Josiah Duggar Part 6: Now Officially Engaged!

[marmalade]

1 hour ago, ariel9 said:

I wonder if other fundie couples feel engagement envy, like people are privy to in the non fundie world. For instance if a couple who has been courting longer sees that Siren just began courting in January and are engaged already would they feel like the person they are courting isn’t that serious?

To be fair, we don't know when they began courting. Josiah passed across my twatter feed this morning, pimping out his IG post. I went down his rabbit hole (didn't take long, just a handful of posts), and he became active on twitter after the layoff back in October. I don't think Duggars allow social media before courtship, or if they have, we haven't seen it. Unless it's this time. But I think that things have been going on a lot longer with these two than we've been led to believe in Duggar fantasyland. 

[TatiFish9]

@tabitha2 do you mean "French kissing" only or all displays of affections? I believe good night kisses were allowed in Victorian and Gregorian times and beyond. Also gestures like hand kissing and hugging were allowed. But I will stand corrected because I get some of the historical periods norms mixed up at times. 

I  think we're all generalizing here because varying cultures have had different views on premarital behavior across time. Where I agree is until very recently, public displays of affection have been generally frowned upon and women were expected to remain as pure and modest as possible until marriage even for lower classes. Elsewise, words like whore and slut would not persist until this day when premarital sexuality is seen as the norm fore most secular subcultures in many nations. 

 

 

 

[Ivycoveredtower]

15 minutes ago, marmalade said:

To be fair, we don't know when they began courting. Josiah passed across my twatter feed this morning, pimping out his IG post. I went down his rabbit hole (didn't take long, just a handful of posts), and he became active on twitter after the layoff back in October. I don't think Duggars allow social media before courtship, or if they have, we haven't seen it. Unless it's this time. But I think that things have been going on a lot longer with these two than we've been led to believe in Duggar fantasyland. 

he seemed to start posting on insta again in August I would guess that was when the get to know you period started. I think the Duggar's do seem to be pretty real about when official courtships start and since Si already had one they just let him use it probably to start speculation. I remember wondering about it. 

 

edited to add I do think it probably happened before the went over seas though. it looks like the courtship video was shot in the Duggar house maybe so I think he asked her they shot the video and then went on their trip. they were clearly still on their trip when they went announced but the whole story with the girls night out and the TLC video seems like they were state side when it happened. 

[SapphireSlytherin]

Did somebody unthread ask about her ring? On Si’s insta, you can see it... it appears to be a modestly sized square-cut diamond. 

[pandora]

8 hours ago, gameofunbeknowns said:

Not shit disturbing here, but there is actually scientific evidence to back up the idea.  The economist recently published an article where artificial intelligence scans faces to spot signs of human sexuality. I don’t know if it’s as simple as “Gaydar isn’t real.” Interesting read whatever the case.

https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21728614-machines-read-faces-are-coming-advances-ai-are-used-spot-signs

This discussion (of all things!) actually dragged me out of lurking, because I've seen/ heard some interesting responses to this study you cited which I don't know that anyone's brought up yet. There's this article: https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/21/16332760/ai-sexuality-gaydar-photo-physiognomy and I also heard one of the researchers quoted in it talking about it on a podcast that I like (The Savage Lovecast).  One of the critiques of the study is that the pictures they used were of people on a dating website who are self-identified as gay or straight and were looking to attract a partner of a certain gender, so any differences seen could likely be social (like facial expression, camera angle, and styling like makeup) rather than biological. 

Just to be clear cause I'm new and you don't know me, I'm not bringing this up as some kind of challenge to the poster of the economist article! I too read that Economist article when it came out and the idea that someone's facial structure could potentially out them against their will is a really scary one, especially for people in certain communities/ parts of the world. I think the context provided by some of the critiques is worthwhile.

[Dandruff]

4 hours ago, feministxtian said:

If you were to look at me...you'd swear up and down I didn't like guys...jeans, hair in a pony tail, concert t-shirts and tennis shoes were my "uniform"...yeah...no. It's hard to make an assumption based on outward appearances. 

That was me, less the ponytail, and I was a real tomboy to boot.  I'm hetero.

I never thought I had "gaydar", until something interesting happened.  I was friends with a guy for years, and just assumed he was straight.  It wasn't a subject we discussed though we were pretty open with each other.  One night I had a vivid dream about him with a boyfriend, and I told him about it.  He said "Oh yeah, I'm gay".  So it seems that on an unconscious level I picked something up from him.

[feministxtian]

Just now, Dandruff said:

That was me, less the ponytail, and I was a real tomboy to boot.  I'm hetero.

