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

[Mom in High Heels]

I talked to James Bond about this thread and he had an interesting insight.  He said when he was younger, he did think that I was rejecting him, but now that he's older (and somewhat wiser), he realized that it's shallow (his word) to expect someone to be available just because the other person says they want it.  If the other person doesn't fee like or isn't in the mood, that should be that.

[Hope44]

Well, then the converse can't be true either then...you can't know that they WEREN'T heavily influenced by Gothard.  They have been involved with ATI and IBL on a deep level for years.  They also endorse whole-heartedly and link to the Pearl's as well as other patriarchal authors.  Michelle and JImBob's views and lifestyles are very much the example put forth by Gothard.  Of course becoming viewed as "harmless" and "happy" is part of the grand allure.  In order to be accepted and placed in points of leadership with Gothard, these rules must be followed.  And the Duggars follow them.  Of course, part of the facade that the families I know who are higher up in Gothard (believe me, the Duggars are well-connected there) is to dismiss the questions if they follow Gothard.  You will get only vague answers but Michelle herself uses words like "principles" and "teachings" and "unchangeable truths."  One of the children referred to "ten unchangeable things" and listed them.  They were identical to the words from the "Ten Unchangeables" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMyoN5JQgOI.  The clothing they wear is to "draw attention to their character." Character is a word thrown around incessantly with iBLP materials.  The character training of their children is interwoven into every aspect of their lives and first time obedience is the absolute forefront of this.  Much of this training is directly from the "Wisdom Booklets" of ATI.  

 

I could go on and on and on.  I just want to point out that either it is one heck of a coincidence that the Duggars pattern there lives after the principles of Bill Gothard and they just so happen to use his Character Training booklets, utilize the financial directives taught by fellow Gothard cohort Jim Sammon, have identical views on birth control and childbirth as Gothard, and attend the required seminars and conventions or it is because of those things they have made those decisions in their family.  I don't think it is a coincidence and I think that, yes, they follow Gothard's teachings.  I do not believe they came up with this on their own.  

[Guest]

I talked to James Bond about this thread and he had an interesting insight. He said when he was younger, he did think that I was rejecting him, but now that he's older (and somewhat wiser), he realized that it's shallow (his word) to expect someone to be available just because the other person says they want it. If the other person doesn't fee like or isn't in the mood, that should be that.

On the other hand, I would also say that as I've gotten older, I am also less selfish about whether I'm 100% in the mood or am willing to go along with the program until I am persuaded.

[Catwoman]

Well, then the converse can't be true either then...you can't know that they WEREN'T heavily influenced by Gothard. They have been involved with ATI and IBL on a deep level for years. They also endorse whole-heartedly and link to the Pearl's as well as other patriarchal authors. Michelle and JImBob's views and lifestyles are very much the example put forth by Gothard. Of course becoming viewed as "harmless" and "happy" is part of the grand allure. In order to be accepted and placed in points of leadership with Gothard, these rules must be followed. And the Duggars follow them. Of course, part of the facade that the families I know who are higher up in Gothard (believe me, the Duggars are well-connected there) is to dismiss the questions if they follow Gothard. You will get only vague answers but Michelle herself uses words like "principles" and "teachings" and "unchangeable truths." One of the children referred to "ten unchangeable things" and listed them. They were identical to the words from the "Ten Unchangeables" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMyoN5JQgOI. The clothing they wear is to "draw attention to their character." Character is a word thrown around incessantly with iBLP materials. The character training of their children is interwoven into every aspect of their lives and first time obedience is the absolute forefront of this. Much of this training is directly from the "Wisdom Booklets" of ATI.

 

I could go on and on and on. I just want to point out that either it is one heck of a coincidence that the Duggars pattern there lives after the principles of Bill Gothard and they just so happen to use his Character Training booklets, utilize the financial directives taught by fellow Gothard cohort Jim Sammon, have identical views on birth control and childbirth as Gothard, and attend the required seminars and conventions or it is because of those things they have made those decisions in their family. I don't think it is a coincidence and I think that, yes, they follow Gothard's teachings. I do not believe they came up with this on their own.

