Josiah and Lauren Part 8: One Week to the Wedding (Now Married)

[Daisy0322]

46 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

Just like those Journeys to the Heart they go too. It’s not punishment to bevsent but they get to hang out with friends, hang out in the woods and participate in all sorts of activities. Jana was a counselor at more than one.  

Right! Forbthe girls JTTH is pretty much a vacation. No babies to care for, meals to cook, houses to clean, laundry to do. They get to read the Bible all day which they enjoy, hang out with friends, talk to people outside their family, etc 

[NotQuiteMotY]

Oh, wow, I finally caught up!

Wedding-wise, I actually really like Lauren's dress. I might be biased, though, since I prefer plainer dresses anyway. I think se should have done something with her hair, though; it looks kind of straggly. It's not just because it's down, but it looks like she needs a trim and some conditioner.

The bridesmaid dresses are pretty, but they are not kind to anyone busty. Poor Joy! They do look like they should have been reasonably comfortable, though. I hope Jana and Anna decided to or offered to do the sewing rather than being told or volunteered.

I did have a second of wondering why Jessa was posing with Austin for a minute there and why Henry looked so young again...

[EyesOpen]

I feel badly if this was discussed but I just feel Josiah’s joy doesn’t reach his eyes and all the remarks I’ve read sound so canned. I feel like they just beat the personality out of that kid. I pray he goes away with his wife and makes the life he wants.

[ihaveanexamintwodays]

has anyone taken a guess at the wedding party? we know 8 bridesmaids, and possibly 8 groomsmen. Here's my try, lol: bridesmaids - Lily/Lauren's other sister/Joy/Kendra/Lauren C/Jana/idk/idk & groomsmen - Joe/Jed/Jer/Jason/James/Austin/that dude Elijah/some ALERT friend or maybe Peter Query.

[xlurker]

Since we are still talking about weddings, and I am excited to be the mother of the bride, I need to share that I have just ordered yet another dress!  I have one, and its nice, but it will need alterations--that and it is really kinda plain.  Me being a sparkly girl (and my daughter realizes this and tells me just to wear whatever makes me feel pretty  ) just ordered a sparkly beaded number.  Cant wait for it to come in!  

 

We can now carry on with the snarking

[HarleyQuinn]

I'm kind of surprised we haven't gotten a wedding party photo. I feel like we got those right away in the past. 

[VBOY9977]

18 minutes ago, HarleyQuinn said:

I'm kind of surprised we haven't gotten a wedding party photo. I feel like we got those right away in the past. 

I was wondering about this as well and I checked how Joe and Kendra’s went. I noticed the first official pics we saw were on the people magazine spread. Idk if Lauren and Josiah will have one though.

The rest of the wedding pics were published on TLC’s website a week after the wedding, and even more pics were released when they aired the wedding episode which was Months after. 

I think the difference in this case was that we got glimpse of Joe and Kendra’s party because more friends published pics with members of the party and we got congrats videos from basically all the siblings, while this time there have been less pics/videos going around

[PainfullyAware]

Maybe Josiah requested less family publicity around the wedding other than from the parents? 

To be clear there is a spectrum of gender EXPRESSION and not just sexuality or gender identity. Think about terms like androgynous or metrosexual which apply to straight cisgender people too.

From It's Pronounced Metrosexual:

 "On the left we have “feminine” and on the right we have “masculine,” the two expressive terms related to “woman” and “man.”  In the middle, we have a new term “androgynous,” which describes an ambiguous or mixed form of expressing gender.

Gender expression is all about how you demonstrate your gender through the ways you act, dress, behave, and interact–whether that is intentional or unintended.  Gender expression is interpreted by others perceiving your gender based on traditional gender roles (e.g., men wear pants, women wear dresses).  Gender expression is something that often changes from day to day, outfit to outfit, event or setting to event or setting.  It’s about how the way you express yourself aligns or doesn’t with traditional ways of gendered expression."

[prayawaythefundie]

2 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

 

It also isn't against the rules for members to point out that they find those questions and a lot of speculation distasteful.

[...]

It is also not against the rules for members to point out that speculation or assumptions about an individual's sexual preferences based on stereotypes or stereotypical thinking is offensive.

[...]

The member I replied to brought up the idea of strictening the rules as to make any speculation about anyone‘s sexuality against the rules. That is what I take issue with mainly. I don‘t feel the need to speculate about Josiah because I see nothing really pointing in any direction for him (except maybe him marrying a woman pointing towards heterosexuality but that’s not a strong indicator in his culture) Yes, him being more creative/sensitive/fasionable/whatever does not in any way indicate that he‘s gay and I think pointing that out is important to fight the stereotypes. If we were forever forbidden to speculate we wouldn‘t be able to do that by the way because there wouldn‘t be any discussion about the stereotypes. I, too, will stay out of speculating on what his sexuality is because, as I said, I have no idea. I will however defend the possibility to do so because I don‘t like the idea of banning words when it‘s not absolutely necessary just for the comfort of some. There is a difference between a comment being distasteful and a comment being forbidden. 

