Anna Duggar and the M Kids - Part 4

[MyMilkshake]

Happy New Year!

[Percy]

I just watched the episode where Josh and Anna find out the sex of the new baby.  I could not believe how awkward Josh was with Anna.  Every single physical interaction was initiated by Anna.  Josh appeared to be a huge dickhead when he got Anna on to the Ferris wheel, he knew that she was afraid of heights but he insisted she get on.  They even showed an earlier clip of Anna freaking out on a Ferris wheel and Josh just laughed at her.

even Michelle must have noticed cracks in the marriage as she gave them that marriage retreat voucher.

i know a lot of you have seen this but it was a first for me.  I did not realise how much Josh had distanced himself from Anna until I saw that episode.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

1 hour ago, JenniferJuniper said:

Maybe because normal 15 year old boys don't see 5 year old sisters as sexual  beings?

I get that the Duggars' fucked up culture requires babies to be modest, but that shouldn't result in a 15 year old wanting to rub his 5 year old sister's genitals.

I grow weary of those making excuses for Josh Duggar's behavior.........

Normal 15 year old boys by your standards. But sexuality had been evolving for millennia and is different in every culture. You cannot dismiss that sexuality is just as much a cultural phenomenon as it is a biological one. 

That said, I am not excusing Josh's behavior. He still assaulted people. I am merely pointing out that, to the people in his culture, every female body is a sexual thing, regardless of age. People in our cultures don't normally find themselves sexualizing children because we are not taught to view children as sexual beings. But, if you're taught that children are sexual beings and the idea is repeatedly forced upon you that all female parts are the same when it comes to sexual urges, why would you draw a line of distinction between a girl your age and a girl 10 years younger than you?

[Whoosh]

Trigger warning - discussion of attraction to children

I am putting this under a spoiler as I believe many people would just rather not read it and some may be triggered by it.  The text still shows up in the activity feed, so I am writing this explanation of the spoiler to take up space so that people who would just rather not read this or may be triggered by it don't have to see it showing up in their activity feed.  I don't think most people "need" to read this as I think most would agree with my conclusion, though I may be wrong. Blah blah blah cause need more words here.

Spoiler

 

The logical conclusion of the train of thought that being sexually attracted to very young children or molesting a very young child is mostly the result of a family culture and/or how one was raised is that MOST PEOPLE (men in this case) or at least a decent portion of people (men in this case) raised in that environment will be sexually attracted to very young children and/or molest very young children.  Does anyone really want to be saying that?  Can anyone give an example of a culture where it is just the cultural norm for a decent number of teens to frequently be sexually attracted to and/or to molest very young children even though the behavior is deemed inappropriate and BAD?  I would be curious to seen any information on that if there are such examples.

I agree that sexuality is strongly influenced by culture.  I also believe that part of sexual attraction is innate and part is due to how we are raised and socialized (which includes cultural variables).  I know there have been (and are) societies that view some things very differently than "we" do now and I know that there are rare and "abnormal" families in modern westernized civilization where it is acceptable and common within the culture of the family to engage in behavior we call child molestation.  I know that has an impact.  I don't think I have ever heard of an entire culture where it is acceptable to view very young children as people or objects to be used to satisfy the sexual desires of much older children and adults.  Nor have I heard of a situation where teens frequently engage in behavior that is deemed unacceptable and BAD with respect to molesting very young children. I have read about examples like a society who regularly engaged in satisfying young children sexually FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHILD and that was viewed as normal and appropriate.

I think I get the underlying point of what is being said, but I don't think the point being stated is entirely accurate and there MUST be a better way to try to go about sharing whatever this message is.  Honestly, I would say the line is drawn by biology or innate aspects of sexual desire and that sexual attraction to very young children is not acceptable or typical or expected or the norm regardless of culture even if it is taught that a vagina is a vagina is a vagina, but I could well be wrong.

ETA - I personally feel that viewing children as sexual beings in some aspects is the healthy way to view things.  That doesn't mean that one views children as appropriate targets for the satisfaction of sexual desires of much older children or adults or that much older children or adults are frequently sexually attracted to and/or molest very young children.