But who cares what they believe or whose teachings they choose to follow? Why is it any of our business?

 

You seem to know an awful lot about the Duggars.

 

I don't care enough about them or know enough about them to argue about their beliefs. I just happen to think that none of us can accurately say that they know for sure what the Duggars believe, unless the Duggars have come right out and said it. Quite frankly, I don't care what they believe, but whatever they are doing seems to be working for them as a family, so who am I to say they're wrong? I could never live the way they do, but I'm not about to suggest that they shouldn't be allowed to do exactly as they please.

 

I didn't start this thread to get into a serious discussion about Gothard. Obviously, you're welcome to talk about it all you'd like, but I'm simply not interested enough to join you.

[Guest]

Well, then the converse can't be true either then...you can't know that they WEREN'T heavily influenced by Gothard. They have been involved with ATI and IBL on a deep level for years. They also endorse whole-heartedly and link to the Pearl's as well as other patriarchal authors. Michelle and JImBob's views and lifestyles are very much the example put forth by Gothard. Of course becoming viewed as "harmless" and "happy" is part of the grand allure. In order to be accepted and placed in points of leadership with Gothard, these rules must be followed. And the Duggars follow them. Of course, part of the facade that the families I know who are higher up in Gothard (believe me, the Duggars are well-connected there) is to dismiss the questions if they follow Gothard. You will get only vague answers but Michelle herself uses words like "principles" and "teachings" and "unchangeable truths." One of the children referred to "ten unchangeable things" and listed them. They were identical to the words from the "Ten Unchangeables" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMyoN5JQgOI. The clothing they wear is to "draw attention to their character." Character is a word thrown around incessantly with iBLP materials. The character training of their children is interwoven into every aspect of their lives and first time obedience is the absolute forefront of this. Much of this training is directly from the "Wisdom Booklets" of ATI.

 

I could go on and on and on. I just want to point out that either it is one heck of a coincidence that the Duggars pattern there lives after the principles of Bill Gothard and they just so happen to use his Character Training booklets, utilize the financial directives taught by fellow Gothard cohort Jim Sammon, have identical views on birth control and childbirth as Gothard, and attend the required seminars and conventions or it is because of those things they have made those decisions in their family. I don't think it is a coincidence and I think that, yes, they follow Gothard's teachings. I do not believe they came up with this on their own.

Hope, I'm not saying they aren't following Gothard. What I disagree with is your assumption that they only do whatever they do as brain-washed robots and could never possibly come to their conclusions of their own accord. Even people who avidly follow the advice of any particular philosophy can and do come up with opinions about what is proper on their own.

[Hope44]

I'm just trying to point out that in Gothardism, his principles within family dynamics override personal opinions because his principles are at the forefront of many, many, many aspects within the family.  Those "principles" are deeply ingrained such that other families who don't follow the principles are really and truly treated as outsiders.  In other words, they aren't going to be "besties" with families who don't follow these principles. To each his own.  I firmly believe Michelle and JimBob due to their level of involvement with Bill Gothard DO make their decisions based on what they've been taught in their many years under his leadership, workshopes, seminars, camps etc.  Others think they aren't affected.  

[Joanne]

But who cares what they believe or whose teachings they choose to follow? Why is it any of our business?

 

You seem to know an awful lot about the Duggars.

 

I don't care enough about them or know enough about them to argue about their beliefs. .

Um? Because they earn their living and choose to liven publicly? They choose, daily, celebrity status.

 

As such, discourse about worldview and behavior is I'm context with their reality show star status.

[GinaPagnato]

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.

 

Hang on. How is it that NOBODY has mentioned Mom's thread above??? Seriously, I read "3-4 times a DAY" and I about :svengo: .

I vaguely recall our honeymoon ages and ages ago, but we were young and REALLY into each other, and that was just a week.

I just, I can't imagine that kind of frequency. Did either one of you work outside the home, or was this like lunch break, avoid the afternoon slump, then at bedtime?

Sorry, I'm sure that's personal or something, but whatevs...this is just remarkable.

And fwiw, I have several female friends in the 40+ age range who are now rarin' to go every night while their husbands are sort of shlumping out. Must be common.

