TLC Documentary on Sexual Abuse

[Librul]

I don't believe in any way shape or form that Michelle is a victim of any kind. Being an apologist for her is, in my opinion, dangerous. She is an adult person. She chose this and now imposes or tries to impose it on others because she loves the power, perks and fame it brings her. I have very little sympathy for Jill and Jessa at this point either.

RAINN and D2l have lost credibility with me, and my first intro to Erin Merryn, or whatever her real name is, was not positive.

[refugee]

She's not brainwashed. Not like what they did to the kids. She chose her current situation. She did not grow up superfundie, in the slightest. Someone else here kept trying to make this parallel, that Michelle is some poor delicate flower that grew up knowing nothing different than what she knows now. It's BS. She's no more a victim than my dog is a giraffe.

I beg to differ. Granted, I can't issue an opinion on whether she's brainwashed, or not.

But speaking from experience, I didn't grow up superfundie, either. I came to it as an adult in my 30s, eased into it, was pulled deeper and deeper, but by the time it got really weird and cultlike I had already been conditioned to misdoubt myself and any thoughts that contradicted what my mentors (and leaders, and "experts") said.

So yeah. It's possible she's brainwashed.

I don't know if she's capable of breaking free. It tears me up that I have a few friends still entrenched in the "church" we left, and other "churches" with the same destructive culture. I broke free. They're still living in it, and don't seem to understand what I tell them. It's like everything I say is filtered before it gets to them, even when we're talking face to face.

[roddma]

Both organizations emailed me and stated this when I queried them, and I've seen it on their FB pages. I think I saw it in an article, too, but for the life of me I can't remember which publication. I've read hundreds.

Without having read all 12 pages, don't forget the kids have a dad too who is as responsible.

[Mothership]

Finally got to watch my recording of the cluster**k.

I agree with posters who said that TLC probably had to rethink how to use the Duggars. After all, they promised the leghumpers that they'd be on the special. Has anyone seen positive responses to the special and/or the Duggar's participation? I don't follow the LH's blogs.

It did feel as if they were edited to be the least offensive and at least they weren't presented as experts. But, how come they weren't presented as victims?

DQ's comment about how great it was for her and her daughters to hear the information--what BS! If she truly thought they needed to hear the information--or valued what was being shared, then she would have brought along Jinger and Joy (assuming they're the other family victims) and for that matter--ALL HER GIRLS and Mack!

Wager that she didn't share anything from the seminar with the others when she got home!

[NotAnIncubator]

Finally got to watch my recording of the cluster**k.

I agree with posters who said that TLC probably had to rethink how to use the Duggars. After all, they promised the leghumpers that they'd be on the special. Has anyone seen positive responses to the special and/or the Duggar's participation? I don't follow the LH's blogs.

It did feel as if they were edited to be the least offensive and at least they weren't presented as experts. But, how come they weren't presented as victims?

DQ's comment about how great it was for her and her daughters to hear the information--what BS! If she truly thought they needed to hear the information--or valued what was being shared, then she would have brought aalong PLEASE REDACT and for that matter--ALL HER GIRLS and Mack!

Wager that she didn't share anything from the seminar with the others when she got home!

I get where you're coming from as far as including all the victims and maybe all the kids for their own safety but please don't speculate about the other victims. There's a big red banner at the top of the page that says in bold not to speculate for their privacy and safety.

[missegeno]

If DQ shared anything from the seminar with the rest of the family upon returning to TTH, I'm sure it was twisted to maintain the victim blaming she seems to love so much.

"Look at all these worldly people who didn't stay under their umbrella of protection! They had much worse happen than just some mild inappropriate touching. Our girls aren't even considered victims on the documentary, and obviously that's because we are so godly and what happened in our family wasn't actually a problem. Let's all do worksheets about what the young children who are labelled as victims did to bring the abuse upon themselves."

Ugh.

[EmCatlyn]

I get where you're coming from as far as including all the victims and maybe all the kids for their own safety but please don't speculate about the other victims. There's a big red banner at the top of the page that says in bold not to speculate for their privacy and safety.

