Josh Duggar Admits Molestation of 5 Juveniles - Part 6

[happy atheist]

 

!

{TEXT1}:

I would like to remind everyone to read before you post. Yes, the thread is moving fast, but suck it up and read at least a page or two. The conversation runs a lot more smoothly when new people aren't popping up to post the same link over and over and over. Nobody earns any prizes for being the first to post something.   And if you refuse to read the thread before you post, don't act butt-hurt when other people call you out on it.

 

Police Report: viewtopic.php?f=87&t=26063

 

Part 1: viewtopic.php?f=87&t=26047

Part 2: viewtopic.php?f=87&t=26066

Part 3: viewtopic.php?f=87&t=26077

Part 4: viewtopic.php?f=87&t=26105

Part 5: viewtopic.php?f=87&t=26130

 

Josh, the oldest Duggar child, admitted to molesting five young girls when he was 14 years old.

It's clear that 4 of his victims were his sisters, who, at the time, ranged in age from 4 - 12.

 

19 Kids and Counting has been pulled from the air, but not officially cancelled (yet). A lot of advertisers are dropping out.

[Snarkle Motion]

I'm very much trying to respectful of this forum and the rules and to attempt to curb my thoughts and speculation. I understand there is a history here and that commenters have a responsibility not to needlessly spread unsubstantiated malicious rumors. But at the same time, I think shutting down ANY speculative conversation about adult political and public figures because the media might read it and run with the story is placing undue responsibility on random anonymous internet commenters and not on the media. It feels a bit ironic that a forum devoted to discussing patriarchy and rape culture seems to be subtly practicing some of the same techniques. These are in NO WAY comparable or even remotely on the same level but just thought it was interesting that it has a similar flavor.

And then we have new people who are just trying to process this news story who are being personally attacked, shamed, and their motives questioned. One of my first comments out of lurkdom was attacked as being fishy and suspecting me of being from the media or looking to stir up trouble when honestly I don't know where else I can talk about this and voice my thoughts and would hate to lose really the only place I feel I can go to for this type of conversation.

The idea that people should have to censor reasonable speculation or thoughts because the media might do something inappropriate with it just feels a little too close to michelle's "its women's responsibility not to cause desires that cannot be righteously fufilled." Not saying that we shouldn't put the kibosh on ridiculous rumors but instead of shaming commenters can we just provide facts to contradict them? A lot of the things that people are claiming are absolutely false do so without giving any reason or evidence and just go straight to accusations and name calling.

[treemom]

You do understand you aren't a victim here right? I think we should be careful because there are actual human beings on the other side of this. Human beings we now know we sexually assaulted. Speculating about that assault or things around can hurt them.

Btw burden is on the affirmative to prove their accusations are true or their speculations have merit. Not others to disprove them.

[halcionne]

This is interesting. So despite an expired SOL, they went ahead and investigated the home and then Josh countered the findings?

2007, part of the stipulation was that he could no longer be in the house???? Quickly married in 2008.

I'm not sure there's anything new in that article. Sassy, that's how I interpreted the police report to begin with (your bit about investigating--the report talked about a FINS, etc)

I don't want to know who their source is, except that I do want to know who their source is...

[happy atheist]

I'll repost something from Part 5 to help explain our position:

!

{TEXT1}:

Josh molested his younger sisters, and he has admitted to it. That's really bad enough. We don't need to keep inventing more terrible shit that he might have done. Yes, it is likely that he committed other crimes, but random people on the internet being "sure" that he must have done something is not going to prompt an official investigation. If you poke around in the backwaters of the internet and uncover other old posts akin to concernedmom's and Alice's, then by all means tell us about them. Tell reporters and investigative journalists about them. If you worked for Oprah and have access to inside info and/or footage, share away. If you work in the Arkansas legal system and know where the bodies are buried, dig them up and show them to us. Buzzard and Polabear and the others who are uncovering old lawsuits = the right way to approach this. Speculating that Josh probably also molested the cat and the mailman, and is the proud owner of his very own glory hole down at the truck stop = the wrong way to approach this. Stop rumormongering and behave like responsible adults. Even though this is the internet. If you spot egregious speculation, report it and we'll remove it.

