"The Duggars' 7 Tips for keeping your marriage sexy"

[itsheresomewhere]

This thought just struck me.  

 

 For a family so obsessed with modestly, why do they talk about their sex life in public?  

[mommymilkies]

So the 'more interested' partner should compromise 100% of the time? That seems a bit dismissive.

We are talking about sex, not Spaghetti Saturdays.  Sex is intimate.  Many women have been sexually assaulted.  And men.  So yes, I err on the side of consent and mutual desire.  Not being a play toy. I'm not talking "I should really get to bed, but you know, we can stay up a little late!" for mutual fun.  I'm talking about being available against your desires merely to pleasure someone else even if you really want no to be the answer.  I can't even imagine how that's fun to have sex with someone who is not interested. 

[busymama7]

I am glad that works for your family. To me that if a man can not see that I am showing love through others ways not just sex that is just sad. There are so many ways to show love that don't involve sex.

That's a gross misinterpretation of what I said. I never ever said it was the only way?!?! Where do you get off extrapolating like that? We were talking about one aspect, one choice in a loving marriage.

[busymama7]

This thought just struck me.

 

For a family so obsessed with modestly, why do they take about their sex life in public?

I like the duggers but I totally agree with this. I didn't like the article at all. I was just responding to the question in the op.

[itsheresomewhere]

That's a gross misinterpretation of what I said. I never ever said it was the only way?!?! Where do you get off extrapolating like that? We were talking about one aspect, one choice in a loving marriage.

 

As I said I am glad it works for your family.  Neither DH or I could do it that way as we would not enjoy it.  

[Catwoman]

By my mid thirties I realized that it's quicker and easier to just go for it than it is to have an entire, tired discussion about how you're not in the mood. Everyone gets more sleep that way and more often than not you find the mood along the way, so it's worth the gamble.

  

So the 'more interested' partner should compromise 100% of the time? That seems a bit dismissive.

I'm not saying that anyone should compromise 100% of the time, but I also don't agree that "it's quicker and easier to just go for it than it is to have an entire, tired discussion about how you're not in the mood."

 

Why should you have to have a big discussion about it? If you're legitimately tired and not in the mood, your partner should respect that, without trying to make you feel pressured and needing to have an entire discussion about it.

 

I have offered to "just go for it" sometimes when my dh is into it and I'm not, but he has always said he wouldn't really enjoy it if I wasn't into it, too, and we just waited for another time.

 

Realistically, if one person has to "compromise 100% of the time," I would guess that it may be indicative of problems in the relationship.

[Catwoman]

We are talking about sex, not Spaghetti Saturdays. Sex is intimate. Many women have been sexually assaulted. And men. So yes, I err on the side of consent and mutual desire. Not being a play toy. I'm not talking "I should really get to bed, but you know, we can stay up a little late!" for mutual fun. I'm talking about being available against your desires merely to pleasure someone else even if you really want no to be the answer. I can't even imagine how that's fun to have sex with someone who is not interested.

:iagree:

[Catwoman]

This thought just struck me.

 

For a family so obsessed with modestly, why do they take about their sex life in public?

:iagree:

 

That is so true!!!

[Joker]

I know nothing about the Duggars but after reading this thread I am really, really glad that I have a dh who sometimes helps me change my mind (and one who doesn't mind at all when I try to do the same).

[redsquirrel]

This thought just struck me.  

 

 For a family so obsessed with modestly, why do they take about their sex life in public?  

 

Because they really are all about their sex life. They have a pregnancy fetish and they managed to make it pay. That is the one thing about them that I find impressive. It is the rare person who manages to make their fetish pay enough to support them.

[8circles]

Well, it isn't just yes or no here.  Sometimes it's yes, sometimes it's I'd rather not but why don't you convince me, sometimes absolutely not.  The first 2 I do out of love for him (and I enjoy it too).  The last 2 DH does for me.  I think that's a good compromise.  The frequency of each one depends on the season of our lives but I think it seems pretty balanced overall.

[Luanne]

Because they really are all about their sex life. They have a pregnancy fetish and they managed to make it pay. That is the one thing about them that I find impressive. It is the rare person who manages to make their fetish pay enough to support them.

 

Wow.  Someone is really judgmental.  :glare:

[busymama7]

Well, it isn't just yes or no here. Sometimes it's yes, sometimes it's I'd rather not but why don't you convince me, sometimes absolutely not. The first 2 I do out of love for him (and I enjoy it too). The last 2 DH does for me. I think that's a good compromise. The frequency of each one depends on the season of our lives but I think it seems pretty balanced overall.

