Anna Duggar and the M Kids - Part 4

[AlysonRR]

On 1/2/2016 at 10:17 PM, 2manyKidzzz said:

If Josh molested a five year old, whatever you call him, he should not be alone with 5 year olds. It is all too weird. He is just a complete mess. Poor Anna and those kids. 

I think that if Josh is going to be restricted to being in the family and nowhere else - no AM, no Craigslist, no stripclubs, etc., with monitoring by his wife, his father, Gothardites. If he has no other opportunities, isn't it possible he might go for what's available? And shouldn't Anna (and others) be concerned? I know I would be.

[EmCatlyn]

17 hours ago, luv2laugh said:

I didn't watch that one yet. Is this in the third episode? I'm sure she is devastated, again Anna is not a robot, however, her intention was NOT to show that to the public. She wants to come off as defensive of her husband in regard to the media, instructional, and matter-of-fact. It was basically a practice run of her speaking engagement material. 

You are right that Anna was careful not to say anything hurtful about Josh.  That is not just because she has been taught to keep sweet, but because if you are going to stay with your husband, you usually don't trash him.  But I don't see her defending or "being defensive" about him.  She was defensive about her decision to stay with him because I am sure that she has heard criticism of her decision.

I can't guess what her long-term plans are, but although I would guess that at some point she and Josh will speak to the world about his return to Christ and so forth, I would be surprised if Anna is rehearsing for the speaking tour already.  I think she was trying to stay in control of her emotions because she would have been embarrassed to fall apart on camera.

She did not seem "matter of fact" to me at all.  When she was reporting things she had "processed" she sounded calm.  When she was reporting feelings or ideas that she hadn't "processed," she sounded as if she was barely in control.  Unlike Jill who (except when describing how Josh shouldn't have let them go on Megan Kelly to defend him) seems to have suppressed all her real emotion, Anna sounded as if she was trying to come to terms with her feelings instead of denying them.

I am sure she didn't want to seem devastated, but to me she did come across as someone whose whole world has fallen apart and is trying hard to hold on to it.  People don't always display emotions the way others expect/recognize.  Though I disagree with her choice to stay with Josh, I can see why she has made it, and I am unwilling to pass harsh judgment.

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, AlysonRR said:

I think that if Josh is going to be restricted to being in the family and nowhere else - no AM, no Craigslist, no stripclubs, etc., with monitoring by his wife, his father, Gothardites. If he has no other opportunities, isn't it possible he might go for what's available? And shouldn't Anna (and others) be concerned? I know I would be.

We don't know that Josh is going to be that strictly restricted or monitored.  But even if he is, he will have an acceptable sexual outlet that he did not have when he was 14, 15, 16.  He is a married man with a wife who should never deny him.  Anna is "what's available."  

Because I think his adult actions suggest that he is not attracted by immature bodies, I would worry more that he will be abusive toward Anna than that he will molest his children. But I don't know how he will respond if he is feeling trapped, angry, powerless and also horny.  None of us can know.

All sorts of scenarios are possible, and Anna divorcing him and taking the children wouldn't necessarily prevent incestous molestation of his daughters if he were inclined in that direction.  It is even possible that if Josh is part of his children's lives, picking them up when they fall, helping them tie their shoes and wash their hands, teaching them to ride s bike, etc. he will be more likely to identify as "father" and be no more a sexual threat to Mackenzie and Meredith than Jim Bob has been to Jana, Jessa and Jill.

We just don't know.  We don't really know how Josh is feeling or how he will feel when he returns.  He may take years to "act out" again or he may not be able to toe the line for more than a few months.   

[physicalscience]

Why wouldn't they stay in the Stoney Brook house or the pool house?  Sure, Stoney Brooke was up for rent back in spring- but I can't imagine mansions on the hillside are typical renters specs.  They also have a guest house on their property.  They have plenty of space for smugs to take his family to be "independent".

