The Duggalos: Jinger and the Holy Goalie

[Fig Newton]

There are all kinds of whackadoodles on the internet. Pedophiles included. Plenty of them.

Like many, this whole duggar gang posts way too much info, in my opinion.

The lines of privacy are not blurred, they just don't exist.

I have a cousin who "thinks" she is an influencer. There is nothing, NOTHING that she will not post. Every day she posts where she is, where she is eating, where she is going to the beach. Tells the world that her husband is away. She even posts the name of her kids schools. Fucking off the wall crazy if you ask me. She just posted that she is away for a week. And posted where she is staying. It is all up to date, live posting. 😡
Smart?

 

J & J use their kid. They do. To sell, to shill, to gain popularity.

They have photographers and an agent of sorts, I guess. WTF???? They are not, NOT celebrities. No famous actor or director. They are just 2 religious people who don't practice what they preach. They really piss me off.

I feel badly for PubliciTEE. She is likely to be quite the prima donna.

[Zella]

10 minutes ago, crazy8s said:

there are a bunch of great articles online about how pedophiles use social media pics of kids.

kids in tutus, kids in costumes, highly prized are kids in a bathing suit or bathtub.

all they while the know your kid's name, what activities they like, parents name, pets they have,  where they live etc

 

 

8 minutes ago, Fig Newton said:

There are all kinds of whackadoodles on the internet. Pedophiles included. Plenty of them.

Like many, this whole duggar gang posts way too much info, in my opinion.

The lines of privacy are not blurred, they just don't exist.

I have a cousin who "thinks" she is an influencer. There is nothing, NOTHING that she will not post. Every day she posts where she is, where she is eating, where she is going to the beach. Tells the world that her husband is away. She even posts the name of her kids schools. Fucking off the wall crazy if you ask me. She just posted that she is away for a week. And posted where she is staying. It is all up to date, live posting. 😡
Smart?

 

J & J use their kid. They do. To sell, to shill, to gain popularity.

They have photographers and an agent of sorts, I guess. WTF???? They are not, NOT celebrities. No famous actor or director. They are just 2 religious people who don't practice what they preach. They really piss me off.

I feel badly for PubliciTEE. She is likely to be quite the prima donna.

Yep, I know I probably read more true crime than is emotionally healthy, and I am sure that makes me a little paranoid. But I feel like parents who overshare like that, including Jeremy/Jinger and Jessa/Ben, are just handing incredibly creepy people a free "Here's How To Kidnap My Child" manual. 😞 

Edited February 10, 2020 by Zella

[fonfereksglen]

19 minutes ago, crazy8s said:

there are a bunch of great articles online about how pedophiles use social media pics of kids.

kids in tutus, kids in costumes, highly prized are kids in a bathing suit or bathtub.

all they while the know your kid's name, what activities they like, parents name, pets they have,  where they live etc

 

I just did a quick search on google for the Gosselin children potty training pics.  They are still there.  That is when, over 10 years ago,  I started to question the wisdom of reality shows featuring children.  The child exploitation by the reality show parents continues, as well as the explosion of oversharing on social media.  

 

[kokapetl]

18 minutes ago, fonfereksglen said:

I just did a quick search on google for the Gosselin children potty training pics.  They are still there.  That is when, over 10 years ago,  I started to question the wisdom of reality shows featuring children.  The child exploitation by the reality show parents continues, as well as the explosion of oversharing on social media.  

 

Now you’re on a government watch list! Just kidding. Well, I don’t know. But seriously, did any pervert try and nab a sextuplet? The Lindbergh baby, the Hearst kid ear and ... , I don’t think the risks are statistically significant, but that doesn’t sell books to overprotective parents. Did Josie’s seizure “nip slip” lead to anything? We’re practically describing people who would jizz in their pants if they saw a toddler in a stroller. 

[fonfereksglen]

12 minutes ago, kokapetl said:

Now you’re on a government watch list! Just kidding. Well, I don’t know. But seriously, did any pervert try and nab a sextuplet? The Lindbergh baby, the Hearst kid ear and ... , I don’t think the risks are statistically significant, but that doesn’t sell books to overprotective parents. Did Josie’s seizure “nip slip” lead to anything? We’re practically describing people who would jizz in their pants if they saw a toddler in a stroller. 

Now, google William Blankenship, TLC, child porn.  Check out the production company.

