Duggars by the Dozen 28 - A Mild Inappropriate Lawsuit

[eveandadam]

4 hours ago, Mercer said:

Josh's crimes are not sufficient evidence to assume that he was himself sexually victimized. He was obviously behaving in a way that was highly disordered, but there are multiple causes for that besides molestation.

Maybe not sexually victimized  himself (directly) but maybe he did see something, in real life or on film which he shouldn't have seen at all or at such a young age. Maybe he was  exposed to something but not directly involved, ywim?

[MadeItOut]

8 hours ago, allthegoodnamesrgone said:

I'm torn on this I did tell my kids the proper names for their penis and vagina, and was fine with it until they were about 3 and 5 and we were grocery shopping one morning during the week ( I was a SAHM) and they were bickering about something and I hear my daughter say "well your a PENIS" my son replied "you're a VAGINA" then they started screaming PENIS VAGINA PENIS VAGINA. We horrified some old ladies.  

when they were very young we did call them a winky and a business, but they learned both names so they knew but around certain people the cute names were used.  

Strikes me (having dealt with small kids melting down in public) that old ladies in supermarkets can be very nosy and judgy and could probably stand the fright.

[melon]

I taught my boys the correct terms for body parts,too.Penis,vulva, anus.

I despise the nicknames.Muffin,Goose,PeePee,"SpecialSpot" etc.etc.

I had a friend,and when I met her she had 3 girls,three and under.I had my oldest son.I was changing his diaper,the oldest girl asked what was that and pointed to my son's penis.I said" That's what boys have to use the bathroom"I really did not know what to say and did not want to say anything wrong.The three year old pulls down her shorts and say Oh,Is this what girls have???

Kind of embarassing.

 

Oh,and my boys went through a phase that they would call each other "Penis" just to be aggravating.This was around 3-5.

[Mercer]

7 hours ago, eveandadam said:

Maybe not sexually victimized  himself (directly) but maybe he did see something, in real life or on film which he shouldn't have seen at all or at such a young age. Maybe he was  exposed to something but not directly involved, ywim?

The point, though, is that is not a necessary component of the behavior. 

It gets back to the whole idea that sexual behavior must have a directly sexual trigger, which simply is not the case. At a more basic level, it is an assumption that children are sexless unless adults externally impose sexuality - when in fact sexual development (hopefully the healthy kind!) is a natural part of maturation.

I feel this is really important to emphasize because it's one of the main arguments against accurate and comprehensive sexual education: that if children have the facts, it will make them less pure and more sexual than children who are left in the dark. The reality is that accurate sexual education protects children and helps them develop healthy sexuality, and I don't want to start down that slippery slope of assuming that children with problem sexual behaviors would not engage in that conduct if they had just been more thoroughly sheltered. Research does not bear that out, and searching for some unknown sexual exposure just reinforces the problematic assumption that gets dangerous when followed to its conclusion.

I realize that you are not personally arguing against sexual education and are assuming the exposure was not wholesome, but assuming there has to be a sexual exposure in the first place starts us down the path...

[moriah]

21 hours ago, elvirajane said:

Is it possible that Josh didn't touch Jana because she could be the only one to know about the birds and the bees? We know that Michelle and JB have a ritual for girls that get their period for the first time, including giving them the "talk" and a purity ring?

From 12 until marriage, ATI "teens"/young adults were called "Apprenticeship Students" and graduated to the Basic Seminar from the childhood groups.  From Wikipedia Jill was still 11 in March of 2002, but if they'd went to a yearly conference once Jana had turned 12, she would have had her "coming of age" within ATI brainwashing.

I think it's still sex-segregated mostly from descriptions from ATI alumni descriptions of being heavily discouraged from interacting with boys, so it's likely IMHO there were classes the boys and girls went to separately on some matters.  Josh wouldn't have known what was necessarily said then, and might think Jana would catch him out.  Jill and the younger girls wouldn't have had those classes or material from the Basic Seminar as taught to adults.

But also, with Jana being second mom in the family, she would have been believed more easily as well, and had John-David, who would have attended *his* first yearly meeting as an Apprenticeship Student as well, to talk to.  There's many reasons why he preyed on the people he did, and I'm sure that includes the outside victim if "concernedmom" has any more validity than "Alice".  I always thought "concernedmom" in her posting didn't sound like she had a vendetta.  Just as with the redacted police reports only if you do research would you have found out just who she was speaking about... only just that they'd been on TV and in politics. She posted something in a forum about ATI and alumni, not a Duggar site, didn't name her state but the IP address was assigned to Cox of NWA.

