with those beliefs being used against her to force her into a change she feels is wrong. I'm not explaining this well, and part of all this is that I can't shake my first impression that Ben has "controlling asshole" written all over him, but that's what I mean when I say that the concert might be a sign of a problem. Sure, if it is a problem it could be like any other marriage and it will be a rough patch they'll have to deal with. Or it could become a major source of unhappiness and they'll be stuck...or Jessa will be stuck, and Ben will do what he wants. 

OK, I'm rambling. I'm a worst case scenario thinker so a lot of the optimism I'm seeing has head spinning. 

[nst]

15 minutes ago, lascuba said:

I don't think divorce is the worst that could happen. For the Duggar offspring specifically, I think a divorce could be a sign of progress depending on the circumstances, because that would mean that they went against a major belief instead of staying in a shitty marriage. 

The more I think about it, the more conflicted I feel about seeing Ben's more mainstream actions in a positive light. *IF* Jessa is on board with it, then that would be great. But assuming she's not, I'm really uncomfortable with the idea that it's great because as the headship he can say, "No full quiver, no homeschool, music with a beat all the time!" and Jessa will have to go along with it. Because as stupid and dangerous as her beliefs are, I'm not ok with those beliefs being used against her to force her into a change she feels is wrong. I'm not explaining this well, and part of all this is that I can't shake my first impression that Ben has "controlling asshole" written all over him, but that's what I mean when I say that the concert might be a sign of a problem. Sure, if it is a problem it could be like any other marriage and it will be a rough patch they'll have to deal with. Or it could become a major source of unhappiness and they'll be stuck...or Jessa will be stuck, and Ben will do what he wants. 

OK, I'm rambling. I'm a worst case scenario thinker so a lot of the optimism I'm seeing has head spinning. 

you aren't rambling - something has been nagging at me - I think Ben is a controlling asshole who also has issues and he said himself he tends to be quiet if he is upset (episode where they went for marriage counselling with DQ and JB)  so we have witnessing him being quiet a lot - now whether he is upset about being filmed or upset because he is not getting what he wants.

that's the question 

[CorruptionInc.]

1 hour ago, nst said:

now whether he is upset about being filmed or upset because he is not getting what he wants.

that's the question 

 

If the underlined is why he is upset, there is no way in hell he should have a wife AND a child.

Baby boy needs to grow up!

[Ungodly Grandma]

9 hours ago, lascuba said:

I don't think divorce is the worst that could happen. For the Duggar offspring specifically, I think a divorce could be a sign of progress depending on the circumstances, because that would mean that they went against a major belief instead of staying in a shitty marriage. 

The more I think about it, the more conflicted I feel about seeing Ben's more mainstream actions in a positive light. *IF* Jessa is on board with it, then that would be great. But assuming she's not, I'm really uncomfortable with the idea that it's great because as the headship he can say, "No full quiver, no homeschool, music with a beat all the time!" and Jessa will have to go along with it. Because as stupid and dangerous as her beliefs are, I'm not ok with those beliefs being used against her to force her into a change she feels is wrong. I'm not explaining this well, and part of all this is that I can't shake my first impression that Ben has "controlling asshole" written all over him, but that's what I mean when I say that the concert might be a sign of a problem. Sure, if it is a problem it could be like any other marriage and it will be a rough patch they'll have to deal with. Or it could become a major source of unhappiness and they'll be stuck...or Jessa will be stuck, and Ben will do what he wants. 

OK, I'm rambling. I'm a worst case scenario thinker so a lot of the optimism I'm seeing has head spinning. 

Not rambling, thinking out loud. Or or typing or something. Anyway, that is an interesting point you make. Not fair to change the rules after vows have been taken. 

That baby's awful name lends support to your controlling asshole theory.

[nst]

21 hours ago, lascuba said:

Well, no. Sure, it would be nice if the Duggar girls branched out, but that's not what's happening here. Ben went to a concert. Without Jessa. Jessa, while claiming to be totally fine with Ben's interest in rap, gave every sign that she is extremely uncomfortable both with the music and with the people making that music. So it makes completely sense to wonder what the concert could mean. It could be a sign of growth and maturity for the couple. Or it could be a sign of Ben pulling the headship card and doing what he wants and to hell with Jessa's feelings. That concert is a huge departure from what the Duggars have told us repeatedly of their beliefs...since the kidults won't publicly admit that they disagre with their parents on anything, the logical assumption is that this could be a sign of conflict in that relationship. 

And that is the bottom line Jessa toes the lines and claims to be still a kid in a large family.  She may have married Ben who became an extension of the family at first but now things have changed.  He could have gone to the concert (at this rate maybe he has gone to many by this point) but to filmed and to smile for picture is a whole other thing.  

They are making Jana look like an adult Cinderella imo she looks like a fool every time tlc asks her something she is not comfortable with. 

 

 

 

 

18 hours ago, nastyhobbitses said:

It may be a bit controversial to say, but I'm convinced that every kid born after they started getting on TV (so Jackson on down) was born for publicity.

no really 

I never thought that 

honest 

[nst]

9 hours ago, CorruptionInc. said:

If the underlined is why he is upset, there is no way in hell he should have a wife AND a child.

Baby boy needs to grow up!

but remember he was 19 

what 19 year old gets what they want right away re their chosen profession 

at 19 I was in a whole other space 

Ben is a douche because he got the dream girl, dream wedding, dream tv show, but didn't get the dream ministry via you tube - so he turned to  christian hip hop - I NEVER saw that coming.  

it's obvious now with the silences and the way he threw Spud's clothes towards Jessa something is amiss. 

[Shadoewolf]

Ok seriously wishing my OnDemand would update so I could see these last 2 episodes. Damn you WOW!!!