Anna Duggar and the M Kids - Part 4

[Lizzybet]

17 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

17 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Because I think his adult actions suggest that he is not attracted by immature bodies............

 

I have to step in here to state that just because a man is attracted to adult women, it by no means precludes his being attracted to children.

In fact, it's pretty standard (among sexual deviants).

Most child molesters are in heterosexual relationships, and often, married.

[calimojo]

1 hour ago, Lizzybet said:

I have to step in here to state that just because a man is attracted to adult women, it by no means precludes his being attracted to children.

In fact, it's pretty standard (among sexual deviants).

Most child molesters are in heterosexual relationships, and often, married.

Well, of course you're right, but I think if Josh had continued to have sexual attractions to children, that might have shown up when the porn and AM scandal broke.  You just know people were scouring the internet for porn sites and dating sites he went to, and everything that was found, seemed to show interest in heterosexual sex with adults.  Now, it could be that Josh did go to sites that had kiddie porn and it just hasn't been found out.  And if it ever were, I just really think that would be the absolute nail in the coffin for the Duggars.

 

Personally, I don't care too much about the cheating scandal.  I mean it was 'fun' to snark about and such but at the end of the day,  affairs are pretty mundane and very unoriginal.    What shocks me to the bone is the molestation scandal and I find it extremely shocking that so many people ( not on here, but elsewhere) seem more disturbed by the cheating.  True, his cheating scandal was definitely more unseemly than most and the possible sexual abuse of the paid date he was with is very disturbing and definitely a marker for just how sick Josh is.  But I see all of that as really the outgrowth of whatever disturbance he had as teen that was never adequately treated or diagnosed. 

[EmCatlyn]

5 hours ago, Lizzybet said:

I have to step in here to state that just because a man is attracted to adult women, it by no means precludes his being attracted to children.

In fact, it's pretty standard (among sexual deviants).

Most child molesters are in heterosexual relationships, and often, married.

Just to clarify, the actions I was referring to were his interest in strip clubs, joining Ashley Madison, the way he answered questions on the OK Cupid profile, etc. 

You are right that being married/engaging in adult heterosexual relations, etc. is no guarantee that a person won't molest children.   My point was that there seem to be no evidence that, after he became an adult himself, he was interested in immature bodies.  He was not, apparently into kiddie porn, for example.

None of us can be sure that Josh won't molest a child again.  But that is not the same as saying that he surely poses a risk to his kids.  

[luv2laugh]

Anna did not have a nose job.  She has just lost a lot of weight, which will can make the nose appear smaller. Also, pregnancy can cause the nose to widen due to fluid retention and she is no longer pregnant.

[InThePrayerCloset]

7 hours ago, calimojo said:

Well, of course you're right, but I think if Josh had continued to have sexual attractions to children, that might have shown up when the porn and AM scandal broke.  You just know people were scouring the internet for porn sites and dating sites he went to, and everything that was found, seemed to show interest in heterosexual sex with adults.  Now, it could be that Josh did go to sites that had kiddie porn and it just hasn't been found out.  And if it ever were, I just really think that would be the absolute nail in the coffin for the Duggars.

 

Personally, I don't care too much about the cheating scandal.  I mean it was 'fun' to snark about and such but at the end of the day,  affairs are pretty mundane and very unoriginal.    What shocks me to the bone is the molestation scandal and I find it extremely shocking that so many people ( not on here, but elsewhere) seem more disturbed by the cheating.  True, his cheating scandal was definitely more unseemly than most and the possible sexual abuse of the paid date he was with is very disturbing and definitely a marker for just how sick Josh is.  But I see all of that as really the outgrowth of whatever disturbance he had as teen that was never adequately treated or diagnosed. 

I think we need to be VERY really careful of speculating or drawing conclusions about any potential sexual attraction to children. As has been discussed before, it is hard to draw any conclusions based on the police report released under FOIA - being conduct of a 15 yrs old. As has been said many times, the DSM definition doesn't kick in until 16 (arbitrary deadline, perhaps, but there's a lot of research behind it), and while we can guess at his "treatment", we can't assume to know everything that went on.

