Jump to content
IGNORED

Bates 31: When Will They Go Away?


Coconut Flan

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, CanadianMamam said:

In one of Katie's YouTube videos, she says that her mom's biggest baby was 7lbs, 14oz, which I found interesting as that isn't very big at all. Now the Bates aren't large people but every baby being under 8 lbs kind of shocked me. 

I also wonder if KJ was ever overdue? The B2 have small babies , but they also all birth early. Most of the weight a baby gains is in that last month, and the B women (aside from Whit) don’t carry that long.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

I also wonder if KJ was ever overdue? The B2 have small babies , but they also all birth early. Most of the weight a baby gains is in that last month, and the B women (aside from Whit) don’t carry that long.

I am not sure. Katie and Travis mentioned her sisters babies being small, but commented that it was because they all go early (Katie will likely be induced early). Also, she got pregnant again so quickly that there may have been some nutritional elements at play there, plus the Bates generally poor nutrition in general. 

Kelly's longest gap was 27 months and that involved two miscarriages, her shortest gap is less than 13 months. 

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, apologies in advanced for this scrambled post. I believe I was watching Trace and Lydia's last YouTube video when I saw the Bates brother who has announced his relationship- Jackson I want to say?- front hug cuddling his girlfriend. It got me to thinking about the recent Bateseses and Duggar relationships. What was the last Bates relationship to be labeled courtship? I feel like we came to a general consensus that the Bates tried to get away from that term to appear normal. However, it seems like the girls have had courtships with chaperones, even if that's not how they referred to it, while the boys have just dated.

I know the Duggar's have been a lot more secretive about the newer relationships until there is an engagement, I just wouldn't be surprised if they are still using the courtship model for marrying for either gender (the exception being John David).

I had watched that one YT video of before the wedding, and also Lawson's IG stories, so I don't recall where I saw it, but either Trace or Lawson asked Jackson about when the ring will come in his relationship. Neither Jackson or his girlfriend seemed horrified at the question, but neither seemed enthusiastic either.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Katie was the last courtship, which was done for the show. Katie's relationship is weird thoguh because a lot of the no-touch element (even after engagement) seems to have come from the Clark's. 

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, front hugs > duggs said:

Ok, apologies in advanced for this scrambled post. I believe I was watching Trace and Lydia's last YouTube video when I saw the Bates brother who has announced his relationship- Jackson I want to say?- front hug cuddling his girlfriend. It got me to thinking about the recent Bateseses and Duggar relationships. What was the last Bates relationship to be labeled courtship? I feel like we came to a general consensus that the Bates tried to get away from that term to appear normal. However, it seems like the girls have had courtships with chaperones, even if that's not how they referred to it, while the boys have just dated.

I know the Duggar's have been a lot more secretive about the newer relationships until there is an engagement, I just wouldn't be surprised if they are still using the courtship model for marrying for either gender (the exception being John David).

I had watched that one YT video of before the wedding, and also Lawson's IG stories, so I don't recall where I saw it, but either Trace or Lawson asked Jackson about when the ring will come in his relationship. Neither Jackson or his girlfriend seemed horrified at the question, but neither seemed enthusiastic either.

The Bateses are way more strict with their daughters than sons. All of their sons seem to want non courtship type relations with girls with more lax rules. 

  • Upvote 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

The Bateses are way more strict with their daughters than sons. All of their sons seem to want non courtship type relations with girls with more lax rules. 

They are. The Bates duaghters also aren't allowed to move out on their own, while most of the sons seem to leave home early and get to do whatever the Hell they want. 

  • Upvote 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they're starting to move two of the three younger ones into the spotlight. Addie and Ellie.  They're 15 and 16. This was how old their older sisters were when they started parading them around.  Was Josie 18 or 19 when she got married? She may have already been 'talking' to Kelton at this point.  The younger girls were all over IG after Trace's wedding yesterday. 

  • Upvote 6
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of suspect that the Duggars are still following all the courtship rules and just don't post about it. 

In recent years, the Bates sr. have seemed to read public opinion better and/or care about it more. 

Which is kind of funny b/c it seemed to be early on that the Duggars w/their show were more worldly (remember Erin's judgy face during the visit all the Bates girls were dressed in prairie dresses?) And now the Duggars seem to be trucking along doing the same old thing while the Bates have evolved persona wise (TBD about beliefs since Gil is still IBLP I imagine it's all perception management). 

