Joy and Austin (and Gideon) 22: When Nothing Much Happens

[HarleyQuinn]

Gideon's face reads like this is the first time hes been able to see more than a few inches in front of him and just realized he was born into a fundie family. 

[Ivycoveredtower]

Just now, HarleyQuinn said:

Gideon's face reads like this is the first time hes been able to see more than a few inches in front of him and just realized he was born into a fundie family. 

who is this person holding me and how can I get away. 

[HarleyQuinn]

1 minute ago, Ivycoveredtower said:

who is this person holding me and how can I get away. 

"oh fuck, it really is a Duggarling..."

[metheglyn]

58 minutes ago, HarleyQuinn said:

Gideon's face reads like this is the first time hes been able to see more than a few inches in front of him and just realized he was born into a fundie family. 

Ellie posted the pic yesterday, saying "Gideon seems to be pretty enamored with his daddy!"  Uh, no. I agree with everyone here; that looks like horrified shock to me! 

[justoneoftwo]

1 hour ago, luv2laugh said:

This article references an interesting study posted in the Human Reproduction Journal: 
"One study, published in the journal Human Reproduction, followed women who were trying to get pregnant by having sex at the time in their monthly cycle when they were believed to be most fertile. Of the 346 women in the study, 310 conceived in the first year. The breakdown was like this:

38 percent were pregnant after 1 month.
68 percent were pregnant after 3 months.
81 percent were pregnant after 6 months.
92 percent were pregnant after 12 months.

In their conclusion, the researchers wrote, “Most couples conceive within six cycles with timed intercourse.” After a year of trying without conceiving, experts say you should see a fertility specialist."

https://www.thebump.com/a/how-long-does-it-take-to-get-pregnant

This is exactly what I was saying, its not have sex you will get pregnant, its about a 30% chance per cycle.  Its hurtful to say that if they haven't gotten pregnant they must be preventing.  This also isn't taking into account people who have just had a kid (it does change things).  Anyway, it seems we are mostly agreeing on the facts, just not what it means regarding if they are preventing.

[Rio]

1 hour ago, quiversR4hunting said:

... I had to come over when I read the headline she had an emergency C-section after 20 hours of labor.

My head is screaming "Why in the hell did the midwife NOT know the baby was breach?!?!"

My suspicion is that it’s not accurate reporting. I’m sure the midwife knew the position of the baby all along.  Sounds like Joy had failure to progress or the baby was stuck? Doubt very much that she labored for 20 hours and only then did someone figure out the position was breech.

Cannot imagine a primigravida laboring with a huge breech baby with no anesthesia. 

It’s medieval and/or third world in my opinion but I guess if people want to, be my guest. I had mine in hospitals with RNs and MD’s attending to me and I thank God for it.

 

 

 

 

 

[luv2laugh]

1 hour ago, justoneoftwo said:

This is exactly what I was saying, its not have sex you will get pregnant, its about a 30% chance per cycle.  Its hurtful to say that if they haven't gotten pregnant they must be preventing.  This also isn't taking into account people who have just had a kid (it does change things).  Anyway, it seems we are mostly agreeing on the facts, just not what it means regarding if they are preventing.

It's quite hard to tell the tone of a person via text. I'm sorry you've taken offense. Fertility issues are near and dear to my heart and not something I'd want to risk causing offense over. It seems like you've misunderstood what I mean. I originally said that barring medical issues, you can count on getting pregnant if you're having unprotected sex within the ovulation window. I would guess that most, not all but certainly most young couples that are sexually active must be preventing if they haven't conceived within a year. It's just an assumption I am making based on the information I've come across. There are certainly those that are in their early 20s and are having difficulty conceiving but it's not the norm. Most couples that are TTCing will get pregnant within 3 months if they are actively trying, according to the research that was submitted to the Human Reproduction Journal.

Here are some quotes directly from the study:

Quote

"About 80% of the couples conceived in the first six cycles when using the fertility awareness part of the STM with fertility‐focused intercourse. These numbers partly confirm the data obtained from earlier and larger retrospective studies (Bonde et al., 1998; Juul et al., 1999; 2000; Joffe, 2000; Jensen et al., 2001), though a higher final cumulative probability of conception within 12 cycles was found. As expected, some 10.4% of women did not conceive within all observed cycles. For those who finally conceived, only 2% of the pregnancies occurred later than 12 cycles.