[FO4UR]

 Of course becoming viewed as "harmless" and "happy" is part of the grand allure. 

  

 

What you are alluding to has crossed my mind...that maybe it is a facade put in place to draw people into a lifestyle that is very different behind closed doors from the smiles seen on TV.  I think we agree that the Gothard POV is not healthy.

 

I'm a good judge of character (IMHO - LOL), and I say Michelle is genuinely happy.  I won't argue if she is right or wrong, but I fully believe she is happy.  I also won't argue that their lifestyle is harmless...but, nevertheless, she is happy.  Lots of people live in a way that is harmful to themselves, and do so happily. 

 

The crux is that Jim Bob must genuinely be her best friend, and they truly love each other.  Most men, in a similar lifestyle, would not treat their wives with the same care, friendship, and love.  

[Mrs Mungo]

Um? Because they earn their living and choose to liven publicly? They choose, daily, celebrity status.

 

As such, discourse about worldview and behavior is I'm context with their reality show star status.

Agreed, and frankly, when they put specific ideas out there, then I think it is fair to talk about the worldview upon which those ideas are based.

[Mrs Mungo]

What you are alluding to has crossed my mind...that maybe it is a facade put in place to draw people into a lifestyle that is very different behind closed doors from the smiles seen on TV. I think we agree that the Gothard POV is not healthy.

<snip>

The crux is that Jim Bob must genuinely be her best friend, and they truly love each other. Most men, in a similar lifestyle, would not treat their wives with the same care, friendship, and love.

But, I think the last part of your post is the thing people find worrisome. Look at all of the recent allegations of misconduct that have recently come out regarding people who stick strictly to this type of philosophy. By touting these principles, they are opening many women up to abuse through those principles. KWIM?

[butterflymommy]

I have pretty strong feelings about this, having been in a relationship where I was the "refused" one before. So I went into marriage knowing I would never say no unless I had a VERY good reason. From my POV if you're in a marriage, and you are your spouse's only sexual release, it's your obligation to make a sincere effort to meet their needs (within reason). Obviously we all have our limits but you have to balance this against the reality that you are all your spouse has, sexually, without breaking serious social and moral boundaries. Feminism seems to say that if you're not 100% in the mood then you're obligated to say no, but within the reality of marriage this isn't a practical attitude. But I'll reiterate-- everything within reason. If your spouse wants to do extreme, painful, or morally questionable things, or if you are ill or have other solid reasons to refuse, then of course you shouldn't feel obligated to go along. But there is a middle ground here that is often ignored. All this goes for both genders, of course.

[WishboneDawn]

Nothing to forgive. I didn't know I should have corrected you because it didn't occur to me you read it as a quote until Cat cleared things up. I should bribe Cat to help me with my reading comprehension more. 

 

We're good?

I am SO glad I kept reading before responding to your "straw man" post. I took your post as Momoflaw did and could NOT for the life of me understand why you were dismissing her valid correction with a random fallacy alert. :D

[bolt.]

Also, most people have ways of achieving sexual release without involving their spouse -- and they are free to do so at any time they choose. I'm not "obligated" to say no unless I'm 100% in the mood, but sexual satisfaction should be mutual. It shouldn't *regularly* involve Person A finding things pleasurable on the *mostly* on the basis of Person B making an effort in spite of a lack of desire.

[Mrs Mungo]

How is this in the category of need? People need to eat on some sort of regular basis otherwise they'll get sick and or die. But sex? How is that the same? They may WANT it. They may WANT it a lot.

Psychologists put it on the needs list. Wiki has an explanation, fwiw:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

[Guest]

How is this in the category of need? People need to eat on some sort of regular basis otherwise they'll get sick and or die. But sex? How is that the same? They may WANT it. They may WANT it a lot.

I do personally put sex in the category of need, if only because it is part of the "primitive brain" in the same category as securing food, protection from the elements and social acceptance by one's group. True, you can forgo sex without dying, as opposed to going without food, but propogation is still a fundamental desire. Sexual attention is an assumption almost all people make when they choose a mate. I think it's reasonable to expect that under normal circumstances and health, one's mate can at least most often go along with the program out of a desire to meet the spouses needs.