I totally agree about no speculation, but didn't we agree in the earlier discussion of the Megan Kelly interview that it had to be those two because there were only 5 girls in the house at the time and once Jill and Jessa came forward, that excluded Jana?

Speculation is not the same as "coming to the only possible conclusion based on the facts."

I am mainly trying to clarify this so that I won't err in the future. :think:

[NotAnIncubator]

I totally agree about no speculation, but didn't we agree in the earlier discussion of the Megan Kelly interview that it had to be those two because there were only 5 girls in the house at the time and once Jill and Jessa came forward, that excluded Jana?

Speculation is not the same as "coming to the only possible conclusion based on the facts."

I am mainly trying to clarify this so that I won't err in the future. :think:

There were 5 girls in the house at the time, 4 of whom were molested. The official investigation and all FOIA info doesn't exclude Jana, just heavy speculation here for months (correct me if I'm wrong! Lots goes on here). The only ones able to be snarked on, from what ive lurked, are those that CHOSE to open this can of worms by going out in public, namely Jessa, Jill and Joshly of course.

On a side note:

The others are either unable to or unwilling to be outed and as a survivor of very similar circumstances (fundie-lite family, absent parents, 'mild inappropriate touching' from a sibling) you have no idea what these girls had to go through before during and after joshes 'confession' (i honestly think one of the girls told then he confessed but again, pure speculation) psychologically and there's also the fact that they're unmarried and many MANY men in this lifestyle see it as the women's fault so they're essentially views as 'broken, used, unclean girls' and if it was more than one incident per victim (highly likely) then the women are are viewed as 'wanting it' or not doing enough to prevent it. The married ones came out because it won't hurt their chances at finding a husband.

[EmCatlyn]

There were 5 girls in the house at the time, 4 of whom were molested. The official investigation and all FOIA info doesn't exclude Jana, just heavy speculation here for months (correct me if I'm wrong! Lots goes on here). The only ones able to be snarked on, from what ive lurked, are those that CHOSE to open this can of worms by going out in public, namely Jessa, Jill and Joshly of course.

My memory is that the discussion concluded that the police report had one girl who was working on her GED say that she had not been molested. This had to be one of the older girls, so when Jessa and Jill came forward, they essentially solved the problem of which one had not been molested.

Also, the police report makes it obvious that the laundry room victim and the victim who was being read to had to be the younger girls. What is still open to speculation (and thus off-limits) is which younger girl was which victim.

As I remember, the forum warning used to say not to speculate about the fifth victim until fairly recently expanded to include all possible as yet unidentified victims. I assumed that meant that FJ accepted that the family victims were known.

(I lurked all summer and I read the mentioned threads carefully, but I may be misremembering)

Anyway, it is useful to know that mentioning the younger girls as victims could still be considered "speculation."

On the more important subject of what girls in fundiedom suffer in terms of their reputation if they are known as molestation victims, I am aware of the problem, and I figured the married girls were the ones to come forward for that reason. It is really horrible and I am sorry you had to live through that.

[2manyKidzzz]

I took Mothersip's comment to mean she thought that All Female Duggars, including Mack, should be educated about "inappropriate touching". This would mean letting Mack know that NO ONE, and this could include any adult at all, should touch her.

Which I agree with and which probably won't happen. I don't think.

[Trynn]

Yeah, that's how I interpreted that as well. It's not speculation to think all the females in that family should receive some education on good touch bad touch.

[ShepherdontheRock]

I agree about needing to educate everyone in the family, regardless if they were victims or not.

But about the speculation- can a mod clarify, does this mean we aren't allowed to talk about the younger Duggar victims? The rule says "unknown" but they're pretty much known now, bc Megyn Kelley, the police reports, etc basically ruled out any other possibilities. It's fairly obvious about anyone other than them though...

[halcionne]

I agree about needing to educate everyone in the family, regardless if they were victims or not.

But about the speculation- can a mod clarify, does this mean we aren't allowed to talk about the younger Duggar victims? The rule says "unknown" but they're pretty much known now, bc Megyn Kelley, the police reports, etc basically ruled out any other possibilities. It's fairly obvious about anyone other than them though...

If you want to hear from a mod, you need to report your post. I will report this one. :)

[Fundie Bunny]

Why not just try to use our common senses?

