Joshley Madison Pt 4: That Pig She Calls Her Husband

[Artemesia]

As part of the great newbie invasion of 2015, with this, my first post, I'm going to go against the grain here and risk the wrath of the board.

While I'm sure she's a fine woman, I don't have a lot of sympathy for Anna. I do think she should dump that dolt's sorry ass but I agree with others, she's unlikely to.

The reason I don't feel sorry for her is that by her own admission, she knew he molested his sisters 2 FULL YEARS before marrying him. And knowing she would very likely have many daughters with this man, she still married him? WTF?

And how in love could she really have been with him 2 years before they married anyway? When he confessed his indiscretions as a zit-faced 15-year-old, she should have run in the other direction.

I watched the show (streamed it, anyway) and really enjoyed it--in a circus, side-show kind of way--but I always got the idea that Anna was more in love with being a Duggar (and basking in the glow of the Duggar limelight)

that she ever was in Josh.

<>

I wonder if she really knew about the molestation ahead of time? This "confession" may have mentioned sexual indiscretion and sinning without being specific. Anna was a sheltered 18 year old and maybe figured he had viewed porn or masturbated. Or even if Josh had been completely honest, her parents may have told her that since he had confessed (gotten caught) then he was forgiven. It would have been downplayed like in the interview and Anna would have had no one else to talk to about it. I don't think she really understood the story until May, four babies into the marriage.

Another thing: their website is JA20. I'm sure Josh chose it. So why make such a public statement of the desired number of children if it was just a lie?

[Pretzel]

As part of the great newbie invasion of 2015, with this, my first post, I'm going to go against the grain here and risk the wrath of the board.

While I'm sure she's a fine woman, I don't have a lot of sympathy for Anna. I do think she should dump that dolt's sorry ass but I agree with others, she's unlikely to.

The reason I don't feel sorry for her is that by her own admission, she knew he molested his sisters 2 FULL YEARS before marrying him. And knowing she would very likely have many daughters with this man, she still married him? WTF?

And how in love could she really have been with him 2 years before they married anyway? When he confessed his indiscretions as a zit-faced 15-year-old, she should have run in the other direction.

I watched the show (streamed it, anyway) and really enjoyed it--in a circus, side-show kind of way--but I always got the idea that Anna was more in love with being a Duggar (and basking in the glow of the Duggar limelight) that she ever was in Josh.

<>

The only reason you're risking the wrath of the board is that you're acting against the rules, for crying out loud. READ the damn RULES!

[formergothardite]

No wonder the women get knocked up all the time. After two weeks of abstinence they go at it the week before ovulation, when the risk / chance of getting pregnant is highest. People who use natural family planning avoid having intercourse that week.

That is the point. You are supposed to be building an army for God.

Defrauder, I would suggest you read a bit more about Bill Gothard's teachings on sex and adultery because it isn't what is typically believed by Christians.

[nelliebelle1197]

That's assuming she knew what the molestation was. Could have been told inappropriate touching of girls. Or inappropriate behaviour. But doubt she was told the full truth. And even if she was she was raised by a funny prison ministery dad who believes heavily in redemption & wifely submission. She was the perfect girl for Josh to chose.

What is the full truth? I thought he touched girls inappropriately. You mean that the girls were his sisters? I don't think that would be as shocking to sheltered Gothardites than if he went out and molested strangers.

And Cate, it states clearly in the rules that we do not speculate that another Duggar will be molested. Stop. Thanks.

[Milly-Molly-Mandy]

JA20...I thought it was because they where both 20 when they got engaged/married?

[tcach]

What is the full truth? I thought he touched girls inappropriately. You mean that the girls were his sisters?

I really think there should be a sarcasm font. Or is this a way of smoking out newbies?

[Marissap]

JA20...I thought it was because they where both 20 when they got engaged/married?

I think there are a couple different theories about the "20".

[Marissap]

I wonder if she really knew about the molestation ahead of time? This "confession" may have mentioned sexual indiscretion and sinning without being specific. Anna was a sheltered 18 year old and maybe figured he had viewed porn or masturbated. Or even if Josh had been completely honest, her parents may have told her that since he had confessed (gotten caught) then he was forgiven. It would have been downplayed like in the interview and Anna would have had no one else to talk to about it. I don't think she really understood the story until May, four babies into the marriage.