[FO4UR]

But, I think the last part of your post is the thing people find worrisome. Look at all of the recent allegations of misconduct that have recently come out regarding people who stick strictly to this type of philosophy. By touting these principles, they are opening many women up to abuse through those principles. KWIM?

 

 

I completely agree. 

 

 

Well...actually I think women are already *open* to abuse...Gothardites aren't the only ones who have some unbalanced teaching...it's died in the wool of our culture (for much of the USA).  The Duggars, I would say, make this sort of lifestyle look appealing, giving it *credibility.* 

 

 

That said, I still think Michelle is truly happy in her own life.  I can be happy for her without condoning her lifestyle as something that is healthy or right in a general sense.

[marbel]

I do personally put sex in the category of need, if only because it is part of the "primitive brain" in the same category as securing food, protection from the elements and social acceptance by one's group. True, you can forgo sex without dying, as opposed to going without food, but propogation is still a fundamental desire. Sexual attention is an assumption almost all people make when they choose a mate. I think it's reasonable to expect that under normal circumstances and health, one's mate can at least most often go along with the program out of a desire to meet the spouses needs.

 

Agree with this, but even for those who don't consider it a need, it seems we should want to give our mates things they find highly desirable (and which are in our power to give them).  So, if one partner has a strong desire for intimacy and the other has a strong desire to be left alone to do something else, they have to come to a compromise, which means sometimes someone won't get getting what they want, but sometimes they will. 

 

Re: Needing it multiple times a day - I had a friend once who moved in with a woman after developing a relationship over the internet. She actually moved from another state to his location to live with him but it was short-lived:  she confided to me that in order to feel loved and valued he needed it several times a day.  He was that insecure.  He ended up married to someone else a few  years later so either he calmed down or found someone more on his wavelength.   (I didn't ask.)

[Catwoman]

I completely agree. 

 

 

Well...actually I think women are already *open* to abuse...Gothardites aren't the only ones who have some unbalanced teaching...it's died in the wool of our culture (for much of the USA).  The Duggars, I would say, make this sort of lifestyle look appealing, giving it *credibility.* 

 

 

That said, I still think Michelle is truly happy in her own life.  I can be happy for her without condoning her lifestyle as something that is healthy or right in a general sense.

I don't think most people watching the Duggars on television have the slightest clue about Gothardism. They have probably never even heard of it. I think they watch the Duggars because Michelle and Jim-Bob have a zillion children who all seem kind of sweet, and they get interested in how the family manages so well with all of those kids. Sure, the Duggars dress differently and act differently than the "average" American family, but that just makes them a novelty. I don't think many people look at the Duggars and say, "Gee, I'd like to live like they do."

[Catwoman]

I have pretty strong feelings about this, having been in a relationship where I was the "refused" one before. So I went into marriage knowing I would never say no unless I had a VERY good reason. From my POV if you're in a marriage, and you are your spouse's only sexual release, it's your obligation to make a sincere effort to meet their needs (within reason). Obviously we all have our limits but you have to balance this against the reality that you are all your spouse has, sexually, without breaking serious social and moral boundaries. Feminism seems to say that if you're not 100% in the mood then you're obligated to say no, but within the reality of marriage this isn't a practical attitude. But I'll reiterate-- everything within reason. If your spouse wants to do extreme, painful, or morally questionable things, or if you are ill or have other solid reasons to refuse, then of course you shouldn't feel obligated to go along. But there is a middle ground here that is often ignored. All this goes for both genders, of course.

I think you are misrepresenting feminism here.

 

I don't know anyone who says that if a woman isn't 100% in the mood, she is somehow "obligated" to say no.

 

That is just ridiculous. Does anyone truly believe that?

 

I'm all in favor of being able to say no, but "obligated?" I don't think a single person here has said anything like that. Additionally, I would think most of us would agree that we wouldn't have to be "100% in the mood" every single time, in order to consider having sex. Sometimes a little friendly persuasion can go a long way toward turning 40 or 50% into 100%. ;)

[itsheresomewhere]

Gothardism?  Is that like people who dress up in all black with black makeup and black hair who also have a contagious disease?