 

 

[luv2laugh]

I can't understand why Anna would court 19 yr old Josh full well knowing that 15 yr old Josh was molesting children, some under age 10. I just cannot get over it. Some MAY argue that does not make Josh, clinically, a pedophile but it's pretty darn close to 16 (the age where pedophilia would be diagnosed)! I think there is more to it than "Josh was just a curious teenage boy" or "Josh was curious and didn't have any other options outside his siblings." No. These were children. It's sickening and I'm still not over the news. Anytime I see a Duggar, it's the first thing I think about. They are not deserving of the role as television personalities when they leave a bad taste in a viewer's mouth.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

55 minutes ago, luv2laugh said:

I can't understand why Anna would court 19 yr old Josh full well knowing that 15 yr old Josh was molesting children, some under age 10. I just cannot get over it. Some MAY argue that does not make Josh, clinically, a pedophile but it's pretty darn close to 16 (the age where pedophilia would be diagnosed)! I think there is more to it than "Josh was just a curious teenage boy" or "Josh was curious and didn't have any other options outside his siblings." No. These were children. It's sickening and I'm still not over the news. Anytime I see a Duggar, it's the first thing I think about. They are not deserving of the role as television personalities when they leave a bad taste in a viewer's mouth.

Yes there's more to it than excuses. He had problems that weren't properly addressed, and still haven't been. No one here has said anything contrary to that. But, pedophilia isn't likely the thing that's wrong since, again, his attacks and transgressions seemed to be opportunistic, rather than him targeting victims.

As for Anna, that was discussed in the Joshgate 1 threads by people who have a good understanding of their culture. Anna (just like the Duggars) was raised that she has no right to not forgive someone who has sought the lord for forgiveness. That's likely why she's still considering staying with him -- she can't not forgive someone who turned to the lord because that would be to say you see yourself as more important than Jesus.  Josh confessed to her and her family what he had done, and he had sought "help and forgiveness from God." Her father does prison ministry with sex offenders and fully believes they can be rehabilitated through the lord. He would have gladly accepted Josh's confession and redemption. That would have meant that Anna dismissing Josh would be saying she's more important in the forgiveness ladder than Jesus AND her dad, which would be completely contrary to their beliefs. 

[luv2laugh]

3 minutes ago, DuggarsTheEndIsNear said:

Yes there's more to it than excuses. He had problems that weren't properly addressed, and still haven't been. No one here has said anything contrary to that. But, pedophilia isn't likely the thing that's wrong since, again, his attacks and transgressions seemed to be opportunistic, rather than him targeting victims.

As for Anna, that was discussed in the Joshgate 1 threads by people who have a good understanding of their culture. Anna (just like the Duggars) was raised that she has no right to not forgive someone who has sought the lord for forgiveness. That's likely why she's still considering staying with him -- she can't not forgive someone who turned to the lord because that would be to say you see yourself as more important than Jesus.  Josh confessed to her and her family what he had done, and he had sought "help and forgiveness from God." Her father does prison ministry with sex offenders and fully believes they can be rehabilitated through the lord. He would have gladly accepted Josh's confession and redemption. That would have meant that Anna dismissing Josh would be saying she's more important in the forgiveness ladder than Jesus AND her dad, which would be completely contrary to their beliefs.

Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Your insights on some things in this forum have been interesting but I mostly don't agree with your posts since you usually lean on being the devil's advocate for the Duggars and I believe their time on TV is up.

[missegeno]

Trigger warning

Ok, admittedly, I got lost in your post. So I'm not entirely sure what you're looking for, but I'll give it a try.

To be clear, I have no excuses for Josh. He did terrible things that I see as opportunistic and not proof of pedophilia.

But, as for other societies:

Ancient Greece was very very into older men having sexual relations with young men. And while they didn't see it as bad, they were not doing it for the "benefit" of the younger partner.

I also believe that most sexual assault is a power play rather than a sexual thing. The seeming sparing of the eldest sister has always seemed to me as him avoiding the option he couldn't intimidate or overpower as easily. Perhaps he's not a pedo, but I think he's still a sick fuck who took his dad's obsession with control to the worst possible outlet.

[nokidsmom]

5 hours ago, luv2laugh said:

I can't understand why Anna would court 19 yr old Josh full well knowing that 15 yr old Josh was molesting children, some under age 10. I just cannot get over it. Some MAY argue that does not make Josh, clinically, a pedophile but it's pretty darn close to 16 (the age where pedophilia would be diagnosed)! I think there is more to it than "Josh was just a curious teenage boy" or "Josh was curious and didn't have any other options outside his siblings." No. These were children. It's sickening and I'm still not over the news. Anytime I see a Duggar, it's the first thing I think about. They are not deserving of the role as television personalities when they leave a bad taste in a viewer's mouth.