In another well‐designed, prospective study (Bonde et al., 1998), cumulative pregnancy probabilities of almost 60% were obtained after six menstrual cycles. The higher CPC value compared with all cited studies accounts for the effects of information on the fertile period and of repeated timed intercourse. The effect of timed intercourse on pregnancy rates of women, with optimal use of their fertility potential, was also recently emphasized by others (Stanford et al., 2002).

These findings highlight the existence of a huge group of highly fertile couples who conceive quite early within six cycles with timed intercourse. About 20% of all couples, and only 10% of finally conceiving couples (TF), will not be successful within six cycles (see Table I). These TF couples represent an ideal homogeneous group without any infertility problems and, using a ∼30% monthly chance of conception, they will achieve a pregnancy rate of almost 90% in six cycles, based on the formula."

https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/18/9/1959/708200

Given what we know about the Duggars, and we know a lot about their lives as they broadcast it all over the media, I believe that many of them are at least practicing NFP or not preventing but not actively trying either compared with how Jchelle tracked everything with intricate calendars.  For one, they are offspring of Jchelle who should win an award for amazing fertility. Also, many of the Duggar girls have married men that come from small families. We know they are to follow the authority of their headship. The Duggar kids are not likely to open up on their beliefs on BC since they're not going to want to hurt the Quiverfull Godbobber and Jchelle brand. In addition, they're all in their 20s and within prime fertility. They've previously professed a desire for large families but aren't having similar patterns to Jchelle. I suspect they may have had a change of heart. We also have seen minor changes and displays of independence in them such as pants, nose rings, and not attending their parents church nor IFB churches. I think many of us speculate on their fertility not to try to offend but out of hopes that maybe they have seen the light out of fundamentalism and would potentially be content with having 1-4 kids. 

@justoneoftwo If they were any other family, I wouldn't draw such conclusions.  For other fundamentalists that we know are struggling with infertility or are steeped in the kool-aid despite having rather "wide" gaps between babies, my heart hurts for them since I know having eleventy children is absolutely what they've been trained for and must ache badly. This is another reason my heart hurts so much for Jill since having eleventy babies and being a homebirthing doula has been not only her desire, but her identity and it's been turned upside down. In fact, IF she is preventing, it must hurt BAD since it's probably been recommended she give her body time to heal after 2 c-sections to prevent further serious birth complications. I think she'd accept that advice since she wants a lot of babies and the thought of a uterine rupture and/or emergency hysterectomy must keep her up at night. I'm sure she'd heed advice to prevent to ensure best chances of having 4+ kids, but not without a lot of guilt after doing the deed.

[justoneoftwo]

8 minutes ago, luv2laugh said:

It's quite hard to tell the tone of a person via text. I'm sorry you've taken offense. I originally said that barring medical issues, you can count on getting pregnant if you're having unprotected sex within the ovulation window. I would guess that most, not all but certainly most young couples that are sexually active must be preventing if they haven't conceived within a year. It's just an assumption I am making based on the information I've come across. There are certainly those that are in their early 20s and are having difficulty conceiving but it's not the norm. Most couples that are TTCing will get pregnant within 3 months if they are actively trying, according to the research that was submitted to the Human Reproduction Journal.

It is hard to tell tone, but I think we understand one another now.  Sorry for being jumpy at first.  

[TheRadleyPorch]

5 hours ago, viii said:

I think if anyone has ever prevented, it'd definitely be Anna. She has babies every two years like clock work, and there are enough fundies to prove that unprotected sex doesn't work like that. Unless Josh and Anna are doing the deed just to get pregnant every two years, then there is definitely some sort of method being used. 

I have to disagree as well! Unprotected sex can absolutely work like that, without any fertility issues and even if Anna and Josh are having sex regularly. First, they may well follow the Gothard abstaining rules after a birth (I forgot how many days, but I know they're different for a boy or a girl), and then for many women, it takes quite awhile after a pregnancy to start ovulating again, especially if she is breastfeeding but even sometimes if she is not (or at least not exclusively). I have known several people who didn't start getting periods for over a year after giving birth. Most of them breastfed but not necessarily exclusively or for very long. And then there are women who start ovulating 2 months after giving birth even while breastfeeding. There's just a lot of variation. It's completely plausible that Anna's cycles don't resume for about a year after a birth, then add in a few months of random chance since not every ovulation will result in a pregnancy, then 9 months to gestate, and there you have at least two years between children. Plus, just given Anna's personality and dedication to being a good fundie wife, I think she is least likely of the Duggar couples to have used any method of prevention.

