Jana 8: Now with Instagram

[singsingsing]

There was actually a discussion about the nuances of this rule over in Community Discussion a while back. For anyone who wants to continue discussing it, that thread would probably be the right place! (I'm not a mod and I'm not telling anyone what to do - it's just generally good/helpful to have those discussions about rules and community guidelines and such in one place.)

 

[nelliebelle1197]

On 3/27/2019 at 10:17 AM, FluffySnowball said:

Yes. I personally feel married adults who are outspoken against the lgbtq+ community are fair game so I don’t really mind the guesses about David the nutty pecan Waller who recently talked about men wearing makeup with an over the top shudder that made me wonder whether Priscilla really is the only one wearing lipstick in their household. (Also, there’s no one to beat him up and force him into a camp, should he actually be gay). However, regarding one Duggar child I won’t name here (it may or may not be the person you mentioned) it was speculated whether his/her stint in a fundy labour facility and apparent distance to Jim Boob might have been brought about by certain speculations (that may very well be untrue btw). 

Oops. Sorry for quoting. 

Except that lipstick comment of yours is homophobic as hell and there have been plenty of LGBTQ people on this forum that find that type of speculation offense and hurtful when coupled with language like

Quote

whether Priscilla really is the only one wearing lipstick in their household

 

[FluffySnowball]

On 3/28/2019 at 11:39 PM, nelliebelle1197 said:

Except that lipstick comment of yours is homophobic as hell and there have been plenty of LGBTQ people on this forum that find that type of speculation offense and hurtful when coupled with language like

 

Nonsense. I don’t take issue with people who choose to dress or style themselves a certain way. Never have, never will. My problem is this: David Waller and people in similarly public IBLP positions need to present their issues a certain way so I don’t doubt they try - consciously or unconsciously - to make their speeches or sermons or whatever you call them more entertaining. Hence the ridiculous shuddering and “funny” faces. However, DW frequently talks down on men who don’t dress according to conservative norms. He also opposes homosexuality. At times, discussing and badmouthing a topic over and over can be an indication for buried interests/desires/urges. Is that true for DW? I don’t know. All I know for sure is that he’s homophobic and preaches hatred. Same with PP from the Anderson thread. Some members have speculated about why he appears to be obsessed with gay sex. Does that tell us something about his sexuality? I don’t know, I’m not him. Whatever the case, being hatful is the problem, not conforming to some made-up ideas of how “real” women and men ought to act isn’t. I didn’t say otherwise. 

[nelliebelle1197]

39 minutes ago, FluffySnowball said:

Nonsense. I don’t take issue with people who choose to dress or style themselves a certain way. Never have, never will. My problem is this: David Waller and people in similarly public IBLP positions need to present their issues a certain way so I don’t doubt they try - consciously or unconsciously - to make their speeches or sermons or whatever you call them more entertaining. Hence the ridiculous shuddering and “funny” faces. However, DW frequently talks down on men who don’t dress according to conservative norms. He also opposes homosexuality. At times, discussing and badmouthing a topic over and over can be an indication for buried interests/desires/urges. Is that true for DW? I don’t know. All I know for sure is that he’s homophobic and preaches hatred. Same with PP from the Anderson thread. Some members have speculated about why he appears to be obsessed with gay sex. Does that tell us something about his sexuality? I don’t know, I’m not him. Whatever the case, being hatful is the problem, not conforming to some made-up ideas of how “real” women and men ought to act isn’t. I didn’t say otherwise. 

You really don’t get what I am saying at all. It is has nothing to do with any of the fundies or about how YOU feel about anything. If you cannot reread what you posted before and see what is wrong with it, you really need to stop talking about other people’s sexuality.

[luv2laugh]

I can’t finish anything by PP and so I’m always lost as to what’s going on.  The moment he starts ranting about “sodomites” I turn him off. 

[luv2laugh]

On 3/25/2019 at 7:26 PM, Georgiana said:

This is a really interesting topic to me.  On the one hand, I agree: people DO show favoritism to certain Duggars and allow some Duggars to get away with things that other Duggars are raked across the coals for.  Jill, in particular, has become many people's BEC, and it can be hard to separate what genuinely inappropriate from "Jill is tone deaf and awkward, and I don't like her" (I have that same issue myself with her sometimes, and thank you to @VelociRapture for being a continual dose of objectivity when it comes to Jill).  