[SassyPants]

I'm very much trying to respectful of this forum and the rules and to attempt to curb my thoughts and speculation. I understand there is a history here and that commenters have a responsibility not to needlessly spread unsubstantiated malicious rumors. But at the same time, I think shutting down ANY speculative conversation about adult political and public figures because the media might read it and run with the story is placing undue responsibility on random anonymous internet commenters and not on the media. It feels a bit ironic that a forum devoted to discussing patriarchy and rape culture seems to be subtly practicing some of the same techniques. These are in NO WAY comparable or even remotely on the same level but just thought it was interesting that it has a similar flavor.

And then we have new people who are just trying to process this news story who are being personally attacked, shamed, and their motives questioned. One of my first comments out of lurkdom was attacked as being fishy and suspecting me of being from the media or looking to stir up trouble when honestly I don't know where else I can talk about this and voice my thoughts and would hate to lose really the only place I feel I can go to for this type of conversation.

The idea that people should have to censor reasonable speculation or thoughts because the media might do something inappropriate with it just feels a little too close to michelle's "its women's responsibility not to cause desires that cannot be righteously fufilled." Not saying that we shouldn't put the kibosh on ridiculous rumors but instead of shaming commenters can we just provide facts to contradict them? A lot of the things that people are claiming are absolutely false do so without giving any reason or evidence and just go straight to accusations and name calling.

Further the rules for speculation are not evenly applied. What was acceptable 3 weeks might not be acceptable today,especially if you factor in the member making the comment, and might be perfectly acceptable again tomorrow.

When Jill's birth "stories" were the topic of conversation, we were reminded that FJ was more than a snark board and that snarking on words spoken by the family was not necessary, yet today there have been comments made that FJ IS a snark board.

[ThatsMyTaquito]

"ThatsMyTaquito wrote:

I just saw Jessa father in-law felt the need to comment his opinion:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts ... tive-says/

And read earlier on fb that Huckabee said on Sunday that Josh was possessed by a demon or something as such, as an excuse, did any one else hear this?"

nelliebelle1197:

"Can you point this out? There are 1000 comments on there."

I've seen it quoted twice, I thought maybe he had said it during the interview on Sunday. But can not find it.

[Mylnijya]

I was reading back in Part 5 and several posters were processing how they might handle a situation like this with their own son. I was reminded of a podcast I heard from This American Life called Tarred and Feathered and it had a segment about a 19 year old boy who knows he is a pedophile but has never acted on that urge. The piece detailed some interesting realities about current research on the topic:

1. No one really knows what causes this

2. It is hard to get funding for any research surrounding this topic

3. Therapists don't want to work with pedophiles because of mandatory reporting laws.

4. There is currently no laid-out therapy plan for how to handle someone who has these sexual urges.

The boy who was interviewed tried to get therapy but was turned down several times even though he had never harmed someone. His mother eventually found him someone who works with addictions. He started an online support group for people who live with this but are committed to not ever harming a child. It was difficult to listen to him talk. But also showed how much researchers really don't know about this or what to do about it.

[halcionne]

Further the rules for speculation are not evenly applied. What was acceptable 3 weeks might not be acceptable today,especially if you factor in the member making the comment, and might be perfectly acceptable again tomorrow.

When Jill's birth "stories" were the topic of conversation, we were reminded that FJ was more than a snark board and that snarking on words spoken by the family was not necessary, yet today there have been comments made that FJ IS a snark board.

I speculated all up and down Jill's birth story, but it doesn't feel appropriate here. JMO. I do have thoughts and unanswered questions and what some members would probably consider conspiracy theories, but a lot of what I'm thinking has been said by someone else already. Either there's no answer, or I didn't like the answer, lol. Maybe there's a thread that would be more appropriate for hypothetical legal pondering, etc. I can stay on top of this thread, or I can read the rest of the forum; I can't do both right now, so I'm staying mostly in here.

