Jump to content
IGNORED

Joy and Austin 14: Pregnant with Their First


Destiny

Recommended Posts

Just now, Jenn The Heathen said:

Yes, Joy is baking a big ole Duggar baby, but what I really want to talk about is Jana's fabulous shoes!  

Jana is fierce. So is Jinger. Childfree and in heels !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 592
  • Created
  • Last Reply
4 hours ago, singsingsing said:

Supposedly someone let it slip that Joy is due late February. I believe that would put her at about 16-18 weeks along right now. I really don't think she looks abnormal at all for that point in her pregnancy, considering she's carrying octuplets.

Michelle would turn as green as that awful shirt so help us Rufus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎9‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 8:12 AM, SassyPants said:

I just have one question- so this would go to all physical descriptions as well? How would you verbally acknowledge different body types for a person who is on the larger, thicker size?  

Personally I'm a fat woman.  I know I'm fat, I don't care what anyone thinks about my fat, my husband luves me and so do my kids and my nieces and nephew, those are the only people I really give a shit about.  I've found at the ripe old age of 47 that I give less and less fucks every year what people I don't know think.  I'm enjoying it, 10 years ago I would be horrified. Now I would NEVER EVER say this to anyone else, because there are lot of people who are NOT as carefree about their size as I am, but I'm not offended when someone calls me fat, I'm more "really captain obvious?"   I personally hate terms like big girl, curvy, plus size, but that is just me, I'd rather you just call me fat, but I realize most people think I'm nuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the size of Joy's "baby bump" is a combination of these things:

1. Food baby- Big dinner (lawd knows there was no real food at the reception, girl needed to eat before the wedding- maybe Tacos4Life sent food for her) 

2. Arching her back ala Momma Jill

3. Pulling dress over her bump to accentuate it

4. Actual baby

PS- Also, I hate the term baby bump  I almost barfed while typing it in this post twice  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Knight of Ni said:

Aren't members of the clergy mandated reporters? I know that many fundamentalist churches don't report but shouldn't there be some legal consequences for them for not reporting?

Yes.  I believe clergy are mandated to report child abuse in every state, although many of them resist mightily.   Some of these self-proclaimed "Pastors" and church "elders" dodge the question by saying that they don't fit the definition when they are caught.

There are penalties for mandated reporters failing to report, but they vary by state.  Usually there are just fines.  And public humiliation when an ugly criminal case of abuse hits the press.  

IME, failure to report is rarely prosecuted.  It is hard to prove when someone had knowledge and how much they knew.  And many of them claim ignorance of the law.  It is expensive to prosecute so they just fall by the wayside.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a Q to the people who think Joy got pregnant before she got married and that's why she's "so big".

If she did, why is she flaunting her bump now?  It would be evidence of her sin, and everyone around her would be absolutely horrified by it.  It would be shameful to her have in full Fundy arched-back, contrapposto stance, pulling her dress around her belly in her brother's wedding photos, not celebratory. 

If she had something to hide, why's she doing the opposite of hiding it, basically?  This is the part of the conspiracy theory that makes absolutely no sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my state pastors are mandated reporters. Not sure about Catholic confession. Aren't you anonymous in a box? In which case, the priest could not report because he doesn't know who you are. Maybe our Catholic friends could enlighten me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Bad Wolf said:

In my state pastors are mandated reporters. Not sure about Catholic confession. Aren't you anonymous in a box? In which case, the priest could not report because he doesn't know who you are. Maybe our Catholic friends could enlighten me.

Not Catholic, but they fight it every step of the way. On the grounds of the seal of the confessional.

I believe they do have exemptions in some states.  Not all.  However, they have been prosecuted, especially when the Church has failed to report its very own predators.    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases

The reason Cardinal Bernard Law is sitting in a sinecure in Rome at the moment, is that he will probably be arrested the moment he sets foot in MA again.  Not for failure to report, but for gross negligence and aiding and abetting crimes.  He did a runner just in time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Snarkle Motion said:

I don't have the exact language at hand but it's something like investigation closed, forwarded to law enforcement, etc. Rarely is action taken.

Federal law trumps state law.  There are some variations among the states but the backbone of the program is Federal.

Federal Law states that Mandated Reporters are sent the bare minimum of follow-up.  The general public is usually not given any follow-up at all.  Probably the language is something like:  screened out, opened for investigation, substantiated, closed, or referred to law enforcement.  You are not told what actions have (or have not) been taken or what services have (or have not) been provided because: a. confidentiality and b. it is none of your business.