I think that Anna, in reading the police report, finally got a full disclosure of what Josh did and part of what she's dealing with, on top of everything else, is that she finally found out what she and her father should have been told from the get go.  I do not think that either she or Pa Keller ever got the full story of Josh's sins and probably what they were told, was in such a way as to not set any alarm bells ringing.   In watching the Kelly interview, it was obvious that J'chelle and JB saw this as all "taken care of" and really minimized what happened because well, it was in their minds, "all taken care of".   I can see the same thing being said to Pa Keller and Anna.  And Anna, being as sheltered as she was, would have had no idea what a lot of this meant, that it wasn't normal and pretty damn sick.

Even a normal 19 year old would (or should) see this behavior as a major red flag.  Hell, back when I was 20 I got some information on an ex-bf in some if of his um, past activities (that he had downplayed himself), and while it wasn't on the level of what Josh did, I saw the guy as seriously sick and was so glad I was rid of him.  And I was still fairly sheltered at the time though not on the same levels as Anna.

So between what I consider "Duggar speak", Anna being sheltered and probably Pa Keller's belief in forgiveness (he has to be, in order to prison ministry) and not asking the right questions, this courtship went ahead and now we have a devastated wife and four kids in the mess.

[Whoosh]

5 hours ago, missegeno said:

Ok, admittedly, I got lost in your post. So I'm not entirely sure what you're looking for, but I'll give it a try.

To be clear, I have no excuses for Josh. He did terrible things that I see as opportunistic and not proof of pedophilia.

But, as for other societies:

Ancient Greece was very very into older men having sexual relations with young men. And while they didn't see it as bad, they were not doing it for the "benefit" of the younger partner.

I also believe that most sexual assault is a power play rather than a sexual thing. The seeming sparing of the eldest sister has always seemed to me as him avoiding the option he couldn't intimidate or overpower as easily. Perhaps he's not a pedo, but I think he's still a sick fuck who took his dad's obsession with control to the worst possible outlet.

If there is anything I can clear up, please feel free to ask and questions.  I do appreciate your response.  It appears I failed to express my points clearly and I am not sure what the disconnect is.  I am looking to express the idea that I am not aware of any societies that condoned the behavior in question here.  Pubescent is not the same as say ten or even younger, which again is not the same as an infant or very young child.

I agree he is/was likely not a pedophile, but he was and may well still be a sexual predator.

I also agree that in ancient Greece, it was perfectly acceptable for older men to have sexual relations with younger men and boys.  I was explicitly taught that those relations DID NOT EXTEND to very young children.  While I am not defending anything, I see a vast difference between, say, 13 and 5.  

Second, I agree that sexual assault is often a power play rather than a sexual thing.  That absolutely is NOT inconsistent with my post and that is in fact why I was very careful to phrase things the way i did.  Throughout the entire post, I was talking about sexual attraction AND/OR molestation.  That phrasing is meant to indicate that molestation often has nothing to do with sexual attraction - as you say it is quite frequently a power play.  Here is the thing - I am not even sure it can be seen as a power play when the victim is a VERY YOUNG CHILD who does not understand what is going on.  So, this point to some extent is also right in line with what I was saying.

Again, if I am wrong I would like to know.  However, I just don't know of any culture or society that would validate this line of reasoning when it comes to VERY YOUNG CHILDREN.  

 

ETA - I am thinking I my post must be unclear about something, but I honestly am not sure what that is - so for that I apologize.  If I was taught something WRONG about sexual relations with VERY YOUNG CHILDREN, I would like to know.  Otherwise, I think I am just failing to express my thoughts well.  I am basically saying I don't think all, most, or many males raised like this will have some type of sexual relations with a very young child and I am not personally aware of any society that condoned or encouraged doing so.  BTW - I consider the word "molest" to mean predatory and not for the benefit of the child.

