satrunrose

Wait, wait, so the "godly" family, who was already circling the drain due to sexual scandals and major issues around what's sexually appropriate, got the Howlers' future brother-in-law, who should under no circumstances have any knowledge of or interest in his pubescent, soon to be family members' sex lives, to come in and give a sermon on masturbation. What in the ever loving Hell?

Does anyone else think it's kind of funny that for all of the goings on about Kim Jong Boob's requirements to court his daughters the folks on this thread are far more discerning and cautious of potential spouses for our Duggarlings?

Frankly, I've always felt the whole point of SOS (and the Jillards' main job) is to provide chances for fundies and fundie-lights to go South, hit the beach, meet some "like-minded" people, paint nails, get away with dancing and pass out candy. Sure, it's not providing short or long-term solutions for the actual people that they tell the donors they are serving but the stay-at-home daughters get a chance to meet people and can tell themselves they're doing something significant. ETA: I sound really critical, but I actually think it's not a bad thing to get some of these uber-sheltered kids out of the house. I'd also rather SOS be focused on providing a fun and godly missioncation experience than convincing local parents (especially in Zika infected areas) that God will provide for their eleventy billion blessings.

Personally, I think if you're worried about "pieces of your heart" that courtship is much, much worse than dating. In dating land, when you go out on a date first date you're not immune to infatuation, but there's an understanding that this person might be Mr or Miss Right, but they're just as likely to be Mr or Miss Right Now or Mr or Miss Forget About a Second Date. In courting, if you are courting it's because Daddy (and in their belief system God himself) has chosen this person to be your spouse. Everything in your life is telling you that you should be infatuated... and then it falls apart. Dating people (for the most part) get that those things happen. If courting falls through not only has the person who you thought you were going to marry let you down, so has God.

I don't know if a Joy-full wedding would be a hit because a. She's really young to get married and b. Hasn't seemed to be really eager to get a-courtin' or if people would boycott in droves for the same reasons. Edited to add: I mean, people do get married at 18, but it would be a surprise given Joy's obvious discomfort and lack of enthusiasm.

I've been wondering about this too. J&JCO can't be particularly cheap to make. They need to pay 4 families enough that they don't decide that Jesus has led them to a new season of life out of the sight of grubby non-believers. They need to pay for field trips to make the show about more than 15 adults sitting around staring at each other (Neat!) while 15 kids run wild around them. They need to pay all the expenses to get the crew and X Duggars to danger America for however long. I realize in the realm of 1 000 000 per episode per actor scripted drama it's probably peanuts, but if it's not bringing in any ad revenue, I can't see how it's worth TLCs while. Sure, they have solid ratings and maybe they can maintain them, but unless Jana or Jinger get married or there's another scandal (breaking Duggan-Style, I hope) I don't see them improving.

This. I don't know if Josie does have any issues but I am pretty sure that the only expectation placed on the Howlers and Lost Girls is to 1. Be able to use the Gothard lingo 2. Play nice for the cameras 3. Be obedient and 4. Be able to fend for yourself without bothering the sister moms or especially the queen bee, J'chelle. Josie can do all that so no one is ever going to push her hard enough to see if there's any other, oh, I don't know, vital life-skills she may be missing.

I've always thought that as long as Josie could walk, feed herself, dress herself and talk with some coherence the Duggars would never notice if there is something wrong. Most learning issues really get diagnosed when kids are seen to struggle with academic tasks. Since there are no academic tasks in the TTC, I honestly think no one will ever know what's going on with Josie.

Men don't make idols of inanimate objects, silly. They have Godly desires for Aquanaet that must be righteously fulfilled by their helpmeets and daughters. It's us foolish and fallen women that can easily be led from the umbrella of protection by the twin demons of Starbucks and pepsi (I'm guessing Dunkin' Doughnuts and Coke is much more pleasing unto Him). Isn't that neat and special? Eta. Unless the Boob had a desire for Aquanaet sold by someone wearing pants and flashing some clavicle... that might be a problem.

I think you're both right. However, I also don't remember seeing (or hearing about) Jill being quite so immature pre-Derrick. I think Jill, in her early 20s, had no frame of reference for dealing with feelings of physical and emotional affection so she acted the way most girls do when they have their first taste of that... at 12-15. Why is she still acting this way now? I assume Derrick enjoyed Jill's childish infatuation at first and now that has worn off he doesn't have the skills to ask Jill to behave more age-appropriately (or being a bit of an awkward kook himself, may not actually mind so much) and Jill, again, doesn't have anything to compare more mature relationships to other than her parents and Josh which is a big old ew! As for Jessa, I don't think she was looking for Prince Charming or a "Til There Was You" moment as much as a decently attractive guy who would satisfy her father's specifications and take her the Hell away from raising other people's children. Bin ticked her boxes and off she went.