  • Upvote 7
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bates are hilariously shallow. I enjoy them so much because they pay lip service to all the standard evangelical and at least semi-fundamentalist rhetoric, but are mostly actually into being cute and hanging bland scripty signs on their bland walls. 

I know people fear that because they appear normal, they are drawing people into some culty churchy ways, but I think that ship sailed awhile back. Their influence at this point is mostly superficial consumerism, and I dare say that the number of people who decide to vote for a misogynistic fascist because someone shiny painted their porch white is probably pretty low, though perhaps not zero. 

I certainly do think absolutely none of them should be allowed positions of influence or authority, because they have so many stupid bad takes on things. But none of them appear to have the attention span of a Duggar in that regard.

Now I am imagining introducing Gil Bates to something like Hegel's dialectic of existence. 

  • Upvote 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, backyard sylph said:

The Bates are hilariously shallow. I enjoy them so much because they pay lip service to all the standard evangelical and at least semi-fundamentalist rhetoric, but are mostly actually into being cute and hanging bland scripty signs on their bland walls. 

I know people fear that because they appear normal, they are drawing people into some culty churchy ways, but I think that ship sailed awhile back. Their influence at this point is mostly superficial consumerism, and I dare say that the number of people who decide to vote for a misogynistic fascist because someone shiny painted their porch white is probably pretty low, though perhaps not zero. 

I certainly do think absolutely none of them should be allowed positions of influence or authority, because they have so many stupid bad takes on things. But none of them appear to have the attention span of a Duggar in that regard.

Now I am imagining introducing Gil Bates to something like Hegel's dialectic of existence. 

These folks having any influence is doubly bad because what they do advocate for is extremely hurtful and in most ways anti- Christian, but just as bad is the lack of any pertinent world knowledge or experiences. In other words, most of them are plain dull and the masters of nothing. Following the Bates as any sort of leaders is like America electing Trump as POTUS, plain stupid!

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming out of a decade long lurkerdom to post about Gil. I just can't with these people. Trace posted a video on YouTube where he says that Gil accidentally shot himself with an arrow (assuming some type of hunting cross bow) the other day. I am not eloquent but these people and their lack of safety awareness along with their 2nd amendment stuff is a recipe for disaster!

  • Upvote 11
  • Haha 2
  • I Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, gobucks said:

Coming out of a decade long lurkerdom to post about Gil. I just can't with these people. Trace posted a video on YouTube where he says that Gil accidentally shot himself with an arrow (assuming some type of hunting cross bow) the other day. I am not eloquent but these people and their lack of safety awareness along with their 2nd amendment stuff is a recipe for disaster!

My nephew and brother in law go bow hunting. They’ve literally never once harmed themselves while hunting. And they go every year. They have never come close to hurting anyone else either. I’m honestly amazed a Bates hasn’t had a life threatening accident at this point. They are so careless. 

  • Upvote 7
  • Sad 1
  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does one shoot himself with an arrow? Pointed bow and arrow towards the ground, had it ready and accidentally let go and shot his foot? 

I obviously have no idea about hunting or shooting with arrows etc, but it seems astoundingly stupid to be able to shoot yourself with an arrow. It would also be stupid if someone else in the group accidentally shot him, but himself? I'm absolutely flabbergasted how that would happen to anyone with more than two brain cells..?

 

If this is a 'common problem ' i'd love to be educated 🤯

  • Upvote 6
  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Tdoc72 said:

I read somewhere that the arrow broke and that’s how it happened. Sounds like a pure accident, not a safety issue. 

Alright, that does sound like an accident. Wouldn't call it shooting himself with an arrow then, though, but injured himself. 

Maybe the original phrasing was different and everybody added something to it, like in the game (silent post, i don't know if it is common in the us, we played it in kindergarden. Whisper a sentence to the person next to you etc and see what comes out after some people. Fun ;)) or just plain old SOTDRT

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/23/2022 at 10:57 AM, SassyPants said:

Justin Duggar- engaged a day after turning 18 in Nov 2020 and married in Feb 2021, the day before his bride turned 20( or was it 21)? 

Claire Duggar was 19 and turned 20 the next day. You're right about the timing. Technically it looked like Justin proposed before he turned 18 (same month) and they announced the day after he turned 18. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do archery as a hobby. With a normal bow and arrow and no hunting gear. And I have no idea what must happen, so that an arrow would be sticking through my hand. It is literally impossible to shoot an arrow with only one hand while the other hand must be in front of the arrow. At least it is impossible with the normal bow I use. You need both hands to draw the bow. So I can only assume it was a crossbow. But I do not know enough about crossbows to speculate how this accident would be possible. I will ask a friend who knows more about that because now I am curious.