CPS is horribly underfunded everywhere.  Some states are worse than others.  Sadly, it seems that only the very worst cases are opened in some states.  In others, cases seemed to be closed after minimal investigation.  It stinks.  

2 hours ago, Snarkle Motion said:

I remember reading DHS was involved in the case. I googled it and this site suggests Josh took them to court to challenge the findings?

That was after 2006.  The forensic interviewing I mentioned.  That is when the DHS involvement happened.

Quote

@Palimpsest I am disappointed in some of your tone in your most recent comments. What you are saying also does not appear to be true.

I am actually trying to be very patient with you.  It is hard to write a summary and include every single detail.

Quote

She may have actually been someone who was involved in the case and had to remain anonymous to protect her job and avoid legal prosecution. I think it's telling that Alice knew the family had to report to DHS every 6 months, that's something very specific that leads me to believe she had knowledge of the case and actually had well intentioned motives for coming forward.

Have you read what Alice wrote?  I stand by calling her repulsive.  If she were involved in the case as a DHS worker or service provider - then she should have been fired!  With prejudice.  She would have lost her licence as a Social Worker, if that is what she was.  And she would have been prosecuted.

You don't seem to understand a very basic principle here:  The privacy of the victim is paramount.  Sacrosanct.  

Quote

Maybe I should take my comments to another forum? But I do want to add my 2 cents.

Maybe.  I'm tired of this discussion.  Thank you for your 2 cents.  You think it is more important to gossip than to protect victims.

We disagree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Snarkle Motion said:

I completely understand the rules of the site and the need to limit gossip due to tabloids picking up the story and potential damage to the site's integrity/reputation.

Final thought, this demonstrates that you don't.  This is from our rules.

Quote

We respect the agency of victims of sexual assault and will not be part of thrusting them into the spotlight they may not want any part of.   

You keep arguing that it OK to expose victims as collateral damage if it also exposes the perpetrator.  And I will add that Josh was a minor when he committed these sexual assaults.  If he had been prosecuted as a minor the record would have been sealed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

That was after 2006.  The forensic interviewing I mentioned.  That is when the DHS involvement happened.

Have you read what Alice wrote?  I stand by calling her repulsive.  If she were involved in the case as a DHS worker or service provider - then she should have been fired!  With prejudice.  She would have lost her licence as a Social Worker, if that is what she was.  And she would have been prosecuted.

You don't seem to understand a very basic principle here:  The privacy of the victim is paramount.  Sacrosanct.  

Maybe.  I'm tired of this discussion.  Thank you for your 2 cents.  You think it is more important to gossip than to protect victims.

I absolutely believe respecting the privacy of the victims. I disagree with Alice outing them. But privacy of victims, in my mind, does not trump duty to warn of imminent risk. In my field we are taught that there may be times when confidentiality is broken if there is ethical duty to warn.

Within my own extended family this occurred. We didn't discuss molestation that occurred many years ago to respect the agency of the victim. The perpetrator actually continued to molest multiple other family members. You know what - the victim actually reports feeling worse now knowing this and that he could have potentially have prevented it from happening to others if it had been made public knowledge.

This is what Alice wrote: "They have lied and lied about their son to protect him at their daughters expense. For some unknown reason the boy is still in the home with the girls. God only know if this is still going on. In my eyes he is a CHILD MOLESTOR. HE SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE HOME. What kind of parents cover up for one child and hurt the others."

This is repulsive to you? This was also written after DHS was involved and Josh sued to protect himself. Also, because of confidentiality we don't know when DHS first became involved. They may have been involved sooner than 2006 but we have no way of knowing. But I don't think the person should lose a license for that (disciplined/sanctioned yes) or Alice may have been someone who worked on the Oprah show or involved in the court system. But to me Alice absolutely wanted action to be taken.

47 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

You are not told what actions have (or have not) been taken or what services have (or have not) been provided because: a. confidentiality and b. it is none of your business.

Nope, I don't get told about the response by CPS. But I hear about it directly from the victims when they have failed to intervene or at time even potentially made a situation worse for the victims (i.e. retribution for discussing it with people outside the family). So I may be seeing a different side of things than you, I hear about a lot of times when nothing happens.