You expressed this really well. I agree.

[Mrs Mungo]

OK, 'fess up.

 

Who gave this thread one star?

 

(I'm not saying it doesn't deserve it, but I feel that I am entitled to be at least a little bit indignant about it. :D)

A lot of really strange threads get low stars. I wonder if people base the star rating on personal vendettas of some sort, or if it happens by accident that people on mobile devices accidentally click it.

[Dory]

This is not what I'm saying at all. I can have and will say no. But I will say yes way more often because it is important to him and I love him and want to make him happy. It's not about me. And in his view its not about him. Sure he wants to, but he goes way above and beyond to make sure its worth it to me too. And I just revealed way too much info but I feel this topic is really important.

 

I figure that if it's worth enough to him, than he'll respond to my needs outside the bedroom in the same manner as I'm expected to respond to his in the bedroom. Intimacy comes from intimacy, not from me saying yes. Don't take that all personally, I have no idea what the rest of your marriage looks like, I'm just trying to respond from my side of things and misery that I have seen and felt from guys and girls who take it too far the direction of giving always to the guy.

[Luanne]

A lot of really strange threads get low stars. I wonder if people base the star rating on personal vendettas of some sort, or if it happens by accident that people on mobile devices accidentally click it.

 

The one star had absolutely nothing to do with a personal vendetta of any sort.  If you had read all the responses, you would realize that.  Catwoman and I are friends.  

[Mom in High Heels]

James Bond used to want is ALL THE TIME.  Seriously, 3-4 times a DAY.  It was exhausting.  He got upset when I told him no, but I simply could not keep up, plus, my lady parts were sore!  :smilielol5: He said he felt like I was rejecting him. I was all  :eek:   I explained that because I didn't want sex, didn't mean I didn't want him, but simply that I was too tired, not feeling well, had too much on my mind and couldn't turn it off so I could enjoy it or just plain sore.  Seriously, you have no idea.  After saying this to him for years, and assuring him that not wanting sex isn't a rejection of him, he finally got it.  Whew!   He's always had a crazy sex drive, and mine has been on the low side, but we managed just fine.  It's a wonder WE don't have 20 or so kids.  We did have names picked out, just in case we had a bunch though:  Thor, Thunder, Topanga, Bemis, Skeeter, Winnebago, Flannel and little Cannon.   :D

 

Of course, as we've grown older, my sex drive has gone up, and his has slowly gone down (there is a flaw in that plan, BTW, Nature!).  Now he's on medication that drops his sex drive to pretty much nothing.  The other day I realized we hadn't had TeA since just after Christmas!   :eek:  :eek:  :eek:   He asked me if I was sure, and said "Huh," like that was that.  Um, no.  I have gone months and months without it (thanks to the Army), and it is not fun, and I wasn't going to go months voluntarily.  I told him there was no "huh," and he'd better "love me or lose me forever."  (I can quote Tom Cruise movies that were filmed before he went crazy).  I dragged him into the shower with me (I was in the shower while we were talking) and we had a grand time.  TMI?  I don't care, we're all adults and we've all done it.

[KungFuPanda]

We are talking about sex, not Spaghetti Saturdays.  Sex is intimate.  Many women have been sexually assaulted.  And men.  So yes, I err on the side of consent and mutual desire.  Not being a play toy. I'm not talking "I should really get to bed, but you know, we can stay up a little late!" for mutual fun.  I'm talking about being available against your desires merely to pleasure someone else even if you really want no to be the answer.  I can't even imagine how that's fun to have sex with someone who is not interested.

 

Obviously I'm not talking about people with a history of sexual trauma. I can't begin to imagine the correct procedure for navigating that situation. I'm talking about normal, active relationships where one partner goes along with another's idea and trusts that a spark will occur along the way. An instant "No" may shut down the advance, and even any further discussion of the matter, but it doesn't make everyone's feelings go away.

 

Of course there's a problem if one person is always interested and another never is. The general topic is "Keeping a marriage sexy" and this might be a useful tip for someone who never thought about 'engaging' when they feel anything less than insatiable. Some of us are having a light conversation, but when I read things like 'no means no' and 'consent' it makes me think that some people are having a much more serious and issue-laden discussion and I certainly don't want to suggest that anyone do anything that makes them uncomfortable.