[DangerousMinds]

2 hours ago, kokapetl said:

I think it’s a bit of a stretch to link the posting of imprurient media of babies/toddlers on social media to the stoking of paedophile perversions. What Jinger and Jessa post is the same stuff that a million other people post. 

But most people don’t post those to millions of strangers, only select friends and family.

[PradaKitty]

I’m kinda surprised that Jeremy and Jinger weren’t at the Academy Awards  or one if the after parties seeking out paparazzi...

[kokapetl]

19 minutes ago, fonfereksglen said:

Now, google William Blankenship, TLC, child porn.  Check out the production company.

Nothing I’ve found suggests he sexually interfered with any of the kids he edited. He was employed by Serious Robots, who was contracted by Figure 8 Films, who was contracted by TLC. And I’m not plugging “c**** p***” into any search engine. 

Edited February 10, 2020 by kokapetl

[Ljohnson1987]

The Hot on this topic made me think Jinger had announced Blessing No. 2. 

[libgirl2]

1 minute ago, Ljohnson1987 said:

The Hot on this topic made me think Jinger had announced Blessing No. 2. 

Me too. I right away clicked over. 

[GeeGolly]

Even if FB and IG are made private, they're not truly private. The odds are less, but the pics are still there. Either way, public or private, I wouldn't share diaper pics, or the old school bare butt pics. The pictures similar to Felicity's are a dime a dozen on the internet. And J & J are not millionaires. 

[Churchhoney]

I'll just say this. I know a now-registered pedophile who is attracted to very young children well enough to have learned how he's used the Internet to get what he craves.

Y'all who say that Jessa and Jinger aren't greatly assisting at least some folks like this to collect their fetish objects and those who say that the kinds of stuff they post aren't the kinds of things that become fetish objects are just wrong, for at least some people with serious pedophilia. Someone can create an intense, imaginary long-term relationship with a child when there are so many photos, all posed for the purposes of beauty and charm. That's just the case. By the facts.

And what's easy to get and obvious to find -- is more likely to be gotten. Yeah, people can dig into more protected accounts in which "suitable" photos are rarer and so on. .... But why, when in cases like this, they're published for you like a catalog? A menu. And offered up, easily accessible, on the regular, seemingly just for you? 

Now, whether that's necessarily or entirely a bad thing, I can't say for sure. To some extent for some people, a personal collection of photos might be more of a preventive than a spur to action. That's certainly possible. I don't know.

I do know, though,  that if I were Felicity or Spurgeon or any other kid whose photos are posted for instant access by millions of total strangers, at some point I might be really pissed that my parents published that eternal catalog of my photos regularly, in posed model-like ways featuring my cuteness  -- for their financial gain -- when I wasn't capable of consenting to it. And, yeah, the finances were my gain, too. But publishing the kids' photos isn't the only way these parents could earn a buck. 

I also think I remember -- though I could be wrong about this -- that the Duggarling women weren't that happy when their feet showed up on a fetish site. Is that worse than being pretty sure that  your childhood photos are in some folks' personal fetish collections? Dunno. 

As I've harped on many times, I just don't think the Duggarlings-- any of them -- have thought through all the implications of treating millions of people the way the rest of us treat our personal circles of friends and family when it comes to publishing emotionally sensitive stuff, stuff involving non-consenting children, etc. And there are implications.  It's not just unquestionably benign "because everybody does it," the way some people say. .

Edited February 11, 2020 by Churchhoney

[fonfereksglen]

1 hour ago, Churchhoney said:

I'll just say this. I know a now-registered pedophile who is attracted to very young children well enough to have learned how he's used the Internet to get what he craves.

Y'all who say that Jessa and Jinger aren't greatly assisting at least some folks like this to collect their fetish objects and those who say that the kinds of stuff they post aren't the kinds of things that become fetish objects are just wrong, for at least some people with serious pedophilia. Someone can create an intense, imaginary long-term relationship with a child when there are so many photos, all posed for the purposes of beauty and charm. That's just the case. By the facts.

And what's easy to get and obvious to find -- is more likely to be gotten. Yeah, people can dig into more protected accounts in which "suitable" photos are rarer and so on. .... But why, when in cases like this, they're published for you like a catalog? A menu. And offered up, easily accessible, on the regular, seemingly just for you? 

Now, whether that's necessarily or entirely a bad thing, I can't say for sure. To some extent for some people, a personal collection of photos might be more of a preventive than a spur to action. That's certainly possible. I don't know.