Exactly. This has been my biggest take-home from family research and genealogy. Sometimes, a lot of times actually, there are no answers to explain an event decades after the fact when many, if not all of the key players are dead. At best you may get a telephone-esque "well, so-and-so told so-and-so twenty years later and they told me..."

Hmm, I watched the first couple of seasons of Merlin and Bradly James is pretty good, but Arthur is more cocky than I see LJ (I haven't seen him in much else to compare). I also think he looks a little young, but I've just finished Book 7 so 40-odd John is freshest in my mind right now. It really is interesting how these casting suggestions show the difference in our mental pictures of the characters. I always pictured Stephen Bonnet as a slightly younger Sirius Black as played by Gary Oldman. If I was going to go for a more urbane type, can I suggest Aidan Turner? (Assuming he's not going to be tapped to be the next Bond as my googling suggested). Oh, and sticking with the Being Human cast, Russell Tovey is not unlike how I picture Young Ian, or at least Young Ian pre-Mohawks. Last thing, thanks for getting me to look up "The Crimson Field". I think our new Roger Mac will do nicely. I also wondered if Alice St Clair, who played Flora, wouldn't work nicely as Marsali. I think she has the spunkiness to pull off the wedding/handfast arc.

Hmmm, Looking at that list I would say my votes go to Tom Felton, Dan Stevens and Neil Jackson with first choice being DS. I think Felton looks a little too young for revolutionary war-era LJG. Neil Jackson's period costume picture in the tv line article is as close as they're going to get to Book 7 Lord John in my head, but I can't see him pulling off the ardsmuir era. Dan Stevens comes the closet to that could be 20, could be 40 look. I would like to see Alan Leech or Toby Regbo for grown up Fergus. Toby Regbo looks a lot like wee Fergus, but Leech could pull off the tough life, but still dashing, thing. No clue where to go for young Ian. The gangly, all angles image I have of him at 15 isn't something that too many 20 something actors are going to be able to pull off.

I would guess that Jill, who judges everyone by her own standards and doesn't get that other, non satan-fortress inspired ones even exist, assumed that either a. God had shown this lady her error (or could be convinced of said error by the Dillards' mad missionary skills), or b. Jill figured that being the bio grandmother-in-law of the blessed Jill Duggar and getting to be a tv star would be enough of a neat blessing to get her to come out of the woodwork. I think it's also possible that Jill/Cathy knew the lady was dead but were hoping for a "surprise" tearful reunion with siblings or cousins. All filmed, of course.

I really liked this episode too. I will say this for Ron Moore and co, I think they generally do a good job when they go off text, with the notable exception of "The Search". It stayed true to the spirit of the books and ditched a lot of the meandering back and forth from battle to battle to that argh I hate it so much Randal episode (although I'm sure that's coming). I was fine with the changes to our first meeting with Lord John (aka William). I never bought that it was in character for J- to rip Claire's dress off in front of his men and the "ha-ha fooled ya we're married" reveal seemed a little mean spirited to a kid who thought he was saving someone. I guess Jamie looses an opportunity to be cunning and merciful but it's not like it's the only time he'll show those traits. The thing I really liked about the way it showed on screen was all the non-verbal or semi-verbal stuff while they were fake struggling. They made it really clear that they got close to pushing it too far then pulled it back with a knee to the groin from Claire and the "Sasenach" from Jamie which felt so in character. Last but not least. Sam H. you are frikken' incredible! Grown up Jamie was completely amazing without sacrificing for a second the way he feels about Claire. I got all giggly and squee-y whenever Sam knocked a King of Men moment out of the park so I was a big pile o' goo for most of the hour. PS. Sam/Jamie is welcome to stage a commando raid of my camp any old time he wants to... providing there are kilts and war paint involved. Day-um.

This is where I am. I feel like comparing Laoghaire to Black Jack Randall is like comparing apples to something nasty and decaying that will give you botulism if you eat it. It feels weird to find or use pithy and dismissive nicknames for a monster like that. Book Laoghaire isn't ever a monster, although she is delusional and a fool. I feel like a more apt comparison would be looking at how fandom talks about Gellis Duncan vs BJR as both are psychopaths with some very nasty sex crimes to their credit.

