Joy and Austin: Back in Arkansas?

[PainfullyAware]

Well, at least according to the link to the Wikipedia summary for the book kindly provided by @kachuu, they teach about sex organs, emphasize the importance of women being aroused before intercourse, and even talk about the clitoris as a means for how women achieve orgasm (which is actually apparently considered important to 'lovemaking'). I really didn't think anyone of them even knew what a clitoris was. So maybe they have the basics covered.

Obviously there's a big fat caveat that the wife can't say no, which is just too gross for words. I like to hope some of the Duggar girls' husbands don't take advantage of that and it's a mutual choice when both are in the mood- but you never know. Taking away a woman's choice with this kind of coerced consent (Michelle calls it being 'joyfull available' or something, right?) - is the worst of the worst Duggar beliefs. If I'm raised to think going to hell is a real possibility, and that saying no to my husband makes me fail as a wife in God's eyes and is a sin - that's some heavy pressure right there 

[Bethella]

The book that JB gave Josh before his wedding was Intended for Pleasure: Sex Technique and Sexual Fulfillment in Christian Marriage by Ed Wheat (the doctor who told Michelle and JB that the pill cause J'Caleb's miscarriage)

A while back someone did a review of one of his other books:

 

[picklepizzas]

How have we not discussed this tasteful post by Joy yet? You cannot get more blatant than that in shamelessly begging for gifts. Holy moly, girl. Have some class. 

 

Spoiler

 

[marmalade]

I think it was discussed on the JoKen thread.

[Coconut Flan]

Beginning here:

 

[picklepizzas]

 

9 minutes ago, marmalade said:

I think it was discussed on the JoKen thread.

T god, t god. Glad this faux pas was not missed. 

[MadeItOut]

On 07/07/2017 at 9:28 PM, justoneoftwo said:

What problems does that cause?  Do you not have the same access?  Do they have an option to not have a primary?  Just curious how it all works for different people.  I assume H is the primary on all our accounts, but I have never had any problems because of it.

I will never ever forget the bitch of a teller who reduced my Mum to tears a month after Dad died (no quarter from me as she was the one we dealt with to inform the death and she could easily have handled it very differently). Mum was sent a cheque to pay 'Mrs his initials our-family-name'. Their account, which they opened together when they married so as to have equal footing, was in the names: 'Mr & Mrs his initials our-family-name'.

Not only would she not process the cheque, but she denied having met with us to process the death (later we were vindicated by record), attempted to freeze the account and accused mum of fraud as "Mrs his initials our-family-name'' didn't exist - and then wondered why she was the bad guy with everyone telling her that was a bitchy move. By the time I arrived she was very fortunate to have a supervisor who stood between her and I when she finally relented on total non-existence, but stated that 'Mrs his initials our-family-name' ceased to exist with Dad's death.

That whole mess took over a year to sort out, including multiple letters to my father, letting him know mum had produced his death certificate and would he please confirm in writing that he gives his permission for them to deal with Mum (they had both administrated the account always). When the complaint was eventually resolved via the ombudsman, they issued a compensation cheque first to Mr my father, then to Mrs my father. As a result of the sheer hell mum was put through, none of our family and friends will use Santander ever again - and we've all written to say so.

People are so thoughtless around new widows. It beggers belief!

[MadeItOut]

On 09/07/2017 at 4:53 AM, louisa05 said:

 

The Methodists in town don't fund the food bank. For the entire county. Just saying. 

Unless something changed very recently, each manse has always maintained a poor cupboard. Part of the arrangement for the minister living there was always that where donations ran too low to meet demand, the minister must supplement from their own food and supplies.

On 13/07/2017 at 1:50 AM, kachuu said:

 

I honestly wonder if any of those women have ever had an orgasm much less know what it is. 

If their community is anything like the one I married into, I would doubt it.

How to put this...? Okay, suffice it to say that none of us had reason to doubt when told that female orgasm is totally fictitious. ...now that I live with an incredibly complex, thinking man, outside of the fundie world, I know differently.

[Queen]

On 8 juli 2017 at 7:31 PM, SilverBeach said:

Jesus had women disciples also, they have just been glossed over. It's unfortunate that none of the writings of his female students/apostles made it into canon/the bible, because of plain old sexism.

 

Yes, yes, yes! There is no word for female disciple in Greek (the language NT was written in), but he definiately had them. The NT canon was written by several people, none of them knew the Arameic prophet/exorcist Jeshua from Nazareth and it's not likely any of them ever even went to the "holy land". 