[mommymilkies]

The voting down is really just juvenile.  Don't like the topic?  Don't click on the thread.  Seriously, it's like Junior High sometimes. 

[Mrs Mungo]

The one star had absolutely nothing to do with a personal vendetta of any sort. If you had read all the responses, you would realize that. Catwoman and I are friends.

You will note that my post was speaking generally, *not* specifically.

 

I *still* think it is weird to give the thread one star based on your reasoning. She clearly used the article (which *they* put into the public sphere) as a jumping off point for discussion. But, you are as welcome to your opinions as I am to mine.

[SKL]

I don't understand how some people in this thread are chiding other people in this thread for doing what they say works best for their happy marriage.

 

Of course I'm not married, so I have no right to an opinion, but if someone says "this works for me" then let it be IMO.

[busymama7]

I figure that if it's worth enough to him, than he'll respond to my needs outside the bedroom in the same manner as I'm expected to respond to his in the bedroom. Intimacy comes from intimacy, not from me saying yes. Don't take that all personally, I have no idea what the rest of your marriage looks like, I'm just trying to respond from my side of things and misery that I have seen and felt from guys and girls who take it too far the direction of giving always to the guy.

 

Did I ever say anything to lead you to believe that my husband doesn't respond lovingly to my needs outside the bedroom? I'm sure I didn't. This is obviously a very loaded topic for some and my point of view is being skewed by that view. That's cool. Forums are like that. But I stand by my stance which is part of a loving relationship is being willing to choose to be intimate and enjoy it as much as possible when one partners needs are higher than the others. It's not coercive or unbalanced. In fact it is very balanced. He does things for me that might not be at the tippy top of his things he wants to do in this exact moment in time and so do I. Bingo. Happy marriage.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Hmph.

When the word sexy comes to mind,I don't get a mental image that in any way resembles Jim Bob or the human Pez dispenser.

[Luanne]

The voting down is really just juvenile.  Don't like the topic?  Don't click on the thread.  Seriously, it's like Junior High sometimes. 

 

Maybe you should try reading ALL the responses before acting all Junior High yourself.

[SKL]

Why isn't it politically incorrect on here to call someone a "human Pez dispenser"?

[Dory]

Did I ever say anything to lead you to believe that my husband doesn't respond lovingly to my needs outside the bedroom? I'm sure I didn't. This is obviously a very loaded topic for some and my point of view is being skewed by that view. That's cool. Forums are like that. But I stand by my stance which is part of a loving relationship is being willing to choose to be intimate and enjoy it as much as possible when one partners needs are higher than the others. It's not coercive or unbalanced. In fact it is very balanced. He does things for me that might not be at the tippy top of his things he wants to do in this exact moment in time and so do I. Bingo. Happy marriage.

 

Again, please don't take what I said personally. I trust that you have a much more balanced marriage than those that I have seen. You are right, when both sides give a little and do things for the other simply because they know that it would make their partner happy, well everyone is happy in the end with that. Unfortunately, those sort of relationships seem to be a rarity and one side can only give so much without the other side giving back a little.

[Elfknitter.#]

Maybe you should try reading ALL the responses before acting all Junior High yourself.

We got it. You marked it down, you apologized. But every comment regarding the voting system is NOT ABOUT YOU. Ms. Mungo and Mommymilkies expressed their feelings about it, not your voting of this thread.

[unfrumpable.]

Wow.  Someone is really judgmental.  :glare:

 

Pot Kettle Black, glass houses and that sort of thing.

[Catwoman]

Well, rats.

 

I'm out of likes. :glare:

 

I hope I get more of them by morning.

 

This "limited like" thing is annoying. So many posts to like, yet so few likes to give....

[mamaraby]

This was...interesting. :0)

 

It's not about compromise as in "I'll agree because it's easier than explaining," but rather the right for both people in the relationship to have bodily autonomy which includes the right to say "no" and have that respected. It's about communication and boundaries with specifics (I like... I dislike... Don't ever... Could you... Would you...). Communication is the hard part because it requires a deeper level of intimacy than "always be available" partially because no one partner has the right to expect service from the other *and* because it requires owning up to one's desires coupled with the fear of rejection. Ideally it would also include discussions of...options.

 

IMO framing the discussion as Partner B always has to compromise because Partner A says no is overly simplistic and ignores the wider diversity of marriage or committed relationships. There is no one way to be married or experience a committed relationship.