[19 cats and counting]

7 hours ago, luv2laugh said:

I can't understand why Anna would court 19 yr old Josh full well knowing that 15 yr old Josh was molesting children, some under age 10. I just cannot get over it. Some MAY argue that does not make Josh, clinically, a pedophile but it's pretty darn close to 16 (the age where pedophilia would be diagnosed)! I think there is more to it than "Josh was just a curious teenage boy" or "Josh was curious and didn't have any other options outside his siblings." No. These were children. It's sickening and I'm still not over the news. Anytime I see a Duggar, it's the first thing I think about. They are not deserving of the role as television personalities when they leave a bad taste in a viewer's mouth.

THe marriage was all but arranged.  Pa Keller probably said "Josh Duggar has contacted me about marrying you, now time to get married."  It was also her ticket to leave a trailer for fame and fortune, as well as her family's ticket to ATI royalty (TFDW would not have noticed Prissy without a famous BIL).  If she had waited, she probably would have ended up with another dud of a husband (look at her sisters-- who knew a gay guy would be the pick of the litter).  She never struck me as a Keller who had the wherewithall to leave ATI (you can see cracks in Suze in the courting episodes).  

That said, I can tell that she clearly loves him.  But I don't think he loves her.

[2manyKidzzz]

To me, the argument over whether or not Joshley is a "pedophile" borders on being funny. He diddled seriously with a 5 year old, his sister. Who cares what you call him. The family minimized it. The others were older, but still too young. He was essentiallly attacking them and violating them. What does that make him? For starters, not somebody you should allow on the marriage market for a sweet, sheltered young woman like Anna. Who is a very good person caught up, forever I guess, in  that nasty cult. 

 

If religions were only about essentially worshiping the Divine, helping others, being kind and praying, things would be so much better. Get together. Find out who in the community needs help. Set moral standards and stick to them. Hold yourself accountable. 

But in many cases, it has turned into huge, controlling, mysoginistic groups. And who knows if Josh would have done all of "this" without the cult. We will never know. But he is hurting people and that is what is unpleasant to see. Blah blah blah and more blah from me. 

[Whoosh]

8 minutes ago, 2manyKidzzz said:

To me, the argument over whether or not Joshley is a "pedophile" borders on being funny. He diddled seriously with a 5 year old, his sister. Who cares what you call him. The family minimized it. The others were older, but still too young. He was essentiallly attacking them and violating them. What does that make him? For starters, not somebody you should allow on the marriage market for a sweet, sheltered young woman like Anna. Who is a very good person caught up, forever I guess, in  that nasty cult. 

 

If religions were only about essentially worshiping the Divine, helping others, being kind and praying, things would be so much better. Get together. Find out who in the community needs help. Set moral standards and stick to them. Hold yourself accountable. 

But in many cases, it has turned into huge, controlling, mysoginistic groups. And who knows if Josh would have done all of "this" without the cult. We will never know. But he is hurting people and that is what is unpleasant to see. Blah blah blah and more blah from me. 

I agree with all of this but one point.  How we label it matters to me.  There is a reason medical professionals work long and hard to categorize and label behavior that brings harm to the individual or to others.  Medical professionals don't do this so that lay people can misunderstand and misapply the term when they feel "disgusting fucker child molesting bastage" just isn't strong enough.  These terms are created so that people can have a common understanding of what a harmful set of behaviors looks like - what it IS and what it is NOT.  If we can't do this, we have little if any chance of ever truly understanding the behavior well enough to understand much if anything about why the behavior exists.  If we can't understand and discuss that using a commonly understood vocabulary where WORDS HAVE MEANING, there is little if any chance of making progress toward preventative or treatment efforts, or to understanding how to deal with people for whom the behavior can't be eliminated through medical treatment.

If understanding, prevention, treatment, and efforts to deal with the consequences of pedophilia don't matter, people should feel free to continue to misunderstand and misapply the term.

ETA - this is why "was there sexual attraction" MATTERS.  It is also why "is this a sole or primary sexual attraction" MATTERS. It is also why age cutoffs, while very imperfect, are not at all "technical or arbitrary cutoffs".  They are the best way of driving home the point that stage of development MATTERS.

[2manyKidzzz]

But, no matter what "label" you gave him, and they didn't have him examined, he messed with his sisters and should have been treated professionally. He was not an adult who should be legally kept away from children. And, he was not kept away from children because for treatment he went to "church camp" with UncleBill. I have no idea if he is a danger to his own children, no idea at all. He is just a selfish person, rolling on and on. And the cult protects him to the end. And the females, in this case now, Anna, are the ones who suffer. Which really pisses me off.  