I also think its important that i express 2 unpopular opinions - 

1) As a lawyer, i also don't believe a hypothetical instance in which someone were to find child porn on Josh's computer is evidence that he has a current attraction to children. it is relatively common with someone with a mainstream sexual deviancy (completely legal, run-of-the-mill compulsive hooking up) or porn addiction to escalate their behaviour into more and more "deviant" ways (so 3somes, more and more partners etc), and often, in cases where people are accessing porn, this expresses itself in accessing illegal materials (whether involving kids, animals, snuff materials etc). in my work as i lawyer i have seen this commonly defended in court as not prima facie interest in kids or animals, but rather an addictive spiral of deviance. 

2) there is increasing research and public attention on those that are "celibate but attracted to children" (i.e. NEVER act on their urges) see this article in Salon http://www.salon.com/2015/12/29/im_a_pedophile_but_not_a_monster_2/ and the NPR This American Life http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/522/transcript. So please do not equate a sexual attraction to children and inherent criminality - while most often associated, to two are not inherently intermingled

 

 

 

 

[withaj]

37 minutes ago, InThePrayerCloset said:

I think we need to be VERY really careful of speculating or drawing conclusions about any potential sexual attraction to children. As has been discussed before, it is hard to draw any conclusions based on the police report released under FOIA - being conduct of a 15 yrs old. As has been said many times, the DSM definition doesn't kick in until 16 (arbitrary deadline, perhaps, but there's a lot of research behind it), and while we can guess at his "treatment", we can't assume to know everything that went on.

I also think its important that i express 2 unpopular opinions - 

1) As a lawyer, i also don't believe a hypothetical instance in which someone were to find child porn on Josh's computer is evidence that he has a current attraction to children. it is relatively common with someone with a mainstream sexual deviancy (completely legal, run-of-the-mill compulsive hooking up) or porn addiction to escalate their behaviour into more and more "deviant" ways (so 3somes, more and more partners etc), and often, in cases where people are accessing porn, this expresses itself in accessing illegal materials (whether involving kids, animals, snuff materials etc). in my work as i lawyer i have seen this commonly defended in court as not prima facie interest in kids or animals, but rather an addictive spiral of deviance. 

2) there is increasing research and public attention on those that are "celibate but attracted to children" (i.e. NEVER act on their urges) see this article in Salon http://www.salon.com/2015/12/29/im_a_pedophile_but_not_a_monster_2/ and the NPR This American Life http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/522/transcript. So please do not equate a sexual attraction to children and inherent criminality - while most often associated, to two are not inherently intermingled

So glad you brought up that This American Life segment -- I had meant to go digging for it but never got around to it.

[missegeno]

1 hour ago, InThePrayerCloset said:

I think we need to be VERY really careful of speculating or drawing conclusions about any potential sexual attraction to children. As has been discussed before, it is hard to draw any conclusions based on the police report released under FOIA - being conduct of a 15 yrs old. As has been said many times, the DSM definition doesn't kick in until 16 (arbitrary deadline, perhaps, but there's a lot of research behind it), and while we can guess at his "treatment", we can't assume to know everything that went on.

I also think its important that i express 2 unpopular opinions - 

1) As a lawyer, i also don't believe a hypothetical instance in which someone were to find child porn on Josh's computer is evidence that he has a current attraction to children. it is relatively common with someone with a mainstream sexual deviancy (completely legal, run-of-the-mill compulsive hooking up) or porn addiction to escalate their behaviour into more and more "deviant" ways (so 3somes, more and more partners etc), and often, in cases where people are accessing porn, this expresses itself in accessing illegal materials (whether involving kids, animals, snuff materials etc). in my work as i lawyer i have seen this commonly defended in court as not prima facie interest in kids or animals, but rather an addictive spiral of deviance. 

2) there is increasing research and public attention on those that are "celibate but attracted to children" (i.e. NEVER act on their urges) see this article in Salon http://www.salon.com/2015/12/29/im_a_pedophile_but_not_a_monster_2/ and the NPR This American Life http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/522/transcript. So please do not equate a sexual attraction to children and inherent criminality - while most often associated, to two are not inherently intermingled

 

 

 

 

This times eleventy! Where is the hand clapping emoticon?

[Buzzard]

Josh's issues are about power.  He was raised, as the eldest male, to believe that he held some magical ability to rule over women, children, and a family by the very fact that he has a penis.  His father is a controlling shit, and this likely caused a lot of strife for a growing smuggles.