[2manyKidzzz]

I went to People.com to see the new cover as it was mentioned the Duggars are on it, as we all knew they would be.

Well, they are NOT focusing on the TV SHOW!! No, they are focusing on their FAITH and EACH OTHER.

No mention of their children. Maybbe it's somewhere buried in the actual article.

I am a new poster, and an old lady, so be patient with me!! I am grateful to all of you for the information you have uncovered. Those younger 18 children are so great. I am so sad about this.

[Snarkle Motion]

You do understand you aren't a victim here right? I think we should be careful because there are actual human beings on the other side of this. Human beings we now know we sexually assaulted. Speculating about that assault or things around can hurt them.

Btw burden is on the affirmative to prove their accusations are true or their speculations have merit. Not others to disprove them.

Yes, I know I'm not a victim in this case but that does not mean I haven't been a victim of sexual abuse. And when trying to talk about what happened and speculate that others might have been impacted I was told "don't talk about these things because they might hurt the accused" or that "why do you keep bringing things up to cause trouble, can't you just get along?".

Burden is on the affirmative in a case of law. But I thought this was an internet forum? And in science you can't prove a positive but rather disprove a negative. Is it really important who follows who on twitter - no. I don't really care. Its inconsequential to me. But from a scientific perspective you cannot say its false and there's no evidence of fighting. Its just really weak evidence for something I feel is subjective and inconsequential. But instead of saying "THAT"S FALSE - WE KNOW THAT"S FALSE!" just say why you came to that conclusion - like the girls released a photo of them hanging out and they don't seem to be big on social media. Because until recently people could say that Josh's rumors were false and there was no evidence but its possible that had these rumors not continued to be discussed that this would never have come to light.

I'm not talking about in depth speculation of the abuse the girls suffered. I understand respect for the victims and for minors under 18. That's different. Just a general tone of shaming and attacking people that's really disappointing to see from free jinger.

[stacyf]

This article is about a family of conservative Christians from my neck of the woods in a similar situation:

jezebel.com/loser-son-of-alaska-state-senator-charged-with-sexual-a-1706919371

I guess my big question is why do these people dig their heals in so deep to maintain their beliefs when their own family members are the worst offenders. This guy called people using birth control lazy and does not want any sexual assault/boundary education in public schools. Alaska has one of the worst sexual assault rates in the country.

[bionicmlle]

"ThatsMyTaquito wrote:

I just saw Jessa father in-law felt the need to comment his opinion:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts ... tive-says/

And read earlier on fb that Huckabee said on Sunday that Josh was possessed by a demon or something as such, as an excuse, did any one else hear this?"

nelliebelle1197:

"Can you point this out? There are 1000 comments on there."

I've seen it quoted twice, I thought maybe he had said it during the interview on Sunday. But can not find it.

That'sMyTaquito -- This looks like another fake meme -- see Snopes: http://snopes.com/media/notnews/joshduggar.asp

I think this further underlines the wisdom of the first post of this thread.

[SassyPants]

I can understand The Duggars being protective of a 14 Josh, IF they had also been equally protective of their daughters and the 5th person involved. The seeking out of media fame and fortune in a quest to spread their Christian ministry- Nope, I do not get it. That flies in the face of logic and borders on less than healthy mental faculties (yep, speculation).

So I have been letting the fact that the abused might not feel victimized at all sink in.

Based on the above consideration, I am having trouble processing how I should feel in terms of the abused and the conversation at hand.

Is it worse if we considered them abused, if they have moved past those feelings, vs if we just stop talking about that element of JB's shitty decisions?

If the Duggars have all reconciled the incident, should that be enough and should the focus now turn to JB's fraudulent behaviors in terms of TLC and the public; his political ploys and interference?

[nana sew dear]

I was reading several sourced articles with links here and came across a list of TLC shows that have been cancelled because of one scandal or another. Does TLC not vet ANY of their reality "talent"?

I guess the participants of the TLC shows don't care that they are just the modern equivalent of the freak show because $$$.

