Sweet Fellowship: Duggars and Friends (aka the Bates Family and Other Featured Families Thread)

[Arwen Evenstar]

Failed courtships are a big deal in Fundieland.  When Zach's courtship with Sarah failed, the Bates family basically threw her under the bus. I guess they learned their lesson, that doing such things wasn't cool. They've been a bit nicer regarding Nathan's.

Zach has happily married and now has 2 adorable kids. All's well that ends well.

[BitterApple]

Sarah was the one who broke it off, right? I don't know much about the aftermath, but if they threw her under the bus that's messed up. I doubt she even wanted to court Zach in the first place but felt bad saying no considering he turned it into a huge production with a horde of relatives present. 

[Arwen Evenstar]

30 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

Sarah was the one who broke it off, right? I don't know much about the aftermath, but if they threw her under the bus that's messed up. I doubt she even wanted to court Zach in the first place but felt bad saying no considering he turned it into a huge production with a horde of relatives present. 

I'm not sure if I remember, but I think you might be right. She may have wanted to concentrate on her music career (or that was at her fathers bidding). I remember how awkward it was. Zach was crazy smitten and like he was crying....awkward! And he wouldn't let go of her hand. None of the Reith siblings have married; Sarah would be about 28 now.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Arwen Evenstar

[Dejana]

How did the Bateses throw Sarah under the bus? There was that blog from Kelly about how Zach was broken-hearted after it didn't work out and was terrified of talking to girls, so they realized their courtship rules might be a bit much, but is there something else more sinister? I've read gossip that Kelly was not happy about Whitney at first but she couldn't find a more suitable Gothard-affiliated girl with Zach being "damaged goods" and all, but IDK if there's any real truth to that, or if it's just rumor mongering that has become fact through repetition.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Dejana

[Arwen Evenstar]

1 minute ago, Dejana said:

How did the Bateses throw Sarah under the bus? There was that blog from and Kelly about how Zach was broken-hearted after it didn't work out and was terrified of talking to girls, do they realized their courtship rules might be a bit much, but is there something else more sinister? I've read gossip that Kelly was not happy about Whitney at first but she couldn't find a more suitable Gothard-affiliated girl with Zach being "damaged goods" and all, but IDK if there's any real truth to that, or if it's just rumor mongering that has become fact through repetition.

Read something about it on the Bateses blog a while back. He was broken-hearted...one can only surmise that they meant it was Sarah's doing.

[Sew Sumi]

I don't remember anything sinister about it. I think people read too much into Kelly's remarks on the blog. I think that's all been scrubbed, plus it was the old blog, so I don't think we can dig that up now. Kelly did explain that Sarah broke it off, but I don't think she threw poor Sarah under the bus. Granted, she was less careful with her words before UP came along, and they had to polish up their image, but I don't remember any vitriol towards Sarah. Not even backhanded, Southern, bless her heart vitriol. 

[Dejana]

19 minutes ago, Arwen Evenstar said:

Read something about it on the Bateses blog a while back. He was broken-hearted...one can only surmise that they meant it was Sarah's doing.

I didn't read it that way at all... in their world, a courtship between two sheltered young adults who don't know how to talk to the opposite sex is supposed to lead to a lasting marriage with 20 children. She was likely the first girl he'd ever been allowed to have any sort of romantic feelings about and he'd probably been told and convinced himself that the Lord wanted her to be his wife, with the whole thing ordained by God. Then it was over. Heartbreak seems like a pretty natural response, given the expectations, without it being anybody's fault (aside from his parents for foisting the whole ridiculous "courtship" philosophy onto him in the first place).

Edited June 30, 2016 by Dejana

[Absolom]

That was a precis of the facts.  Throwing her under the bus would have included misleading Gil or Zach or not being in earnest or not allowing God to direct the courtship or some such. 

[Arwen Evenstar]

We don't really know what happened because we aren't them, but I think I should have more correctly said that she didn't choose her words as carefully as she has now they have their own show.