 

No clue what the heck that is.

 

No I have no desire to live like the Duggars.  Really I think I would have died and gone to hell to be born into such a situation.

 

Google Gothard and ATI.  Be prepared to vomit in the mouth a little at what some have been subject.

[Catwoman]

Gothardism? Is that like people who dress up in all black with black makeup and black hair who also have a contagious disease?

 

No clue what the heck that is.

 

No I have no desire to live like the Duggars. Really I think I would have died and gone to hell to be born into such a situation.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Catwoman]

Google Gothard and ATI. Be prepared to vomit in the mouth a little at what some have been subject.

I think she was joking about not knowing anything about it. ;)

[Guest]

But seriously, if the only way one can meet their spouse's "need" is to do what they want whenever they want without any regard for what you want and "need" at the moment, then what kind of base wacko are they?

Sure, but I don't advocate for that. I do advocate to being open, though, no shutting down the possibilities because I'm tired, kwim? I have said no once in a while, but I have more often said, "eh, it wasn't on my mind, but I could be persuaded."

 

Personally, I don't tell my teens that it's not a need and they would be baaaadddd for doing so, even though I prefer they wait until they are 100% mature enough to deal with all possible consequences. Biologically, teens are "supposed" to mate; it's just that culturally, we don't promote doing so. We "delay" mating (or parenthood, at least) far longer than biology would indicate is normal. Still, I'm not arguing with the norm of my culture...waiting makes sense for a 16-year-old. :)

[My3girls]

I'm with those that never say no. I admittedly skimmed some of the posts, but I didn't see anyone bring up the other side of the equation. Dh knows me well enough to know when NOT to ask/initiate so I don't really need to say no. There are times that I'd rather not initially, but if I let myself, I end up enjoying it as much as he does. But on the days where I really don't want to, he knows. Like others have said... Happy marriage.

[JadeOrchidSong]

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.

Have you read The Five Love Language? His primary love language might be physical intimacy.

[itsheresomewhere]

Have you read The Five Love Language? His primary love language might be physical intimacy.

 

 

I have a feeling you wouldn't like my opinion of that book.  

[itsheresomewhere]

Either way, getting sex advice from them is up there with getting sex advice from Barney the purple dinosaur.   Just too weird.

 

You owe me a clean screen.  

[Audrey]

 I wonder if it goes along with super fertility.

 

 

Yah... no.  I'm not super fertile (quasi not-very-fertile-at-all actually).  I think it has to do with drive, and that's it.

 

Oh... and that I'm an unashamedly easy lay anyway. :D

[mommaduck]

_{The Duggars are the last people on earth from whom I would take sex or marital advice.}

 

I have eight kids and I have to agree with this and the part about "always being available" (heck no...it's called BOTH parties respecting the other).

[8circles]

Why did my posts get deleted? I tried messaging the moderators but got an error saying the moderators couldn't accept any more messages.

[itsheresomewhere]

I keep getting offine and a few other errors.

[EKS]

Thank you ever so much for making me envision Jim-Bob's "impressive man-part."  I'm going to gouge my brain out now. :p

 

:lol:

 

[Mom in High Heels]

Hang on. How is it that NOBODY has mentioned Mom's thread above??? Seriously, I read "3-4 times a DAY" and I about :svengo: .

I vaguely recall our honeymoon ages and ages ago, but we were young and REALLY into each other, and that was just a week.

I just, I can't imagine that kind of frequency. Did either one of you work outside the home, or was this like lunch break, avoid the afternoon slump, then at bedtime?

Sorry, I'm sure that's personal or something, but whatevs...this is just remarkable.

And fwiw, I have several female friends in the 40+ age range who are now rarin' to go every night while their husbands are sort of shlumping out. Must be common.