Another thing: their website is JA20. I'm sure Josh chose it. So why make such a public statement of the desired number of children if it was just a lie?

The reason I think she DID know about the molestations is because to them, porn and molestation are not too different in terms of severity. So I honestly think they told her and Pa Keller a very mild version and they all just brushed it off.

[Walking Cat Bed]

As part of the great newbie invasion of 2015, with this, my first post, I'm going to go against the grain here and risk the wrath of the board.

The wrath isn't about "going against the grain", it's about breaking a rule that was JUST CLARIFIED YESTERDAY.

Speculating about the identities of people Josh Duggar molested is NOT allowed. At all.

THAT is why people are pissed off. Not because you're presenting a perspective we don't "all" share.

[Gimme a Free RV]

I posted this on the duggar pastor thread, but to answer your question, no- women never, ever get a free pass. Yes, if their husband commits adultery, they have a free pass for a divorce, but not for remarriage.

In the Fundie biblical universe men can get remarried if their wife commits adultery, but a woman can't get remarried if her husband commits adultery. (Otherwise the new marriage is viewed as an adulterous one; only death can end a woman's marriage.) And to get technical with you about the definition of adultery- a married man does not commit adultery if the woman he screws isn't married- only if that woman is married. But, a married woman, regardless of whether or not the man she screws is married- commits adultery either way. Two umarried heathens doing it well are only fornicators!

I'm not shitting you guys!! These are actual fundie biblical truths that have some rather obscure validity per the Letters of Paul.

I'd like to know where this idea is cited in the Epistles of Paul. Seriously.

[Jana814]

Unfortunately, for Anna I don't think it would be easy to leave, even if she has siblings or other family to live with and financial means. Her whole identity is wrapped up in being Anna Duggar. It always looked to me like she really enjoyed being one of them so turning from their lifestyle, media attention (the better kind), and all the family members would probably be a difficult transition for her. Hopefully there will be a way for her to ease into it and eventually get out of the cult.

Agree!!

[singsingsing]

Off the top of my head... it does seem in the OT that a married man can have sex with unmarried women who aren't his wife, but if he has sex with a married woman, that's adultery. In the NT Jesus tells everyone that anyone who divorces his wife (except for adultery) and marries another is committing adultery, and if a man marries a divorced woman he's causing her to commit adultery (interesting that Jesus puts the blame/responsibility for the woman's 'sin' on the man - but women couldn't divorce their husbands, only the other way around). Paul in his letters says that if someone converts to Christianity and their unbelieving spouse wants to leave them, they should let them go, but if they're happy to remain in the marriage they should let them stay, regardless of whether they convert. I don't recall Paul mentioning whether remarriage was okay in cases of separating from an unbelieving spouse, but it's been awhile since my last read through and I don't have a Bible handy to check.

I should also point out that despite the multiple wives/concubines/hand maids/prostitutes/mistresses the men in the OT apparently were allowed to have, modern fundamentalist Christians almost universally believe that the only moral union is the marriage of one man and one woman, and that a married man cheating on his spouse, whether the other person is single or not, constitutes adultery.

Edit: and Paul was definitely not okay with married men screwing unmarried women. Paul hated sexual immorality of all kinds and was very pro-monogamy. He thought it was best if people could just remain unmarried and celibate (part of this was because he believed Jesus's return imminent, so what was the point of reproducing?) but allowed that most people couldn't do that, which is where his famous 'it is better to marry than burn [with passion]' comes from.

(Edited one sentence for clarity)

[FreeJesusFromFundies]

I think she went back onto birth control after they had Josh, then had an unexpected pregnancy and miscarried.

When they went to the doctor (who clearly got his medical license from a packet of cornflakes) told them that the way The Pill sometimes work is to allow the women to get pregnant and then trigger a miscarriage. So JB and Michelle thought that they had killed their baby- and I think that's what triggered the descent into craziness.

This amazing piece of misinformation was taught to me years ago as to why hormonal birth control (the pill specifically) was sinful. It used to be touted as fact in tracts at Christian pregnancy centers. :roll:

[polecat]

As part of the great newbie invasion of 2015, with this, my first post, I'm going to go against the grain here and risk the wrath of the board.