[Queen]

@allthegoodnamesrgone I so do not agree with you. I don't think any gender should be in charge over another, not ever. If an individual chooses submission, fine, I can't stop them, but to say that women should in some cases have less power than men? No. Not ever. Not on my watch! 

I am a woman and I am as fully capable of making descicions and having power as any man. I'm sorry for attacking you, but gender equality is one of the things I'm most passionate about. Again, live your life however you want, but whenever I see statements implying that women should in any form not have as much power as men, I see red. 

Peace out! ❤️

[singsingsing]

1 hour ago, Queen said:

The NT canon was written by several people, none of them knew the Arameic prophet/exorcist Jeshua from Nazareth and it's not likely any of them ever even went to the "holy land". 

That's one opinion (and a perfectly legitimate one), but there's insufficient scholarly consensus to state definitively whether any of the NT authors were eye witnesses. And the major contributor to the New Testament (Paul) most definitely 'went to the "holy land"'.

[Queen]

58 minutes ago, singsingsing said:

That's one opinion (and a perfectly legitimate one), but there's insufficient scholarly consensus to state definitively whether any of the NT authors were eye witnesses. And the major contributor to the New Testament (Paul) most definitely 'went to the "holy land"'.

We have probably read different scholars!  I should also have clarified I was talking about the 4 canonical versions of the story of Jesus, not the whole NT.

[allthegoodnamesrgone]

@Queen As I said most people don't understand what I'm trying to convey because it is really hard to explain in detail. It is a complicated thought process. In the end it is about women CHOOSING their own paths and us being supportive of what ever that choice is, as women empowering women to 'do you' as you want to. 

[Queen]

@allthegoodnamesrgone You do have a point in supporting other women's choices! I try to do so too, for example there's nothing wrong with being a stay at home mom or dad if the individual chose it freely  

There are some things though that I find suppressing or harming, and I do not support those, no matter how gladly and willingly a person chooses them. A really extreme example would be a woman (or anyone, really) wanting to go through genital mutilation, I'm not gonna support that! It's not like I'm gonna dictate what everyone does, but still, I'm not going to support pathriarchy in any form  Just my two cents!

[Gobsmacked]

9 hours ago, MadeItOut said:

I will never ever forget the bitch of a teller who reduced my Mum to tears a month after Dad died (no quarter from me as she was the one we dealt with to inform the death and she could easily have handled it very differently). Mum was sent a cheque to pay 'Mrs his initials our-family-name'. Their account, which they opened together when they married so as to have equal footing, was in the names: 'Mr & Mrs his initials our-family-name'.

Not only would she not process the cheque, but she denied having met with us to process the death (later we were vindicated by record), attempted to freeze the account and accused mum of fraud as "Mrs his initials our-family-name'' didn't exist - and then wondered why she was the bad guy with everyone telling her that was a bitchy move. By the time I arrived she was very fortunate to have a supervisor who stood between her and I when she finally relented on total non-existence, but stated that 'Mrs his initials our-family-name' ceased to exist with Dad's death.

That whole mess took over a year to sort out, including multiple letters to my father, letting him know mum had produced his death certificate and would he please confirm in writing that he gives his permission for them to deal with Mum (they had both administrated the account always). When the complaint was eventually resolved via the ombudsman, they issued a compensation cheque first to Mr my father, then to Mrs my father. As a result of the sheer hell mum was put through, none of our family and friends will use Santander ever again - and we've all written to say so.

People are so thoughtless around new widows. It beggers belief!

Santander took over my sisters bank in the UK. They tried to take her house off her because she is a single mum. She had never missed a mortgage payment in 20 years. They then told her she could keep the house if she allowed her partner of 10 years to put his name on the mortgage. Thankfully he is a sensible and lovely man. He said no. The house wasn't his. My sister then found another provider who sorted the whole mess out BUT it took forever because Santander blocked every transaction they could whilst the mortgage transfer was taking place. They are so unprofessional that it's a joke. A total joke. Thankfully it's all sorted now. No apologies have been issued though. 

[NeverBeenKissed]

I worked for Santander for 6ish months after they bought out the division I was working for (huge U.S. based bank). It was months of hell, they treated us horribly. Mandatory overtime, I was still receiving the same pay but was demoted down 2 levels. You had to push in and out exactly on the clock. I was late one day because I lived near a fire station and an early morning ambulance had gone out which messed up the traffic lights. I got a "tardy" because I was 7 minutes late. I really didn't care, ooooh I got a tardy but someone else had to have an ambulance called at 6am. I refuse to do business with them. 

