BRADRICK! Divorce Part 2

[MamaJunebug]

2 hours ago, nausicaa said:

Do you think Kelly will stay at her parents' house for the rest of her life? I'm just wondering what her situation will be like long term once the smoke clears. Obviously right now she's probably just trying to keep her head above water, and with six little kids, moving back to her parents' house seems a reasonable idea.

But in Scott's theology, is she now permanently a child? Unable to remarry, and so according the patriarchal rules, under her father's control?

Excellent questions--I don't ever recall a 200-year plan addressing this sort of situation. Daddy was perfect so unlike in the world out there, nothing could go wrong go wrong go wrong........

[nokidsmom]

 

3 hours ago, nokidsmom said:

 and his daughter back to where she belongs: under his protection along with her kids.

 

3 hours ago, nausicaa said:

Do you think Kelly will stay at her parents' house for the rest of her life? I'm just wondering what her situation will be like long term once the smoke clears. Obviously right now she's probably just trying to keep her head above water, and with six little kids, moving back to her parents' house seems a reasonable idea.

But in Scott's theology, is she now permanently a child? Unable to remarry, and so according the patriarchal rules, under her father's control?

I don't necessarily think her future will be at Chez Brown for the rest of her life.  For now it makes sense of course.  I wonder how long Scottie will want to follow his own rules, consider his adult daughter a child and protect 7 people under his roof indefinitely.   I imagine he will find a workaround to justify marrying her off again.

But my thinking when I wrote the above was along the lines of that, in vetting and giving approval to Peter, Scottie ensured (or so he thought) he would always have control over his daughter.  Peter was VF royalty, sat at the right hand of DPIAT, the couple lived nearby and were heavily involved in Scottie's ministry so he probably never dreamed that it could ever change.   Then came DPIAT's fall, Scottie didn't anticipate Peter's reaction to it and the unthinkable happened: Scottie no longer had the control he thought he had through his son in law.   It seems that Scottie is taking back control of his daughter's life since her husband failed so utterly.

If Kelly ever remarries, Scottie is going to be even more vigilant, although I don't know how he can ever top his extreme vetting of Peter, short of chaining the next suitor / husband to the wall.  But he will make absolutely sure he doesn't lose control, as he sees it, again.   

[DomWackTroll]

14 minutes ago, nokidsmom said:

 I imagine he will find a workaround to justify marrying her off again.

Definitely. He'll call her an "adultery widow" or whatever that term was that Stacy McD. used to justify marrying James. Oh, I remember now: "grace widow." Okay, Stacy. 

[Fundiewonder]

Scott Brown once wrote an article or blog post about how he evaluated Peter's suitability for Kelly. I don't remember where it was, but I do recall that Scotty said he demanded to review Peter's computer history (as if Peter  wouldn't be savvy enough to erase his electronic footprints).  All that paternal scrutiny wasn't worth much!

Since Peter is now so far away, either Kelly had to know of his misdeeds or someone else went to Scotty with details. I Googled Peter to see if there were any recent arrests, but didn't come up with anything.

While Peter is a tool, im not going to speculate on what he did. Someone made a joke about bestiality on this thread, and now people want to know the name of Peter's Doberman pincher girlfriend (or boyfriend). HIs offense could be cheating on his wife---sleazy but a lot different than pedophilia. Also, while he could very well be closeted, it's also possible that Scotty made him agree to "no girlfriends or boyfriends at visits" simply to embarrass him, or because he believes anyone who cheats is potentially guilty of any "immorality.,

[Black Aliss]

34 minutes ago, Fundiewonder said:

While Peter is a tool, im not going to speculate on what he did. Someone made a joke about bestiality on this thread, and now people want to know the name of Peter's Doberman pincher girlfriend (or boyfriend).

Bestiality is actually illegal in Washington (it's not in many states), so charges would have been filed.

That said, I predict Kelly will be married to Natty Darnell within a year. Scott will insist on it.

[MamaJunebug]

1 hour ago, nokidsmom said:

  I imagine he will find a workaround to justify marrying her off again.

"Workaround." Yep. Very cynical solution, Scott-o.  Oh did I say "cynical?"  Christian. Yep, that's what I meant. Very Christian. 

43 minutes ago, Black Aliss said:

 

That said, I predict Kelly will be married to Natty Darnell within a year. Scott will insist on it.

Oh , don't even suggest it. Hasn't that poor woman suffered enough?

1 hour ago, Fundiewonder said:

it's also possible that Scotty made him agree to "no girlfriends or boyfriends at visits" simply to embarrass him,

I'd guessed that, too. Scorch that earth, Scott. 