There are no easy answers. But to assume that reporting to proper authorities means that significant help would have been provided to the victims and justice served is not true in my experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, divadivine said:

PS- Also, I hate the term baby bump  I almost barfed while typing it in this post twice  

 

I hate it too! Seeing it over and over in this thread is making me cringe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

molestation is horrible... but having the free agency to share your pain with trusted friends as you feel the need gives a sense of control over a situation you had no control over... the media finding out and spreading your abuse?  I know that in rape cases the media often picks it and writes about it.. Generally in these cases... the victims have taken it to court personally... or they are dead.  

Putting myself into the girls position... they would have made their peace with what had happened and buried it or been sharing it with people they trust.  As children they would expected that their interrogation with the police was private.  I agree Josh's behaviour was terrible.  but the girls DID deserve the right to come forward with their story if they wanted to.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CrazyMumma said:

molestation is horrible... but having the free agency to share your pain with trusted friends as you feel the need gives a sense of control over a situation you had no control over... the media finding out and spreading your abuse?  I know that in rape cases the media often picks it and writes about it.. Generally in these cases... the victims have taken it to court personally... or they are dead.  

Putting myself into the girls position... they would have made their peace with what had happened and buried it or been sharing it with people they trust.  As children they would expected that their interrogation with the police was private.  I agree Josh's behaviour was terrible.  but the girls DID deserve the right to come forward with their story if they wanted to.  

 

I don't dispute this. The girls did not have to be outed. However, it is my opinion that protecting the girls privacy does not trump action to protect other potential victims. Others disagree and I understand their rationale. But I believe in outing a perpetrator, even if it exposes victims (although all effort should be made to protect their privacy), if the perpetrator presents ongoing threat to others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at the picture where they are sitting down, Joy looks much smaller to me... Much closer to what I'm guessing most of us would say "She looks around 16 weeks to me" if we didn't have any sort of time frame to reference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Rachel333 said:

I hate it too! Seeing it over and over in this thread is making me cringe.

What term would you prefer? Bulging abdomen? Pulsating baby sack? Stomach a tiny alien-like creature shall emerge from in order to perform a jaunty song and dance? :pb_lol:

(I don't mind the term and used it for myself while pregnant, but I'm honestly curious what term others may like better.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

What term would you prefer? Bulging abdomen? Pulsating baby sack? Stomach a tiny alien-like creature shall emerge from in order to perform a jaunty song and dance? :pb_lol:

(I don't mind the term and used it for myself while pregnant, but I'm honestly curious what term others may like better.)

I don't know, abdomen? uterus? womb? It's a fairly recent term, what did people use a few decades ago?

It's not like it's a huge deal, but I would like it if another word replaced it, since I find "bump" obnoxiously cute and cloying. Everyone has words they hate, right? :pb_lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@allthegoodnamesrgone I'm with you. I'm fat. There's no other word that works. Do I care? Not particularly. My husband still likes to leave the lights on (if you know what I mean) so evidently he isn't either. Anybody else? Screw 'em. It also doesn't change the fact that I hate seeing myself in pictures. Fat, thin, all stops in between...doesn't matter, I hate the way I look. I think I'm seriously butt-fugly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, feministxtian said:

@allthegoodnamesrgone I'm with you. I'm fat. There's no other word that works. Do I care? Not particularly. My husband still likes to leave the lights on (if you know what I mean) so evidently he isn't either. Anybody else? Screw 'em. It also doesn't change the fact that I hate seeing myself in pictures. Fat, thin, all stops in between...doesn't matter, I hate the way I look. I think I'm seriously butt-fugly. 

I think most of us with self loathing would say something like this.  No matter what shape size look you have  you are butt fugly. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, allthegoodnamesrgone said:

I think most of us with self loathing would say something like this.  No matter what shape size look you have  you are butt fugly. 

 

I'm fat, and lopsided. One boob, one leg shorter and scoliosis. Yay me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know... My problem is different. Not being vain but objectively I am very pretty. It is what it is.  My body is not bad either. 

I am also pretty dumb. I am make a fool of my self sometimes. Words never come right so I have no self confidence.  People have told me they only reason they were  with me for my looks and a husband of a friend said he wanted to sleep with me. 

 

I would give anything to be a smart butterface for even a week. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rachel333 said:

I hate it too! Seeing it over and over in this thread is making me cringe.

I also can't stand tabloid expressions like "flaunting her bump" or "dressing her bump" . Makes it sound like there is no person involved, just an occupied uterus on legs 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • choralcrusader8613 locked this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.