[Shadoewolf]

Currently having Santander investigated by the FTC for illegal collection tactics and fraudulent credit reporting. Ugh they suck!!

[MadeItOut]

3 hours ago, Gobsmacked said:

Santander took over my sisters bank in the UK. They tried to take her house off her because she is a single mum. She had never missed a mortgage payment in 20 years. They then told her she could keep the house if she allowed her partner of 10 years to put his name on the mortgage. Thankfully he is a sensible and lovely man. He said no. The house wasn't his. My sister then found another provider who sorted the whole mess out BUT it took forever because Santander blocked every transaction they could whilst the mortgage transfer was taking place. They are so unprofessional that it's a joke. A total joke. Thankfully it's all sorted now. No apologies have been issued though. 

In the end, mum just kept writing, week on week: I note no response, apology, or compensation following correspondence of (list of dates) and copy to the ombudsman. Took over 18mts, but she got there eventually.

The Moneybox program on radio 4 sometimes helps with that kinda thing.

Joshley, Santander, my abusive ex, Inquisitr writers - they get one extra special level in hel if I have anything to do with it!

[sawasdee]

6 hours ago, Gobsmacked said:

Santander took over my sisters bank in the UK. They tried to take her house off her because she is a single mum. She had never missed a mortgage payment in 20 years. They then told her she could keep the house if she allowed her partner of 10 years to put his name on the mortgage

WTF? Are they still in the 1950s? My mother had a mortgage as a single parent (from the Midland Bank, now part of HSBC) in the UK in 1960!

[Paigerin2]

Has anything been Said as to where Joy and Austin are living? We saw Jinger decorating her apartment with Jeremy Pre-Wedding so I was curious if they were in one of the houses he had remodeled or with his parents.

[nolongerIFBx]

I was taught that Jesus was not married because all Christians make up the bride of Christ so He would not have another wife. There are parables in the Bible that relate to Christ as the bridegroom. Interesting that some thing that the marriage in Cana was his wedding. It would explain why Mary was involved with the wine distribution. Could have been Jesus' half-sister's wedding (if you believe that Mary  married Joseph and had children with him; I know that some do not) which would also explain Mary's involvement.

I was taught that Mary was not without sin (she calls Him My Savior, and she wouldn't need a Savior if she herself was sinless) but was chosen to bring God's Son into the world because she had a heart that desired to please God.

As to Paul, I actually think that he was pretty feminist for his time. Today? No, he probably would not be considered so, but for the day in which he lived, both Paul and Jesus acknowledged and communicated with women. Paul talks of Lydia, Damaris, Timothy's mother and grandmother, Priscilla, etc. He said that in Christ male and female were equal. Many of the situations in which he addressed talking in church or modesty were addressing particular events in the particular church that his letter was addressed to but people have tried to apply them across the board and made it into something that it was never meant to be. Paul had no idea he was writing the Bible! He was just writing to his friends.

He did write that it was better to be unmarried  but he also makes a point to say that this is his own opinion. He felt that marriage would keep people from spending 100% of their time serving God and the church. I've also been told that Paul really thought that Jesus would return during his time so advising people not to waste time getting married when they were all going to heaven in a few years made sense. It does not make sense for him to advise that across the board had he known that Jesus would not return for over 2,000 years. Then ascetism became  popular, how "poor me" could you be in your pursuit to be holier-than-thou? Part sacrificing the pleasure of marriage and part being too poor to be able to afford a spouse and children.

From a paper I wrote for a college course: " 

In the early days of Christianity, the renunciation of a sexual relationship was viewed as the purposeful openness to an individual relationship with God (Blank 133). The apologist Athenagoraus wrote “Remaining in virginity and in the state of a eunuch brings one nearer to God” (Brown 66). A body closed to the distractions of sex and childbirth was more open to communication with the divine (Blank 134). Jews and pagans agreed with Christians that “abstinence from sexual activity, especially virginity, made the human body a more appropriate vehicle to receive divine inspiration” (Brown 67). Ambrose taught that by closing one’s body to sexual activity, the mind, heart, and hands of the virgin were open to the Scriptures, to Christ, and to the poor (Brown 363).