[Palimpsest]

48 minutes ago, prayawaythefundie said:

The member I replied to brought up the idea of strictening the rules as to make any speculation about anyone‘s sexuality against the rules. That is what I take issue with mainly. I don‘t feel the need to speculate about Josiah because I see nothing really pointing in any direction for him (except maybe him marrying a woman pointing towards heterosexuality but that’s not a strong indicator in his culture) Yes, him being more creative/sensitive/fasionable/whatever does not in any way indicate that he‘s gay and I think pointing that out is important to fight the stereotypes. If we were forever forbidden to speculate we wouldn‘t be able to do that by the way because there wouldn‘t be any discussion about the stereotypes. I, too, will stay out of speculating on what his sexuality is because, as I said, I have no idea. I will however defend the possibility to do so because I don‘t like the idea of banning words when it‘s not absolutely necessary just for the comfort of some. There is a difference between a comment being distasteful and a comment being forbidden. 

I missed the bolded.  Discussion about possible changes to the rules or objections to the rules should take place in the Community Discussion forum.  (I'll flag my own post so the mods can move all these posts if they see the need.)

I don't like banning words unless absolutely necessary either.  Which is why you don't get to censure (or censor) people for voicing their objections to any speculation or comments they find BEC, annoying, tacky, overly vulgar, or genuinely offensive.  It is called self-moderation.  An honored tradition on FJ, just like thread drift. 

 

 

[neurogirl]

@Italiangirl Bobby from the new Queer Eye on Netflix grew up in a pretty devout Assemblies of God (Pentecostal) church in Missouri. He says on the show that he knew from a young age that he was gay and would "pray all the time, begging God to not make me gay." He left home at 15 and lived in his car until things turned around for him. But 1. he knew his sexuality growing up even though it was forbidden under fear of Hell and 2. in the first episode of season 2, Bobby would not enter a (Baptist) church even when the other men of the Fab 5 did, because he was so hurt by the church growing up. 

[prayawaythefundie]

27 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

[...]

Which is why you don't get to censure (or censor) people for voicing their objections to any speculation or comments they find BEC, annoying, tacky, overly vulgar, or genuinely offensive.

[...]

Not sure, if you meant to adress me personally or were using a general „you“ but I wasn‘t trying to censor anyone. Quite the contrary. I was giving a direct answer to the question of a member why we shouldn‘t ban any and all comments on this topic. Because THAT would be censoring. I have not asked anyone to refrain from saying that they find some comments distasteful. I did voice my wondering about why it is a problem for some. That‘s not silencing. 

[Palimpsest]

1 minute ago, prayawaythefundie said:

Not sure, if you meant to adress me personally or were using a general „you“

General you.  I'm addressing people in general in both my last 2 posts above.

[AliceInFundyland]

@Palimpsest and @prayawaythefundie as the member who made the comment in question. What I object to is repeatedly having the same fight (even though we do that here). I was being slightly facetious about changing the rules. I think there is a marked difference between discussing sexuality and  expression of such in fundie culture and debating whether or not Josiah is possibly gay based on stereotypes. @MarblesMom and @KelseyAnn both got downvoted immediately for expressing themselves strongly on opposing sides. 

We don’t need to move the discussion. On this particular topic, as I said, I thought we needed some consensus. I rather resent the implication that I am opposed to free speech. That’s patently absurd.

[Lurky]

4 hours ago, dawbs said:

Spec about Josiah is distasteful (because lets just focus on toxic masculinity, but embrace it wholeheartedly when it comes to notions of fundie sexuality), but allowed, because he's allegedly out from under the thumbs of those who can control all access to his life.

Quibble:  we don't actually know if Josiah's situation is any different, being married, as when he was living at home, except now he has more responsibilities, and presumably only shares his bedroom with 1 other person.  We don't know what he does for a living, or where he'll live, but it's a pretty good bet his job, home and income will still be controlled by JB.  Unless we have proof otherwise, I think we should work under the assumption that Josh, Joe and Josiah still have to live under their father's rules, only with more at stake if they break them, now they're responsible for their wives and child/ren.

[KelseyAnn]

Hey, I was just saying, as a fellow gay individual, that beards are not at all that uncommon. In fact, I even briefly considered taking one so that I could live my life the way it was 'supposed to be.' 

And we're here to discuss the dangers of fundamentalism- one of which is the very real danger that fundies feel compelled or trapped into loveless marriages because they have no other options available to them. It's a very real problem and I don't see why it cannot be discussed, while discussions about questionable child-rearing practices are. 

