Josh goes home for the holidays

[nokidsmom]

2 hours ago, nastyhobbitses said:

So there are a lot of people I guess I need to respond to because things got a bit heated, so I guess here's my blanket response:

I think I was projecting a lot of my personal feelings and tendencies onto Josh and Anna's situation. I'm the sort of person who will cut people out of my life entirely if they betray me, hurt me, or prove to be shitty people with no redeeming factors/use to me. And, well, Anna's probably not that sort of person. And while I do think that given Josh's history and behavior he's not going to change, it was wrong of me to make thinly veiled, essentially baseless accusations/implications that he would hurt or did hurt his children.

That said, nothing in the world would make me happier than to see Anna realize that Josh is a really shitty, selfish weight on her shoulders and she should start life anew with someone who truly loves and respects her. And maybe I'm way off here because I have zero experience with divorce or estrangement, but why should the kids HAVE to have a relationship with a father who cares little for their mother and the family unit as a whole? Yet again, that's my "this person is a total dick and isn't giving me money, so I do not have to deal with them" policy talking, but I don't get the whole "you need to have a relationship with your parent(s) even if they're horrible people" thing. I guess it's because they're little and it would be a different story if they had the capacity to choose what sort of relations they'd have with him, but my point is that you're not obligated to stick with someone who doesn't treat you right just because they share DNA with you.

I agree that if Josh is coming back and Anna's taking him back, the best thing to do is to salvage what's left of their relationship and develop strategies to keep Josh on the straight and narrow. God only knows what those would be.

I get what you are saying as I am the sort who has cut off people who have hurt or betrayed me.  However, the point at which I have done this has varied depending on the situation, it's not been a clear cut thing every single time.  I can see why people don't necessarily do it right off the bat (as maddening as it is) and I can see why Anna has chosen to take Josh back even though I personally think she would be better off without him.   Namely because he's pretty messed up with no likely hope of improving between getting no real help plus there's serious questions of whether he will stay on the straight and narrow, thereby hurting Anna and his family again.  IME one person I did cut completely off was someone who was seriously fucked up and a messed up childhood.   Like Josh.   Who also believed he could pray his problems away when what he really needed was real therapy.   Like Josh.  But I digress.

Yes, Josh has betrayed his childrens' mother and has shown disrespect to the family unit.  However, while his actions have shown to be a bad husband it doesn't necessarily follow that he's a bad father.   The children are all very young, they have no idea of why daddy isn't around but they will learn eventually and perhaps pass judgement later.     They may need to reconcile what their dad did to their mother and to the family along with their own experience of him as their dad, which could be quite different.  This is assuming Josh comes back and manages to remain with the family long term of course.  There's still that emotional bond with him to consider as well.    And one of the consequences Josh may have to deal with is how his children view his actions when they are of an age and maturity to understand.   But in the meantime, there's no real reason for them to not have a relationship with him. 

 

 

 

[Whoosh]

What we "know" from all accounts, including the pig's mouth:

- He molested 5 children while he was a child (4 were his sisters, one was very young)

- He had reason to make a public apology and it appears that the trigger for that was being caught spending a large (to most people) sum of money in an effort to seek out (vanilla) extramarital sex.

- He pretty much made a life and career our of attacking and condemning people who (for the most part) lead perfectly normal lives because he disapproves of some of their behavior - notably their choice of adult consensual sexual/marital partners and activities.

- He had a messed up childhood.  His parents don't seem to have gotten him appropriate help in the past and we don't know if he is getting any help (appropriate or not) currently.

I guess I just don't see "innocent" as a word that applies to the man here, whether or not he actually assaulted a woman (an illegal act) he paid for sex (another illegal act). 

If people are going to flip their shit over speculating on things, I would be more comfortable if shit were flipped over speculation in a more egalitarian way.  Makes no sense to me that we should do so selectively just because what someone wants to believe supports harsh speculative comments about one person and not another when it is ALL speculation.

[actuallyjessica]

If TLC do have a Josh homecoming special, I wonder what they'd call it?

19 Scandals & Counting?
Josh Duggar: From Coming On, to Coming Home?
 

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

For gods sakes. Innocent till proven guilty was in response to the idea that we don't know if he's harmed his children. There is NOT A SINGLE OUNCE of proof that he's even lifted a finger against his children, let alone molested or sexually desired his daughters. 

[Whoosh]

30 minutes ago, DuggarsTheEndIsNear said:

For gods sakes. Innocent till proven guilty was in response to the idea that we don't know if he's harmed his children. There is NOT A SINGLE OUNCE of proof that he's even lifted a finger against his children, let alone molested or sexually desired his daughters. 

Agreed. And there is absolutely no basis for saying he is a pedophile.  I personally feel quite comfortable saying I worry for Anna and the kids, however.  

That said, it isn't up to any of us to make the decisions with regards to this family's future.  I wish the best for Anna and the kids (and for Josh too, if that is compatible with the first bit).

[sawasdee]

17 minutes ago, DuggarsTheEndIsNear said:

For gods sakes. Innocent till proven guilty was in response to the idea that we don't know if he's harmed his children. There is NOT A SINGLE OUNCE of proof that he's even lifted a finger against his children, let alone molested or sexually desired his daughters. 