[Whoosh]

Totally agree.  I will also say that when I argue for the use of appropriate terminology or to being accurate in discussions of other societies, I am not at all trying to make any judgment of the perpetrator as "good" vs. "bad" necessarily and I certainly don't mean to imply in any way that the impact of the behavior on the victims is any greater or less.

ETA - I don't believe in "sin" or "the devil".  So maybe that is also a point of some confusion with how I say things.

[missegeno]

Thanks @Whoosh for your response! That does help to clarify. I think you are right that the ancient Greeks mostly involved pubescent boys, not as young as 5, so that is a good point.

I think we also agree a lot, and I am sorry if I came across as antagonistic. Much of what you say is well in line with my thoughts, and I was trying to add to it, not counter it. Most men raised in such an environment probably do not do the things Josh did, but I can see how his upbringing may have been a factor in a perfect storm.

I do, however, think the youth of the young child makes it MORE of a power play, not less. If the child doesn't know what is happening, you can tell them that it's alright. You can give them the only knowledge that they have about it. You might be able to get them to engage in ways an older child would resist. And all you have to do is say a few words. After all, they trust you fully because they don't know about betrayal yet. I think that is a LOT of power, and it is sickening to think how someone could look at a child and exploit that (I would guess you probably agree that it is sickening, just giving my opinion there).

[Whoosh]

6 minutes ago, missegeno said:

Thanks @Whoosh for your response! That does help to clarify. I think you are right that the ancient Greeks mostly involved pubescent boys, not as young as 5, so that is a good point.

I think we also agree a lot, and I am sorry if I came across as antagonistic. Much of what you say is well in line with my thoughts, and I was trying to add to it, not counter it. Most men raised in such an environment probably do not do the things Josh did, but I can see how his upbringing may have been a factor in a perfect storm.

I do, however, think the youth of the young child makes it MORE of a power play, not less. If the child doesn't know what is happening, you can tell them that it's alright. You can give them the only knowledge that they have about it. You might be able to get them to engage in ways an older child would resist. And all you have to do is say a few words. After all, they trust you fully because they don't know about betrayal yet. I think that is a LOT of power, and it is sickening to think how someone could look at a child and exploit that (I would guess you probably agree that it is sickening, just giving my opinion there).

Please don't apologize!  I think I was very unclear.  I think probably most of us on this forum agree on a lot more of this than it appears and that communication difficulties are at play here to a far greater degree that merely how we use a couple words.  Unfortunately (or fortunately) we can't crawl inside other people's heads. 

When I try to express technical thoughts, I can tend to be very blunt and when I get frustrated (at myself or others) I can just flat out get bitchy without any feelings of anger or bitchiness toward others.  I sincerely apologize to everyone for that.  I try not to.  

I totally get what you are saying about the power play part too.  The whole thing is quite frankly very difficult for me (and I assume many others) to talk about and since it is not really discussed often, it is very hard to talk about in practical terms (having the vocabulary, using phrases you have heard elsewhere) as well as emotionally.

[gustava]

I wonder if things would have been different if masturbation weren't a sin to them.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

6 hours ago, luv2laugh said:

Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Your insights on some things in this forum have been interesting but I mostly don't agree with your posts since you usually lean on being the devil's advocate for the Duggars and I believe their time on TV is up.

I am not a devils advocate. A devils advocate argues for the sake of argument and does not believe what they said is true. Just because YOU don't think that what I say is important doesn't mean that I agree with your assessment. The world isn't black and white and sometimes you have to realize that what you view as normal doesn't apply to the norms other people have been taught. I've never said that their cult is anything but harmful. What I've said is that the Duggars raises their children in a cult that promotes abuse and sexual deviancy (you cannot be that obsessed with sex and not create sexual deviancy). Therefore, you cannot just look at Josh and say "this is all your fault, you're the only one who fucked up and you're the sick fucker." I'm not minimizing his crimes, merely explaining how he ended up doing what he did in a culture that allows sexual abuse to happen and continue. 