I don't think Kelly was meaning to be particularly mean spirited, rather the Fundy brand of passive aggressive but not on a Duggar level . They put so much premium on courtship that these sheltered kids believe this is the one, so yeah, it's devastating on some level.

 Being a mother hen, she's going to protect her chick; it's what mamas do.

I guess I'll be doing some time in the prayer closet...

[DangerousMinds]

but there was no sex so Zach couldn't have given away pieces of his heart, right?

[Churchhoney]

9 minutes ago, DangerousMinds said:

but there was no sex so Zach couldn't have given away pieces of his heart, right?

I don't know. As I understood it, you give away pieces of your heart every time you so much as spend five minutes alone with the person in a room, hold his or her hand, have coffee with him/her on your own, walk the mall and windowshop or bowl together, feel sad when your special friend has gone home for the evening or talk with the person of interest for more than 10 minutes at a stretch. Am I overstating this? I thought it was not sex but really any level of personal intimacy or emotional attachment that tore hunks off the heart. Isn't that why you weren't supposed to date?

[Dejana]

49 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

I don't know. As I understood it, you give away pieces of your heart every time you so much as spend five minutes alone with the person in a room, hold his or her hand, have coffee with him/her on your own, walk the mall and windowshop or bowl together, feel sad when your special friend has gone home for the evening or talk with the person of interest for more than 10 minutes at a stretch. Am I overstating this? I thought it was not sex but really any level of personal intimacy or emotional attachment that tore hunks off the heart. Isn't that why you weren't supposed to date?

Some of Kelly's blogs about the failed courtship and the merits/drawbacks of couples limiting physical contact before marriage were quoted here pre-scrubbing and discussed, back in the first 5-10 pages of this thread. She acknowledged the hurt of the breakup but proclaimed that the lack of kissing/premarital sex kept the pain from being worse (paraphrasing). Maybe the Zach/Sarah disaster precipitated it, but I don't think Kelly and Gil believe in chaperoning couples to the point where they never have a private conversation before marriage. They seem slightly less control freak-ish than Jim Bob and Michelle, in that respect.

[queenanne]

3 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

I don't know. As I understood it, you give away pieces of your heart every time you so much as spend five minutes alone with the person in a room, hold his or her hand, have coffee with him/her on your own, walk the mall and windowshop or bowl together, feel sad when your special friend has gone home for the evening or talk with the person of interest for more than 10 minutes at a stretch. Am I overstating this? I thought it was not sex but really any level of personal intimacy or emotional attachment that tore hunks off the heart. Isn't that why you weren't supposed to date?

 I'm pretty sure the yardstick is 'any behavior that arouses urges within you that cannot be righteously fulfilled' (I.e., 'anything that makes you want to have premarital sex with them'.  Yes, I know, if you didn't want this you had might as well not court them.). If you think you can handle holding hands and not being excessively turned on, go for it.  If the physical aspect overwhelms your intimacy self control and makes you too attached, that's Bad.

 

... I think.

[Absolom]

It is tough to decipher.  The only thing I'm sure on is that all the fundies are set on no-premarital sex and for most extreme of them that means no kissing and a few say no hand holding.  I don't think they are preserving the kids from heart break although that's what Gothard and company tell them it will do.  I think Gil and Kelly figured that out with Zach and I don't remember hearing them talk about preserving the heart much after that. 

[queenanne]

16 minutes ago, Absolom said:

It is tough to decipher.  The only thing I'm sure on is that all the fundies are set on no-premarital sex and for most extreme of them that means no kissing and a few say no hand holding.  I don't think they are preserving the kids from heart break although that's what Gothard and company tell them it will do.  I think Gil and Kelly figured that out with Zach and I don't remember hearing them talk about preserving the heart much after that. 

Agreed. I feel like problem with bowling  trips and such exists only if they were to go unchaperoned and sneak off for a quick feel in the bathroom or vehicle, thus the need to drag along Howlers.  