 

It's all about consent. Consent is sexy. Always being available is not if it isn't coupled with enthusiastic consent.

[Retired]

Ok Cat I didn't read the article but had to chime in on the "turn down" rule.

 

First I have to address this because my mom/dads marriage was very much in the patriarchal that my dad was king of the home and he "got it" whenever he wanted it.    My mom has been delivered from his "crap" after his stroke.  She really has woke up to how she was basically his "sex slave" for their marriage.  He didn't want her to work because she needed to be available at his will.  She and he both thought this was the "christen marriage" way of doing things.    There is so much wrong with the premise that as a women in the marriage that your main use to him (to keep him) is never say no.   I just think this sells a whole lot of spiritual abuse too women.

 

The only thing my mom said to me before I got married is never turn you husband down for sex.  She and I never were much mother/daughter.  I was more of the adult do to parents screwed up religious ideas and relationship.

 

Well as you guess that not the way my 24 year marriage has worked out.  He wouldn't want me to just spread for him unless I was in the mood.  (sorry for being crass)  We've both have turned each other down do to tired or whatever.    I know their are times one of us has turne down the other and had a little pout.  I don't think it damage our marriage.  My poor dh is going without while out of town for the next 3 months.  I just don't know if he can make it.   My marriage is gone :svengo: :rofl:  He has needs.  I have needs.  Whatever will we do.  :driving:  I must drive to him now.  He needs me.

 

  The whole thing is just dumb unless you are suppose to be his inflatable toy doll with apporiate noises for the whole affect LOL

 

This is one of those subjects in my  dysfunction childhood.  (you know the parents that had to do the deed while there little boy came to his big sister for all his needs)

 

O

 

 

 

 

[LucyStoner]

Women don't want sex you silly rabbit. We just want cuddles and rainbow unicorns.

And chocolate. Don't forget the chocolate. I hate these stereotypes about women. Maybe because I'll take sex over chocolate and cuddling and rainbow unicorns nearly all of the time.

 

My husband and I are more of the "you don't lose body autonomy after marriage" types. We both get to say yes, no or maybe and we each respect that. Besides it's more fun to playfully seduce someone than it is for the person who is not in the mood to just suck it up.

[Melissa in Australia]

After reading everyone's comments  feel like I must be a sex maniac. I have never said no. I have actively encouraged. I even wear mascara in the hope of encouraging action. Fortunately for me DH is almost as interested.

 

 

 

 

I must get this from my mother's side of the family. I wonder if it goes along with super fertility. When I was a child my mother use to regularly cut the TV areal cable. I use to think (when I was a child) that it was because she thought we were watching to much TV, but it was because dad use to watch the late night movies and then fall asleep in his arm chair.

[Mom in High Heels]

After reading everyone's comments  feel like I must be a sex maniac. I have never said no. I have actively encouraged. I even wear mascara in the hope of encouraging action. Fortunately for me DH is almost as interested.

 

I've read a lot of funny stuff on this thread, but this is probably my favorite.  

 

 

I must get this from my mother's side of the family. I wonder if it goes along with super fertility. When I was a child my mother use to regularly cut the TV areal cable. I use to think (when I was a child) that it was because she thought we were watching to much TV, but it was because dad use to watch the late night movies and then fall asleep in his arm chair.

 

Funny how everyone always assumes women never want sex.  

 

[Catwoman]

After reading everyone's comments feel like I must be a sex maniac. I have never said no. I have actively encouraged. I even wear mascara in the hope of encouraging action. Fortunately for me DH is almost as interested.

It's fine to never say no if it's because you want it as much as he does (or more!) I think it's entirely different when there's almost an unspoken obligation to say yes, even at times when you aren't interested, for the sole reason that women are always supposed to be "available" to their husbands.

 

Your situation sounds like fun for both you and your dh. :)

[Mrs Mungo]

I am a high drive girl. DH also has a pretty high drive. Both of us have said, "sorry, I am tired/sick/whatever," at time, but we know we will make up for it. In general, I think it is important and possible to both be true to yourself and to take care of your partner's needs. I don't really understand seeing them as mutually exclusive.

[Joyofsixreboot]

Nm

[awisha.]

Why isn't it politically incorrect on here to call someone a "human Pez dispenser"?

Oh puhlease.

 

Do we need to remind you of all the bad things you've said about other people on this forum??

 

15 year old girl wearing casual clothes ring a bell??