I don't know if the more freaky allegations about 8 year olds confessing things was accurate, but both her post and the police reports suggest the outside victim's family leaving the home church (which they would have had to do if it was true the victim had been kept away from Josh and only had phone contact after things came out until 2006) wasn't a "great loss".  If it's true that the men were wanting teenage girls bound tighter, it sounds like the "church elders" at least saw that as a case of "defrauding".  Had she been from a more critical family in the NWA branch of the ATI cult...  I doubt she would have been chosen by Josh.

Another thing that I find so hypocritical and these fundies find so convenient for image/politics is that for JBoob and Holt, they can so easily brag about self-appointed positions of "Elder" and "Deacon" and give their "church" a name to make it sound legitimate when running for office, but it doesn't report child sexual abuse as mandated reporters like Holt must and when they go on TV it's a "group of friends" they talked to, not "the elders of their church" like they told police.

Btw, I lived in NWA, never knew the Duggars personally and never watched the shows or documentaries until all this broke, but knew the politics of the area well.  I worked with a father in a very Christian, homeschooling family who had just as many beliefs about having many children, no abortion under any circumstances (and saw them walk their talk through a poor prenatal diagnosis -- heartbreaking).  But while they would have been prime targets for ATI, her husband was very discerning and I saw his wife copying off homeschooling materials -- not ATI related.  

Everyone knows everyone there at least within 3 degrees if you play "Seven Degrees to Kevin Bacon".  There are lots of other families like the family I knew there who may or may not have been exposed to ATI through knowing of the Duggars, so the idea of someone's husband not buying it but another homeschooling mom in the area staying friends with the mom she knew, and talking about concerns, is entirely plausible to me.

[VelociRapture]

@moriahJust a minor correction - Jill was born May 1991. So she was still only 10 when Josh confessed to his father about assaulting the sleeping victims. 

[moriah]

Just now, VelociRapture said:

@moriahJust a minor correction - Jill was born May 1991. So she was still only 10 when Josh confessed to his father about assaulting the sleeping victims. 

Thanks, my math was wrong.  In that case, neither Jana or John-David may have gone to their first yearly meetings as Apprenticeship Students, but she may have had a lecture.  She was 12, but just barely, in March of 2002.

So Jill really was fudging it when she said she was 12 when it happened.  I guess she was almost 12 when Josh was sent away, but...  Jessa was more frank.  She was 9 when it happened and 10 when Josh was sent away.

[Penny]

I feel sorry for the non family member victim. She has got to be really upset by all this. I sure hope she has gotten the treatment from accredited medical professionals.

[moriah]

58 minutes ago, Mercer said:

I feel this is really important to emphasize because it's one of the main arguments against accurate and comprehensive sexual education: that if children have the facts, it will make them less pure and more sexual than children who are left in the dark. The reality is that accurate sexual education protects children and helps them develop healthy sexuality, and I don't want to start down that slippery slope of assuming that children with problem sexual behaviors would not engage in that conduct if they had just been more thoroughly sheltered. Research does not bear that out, and searching for some unknown sexual exposure just reinforces the problematic assumption that gets dangerous when followed to its conclusion.

If Jessa's assessment of "sly" was accurate in that even if she didn't mean to, she was saying he was careful and not being impulsive but choosing his victims by who might have been asleep but all too young to understand among his sisters, we could also go to her statement about "being too curious about girls" as while both a crappy excuse *and* evidence he was already naturally interested in girls.

And ffs.  Okay, I do get that Josh wasn't 16 yet when stuff happened, that if it'd been reported in March of 2003 to DHS he'd have been a juvenile offender, but he still committed, to his own admissions to his parents, at least seven sex offenses.  He was 15 when he touched the storytime victim.  I had my first date and kiss at 14 with a 15 year old guy. 

I'd been told if a young child engages your child in rough, aggressive, or persistent attempts at sexual touching after your child said they didn't want it, that might be evidence of abuse and not something to just brush off as playing doctor.  The one peer who wanted to show me his if I showed him mine didn't keep following me around trying to show it, he accepted no.  We were 5.  In the realm of normal even though I still knew to tell my mom.  Had he tried to force it to happen despite me saying no, though, I'm sure my mother would have had a talk with his mom.  Something could have been off in that case.

