Jynnan tonnix

I don't know...my father (very old-country Polish circa 1931) has always had a really persnickety attitude toward seeing guys with their hands in their pockets. It always seemed such a random and meaningless sort of prejudice to me until finally, some 7 or 8 years ago he finally explained that it's because "when they have their hands in their pockets, you can't tell what they might be doing with them. Which, though it sort of explained the issue, still came across as more humorous than scandalous.

So how do they explain miscarriages among those who are striving to adhere to the godly lifestyle? Is it still some sort of punishment for a sin one has yet to figure out? Is it a test of faith? A lesson on trust? A character-building interlude? A mistake on god's part (oops, no...obviously never that)...? *edited to add, I know this has the potential to veer off topic as well, so moving it to the religion thread or some other spot might be appropriate.

Oh, Ross! I wish they had them anywhere in New England! I swear, 3/4 of my wardrobe comes from when we were stationed in Hawaii and Georgia, with Rosses aplenty. And now I live for visits to my inlaws in Delaware. There are a lot of places to find nice, fashionable clothes for ridiculously good prices if you look around, though. The aforementioned Ross is one, consignment stores in higher-end areas can be another...Department stores such as Macy's (though having their credit card can give you even more discounts, but the anti-credit mantra may prohibit that) can offer some great deals if you don't need to be cutting-edge...which they are not in any real sense to begin with, can offer some seriously good prices also. You don't need a huge clothing allowance to look nice.

I braved the blog, and actually didn't find myself completely appalled. Sure, the whole Jesus/prayer factor is totally off the charts (which, as an agnostic atheist I definitely find a bit grating), and, honestly, I only dipped a toe (or an eyeball, or whatever) into the whole thing, so I'm sure that I don't have the "big picture", but I have to say that it appears that much more actual work and actual family bonding goes on there vs. at the Duggars', and at least some of the joy seems marginally more genuine vs. mandated. I much doubt that it will become anything like a regular stop in my internet surfing, but from what I saw, it might have been worse.

I think that she may just be in that "in-between" sort of stage as far as wanting more kids and feeling as though she has enough. I would not be surprised to see her have one more, but would suspect that might be it. I know that when I had three kids, fairly close together (just over 5 years between the oldest and youngest), my husband and I decided we were done, but it didn't stop me from gushing whenever I saw a baby. These days I'm waiting until one of them decides to produce grandchildren, as my own "season of life" is way past, but my husband still jokingly gives me that "no" look whenever I get that gleam in my eyes looking at a new baby :)

The context was the episode that they had seen the fertility specialist to determine whether or not she still had any chance to become pregnant. I didn't see the whole episode, just the clip where she was talking about it, but it was clear that she was using the term "catch a baby" to mean getting pregnant and maintaining the pregnancy.

Oddly enough, the sound of yodeling has always made me unreasonably happy (despite not having been raised around anything resembling that sort of music). Then again, I love things like barbershop quartets as well. Evidently I was off, distracted by something else in my ADD way when they were handing out musical taste, because mine does not seem to fit the standard. Which kids are those on the video, BTW? I don't really know most of my Bates/Duggars by sight. And does the kid with the accordion really play? Granted, it was all dubbed in later, and out of sync to boot, but while I was hearing various runs going on, his fingers did not seem to be doing anything at all.

This is the first I've heard of him...do I even dare take a look?

Even as sheltered as they are, I would wager that these kids, or, at least some of them (others, by nature being more private and more naturally inclined to internalizing the rules they grew up with) do have actual thoughts in their heads which would begin to spill out if someone were to actually show an interest in drawing them out. I do wonder, though, whether they have any inkling that people ever actually do that, though. Even among their own siblings, does anyone's mind ever even go there? Or are they just too programmed to squelch anything like a personal thought before it gets a chance to take root? The loss of the spotlight is, no doubt, a part of it. Maybe a large part. I had a whole theory worked out here, but it keeps getting away from me...the thing is that somehow she feels as though her obedience is vital in keeping Jim Bob's love, but on the other hand, as many people have noted, he seems to be the one who feels as though he lucked out is nabbing the hot cheerleader, and is still far more smitten by that teenage image which remains in his mind than she is. But on the other hand, she is convinced, on some level, that he is pretty much her entire world. I think they both have such a fear of that bubble of familial interdependence popping that it keeps them from anything like a sense of empathy. Michelle is so afraid of seeing any part of her "old" personality emerging to threaten her bubble that she cannot conceive of someone else being strong enough to let the chips fall where they may, and somehow sees it as a kindness to never allow her children to face that sort of dichotomy. She can't allow them to feel regret, so her whole life is a fight not to let them even know about alternatives lest they pick one and later change their minds. But somewhere along the line it moved from being what might once have been a valiant and weirdly selfless fight into a sort of consummate dullness.

Same here...Well, not about being raised on cold canned vegetables, but even though I love good food and can pull off a four-course gourmet meal (have often been told I should go into catering, but it wouldn't be fun if I had to do it every day), I have been known grab a can of soup out of the pantry, eat it as is, and call it lunch. It tastes fine cold, and why dirty a dish if you don't need to? More on topic, the evident lack of education is probably the thing that steams me most about the Duggars. The fear that the kids might ask a question or form an idea which will serve as the hole in the dam and weaken the whole infrastructure of their belief system seems to paralyze JB & M. Michelle in particular seems to live in a world inside her head where as long as no-one ever learns anything, life will always be perfect and she will never have to deal with any unpleasantness. It's almost inevitable, though, that in a family as large as theirs with so many disparate (as much as they try to squash them) personalities, someone will eventually rebel. And whn that happens, it's probably likely that others will follow.