Also feeling like any perceived problem with unmarried Jill mooning and sighing over Derick, exists because by doing so she's effectively putting him above God in importance, and not so much because it means he has a piece of her heart...?

Edited June 30, 2016 by queenanne

[Arwen Evenstar]

31 minutes ago, Absolom said:

It is tough to decipher.  The only thing I'm sure on is that all the fundies are set on no-premarital sex and for most extreme of them that means no kissing and a few say no hand holding.  I don't think they are preserving the kids from heart break although that's what Gothard and company tell them it will do.  I think Gil and Kelly figured that out with Zach and I don't remember hearing them talk about preserving the heart much after that. 

I think the Bateses were already married before their first taste of Gothard Kool Aid, but raising kids in it and preparing them for marriage was new territory.  Zach was their Guinea pig in this whole courtship thing. With 19 kids, they knew they had to do this over and over. In this regard, they have the sense to realize in theory all this  Gothard stuff made sense, but in practice, adjustments might need to be made. Even following all the rules didn't protect them from the hurt that came from disappointment.

Michelle Duggar was the one all about giving away pieces of the heart and used bicycles. Jim Boob was about cups of spit and chewed gum. I could see that as anecdotal for purity adminitions, but against kissing and hand holding, that's so messed up. 

Edited June 30, 2016 by Arwen Evenstar
Auto text thinks it's smarter than me

[queenanne]

Aha!  As usual, it's Josh Harris's twitty underbaked 16-year-old's fault:

Quote

 It was Josh Harris in I Kissed Dating Goodbye and the Ludy's in several of their books that popularized the idea that everytime you fall in love or get "emotionally attached" to someone, you give away a piece of your heart. The more pieces you give away, the less of your heart you have to give to your spouse someday. He even went so far as to say that each of those former flames actually have some sort of hold on you.

More here from a recovering Kool-Aid drinker:

http://darcysheartstirrings.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-teachings-of-emotional-purity-and.html

Sex is an emotionally attaching thing in this worldview, to be sure, but it turns out that everything that gets your heart set on a love object and which can't be put aside, is bad.

Of course, Churchie, it's also possible you got subtext off of stuff like someone telling Jilly Muffin behind the scenes that it was idolatrous and dangerous of her to sigh love-sickly after Derick, and that she wouldn't have gotten that attached to him if they didn't frontal hug (and whatever else).

Edited June 30, 2016 by queenanne

[GeeGolly]

11 hours ago, DangerousMinds said:

but there was no sex so Zach couldn't have given away pieces of his heart, right?

The page, https://thebatesfamily.com/2013/01/a-special-day/  won't open for me, but this is the teaser:

"Jan 10, 2013 - He presented her with a beautiful double-heart necklace… ... Courtship and engagement are a means to prepare for marriage. ... He also stated that any form of dating leads to pieces of your heart being thrown away because teenagers ....."

[queenanne]

28 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

The page, https://thebatesfamily.com/2013/01/a-special-day/  won't open for me, but this is the teaser:

"Jan 10, 2013 - He presented her with a beautiful double-heart necklace… ... Courtship and engagement are a means to prepare for marriage. ... He also stated that any form of dating leads to pieces of your heart being thrown away because teenagers ....."

To be wholly accurate (I was able to look at it) the double-heart necklace section is there in Kathy's words, but there's currently no statement on her part about the heart pieces.  The "pieces of the heart" sentence chunk, I found verbatim from a commenter named "Amee", asking Kathy's opinion on it.  Kathy herself made no definitive statement using the phrase (of course, I find I am unable to copy-paste that section, sorry), instead talking generically around it.

[Churchhoney]

43 minutes ago, queenanne said:

Aha!  As usual, it's Josh Harris's twitty underbaked 16-year-old's fault:

More here from a recovering Kool-Aid drinker:

http://darcysheartstirrings.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-teachings-of-emotional-purity-and.html

Sex is an emotionally attaching thing in this worldview, to be sure, but it turns out that everything that gets your heart set on a love object and which can't be put aside, is bad.