However, I think we also need to recognize that the Duggar adults ARE individuals.  And as individuals, it is fair to evaluate them individually.  In addition, it is NOT fair to bind them to the crimes of their siblings (or their siblings' spouses).  While they may be privately in line with the beliefs of their siblings, they do make different choices, and they do deserve credit for those choices.  If you CHOOSE to keep your beliefs private, for example, you get more wiggle room than someone who blasts hateful rhetoric publicly at every opportunity. It's right and fair to hold people accountable to their words, but it's not right and is unfair to hold people just as accountable for things they never said or never publicly supported just because you believe they LIKELY do.  Derick and Jeremy have chosen to publicly say a lot of words. They (and in some cases by extension, their spouses) can be held accountable for those words.  Ben and JD (for example) really haven't made too many public professions about their beliefs (and there have been small signs Ben is more liberal than his BILs), so they still deserve the benefit of the doubt.  

So when it comes to this, I do believe Jill is more problematic than Jana because of Jill's marriage to Derick.  Jill chose and to some extent continually chooses to implicitly support Derick by keeping their marriage in tact.  Any money paid to Jill is essentially also paid to Derick, so if you have major issues with Derick, you also need to call for a boycott of Jill.  Otherwise, you allow companies to fund Derick's ambitions through Jill.  There's no real way around it, and while it sucks for Jill, that's part of being in a marriage: you get coupled with your spouse.  Jana is tied to a troubling family, but neither she nor anyone SHE has chosen to tie herself closely to have used their platform to say the kind of stuff Derick has.  While it is likely some of her money goes to JB/the family, it's not legally a shared asset like it is between spouses.  On that level, I think it's very fair to treat Jill and Jana differently because Jill (and Jill's spouse) have made certain personal choices that make them more reprehensible than Jana.  And even if Jana privately agrees with those choices, the fact that she has chosen to keep that agreement private is a choice as well and one that she deserves credit for.   

This is exactly what I said about boycotting the young Duggar music CD because Josh will profit because Mackenzie is in it and I got downvoted. Jessa always shills the CD.

Jana’s money is controlled by JB because JB is her headship.

Edited March 30, 2019 by luv2laugh

[AtlanticTug]

Jill continues with the insanity of best papa/husband/human ever!!!! nonsense but let's at least recognize that she was largely saddled with Derick due to JimBob. HE is the one who took on Derick as a "prayer partner" (yarite), and as Jill's headship it was his responsibility to properly vet Derick since Jill had absolutely no ability to do so. She was not allowed to have ANY private/alone time with Derick, she had no way to get to know him outside of their supervised visitations/online chats, she had zero life experience, zero courtship/dating experience, and on top of it all an eager-to-please personality. Plus being JB's favorite and therefore much more likely to trust in the wisdom of his choice for her. JB totally screwed the pooch on Derick and is mostly responsible here.

 

[TheMustardCardigan]

I wonder how much of the pairing with Derick was due to Jessa entering courtship with Ben? I forget the exact timeline, but Jessa and Ben started courting first, right? Jill has described her pre-Derick self as "boy crazy," so I wonder if there was an extra rush because Jill felt left out or jealous about younger sister Jessa courting.

[Smee]

4 hours ago, TheMustardCardigan said:

I wonder how much of the pairing with Derick was due to Jessa entering courtship with Ben? I forget the exact timeline, but Jessa and Ben started courting first, right? Jill has described her pre-Derick self as "boy crazy," so I wonder if there was an extra rush because Jill felt left out or jealous about younger sister Jessa courting.

I thought it was the other way around? Jill band Derrick were courting first and then Jessa and Ben started courting too, “overtook” them by getting married before Jill did, and then it was like a race to get pregnant. But I might have my couples mixed up. There was definitely overlap.

[DundeeUnFundie]

Jessa was courting first, Jill got married first I personally always thought it was because she wanted to beat Jessa, since she's always seemed jealous of her.

[SilverBeach]

On 3/25/2019 at 7:57 AM, backyard sylph said:

You quoted me instead of whoever said it wasn't instant. I did say it is instant.

Probably one of those quote within a quote blunders that happens from time to time. I try to avoid those, but one slips through every now and then. Sorry for the misattribution.

On 3/26/2019 at 12:22 AM, amendgitan said:

I'm sure people have responded and I realize this is old now but yes it absolutely does take away sexual pleasure. Not all but it desensitizes it quite a bit. 

Are you a penis owner? I left the thread for a while because of this discussion, and somebody just had to bring it back up. Won't ask for your evidence, but geez.