13 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

I agree with all of this but one point.  How we label it matters to me.  There is a reason medical professionals work long and hard to categorize and label behavior that brings harm to the individual or to others.  Medical professionals don't do this so that lay people can misunderstand and misapply the term when they feel "disgusting fucker child molesting bastage" just isn't strong enough.  These terms are created so that people can have a common understanding of what a harmful set of behaviors looks like - what it IS and what it is NOT.  If we can't do this, we have little if any chance of ever truly understanding the behavior well enough to understand much if anything about why the behavior exists.  If we can't understand and discuss that using a commonly understood vocabulary where WORDS HAVE MEANING, there is little if any chance of making progress toward preventative or treatment efforts, or to understanding how to deal with people for whom the behavior can't be eliminated through medical treatment.

If understanding, prevention, treatment, and efforts to deal with the consequences of pedophilia don't matter, people should feel free to continue to misunderstand and misapply the term.

ETA - this is why "was there sexual attraction" MATTERS.  It is also why "is this a sole or primary sexual attraction" MATTERS. It is also why age cutoffs, while very imperfect, are not at all "technical or arbitrary cutoffs".  They are the best way of driving home the point that stage of development MATTERS.

I agree with this. Labels matter in so many ways, especially when it comes to things like brain development. Pedophilia has a cut off at 16 because a 16 year old's brain is inherently different than a 15 year old's brain. They didn't say 16 because it was a nice, arbitrary number. They said 16 because there's a real reason for the distinction. 

And, as you stated, pedophilia is the primary attraction to prepubescent children. It DOES NOT mean "any time you touch a prepubescent child." You can be a child molester without being a pedophile, just as you can be a pedophile and never touch a child or look at child porn.

Molesting is a form of abuse, which means it's about power and control. Studies have shown that sexual abuse draws so little on attraction that it isn't even a consideration. Sure, some people sexually abuse others because of some level of attraction (for instance, a belief along the lines of "I'm attracted to you, you can't reject me!"), but that does not define sexual abuse. Because pedophilia deals with attraction and sexual abuse deals with power, the term "pedophile" and "child molester" are not interchangeable.   

[2manyKidzzz]

Because Josh was not professionally assessed at the time of his infractions, and will not ever be, we cannot know how his problem is defined.

I would not, however, let anyone with this history be alone with any child in my family. That's life. 

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

5 minutes ago, gustava said:

I wonder if things would have been different if masturbation weren't a sin to them.

I think it probably contributed. Josh's behaviors could have originally been reconciled by saying "well I masturbated and God didn't destroy me, how could this be different."

But, I think, the biggest piece of the puzzle is control. Josh was the oldest child in an ever growing family with parents who controlled every little detail of his life and even subscribed to methods of child rearing that aimed to harm children until they submitted unquestioningly. Mix that with a hypersexualization of the female body (at any stage of development) in which the blame for a male's lustful attractions to and sexual actions against are squarely placed on the woman's shoulders, and you have the perfect recipe for someone to use sexual abuse in order to gain control. And, any/all fear others felt around him, unfortunately, likely fueled his attacks. After all, he had been taught that fear was synonymous with power and respect. 

Also, since every aspect of their lives were so overly controlled, Josh was raised with no outlet for his sexual urges AND an inability to be alone with anyone who wasn't a sister (beyond the babysitter, which likely wasn't a repeated mistake). Had Josh been raised in an environment like the one in their cult AND been able to be around girls his age, his sisters may have never even made his potential victim radar. 

That said, if Josh had been able to have a normal "preteen romance" with his intended instead of being told he would marry her one day, but have to wait 4+ years for them to even hold hands or front hug, he may not have even resorted to molestations. They could have had supervised dates that still allowed them to hold hands, hug, maybe even get a peck. Josh's initial attacks could have been driven by an inability to find a healthy outlet for his frustrations, and lack of control revolving around that.

It's not to say that Josh may not have ever sexually assaulted anyone if he had been raised in a normal setting, but I don't think it would have gone as far as it did if he had had a better relationship with the idea of control and the idea of sexuality. And, it likely wouldn't have gone as far if he had received help when his parents first found out, instead of once he had 5 victims and JB was no longer running for office. 

[Whoosh]

56 minutes ago, DuggarsTheEndIsNear said:

 

I agree with this. Labels matter in so many ways, especially when it comes to things like brain development. Pedophilia has a cut off at 16 because a 16 year old's brain is inherently different than a 15 year old's brain. They didn't say 16 because it was a nice, arbitrary number. They said 16 because there's a real reason for the distinction. 