[ChunkyBarbie]

3 hours ago, Black Aliss said:

Bestiality is actually illegal in Washington (it's not in many states), so charges would have been filed.

That said, I predict Kelly will be married to Natty Darnell within a year. Scott will insist on it.

If that happens, Ol Scottie needs a new picker. God forbid, he let Kelly pick her own husband. Hey Scottie, I picked my own husband and we have had 24 years and counting of wedded bliss. The kicker, my husband isn't even Christian!  

[Anonymousguest]

13 hours ago, crawfishgirl said:

I don't think that it was Andrew who initially mentioned the sexual orientation issues.  Palimpset made a post at the end of the last thread with the following info.  Since that thread closed shortly after the post, it may have been missed, so I copied her post below:

 

 

Andrew suggested "sexual child abuse" which is not at all anything related to they possibility he maybe had an affair with a man. Not even in the same realm. There is nothing anywhere to indicate he did anything to injure a child.

[BobJonesBabe]

10 hours ago, DomWackTroll said:

Definitely. He'll call her an "adultery widow" or whatever that term was that Stacy McD. used to justify marrying James. Oh, I remember now: "grace widow." Okay, Stacy. 

Oh wow. Didn't realize this about James and Stacy. 

[bea]

Oh yes - Stacey and James each had one previous marriage. Not that they MENTIONED it. The older kids were half siblings, and I'm not sure, but I think James Jr. lived somewhere else after one point.

[acheronbeach]

19 hours ago, Black Aliss said:

Bestiality is actually illegal in Washington (it's not in many states), so charges would have been filed.

That said, I predict Kelly will be married to Natty Darnell within a year. Scott will insist on it.

Just because something's illegal doesn't mean that charges get laid.  This is something I've seen people post repeatedly on FJ, and I haven't the foggiest idea why. 

Not that I am suggesting any bad behaviour on Peter's part.  This is just a general comment about the criminal justice system. 

[NurseNell]

Jeesh, I stay away from FJ for a year and come back to tis news. Holy cow! The first image that came to mind was that photo of Kelly on the back deck of a house they were looking at, she has 2 children and is pregnant with another, she looks exhausted and pissed. It's like you can read her mind, what the hell was I thinking. And then there was her close call with death when her asshole of a husband made her go at 2 weeks post party to Europe for a D Day reenactment and she almost bled to death from retained placenta. I am surprised she had more children after that. I feel very sorry for her, I really do. She has 6 children, it's going to be very difficult to live on her own. She's either stuck with her crazy parents or she'll remarry and be back in the same kind of hell.

I found the photo in google. I don't remember if it's OK to post them here or not. So please remove it if not allowed.

[send*the*ferrets]

I actually don't think she will get married right away- unless the guy she marries is fairly well off. If she gets married, she loses spousal support. My mother in law never even dated because she worked an $8/hour job and knew she couldn't make it without alimony. She didn't want to get married and worry about money so she just didn't date. 

[MamaJunebug]

8 hours ago, NurseNell said:

Jeesh, I stay away from FJ for a year and come back to tis news. Holy cow! The first image that came to mind was that photo of Kelly on the back deck of a house they were looking at, she has 2 children and is pregnant with another, she looks exhausted and pissed. It's like you can read her mind, what the hell was I thinking. And then there was her close call with death when her asshole of a husband made her go at 2 weeks post party to Europe for a D Day reenactment and she almost bled to death from retained placenta. I am surprised she had more children after that. I feel very sorry for her, I really do. She has 6 children, it's going to be very difficult to live on her own. She's either stuck with her crazy parents or she'll remarry and be back in the same kind of hell.

I found the photo in google. I don't remember if it's OK to post them here or not. So please remove it if not allowed.

Migod.  I never before realized how close to tears she looks in that photo. 

[Jencendiary]

This picture right here is why other fundie 'princesses' are making their peace with the prospect of singleness.

[nokidsmom]

I remember this picture.   She looks so miserable in it.  What a sad contrast to her wedding pictures, where she did look genuinely happy. 

On 3/26/2017 at 3:54 AM, Jencendiary said:

This picture right here is why other fundie 'princesses' are making their peace with the prospect of singleness.

Makes me wonder if the Botkinettes took one look and said "nope, not for me".    Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it) they needn't convince their Daddy of same.  

[refugee]

Rightly or not-so-rightly--this is idle speculation, after all--I had the impression that Botkin, Sr. was holding out for the highest bidder, in terms of dowry, for his glamour girls, but none of the prospective suitors could enrich Daddy sufficiently to compensate for his future losses (i.e., free labor on the part of the "girls" who never grew up).

