Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal
HerNameIsBuffy

Josh, Anna, M'Kids 22: Sex Pest and Fam in the Windowless Warehouse

Recommended Posts

Giraffe

We only know Anna “was told” before their wedding. For all we know, what she was told was “Josh inappropriately touched some people. He repented, he’s forgiven, and he’s moved on.”  I don’t for an instant think she was given any more details than that, and as Buffy said, she didn’t even know what sex was until days prior to her wedding so imo there’s no way she was told anything other than “inappropriate touching” and that was it along with a large side of “he’s forgiven.” 

  • Upvote 9
  • I Agree 5
  • Thank You 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Palimpsest
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, SilverBeach said:

I know you feel this way, but I don't. I don't see pest in this context as being something as trivial as a gnat. I see it more as a form of pestilence, a really bad thing. I don't impose my American definition of pest onto the British term sex pest. I'm not British, but I can't imagine the term was created to trivialize sexual criminals.

Keep on using it if you like.  I choose not to do so.  Here's why.

You may not have noticed but I am, in fact, British, albeit British living in the US.  Using "sex pest" for Joshua Duggat is to me is making the issue trivial.  While slang can change its meaning over the years, and the definition of "sex pest" on the Urban Dictionary includes sexual harassment and assault,  the examples given are lewd jokes, leering and thong snapping.  Very unpleasant things, for sure, but not really relevant to a discussion about the sexual molestation of minors and incest.

I also avoid phrases popularised by a rag like the Daily Mail, which has never been known for its sensitive coverage of attitudes toward women and minorities.   Now that is an example of the typically British art of understatement. ;)

I prefer accurate and precise descriptors for serious and criminal behavior but, again, keep on using sex pest if you want.

Edited by Palimpsest
  • Upvote 9
  • Thank You 2
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nokidsmom
46 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

She says she was told prior, but I don't believe a woman who didn't know the mechanics of sex until the week of her wedding knew the scope of what he had done to his victims.

In addition to this, I strongly suspect that what she was told was so cloaked in "Duggar/fundie speak" that it wouldn't qualify as honest disclosure even if she weren't so sheltered.  It would have been so vague that unless she asked more questions, she wouldn't understand exactly what happened and may have come to other conclusions.  It might tick the boxes of full disclosure in JB's, Josh's and perhaps Pa Keller's mind but sheltered Anna?  No way.   

1 hour ago, SilverBeach said:

Anna is willfully blind to the abomination she married, and in some way still benefits from being married to him. I have zero respect for her, especially after she had those marriage rescue babies. 

Anna had every right to kick Josh to the curb and divorce his sorry ass after the cheating.   It was one thing to not fully understand what happened with the molestations until it was too late but after he confessed to cheating she should have realized what a serious mess he was, as was his family, that this marriage was a complete clusterf**k and gotten out of there.    While I understand she was in a difficult position and it would be hard to realize the truth about what you married (notice I say "what" and not "who") at the same time, didn't she ever think to look out for her kids, if not herself?  That it might be really, really unhealthy for her children to grow up in a family like this, much less bring in more?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Angelface

I think that Josh was happy away from Duggarville working for someone other than family. I also think that Anna was a little out of her depth away from family support. Josh did not seem to want a mega family. I think he would have been happy with three children, four at a push. If he hadn’t strayed from the straight and narrow, I think he might have limited his family size. The two scandals forced him to return to the family fold and to attend “Jesus jail “. Anna has chosen to stay with him. She made no secret of wanting a lot of children perhaps hoping to emulate her mother-in-law, Michelle. Anna has been able to increase her family size because Josh now has to “keep sweet” in order for them to attempt to repair their marriage. He cannot risk rocking the boat as it would be disastrous for him and the Duggar brand if she decided to leave or decided to spill the proverbial beans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
viii
1 hour ago, nokidsmom said:

Anna had every right to kick Josh to the curb and divorce his sorry ass after the cheating.   It was one thing to not fully understand what happened with the molestations until it was too late but after he confessed to cheating she should have realized what a serious mess he was, as was his family, that this marriage was a complete clusterf**k and gotten out of there.    While I understand she was in a difficult position and it would be hard to realize the truth about what you married (notice I say "what" and not "who") at the same time, didn't she ever think to look out for her kids, if not herself?  That it might be really, really unhealthy for her children to grow up in a family like this, much less bring in more?   