[InThePrayerCloset]

2 hours ago, pfled said:

Why wouldn't they stay in the Stoney Brook house or the pool house?  Sure, Stoney Brooke was up for rent back in spring- but I can't imagine mansions on the hillside are typical renters specs.  They also have a guest house on their property.  They have plenty of space for smugs to take his family to be "independent".

i completely agree @pfled if Anna is indeed in the TTH girls dorm its a very deliberate decision of M&JB to keep her close and under their watchful eye 24/7. 

[luv2laugh]

Yes, regardless of how Anna feels, I think JB & Michelle have Anna in their home to keep her under their eye.  They know that *IF* she actually left, they would be in big trouble.  Also, it will be interesting to see how this play out when Josh comes home because, they can't completely throw him under the bus because if Josh were to leave, they would have serious problems too.  I feel like they are treating Josh and Anna like children.

[nokidsmom]

21 minutes ago, luv2laugh said:

Yes, regardless of how Anna feels, I think JB & Michelle have Anna in their home to keep her under their eye.  They know that *IF* she actually left, they would be in big trouble.  Also, it will be interesting to see how this play out when Josh comes home because, they can't completely throw him under the bus because if Josh were to leave, they would have serious problems too.  I feel like they are treating Josh and Anna like children.

JB is no doubt worried about more hits to his family brand.   While a divorce between Anna and Josh (regardless of who leaves whom) would be a serious problem both in terms of their brand and their culture, I am not sure that JB is so much worried about what Anna would do, but that he is worried about Josh.  He certainly has reason to, which is why Josh is in Jesus rehab (as far as we know) for six months. 

Though I have wondered why Anna and kids aren't in the guest house or other properties, who knows why.  Control?  Maybe.  Perhaps Anna didn't want to be left alone and she gets help with the kids by being with the family.  They visibly appear to support her.   She and the kids certainly couldn't stay with her parents with their limited space.  Maybe there's something going on with the properties like tenants or something.  Who really knows.    But somehow I don't think the reason is to keep Anna from bolting.   I always thought she would remain with Josh (aside from her upbringing, she does appear to really love him) and the interviews confirm to me that she wants to stay.    Another poster mentioned that she might be worried about Josh leaving her and I agree that's probably a concern as she's probably viewing the adultery as being about her. 

[Four is Enough]

21 hours ago, Whoosh said:

Thank you sophie.  I know I said I am done, but your post made me think of one other thing I want to say.  Understanding the distinction is important in so many ways, whether you are the guy trying to determine who might be at risk for becoming a child sex offender, or the gal trying to prevent high risk individuals from actually offending, or the guy trying to teach kids how to best protect themselves from victimization if at all possible (not trying to victim blame at all here), or the gal trying to identify and catch the perpetrator in a case of child molestation, or the guy trying to determine who is likely to reoffend, or whether you are the team trying to figure out what in the fuck to do with the offender once they are caught.  Not sure how we make progress on the overall issue of child molestation and sexual abuse if people think none of that matters.

Everyone knows it's all BAAAAAAD.  It's bad.  Real bad.  All of it.  That isn't the point of making the distinction at all.

OK!  Sorry - really doubt there is anything left I have yet to try to express to some extent.  Over and out!

ETA - I should maybe say I THINK everyone regularly posting on FJ knows it's all BAAAAD - or at least most everyone.  It would be extremely helpful if people including myself would do their damnedest to avoid giving the impression otherwise.

Well, Whoosh, as I have discussed before, one of the Four, at age 15, molested younger children, and yes, five year olds. He was caught, and labeled a pedophile from that moment. His therapy group spent an inordinate amount of time and resources trying to make sure he would become at low risk for re-offending. While he was in that therapy group, he was forbidden to be in the same area as his victims. Since we all lived on the same street, it involved us re-routing our lives so as to avoid them, and, if they came to the end of our driveway, he had to go inside. If we were at the Mall,  and saw them, we had to leave. Therapy lasted YEARS, and eventually involved in-residence therapy. Offenders who victimized relatives were REMOVED FROM THE FAMILY GROUP until their risk level was determined to be low, sometimes years. 

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.

My experience is that people DO think child molestation and sexual abuse matter, and matter greatly. Whether or not the word "pedophile" was used as a shock, to make my son realize the extent of his actions, IT IS USED, and by, according to you, people who should "know better". Does it, then, really shock anyone that the general public uses this word routinely?

