Josiah and Lauren 12: Usual Duggar Social Media and Drift

[SilverBeach]

27 minutes ago, Audrey2 said:

I was very low in the gift area

That's JRod's highest area! Mr. SB isn't as big on quality time as I am, but we are both touchy-feely. We both like doing things for each other too, not a lot of gifts though. Neither one of us needs that. Quality time is definitely Jill Dillard's prime love language! I never realized this started as a Christian thing.

[fluffernutter]

7 hours ago, emscm said:

This is a genuine question regarding “love languages.” I understand the general concept of it in terms of being how someone prefers to experience love and affection. I have even gone so far as to Google and discover that there is a book about it. The thing I feel really ignorant about is why it seems to be such a frequent fundie buzz term. Is the book really popular in their circles? Is it fundie approved? I hear it mentioned here frequently, but I feel super ignorant about the connection. 

It was a great book for my husband and me. We read it several years ago on a recommendation from a friend. Gary Chapman is Christian and the books reflect that, but the message is great. We even got the book for teens too.

 

Whoops I see there are a lot of good descriptions of the book already. My LL is words of affirmation and my husband's is equal acts of service and physical touch. 

[lumpentheologie]

My primary love languages are touch and quality time, and acts of service is a secondary one. I could care less about gifts and words of affirmation.  Husband and I were in a long distance (across the Atlantic) relationship for 2 years, it was horrible and I'm much much happier now that we're in the same place and living together.  His primary languages are words of affirmation and touch, and being apart didn't bother him as much as it bothered me. 

I find the love languages useful for non-romantic relationships as well. I really feel sad and not prioritized when friends and family cancel plans or don't have time to see me, and being able to articulate that that's something especially important for me has been helpful in those relationships. I've also come to understand in the last few years that some people just don't like to be touched, and while that's still really hard for me with someone I feel close to, I'm trying to respect their boundaries and not take it personally. 

I think Jill Dillard's languages are definitely quality time and words of affirmation, given how she's constantly praising Derick and seems happy to just sit next to him while he studies. No idea what Derick's languages are though, except probably not the same as Jill's. 

[Mama Mia]

11 hours ago, SapphireSlytherin said:

Mine is receiving gifts. I had a hard time with it until I understood it's not a materialistic thing at all. DH is wonderful at thinking of me and handing me something - sometimes it's as simple as a glass of wine or a $5 grocery store bouquet of flowers.
 

As for "acts of service" - if he unloads the dishwasher or does laundry I feel HORRIBLY GUILTY, even though he feels like he's helping. When he does that, it makes me feel like I'm slacking on "my" chores. lol

That’s the exact opposite of me. I really wish this was around a decade ago - could of made my life much better.

I really don’t like having money spent on me ( now I’m more ok with it, but when We had little money, lots of kids and lots of bills - drove me nuts ) That was the main way my partner showed love - touch and gifts - my two least favorites.  

The nicest gift he ever got me was a vacuum. It made me really happy because it was something I needed. And it meant he actually heard what I wanted, instead of getting me something other people would think was romantic.

My love languages are acts of service and quality time - neither of which he was great at.  

Don’t give me flowers - weed the yard so the neighbors stop bitching. 

Even now, with my grown kids - I want practical things - preferably done for me.

[emscm]

Based solely on description I would say my primary one is acts of service. I feel a sense of partnership and appreciation when husband works with me to accomplish all the little things we want done. 

My least is definitely touch. I am one of those people who does not like to be touched a lot, unless I really, really know you like that. 

[Photograph 51]

15 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

It’s not just in fundy circles - it’s been making the rounds in all kinds of relationship forums/discussion groups for quite some time.

I am continually surprised by how many people put stock in a basic and overly simplified categorization of need and response but it’s got a huge following. 

Yes, this.  I get annoyed with the love languages concept because it is a dramatic oversimplification and because showing/receiving love isn't always the goal of an exchange.  Just because i don't like a gift that someone got me doesn't mean that I'm "not a gift person."  It just means that they gave me a sucky gift.  Example: I'm vegan, and if someone who knows that I'm vegan gives me non-vegan food as a "gift", I'm not going to appreciate it.  I don't like for people to try to explain that away as "oh, you'd understand if gifts were one of your love languages."  No, the gift giver is trying to undermine my values.  I understand what is being communicated.  

The 5 "love languages" are really just 5 forms of communication, but a book called Five Forms of Communication wouldn't sell.  Any of the 5 forms can communicate all sorts of things.  Touch may be a love language, but a punch in the face doesn't feel loving.  Words may be loving, or they may be hurtful.  Spending time with someone may be loving if you're letting them choose the activity and if they actually want to spend time with you, but manipulating them into spending time with you doing something they hate when they have a ton of other stuff isn't loving.  An "act of service" may not feel like an act of service to the recipient if it is something that you did wrong, that they really enjoy doing and now you took that away from them, or that they didn't think needed to get done in the first place.