Of course, Churchie, it's also possible you got subtext off of stuff like someone telling Jilly Muffin behind the scenes that it was idolatrous and dangerous of her to sigh love-sickly after Derick, and that she wouldn't have gotten that attached to him if they didn't frontal hug (and whatever else).

Thanks for finding this.

I'm pretty sure that I got my idea from reading a bunch of commentaries from people like this who'd been into the "Kissed Dating Goodbye" crowd (on purpose or by command) ... and then those impressions got firmed up by the Duggars' taking-it-to-the-limit and very legalistic, concrete approach to everything.. At one point a long time ago I sought out a bunch of "kissed dating goodbye" stuff, and I remember finding a lot of it. By now, though, of course, I've forgotten what it actually said!

"was Josh Harris in I Kissed Dating Goodbye and the Ludy's in several of their books that popularized the idea that everytime you fall in love or get "emotionally attached" to someone, you give away a piece of your heart. The more pieces you give away, the less of your heart you have to give to your spouse someday. He even went so far as to say that each of those former flames actually have some sort of hold on you."

Oy. Any and all "emotional attachment" rips a piece out of your heart that you can never get back -- it freaking shrinks your heart so that you become less capable of love in the future. Horrifying that a whole set of people would teach this to their kids.........Among at least some of these people, I stuppose it stems from the same rage for total control that bans friendships. Because it's bogus as all heck.

[JoanArc]

No wonder they don't get attached to their own children, gotta keep all those heart prices! Having 19 gazillion kids like cutting a pizza to have 19 gazillion slices. No one gets very much, I guess.

[Sew Sumi]

I just posted about Josh Harris less than a week ago. I wonder how many fundies know that he has totally repudiated his book, as well as his career as a megachurch pastor? He's back in a real seminary, getting a PROPER religious foundation/education. He calls himself Benjamin Button, a reference no fundie would know. 

That said, I think there was a scandal with the lead pastor at said megachurch, which, IIRC, was in the Baltimore area. Here's what he's up to now. 

http://joshharris.com/about/

[Sew Sumi]

Well, RIP Nate and Ashley. They're finished. 

I think they monkeyed with the editing, though. They are wearing warmer weather clothing in the scene; they were all bundled up on I LOVE YOU DAY in the last episode. I think the breakup happened around Big Sandy in April, or soon thereafter. 

eta: I think my timing is right. One of the middle boys (I don't know them at all) was in the room talking about plans for his birthday party. One boy has a birthday 2/17. Too soon after ILYD to plan. Also, Valentine's Day was on a Sunday, and Nate says they talked Sunday night, making it sound like it was by phone. They were together that day. Second Bates boy has a birthday in mid-May. So yeah, breakup right after Big Sandy seems to be the correct timeline. 

Kelly posted this 8 weeks ago, which would be end of April. It was one of our first Bobby Smith sightings. So, it looks like they were still together then. 

Edited July 1, 2016 by Sew Sumi

[Churchhoney]

43 minutes ago, Sew Sumi said:

 

That said, I think there was a scandal with the lead pastor at said megachurch, which, IIRC, was in the Baltimore area. Here's what he's up to now. 

http://joshharris.com/about/

That very very huge sexual scandal -- the ironies of these sexual scandals occurring in the midst of the superpurity-crowd; I'm sick of those ironies, because When Will Anybody Ever Learn???-- was centered in Gaithersburg, basically a DC suburb, though one of the farther-flung ones.

[Sew Sumi]

Thanks for the location correction. I knew it was mid-Atlantic (hey, I was in the right state!), and that the scandal was a doozie. It seems to have made Harris re-evaluate things, which is always a good thing. 

Edited July 1, 2016 by Sew Sumi

[Arwen Evenstar]

10 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

That very very huge sexual scandal -- the ironies of these sexual scandals occurring in the midst of the superpurity-crowd; I'm sick of those ironies, because When Will Anybody Ever Learn???-- was centered in Gaithersburg, basically a DC suburb, though one of the farther-flung ones.