 

And yes, it's BAAAD, as you said. As others have said, Josh Duggar got NO therapy, NO testing to see if he had an attraction, NO separation from his victims, just continued access to them. To me, THAT is worse than the possible mis-naming of Josh as a pedophile.

ETA: My son was eventually released from the program, NOT listed as a pedophile, and was declared at low risk to re-offend. There is after-care therapy with a therapist specially educated in sexual offenses. If that makes your case, so be it.

[Whoosh]

34 minutes ago, Four is Enough said:

Well, Whoosh, as I have discussed before, one of the Four, at age 15, molested younger children, and yes, five year olds. He was caught, and labeled a pedophile from that moment. His therapy group spent an inordinate amount of time and resources trying to make sure he would become at low risk for re-offending. While he was in that therapy group, he was forbidden to be in the same area as his victims. Since we all lived on the same street, it involved us re-routing our lives so as to avoid them, and, if they came to the end of our driveway, he had to go inside. If we were at the Mall,  and saw them, we had to leave. Therapy lasted YEARS, and eventually involved in-residence therapy. Offenders who victimized relatives were REMOVED FROM THE FAMILY GROUP until their risk level was determined to be low, sometimes years. 

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.

My experience is that people DO think child molestation and sexual abuse matter, and matter greatly. Whether or not the word "pedophile" was used as a shock, to make my son realize the extent of his actions, IT IS USED, and by, according to you, people who should "know better". Does it, then, really shock anyone that the general public uses this word routinely?

 

And yes, it's BAAAD, as you said. As others have said, Josh Duggar got NO therapy, NO testing to see if he had an attraction, NO separation from his victims, just continued access to them. To me, THAT is worse than the possible mis-naming of Josh as a pedophile.

 

I totally hear what you are saying.  Further, I totally and completely agree that getting no therapy etc is far, far worse than getting the wrong type of help due to misdiagnosis or misuse of labels.  I have read your story and I am sorry you went through all of that and you have impressed me greatly in the way you handled things and how you speak about it all.  

To try to be clear again - I am NOT IN ANY WAY defending Josh or his parents at ALL.  

The FACT is that treatment efforts will be far more likely to be successful if that treatment addresses the actual underlying problem that led to the child molestation rather than addressing something else.  The FACT is that some people who molest children are primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to children and others are not and molest for other reasons.  If someone is NOT sexually attracted to children and molests for other reasons, treatment, punishment and rehabilitation efforts that centers around an assumption that the person is primarily or exclusively attracted to children makes little to no sense and may well be very ineffective.  The opposite is also true.

The FACT is that most people over a certain age who are primarily attracted to children will likely be that way for life as that is believed to be very resistant to change.  The FACT is that this is NOT TRUE for younger children.  For a younger child, you would still want to treat what appears to be the underlying cause of the behavior, but it doesn't make sense to label them as pedophiles for a variety of reasons until it seems clear that the primary or exclusive attraction to children is fairly fixed and not simply a developmental stage.  

I of course have no idea who your son was or is primarily sexually attracted to in terms of age.  It sounds like he DID get testing, treatment, etc. and is on a path to not reoffending regardless and that is the goal.  That matters far more than anything else.

That said, how we label something VERY MUCH MATTERS.  As a random example, if I have a group of people who can not read and I want to help them, it would not make one lick of sense to charge forward lumping them all into one group without testing, etc.  I would want to KNOW the reason they could not read before I proceeded.  I would proceed in very different ways with a child who could not read due to impaired vision vs a child who could not read due to lack of education vs a child who could not read due to intellectual impairment.  What matters MOST is to understand the underlying issue.  The way we effectively communicate so we can work as a society to understand the various problems and come up with the best solutions is to USE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE.  

The medical, dictionary, and legal definitions of pedophilia are all VERY CLEAR that the term does not apply to anyone under the age of 16 and does not apply to anyone who is not primarily or exclusively attracted to children more than 5 years younger than themselves.  Do people get it wrong?  YES.  Does that impair our ability as a society to effectively understand and deal with the issues involved? YES.  Does individual treatment that is effective for the individual matter more than anything else?  ABSOLUTELY.  