And, as you stated, pedophilia is the primary attraction to prepubescent children. It DOES NOT mean "any time you touch a prepubescent child." You can be a child molester without being a pedophile, just as you can be a pedophile and never touch a child or look at child porn.

Molesting is a form of abuse, which means it's about power and control. Studies have shown that sexual abuse draws so little on attraction that it isn't even a consideration. Sure, some people sexually abuse others because of some level of attraction (for instance, a belief along the lines of "I'm attracted to you, you can't reject me!"), but that does not define sexual abuse. Because pedophilia deals with attraction and sexual abuse deals with power, the term "pedophile" and "child molester" are not interchangeable.   

I largely agree with this.  I am going to try to expand on the age thing a bit.  I want to preface this with saying I do not know all the minute details of how the age of 16 was agreed upon for the pedophilia cutoff.  That said...

Pedophilia is DEFINED as a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to children at least 5 years younger than the individual.  One of the reasons that matters is that this type of sexual attraction is believed (currently at least) to be fairly fixed and remarkably resistant to change.  So, if someone is in their 30s and is a pedophile, it is pretty much agreed upon that that is very unlikely to change.

Children are not adults.  One factor that comes into play here is sexual development.  Another factor that comes into play is overall brain development.  The frontal lobes are known to continue to develop well into our 20s.  A teenager is just simply not the same as an adult in terms of either sexuality or brain function.  The reasoning behind the diagnostic cutoff age wise would be something as follows.  A thirteen year old being primarily sexually attracted to children much younger than 13 is very concerning and is something to be taken very, very seriously.  However, medical experts agree that you can not make accurate predictions about future attraction and/or behavior based on what is happening at age 13.  In contrast, we say that adults are adults.  I could go into more detail, but basically we don't care all that much in a lot of ways that a 20 year old brain is different than a 35 year old brain.  It's close enough and that is that.  

The cutoff of 16 does not mean that no 15 year olds who are primarily or exclusively attracted to children will continue to have those traits or characteristics.  What it means is that medical professionals have determined that this is not the case frequently enough that we are not going to slap a kid with a label that indicates there is very little odds of things changing over time.  So, if you really understand the meaning of the word pedophile and you have a solid understanding of both brain development and sexual development, you are NOT very likely to advocate for extending the use of the word downward.  You are far more likely to say "Ok, this kid is 16/17 and is primarily or exclusively attracted to children much younger.  We need to keep an eye on this and provide the best treatment possible.  Hopefully this is simply an aberrant developmental stage and NOT full blown pedophilia which is unlikely to ever change."

For the victims, this might not matter worth a hoot - but it still matters.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

10 minutes ago, 2manyKidzzz said:

Because Josh was not professionally assessed at the time of his infractions, and will not ever be, we cannot know how his problem is defined.

I would not, however, let anyone with this history be alone with any child in my family. That's life. 

Pedophilia isn't something that goes away. If he was a pedophile then, he would be a pedophile now. 

And no one is telling you to leave your children in the care of someone like him. I'm not sure what kind of argument that was. 

[nokidsmom]

6 minutes ago, 2manyKidzzz said:

Because Josh was not professionally assessed at the time of his infractions, and will not ever be, we cannot know how his problem is defined.

Agree.  Because he didn't get proper treatment following the molestations, there's no way to know the true extent of his issues.   Granted, had he gotten proper treatment through the proper channels, his record would have been sealed at 18 and we wouldn't be any the wiser about this part of his past at all.  Still, knowing how seriously his parents messed up in getting him proper help raises a lot of questions about him now.

 

[2manyKidzzz]

1 minute ago, DuggarsTheEndIsNear said:

Pedophilia isn't something that goes away. If he was a pedophile then, he would be a pedophile now. 

And no one is telling you to leave your children in the care of someone like him. I'm not sure what kind of argument that was. 

No one is telling me anything. I am saying that if I knew someone with that history, they would not be alone with a child in my care. I wouldn't wait for a diagnosis. Meaning, that the diagnosis doesn't matter on a personal level, but protection against someone who has committed these acts is my personal choice. It is  not an issue. I am saying that I don't trust him, or someone like him. My perogative.