I totally agree! Yes, we know what happened with his sisters, and it is appalling. BUT, I know we all reference him as a 15 year old when it happened, but I have my reservations as to his emotional/intellectual age. This is a family where the offspring are infantilised, in terms of independent growth, and I believe that played into the abuse. I think his developmental age may have been much younger - at doctor and nurses age. He has now spent time away from the TTH, and I think has matured to some degree. There is absolutely no evidence that he has continued to have a sexual interest in children - in fact, evidence to the contrary. With this in mind, I feel we should let this family try and work their way out of their problems with infidelity, without implying, without evidence, that there is more at stake.

[nokidsmom]

11 minutes ago, sawasdee said:

I totally agree! Yes, we know what happened with his sisters, and it is appalling. BUT, I know we all reference him as a 15 year old when it happened, but I have my reservations as to his emotional/intellectual age. This is a family where the offspring are infantilised, in terms of independent growth, and I believe that played into the abuse. I think his developmental age may have been much younger - at doctor and nurses age. He has now spent time away from the TTH, and I think has matured to some degree. There is absolutely no evidence that he has continued to have a sexual interest in children - in fact, evidence to the contrary. With this in mind, I feel we should let this family try and work their way out of their problems with infidelity, without implying, without evidence, that there is more at stake.

Agree that there's no basis that he's a pedophile and poses a risk to his kids.   And it's a good point that given how the kids in this family are infantilized it's very possible that Josh's emotional age at the time of the molestations would be much younger than his physical age, perhaps putting him on par, emotionally speaking, with the younger kids.  Look at Jill, how emotionally "young" she is and she's in her mid twenties.  I think it's fair to say that Josh, having separated from the family for some time, had done some maturing.  Maybe not as mature as he could be, but he's done some.

[Mercer]

4 hours ago, nastyhobbitses said:

And maybe I'm way off here because I have zero experience with divorce or estrangement, but why should the kids HAVE to have a relationship with a father who cares little for their mother and the family unit as a whole?

Children don't necessarily have to have a relationship with both parents, but in my experience working with kids and families, it can be very confusing and isolating for a child if one parent is cut off by the other parent when they're too young to have a say in the matter. Obviously there are cases where this has to happen anyway (if the child is unsafe with the parent, you're better off dealing with the child's confusion and anger) but in general if the parents can maintain civility in front of the child and convey the fact that they are working together to do what is best for the child, the child will feel more secure and safe.

Josh is part of these children, for better or worse. He contributed to making them. For Anna to act like there's nothing good about him would risk sending the message to the kids that anything they inherited from him isn't any good either. She is going to have to balance honesty with supporting her kids in the fact that this happened to them too, not just to her, and Josh will always be their father since he is the man she chose to have children with.

It may be that at some point Anna and the kids will have to cut ties with Josh for safety reasons. I hope that doesn't happen because it will mean they've been through further trauma, but it could turn out to be what is necessary. Barring that, though, even if their marriage doesn't work out, it's better for kids if parents didn't use withholding contact with the children to punish each other.

[missegeno]

Has this been posted somewhere? Looks like Fuckabee wants to pretend he never defended Josh, but rather defended Josh's victims. That's why the whole defensive post he made back in May refers to Josh but doesn't mention his sisters directly even once.

http://theslot.jezebel.com/outspoken-josh-duggar-defender-mike-huckabee-i-never-d-1749990622

[RosyDaisy]

I'd agree with you if Josh's behavior didn't involve molesting children the same age as his daughter, having extremely aggressive, rough, exploitative sex with a porn star, and paying thousands of dollars to a website to find him women to engage in these behaviors with. Anna and the children will be far better off without him. He is a danger to them, emotionally and physically.

THIS! A million times this! Josh IS a predator and a danger. The fact that he molested 5 girls as a teenager, makes it even more sickening, not less. And "aggressive, rough" sex with a porn star is just another layer of sickness.

[JenniferJuniper]

38 minutes ago, RosyDaisy said:

Josh IS a predator and a danger. The fact that he molested 5 girls as a teenager, makes it even more sickening, not less. And "aggressive, rough" sex with a porn star is just another layer of sickness.

I don't think we can definitively state he's a danger, but the indicators are not good here at all. Couple his past awful behavior with the fact that he was raised to look upon women as doormats, and I really think Anna is the one who is most likely to bear the brunt of any future anger or frustration.  That's my primary reason for saying Anna should get out. Cheating and exposing your wife and babies to disease is horrible enough, but we know the story of the little girl in the laundry room, and if Danica is telling even a partial truth, he gets off on the idea of knocking women around.

As to the posters saying the kids should have a father, that's true and of course he should have visitation rights if Anna did divorce him.  Unless she presented a convincing case why he shouldn't.

[RosyDaisy]

I still stand by what I said. He is very much a danger.

[EmCatlyn]

2 hours ago, JenniferJuniper said:

 

I don't think we can definitively state he's a danger, but the indicators are not good here at all. Couple his past awful behavior with the fact that he was raised to look upon women as doormats, and I really think Anna is the one who is most likely to bear the brunt of any future anger or frustration.  That's my primary reason for saying Anna should get out. Cheating and exposing your wife and babies to disease is horrible enough, but we know the story of the little girl in the laundry room, and if Danica is telling even a partial truth, he gets off on the idea of knocking women around.

As to the posters saying the kids should have a father, that's true and of course he should have visitation rights if Anna did divorce him.  Unless she presented a convincing case why he shouldn't.

We are not going to see Anna divorce Josh anytime soon.  For the sake of the kids, I hope those who predict that he is surely going to be physically and/or sexually abusive are wrong.