Josiah & Lauren 18: Still Only A Single Arrow in the Quiver

[Smash!]

Growing up there was a popular youth magazine called „Bravo“. Tons of stuff about popular bands and singers but also a whole section about sex where readers asked questions and a  Dr. Sommer answered. They always said to have sex for the first time when it feels right and not when boyfriend pushes for it. Also how to use a condom or what to do when you forgot to take your pill. Lots of teenagers got their sex education from Bravo.

[just_ordinary]

59 minutes ago, Smash! said:

Growing up there was a popular youth magazine called „Bravo“. Tons of stuff about popular bands and singers but also a whole section about sex where readers asked questions and a  Dr. Sommer answered. They always said to have sex for the first time when it feels right and not when boyfriend pushes for it. Also how to use a condom or what to do when you forgot to take your pill. Lots of teenagers got their sex education from Bravo.

I think several generations of teenagers were educated by Bravo in that regard. And not too bad. I mean, they even had a double page spread with a naked girl and boy where they talked over their experiences and with that showed the wide range of bodies that are out there. 
School sex Ed was definitely more biology based with STIs and the basics in terms of contraception (we had one teacher that famously brought a wooden penis and condoms and everyone in the class learned how to put it on. And another that blew up a condom to the max and told us girls- if ever a man tells you condoms are to small/tight - RUN!). Abstinence had no part in sex Ed. at all. Sex Ed meant what’s happening biological and what to do if you want to have sex to stay save (contraception and STIs). Good times, good times. 
And even with all that exposure, the age range for the first time is still around 16-18, and almost exclusively in monogamous, long term (mostly 6m-1year - the younger the longer ) relationships. It hasn’t really changed for over 30 years now. If anything age has gone up I think.

[Bluebirdbluebell]

On 11/1/2021 at 10:36 PM, QuiverFullofBooks said:

This was probably observed back when Josiah and Lauren got together, but I had not realized that the Swansons appeared briefly on the old show. (I’ve been watching some old shows.) They came to dinner in “Duggars Do Dinner,” season 4, episode 27. The Bontragers also came to dinner, and then everyone went to see the Bontragers perform. There was a running joke about the Duggars being unable to pronounce “Bontrager.” Lauren was visible several times, but didn’t speak on camera. 

Yes Lauren was on the show several times or at least present when they were filming. Lauren and her family were at Chad and Whitney's first wedding on TLC, and they came to Jill's wedding. If you watch the unedited footage, you can see Lauren at Jill and Derick's wedding.

Lily and Ellie (fan blog) found all these pictures of Kendra hanging out with the Duggars long before her marriage. It wouldn't surprise me if she turns up on the old show as well. Of the first 8 spouses, the only one who seems to have not been on the old show is Jeremy. He popped up right in time for the switch of 19K&C and Counting On. As far as I know, he started on Counting On.

[JermajestyDuggar]

12 minutes ago, Bluebirdbluebell said:

Yes Lauren was on the show several times or at least present when they were filming. Lauren and her family were at Chad and Whitney's first wedding on TLC, and they came to Jill's wedding. If you watch the unedited footage, you can see Lauren at Jill and Derick's wedding.

Lily and Ellie (fan blog) found all these pictures of Kendra hanging out with the Duggars long before her marriage. It wouldn't surprise me if she turns up on the old show as well. Of the first 8 spouses, the only one who seems to have not been on the old show is Jeremy. He popped up right in time for the switch of 19K&C and Counting On. As far as I know, he started on Counting On.

The Duggar boys seem to only go for girls in their fundie friend groups. While Jill and Jinger’s husbands weren’t really part of that group. 

[Bluebirdbluebell]

5 minutes ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

The Duggar boys seem to only go for girls in their fundie friend groups. While Jill and Jinger’s husbands weren’t really part of that group. 

Although I'm not sure that's accidental. The Duggar boys may be encouraged to pick fundie wives who more likely on-board for their beliefs.

[JermajestyDuggar]

22 minutes ago, Bluebirdbluebell said:

Although I'm not sure that's accidental. The Duggar boys may be encouraged to pick fundie wives who more likely on-board for their beliefs.