So setting aside the somewhat atypical math (if Cathy is 55, this lady had her at 36 which doesn't seem like the usual scenario), if she's 91 what are the chances that she's a. still alive and b. with it enough that a meeting would be beneficial to anyone?

Is anyone else wondering why Jackson looks terrified?

Just so we're clear, is this going to be the here's $5 go play in the arcade kind of chaperone or the keep careful notes on Aja's student loans and her thoughts on the Song of Solomon kind? Personally I'm cool with either. ;)

I would be really happy if someone could find a way out of the "Geneva convention" (I like that!) but I'm not entirely sure how. Personally, I'm okay with Jamie having sex with someone else. He didn't think he'd see ever see Claire again and I've always been under the impression that Claire and Frank's marriage was strained but not totally celibate. For me, the trouble is Jamie seems okay with no sex (It's Jenny etc. who keep telling him he needs a woman) so a "scratching an itch" thing doesn't make a lot of sense and even if it did, Jamie isn't the Auld Fox's grandson and The MacKenzie's nephew for nothing. You would have to change either his personality or Geneva's a lot for me to buy that Jamie would run the risk of getting caught with the the Lord of the Manor's daughter for a quickie. Maybe if Geneva was a fellow servant it would kinda make sense (another Mary McNab situation) but then how do you get Lord John to be William's stepfather without even weirder plot contrivances than we started with? The only other thing I can come up with is to give Geneva a very Claire-ish personalty and look and have Jamie respond to that. The real problem in all of this is that sexual violence does motivate a lot of the action and character development in this series. I don't like it but I really don't know how to re-work the plots to get the character moments I love without it. And since the show folks have, if anything, played up those storylines. I think we're probably stuck with it.

Oh, Ian! Seriously, there needs to be a warning before the saddest chapters 'cause I was just eating my breakfast, reading away and then Ian died and I was bawling all over my croissant. For all of the issues Outlander might have, the relationships between the characters are a beautiful thing and it just makes things like that so hard. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought the first 1/2 or 2/3 of this one was slow going. I blamed it on the fact that I haven't read any of the Lord John novels and I'm not American so I only know the broadest strokes about the Revolution, but I think now that I've read through this thread, I can safely blame DG (sorry DG). My likes Anything with Jamie and Claire: I just love those two together much, but I also like them separately. I think Claire might be a little hard to take in person because she's so compassionately ruthless and direct, but as a character I mostly love her to pieces (with the exception of certain chunks of DIA ). The Hunters: Unlike Claire and even Jamie (I love his personality, but feel like being near him is just asking for something unpleasantly dramatic to happen to me), I would love to hang out with Friend Denzel and Friend Rachel. They're nice, smart and idealistic without being stupid about it. I'm not sure I could handle a whole buik just about them, but I don't find them any less interesting than Bobby or Lizzie or the twins (seriously, the only interesting thing about that trio is their... unconventional... living arrangement). I also felt like the Hunters' Quaker faith was a good way to keep talking about the role of violence in society. We've seen this theme in other books, but since Jamie is very much a warrior and Claire, for all her muttering about men and scots, doesn't entirely disagree with him, it's nice to see the other side (sort of - DG is still very much team Warrior and it shows in the way the Hunters relate to the war and to Ian at the end). Scotland: After some much-needed humour in Edinburgh (Bonnie the printing press, snicker), the Lallybroch parts were heartbreakingly well done. I also surprised myself by enjoying Legohaire. I've hated that character since the witch trial but it was nice to see that her perspective wasn't completely unreasonable without taking anything away from Jamie and Claire. They have their moments... William and John. William got much more interesting after he joined up with the main cast and I liked John a lot after he got back to Philadelphia. I had a hard time following the spy stuff and the Gray family drama (though I did like Dottie and Henry). The war stuff. One of the reasons I love historical fiction is because it lets you see things from the perspective of the people who didn't have a chance to leave a written record at the time. I found the evacuation of Ticonderoga, the parts about life in camp, the politics and the aftermaths of the battles fairly interesting but DG could have covered the same ground in about half the time (especially the early parts narrated by William). Fergus, Marsali et al. I love them, but Fergus and Percy was one sub-plot too many. I think if DG had cut William's fruitless intelligencing then the MacKenzie-Frasers might have had a little more room to breathe. Roger and Brianna: I've always liked Roger and been meh on Brianna (she's beautiful! She can hunt! She can paint! She can make/build/invent anything! She can do all the heavy lifting required for an 18th century colonial woman but I've always found her personality weirdly bland.) This book mostly reversed that. I thought Brianna was much more relatable as a 20th century working mom but I don't get why Roger has his crisis of faith regarding predestination in the 20th century but was fine with it when he was actually living in another time and potentially changing things. Young Ian: Love the character, hate the baggage. I miss goofy Ian from DOA. I get why he isn't that goofy kid anymore and that he would have grown up and gotten less goofy even without all the tragedy but it still makes me sad. Ugh The Bugs: As much as I love these books, DG is just not good at villains. With BJR, after a book and a half of unspeakable evil, DG tries to make him sympathetic and it just doesn't work. The zealots for a lost cause (Dougall and Gellis) started out interesting and ambiguously vilainish but, sadly, turned out to be plain nuts. The worst, though, are the twist villains like Sandringham, Mr Wiloghby and now Arch Bug. At least with Dougall and Gellis there was some build up to the way things ended but the Bugs especially came right out of left field. A few lines said by either Bug about the Bonnie Prince or their feelings about vengeance is all the foreshadowing that we would have needed to make this a compelling storyline instead of one that only makes sense if you look at the book individually instead of part of a larger series. The privateer thing: I hate the farce-y string of action bits in every book (see Voyager) and this is no exception. There are better ways to get Jamie into the thick of the Revolution. Sorry this was so long-winded everyone. If your do like I did for certain chunks of the book and skim I don't blame you in the slightest.