[SassyPants]

I was reading several sourced articles with links here and came across a list of TLC shows that have been cancelled because of one scandal or another. Does TLC not vet ANY of their reality "talent"?

I guess the participants of the TLC shows don't care that they are just the modern equivalent of the freak show because $$$.

TLC is a business- they care about money and they'll push the boundaries until the bottom line i$ affected.

JB has made his family a business. Clearly, he's only after $ too.

[VelociRapture]

I'll repost something from Part 5 to help explain our position:

]Josh molested his younger sisters, and he has admitted to it. That's really bad enough. We don't need to keep inventing more terrible shit that he might have done.

Yes, it is likely that he committed other crimes, but random people on the internet being "sure" that he must have done something is not going to prompt an official investigation.

If you poke around in the backwaters of the internet and uncover other old posts akin to concernedmom's and Alice's, then by all means tell us about them. Tell reporters and investigative journalists about them. If you worked for Oprah and have access to inside info and/or footage, share away. If you work in the Arkansas legal system and know where the bodies are buried, dig them up and show them to us.

Buzzard and Polabear and the others who are uncovering old lawsuits = the right way to approach this.

Speculating that Josh probably also molested the cat and the mailman, and is the proud owner of his very own glory hole down at the truck stop = the wrong way to approach this.

Stop rumormongering and behave like responsible adults. Even though this is the internet.

If you spot egregious speculation, report it and we'll remove it.

I seriously just giggled like a 13 year-old boy in Sex Ed class when you said that.

[mebeforee]

I was reading back in Part 5 and several posters were processing how they might handle a situation like this with their own son. I was reminded of a podcast I heard from This American Life called Tarred and Feathered and it had a segment about a 19 year old boy who knows he is a pedophile but has never acted on that urge. The piece detailed some interesting realities about current research on the topic:

1. No one really knows what causes this

2. It is hard to get funding for any research surrounding this topic

3. Therapists don't want to work with pedophiles because of mandatory reporting laws.

4. There is currently no laid-out therapy plan for how to handle someone who has these sexual urges.

The boy who was interviewed tried to get therapy but was turned down several times even though he had never harmed someone. His mother eventually found him someone who works with addictions. He started an online support group for people who live with this but are committed to not ever harming a child. It was difficult to listen to him talk. But also showed how much researchers really don't know about this or what to do about it.

I listened to that podcast too, and actually found it really interesting. The young man discussed how he didn't allow people who had harmed children in the past to join his support group unless they had reported the crime to the authorities, much less anyone who might still be molesting children. He also stated very clearly that he had never been sexually abused himself.

There does often seem to be a correlation between being a victim of sexual abuse and becoming an abuser and I've seen a lot of suggestions that Josh may have been abused before he assaulted his sisters and the other young woman. If he were a victim (which there's no evidence of) it wouldn't remove his culpability or responsibility for the molestations he committed, himself, but people really seem to be looking for the root of the problem and that's one of the first things that gets thrown out there. I've been reading the Abel and Harlow Child Molestation Prevention study that was linked somewhere that the Duggar situation was being discussed (I think the link was probably here but I don't recall who originally posted it) and it seems to indicate that there is a connection between the two. Something like 47 percent of abusers were found to have been victimized as children, which is a hugely significant statistic. It's not a majority, though, and it's clearly not the only factor that determines whether a person will become an abuser. It isn't necessary that Josh himself be victimized for him to victimize others. Even if it was the case I would be hugely surprised if Josh ever claimed that, although it might actually improve his image if he did, because I have a feeling that being a male victim of a male adult in their culture would be seen as more shameful somehow, because of their gender roles and attitudes about homosexual behavior (and the implication of most people wondering about it seems to be that it would have been an adult male offender, in that scenario, rather than a woman).

[hennypenny]

I'll repost something from Part 5 to help explain our position:

Josh molested his younger sisters, and he has admitted to it. That's really bad enough. We don't need to keep inventing more terrible shit that he might have done.

Yes, it is likely that he committed other crimes, but random people on the internet being "sure" that he must have done something is not going to prompt an official investigation.