It seems the higher and loftier that people put themselves above others, the harder the splatter and the further the fall from grace!

[Sew Sumi]

And a Bates breakup correction. Nate was with Ashley's family in NYC over Memorial Day weekend. This breakup is REALLY fresh, and UP REALLY monkeyed with the timeline. I guess there was no more Ashley footage for the rest of the season anyway?

They may well have already been broken up by this point though.Note that they're not touching one little bit. Hmmmm.... Otherwise, planning that kid's birthday party (birthday in mid-May) makes no sense or was a red herring scene set up by UP. 

Edited July 1, 2016 by Sew Sumi

[Arwen Evenstar]

 Ashley seems like a very nice young lady. Perhaps, they parted amicably and they are fine with it and have peace with their decision so there's no reason to be uncivil.

She seems to have a multi ethnic group of friends, and she looks like she might be Latina, so good for Nate, learning about other people besides besides those who look like them...yeah, looking at you, Duggars.

[birkenstock]

A late-February/early-March breakup may have happened. The boy discussing his bday is Jackson and his bday is February 17th. UP either really committed to their faux timeline and had Jackson help with the recreation or it is truthful.

If it was a winter breakup, they evaluated and bailed on the relationship quickly. Good for them that they looked at their goals and saw their lives were on different tracks. Sucks that it played out on national tv though

Ashley could still be shown since she was at Carlin and Trace's graduation party. It could be used to reiterate that courtship help preserve friendships. 

[Sew Sumi]

No, Nate said they talked "Sunday night" about breaking up. Valentine's Day was on a Sunday. So, that kid's birthday would basically be the next day in the scenario, if it was in real time. Which it wasn't. They weren't wearing winter clothing for crying out loud! Plus, Ashley was still attached at the Bateses' hips at the end of April. UP is hoping that their audience is essentially brainless zombies who will believe whatever they are shown. All I know is that they broke up before May 18th, when UP produced a list of show descriptions, and the breakup was already listed. The Memorial Day trip was pretty much a farce (and my suspicions of the most touchy-feely fundie couple ever not touching were correct).

eta: We just busted UP staging scenes ala the Duggars. Not surprising, given that they have the same production company. 

Edited July 1, 2016 by Sew Sumi

[birkenstock]

Then the show and the Bates were shady and had Jackson help recreate a scene. It's possible that Gil and Kelly were running behind and playing catch up on birthdays. The Sunday could have been the week after Ashley was there for I love you day too or the day wasn't on Valentine's Day, but a day that worked for the whole family.

They were wearing long sleeves in doors. The scenes w Erin, Chad, Zach, and Whitney had similar clothing.

I agree that a May break up makes more sense for real life. The Memorial Day weekend is still an outlier though.

ETA: I expect some monkeying w timelines, but a May break up sandwiched into late winter is bananas. Surprised they didn't drag the will they/won't they stay together longer.

Edited July 1, 2016 by birkenstock

[Sew Sumi]

Ashley was with the family in late April. She sang at the Holy Church of the Galleria with Bobby Smith. Kelly wished her happy birthday. No one knew Ashley's birthday, so she wasn't obligated to do that; she did it to keep up the facade - if they had already broken up - or they were still together. Ashley's Insta is scrubbed of Bateses, so nothing to determine timelines there. 

I vote re-enacted scene. Otherwise, NONE of their get-togethers since March make ANY sense, aside from seeing one-another at Gothard camp at Big Sandy. She would have traveled back to NYC with the family and friends she came (and was pictured) with. 

Too many inconsistencies to explain a breakup any sooner than late April. 

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, Sew Sumi said:

Thanks for the location correction. I knew it was mid-Atlantic (hey, I was in the right state!), and that the scandal was a doozie. It seems to have made Harris re-evaluate things, which is always a good thing. 