Once smuggles was grown he successfully dominated Anna and his children, just as jebus told him that he should.  In reality, he conquered a doormat.  In the real world, unlike Boob, smuggles was a failure.  He failed at his car lot, his job was made up for him and obtained by daddy, and he had no real authority.  Sure, he rubbed elbows with some powerful people, but deep down smugs knew that his magical penis was little more than a pleasure wand.

Josh sought to achieve his god given power by dominating a "real" woman.  Someone out in the world, a heathen lesser than himself, with thoughts and the power to make decisions on her own.  Such a woman should bend under his superior position, even if he had to pay her to force her to bend to his will.  Smuggles found the control that he wanted by abusing her.

I believe that Josh has sexual issues, but it isnt about a tendency towards children, its about the link between sex and power/control.  The Duggars believe that a woman's duty is to be "available" whenever her husband feels the urge.  Sex is a form of submission, and he was brought up to believe that. 

[Four is Enough]

What Buzzard said. Josh is about power. So are all the older Duggar children.. Jill and Jessa basically control their husbands, or at least they've managed to work it so that the husbands bend to JB's, or the family's, or the Brand's specifications. Josh has carried it as far as he can without crossing a legal barrier. (This is completely discounting the childhood misbehaviors. We all know he was saved from the law that time.) I believe that at some point, Josh will cross that line.

[2manyKidzzz]

What Buzzard said, many times over.

I thought he just sold the car lot. Where did we know that it "failed"?

I don't care how it is defined, and I will never be near a Duggar, Josh or anyone. But anyone with a history of touching those younger than himself would not be allowed near children in my care. This would be say, a neighbor, friend, or family member. This is because the safety of the child must always come first. Definitions and categories do not always hold true in all cases. Protect the child. 

[Whoosh]

I am wondering why people seem to think that pedophiles are likely to reoffend but people who molest children that are NOT pedophiles are NOT likely to reoffend?  The distinction has NOTHING to do with that.  The likelihood of reoffending IS tied to the root cause of the molestation, yes.  So, if you are a pedophile (meaning that you are primarily or exclusively attracted to children), I think we would all agree that this would indicate there is a clear worry that a pedophile may reoffend AGAINST CHILDREN as the attraction to children is believed to be fixed and not likely to change.  Of course, we hope to prevent pedophiles from reoffending through treatment or restrictive punitive measures.

For child molesters who are NOT pedophiles - we need to understand WHY THEY OFFENDED in the first place in order to understand the likelihood that they might offend again.  MANY, MANY child molesters who are not pedophiles would be classified as at HIGH RISK of reoffending.  Some are not, but MANY are.  Again, we hope to prevent that through treatment or restrictive punitive measures.

Here is what people are saying about Josh - while he did molest a very young child, EVERYTHING ELSE we know about the man suggests that his primary object of sexual desire is NOT children.  If it were, we should have heard something that would indicate that after all that has gone down.  What people are saying is something like this - if someone had sat me down 20 years ago and told me what JB and Michelle believe and how they were raising their family and their future plans for child rearing, I would have said "Gee, that is really concerning to me for SO MANY REASONS.  One of those reasons is that this family is teaching 1) very fucked up messages with regard to sexuality and 2) total lack of consideration or respect for women and children in their sons.  Those teachings combined with a very repressive and restrictive upbringing may well result in one of the older sons having significant issues surrounding sexuality, power, and control.  While he is in that restrictive environment, I would be concerned this may well lead to inappropriate sexual acting out directed toward the most convenient victims.  Once he is out of that restrictive environment, I would be concerned that this inappropriate sexual acting out might continue and would be directed at individuals that he is primarily sexually attracted to.  If the environment continued to be quite restrictive, I would worry the targets would be whoever is most convenient."

Basically, as others have said, I believe Josh has no respect for women and children, serious issues surrounding power and control, and seriously fucked up ideas when it comes to sex and human sexuality.  That is a terrifying, horrid combination and I worry for ANYONE (even men) who are subjected to this man if he views them as "less than" himself. However, as long as he has the ability to do so, I think any potential future assaultive sexual behavior would be directed towards the types of people he preferred to look at when he viewed porn.  If he DOES go to strip clubs and he DID express interest in Dillon (even if most of her story is untrue), I would say that he seems to favor adult women.