[justoneoftwo]

2 minutes ago, TheRadleyPorch said:

I have to disagree as well! Unprotected sex can absolutely work like that, without any fertility issues and even if Anna and Josh are having sex regularly. First, they may well follow the Gothard abstaining rules after a birth (I forgot how many days, but I know they're different for a boy or a girl), and then for many women, it takes quite awhile after a pregnancy to start ovulating again, especially if she is breastfeeding but even sometimes if she is not (or at least not exclusively). I have known several people who didn't start getting periods for over a year after giving birth. Most of them breastfed but not necessarily exclusively or for very long. And then there are women who start ovulating 2 months after giving birth even while breastfeeding. There's just a lot of variation. It's completely plausible that Anna's cycles don't resume for about a year after a birth, then add in a few months of random chance since not every ovulation will result in a pregnancy, then 9 months to gestate, and there you have at least two years between children. Plus, just given Anna's personality and dedication to being a good fundie wife, I think she is least likely of the Duggar couples to have used any method of prevention.

I will say I would believe that Josh, but not Anna, is preventing.  She seemed at one point to be asking him to give her another baby, so maybe he isn't fulfilling his "marital duties" as much as he might, in order to avoid more arrows.

[KelseyAnn]

Ugh, I just can't get over how much Austin looked like my uncle Joe. It's unsettling how much these people look like family members. 

[Ivycoveredtower]

7 minutes ago, TheRadleyPorch said:

I have to disagree as well! Unprotected sex can absolutely work like that, without any fertility issues and even if Anna and Josh are having sex regularly. First, they may well follow the Gothard abstaining rules after a birth (I forgot how many days, but I know they're different for a boy or a girl), and then for many women, it takes quite awhile after a pregnancy to start ovulating again, especially if she is breastfeeding but even sometimes if she is not (or at least not exclusively). I have known several people who didn't start getting periods for over a year after giving birth. Most of them breastfed but not necessarily exclusively or for very long. And then there are women who start ovulating 2 months after giving birth even while breastfeeding. There's just a lot of variation. It's completely plausible that Anna's cycles don't resume for about a year after a birth, then add in a few months of random chance since not every ovulation will result in a pregnancy, then 9 months to gestate, and there you have at least two years between children. Plus, just given Anna's personality and dedication to being a good fundie wife, I think she is least likely of the Duggar couples to have used any method of prevention.

it looks like it's 40 days with a boy 80  with a girl and no sex well the woman is on her period. 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/02/the-duggars-and-bill-gothards-sex-regulations.html

[TheRadleyPorch]

@justoneoftwo I agree, that's a definite possibility as well. Of course no one can really know what goes on behind closed doors but I do get the feeling that Josh just isn't all that attracted to Anna--not exclusively because of the infidelity (I don't think a lack of sexual interest in your spouse is a prerequisite for that), but there are several factors that have led me to believe that might be the case.

@Ivycoveredtower ah ok, that's not long enough to be particularly relevant to child spacing, but the other stuff still stands

[Ivycoveredtower]

3 minutes ago, TheRadleyPorch said:

@justoneoftwo I agree, that's a definite possibility as well. Of course no one can really know what goes on behind closed doors but I do get the feeling that Josh just isn't all that attracted to Anna--not exclusively because of the infidelity (I don't think a lack of sexual interest in your spouse is a prerequisite for that), but there are several factors that have led me to believe that might be the case.

 I can almost see the Josh/Anna marriage being almost arranged. Jim Bob had to do something with his wayward son and Anna's dad really wanted to be connected to the Duggar's. 

[luv2laugh]

6 minutes ago, TheRadleyPorch said:

@justoneoftwo I agree, that's a definite possibility as well. Of course no one can really know what goes on behind closed doors but I do get the feeling that Josh just isn't all that attracted to Anna--not exclusively because of the infidelity (I don't think a lack of sexual interest in your spouse is a prerequisite for that), but there are several factors that have led me to believe that might be the case.

I believe Josh sought out affairs to have types of *blegh* "intimacy" that Anna would not be interested in trying. He may have certain kinks that he wanted to explore with others that would be willing. I think it's possible Josh could have requested NFP to allow for breaks between babies. Anna would have to submit to that decision. However, her sister Priscilla also has similar spacing and I don't think David & Pris are preventing, they're pretty adamant about having at least 10 kids. It's their goal to be like JB & Jchelle. That's one reason I feel sorry for Priscilla.  At the same time, these fundies can have as many babies as they want if they'd adopt and I wish more of them would explore that option.