Know that one...cars, racing, football, most of my friends were guys. My favorite perfume was hot motor oil. My mother hated it...called me "butch", "dyke", any other slam she could think of. She just didn't get the whole jeans and t-shirt thing. Funny thing was, I never lacked for male attention! Then...if I had a boyfriend, she'd call me a slut and a whore. There was no winning with that bitch. 

[gameofunbeknowns]

15 minutes ago, pandora said:

This discussion (of all things!) actually dragged me out of lurking, because I've seen/ heard some interesting responses to this study you cited which I don't know that anyone's brought up yet. There's this article: https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/21/16332760/ai-sexuality-gaydar-photo-physiognomy and I also heard one of the researchers quoted in it talking about it on a podcast that I like (The Savage Lovecast).  One of the critiques of the study is that the pictures they used were of people on a dating website who are self-identified as gay or straight and were looking to attract a partner of a certain gender, so any differences seen could likely be social (like facial expression, camera angle, and styling like makeup) rather than biological. 

Just to be clear cause I'm new and you don't know me, I'm not bringing this up as some kind of challenge to the poster of the economist article! I too read that Economist article when it came out and the idea that someone's facial structure could potentially out them against their will is a really scary one, especially for people in certain communities/ parts of the world. I think the context provided by some of the critiques is worthwhile.

Welcome! And challenges welcome, only agreeing is boring. I don’t think science has quite caught up with intuition yet. It’s also often difficult to separate true intuition from, say, projection or willful thinking. Our gut has been cataloging information from the time we were born and all those subconscious experiences are a powerful thing. I think because we sympathize with people brought up in this environment and don’t want to see further harm come to them and also because people here admirably question their own motives and prejudices that we sometimes logic and explain away a few things that are just...what they are. I have more gay friends than straight and the ones I’ve talked to about gaydar say it’s real and real helpful.

[nastyhobbitses]

On gaydar: if it exists, mine isn't very good, though then again I'm kinda oblivious to a lot of things. I think it's possible to have a good hunch, though I do wonder how much of "gaydar" is influenced by stereotypes/the way LGBT people culturally present themselves/performative sexuality. If we didn't associate certain behaviors with "gay" or "straight" or whatever, how would our gaydars change? 

Speaking of performative sexuality, where is this engagement going to be on a scale of Maxwell No Touch to Bates Everything But Kissing? 

[Ivycoveredtower]

18 minutes ago, nastyhobbitses said:

 

Speaking of performative sexuality, where is this engagement going to be on a scale of Maxwell No Touch to Bates Everything But Kissing? 

I think they will be like Joe and Kendra very touchy feely but not wanting to go to far. I am thinking how Kendra was joking about Joe's muscle's during the photo shoot but they didn't' want to have his hand wrapped around her waist.  and must I say blah watching that video again I can see why people think she is like Anna i haven't seen that much eye adoration since Anna and Josh got engaged. yike at least Kendra and the Duggar girls aren't That bad. 

[pandora]

55 minutes ago, gameofunbeknowns said:

Welcome! And challenges welcome, only agreeing is boring. I don’t think science has quite caught up with intuition yet. It’s also often difficult to separate true intuition from, say, projection or willful thinking. Our gut has been cataloging information from the time we were born and all those subconscious experiences are a powerful thing. I think because we sympathize with people brought up in this environment and don’t want to see further harm come to them and also because people here admirably question their own motives and prejudices that we sometimes logic and explain away a few things that are just...what they are. I have more gay friends than straight and the ones I’ve talked to about gaydar say it’s real and real helpful.

So I'm not countering the idea that sexuality is often detectable in others, but I think that tends to be on purpose- I'm a bi girl, and when I read from an in-person interaction that someone else is also a lady who likes ladies, it isn't cause I'm a super sleuth. It's advantageous to be identifiable to the people you're trying to attract. But I don't buy that because someone is acting masculine or feminine you can tell anything about their sexuality that they don't want you to know. I look pretty feminine and get read as straight, and that doesn't mean I'm not sometimes thinking really gay thoughts   I don't really believe people when they say they have gaydar about people who aren't out, with one caveat. I think sometimes people, especially queer people, sense distress or turmoil in a closeted person they are close with. Before I was out in high school, I had a really strong sense that a friend of mine also was closeted, and I turned out to be correct. But that came out of our friendship and knowledge of each other, not some calculation of her masculine/feminine traits.

I think what I'm circling here is: I don't buy any claims that someone can sense another person's sexuality from social media or TV if it's not something they're trying to project ( and fundies or not, I'm anti speculating about strangers' sexualities).

[mango_fandango]

I don’t have a gaydar. At all. 

Also: another Duggar engagement? *snore* IDGAF.

[Ivycoveredtower]

3 hours ago, GreatScott said:

But that’s the point I mean. It’s totally fine for us to speculate on the sexuality of minors, as long as it’s a heteronormative way. Yes it’s about people who are conservative fundies, but it’s still the talk of them and their future marriage and sexuality. 