All that said, we really have limited information and based on this limited information I would say that it is inappropriate to try to predict the likelihood of his sexually assaulting anyone in the future.  If the Dillon story is true, I would revise that to say he may well reoffend against adult women if given choices.  

Regardless of any of it, I would not let him near women, children, or anyone I cared about and that isn't all about sexual assault types of concerns AT ALL (though it is obviously an issue).  If my understanding of Josh is correct, he is likely to act in an offensive and potentially abusive manner towards all kinds of people and this may carry as far as sexual behavior.  It seems he is attracted to adult women, so that is where my primary concerns would lie with respect to the risk of future sexual assaults.

All THAT said, I really would not make any prediction about the risk of future sexually assaultive behavior without more information than I have at this moment.

ETA - regardless of anything, the total lack of any type of appropriate treatment or punishment aimed at rehabilitation creates a very concerning situation.

[Buzzard]

40 minutes ago, 2manyKidzzz said:

What Buzzard said, many times over.

I thought he just sold the car lot. Where did we know that it "failed"?

I don't care how it is defined, and I will never be near a Duggar, Josh or anyone. But anyone with a history of touching those younger than himself would not be allowed near children in my care. This would be say, a neighbor, friend, or family member. This is because the safety of the child must always come first. Definitions and categories do not always hold true in all cases. Protect the child. 

It didnt fail as in "went bankrupt," but it certainly wasnt successful.  They were buying cars at auction and selling them.  Based on what we saw on the website, they were not moving much volume.

Considering the easy tie in to Duggar towing, if it were even slightly profitable they would have kept it and let the J'boys run it.  Boob just sold the whole thing.

[EmCatlyn]

On January 3, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Four is Enough said:

Well, Whoosh, as I have discussed before, one of the Four, at age 15, molested younger child  . . .     <snip>

I don't understand the big to-do about whether or not a 15 year old is able to be labeled a pedophile as opposed to a 16 year old. All I know is that my son was so labeled from the beginning, from mental health professionals, police, and social workers. We won't even discuss how his name was dragged through the mud in our neighborhood and his school.  . . .

<snipped for brevity>

@Four is Enough Thank you for so generously sharing your family's experience with us.  You have lived through a parent's nightmare.  I am so glad that your son got the help he needed!  I agree that the real tragedy in the Duggar case is that neither Josh nor his victims got real help.

Regarding the section selected from your post above, I wanted to say that the reason some of us are insisting that Josh cannot be labeled a pedophile without further evidence is that in many cases, in the FJ discussion, the label is being used to indicate that we "know" that he is an ongoing and present danger to his younger siblings and children.  Some of us are arguing that we don't know any such thing.

This is not a "defense of Josh" but a call for a more moderate and thoughtful consideration of the relevant points.  One of these points is that before the age of 16 or so (some would say the age of 19 in boys) sexual behavior/sexual urges do not necessarily define what the person's sexual preferences will be as an adult.  Another is that, even as an adult, circumstances may lead a person to engage in sexual activity in a way that is not characteristic of his/her preferences.  

We do not know if Josh is/would be an a danger to children today (a) because he was under 16 when he offended and (b) because of the special circumstances under which he offended (his family's restrictive rules, the lack of privacy and his parents' exhibitionist sexuality) and (c) because without an evaluation/diagnosis of Josh's problem when he first offended, we can only guess at his proclivities.

You are right that the real issue is that Josh and his victims didn't get help.  The question is what are the consequences of his not getting help?  What will be the consequences this time around?

[EmCatlyn]

I agree with @Buzzard that Josh's issues are all about power and with @Whoosh that even if we were to determine that Josh "isn't a pedophile," that would not necessarily mean that he would not abuse children again.  (I also agree that finding kiddie-porn on his computer would not prove that he is sexually attracted to children.  But the absence of kiddie porn would suggest that maybe he isn't.)

I am not sure I agree that Josh's foray into Ashley Madison and encounters with Danica and so forth are caused by the desire to prove his manhood by overpowering others; I see it more as a way to gratify himself with the "forbidden."  It may have been an unconscious rebellion against his father and ATI.  It is possible that for a while he got his jollies in part from leading a double-life.  Fooling people is sometimes the ultimate power-trip.