You were absolutely in the right state. Right church, just slightly wrong pew. And, as you suggest, the mid-Atlantic -- really small world.

Big amen to the seeming effect of the mess on Harris. Something good can come out of the worst stuff, sometimes.

[birkenstock]

9 minutes ago, Sew Sumi said:

Ashley was with the family in late April. She sang at the Holy Church of the Galleria with Bobby Smith. Kelly wished her happy birthday. No one knew Ashley's birthday, so she wasn't obligated to do that; she did it to keep up the facade - if they had already broken up - or they were still together. Ashley's Insta is scrubbed of Bateses, so nothing to determine timelines there. 

I vote re-enacted scene. Otherwise, NONE of their get-togethers since March make ANY sense, aside from seeing one-another at Gothard camp at Big Sandy. She would have traveled back to NYC with the family and friends she came (and was pictured) with. 

Too many inconsistencies to explain a breakup any sooner than late April. 

True - spending her birthday with them after a break up would be strange. But why choose the break up day right after I love you day? I guess so could edit her out of the rest of the season? Also, why all of the pictures with her family?

At least they aren't going to be asked by fans if they're still courting or for pictures of them together.

[Sew Sumi]

Yeah, that's why all the evidence points to a break up well after I Love You Day. Were they that far behind in kids' birthdays? The rest of the show looked to be filmed maybe in March; they wore light jackets outdoors when chopping the wood, and there were no leaves on the trees. 

If the breakup happened sometime in March (and they were that far behind on birthday parties - wtf?), what the HELL was he doing in NYC almost three months later NOT touching his ex? 

[MunichNark]

Oh, so they broke up then? Just had a wee look at the Facebook page of UP, so indeed. Doesn't really surprise me. Ashley is a big city girl, lively and has her life, why would she give it up to move to Hicksville?

This is what life is all about and maturity - you meet people, you like them, and then you see it's not enough, so chin up Nathan. I know in their world this is probably bad news, but the parents seem willing to readjust their rules and ideas and a second boy failing in his courtship is probably a very good thing indeed. Courting does NOT prevent heartbreak. It does not prevent anything really.

But kudos for not rushing headlong into marriage (take NOTE Duggars!!!!!).

Funny how the Bates boys aren't too successful with their first tries, whilst the girls are.

[Churchhoney]

7 hours ago, MunichNark said:

Courting does NOT prevent heartbreak. It does not prevent anything really.

 

No kidding. And I'll bet that in at least some cases it intensifies the heartbreak.

Really really wanting to be married to someone absolutely heightens some people's feelings of attachment to the person they're dating as does really really wanting to have complete sexual intimacy (which -- Bates, Duggars and similar -- is not a thing that only people of your ilk sometimes defer until marriage, so "courtship" really isn't "necessary" on those grounds).

So for these people, I can't see how their attachments and emotions aren't driven to an absolute fever pitch during these courtships. They have to crave not just sex, a ring and a mortgage but frontal hugs(!), kissing and even private conversations and evenings spent alone with the person they're seeing. The perfectly natural desire for those things can't help but fuel intense fantasies that absolutely can increase emotional attachment and make the relationship feel like a love for the ages even when you aren't even getting to know the person very well.

No way that doesn't intensify the heartache for at least some people. If you broke up after that, you'd be left holding the remnants of those extremely strong thwarted emotions....And because you'd never really gotten close to the person you couldn't even console yourself with a full list of their faults and all the reasons you're lucky you didn't end up marrying them! You wouldn't just be losing your once-thought-to-be-God-given partner but a partner you still were in the throes of idealizing.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Churchhoney

[BitterApple]

I'm not suprised about Ashley and Nathan. They're two perfectly nice people, but the culture shock from both sides was probably too much to handle. They did the smart thing by calling it off and not allowing their hormones to dictate their futures.

[GeeGolly]

I think in the scene with the parents and brother,  Nate said something to his brother about doing something different for his birthday party, and the brother said some like - no, its winter.