 

Exactly. Pot meet kettle.

[Guest]

I don't know about ALWAYS being available. In my twenties, the idea would have deeply offended me. By my mid thirties I realized that it's quicker and easier to just go for it than it is to have an entire, tired discussion about how you're not in the mood. Everyone gets more sleep that way and more often than not you find the mood along the way, so it's worth the gamble.

In theory, this is pretty much my feeling on it. I do think openness to your mate is better for the marriage than a cold shoulder.

 

In practice, there are days I have given the brush-off, but I agree with KungFu in that I can be convinced, given a chance to warm up.

 

I do think, strange though they may be, Jim Bob always seems to treat Michelle like his queen, which is something I could really get behind.

[bolt.]

I think there is a difference between, "Always available, never say no." And "Sometimes willing to warm up, because love can be obliging like that."

 

"Sometimes" and "willing" speak of free and loving choices, kindness, flexibility.

 

A person who feels that saying 'no' is always wrong, damaging to the relationship, etc, is not expressing freedom or love, but rather duty and fear-of-loss.

[FaithManor]

It was the "impressive man-part" thing , wasn't it? ;)

Just so you know. I almost relegated dh to the couch last night over this thread. Like Mergath, the very thought makes me want to pour bleach over my brain. GAH...I was so afraid that he would ask and then this darn thread would pop up in my brain. 

 

Dear Cat, you are a DANGEROUS woman! LOL

 

That's okay though. I have a wicked sense of humor and since today is my dear, dear nephew's anniversary, I sent his lovely wife the link. She has posted a satirical diatribe against me on Facebook already this morning! They'll get over it. We sent them gift cards for a very nice evening out so once she has her brain cleansed everything will be okay.

[Butter]

When Jamie and I got married, my dad gave the following sex advice: (to Jamie) "Sometimes when she says she has a headache, listen to her." (to me) "Some of those times pretend you don't have a headache."  (And he made it clear that what he said to Jamie applied to me and vice versa.)

 

I've always thought that was fabulous advice.  In other words, in his typical snarky fashion, my dad was saying to compromise.  Sometimes one will want it and the other won't, but do it anyway.  And sometimes listen to the other that it's just not something they want to do at the time.  I can't imagine "always being available" and "never saying no."  It seems like the person on that end of it (whether husband or wife) would develop some pretty strong negative feelings about sex and possibly become angry about feeling like they are always being pushed into it and their feelings don't matter.

[Carrie12345]

So the 'more interested' partner should compromise 100% of the time? That seems a bit dismissive.

 

If that were the case, it would mean the other party is disinterested 100% of the time, and I would consider that a very serious problem.

 

TMI and all, but yeah, I do try to take a second to better measure how tired/preoccupied/annoyed/otherwise distracted I am before automatically shooting him down. Sometimes I come to the conclusion that putting out would do us both some good! :lol:

 

But there are times when I misjudge how well I can push through mental and physical distractions, and then it's just an awkward, disappointing situation neither one of us feels proud of. :huh:

 

Mediocre sex is rarely better than no sex.

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

I know not everyone likes it, but I really enjoyed the book "Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands".  The essential message in the sex chapter is that men often want sex for different reasons than women, they think of it differently, and if we can understand their perspective, we may be willing to make our sex life more of a priority.  It has nothing to do with lying back and thinking of England, but about prioritizing the needs of people who you love. 

 

For me, sex is like exercising.  When I'm in a regular "routine" in terms of frequency, it becomes more fun, more enjoyable, and something to look forward to.  And when I'm not really in the mood, most times it only takes a few minutes of "jogging" before I'm committed and interested in the rest of the run, to be metaphorical.  If I'm willing to make exercise a priority, even though the first few minutes are often not, then why not makes my husband a priority in the same way?

 

This is not the same as a "never say no" policy, which does seem akin to some kind of slavery.  It is about being willing to think beyond the fact that right now, in this very moment, I would rather be watching Downton Abbey.  :-) 

[marbel]

I know not everyone likes it, but I really enjoyed the book "Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands".  The essential message in the sex chapter is that men often want sex for different reasons than women, they think of it differently, and if we can understand their perspective, we may be willing to make our sex life more of a priority.  It has nothing to do with lying back and thinking of England, but about prioritizing the needs of people who you love. 