[justoneoftwo]

1 minute ago, EmCatlyn said:

I agree with @Buzzard that Josh's issues are all about power and with @Whoosh that even if we were to determine that Josh "isn't a pedophile," that would not necessarily mean that he would not abuse children again.  (I also agree that finding kiddie-porn on his computer would not prove that he is sexually attracted to children.  But the absence of kiddie porn would suggest that maybe he isn't.)

I am not sure I agree that Josh's foray into Ashley Madison and encounters with Danica and so forth are caused by the desire to prove his manhood by overpowering others; I see it more as a way to gratify himself with the "forbidden."  It may have been an unconscious rebellion against his father and ATI.  It is possible that for a while he got his jollies in part from leading a double-life.  Fooling people is sometimes the ultimate power-trip.

I agree that we just don't know if he is a danger (in the way we are discussing, we could argue that the entire cult makes all of them a danger but we wouldn't win that in court).  I'm not sure we will ever know if he is or isn't a danger, barring court cases showing him to be one.  It is important to note that you can be a bad person, bad husband and so on and still not be a danger to your children and even be a good father.  It is a hard question and one that we often seem to take lightly.  

[Whoosh]

43 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

I agree with @Buzzard that Josh's issues are all about power and with @Whoosh that even if we were to determine that Josh "isn't a pedophile," that would not necessarily mean that he would not abuse children again.  (I also agree that finding kiddie-porn on his computer would not prove that he is sexually attracted to children.  But the absence of kiddie porn would suggest that maybe he isn't.)

I am not sure I agree that Josh's foray into Ashley Madison and encounters with Danica and so forth are caused by the desire to prove his manhood by overpowering others; I see it more as a way to gratify himself with the "forbidden."  It may have been an unconscious rebellion against his father and ATI.  It is possible that for a while he got his jollies in part from leading a double-life.  Fooling people is sometimes the ultimate power-trip.

I agree that his adult activities would not be concerning to me in terms of issues of power and control that might lead to sexual assault UNLESS he actually did exert his power and control against the rights and will of a woman by committing sexual assault.  Going on AM or having an affair isn't something that I think plays into the power and control types of sexual assault or abuse concerns.  Not at all.  Sexually assaulting a woman clearly would if it happened.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

10 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Just to clarify, the actions I was referring to were his interest in strip clubs, joining Ashley Madison, the way he answered questions on the OK Cupid profile, etc. 

You are right that being married/engaging in adult heterosexual relations, etc. is no guarantee that a person won't molest children.   My point was that there seem to be no evidence that, after he became an adult himself, he was interested in immature bodies.  He was not, apparently into kiddie porn, for example.

None of us can be sure that Josh won't molest a child again.  But that is not the same as saying that he surely poses a risk to his kids.  

This. I'm not saying that Josh is "a model citizen" and that "he's definitely a different person now than he was then." But, we need to refrain from saying he's a definite risk until there's proof. As you stated, it currently stands to reason that his actions were those of someone who is opportunistic. His opportunities are much wider now that he has access to the internet, is a legal adult, and can leave the house alone. Sure, those things will be limited when he returns back home, but probably not for too long because he just has to "prove" that Jesus camp cured him. I'm not sure how long it'll take Anna and the Duggars to believe that, but it might not even take them a few weeks, depending no how well he can manipulate them. I also think he'll get a lot better at his accounts and meetings. I don't think he'll make the mistake of using his own credit card or name again. I don't think he'll make the mistake of using an email that can be traced back to him again. And he may even turn to apps that he can easily and are more based on anonymous sex, like Tinder. He also now has a built in excuse of where he's going to be: job searching since he no longer has a job and daddy cant support him forever. 

3 hours ago, Buzzard said:

Josh's issues are about power.  He was raised, as the eldest male, to believe that he held some magical ability to rule over women, children, and a family by the very fact that he has a penis.  His father is a controlling shit, and this likely caused a lot of strife for a growing smuggles.

Once smuggles was grown he successfully dominated Anna and his children, just as jebus told him that he should.  In reality, he conquered a doormat.  In the real world, unlike Boob, smuggles was a failure.  He failed at his car lot, his job was made up for him and obtained by daddy, and he had no real authority.  Sure, he rubbed elbows with some powerful people, but deep down smugs knew that his magical penis was little more than a pleasure wand.