[Sew Sumi]

At best, it was maybe March. Still winter. BUT that would mean they were  a month behind on this kid's birthday party? As I said before, there is NO WAY this happened in real time, because the kid's birthday was 2/17. Valentine's Day was on a Sunday, which is the night Nathan indicated he talked to Ashley. Ashley was in TN on Valentine's Day, and you would think Nate would have referred to that day as ILYD or VD, but he said "last Sunday." This indicates time had passed and that they were way past this kid's birthday. I'm sorry, but I really think this was a re-created scene. I seriously doubt UP was there when Nate told his parents for reals. But it was still close enough to the real breakup to hurt. And I do feel for him, because he definitely gave away pieces of his heart. 

Given the premise that they broke up on Valentine's Day, which is what the kid's birthday implies, what the hell was Ashley doing traveling with the Bateses two months later after Gothard Camp? Singing at the Mall Church after Carlin and Trace's graduation?  And what was Nathan doing in NYC a month later after we have EVIDENCE that it was over? This is why I think the breakup was more recent. 

Lastly: Kelly, WHY did you post a picture of this couple to promote I Love You Day last week when you know that they had broken up, whenever it really happened? It's sad that UP probably made her do that

[IndianPaintbrush]

I get the feeling the breakup happened pretty recently, and UP! edited in the new footage.  But it also didn't sound like there were any hard feelings, so I don't find it all that weird that they would still hang out as friends.

[Sew Sumi]

Well, we know it happened before May 18. UP posted episode description/titles at that time, and the episode name was the same. So, the Memorial Day thing was post-breakup. But NO touching in the pics. Did they just take these pics for show and not think we wouldn't notice? 

[marypat57]

Quote

Ashley is a big city girl, lively and has her life, why would she give it up to move to Hicksville?

For those of you who are not familiar with the NYC metropolitan area, there is a real, live place called Hicksville.  It is in suburban Nassau County, about an hour's drive (more or less)  from where Ashley lives in the Bronx.  It is perhas better known as the home of Billy Joel and the Long Island Medium, Theresa Caputo. It's actually a nice place to live, although I think Nathan would have a hard time adjusting to suburban life...

[Sew Sumi]

I think Alyssa's knocked up. Look at her baggy dress compared to the casual dress of John. Also note the sloppy belt. I think this was a church maternity dress with Allie. But most of all, look between the folds under the belt. There's a bump. 

I guess that's season finale, since I saw a picture of Michael the other day, and she is NOT with child, and that is probably driving her to prayer every second she's not cooking or cleaning. We might (should) get an announcement of this before season's end, which will obviously be the blessing of Kaci Lynn.

Edited July 8, 2016 by Sew Sumi

[Sew Sumi]

This might have also explained her drop off from social media. Her baby bump can't be put into this season in the can which will culminate in Kaci Lynn. 

[bigskygirl]

For some reason, John's smile is creeping me out a little.

[Sew Sumi]

Eh, I have that smile where my teefs don't meet the lips. I've moved on to closed-mouth grins. 

[BitterApple]

9 minutes ago, bigskygirl said:

For some reason, John's smile is creeping me out a little.

John has that look like "God, will you people just load up the fucking vans already and leave town?" It's that taut, fake smile well-practiced by those who can't stand their in-laws.

Sew, it does look like Alyssa is knocked up. I've seen her in form fitting clothing and her stomach was flat as a board. That definitely looks like a baby belly. On another note, I am loving the shorter hair on her and Allie Jane is a cutie.

Edited July 8, 2016 by BitterApple

[MunichNark]

He always smiles like that though.

Sigh.......can they not just bloody WAIT for a few years before they pop out more kids?

[Churchhoney]

6 hours ago, MunichNark said:

He always smiles like that though.

Sigh.......can they not just bloody WAIT for a few years before they pop out more kids?

Nope. Jesus is waiting for his army.

I wish I thought that they didn't believe this.