While I'm sure she's a fine woman, I don't have a lot of sympathy for Anna. I do think she should dump that dolt's sorry ass but I agree with others, she's unlikely to.

The reason I don't feel sorry for her is that by her own admission, she knew he molested his sisters 2 FULL YEARS before marrying him. And knowing she would very likely have many daughters with this man, she still married him? WTF?

And how in love could she really have been with him 2 years before they married anyway? When he confessed his indiscretions as a zit-faced 15-year-old, she should have run in the other direction.

snipped

bbm -- I take her knowledge with a huge heaping tablespoon of salt. Did she know who his victims were, or was she told that he'd had inappropriate relationships (or touching) in general? Was she fully apprised of the extent of his activities? I just have my doubts. I would fully expect her to have been told that he'd had physical contact with a girl (or girls) in the past, but it was all over now and he was a changed man, etc.

As for being in love -- what does she really know of love? She's been sheltered and forbidden from having any relationships because of the fear of "giving pieces of her heart away." This may have been the first crush she'd ever had, and all the adults around her were telling her that she loved him and would love him more as time went on.

Basically, she was naive and sheltered and undereducated and ignorant. So yes, she has my sympathy and will continue to have it until/unless she displays the same proclivities and perversities that he does.

[Queen Of Hearts]

I think there are a couple different theories about the "20".

At the time of their engagement/marriage they made a big deal about both of them being 20 when they were engaged/married... as I recall, they even went on the speaking circuit to encourage young adults to have a godly courtship and they made a big deal about waiting until they were 20. At the time, I remember thinking how stupid the website url was because they wouldn't be 20 forever.

[polecat]

Please tell me I'm reading this wrong and you don't think your son should only be with someone who he can get pregnant. Women who are infertile deserve love too.

I'm not the op, but that's not at all how I read that. There are plenty of young ladies who think they can't get pregnant and avoid using birth control because of it. But they can and sometimes do get pregnant unintentionally (and some get pregnant intentionally). You (general) need to teach your kids to use birth control each and every time regardless of what they believe or know their fertility is if they do not want a baby.

eta: too early in the morning

eta again: WAY too early in the morning. No more posting before coffee.

[Ali]

Off the top of my head... it does seem in the OT that a married man can have sex with unmarried women who aren't his wife, but if he has sex with a married woman, that's adultery. In the NT Jesus tells everyone that anyone who divorces his wife (except for adultery) and marries another is committing adultery, and causing the woman to commit adultery (interesting that Jesus puts the blame/responsibility for the woman's 'sin' on the man - but women couldn't divorce their husbands, only the other way around). Paul in his letters says that if someone converts to Christianity and their unbelieving spouse wants to leave them, they should let them go, but if they're happy to remain in the marriage they should let them stay, regardless of whether they convert. I don't recall Paul mentioning whether remarriage was okay in cases of separating from an unbelieving spouse, but it's been awhile since my last read through and I don't have a Bible handy to check.

I should also point out that despite the multiple wives/concubines/hand maids/prostitutes/mistresses the men in the OT apparently were allowed to have, modern fundamentalist Christians almost universally believe that the only moral union is the marriage of one man and one woman, and that a married man cheating on his spouse, whether the other person is single or not, constitutes adultery.

Edit: and Paul was definitely not okay with married men screwing unmarried women. Paul hated sexual immorality of all kinds and was very pro-monogamy. He thought it was best if people could just remain unmarried and celibate (part of this was because he believed Jesus's return imminent, so what was the point of reproducing?) but allowed that most people couldn't do that, which is where his famous 'it is better to marry than burn [with passion]' comes from.

The New Testament that leaders in the church, such as deacons, must be married to one woman. This may be what led away from multiple wives and concubines.

[punkiepie]

I'd like to know where this idea is cited in the Epistles of Paul. Seriously.

Here are some of the bible verses that pertain to the adultery rules. Not everything in Fundie land is actually clear cut and spelled out in the bible- they take phrases or implications and create extra-biblical laws from them- like at my old church, women weren't allowed in the sanctuary with the color red on because red was the color of harlots!

Mark 10:11-12

He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

Luke 16:18. "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Matthew 5:31-32 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Matthew 19:9- "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

1 Corinthians 7:10-14 and 39- To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace... A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord."