Which is interesting since the man is the head of household. You would think he would want the girls to only marry guys strictly in the cult. To keep tabs on them. 

[Bluebirdbluebell]

On 11/4/2021 at 5:08 PM, JermajestyDuggar said:

Which is interesting since the man is the head of household. You would think he would want the girls to only marry guys strictly in the cult. To keep tabs on them. 

The problem is that the men have to be able to support a family and a lot of fundie young men lack the education and skills to support a wife. Guys like Austin are the Duggar parents dream guy, but they're hard to find. 

[patsymae]

On 11/4/2021 at 4:45 PM, Bluebirdbluebell said:

Although I'm not sure that's accidental. The Duggar boys may be encouraged to pick fundie wives who more likely on-board for their beliefs.

Who else would they meet? 

Plus I'm thinking both sets of parents have a lot to do with it. I'm thinking fundie girls aren't supposed to pursue a man/boy, whereas "outsider" guys, being guys, can go for it.

Edited November 5, 2021 by patsymae
addition

[Bluebirdbluebell]

1 minute ago, patsymae said:

Who else would they meet? 

Well Zach Bates met Whitney, because she was working at a restaurant. Also stories of the Duggars have them inviting many people to the TTH for parties and stuff. Probably most of these people have similar beliefs, but not all of them might be as fundie as the Duggars. 

[JDuggs]

I don’t think this has been covered yet. I just saw on one of those websites that report on the Duggars that Lauren and Josiah have removed all photos of Bella from their social media. I just checked Instagram to confirm. They seem to be doubling down on the privacy even though they haven’t posted anything new in a year.

[SassyPants]

19 minutes ago, JDuggs said:

I don’t think this has been covered yet. I just saw on one of those websites that report on the Duggars that Lauren and Josiah have removed all photos of Bella from their social media. I just checked Instagram to confirm. They seem to be doubling down on the privacy even though they haven’t posted anything new in a year.

It’s as if some of the Duggars (Josiah and Jinger) might finally realize that selling your child’s life, anonymity and private moments might be exploitative? 

[SeekingAdventure]

Well, good for them.

Maybe she's lucky enough to grow up with few siblings and parents that aren't checked out and therefor might get a chance to have a better life than most of her cousins

[SassyPants]

8 minutes ago, SeekingAdventure said:

Well, good for them.

Maybe she's lucky enough to grow up with few siblings and parents that aren't checked out and therefor might get a chance to have a better life than most of her cousins

I always wonder when it clicks for a grown Duggar or Bates. You know, when they have 1 or maybe 2 kids and realize how time consuming and all encompassing parenthood really is when done correctly, and further, how much being one of 19 really wasn’t optimal or healthy-

In the end, I wonder how many of the second generation will end up resenting their parents’ choices?

[Idlewild]

I’m glad they are giving their child the respect JB & M never gave to their children. Family values my arse.

[SassyPants]

I also have to stop myself when I think, the Caldwells and Swansons only had nine kids. Nine kids is a huge family by almost everyone’s standards and not really doable in today’s US economy. BUT nine is less than half of 19. 19 children is absurd, plain and simple. The Bateses and Duggars are not unique in parenting/raising 19 kids poorly. I’d say no 2 people could parent that number in a healthy manner.

[Bluebirdbluebell]

30 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

I also have to stop myself when I think, the Caldwells and Swansons only had nine kids. Nine kids is a huge family by almost everyone’s standards and not really doable in today’s US economy. BUT nine is less than half of 19. 19 children is absurd, plain and simple. The Bateses and Duggars are not unique in parenting/raising 19 kids poorly. I’d say no 2 people could parent that number in a healthy manner.

The Swansons seem to have 10 kids and the Caldwells are still having children. I'm not sure either family is raising their kids in a responsible manner considering they belong to a cult. The Caldwells are openly anti-vax and anti most medical care. The Swansons might be a little better as they seem to value education to some extent.

[SassyPants]

14 minutes ago, Bluebirdbluebell said:

The Swansons seem to have 10 kids and the Caldwells are still having children. I'm not sure either family is raising their kids in a responsible manner considering they belong to a cult. The Caldwells are openly anti-vax and anti most medical care. The Swansons might be a little better as they seem to value education to some extent.