That must have been an interesting conversation! LOL I'm having a hard time trying to imagine how the subject even came up...

I think this about says it all...Though, as has been mentioned, JB does seem to actually care about them, Michelle reminds me more of a hoarder...she just wants to keep adding and adding to the pile and is very possessive of the whole thing, but seems unmotivated to do anything with it outside of always being driven to make it larger.

Well, they JB & MEeeChelle, have always claimed that they allowed their kids to set their own rules as to the amount of physical contact they will allow themselves before marriage, so they have absolutely no space to be appalled if/when the reality DOES turn out to show that some of them choose to hold hands, kiss, or whatever else prior to marriage or even formal engagement.

I haven't gone though the blog other than skimming the entry linked (re the wedding)...but it totally comes across to me as satirical. Refer to "Poe's law" http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe%27s+Law which is a definition often used on one or two other forums I frequent.

That totally makes sense to me...No matter how many cameras/chaperones/accountability partners are involved, in a house/property of that size filled with that many people there are bound to be moments and places where one person's true feelings come to the surface within hearing distance of someone with similar frustrations, etc, and with some kind of privacy involved. Now, I don't know that much about their personalities. I'm one who shares easily, but my kids, with the slight exception of the youngest, totally take after my husband and are maddeningly private...but, again, just based on the fact that we are talking about 19 individuals here leads me to expect that at least some proportion would glom onto the feeling that there was something akin to a refuge where, just maybe, they might be able to come to the realization that personal feeling (even those pesky sexual ones) are actually normal and can even be used for some useful introspection on the various paths life can take.

My daughter & son in law did the "mingling of the sands" at their wedding. But they just had a Justice of the Peace and a very low-key wedding, and the whole ceremony probably didn't take but about 20 minutes.

It seems to me that especially with something like a wedding gown, unless it's something you plan on passing down to potential daughters (who may or may not like the design in any case), there's not much wrong with a knockoff gown. Assuming the fit is good, which even in a knockoff, it may be, and assuming it's put together well enough to withstand one wearing, it hardly matters whether all the details and all the finish work are meticulous. It's a "big picture" item to my mind, and as long as it looks and fits like the gown which inspired it, finding a knockoff for a fraction of the price can only be a good thing. But I've never been into designer labels, and they may be important to some.

Wow...poor little thing! It must have been terrified at the Duggars'...so glad you were able to give it a good home!

Shoes vs no shoes seems to be such a cultural thing that there is definitely no right or wrong. I, personally, pretty much only wear shoes when absolutely necessary, and while I'm not a huge fan on flip-flops, I DO stick to sandals for as long as weather permits. Being a Navy wife, I have lived in Hawaii on and off for a good number of years (though I'm now back in Connecticut enjoying cool weather but lamenting the fact that it means closed-shoe season is coming), and most everyone out there removes their shoes when they come into your home. My father, on the other hand, is old-country Polish, and finds it very offensive to see someone's bare feet indoors. I find, more and more, that I seem to be in the minority as far as not really ever bothering to think about someone's feet to the extent of actually looking at them...I focus on faces, and even clothing tends to be more or less peripheral to my notice, but because so many people DO seem to be so focused on footwear and the state of the feet within, I do make an effort to have my feet presentable. They will never be pretty, but I have flat, size 9 wide feet with stubby toes, so they really are never going to be pretty in any case. They are perfectly functional, though, which is the most important thing. As for shoes in a church, I'm not much of a churchgoer, but having been raised Catholic, it would have never occurred to me not to wear shoes to Mass...but, again, there are religions where shoes are left outside and do not sully the sacred space. As has been mentioned, Jesus was likely barefoot as often as not, and wasn't Moses commanded to remove his shoes on the sacred ground around the burning bush?

Was it really only 4 weeks old? It was always around 6 weeks that they were given away when I was growing up (eons ago), but shelters don't seem to adopt them out until 8 weeks in this day and age. If the Duggars had it before you did, it would presumably have been at least a few days younger than that when they got it. Who would give away a kitten that young in the first place?

As long as no sperm is wasted in the process, no doubt.

I would imagine that with having had virtually no privacy during their entire courtship, and their lives filmed and scrutinized, he would well have been uncomfortable giving the world at large voyeuristic access into a "real' first kiss, and deliberately kept it to something which would not allow for any real "response" to build up.

As much as I don't like the way they work this whole thing, arranged marriages do seem to have a reasonable chance of succeeding, especially when paired with a mindset that marriage is a solemn vow. Now, this does not necessarily equal happiness, but in a weird way I do see where in their world the notion of never having the opportunity to "give away a piece of one's heart" can (possibly) keep someone paired up in this way from pining over notions of what might have been. It may still not equate to happiness, but if the spouse is a reasonably good, supportive, loyal and attentive person, that first "smitten" feeling the girls experience may very well grow to become an all-encompassing adoration if they are never permitted to glimpse the possibility of a different match. Assuming there is no abuse or unbearable incompatibility, the fact that they don't really have any conception of an alternative will probably keep them more satisfied than they might otherwise have been. In a twisted way, their lifestyle does offer a variety of protection against heartbreak. I can't imagine, on the other hand, that the older children, at least, have not picked up enough outside ideas to influence them to some extent.

I would expect it was probably Richard. That's my husband's name, and he was always "Ricky" growing up. His family still all call him Rick, but he goes by Rich. Which I honestly don't really care for. I wish he'd revert to Rick. At least (other than the occasional elderly guy trying to be chummy) no one ever seems to use "Dick" anymore.

I was totally wondering the same thing (re heathen friends).