I do know, though,  that if I were Felicity or Spurgeon or any other kid whose photos are posted for instant access by millions of total strangers, at some point I might be really pissed that my parents published that eternal catalog of my photos regularly, in posed model-like ways featuring my cuteness  -- for their financial gain -- when I wasn't capable of consenting to it. And, yeah, the finances were my gain, too. But publishing the kids' photos isn't the only way these parents could earn a buck. 

I also think I remember -- though I could be wrong about this -- that the Duggarling women weren't that happy when their feet showed up on a fetish site. Is that worse than being pretty sure that  your childhood photos are in some folks' personal fetish collections? Dunno. 

As I've harped on many times, I just don't think the Duggarlings-- any of them -- have thought through all the implications of treating millions of people the way the rest of us treat our personal circles of friends and family when it comes to publishing emotionally sensitive stuff, stuff involving non-consenting children, etc. And there are implications.  It's not just unquestionably benign "because everybody does it," the way some people say. .

The fact that fan sites exist that are filled with pictures of reality show children should send chills rather than praise.  Why would any emotionally healthy adult want to put something like a fan site with children online?   There are many children in your community that need your time and attention with abundant volunteer opportunities unfilled!  

Edited February 11, 2020 by fonfereksglen

[galaxychaser]

Sort of like Jeremy & Audrey from little people big world posted pictures of their toddler girl with very little clothes on. Made some weirdos day. Parents should not post many pics of their kids.

Edited February 11, 2020 by galaxychaser

[fonfereksglen]

11 minutes ago, galaxychaser said:

Sort of like Jeremy & Audrey from little couple posted pictures of their toddler girl with very little clothes on. Made some weirdos day. Parents should not post many pics of their kids.

Your point is extremely valid, but that Jer is Little People Big World.

Considering their financial standing,  The Little Couple and their child exploitation is ridiculous.

[Growsonwalls]

I'll also add that people who get "creepy" about kids and pictures are not necessarily the "creepy guy who lived alone who is always filming people." A few years ago at work the principal of my school asked teachers to bring in baby pictures. So I brought in a baby picture. I was about three months old, wearing a onesie. Very innocuous picture. Got called in. "Your picture ... it's very ... provocative."

"My picture?"

"Yes your baby picture. Change it. I don't like it."

"I don't follow ..."

"Well ... it looks like you're ... giving a blowjob. Your mouth is open."

"But I'm three months old."

Will never forget this lady. Very professional, polished looking lady who loved restorative circles and "mindfulness meditation" said "You're never too young to start."

I feel like celebrities or "influencers" who post so many pictures of their kids aren't ever aware of how twisted seemingly nice, normal people are.

[crazycatlady58]

12 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

I'll also add that people who get "creepy" about kids and pictures are not necessarily the "creepy guy who lived alone who is always filming people." A few years ago at work the principal of my school asked teachers to bring in baby pictures. So I brought in a baby picture. I was about three months old, wearing a onesie. Very innocuous picture. Got called in. "Your picture ... it's very ... provocative."

"My picture?"

"Yes your baby picture. Change it. I don't like it."

"I don't follow ..."

"Well ... it looks like you're ... giving a blowjob. Your mouth is open."

"But I'm three months old."

Will never forget this lady. Very professional, polished looking lady who loved restorative circles and "mindfulness meditation" said "You're never too young to start."

I feel like celebrities or "influencers" who post so many pictures of their kids aren't ever aware of how twisted seemingly nice, normal people are.

I want to give this a like, surprise and cry emoji.

[Jynnan tonnix]

53 minutes ago, crazycatlady58 said:

I want to give this a like, surprise and cry emoji.

I think we need a "mind blown" one...I can't even imagine where this came from, except that I have to feel very sorry that she probably went through some sort of unspeakable stuff as a child....

[3 is enough]

My granddaughter is 18 months old.  As much as I would love to share her photos with my Facebook friends I don’t. To date, I think I have posted 5 photos of her.  All cleared with my son and daughter-in-law, and all have her fully dressed.

Jinger and Jeremy do overshare, IMO.  I guess my opinion would elicit an “ok Boomer”, but when Felicity is older she may not appreciate having had her image posted all over the internet.

[Barb23]

Changing subjects - I saw Gabby on a commercial advertising the start of American Idol.  The commercial had the "you, too, can turn out to be a rock star no matter your humble beginnings" kind of vibe to it.