I think Josh has truly fallen in love with Anna again after she took him back despite everyone begging her not to, his public humiliation, and fall. In a couple years, he might feel like his marriage isn't "spicy" enough again but I don't think he would dare cheat again after the humiliation. I think he'd be more likely to get serious depression instead.

[JemimaPuddle-Duck]

Breastfeeding women are also more likely to experience anovulatory bleeding. 

I really think that NFP is not as big a deal to fundies as many on FJ think. 

[KnittingOwl]

4 hours ago, quiversR4hunting said:

maybe this has already been said on the last thread (I only quickly looked at these 4 pages), I had to come over when I read the headline she had an emergency C-section after 20 hours of labor.

My head is screaming "Why in the hell did the midwife NOT know the baby was breach?!?!

I’ve been wondering the same thing. It really seems like the Duggar daughters are not getting adequate pre-natal care when stories like this are published. 

[Ivycoveredtower]

3 minutes ago, KnittingOwl said:

I’ve been wondering the same thing. It really seems like the Duggar daughters are not getting adequate pre-natal care when stories like this are published. 

I would bet any midwife they have is barely better then Jill they may actually be listed as a lay midwife but I doubt their education was much better. and that's even if they actually have someone other then Jill.  Jinger i can see getting batter care but I hate to see how Kendra will end up. 

[Kjaerringa]

Ok. I have no idea where this falls in the thread...but I just read a People article stating that Joy felt it was perfectly safe trying a home birth with her firstborn BECAUSE THEY ARE ONLY 30 MINUTES OR SO FROM THE HOSPITAL. What the flippityfloppinfreakshow kind of idea is THAT??????

Sorry for shouting. Carry on.

[RainbowSky]

Lots of people are farther. 

[Tangy Bee]

Dang, 30 minutes is too far and too long when you are trying to pass a huge human out ya body. I don't know much about midwives, but is it possible for a baby that size to flip to breech during labor? 

[Taylurker]

6 hours ago, Denim Jumper said:

However, it is very hard to predict a rupture, and the implications of a rupture are very serious. That is why VBACs are handled with kid gloves, even through the odds of rupture are very low. 

The thing is that a woman without a prior cesarean section can have a rupture, too.

Statistically, VBACs are safer than repeat cesareans. For a woman who wants a VBAC, it's important to have a VBAC-friendly doctor rather than a VBAC-tolerant one. There is no reason to handle VBACs with extreme conditions or limitations. There is also no reason to be scared or forced into a RCS.

That said, a qualified and professional CNM with OB back-up or an OB should, in my opinion, attend a VBAC, and no less than that. And it should preferably be in a birth center or in the hospital. If that's what you mean by "kid gloves", then I agree.

Joy said she wanted to try a homebirth. Great, she tried. Please, Joy, don't be like Jill and attempt a VBAC at home with a lay midwife. You have a lot of doctors at your fingertips who would probably support you. You can make any birth plan you want and decline whatever you want at the hospital.

I hope Jill and Joy make use of their local ICAN chapter for their next births if they want a VBAC.

[singsingsing]

19 minutes ago, RainbowSky said:

Lots of people are farther. 

So those people are in an even less safe situation if they're trying to give birth at home. Lots of people being farther doesn't mean that it must be okay. I know many disagree, but I don't think attempting a homebirth with at most a lay midwife and some of your sisters when you're 30 minutes away from the nearest hospital is a good idea.

[RainbowSky]

@Taylurker 

I agree with most of what you said. The way people have been trying to make it sound like Joy and Jill are likely to pop and die has been bothering me.

A VBAC is safer and  you're much more likely to not rupture. Also a repeat C-section is 100% rupture rate as opposed to a portion of 1%.

Sadly, lots of women are coerced, shamed, bullied or forced into what some people who aren't using info from the best evidence want. Or on a head trip. It is just sickening.

[Kailash]

My SIL had her first in a hospital, then went on to have 5 more at home with midwives.  (One of the homebirths was my niece who weighed 10 lbs 4 oz.) She was only comfortable with homebirths because they lived less than 5 minutes from a hospital. 30 minutes seems too risky to me.

4 minutes ago, RainbowSky said:

@Taylurker 

I agree with most of what you said. The way people have been trying to make it sound like Joy and Jill are likely to pop and die has been bothering me.

A VBAC is safer and  you're much more likely to not rupture. Also a repeat C-section is 100% rupture rate as opposed to a portion of 1%.

Sadly, lots of women are coerced, shamed, bullied or forced into what some people who aren't using info from the best evidence want. Or on a head trip. It is just sickening.

A C-section is not a rupture. It is a surgical incision.