Is that a Protestant/Catholic divide or an Evangelical/Everyone else divide? I'm mainline (but very liberal) Protestant and my church also believes that we were saved through Easter and I've never heard of the Sinner's Prayer before this. My church does a weekly prayer of confession, a silent time for you to air out your dirty laundry with God and an assurance of pardon where we're reminded that God loves us and forgives us (because of Easter and general awesomeness).

I have a couple of theories related to the insane amount of traveling the high-ups in Gothard seem to do. First, for the Rodrigui, I'm guessing that travel's the only way to get the kind of hand-outs they need to semi feed the kids without attracting the attention of child protective agencies. For the Bates, Duggars, Maxwells, Pains, Wallers etc. I think this is the one place where they actually are 'encouraging'. By blowing into town with 12+ perfectly obedient kids (which is how it looks to the audiences), they are shoring up any miserable pop-up camper-dwelling quiverfulls who are considering giving it all up and doing something drastic like wearing pants, getting jobs and going to school. They're travelling salespeople for the movement. Follow "Mr Gothard"/Jesus, buy our books and pamphlets and you too can be the perfect patriarch and happy helpmeet. Yay...

I would put Ben and Marjorie in this category. I go back and forth on Derick and Anna. I seem to remember back in ye olde days on that other site, there was a young conservative guy who wanted to take Jana away from it all. He could have been a creep and weirdo for all I know, but I wouldn't think it's impossible that the plight of the Duggar girls might appeal to someone who wants to be the hero. I also think the Boob wouldn't let anyone who thought his daughters needed saving anywhere near them.

I also liked Chris Noth's story, although the gaps drove me crazy. I wanted to know more about Grandpa Noth and his potential wealth and I was sorry that they hit a dead end in Chicago. Did the dad die in the fire or become destitute afterwards? Where was mom? Was the oldest son doing a Little House on the Prairie type thing with some of his younger sibs for help? Were the "scattered homes on the prairie" a sort of refugee settlement after the fire? What happened to the other siblings mentioned in the obituary? I know if the info is lost or never existed there isn't much to be done, but it's still frustrating as a viewer. The part I did like was that he Irish history helped me make sense of some questions I have about my 3x great-grandfather who was born in Ireland. He has a very common first name, a not very common last name and his father's name is also not that common, so I'm better off than some people. The problem is, I have a land grant in 1820 in Canada, a British Military service record from 1817, a baptismal record from 1804, and a death certificate giving a birth year of 1794. I've been concerned that British military service seemed unusual for an Irish Catholic, as did not being baptized until he was 10. I figured the rebellion and the anti-catholic laws might have postponed his official baptism and the army might have been the best opportunity going in the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars. Still, I've been worried that I messed up and had combined two different people (cousins?) into one. Chris Noth's similar story backed up my theory, which was nice. Lea was okay. I like it when they have enough information to really go in depth and tell a detailed story as they did with Bunito's Elis Island experience. Wow! did she and Lea ever look alike! I wish we could have found out more about how the cousin survived, though.