I believe that real love shine through- if one person really loves another person, the other person will be able to tell.  There are a variety of ways to communicate love that are not conveyed in the love languages concept.  I get tired of having the 5 love languages rammed down my throat.  Also, if someone isn't expressing love to you in a way that works for you, it may be because they don't actually love you.  Manipulating them into doing the things that signal to you that they love you isn't going to make them love you.

[TheMustardCardigan]

I think it's just a good way to remind you to consider that not everyone gets the same value out of each kind of social interaction. Probably not something to define and frame all your relationships by. I've never actually read the book, just a couple articles online summarizing the concepts. But I think the basic idea is a good one to add to your various other ways of thinking about your relationships with loved ones.

 

I think if someone seriously were to try and say "I punched you in the face because touch is your love language" or "I got you this steak and even though you are vegan  you better be grateful" you'd have to know they were full of it and 100 percent subverting the concept to justify their shitty behavior and make you feel bad. That person's actions don't make the concept of a Love Language totally invalid-- they'd be purposely being obtuse. I'm not sure what the book's take on this stuff is of course, but my interpretation would be that it's a good *starting point* but not an automatic "this action fits in that category, my SO likes that category, so guaranteed success!"

[nickelodeon]

19 hours ago, emscm said:

This is a genuine question regarding “love languages.” I understand the general concept of it in terms of being how someone prefers to experience love and affection. I have even gone so far as to Google and discover that there is a book about it. The thing I feel really ignorant about is why it seems to be such a frequent fundie buzz term. Is the book really popular in their circles? Is it fundie approved? I hear it mentioned here frequently, but I feel super ignorant about the connection. 

It was interesting to see that Lauren's dad quizzed Josiah on L's "love languages" when J was asking permission to propose. Though it was more personalized than a 40-page questionnaire on theological issues, it felt very in step with fundie courtship BS: all about knowing the correct answers to fill-in-the-blank situations, rather than on meaningful experience.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

54 minutes ago, nickelodeon said:

Lauren's dad quizzed Josiah on L's "love languages" when J was asking permission to propose.

Ha! Guess that's what you do when you don't have a Cosmo quiz on hand.

[QuiverFullofBooks]

I can’t seem to copy the image, and sorry about the ads, but there’s a funny tacos as the love languages meme at https://goo.gl/images/kvhjsB

[Ms. Brightside]

7 hours ago, TheMustardCardigan said:

I think if someone seriously were to try and say "I punched you in the face because touch is your love language" or "I got you this steak and even though you are vegan  you better be grateful" you'd have to know they were full of it and 100 percent subverting the concept to justify their shitty behavior and make you feel bad. That person's actions don't make the concept of a Love Language totally invalid-- they'd be purposely being obtuse. I'm not sure what the book's take on this stuff is of course, but my interpretation would be that it's a good *starting point* but not an automatic "this action fits in that category, my SO likes that category, so guaranteed success!"

I absolutely agree with this, but my impression of @Photograph 51's post wasn't that someone would seriously think "touch is your love language, you will understand my punch to your face as love!" Instead, I think it illustrates how each of the love languages have a spectrum of behavior that falls within them, and different people will draw the line of what they do and don't actually like in very different places, which the love languages don't take into account.

Continuing with the touch example: a touch can be a punch, holding hands, resting your hand on your partner's leg, erotically touching a specific part of your partner during sex vs. touching that spot when they aren't expecting it, choking during sex, tickling, playing with someone's hair, and hundreds of other examples. Many people who claim touch as their primary love language would choose different things from that list and say they actually feel loving or exciting to them, but in a group of people, not everyone's choices would match. Without further communication, it would still be very easy for two people to be on different pages. 

I really don't like to be touched, so if I had a partner who said that was important, I would be a little confused about how and when to touch. Obviously we should talk about that, but there will inevitably be times when I would potentially think "oh, I'll reach out and touch him like this now" but would later learn that I was out of line or made him uncomfortable. 

My former roommate let her husband know that her love language is  words of affirmation. Her husband began making a point to tell her that he noticed and appreciated when she did the dishes or initiated sex, because he thought that was what she wanted to hear. It took a while before she was able to effectively communicate to him that she wanted him to say things like "you look beautiful today" or "I'm so impressed by your ability to have meaningful conversations with anyone we meet"- basically noticing qualities about her, NOT things she did for him. For someone else, a partner acknowledging that they did the dishes could be wonderful to hear. He wasn't saying anything negative, he just wasn't using the words that actually felt affirming to her.

TL;DR, the love languages don't consider the spectrum of behaviors within any given "language." The examples given in the post above may have been extreme, but there are 100 situations in between the ends of the spectrum that are still going to be unclear whether they are "good" or "bad" for your particular partner. While the love languages can provide a very helpful jumping off point, they are still pretty useless without diving deeper.