Really not sure why people insist on believing that a firm stance on using accurate terminology means I am trying to justify a behavior or saying that testing, treatment, monitoring, etc. of ALL offenders is any less critical regardless of whether we run around using inappropriate labels and diagnoses based on lack of understanding.  That thought process is absurd to me and I do not believe that in any way shape or form.

As I said, it is very likely that in a few years this will all be a non-issue as the medical community has already started the difficult process of abandoning the term pedophilia due to the insistence of many on refusing to understand the VERY IMPORTANT distinctions between types of offenders and the appropriate use of the term.

Very sorry to upset you Four is Enough, but use of appropriate labels still MATTERS and the medical and research communities will still work their asses off to try to ensure that clear labels and diagnoses are available and in use in order to increase understanding and increase the likelihood of successful detection and intervention efforts.  Clearly, ANY effort at these things will always be better than DOING NOTHING or doing absurdly inappropriate things as the Duggars have done.  No one is arguing otherwise.

ETA - everything I am saying here is the best that experts who devote their careers to these issues understand things at this time.  That is the best we can do, obviously.  Things may well change in the future as we advance as a society.

[Four is Enough]

3 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

 

That said, how we label something VERY MUCH MATTERS.  As a random example, if I have a group of people who can not read and I want to help them, it would not make one lick of sense to charge forward lumping them all into one group without testing, etc.  I would want to KNOW the reason they could not read before I proceeded.  I would proceed in very different ways with a child who could not read due to impaired vision vs a child who could not read due to lack of education vs a child who could not read due to intellectual impairment.  What matters MOST is to understand the underlying issue.  The way we effectively communicate so we can work as a society to understand the various problems and come up with the best solutions is to USE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE.  

The medical, dictionary, and legal definitions of pedophilia are all VERY CLEAR that the term does not apply to anyone under the age of 16 and does not apply to anyone who is not primarily or exclusively attracted to children more than 5 years younger than themselves.  Do people get it wrong?  YES.  Does that impair our ability as a society to effectively understand and deal with the issues involved? YES.  Does individual treatment that is effective for the individual matter more than anything else?  ABSOLUTELY.  

 

Very sorry to upset you Four is Enough, but use of appropriate labels still MATTERS and the medical and research communities will still work their asses off to try to ensure that clear labels are available and in use.

I completely agree with you, that the use of appropriate labels still matters. I further appreciate your discussion. I am laughing a bit, however, as I remember a recent, very heated discussion about the labeling of disabled, differently abled, or challenged people. Same thing applies here. The labels change, and people are quick to be offended by the use of an "old" label, and others are defensive of the use of a label that has served in the past, even IF it's wrong or misguided.

I certainly don't support the use of the term "pedophile" for just anyone who molests a child. But I have to say that I really didn't give it much thought at all until young Four and our family went through this experience.

[Whoosh]

Thank you for your reply.  To be honest, I really don't give all that much of a hoot about the PC stuff or who is offended (I am sure that will make me a bad person to some - don't care).  What I care about is actual understanding of various issues and problems so that we can deal with them effectively and help everyone.  I am pretty sure that is what you care about too.  I am not sure why that isn't always clear when I try to say things on these issues, but I am working on it and learning from these discussions!

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

22 hours ago, Bad Wolf said:

Not diagnosing, not calling names. Just stating that Josh's first "curiosity" led him to light touching over the clothes on his older sisters. I'm guess that JB chastised him with the rod because that is what the girls described. According to the Pearls, you apply the rod until the child is broken. Josh's next "mistake" was under the clothes on his younger sisters. At this point he was sent away.

Is Josh a danger to young girls? I don't know. We don't know what really goes on when the cameras are not there. I just don't think that his current therapy will be enough to get at the source of his issues.

No one is arguing that his current therapy will be any kind of benefit to anyone, so I'm not sure why you're making that your argument. Not a single person on this entire board has said anything about his treatments being effective or good choices.