I guessed at the Swanson’s number…don’t get me wrong, I don’t think any of these folks are responsible or reasonable parents.

Edited November 6, 2021 by SassyPants

[fluffernutter]

I imagine (hope?) there are relatives close to the Duggars who are appalled by Josh, especially those that married into the family and might have had a slightly more healthy/normal upbringing. It's good to see some privacy/boundaries being made, even if they are the very smallest of baby steps. I cannot imagine having a child and having him as a brother in law. I'd be afraid to have my kid anywhere near him or have pics on the internet that he could see. Does anyone else think that's why some of the family is keeping their kids off of social media? 

[Idlewild]

@fluffernutter even if it’s not consciously related to Josh, I’m sure some of them have decided they don’t want a google search of ‘Duggar’ to throw up photos of their kids. 

[onekidanddone]

JB had a frantic rush to marry off a bunch of the howling howlers.
 

 I’m betting because after Joshly’s arrest there might not have been to many fathers wanting to transfer authority of their daughters to anyone with the last name Duggar. 

[SassyPants]

The Duggars monetize children and courtships are seemingly transactional. 

[imokit]

8 hours ago, SassyPants said:

The Duggars monetize children and courtships are seemingly transactional. 

I think with so many adult Duggars we need to make a distinction here.

JB & M definitely monetises their children and whole family and put their daughters in a horrible position by seeking publicity and a TV show knowing what Josh did and there was a chance of it coming out.

Jessa does too.

Anna (and Josh) have done in the past and would do it if they could.  Josh has slightly ruined that for them.

Jill for all she's broken with the family, certainly shows lots of kids and her own life and does promotions.

 

Others have taken steps to avoid it.  Jinger monetises herself and her family links, but does try to respect her kids privacy and won't show their faces.  She's not monetising her children, though she monetises motherhood.

Josiah and Lauren seem to take it even further and do respect Bella's privacy and their own privacy.  They aren't monetising themselves off the Duggar brand.

 

Others are somewhere in the middle. Joy and Austin put lots of family pics and seem to be more like Jessa on the spectrum, but still within the realms of normal Instagram.

Joe and JD seem to put the occasional pic up and also more private but less so than Josiah.

 

Social media is actually where she see the most visible difference in adult Duggar beliefs.  (I suspect there are a lot more differences than we know about but we can't see those).  

 

[Idlewild]

And Jessa is moving to a new house with their income deriving from said monetarism and whatever Ben does when he’s not cosplaying as a member of the Amish brethren. 

[MaryOrMartha]

9 hours ago, Idlewild said:

And Jessa is moving to a new house with their income deriving from said monetarism and whatever Ben does when he’s not cosplaying as a member of the Amish brethren. 

They're moving? Where was this announced?

[SassyPants]

12 hours ago, imokit said:

I think with so many adult Duggars we need to make a distinction here.

JB & M definitely monetises their children and whole family and put their daughters in a horrible position by seeking publicity and a TV show knowing what Josh did and there was a chance of it coming out.

Jessa does too.

Anna (and Josh) have done in the past and would do it if they could.  Josh has slightly ruined that for them.

Jill for all she's broken with the family, certainly shows lots of kids and her own life and does promotions.

 

Others have taken steps to avoid it.  Jinger monetises herself and her family links, but does try to respect her kids privacy and won't show their faces.  She's not monetising her children, though she monetises motherhood.

Josiah and Lauren seem to take it even further and do respect Bella's privacy and their own privacy.  They aren't monetising themselves off the Duggar brand.

 

Others are somewhere in the middle. Joy and Austin put lots of family pics and seem to be more like Jessa on the spectrum, but still within the realms of normal Instagram.

Joe and JD seem to put the occasional pic up and also more private but less so than Josiah.

 

Social media is actually where she see the most visible difference in adult Duggar beliefs.  (I suspect there are a lot more differences than we know about but we can't see those).  

 

But neither Josiah nor Jinger stopped displaying their kids until after TLC canceled the show, so no pass from me. As long as the easy money was rolling in, all the families readily monetized the kids. Even Jill takes freebies for her kids - none of them has an incentive to $how their kids, so now some of them are faking an interest in maintaining privacy-