 

For me, sex is like exercising.  When I'm in a regular "routine" in terms of frequency, it becomes more fun, more enjoyable, and something to look forward to.  And when I'm not really in the mood, most times it only takes a few minutes of "jogging" before I'm committed and interested in the rest of the run, to be metaphorical.  If I'm willing to make exercise a priority, even though the first few minutes are often not, then why not makes my husband a priority in the same way?

 

This is not the same as a "never say no" policy, which does seem akin to some kind of slavery.  It is about being willing to think beyond the fact that right now, in this very moment, I would rather be watching Downton Abbey.  :-) 

 

This!  I think people have the image of a woman sighing, saying "go ahead" and lying there motionless when she "gives in" to her husband because is in the mood and she is not.  

 

I feel tired and lousy a lot.  Just going through a period of time where tiredness and stress make me not want to do much of anything.  If my husband indicates he's in the mood, and I don't respond, no big deal, we kiss goodnight and that's it.  There is no pressure.  But sometimes I do respond even if I don't feel like it, not out of a sense of obligation but out of love for my husband.  How can I say this... those times may be physically less satisfying than when I'm enthused right from the start, but at least equally (possibly more) emotionally satisfying.   There is a different feeling of closeness and intimacy.  It's just... different. 

 

ETA:  Just thought I'd add that sometimes it works the other way too.  Sometimes I get the nonresponse - which probably sounds dismissive but is not. Sometimes one or the other of us will apologize but apologies are not really needed.  Or we will acknowledge that it's just not gonna happen.  Often words are not needed because we know each other well enough to know when not to even try to get started. 

[FaithManor]

Well, rats.

 

I'm out of likes. :glare:

 

I hope I get more of them by morning.

 

This "limited like" thing is annoying. So many posts to like, yet so few likes to give....

Well, there's no better way to start Valentine's Day than whoring out your likes!

[WishboneDawn]

I figure that if it's worth enough to him, than he'll respond to my needs outside the bedroom in the same manner as I'm expected to respond to his in the bedroom. Intimacy comes from intimacy, not from me saying yes. Don't take that all personally, I have no idea what the rest of your marriage looks like, I'm just trying to respond from my side of things and misery that I have seen and felt from guys and girls who take it too far the direction of giving always to the guy.

I think that with your,"intimacy comes from intimacy," you're making the same point as busymama7. It's just that she's saying sometimes that cycle starts with her.

 

I think Joanne Duggar's view, as I'm quite sure it comes out of a patriarchal Christian movement, is icky.

 

I think busymama7's view, as it comes out of a healthy, loving relationship, is fine.

 

The ickiness comes from the particulars of an intimate situation being by dictated authorities and not being negotiated by two living and equal partners in a relationship.

[MercyA]

Do we need to remind you of all the bad things you've said about other people on this forum??

 

15 year old girl wearing casual clothes ring a bell??

Regardless of what SKL may have said in the past, calling someone a Human Pez Dispenser is extraordinarily rude, condescending, and nasty.  I don't agree with everything the Duggars promote, but Michelle seems like a genuinely sweet lady. 

 

I don't think it's necessary to keep bringing up the clothing thread ad infinitum.

 

Regarding the topic at hand, Jim Bob and Michelle likely have 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 in mind.

 

Peace to all.

[Hope44]

I'm not surprised Michelle Duggar said this.  I'm not surprised this is the view she takes since she believes that she is under the authority of her husband first and foremost and fails to understand that God actually holds the man accountable to love SACRIFICIALLY his wife FIRST.  I don't hate JimBob.  He never gets a break from making all of the decisions.  Sometimes I think he must look at her when she's looking up smiling at him (or looking ANYWHERE smiling because boy, can she smile) and say to himself, "I wish you'd wipe that smile off your face and say what you mean.  I'm TIRED of deciding if Charmin is better than Angel Soft!"

 

But I am surprised that, after the myriads of information about JimBob and Michelle Duggar and the "cocoonish" views they hold, there are still mature and intelligent people defending any and all criticism of the Duggar show, way of life, books, tv appearances, interviews etc. 

 

:confused1:

[MercyA]

I wonder if they abstain during pregnancy...

 

From the Today article:

 

"They abstain when Michelle has her period, and also after childbirth: 80 days before sex if it's a girl, 40 days after a boy. (The timeline for abstinence after childbirth is loosely based on Old Testament traditions, but is more about what works for their marriage than about observing religious law, the Duggars say.) A bit of abstinence, they've found, does make the heart grow fonder."