Those two poor girls were victims. what happened was horrible. If they have decided agaist not facing the media, it is for a reason, whatever it is. If they don't speak about it, neither should we.

[Srilaura]

Why not just try to use our common senses?

Those two poor girls were victims. what happened was horrible. If they have decided agaist not facing the media, it is for a reason, whatever it is. If they don't speak about it, neither should we.

Because one person's common sense is another person's WTF.

[ShepherdontheRock]

Because one person's common sense is another person's WTF.

^ditto

I personally don't feel comfortable naming them bc they haven't been named in the media. Also, I'm wondering if it was really entirely their decision not to come forward as "Josh's victims." And RE speculating...it's not as if it's really speculating per se since there's no other possibilities.

The reason I'm asking is that people have named them here before, and I know the "unknown victims" was meant to apply to the identity of the NFV, as well as speculating on people who were ruled out as a possibility of being one of the 5 in the police report. If there's a rule against specifically naming the two victims in question unless or until they become public then I'd like to know, for future reference.

[EmCatlyn]

^ditto

I personally don't feel comfortable naming them bc they haven't been named in the media. Also, I'm wondering if it was really entirely their decision not to come forward as "Josh's victims." And RE speculating...it's not as if it's really speculating per se since there's no other possibilities.

The reason I'm asking is that people have named them here before, and I know the "unknown victims" was meant to apply to the identity of the NFV, as well as speculating on people who were ruled out as a possibility of being one of the 5 in the police report. If there's a rule against specifically naming the two victims in question unless or until they become public then I'd like to know, for future reference.

That is why I raised the question also. I agree that we should respect their privacy and not speculate on what was done to which one and how they feel, etc. But it seems silly to pretend that we don't know which four sisters admitted on the police report that they had been molested--especially in the context of a msg that mentions them as victims only to suggest that they and the other Duggar girls should have access to whatever information about abuse Michelle, Jessa and Jill had at the "staged for TV special" seminar.

[twinmama]

I'm watching -- Jill just spoke in the intro. "This kind of thing happens in other families all the time!" This is going to be a disaster.

So does murder, but that doesn't mean "hey, it's cool." They way they emphasize that it happens a lot makes me think they believe that because it's all over the place, it's okay and not a big deal. Even if there was molestation in every family, it would still be wrong and it would still be a big deal.

[EmCatlyn]

So does murder, but that doesn't mean "hey, it's cool." They way they emphasize that it happens a lot makes me think they believe that because it's all over the place, it's okay and not a big deal. Even if there was molestation in every family, it would still be wrong and it would still be a big deal.

Not to mention that there are a lot of things short of murder that happen in a lot of families that the Duggars would not be okay with. For example:

Masturbation

Birth Control

Drinking

Dating

Making out with your boyfriend / girlfriend

Premarital sex ...

I think what is going on is that for the Duggars molestation, especially by a young boy, is in the same category as the above. (And somewhat less bad than homosexuality, abortion and murder). So just as we might think people are being ridiculous if they act as if a young boy masturbating is a sign of major character flaws, the Duggars couldn't understand why we couldn't give Josh a pass on the molestation. After all he had repented and (they thought/hoped) not sinned in that manner again.

I think also that for Jill and Jessa it is reassuring that it happens in a lot of other families because it means they are not alone, not the only ones "tainted" in the way fundie girls are seen as tainted if it comes out they have been victims of molestation. For them, what Josh did has to be okay, otherwise what does it say about their family and them?

When they get to the infidelity scandal, it is fairly easy for the girls to detach and to judge/blame Josh. But they feel implicated in the molestation and therefore need to make light of it.

Just imho. :think:

Edited to add something.

[Coconut Flan]

ShepherdontheRock wrote:

I agree about needing to educate everyone in the family, regardless if they were victims or not.

But about the speculation- can a mod clarify, does this mean we aren't allowed to talk about the younger Duggar victims? The rule says "unknown" but they're pretty much known now, bc Megyn Kelley, the police reports, etc basically ruled out any other possibilities. It's fairly obvious about anyone other than them though...

No speculation means just that no speculation. Surmises can be made, but only two of the involved daughters have come forward so the others remain off limits.