If you poke around in the backwaters of the internet and uncover other old posts akin to concernedmom's and Alice's, then by all means tell us about them. Tell reporters and investigative journalists about them. If you worked for Oprah and have access to inside info and/or footage, share away. If you work in the Arkansas legal system and know where the bodies are buried, dig them up and show them to us.

Buzzard and Polabear and the others who are uncovering old lawsuits = the right way to approach this.

Speculating that Josh probably also molested the cat and the mailman, and is the proud owner of his very own glory hole down at the truck stop = the wrong way to approach this.

Stop rumormongering and behave like responsible adults. Even though this is the internet.

If you spot egregious speculation, report it and we'll remove it.

:clap: Yes. This. A thousand times over.

[VelociRapture]

I'm very much trying to respectful of this forum and the rules and to attempt to curb my thoughts and speculation. I understand there is a history here and that commenters have a responsibility not to needlessly spread unsubstantiated malicious rumors. But at the same time, I think shutting down ANY speculative conversation about adult political and public figures because the media might read it and run with the story is placing undue responsibility on random anonymous internet commenters and not on the media. It feels a bit ironic that a forum devoted to discussing patriarchy and rape culture seems to be subtly practicing some of the same techniques. These are in NO WAY comparable or even remotely on the same level but just thought it was interesting that it has a similar flavor.

And then we have new people who are just trying to process this news story who are being personally attacked, shamed, and their motives questioned. One of my first comments out of lurkdom was attacked as being fishy and suspecting me of being from the media or looking to stir up trouble when honestly I don't know where else I can talk about this and voice my thoughts and would hate to lose really the only place I feel I can go to for this type of conversation.

The idea that people should have to censor reasonable speculation or thoughts because the media might do something inappropriate with it just feels a little too close to michelle's "its women's responsibility not to cause desires that cannot be righteously fufilled." Not saying that we shouldn't put the kibosh on ridiculous rumors but instead of shaming commenters can we just provide facts to contradict them? A lot of the things that people are claiming are absolutely false do so without giving any reason or evidence and just go straight to accusations and name calling.

I mentioned this in another thread, but it might help explain things a bit.

When it comes to speculation, whether or not people consider it acceptable depends on a few things:

1. Is there evidence to back up the claim? Even a little evidence is better than none.

2. Is it a personal attack? For instance, saying that Jill is using the sling incorrectly and could wind up hurting Israel isn't a personal attack. Claiming that she obviously is doing it on purpose because she has PPD is a personal attack. The first is acceptable - the second is not.

3. Is it a useful comment or not? Speculating endlessly about how Jessa's nail color indicates she has a ton of inner rage waiting to be unleashed on some poor unsuspecting soul (usually her husband) is not useful for the conversation. Speculating about whether or not Jessa and Ben paid for their own wedding or Honeymoon - when neither appear to have employment beyond TLC or Boob - is useful.

It really just comes down to those criteria.

Additionally, there is a difference between telling people that something isn't useful to speculate about and telling someone they aren't allowed to speculate about it - the first can be ignored if you want to. . . if the second is said by a Helpmeet though, you should definitely pay attention.

I do agree that things are a two way street. People calling out the speculation should take the time to at least say they will write a follow-up post with the evidence necessary to explain why the first person was called out. With the speed of this thread and the fact that the media is known to pick things up from here though, a lot of posters simply don't feel we have the time to explain. Josh did something terrible, but we shouldn't be making matters worse - if the media picks it up all it does is discredit the movement to end the show and draws attention away from what actually matters.

[happy atheist]

The devaluation of the word respect. You are as old as my youngest son would have been. So no need to teach me lessons about respect young lady. You may find me rude, but I am from another continent and a country where we are very honest with each other. Perhaps not very pleasant at times, but at least you know that somebody finds your posts infantile and irrelevant.

Oh for fucks sake, you're going to call someone "young lady" while demanding respect? :roll:

[latraviata]

Oh for fucks sake, you're going to call someone "young lady" while demanding respect? :roll:

Yes I do, I am 66.