[singsingsing]

The idea that most men had multiple wives and concubines is just not true, no matter what the time period. Many rich men did, sure, but the vast majority of men were not rich. They could only afford one woman. And there were a finite number of women. There's a reason the FLDS has to constantly kick out scores of young men - polygamy does not work on a large scale. Paul most definitely did not invent monogamy.

[Snarkylark]

True, but some women are more aroused during menstruation. One (fundie-lite?) publication I saw lately stated that that part of the Levitical code was to prevent prolapsed uteri and endometriosis resulting from the contractions of orgasm sucking uterine lining upward. (I think that was the explanation.) Friend Google gives me nothing to support this. Do any of you know if there is the slightest substantiation for this?

My bet is that a woman is more likely to have a prolapsed uterus after having 19 children than she is from an orgasm. Are fundie women even allowed to orgasm? And as far as the abstinence rules- how stupid! That can actually hinder pregnancy if a woman has irregular cycles and it also doesn't make sense of having a bunch of children is the goal and if a man should be entitled to sex when ever he wants it why put rules on it?? I guess at least the woman gets a little break but what if she wants to have sex during the week after her period? I know that's when I ovulate and desire sex the most. It just doesn't make any sense. And I was brought up very religiously conservative and never heard anything like those rules.

[singsingsing]

I know, I was just thinking - some women ovulate early in their cycle. If they're following this rule they might be missing their chance to conceive every single month, thus defeating their entire purpose. I wonder if they discovered that, would it be acceptable for them to bend the rule? I'm guessing yes, since getting pregnant trumps almost every other concern.

[Marissap]

I know, I was just thinking - some women ovulate early in their cycle. If they're following this rule they might be missing their chance to conceive every single month, thus defeating their entire purpose. I wonder if they discovered that, would it be acceptable for them to bend the rule? I'm guessing yes, since getting pregnant trumps almost every other concern.

Well then those families won't be special enough to further the gothard cause!

I wonder in this case if they would follow the science behind charting cycles to "fix" the issue.

Edit because autocorrect changed gothard to "got hard" rofl. Close enough!!

[BarrelOfJays]

To start out, here are the rules Gothard lays out as “God’s laws on abstinenceâ€:

What Are God’s Guidelines for Times of Abstinence?

During the menstrual cycle—Ezekiel 18:5-6

Seven days after the menstrual cycle—Leviticus 15:28

40 days after the birth of a son—Leviticus 12:2-4

80 days after the birth of a daughter—Leviticus 12:5

Well, this would put me between the sheets right at ovulation! Typically menstruate 3-4 days. Then my automatic week off after that, would put me directly in the sweet spot for conception. Almost exactly 10 days after the first day of menstruation. Right when the magic is most likely to happen. No wonder they are so successful in building their army for the Lord!

ETA: newbie enough to still be navigating quoting people's posts. Sorry, I'll learn! :embarrassed:

[Flyinthesoup]

Here are some of the bible verses that pertain to the adultery rules. Not everything in Fundie land is actually clear cut and spelled out in the bible- they take phrases or implications and create extra-biblical laws from them- like at my old church, women weren't allowed in the sanctuary with the color red on because red was the color of harlots!

Mark 10:11-12

He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

Luke 16:18. "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Matthew 5:31-32 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

Matthew 19:9- "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

1 Corinthians 7:10-14 and 39- To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace... A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord."

Based on the passages of scripture you have posted here, the standard of divorce/remarriage applies equally to men and women. Perhaps your church had additional rules that twisted those scriptures?

To the bolded and underlined, I have only ever heard that in relation to one group, the Mennonites, and it pertained to wearing the color red at any time. Do you mind me asking what religious group/church you were a part of?

[lascuba]

I know, I was just thinking - some women ovulate early in their cycle. If they're following this rule they might be missing their chance to conceive every single month, thus defeating their entire purpose. I wonder if they discovered that, would it be acceptable for them to bend the rule? I'm guessing yes, since getting pregnant trumps almost every other concern.

Orthodox Jews call it halachic infertility and I believe there's some leniency for a day or two, but if your cycle is shorter than that they take medication to delay ovulation. Whether these wannabe OT compliant Christians have a similar set-up, who knows, but I doubt it. I don't get the impression it's a hard and fast rule for them.