Its only wrong when it falls on the LGBT specutrm. The idea that heterosexual relationships are the norm and it’s not sexuality based by talking about the possible future relationships of minors.  

 maybe I didn't specif right but with the Dugger's I don't consider courtships speculation. it's not an are they aren't they will they won't they thing. I see it as a given. They will get married it's just who they will marry and when it will happen and saying hmm I think  he is spending a lot of time with X to me is perfectly fine.  the Duggar's make their money on the backs of those courtships so oh well if people speculate. 

[eveandadam]

Oh no, I didn't know there was something around that could detect orientation by someone's face. Humanity is screwed if it gets into the wrong hands, wtf!!

I don't have gaydar at all; for years I thought I have great gaydar but most of it was wishfull thinking...oh well...

 

[Million Children For Jesus]

1 hour ago, feministxtian said:

Know that one...cars, racing, football, most of my friends were guys. My favorite perfume was hot motor oil. My mother hated it...called me "butch", "dyke", any other slam she could think of. She just didn't get the whole jeans and t-shirt thing. Funny thing was, I never lacked for male attention! Then...if I had a boyfriend, she'd call me a slut and a whore. There was no winning with that bitch. 

I upvoted your post, but not because I liked that you went through that, but because my mother was/is the same way, although she doesn’t name call. She just says vague things like, “what kind of person (fill in blank with something I did that is either perceived as gay or slutty)? I always answer, “a normal one.”

[Texas Heifer]

13 hours ago, AlwaysExcited said:

So, same old, same old at Duggar household?

Yes. But also shockingly surprising! Amirite? 

[SorenaJ]

I don't have a gaydar. I have please-be-gaydar. 

[SamuraiKatz]

Can their official nickname be JoLene?  I know it doesn't really work, but I love that song!

I've been calling them Jauren .....

I prefer SiRen.

I like this better than my own.

[LurkerOverThePond]

Their constant cycle of courtship-engagement-wedding-instant babies is just sad. Honestly, regardind the newest engagement, I just feel sad for them.

 

[Irishy]

My son is gay. Young teen. His gaydar is all over the place. He basically thinks every well dressed man is gay. Guess it’ll take some refining 

[SapphireSlytherin]

@feministxtian I swear we are twins separated at birth. Spent more hours sitting in an engine bay than anything my mother would have approved of. I have a car in my garage that I rebuilt the engine for, a car DH and I did an engine swap in (4-banger to V8). I grew up racing cars, and all my friends were guys. 

I’m straight. 

[QuiverFullofBooks]

10 hours ago, Ivycoveredtower said:

it been mentioned on here before that Duggar's have watched Little house well Laura kissed Almonzo when they got engaged. in the books and in the TV show they kissed when they first started dating so I  am surprised it was on the okay list. 

And there were unchaperoned buggy rides! I think JB&M have enough sense to know that saying “Those Little House books are too racy for our kids!” would have marked them as officially insane. They’ve also said that they can handle a single premarital kiss (in the movie Sergeant York) by reminding the kids that they don’t approve. It’s possible that their Little House set was “missing” These Happy Golden Years. All of that being said, I don’t think any of them were particularly into the books. None of the kids mentioned them as favorites, and they’ve never taken field trips to the home sites, which are relatively close to them. You were talking about the TV show, which bugs the hell out of me with its inaccuracy, so I can’t speak to whether it would be Duggar-appropriate. I expect that one kiss upon engagement late in the series would be cool.

[SapphireSlytherin]

6 minutes ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

they’ve never taken field trips to the home sites, which are relatively close to them

Actually, only the Wilders' final house is fairly close to them, in Mansfield, Missouri. That was my FIRST "Little House" to visit - when I was a tween. As an adult, I visited the Little House in the Big Woods, and just last summer, we went to DeSmet on our way to Yellowstone on an epic 5-day/3,200-mile roadtrip. DeSmet was more disappointing than I expected.

Now I just need to find the site in Kansas, and go to Burr Oak, Iowa; and Walnut Grove, Minnesota.

[QuiverFullofBooks]

1 minute ago, SapphireSlytherin said:

Actually, only the Wilders' final house is fairly close to them, in Mansfield, Missouri. 

That’s why I said “relatively” - DeSmet and Walnut Grove probably aren’t much further than Big Sandy. The other sites have much less to see. Have you read The Wilder Life?

[scoutsadie]

10 hours ago, ariel9 said:

I wonder if other fundie couples feel engagement envy, like people are privy to in the non fundie world. 

Carlin and Fundie Zoolander immediately came to my mind...I suspect they are green with envy.

(Not their hair, though, because that would be trashy.)