There was serious discussion of the concept of the dowry at our former Botkin- and VF-worshipping church.

[nokidsmom]

Just now, refugee said:

There was serious discussion of the concept of the dowry at our former Botki- and VF-worshipping church.

Interesting to hear about this.  

[nelliebelle1197]

@NurseNell You've been gone a while!

[RebelliousEscapee]

11 minutes ago, refugee said:

 

There was serious discussion of the concept of the dowry at our former Botkin- and VF-worshipping church.

Ditto. 

In fact... My oh-so-generous dad was kind enough to specify to my then-bf that no dowry would be demanded if we got married.

... yay?

[refugee]

25 minutes ago, nokidsmom said:

Interesting to hear about this.  

Oh god, the memories. I must be healing, I can talk about this stuff without feeling like there's not enough air to breathe. I still get the tightness in my chest, but I'm able to take a deep breath. Time and therapy must be working.

First off, it's necessary to emphasize that the fathers who talked the most about the concept of the dowry (drawing heavily on the OT) were those who headed the "in-crowd" families. The impression I have now, looking back, is that they were going to cash in on their decorative but useless daughters.

I say "useless" because the sons, of course, would be trained to work. They were the parents' Social Security because the people there firmly believed that Social Security would collapse by the time they reached retirement age. The "boys" would remain under the patriarch's authority until the death of the patriarch.

The ideal was to build a small starter house on the family property for the first-born son and his wife, enough for them to start out with a child, or maybe three or four. When the patriarch and his wife were done with child-raising of their large family, it would be simple for them to swap houses with the eldest and his growing brood. They'd retire in the smaller house, the eldest son and growing family would have a large house with lots of room to expand.

(ETA: I just remembered another practical application that was actually put into practice by some that we knew. The "starter house" would have been built originally for the older generation, the parents of either the patriarch or his wife, a solution to being part of the "sandwich generation". Then when the older generation died off, the house would be there, ready for the oldest son to start out married life.)

Girls? They were something of a waste, in terms of future investment. Certainly, they could do the bulk of the domestic work as long as they were home, but their destiny (according to "biblical" guidelines) was to marry, move out, and be under some other man's headship. So, worth something in terms of free labor as long as they remained under daddy's roof. 

While "plain and quiet" was the unwritten rule among the peon families, the daughters in the in-crowd somehow managed to be fashionable. I often wondered how they did it with thrift-store shopping. (Maybe they didn't. Don't know. We shopped at thrift stores or gratefully made use of hand-me-downs, but then we weren't part of the in-crowd.) They were slim, sun-streaked, fashionable, and wore makeup that was skillfully applied.

Anyhow, it was sort of an unwritten understanding that one way for a "boy" to enter the "in crowd" was to be able to pay a large dowry for one of those beautified daughters.

We're not talking camels or cows, but cold, hard cash.

(I don't think it ever got off the ground, however, as from what I've seen, most of the marriages that have taken place in that church have been between "in-crowd" families.)

Peon families need not expect any windfalls from selling their daughters.

[nokidsmom]

@refugee thanks for sharing and not at all surprised to hear that it was the "in crowd" patriarchs that liked this idea.  Pretty awfully telling on how they viewed their daughters.  

[refugee]

1 minute ago, nokidsmom said:

@refugee thanks for sharing and not at all surprised to hear that it was the "in crowd" patriarchs that liked this idea.  Pretty awfully telling on how they viewed their daughters.  

You're welcome. I am still working through how I got sucked in. I'm sure part of it comes from being raised to feel like I was useless unless I performed well (bringing my parents credit) or went on to become some sort of high-paid professional (MD, lawyer, engineer)...

The patriarch movement promised protection for women who felt unprotected (perfect solution to childhood in a seriously dysfunctional family) and structure (perfect solution for a chaotic childhood) and purpose and being cherished because of (or maybe in spite of) the fact that you are one of those useless female types.

[Loveday]

Wait a minute. I'm confused. Wasn't a dowry traditionally something paid by the father of the daughter to the groom? Not the other way around? (I mean in the Western tradition; I have no idea how it worked or works in Middle Eastern or Far East societies)

[RebelliousEscapee]

8 minutes ago, Loveday said:

Wait a minute. I'm confused. Wasn't a dowry traditionally something paid by the father of the daughter to the groom? Not the other way around? (I mean in the Western tradition; I have no idea how it worked or works in Middle Eastern or Far East societies)

Just looked it up and I think you're right. Looks like they mixed up "dowry" and "bride price" or assumed them to be the same. Hm.