If a normal bow breaks while you have an arrow on it (like right before you let go of the string and shoot) the bow would pop on your head as a result.  This can happen when the bow is weak or old or the wood had a weak spot inside. I think I know two or three people where this happened. 

But with Gil Bates and their (lack of) common sense and handling of security issues, I only think: What the fuck!

  • Upvote 10
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bateses decorate their houses in the absolute opposite than I do. Our home is full of mismatched furniture, renovated rooms and rooms that look the same since we moved in (the owners before us left the guest room in perfect condition and fully furnished, all of our guests love the comfy bed and get angry when I tell them I would like to renovate the room, because it is not my style). 

But I kind of understand the Bateses women why they end up in these sad beige houses. Growing up in this chaotic life-style and household of Kelly, the beige white visual feauture of their homes must be soothing for their nerves. ... But they most likely decorate like that because it is hip on instagram.

  • Upvote 8
  • I Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Scrabblemaster said:

The Bateses decorate their houses in the absolute opposite than I do. Our home is full of mismatched furniture, renovated rooms and rooms that look the same since we moved in (the owners before us left the guest room in perfect condition and fully furnished, all of our guests love the comfy bed and get angry when I tell them I would like to renovate the room, because it is not my style). 

But I kind of understand the Bateses women why they end up in these sad beige houses. Growing up in this chaotic life-style and household of Kelly, the beige white visual feauture of their homes must be soothing for their nerves. ... But they most likely decorate like that because it is hip on instagram.

I tend towards minimalism and I’ve read that millennials are more minimalistic than their parents. A lot of the Bates daughters are millennials. When I was growing up, it was normal for houses to be filled with tons of decorations and Knick knacks. Since the Bateses grew up in a small home with tons of kids, it was probably filled to the brim. I think a lot of instagrammers do sad beige because it looks better in Instagram pics. 

  • Upvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

I tend towards minimalism and I’ve read that millennials are more minimalistic than their parents. A lot of the Bates daughters are millennials. When I was growing up, it was normal for houses to be filled with tons of decorations and Knick knacks. Since the Bateses grew up in a small home with tons of kids, it was probably filled to the brim. I think a lot of instagrammers do sad beige because it looks better in Instagram pics. 

That makes sense. My millennial daughters are all fairly minimalist ( although different styles and shades of that basic concept) - and they grew up in small homes with lots of noise - both actual noise and background clutter/ things type noise.  I think it’s also that they tend to actually HAVE a style concept  - whether it’s all bland and beige, or coastal, or crystals and velvets  or whatever —  and are intentional about it, as opposed to my age group at a similar age and parenting stage —  where it seemed like we’d get furnishings mostly based on what would stand up to kids, hung lots of family photos, got window coverings that kind of went with the couch and were done with it.  Unless you had $$ interior decorating was kind of —- haphazard. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

That makes sense. My millennial daughters are all fairly minimalist ( although different styles and shades of that basic concept) - and they grew up in small homes with lots of noise - both actual noise and background clutter/ things type noise.  I think it’s also that they tend to actually HAVE a style concept  - whether it’s all bland and beige, or coastal, or crystals and velvets  or whatever —  and are intentional about it, as opposed to my age group at a similar age and parenting stage —  where it seemed like we’d get furnishings mostly based on what would stand up to kids, hung lots of family photos, got window coverings that kind of went with the couch and were done with it.  Unless you had $$ interior decorating was kind of —- haphazard. 

And in my age group (Baby Boomer/GenX cusp) because you were starting out and didn't have much money to spend on decor, you took pretty much whatever anyone had to offer you and made it work with your taste the best you could and the best you knew how.  That's how it was when I got married in 1993 and bought our house a year later (which we are still in).  Any friend or relative that had a piece of hand-me-down furniture or bought/passed down to us anything that was functional, such as curtains, we took and used, even if it wasn't exactly what we would go out and buy for ourselves.  I still shudder to think of the ugly 70s rust and green plaid love seat with wooden decorative front arm panels in our den that was passed down from my sister-in-law who married in 1987, who previously inherited it from her/my husband's parents.   But as much as I despised it, it was one less piece of furniture we had to worry about buying and cheap solid colored cotton throws and throw cushions soon became my best friend. 

 

Edited by HeartsAFundie
  • Upvote 4
  • I Agree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Coconut Flan locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.