21 hours ago, RosyDaisy said:

Seriously, Josh had no access to girls his own age? What about the like-minded families who visited and vice versa? What about the ATI conventions? Yeah, that no access thing doesn't fly.

As I've said before, Josh knew what he did was wrong. He did it anyway, and showed no remorse. That's all that matters here. I'm sick of hearing the excuse of his upbringing. It is just that, an excuse, whether those who keep bringing it up mean it to be or not.

As far as whether Josh is a pedophile or not, I don't care. The mental health professionals can argue that one. The fact that the molestations happened multiple times, the youngest victim being 5 years old, and allegedly sexually assaulting a grown womam, just screams repeat offender to me. It also screams that he is a danger to women and children.

He had no access to girls. You clearly understand nothing about their culture if you think Josh got alone time with girls outside his family beyond the time he molested a girl his own age or older who was asleep in his house. ATI conventions separate the kids and watch them like hawks, as is regularly discussed on these boards. Boys do boy things, girls do girl things, and isolation happens to anyone who misbehaves in the slightest. At home, there are too many people around and (especially at that time) no where for him to get a "private moment" with anyone. His only chances at that time were when people were sleeping, and I strongly believe that no one slept in their house with the boys inside after he molested the babysitter while she slept. In fact, the family protocol is for the guests to sleep inside and the boys to sleep in the RV, and was a safeguard they admitted to putting in because of Josh.

No one is making excuses, we are explaining what fueled his decisions. There is a big difference. An excuse says "he did nothing wrong, don't be upset." A reason says "yes it was wrong, but there are factors to consider before sentencing/labeling." A court of law does be same thing, which is why some murders have different sentences than others. 

There is no one here saying that Josh didn't know what he did was wrong. He most definitely knew his actions were wrong, which is why he snuck around at first. It escalated because he didn't receive the proper help and he didn't receive proper consequences, as is normal with people when crossing boundaries of any kind. That's why the idiom "if you give a person an inch, they'll take a mile" exists. 

That said, you can't hold Josh to the same standards of knowledge as someone outside his cult. Inside his cult, it is normal to see all girls of any age as sexual beings, which is something they focus on constantly. Modesty rules apply to all girls at all ages because all girls are seen as sexual beings that create list in all men. In OUR culture, we teach that there is a very clear difference between a child and an adult. We focus on sexualizing adults and their bodies, and people are taught from a young age to sexualize things like breasts, which aren't seen on prepubescent women, and facial/muscular features on men that aren't found on prepubescent boys (such as jaw structure and muscle density). OUR culture teaches that sexual thoughts about or actions towards children of either gender is forbidden and evil. Therefore, people in OUR culture KNOW that sexual acts against a child is inherently different than those against an adult, while someone that grew up in ATI doesn't know that unless their parents are teaching them things outside of typical ATI teachings. As such, Josh's actions against his 5 year old sister are inherently different than the actions of a 15 year old boy in OUR culture against a 5 year old girl because Josh likely did not see a difference between sexually abusing a girl his age and sexually abusing a girl 10 years younger than him.

10 hours ago, pfled said:

Why wouldn't they stay in the Stoney Brook house or the pool house?  Sure, Stoney Brooke was up for rent back in spring- but I can't imagine mansions on the hillside are typical renters specs.  They also have a guest house on their property.  They have plenty of space for smugs to take his family to be "independent".

Right now, Josh isn't home with his family and we have no idea what the plan is after he gets out, only speculation. So, I'm not sure what the point of your question is. 

[ksgranola1]

Anna & Josh's marriage will be changed, different than it was before. I can't see Josh staying fundie. He might come out saying he wants to drop it & send the kids to real school. Wonder how Anna would react to that.

[HWest]

Fourteen indoctrinated, barely educated, sexually repressed children and two hyper sexed adults living in a 3 bedroom house. What could go wrong?

[SassyPants]

1 hour ago, ksgranola1 said:

Anna & Josh's marriage will be changed, different than it was before. I can't see Josh staying fundie. He might come out saying he wants to drop it & send the kids to real school. Wonder how Anna would react to that.