I wasn't demanding respect, the young lady was.

[nana sew dear]

TLC is a business- they care about money and they'll push the boundaries until the bottom line i$ affected.

JB has made his family a business. Clearly, he's only after $ too.

You're right Sassy Pants. How appalling is it that they get all of those viewers? (I'm guilty) Like the saying, "You'll never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator".

(I'm desperately trying to change the subject without talking about nail polish.) :whistle:

[ThatsMyTaquito]

That'sMyTaquito -- This looks like another fake meme -- see Snopes: http://snopes.com/media/notnews/joshduggar.asp

I think this further underlines the wisdom of the first post of this thread.

Got it, just trying to see if he really said it, thought you all may know.

[Four is Enough]

I'd like to address the "therapy" that Josh received. It only lasted four months? That is a red flag right there. It's not enough.

Again, personal experience. We were already calling around to therapists when our son's court case came up. When my son was court-ordered to undergo therapy, we were recommended to a local therapy group. It was weekly, it was mandatory, it lasted "as long as it needed to last for the child to "get the point".. and it was rigorous.

Part one. Mandatory weekly group meetings with similar aged males.

Part two. Mandatory (every two week) group meetings, boys AND parents or people who loved them. Included parents/grandparents, aunts/uncles, sometimes older siblings.

Part three: Mandatory monthly to "as needed" interviews/therapy with the people raising the child.. so parents/grandparents, etc.. "as needed" came as the boy approached discharge.

Part four: "as needed" individual meetings, therapist/boy.

Part five: in cases of incest, (N/A in our case) there was the reunification attempt, when the boy was getting ready to come home and re-integrate with the family, including the victim.

The length of time for the boy to graduate from the course of treatment was not set. They told us that if our son made incredible progress, the very least amount of time would be a year. Most boys progressed through in 18 months to 3 years of therapy. Occasionally, (and this happened in our case) a boy would be recommended for "more intensive" therapy, meaning in residence at a juvenile treatment center.

The group setting, which JB "pooh poohed" for Josh, was a VITAL part of therapy for our son. The peers, as they called themselves, did two things: They provided a community for, say, our son, meaning he wasn't alone in having done this. NOT to improve techniques or approaches, but very much to discuss his motivations, his fear of being caught, his shame and embarrassment about the situation. Not only that, but the group was instrumental in keeping the bullshit factor at a minimum. NOBODY can spot an excuse like another person who has done the same thing you have, and the peer group themselves would shoot down an excuse or a justification for the lie it was.

The moderators , ALL trained mental health professionals, were there to mainly keep the conversation on track, to point out things, to ask pertinent questions. They introduced topics and encouraged the boys to discuss what they needed to do.

If Josh had nothing like this, he still has all his excuses and justifications stuck in his head.

The family group setting sat boy with family. Sometimes the boys presented things to the families, sometimes the families talked more about what their questions or problems were. Many boys, when first coming into group, would say things like "I wish my Mom would just stop crying".. and they would have to hear another Mom say, "We've ALL cried in this room." Sometimes the parents would talk, and it was clearly good for the boys to hear things like, "I was absolutely livid that this had happened, I couldn't believe it, I was sure it was a lie".. and THEN to hear, "but he is my son and I'm going to stand by him until we get this worked out and get through that."

If Josh didn't get this, I feel sorry for him.

Then the individual/boy meetings: sometimes a therapist could get a "resistant" boy to open up individually in therapy, and then progress could be made in group from there. My son was especially resistant to saying anything in group. Some progress was made in individual and boy/parent therapy, but it took him being put in a therapeutic residential setting to get him to really explore his issues.

I cannot believe that Josh received any treatment like I describe, although I am relatively certain that every state has such therapy available to help youth, both female and male, who have sexual behavioral issues.

The in residence treatment was even more rigorous: DAILY group. WEEKLY individual. WEEKLY family.

ETA: The therapy my son used, both community and in residence, were provided by the county, and we did not pay a cent. So no excuse that it isn't affordable will work, either..