 

Oh, this went on for YEARS.  Seriously.  I felt like I had to hide from him for a while.  We were really young too (22 and 21 when we got married), but it was WAY more than I could deal with.  When we first got married, we were both in college, than after graduation, we had jobs with flexible schedules.  He wanted it in the morning, at night, sometimes again in the middle of the night, and ANY time we happened to be in the house together, or even NOT in the house.  We christened many a bathroom in the town.  I was just worn out, as were my lady bits.  After the first 2-3 years, I told him I couldn't keep going.  I never got any sleep, and he was pawing at me ALL.THE.TIME.  It made me start to dislike sex and look at it as a chore.  He finally stopped insisting, but sulked about it, and was still constantly pawing at me.  I love him, but it was too much.  I finally told him that if he would just lay off for a while, I'd be more interested.  He did and I was!  Of course just after our first anniversary, he joined the army, so for several years he was gone a lot (which I was kind of thankful for, because it gave me a rest, bad as that sounds),  but when I wasn't constantly being asked for it, I started to want it, so when he got back, I was rarin' to go, which made him happy.  He's still gone a lot, and when he comes home, he knows I'm going to be up for it.  Even when he's home for a year (rare), he knows that when I say no, I honestly mean it, but there are times when I'm the one making the moves.  As we've gotten older, things have eased up, but yeah, now I'm the one wanting it.  Sometimes I'll "seduce" him, and sometimes I'll just say, "Hey, you wanna?"  His clothes are off before I finish my sentence.   :)

 

How is this in the category of need?  People need to eat on some sort of regular basis otherwise they'll get sick and or die.  But sex?  How is that the same?  They may WANT it.  They may WANT it a lot. 

 

This.  I don't believe it's a NEED.  It's a want that doesn't have to be met.

 

 

I forgot to add in my previous post, where JB commented on this thread, that he said he finally figured out that he doesn't need sex to know that I love him.  He said it's in everything I do, like making sure he has clean clothes, helping him find something he's lost, taking care of the kids, kissing him the minute he walks through the door in the evenings, making our house feel like a home, etc.

[Catwoman]

Why did my posts get deleted? I tried messaging the moderators but got an error saying the moderators couldn't accept any more messages.

Your posts got deleted???

 

I can't imagine why that would have been necessary. Did you notice if anyone else's posts were deleted as well?

[Dory]

Have you read The Five Love Language? His primary love language might be physical intimacy.

 

There is physical touch beyond s*x. I have had that excuse shoved my way more times than I can count. It's always been used as an excuse for my feelings being invalid. If his language is touch, I should be able to communicate love to him beyond the bedroom.

[albeto.]

Why did my posts get deleted? I tried messaging the moderators but got an error saying the moderators couldn't accept any more messages.

 

I'll PM you, because mum's the word with ghost posts. 

[Audrey]

:lol:

 

eh hem...but yeah I think so..that it is a lot to do with drive.  It is difficult when two people have very different drives.  But seriously, as easy as you may be, I guess you aren't a totally self centered twat waffle who would mistreat your husband over it.

 

 

Well... no... he has to ask extra nice for the rough stuff.  ;)

 

 

Seriously, though... of course it's a mutual respect issue.  We can sway one another but there's no pressure, really.  Tired?  There's always the morning, or another day, or even another week.  We know that we're always there for each other -- sexually and non-sexually.  That's the important bit.  Even when we say 'no' to each other, it's not rejection, it's just 'later.'

[8circles]

Your posts got deleted???

 

I can't imagine why that would have been necessary. Did you notice if anyone else's posts were deleted as well?

No, Albeto's is there but edited to be blank. I can't tell about any other b/c I'm on my phone but albeto's deleted post is still quoted in several places which makes me think something was wrong with mine. Apparently I'm breaking board rules left and right today. Irritating. Now you can't even follow the conversation.

[WishboneDawn]

No, Albeto's is there but edited to be blank. I can't tell about any other b/c I'm on my phone but albeto's deleted post is still quoted in several places which makes me think something was wrong with mine. Apparently I'm breaking board rules left and right today. Irritating. Now you can't even follow the conversation.

I've still got a post quoting her that hasn't been removed. I'm baffled.

[Catwoman]

No, Albeto's is there but edited to be blank. I can't tell about any other b/c I'm on my phone but albeto's deleted post is still quoted in several places which makes me think something was wrong with mine. Apparently I'm breaking board rules left and right today. Irritating. Now you can't even follow the conversation.