Josh sought to achieve his god given power by dominating a "real" woman.  Someone out in the world, a heathen lesser than himself, with thoughts and the power to make decisions on her own.  Such a woman should bend under his superior position, even if he had to pay her to force her to bend to his will.  Smuggles found the control that he wanted by abusing her.

I believe that Josh has sexual issues, but it isnt about a tendency towards children, its about the link between sex and power/control.  The Duggars believe that a woman's duty is to be "available" whenever her husband feels the urge.  Sex is a form of submission, and he was brought up to believe that. 

I, too, agree that his attacks were about power and control for him. Most instances, if not all, instances of sexual abuse (just like any other abuse) are. As you said, the environment he grew up in groomed him to be an abuser. I'm not saying that everyone in that environment will be an abuser, but it's more likely that someone who is told that they have power and control over people will act on that compared to those who weren't taught that. 

That said, I don't think that his OkC and AM accounts were about power, but they were about control. His OkC profile exposed him as being fairly vanilla, but also as wanting to be someone he's not. There are so many things that were denied to him because of his family's beliefs and the opportunities his family gave him. He had no control over his profession (he wanted to be a lawyer), he had no control over his love life (he was betrothed at at least 12 and then married off to the first girl who would take him at 20 or 21). His profile painted him as arrogant, sure, but the kind of arrogance that comes when you know you're not who you're claiming to be, like when he stated he wanted someone who was an intellectual to have intellectual conversations with. He wanted to be seen as a "peer" in a group he'd never fit into because of his parents' views on education. He also showed that what he wanted wasn't a life where he was forced to love someone who was forced to love him. He wanted a life where he fell in love with someone who fell in love with him. 

Josh wasn't happy about anything in his life. Josh probably is less happy about the things in his life now. That unhappiness stems from a lack of control. He has never once in his life been able to be the person he wants to be. He's always had to be the person his parents and his cult want him to be. And, I think, he also knows he has no other real option. Because his parents failed him so spectacularly when it came to education, Josh (like his siblings) would likely struggle through college courses, especially because I doubt that they were expected to do things like write essays or research papers. Becoming a lawyer (or earning any degree, really), while doable, would take a lot of time he doesn't have being the sole provider for a family with 4 children, especially since he's not a single parent, so he can't get certain government grants. He also can't expect Anna to become the bread winner while he gets his degree, as many families these days do, because their cult (which she's fully indoctrinated in), his upbringing (which says he cannot expect anything from his wife that isn't her being domestic or being some kind of assistant), and her upbringing (which has her even less prepared for the real world than he is). 

Josh's AM and OkC accounts really seem like they came out of a place of desperation for any semblance of the life he wishes he had. And, come to think of it, I think he was so close to Amy because he wanted her life. He wanted her potential. The potential that came from dating whomever she wanted in whatever capacity she wanted. The potential that came from getting a real education. The potential that came from being able to make her own choices. All the things he was denied. 

 

 

TL;DR: I think his sexual abuses against his sisters and against the babysitter came from a place of desiring power and control over others. I think his AM and OkC accounts came from a place of desiring control over his own life.

[Bad Wolf]

I remember Josh saying he wanted to be a lawyer. Jenni wanted to be a vet. Of course, we often change our minds as we grow up. I wonder at what point the parents squash those ideas and dictate what the child will become. For Jenni, it will be wife and brood mare. I mean mommy.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

4 minutes ago, Bad Wolf said:

I remember Josh saying he wanted to be a lawyer. Jenni wanted to be a vet. Of course, we often change our minds as we grow up. I wonder at what point the parents squash those ideas and dictate what the child will become. For Jenni, it will be wife and brood mare. I mean mommy.

Jenni is a child, and that's a normal wish for children. I think Josh was 17 or 18 the last time I remember him saying he wanted to be a lawyer on the show, and I think it continued on their website for some time after that.

[foreign fundie]

In the post above Josh' early betrothal was mentioned. I have a daughter around that age and I wonder what it would do with her if we told her that this guy she knows was ready to marry her as soon as she'd turn 17 or 18. I can imagine it would stir up a lot of sexual fantasies and expectations. Or panic. And it makes me realise how crazy it is to put a burden like that on a young teenager who should concentrate on very different things than an impending sex life with a family friend.