Teenagers?  Nothing can shelter a boy from his first nocturnal emission.

[ShepherdontheRock]

4 hours ago, melon said:

Oh,and my boys went through a phase that they would call each other "Penis" just to be aggravating.This was around 3-5.

Lol, I was under the impression went through teenage years.

 

I think we're going into dangerous territory speculating too much on was Josh molested, why Jana was spared etc, but I think what we can agree upon is 

1) This is definitely outside the bounds of normal sexual behavior

2) Jessa may have wanted to rethink her usage of the word "sly"

3) It's quite likely that Jimboob and JChelle's parenting techniques contributed to this

4) Joshley most likely targeted who he viewed as the most non-threatening, based on his preferences, and judging from the pattern the abuse took.

Also whether or not they have a legal case, it's awfully weird that they first of all, waited until now to sue, and second of all, said "the molestation was no big deal" and then did a law suit that indicated that it really was a big deal. For people that aren't in it for the money it sure looks like they're in it for the money.  

[mlsgregg]

I find that a lot of conservative and fundy/fundy lite stick together. They will support any and all other Christians because they see any negative comments about another Christian as persecution. So anyone professing faith and is hateful, exclusive, vocal and loudly "faithful". This is why Tim Teabow was the greatest football player to ever live. Why horrific televangelists who are smarmy are so well loved, and why the Duggar's are still on TV.  Why they don't care that Josh did what he did.  Jesus forgave him and will forgive anything and everything except if he came out as gay. 

So many problems with that. Grace and forgiveness are not to be taken for granted. You don't do whatever you want and then claim "but Jesus." Actions have consequences. More than one Bible passage tells the reader to go and make things right with others.

Side note: There was a window of time when my parents could have gone fundy. They wanted a big family, it was the 1980's. What they ended up with was 2 kids and a college-educated daughter. I'm so glad that they're both inquisitive, stubborn people who stayed away from that.

[Londish]

3 hours ago, Mercer said:

I feel this is really important to emphasize because it's one of the main arguments against accurate and comprehensive sexual education: that if children have the facts, it will make them less pure and more sexual than children who are left in the dark. The reality is that accurate sexual education protects children (SNIP).

Not to derail your statement, but this made me wonder about something. People outside of the US, what is your experience with teaching kids the proper names? This statement made me wonder because I feel like this is a pretty US-centric idea, of keeping children in the dark about bodily functions and proper names, in a similar vain to how common abstinence only education is.

I do think it is more harmful than helpful, to have this mindset. I think this state of mind encourages shame in their bodies and I can definitely see how an environment that breeds shame would (indirectly) make kids less likely to come forward when they have been abused.

[singsingsing]

I'm Canadian, and I was taught a cutesy name for my 'private parts' and I really regret that my mother did not just teach me the proper names from the time I could speak. I don't think I could bring myself to say 'my vagina' or 'my vulva' or what have you until I was in my early teens. I reminder once when I was around 11 or 12 I had a bad UTI and I waffled on telling my mum for way too long, because I couldn't force myself to use the correct anatomical term, but I was also too embarrassed to use the childish nickname for it. Ridiculous.

[MadameOvary]

1 hour ago, ShepherdontheRock said:

Also whether or not they have a legal case, it's awfully weird that they first of all, waited until now to sue, and second of all, said "the molestation was no big deal" and then did a law suit that indicated that it really was a big deal. For people that aren't in it for the money it sure looks like they're in it for the money.  

There might be nothing at all to the timing of the lawsuit. But it did occur to me that maybe they left it this late to give themselves time to establish medical records. You know, to create evidence to show how badly affected they were by the revelations. Of course they are in it for the money.

[moriah]

Maybe it's because I'm Southern, but "hooha" seems to be the name most of my friends have used routinely with their girls in the house as toddlers.  I know grown women who use the word, and I guess if it's well-known enough their kids can probably disclose adequately, at least to me.  I don't recall a pet name, just "privates" as a euphemism and the technical terms.  I remember knowing the word "snatch" only because of a cousin who used it in a dirty joke when I was first considered by the family old enough to be considered a "young lady", about 11.