[MargaretElliott]

I think the love languages thing is such a focus for fundies because they treat it as a replacement for actually getting to know each other. My SO probably is a physical touch person, and I definitely do lots of acts of service and I tell him how awesome I think he is. But, these are patterns we've noticed over time, dating and spending time together alone, and eventually living together (we're just enjoying life, not even planning on getting engaged, someone get the smelling salts). But why date someone over time when you could just get a handy dandy list that'll tell you if you're compatible? Learn their love language, and that's a surefire way to guarantee a lifetime of happiness and a Godly marriage. No need to indulge in sinful activities like holding hands or talking alone!

The love languages idea is solid, if treat it as a way to learn more about your partner, not an oversimplified cheat-sheet for every relationship ever. But fundies are masters of oversimplification.

[SassyPants]

7 minutes ago, MargaretElliott said:

I think the love languages thing is such a focus for fundies because they treat it as a replacement for actually getting to know each other. My SO probably is a physical touch person, and I definitely do lots of acts of service and I tell him how awesome I think he is. But, these are patterns we've noticed over time, dating and spending time together alone, and eventually living together (we're just enjoying life, not even planning on getting engaged, someone get the smelling salts). But why date someone over time when you could just get a handy dandy list that'll tell you if you're compatible? Learn their love language, and that's a surefire way to guarantee a lifetime of happiness and a Godly marriage. No need to indulge in sinful activities like holding hands or talking alone!

The love languages idea is solid, if treat it as a way to learn more about your partner, not an oversimplified cheat-sheet for every relationship ever. But fundies are masters of oversimplification.

I think that the fundies we most often talk about on FJ are masters of laziness and taking the easiest route to anything hard, or that requires sustained effort.

[19tacos&counting]

Who thinks we will see a pregnancy announcement before the ball drops on 2018?  

Meeee ?

[justoneoftwo]

10 minutes ago, 19tacos&counting said:

Who thinks we will see a pregnancy announcement before the ball drops on 2018?  

Meeee ?

Not me...

[Italiangirl]

12 hours ago, 19tacos&counting said:

Who thinks we will see a pregnancy announcement before the ball drops on 2018?  

Meeee ?

Me too 

[lumpentheologie]

17 hours ago, Ms. Brightside said:

While the love languages can provide a very helpful jumping off point, they are still pretty useless without diving deeper.

 

16 hours ago, MargaretElliott said:

I think the love languages thing is such a focus for fundies because they treat it as a replacement for actually getting to know each other.

I think the two of you have really hit the nail on the head here. 

I had a hard time understanding why anyone would object to the idea of the love languages, but I've only read about it online and never encountered it in real life, so I'm definitely not getting them shoved down my throat or proposed as some kind of relationship panacea. 

They absolutely can be a helpful tool if used as a starting point for more communication and individualized discussions of needs, and it never occurred to me that people would use them in any other way, since they're for people who want to work on their relationships. 

To me it seems clear that work on relationships needs to be based in communication (like obviously you should only touch or affirm in ways that your partner likes), but I guess for fundies and probably some conservative Christians (and others as well) their idea of working on a relationship isn't based on communicating more, it's based on trying harder to stick to some pre-determined relationship blueprint.

And I do see how the love languages could be used as a replacement for communication, in the sense of any Christian man can be with any Christian woman and it will work if they just know each other's love languages. That just seems like a really stupid way to use an otherwise decent idea. 

[miss_batson]

New pic of Lauren & Joshiah 

Lauren looks really beautiful and happy.

 

[SorenaJ]

What is SDC?

[VeryNikeSeamstress]

Siren Duggar Christmas?

[lumpentheologie]

25 minutes ago, SorenaJ said:

What is SDC?

Silver Dollar City--it's tagged as their location in the post. 

[HarleyQuinn]

I'm confused, I thought they lived in Georgia or Alabama or something like that? Didn't they move pretty far away from the TTH?

[MsSaylor]

No remember JB making them live in that weird house/commercial building he owns? Laurens family is from Georgia but moved to the Duggars area before Lauren and Josiah started seriously courting or whatever. 

[Snarkasarus Rex]

Is it me or is her face badly photoshopped?  

I agree that she's very pretty, but I don't think either of them look actually happy.  Their smiles don't reach their eyes.

[apandaaries]

On 12/4/2018 at 12:45 PM, lumpentheologie said:

The book is written from a Christian perspective, but I find the ideas work without any religion too. 

I believe it’s also published by a Christian publishing company. A friend of mine worked for them in marketing before going to grad school (she was also a very Christian person when she worked for that company).  The concept was hugely popular and and they were able to spin out the “love language” concept into other relationships and other books. 

I’ve  encountered other non religious people who’ve found value in the books, as well, but there is definitely a certain breed of Christian roots/theory involved in that series.