[Oldernowiser]

1 hour ago, Barb23 said:

Changing subjects - I saw Gabby on a commercial advertising the start of American Idol.  The commercial had the "you, too, can turn out to be a rock star no matter your humble beginnings" kind of vibe to it.

No Punchable Aunt Cade?

The Headship will be miffed.

[Churchhoney]

2 hours ago, Oldernowiser said:

No Punchable Aunt Cade?

The Headship will be miffed.

He finished fifth. She finished third. His first post-Idol releases didn't make much of a splash. Gabby's first single peaked at #8 on Billboard's Hot Country Songs chart. 

I love the way patriarchy no longer quite succeeds at placing all its guys on top and relegating all the women to the barrel's bottom. 

For the time being, at least, Cade's wife is box office....and he's not. 😁He's going to have to get used to some stuff that I fear Jer may never have to face, when it comes to that white-male-superiority thing. (...although I expect that Jingle's bigger social media-follower number does get under Jer's skin a bit....) 

 

Edited February 11, 2020 by Churchhoney

[DangerousMinds]

56 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

He finished fifth. She finished third. His first post-Idol releases didn't make much of a splash. Gabby's first single peaked at #8 on Billboard's Hot Country Songs chart. 

I love the way patriarchy no longer quite succeeds at placing all its guys on top and relegating all the women to the barrel's bottom. 

For the time being, at least, Cade's wife is box office....and he's not. 😁He's going to have to get used to some stuff that I fear Jer may never have to face, when it comes to that white-male-superiority thing. (...although I expect that Jingle's bigger social media-follower number does get under Jer's skin a bit....) 

 

Yes, I imagine Jeremy would have a minuscule number of followers on SM if not for the Duggar connection. And I’m sure he resents that.

[beckie]

They had an Idol "where are they now" type program the other day. Gabby and Cade were both on it. All I could think was, 'Jeremy would be jealous.'

[Natalie68]

5 hours ago, 3 is enough said:

My granddaughter is 18 months old.  As much as I would love to share her photos with my Facebook friends I don’t. To date, I think I have posted 5 photos of her.  All cleared with my son and daughter-in-law, and all have her fully dressed.

Jinger and Jeremy do overshare, IMO.  I guess my opinion would elicit an “ok Boomer”, but when Felicity is older she may not appreciate having had her image posted all over the internet.

My niece is just about to turn 18.  I have never shared her picture.  I just felt not my kid not my decision.  Her mother (my sister) needs to be more cautious.

[GeeGolly]

20 hours ago, Growsonwalls said:

I'll also add that people who get "creepy" about kids and pictures are not necessarily the "creepy guy who lived alone who is always filming people." A few years ago at work the principal of my school asked teachers to bring in baby pictures. So I brought in a baby picture. I was about three months old, wearing a onesie. Very innocuous picture. Got called in. "Your picture ... it's very ... provocative."

"My picture?"

"Yes your baby picture. Change it. I don't like it."

"I don't follow ..."

"Well ... it looks like you're ... giving a blowjob. Your mouth is open."

"But I'm three months old."

Will never forget this lady. Very professional, polished looking lady who loved restorative circles and "mindfulness meditation" said "You're never too young to start."

I feel like celebrities or "influencers" who post so many pictures of their kids aren't ever aware of how twisted seemingly nice, normal people are.

8 hours ago, crazycatlady58 said:

I want to give this a like, surprise and cry emoji.

7 hours ago, Jynnan tonnix said:

I think we need a "mind blown" one...I can't even imagine where this came from, except that I have to feel very sorry that she probably went through some sort of unspeakable stuff as a child....

 

 

[crazycatlady58]

Mind blown is good but I was thinking more on the line of "Dear God in heaven  help us"

[Nysha]

On 2/10/2020 at 3:54 PM, Churchhoney said:

I do know, though,  that if I were Felicity or Spurgeon or any other kid whose photos are posted for instant access by millions of total strangers, at some point I might be really pissed that my parents published that eternal catalog of my photos regularly, in posed model-like ways featuring my cuteness  -- for their financial gain -- when I wasn't capable of consenting to it. And, yeah, the finances were my gain, too. But publishing the kids' photos isn't the only way these parents could earn a buck. 

This complaint could be made against the parents of child models and actors, also. I don't think Jinger & Jeremy, Jessa & Ben or any of the young Duggar parents are being irresponsible by posting their children's pictures. Except, the Dillards who seem to delight in posting pictures of their children in distress. 