Edited March 30, 2019 by SilverBeach

[VelociRapture]

On 3/30/2019 at 5:51 PM, Smee said:

I thought it was the other way around? Jill band Derrick were courting first and then Jessa and Ben started courting too, “overtook” them by getting married before Jill did, and then it was like a race to get pregnant. But I might have my couples mixed up. There was definitely overlap.

Jessa and Ben first started communicating sometime in early 2013 - not sure exactly when, but it was before his birthday on May 19th. Their relationship was outed by one of Ben’s family members in early September and a courtship was announced within a few days. They were engaged in mid-August 2014 and married on November 1.

Jill and Derick spoke briefly for the first time sometime in March 2013 during one of his calls with her dad. I don’t think they spoke again for a while, but Derick got the ok to get to know her in August 2013. I think they mainly communicated via Skype and email as Derick was in Nepal at the time. In November, right around Thanksgiving (in the US) time I believe, Jill and JB traveled to Nepal and Derick asked Jill to court. They were engaged in March 2014 and married in late June.

[kachuu]

On 3/30/2019 at 3:35 PM, SilverBeach said:

Are you a penis owner? 

I just really felt like this needed to be highlighted because this single question brought me joy. I have no idea what it is being discussed, but this statement is making Monday worth it for me.

[VBOY9977]

I don’t get why people straight up ask questions like that on their instagram. 

She confirmed she has had past relationships. I wonder if it was several or if she’s just making a generalization. 

[Iamtheway]

11 minutes ago, VBOY9977 said:

I don’t get why people straight up ask questions like that on their instagram. 

She confirmed she has had past relationships. I wonder if it was several or if she’s just making a generalization. 

Is that actually Jana answering? Writing that she has courted a few guys? And that that wasn’t serious? That seems really weird and not at all like how she’d word it. 

Edited April 2, 2019 by Iamtheway

[SassyPants]

Don’t think that’s her at all. If Jana had courted or dated other guys, the world would know. Maybe she has been interested in getting to know another person, but dating and courting other GUYS, nah, don’t believe that for a second.

[NoKidsAndCounting]

I actually hope that Jana has had a chance to do some normal "dating."  Maybe she has discovered how many crappy men there are in the fundy world?  She doesn't want to become hitched to a molester, someone who would stifle her, someone who would expect her to have eleventy children, someone who cheats, and the list goes on.  She has every right to be choosy.  She has seen a lot of her siblings in poor matches.  I say good for her to wait and "date" like a normal person her age.

[Belugaloo]

im confused as to who else could've written the response if not her?? The response is coming from her instagram handle. 

[naatashamaru]

she doesn't live at a house by herself so it could easily be one of her parents telling her what to say.

[VelociRapture]

17 minutes ago, Iamtheway said:

Is that actually Jana answering? Writing that she has courted a few guys? And that that wasn’t serious? That seems really weird and not at all like how she’d word it. 

 

11 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

Don’t think that’s her at all. If Jana had courted or dated other guys, the world would know. Maybe she has been interested in getting to know another person, but dating and courting other GUYS, nah, don’t believe that for a second.

It’s possible she was just pissed off and worded things differently than she might have under other circumstances. I’m pretty sure having someone question her sexuality would be pretty insulting to someone like Jana who comes from a fairly homophobic environment. She might have exaggerated a bit in order to help stop the rumors from spreading further.

[SassyPants]

1 minute ago, VelociRapture said:

 

It’s possible she was just pissed off and worded things differently than she might have under other circumstances. I’m pretty sure having someone question her sexuality would be pretty insulting to someone like Jana who comes from a fairly homophobic environment. She might have exaggerated a bit in order to help stop the rumors from spreading further.

If that’s the case, her parents certainly aren’t monitoring her screen time. I think they’d flip out at the notion that  the world thinks that #1 daughter has dated guyS or had failed courtshipS.

[singsingsing]

I guess it could be photoshopped. Can anyone find the actual comment on any of her Instagram photos?

[VelociRapture]

1 minute ago, singsingsing said:

I guess it could be photoshopped. Can anyone find the actual comment on any of her Instagram photos?

Comment was deleted by the person who asked:

[OyToTheVey]

This was not what I expected when I saw that the topic was hot.

[singsingsing]

Just now, VelociRapture said:

Comment was deleted by the person who asked:

This still makes me suspicious that the reply never actually existed, but I never believe anything I see on the internet without absolute proof now, haha.

Also because Duggars usually use 'courtship' to mean a more serious relationship and seem to announce courtships very quickly after they begin. But maybe Jana has some agency in that matter. That would be nice.