LeFleur states that many concepts were projected on our world by our desire to be unique and much of the teaching in the early churches on virginity reflected that desire. Certainly not every early Christian sect taught sexual continence but many of the early church fathers did. Chrysostom taught that shunning nudity and sexual shame set the Christians apart from their non-Christian neighbors (Brown 309). Abstinence separated them as different from those around them while the physical body served to anchor them to this world with the cycle of birth, dying, and decomposition (Blank 139). Historian Peter Brown in The Body & Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity calls abstinence in the early church a “clear ladder of distinction”.  “It was a principle of distinction firmly rooted in the body. . . . To overcome so powerful a drive (and especially to overcome it in perpetuity, as a celibate or a virgin) was truly to rise above one’s fellows” (Brown lxvi-lxvii). Rising above the need for sexual expression was viewed as a higher state of being. It was the ability to suppress the desires of the body. Porphyry wrote that the virgin body itself was lifted up above the “common clay of the world. In its virgin state, the body enjoyed a superiority once ascribed only to the mind” (Brown 187). To deny the flesh was proof of one’s ability to rise above temptation. This ability was thought to bring one closer to God. Augustine taught that sin was a matter of the will, a choice to disobey God’s law (Blank 144). Rather than sexual activity being a simple falling prey to the desires of the flesh, it became a lack of individual commitment and personal strength (Blank 144). “Augustine’s doctrine of original sin focused on the disturbing sensation of otherness within the body . . . in which sexuality on all its levels (from orgasm to impotence), seemed always to slip free from the control of the will” (Brown lx). He then linked this feeling of otherness to the obscene anomaly of death (Brown lx). Augustine’s theology brought about a relocation of virginity from the body to the mind and soul (Blank 144), just as resurrection had become a concern of the soul rather than the physical body. By renouncing all sexual activity the human body could join in Christ’s victory (Brown 32).

The ability to remain celibate became a measure of one’s spiritual sincerity and sexual desire something that the truly committed would be able to overcome. LeFleur, quoting Peter Brown, said that “The cult of virginity became extensive and a thinker such as Origen ‘was prepared to look at sexuality in the human person as if it were a passing phase’”(LeFleur 39).  Peter Brown posited that early Christian’s fixation on male and female virginity was correlated to “a change in the perception of the body itself” (Brown 30).  “It [was] not merely that ‘asceticism was in the air’. . . but that the relationship between the body and the self, between the self and the world, between the self and others, particularly the divine other, [was] being reforged” (Goldhill 1-2). 

Virginity and celibacy were a well-established feature of most regions of the Christian world by 300 (Brown 202) and by 400, were considered dominant virtues of a Christian age (Brown xxxii). Monastics, martyrs, and virgins were viewed as saintly because of their achievement of this higher calling (Lelwica 85). In the twelfth century, celibacy became a requirement for church clergy (Blank 149). Becoming a priest, monk, or nun was a vocation that included an education (Blank 148), which raised one’s social status, and a life of celibacy provided a way to attain a raised status in the resurrection (Bynum 110). "

(Yes, I've studied the history of the purity culture quite a bit, LOL!) So this really was not all Paul's fault.

[front hugs > duggs]

Ugh - I've had similar experiences as all you previous posters, but with Bank of America. BoA was literally the bane of my existence following my mom's death last summer. She had her financial accounts with them, which weren't TOO much of a pain to deal with. But the car loan? Forget about it. It took them 7 months to get the deed for the car after I paid it off. They only wanted to send the title to her address, which nobody lived at anymore (a concept I actually had to explain to several BoA employees....). I was in a BoA location with an associate, on the phone calling the corporate number to get help, and the corporate employee hung up on the associate I was with. 

I had never before done business with BoA, and never will. Plus, I have memories of crying in probably 5 different bank locations, as well as an associate telling me that I looked too young to lose my mom (a comment I found both ignorant and inconsiderate; I felt I was too young to lose her, too).

[albanuadh_1]

Anyone notice that Joy and Austin only mentioned going to Switzerland for their honeymoon and no mention of Israel?

[Carm_88]

1 minute ago, albanuadh_1 said:

Anyone notice that Joy and Austin only mentioned going to Switzerland for their honeymoon and no mention of Israel?

Yep, I thought that was really interesting. They said clearly that they were just back and mentioned Switzerland but never spoke of going to Israel. 

[Mayluka]

30 minutes ago, albanuadh_1 said:

Anyone notice that Joy and Austin only mentioned going to Switzerland for their honeymoon and no mention of Israel?

I think the timing of the interview may have been between Switzerland and Israel. The interviewer mentioned that Joy and Austin had been married 26 or 27 days, which puts the interview around June 21 (and they mentioned having been home from Switzerland for only 3 days). The One For Israel trip they were speculated to be on took place from June 22 - July 3. It would be a lot of traveling and cutting it close, but it seems like J&A must have home for about 4 days before going to Israel, possibly just for the interview.