I think this is their only hope for being together and lving somewhat satisfying lives- leave the cult and go more mainstream. The cult eff'd up Josh-

[ljohnson2006]

Smugs and Anna's marriage will never be the same. A fake vow renewal concocted by Boob and TLC won't help the mess that's already been done. Anna needs to move on. There are plenty of men who would treat Anna how she deserves to be treated.

[2manyKidzzz]

But what does Anna say to Joshley when she sees him. Time to pray, dear? I  cannot imagine. 

[Dandruff]

1 hour ago, ksgranola1 said:

Anna & Josh's marriage will be changed, different than it was before. I can't see Josh staying fundie. He might come out saying he wants to drop it & send the kids to real school. Wonder how Anna would react to that.

I don't think Anna would like it one bit.  She's a Gothard fundie and was raised with the expectation that she'd homeschool.  I also don't know what kind of school they could, practically, send the kids to.  Private schools are expensive and I doubt they'd send the kids to public school. 

[Percy]

Anna appears to have emotionally stepped back from Josh by referring to him as 'Joshua' in her interviews rather than Josh. I think they will quietly settle close to JB &M for family support and stay off the radar.

[Dandruff]

9 minutes ago, Percy said:

Anna appears to have emotionally stepped back from Josh by referring to him as 'Joshua' in her interviews rather than Josh. I think they will quietly settle close to JB &M for family support and stay off the radar.

I see it differently.  I think Anna is asserting that she's his wife by calling him by a name that others don't.  I'm pretty sure I remember her using "Joshua" around the time they were married too.

[MakeItSo]

2 hours ago, HWest said:

Fourteen indoctrinated, barely educated, sexually repressed children and two hyper sexed adults living in a 3 bedroom house. What could go wrong?

Quick! Sell it to MTV! Real World - Fundie Edition "...find out what happens..."

[ShepherdontheRock]

13 minutes ago, Dandruff said:

I don't think Anna would like it one bit.  She's a Gothard fundie and was raised with the expectation that she'd homeschool.  I also don't know what kind of school they could, practically, send the kids to.  Private schools are expensive and I doubt they'd send the kids to public school. 

Of course, according to the very patriarchal culture she lives in, it's not like she'd have a choice if it was what Josh wanted.

8 minutes ago, Dandruff said:

I see it differently.  I think Anna is asserting that she's his wife by calling him by a name that others don't.  I'm pretty sure I remember her using "Joshua" around the time they were married too.

I think Anna was doing it to try hard to convince HERSELF, not to mention the cameras.

I mean, with all her stammering, it looked like she was basically saying "No guys, I REALLY want to stay with Joshua! REALLY!" But I think deep down inside she knows her marriage is broken beyond repair.

[InThePrayerCloset]

36 minutes ago, Percy said:

Anna appears to have emotionally stepped back from Josh by referring to him as 'Joshua' in her interviews rather than Josh. I think they will quietly settle close to JB &M for family support and stay off the radar.

I believe that anna has historically referred to Josh as Joshua more often than not... i don't think its a recent change... 

[MatthewDuggar]

1 minute ago, InThePrayerCloset said:

I believe that anna has historically referred to Josh as Joshua more often than not... i don't think its a recent change... 

Yes, she called him Joshua constantly when they were courting

[st4rfl33t]

On 12/30/2015 at 2:03 PM, DuggarsTheEndIsNear said:

snip

I completely agree with the idea her story always seemed off. I've never known a quality porn star to actually risk STDs or conception, both of which would ruin her career. And, frankly, I can't understand why she would have condom free sex with him (or anyone else) without documented proof that he was clean.

snip

According to an article, well a few actually (cause the same info is constantly reprinted), Danica Dillon AKA Ashley Stamm-Northup is apparently a married mother of 2.

On 12/30/2015 at 2:41 PM, 16strong said:

I'm a little sleeved out at how much makeup Anna has been wearing lately, and how perfectly curled her hair is, done up to the definition laid out in the Gothard handbook. I get the overwhelming feeling that she has been told her appearance was a factor in his decision to cheat (we all know that's not true). Poor Anna.

I saw some speculation that she got a nose job. Apparently comparing old pictures of her to screencaps from the VSEs has fueled it.