Though here's an example of how I was raised:  I recall my grandmother and older sister talking about periods.  I was preK, probably around the time my sister got hers and there's nearly a decade between us.  I piped up with "What's a period?"

My grandmother, not skipping a beat: "The dot at the end of a sentence."

[Jess]

6 minutes ago, MadameOvary said:

There might be nothing at all to the timing of the lawsuit. But it did occur to me that maybe they left it this late to give themselves time to establish medical records. You know, to create evidence to show how badly affected they were by the revelations. Of course they are in it for the money.

Very possible. 

[Icea]

In Sweden we actually have more child "appropriate" version to use for genitalia. While an adult or medical professional would use penis or slida, you can also say snopp for penis and snippa for vagina (snippa is a word that was made up only a few years ago in order for girls to have a word to describe their genitals, the same way boys uses snopp, it wasn't around when I was a kid).

Swedish television's childrens department had a programme a few years back about your body and how it worked, and in one episode they aired an animated music video about the penis and vagina, with the lyrics essentially being "Some people have a penis and some a vagina, they're used for peeing". It was a very good episode that was both informative and fun, exactly how I think children should be taught about their genitals - that it's nothing to be ashamed about and that it's just another body part.

[JMO]

@Icea 20 yrs ago I took a Human Sexuality course in college and they showed us a Swedish sex ed video for middle scholarship kids to show us how much more frank the discussion was than in the US. Eye-opening.  

[VeganCupcake]

14 hours ago, eveandadam said:

Maybe not sexually victimized  himself (directly) but maybe he did see something, in real life or on film which he shouldn't have seen at all or at such a young age. Maybe he was  exposed to something but not directly involved, ywim?

I highly doubt he saw anything inappropriate in that strict environment, except the porn he looked up himself. I think it's the opposite; him NOT being exposed to healthy displays of sexuality on movies or tv, or being allowed to express his sexuality in real-life healthy consensual ways like talking to girls, dating, holding hands, or kissing led to his disordered behavior. Not making excuses for him, he still knew he was wrong. 

[Lurker]

What about Josh's exposure to  JB and Michelle humping and grinding all over the house?  

They don't seem to have appropriate boundaries, and in addition to visuals I could imagine JB taunting or teasing that Josh was not allowed to have sex.

[BlackberryGirl]

The use of cutsey names for genetalia reminded me of BlackBerryGrandBoy. When he was 3 he developed a hydrocele. His scrotum on the right side swelled up as large as a peach.. We had him at the dr the next day.. He was chattering to the nurse about how "the doctor was going to fix it." The nurse misheard him and he reached up, took her face gently in his hands and very clearly said, " he's gowing to fix mah  Skwrrottumm!"

[Mercer]

I'm unable to comprehend Michelle and Jim Bob's thought process in deciding that with a dark family secret of abuse, it would be a good idea to strive to become reality television/media personalities. Without the TV show, the public would have no reason to care that Josh committed illegal sexual acts. He would just be the son of some weirdo Arkansas politician and his actions likely wouldn't even be newsworthy, let alone a nationally known scandal. The show turned the family secret from painful into ruinous. I can't figure out if they were incredibly arrogant in assuming the truth would never come to light and the media would be complicit in maintaining their hypocritical charade, or they were just incredibly dumb.

[VeganCupcake]

6 hours ago, Jess said:

Very possible. 

@MadameOvary Yep they're in it for the money just like they ran onto Megyn Kelly for the money. They really didn't think this through. I think they screwed themselves over with that interview. At least jill & Jessa shouldn't have joined the lawsuit. The other victims who didn't choose to go public should be the only ones suing. These people are moronic. 

[luv2laugh]

STOP whatever you're doing and watch this video ASAP. It details HOW the Duggars were able to file this lawsuit. It's not good news... They're so slimy. 
http://www.nwahomepage.com/news/duggar-sisters-suing-city-for-releasing-molestation-documents/717112740

[Chewing Gum]

8 hours ago, Lurker said:

 

They don't seem to have appropriate boundaries, and in addition to visuals I could imagine JB taunting or teasing that Josh was not allowed to have sex.

Yeah like he did with Josiah's 16 birthday "and he's never kissed a girl!" Eh...that's what YOU WANT for your kids, how cruel to tease them with that. And confusing.