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, Nysha said:

This complaint could be made against the parents of child models and actors, also. I don't think Jinger & Jeremy, Jessa & Ben or any of the young Duggar parents are being irresponsible by posting their children's pictures. Except, the Dillards who seem to delight in posting pictures of their children in distress. 

Well, the complaint has often been made against stage parents! .... 

[BigBingerBro]

Well it looks like she did indeed get a cosmetics gig, at least a minor one....

[ouinason]

that picture is terrifying

 

[xwordfanatik]

Why does Jin look like she's being held hostage?

Now that I know what "swipe up" means (I asked on another forum here), I'll never do it.

[Westiepeach]

Doesn’t she realize her “career” as an influencer is shot to hell after the financial debacle? Give it up.

[BitterApple]

Jinger looks like a corpse in that still shot. If she's really trying to do the influencer thing, she either needs to invest in better lighting or dye her hair darker so her skin isn't so washed out. She's an attractive girl, but she's neither radiant nor glowing in that ad. 

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, ouinason said:

that picture is terrifying

 

Not sure there is such a thing as a non-terrifying screenshot. 😁

[GeeGolly]

Well just thank goodness Jinger is online and not in your living room like an old school Avon Lady. That, in my opinion, would be truly terrifying. 

[JustRosie]

1 hour ago, BigBingerBro said:

Well it looks like she did indeed get a cosmetics gig, at least a minor one....

What a horrifying picture. 

[Absolom]

That's too much clown face for me.

That's in the story.  It was bad.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Absolom

[MargeGunderson]

That blush is so sheer it’s invisible. The filter that she’s using is god-awful. And what in the world is going on under her eyes? It looks like her mascara rubbed off underneath them - or she put shadow all around her eyes, not just on the lids. 

[Oldernowiser]

Where to begin...

She looks deranged.

You can’t even tell she’s wearing blush...she looks pasty.

Major chin break out...never a good look for a makeup endorsement.

DAYUM they’re bad at this....

[wilsie]

1 hour ago, Churchhoney said:

Not sure there is such a thing as a non-terrifying screenshot. 😁

Is that what that is?  Jingle is usually pretty.  Here she looks bizarre.  For it to be a make-up ad is incredible.   Only the most die-hard leg humper could buy something she's selling after seeing this picture.

[zoomama]

3 hours ago, xwordfanatik said:

 

Now that I know what "swipe up" means (I asked on another forum here), I'll never do it.

i have no clue -- tell me!

[cmr2014]

That's just insane. It's like it's a Jill post and she just took one photo and posted it without even looking.

They're soooo careful about curating their posts, and then she posts this? For an ad? To make money?

Does she maybe think it's a "cute" shot of her showing some "personality?" I'm completely confused.

[Temperance]

I guess it goes with the idea of "sheer blush" that the blush is invisible. That's what the ad is for: invisible blush. Seriously I'm supposed to spend money on blush that can't be seen.

I don't wear make-up most of the time, but bush seems to be going out of style to some extent.  A lot of women just go with moisturizer/foundation, lip gloss and mascara. If you want blush, you can probably just use any of those palettes people are selling.

This blush reminds me of the Emperor's New Clothes. I wonder if Jinger knows that story. 

[Zella]

Holy fuck, she's sending off Jill Rodrigues levels of crazy face in that picture. How in the world did she look at that and think she should post it online for the world to see? I bet Iconic London's really enjoyed seeing that image tied to their product. 

[galaxychaser]

Jinger: Help I’ve been kidnapped! Babe pay them in pocket squares and bows!

Edited February 13, 2020 by galaxychaser

[latetotheparty]

Crazy Eyes, the Next Generation. 

[awaken]

She looks terrible in that pic. Her skin is bad. Not a great choice for a makeup #ad. 

[Lunera]

2 hours ago, MargeGunderson said:

That blush is so sheer it’s invisible. The filter that she’s using is god-awful. And what in the world is going on under her eyes? It looks like her mascara rubbed off underneath them - or she put shadow all around her eyes, not just on the lids. 

She wasn't wearing any blush there. When she put it on she looked clownish. She sounded so fake and kept making crazy eyes throughout the video.

 

[Zella]

7 minutes ago, Lunera said:

She wasn't wearing any blush there. When she put it on she looked clownish. She sounded so fake and kept making crazy eyes throughout the video.

 

Holy shit--somehow the first screenshot that was posted was actually less frightening than some of the others. 

The bottom of her face also looks unwashed.