Could it be that this would have stirred up a lot of premature sexual desires and curiousities? Or fear that he would be expected to fulfill the role of wife humper without knowing anything of female anatomy? So let's check my sisters? 

[AmazonGrace]

16 hours ago, calimojo said:

Well, of course you're right, but I think if Josh had continued to have sexual attractions to children, that might have shown up when the porn and AM scandal broke.  You just know people were scouring the internet for porn sites and dating sites he went to, and everything that was found, seemed to show interest in heterosexual sex with adults.  Now, it could be that Josh did go to sites that had kiddie porn and it just hasn't been found out.  And if it ever were, I just really think that would be the absolute nail in the coffin for the Duggars.

JMO not saying that he went to child porn sites but even if he did I think it's rather unlikely that people would find that out by doing some  googling. Since it's illegal most of those sites probably don't want their user lists easily googlable and have locked the information pretty tightly to nonmembers and casual Sunday googlers. Most users would probably take some precautions not to use the same profile pictures, usernames and email addresses that are traceable to their credit card and home address elsewhere.  It'd take a search warrant to be sure IMO.

[SassyPants]

52 minutes ago, Bad Wolf said:

I remember Josh saying he wanted to be a lawyer. Jenni wanted to be a vet. Of course, we often change our minds as we grow up. I wonder at what point the parents squash those ideas and dictate what the child will become. For Jenni, it will be wife and brood mare. I mean mommy.

What they become appears to be nothing. What do they do beyond breeding for the cause?

It's too bad that they aren't all wonderful family members, homemakers, cooks, housekeepers, parents, and spouses. They are raised to be a unit, yet none of them seems attached to anyone else.

It's just dysfunctional-totally dysfunctional.

This is the last family that should be breeding for the cause. They really contribute nothing- not even to their own family (ies).

[Four is Enough]

2 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

 

Regarding the section selected from your post above, I wanted to say that the reason some of us are insisting that Josh cannot be labeled a pedophile without further evidence is that in many cases, in the FJ discussion, the label is being used to indicate that we "know" that he is an ongoing and present danger to his younger siblings and children.  Some of us are arguing that we don't know any such thing.

This is not a "defense of Josh" but a call for a more moderate and thoughtful consideration of the relevant points.  One of these points is that before the age of 16 or so (some would say the age of 19 in boys) sexual behavior/sexual urges do not necessarily define what the person's sexual preferences will be as an adult.  Another is that, even as an adult, circumstances may lead a person to engage in sexual activity in a way that is not characteristic of his/her preferences.  

Understood, EmCatlyn, and I agree that there should be moderate and thoughtful consideration of what we say and how we say it. I was just pointing out, (and I am not insulted, insulting, or defensive LOL) that sometimes people use labels when they don't completely understand terms and ramifications, and that's what leads us into discussion issues.

2 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

You are right that the real issue is that Josh and his victims didn't get help.  The question is what are the consequences of his not getting help?  What will be the consequences this time around?

I fear that this horrendously inaccurate depiction of women as lesser than men, as sexually enticing AT ANY AGE, and at fault for every man's stray thought , will beat down another generation of women in this family, and other incidents may happen. Neither the victim nor the victimizer got any help or resolution, so the problem is perpetuated and reinforced.

[Elvis Presby]

I have been figuratively sitting on my hands reading this thread.  My first husband ran around on me more than I will ever know.  I was molested twice when I was a child, by the same person.

I paid for a divorce 3 times!  The 3rd time we actually did divorce.  I was raised fundie-lite and it was gut wrenching to even go see the divorce lawyer (every time).  Anna is so much more entrenched that I fear it may take 10 more years of her life stolen from her and 5 more babies before she has had enough.

My molester was a married man.  A friend of my parents.  Went to our church.  It was all about power for him, I think.  My parents used to party with him and his wife.  I heard things I probably shouldn't have heard.  Suffice it to say that they were behaving badly.  Anyway, all that partying stopped and the next thing I know the dude had his hand in my underwear.  It was totally about power.  

Edited to add (every time).

[SilverBeach]

Does anyone wonder why none of the other Duggar male children appear to be similarly afflicted (with sexual issues like Josh) since they were all raised in the same toxic household with the same toxic teachings? Josh's problems may be due more to his predilections, not so much the environment.