I hate it when that happens. I have had it happen to me, too, and it messes up the flow of the discussion and often makes subsequent posts sound out of place.

 

It doesn't make sense that your posts would have been removed. I wish the moderators would post a comment when they delete posts or lock a thread. Sometimes they do, and I always appreciate it.

[Catwoman]

I've still got a post quoting her that hasn't been removed. I'm baffled.

And it's not like anyone stayed angry -- or even annoyed. I got the impression that there was a misunderstanding, but that it got cleared up and the thread moved on.

[*Lulu*]

Your posts got deleted???

 

I can't imagine why that would have been necessary. Did you notice if anyone else's posts were deleted as well?

*raises hand*

 

Mine were

 

And......

 

Feel free to PM me if you are in the know about what happened.

 

I'm curious.

[Catwoman]

*raises hand*

 

Mine were

 

And......

 

Feel free to PM me if you are in the know about what happened.

 

I'm curious.

Forget about PMs. I'll just tell you. :D

 

If I'm thinking of the right thing, albeto posted a comment and a few people took it the wrong way. A few posts went back and forth, and in a short while, it was agreed upon that albeto hadn't meant her comment in the way that it had been interpreted, and all was well.

 

It really wasn't a big deal, and it was resolved very quickly. That's why it seems so odd that posts were removed.

[*Lulu*]

Forget about PMs. I'll just tell you. :D

 

If I'm thinking of the right thing, albeto posted a comment and a few people took it the wrong way. A few posts went back and forth, and in a short while, it was agreed upon that albeto hadn't meant her comment in the way that it had been interpreted, and all was well.

 

It really wasn't a big deal, and it was resolved very quickly. That's why it seems so odd that posts were removed.

See,that is what I thought too.....

 

Except several of my posts that were not even quoting Alberto were deleted as well.

 

So I suppose someone took offense to the fact that I shared a quote from a minister I know about cold beer, profanity, and theological discussions and reported me.

[FO4UR]

I don't think most people watching the Duggars on television have the slightest clue about Gothardism. They have probably never even heard of it. I think they watch the Duggars because Michelle and Jim-Bob have a zillion children who all seem kind of sweet, and they get interested in how the family manages so well with all of those kids. Sure, the Duggars dress differently and act differently than the "average" American family, but that just makes them a novelty. I don't think many people look at the Duggars and say, "Gee, I'd like to live like they do."

 

 

 

The biggest danger is for new converts to Christianity.  Women just want to be the best person/wife/mother that they can be and stumble upon these things...and go searching out for ways to learn to be a "better Christian."

 

 

It does happen.

 

 

Again, the Duggars seem genuine and good.  That's what makes this an interesting topic to discuss...the disconnect between what we expect to come out of the Gothard-movement, and what we see of the Duggars.

[*Lulu*]

See,that is what I thought too.....

 

Except several of my posts that were not even quoting Alberto were deleted as well.

 

So I suppose someone took offense to the fact that I shared a quote from a minister I know about cold beer, profanity, and theological discussions and reported me.

Maybe the joke about the dead rabbit in the swimming pool on Easter Sunday would be less offensive?

 

Or maybe only if I point out that the joke was made by my now deceased, Vietnam veteran turned minister grandfather........

[mommymilkies]

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure at least one of my posts were deleted, too. 

[marbel]

See,that is what I thought too.....

 

Except several of my posts that were not even quoting Alberto were deleted as well.

 

So I suppose someone took offense to the fact that I shared a quote from a minister I know about cold beer, profanity, and theological discussions and reported me.

 

Why would that be offensive?   I thought the minister's comment about profanity was odd, but what could make it worthy of reporting?

[JustEm]

I was reading through the comments while they were deleted. It was quite disoriented clicking on page 5 and nothing making sense so going back a page and not seeing anything I had just read. Very annoying. This seems to happen too often with no explanation. I already feel guilty wasting time reading these threads now I feel like I really wasted time because I read a convo that doesn't actually exist😋