[Rachel333]

So I've posted about this before, and gone into more detail than I feel like doing now, but the way people talk about this can kind of rub me the wrong way as a gay person myself. When people say that speculating that someone might be gay should be completely off limits but speculate about all sorts of other stuff (including plenty of things that would horrify the fundies in question if they read it), it can feel like they're saying that being gay is unspeakably terrible and even if they don't believe it themselves the way they talk about it does feel like they're reinforcing the fundie homophobia. And while I completely understand why this is, it bothers me to no end that the "no speculation on the sexuality of minor children" doesn't actually mean no speculation on the sexuality of minor children, it means no speculating that they're gay. People speculate on the sexuality of minor children here all the time with no issues as long as they're speculating that the kids are straight.

I've never speculated on the topic myself that I can recall so I'm not saying this because I want to be able to speculate myself, and I'm certainly not asking other people to start speculating either. It's just that the way people talk about this can sometimes start to feel kind of homophobic.

This also doesn't just apply to conversations about fundies. A lot of even progressive people think it's offensive to suggest that they or someone else might be gay while they wouldn't be offended by the assumption that they're straight, and I do think a lot of that is lingering homophobia, but of course it's also complicated by the fact that while it should be completely okay to be gay, to many people it still isn't.

[eveandadam]

4 hours ago, Italiangirl said:

Maybe is a stupid question, but how can anyone born in that kind of culture could know if they are gay or not? I mean if you are not allowed to even think about sex ecc before wedding, and you are always with the same people and cannot be alone ever...

This is a very good point! I don't think they have any possibility of knowing! they are super brainwashed, and have no access to gay media or any gay content whatsoever, and only meet gay people in a "repent context" and "may life has derailed" context. if you have no reference point you just don't know. I'm gay myself and I always say that, without the internet, I still would not know that I'm gay, and would still be wondering what is wrong with me without ever finding an answer. I guess this is exactly what gay Duggars would go through, not knowing what is "wrong" with them.

As for Josiah, the speculations here are making me very uncomfortable. I understand that this is a free speech forum and that he is now married and probably out of the house but this could still be very dangerous for him. And on top of that: Only because he acts less "manly" than the other Duggar boys and only because he wore a pink shirt that one time does not make him gay! I actually don't think he is. My gaydar is not the best but I really don't think he is one of the gay Duggars. I understand that it may look like it, though. There are a couple of other Duggars that my gaydar tells me are super duper gay (but I won't name names).

Josiah was even caught on camera flirting with a girl when he was very young (10 years old maybe?) and Jill had to snap at him for doing so and told him to stop. When asked a couple of years ago who the next Duggar boy will be  to get married (after Josh) most of them said Josiah. I think he might be a ladies guy actually. I don't know which episodes those were but it happened if I remember correctly.

 

 

 

[Rachel333]

8 minutes ago, eveandadam said:

Josiah was even caught on camera flirting with a girl when he was very young (10 years old maybe?) and Jill had to snap at him for doing so and told him to stop.

Aw, if he was that young I doubt it was really even flirting. He was probably just being friendly but they are so suspicious of interactions between the sexes. Even in secular culture people might not think it's bad for the two sexes to interact but they're still often so quick to see sexual/romantic undertones in normal reactions, even with children! I hate that and I think it's an example of how assuming a child is straight can be harmful too.

[AliceInFundyland]

17 minutes ago, KelseyAnn said:

Hey, I was just saying, as a fellow gay individual, that beards are not at all that uncommon. In fact, I even briefly considered taking one so that I could live my life the way it was 'supposed to be.' 

And we're here to discuss the dangers of fundamentalism- one of which is the very real danger that fundies feel compelled or trapped into loveless marriages because they have no other options available to them. It's a very real problem and I don't see why it cannot be discussed, while discussions about questionable child-rearing practices are. 

Is Josiah trapped in a loveless marriage? is a fair, although depressing question. His spirited early teen years do seem crushed. Much like Jinger has turned into robowife and Joy into fundywife. Beard in that context does seem acceptable. Someone else said that. 

 

[KelseyAnn]

26 minutes ago, eveandadam said:

This is a very good point! I don't think they have any possibility of knowing! they are super brainwashed, and have no access to gay media or any gay content whatsoever, and only meet gay people in a "repent context" and "may life has derailed" context. if you have no reference point you just don't know.

 

 

2

I didn't know I was gay for the longest time. I knew something was wrong with me, but I didn't know just what. It was just excuse after excuse for me. And even after I figured it out, it was a lot of time spent trying to correct myself by terrible means. 

13 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

Aw, if he was that young I doubt it was really even flirting. He was probably just being friendly but they are so suspicious of interactions between the sexes. Even in secular culture people might not think it's bad for the two sexes to interact but they're still often so quick to see sexual/romantic undertones in normal reactions, even with children! I hate that and I think it's an example of how assuming a child is straight can be harmful too.

I'm a flirt myself, and I'll flirt with anyone without knowing it. 

[Palimpsest]

1 hour ago, AliceInFundyland said:

We don’t need to move the discussion. On this particular topic, as I said, I thought we needed some consensus. I rather resent the implication that I am opposed to free speech. That’s patently absurd.

I didn't even look back to see who made the comment. My bad.

I agree, except FJ is probably not going to get consensus on this in my lifetime.  I wish we could stop all speculation about sexual preferences and identity until the person themselves discloses that information voluntarily.  I'm weird like that and FJ's PTB disagree with me about both Josiah and Pecan Waller.   Win some; lose some.

And I don't think you would ever be opposed to free speech.  Neither am I.  I just squirm about speculation based on stereotypes whenever I see it and try to say so.

 

[VelociRapture]

29 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

So I've posted about this before, and gone into more detail than I feel like doing now, but the way people talk about this can kind of rub me the wrong way as a gay person myself. When people say that speculating that someone might be gay should be completely off limits but speculate about all sorts of other stuff (including plenty of things that would horrify the fundies in question if they read it), it can feel like they're saying that being gay is unspeakably terrible and even if they don't believe it themselves the way they talk about it does feel like they're reinforcing the fundie homophobia. And while I completely understand why this is, it bothers me to no end that the "no speculation on the sexuality of minor children" doesn't actually mean no speculation on the sexuality of minor children, it means no speculating that they're gay. People speculate on the sexuality of minor children here all the time with no issues as long as they're speculating that the kids are straight.

I've never speculated on the topic myself that I can recall so I'm not saying this because I want to be able to speculate myself, and I'm certainly not asking other people to start speculating either. It's just that the way people talk about this can sometimes start to feel kind of homophobic.

This also doesn't just apply to conversations about fundies. A lot of even progressive people think it's offensive to suggest that they or someone else might be gay while they wouldn't be offended by the assumption that they're straight, and I do think a lot of that is lingering homophobia, but of course it's also complicated by the fact that while it should be completely okay to be gay, to many people it still isn't.

I’m personally uncomfortable speculating, but I respect that others feel otherwise and that the Admins have the rule they do for a reason (and I’m glad that minors and those living with their parents are protected from that type of speculation.) I do think that any speculation should be done carefully though. I feel like it’s be really easy to rely solely on tired stereotypes to make assumptions and that just isn’t ok. 

[Stormy]

1 hour ago, Lurky said:

Quibble:  we don't actually know if Josiah's situation is any different, being married, as when he was living at home, except now he has more responsibilities, and presumably only shares his bedroom with 1 other person.  We don't know what he does for a living, or where he'll live, but it's a pretty good bet his job, home and income will still be controlled by JB.  Unless we have proof otherwise, I think we should work under the assumption that Josh, Joe and Josiah still have to live under their father's rules, only with more at stake if they break them, now they're responsible for their wives and child/ren.

We already know that they're still under JB's rules, or at least at the point where they're unstable enough to be forced to scamper back to him if/when things in their lives go south.

When Josh got his hand caught in the cookie jar, it was his parents that did the talking for him (with Jill and Jessa undoubtedly coaxed by them into giving their two cents). Then, he was spirited to Jesus Jail therapy for God knows how long while his wife and children were uprooted from their cushy home in DC and put up in the TTH, where they more than likely had to share dorms the remaining Duggar children. It's almost as though Jim Bob and Michelle took custody of Anna and the kids while Josh was away, like how someone might do for the children of a loved one who gets sent to jail. If this were a normal family, Anna could have at least stayed in the comfort of her own home while she and her husband sorted out their new lives and moving back to AR, while the in-laws would have been merely supportive rather than the ones to take control of the situation.

If Josiah (or Joe or John David, for that matter) ever "stumbled", I can almost assure you that Lauren would end up in the same place as Anna did. I don't believe that the Duggar men are in any position to give their families security and independence in the event of a disaster, no matter how much they want to; if Josh couldn't, none of them can. As a newly-24-year-old reluctant SAHD with two bachelor's degrees, I'm not too optimistic about a sheltered 21-year-old with limited education and job experience being able to single-handedly support a rapidly growing family.

53 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

And while I completely understand why this is, it bothers me to no end that the "no speculation on the sexuality of minor children" doesn't actually mean no speculation on the sexuality of minor children, it means no speculating that they're gay. People speculate on the sexuality of minor children here all the time with no issues as long as they're speculating that the kids are straight.

Nobody suffers consequences for others speculating that they're straight.

[Palimpsest]

8 minutes ago, Stormy said:

Nobody suffers consequences for others speculating that they're straight.

QFT.  Preach it, sister!