I can only imagine the intense pressure she was under from not only her parents, but his as well. They take their marriage vows very seriously, and I know that she would have had a lot of people in her ear saying that to stay is God's will, God can forgive everything, she chose this and needs to stick with it, etc. It would have been very difficult for her to leave. 

I do have a shred of sympathy for Anna, but it usually flags the minute she opens her big fat holier than thou mouth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nausicaa
2 hours ago, Giraffe said:

We only know Anna “was told” before their wedding. For all we know, what she was told was “Josh inappropriately touched some people. He repented, he’s forgiven, and he’s moved on.”  I don’t for an instant think she was given any more details than that, and as Buffy said, she didn’t even know what sex was until days prior to her wedding so imo there’s no way she was told anything other than “inappropriate touching” and that was it along with a large side of “he’s forgiven.” 

I've long thought this. Also keep in mind the existing ignorant beliefs of the older adults around her, and how many layers of fucked up Fundie telephone this story went through before she heard about it. I'm sure nothing more than inappropriate or unchaste touching was mentioned and Anna assumed (as most of us being told this version of the story would) that he touched some denim skirted hip after church while sitting on a porch swing with a girl he liked.

1 hour ago, nokidsmom said:

Anna had every right to kick Josh to the curb and divorce his sorry ass after the cheating.   It was one thing to not fully understand what happened with the molestations until it was too late but after he confessed to cheating she should have realized what a serious mess he was, as was his family, that this marriage was a complete clusterf**k and gotten out of there. 

I'm always surprised (not angry, just surprised) that people come down so hard on Anna for forgiving Josh for the adultery (or attempted adultery). I've always believed that was between Anna and Josh. I do know several non-Fundie, working women who have chosen to stay with their husbands after cheating and I always thought of it as a private, ethically neutral decision like deciding whether to have kids. 

For me, continuing to have children with him after learning the full extent of his actions as a teenager seems much more up for public debate and chastisement.

I agree though that she and Josh needed to go to some serious counseling after the Ashley Madison scandal (even aside from the obvious molestation issues) and not just have more children. 

  • Upvote 11
  • I Agree 3
  • Thank You 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Giraffe
6 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

I've long thought this. Also keep in mind the existing ignorant beliefs of the older adults around her, and how many layers of fucked up Fundie telephone this story went through before she heard about it. I'm sure nothing more than inappropriate or unchaste touching was mentioned and Anna assumed (as most of us being told this version of the story would) that he touched some denim skirted hip after church while sitting on a porch swing with a girl he liked.

YES! This is the other part of it - Anna was so sheltered that I’m sure nothing actually bad crossed her mind. They (Gothardites) equate so many normal, developmentally appropriate behavior as sin that there’s no way* she could’ve even considered how terrible reality was.

 

* Even though Daniel may have left fundamentalism prior to her marrying (I don’t recall), she was still SEVERELY sheltered and emulated Esther. There’s no way she was “worldly” enough prior to Ashley Madison scandals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bobology
2 hours ago, nausicaa said:

I'm sure nothing more than inappropriate or unchaste touching was mentioned and Anna assumed (as most of us being told this version of the story would) that he touched some denim skirted hip after church while sitting on a porch swing with a girl he liked.

This hadn't occurred to me and it is quite plausible.

A couple of recent posts mentioned that Anna knew nothing about sex/mechanics of sex until a few days prior to her marriage. How is this known? Is this standard operating practice for their flavor of fundies or at some point did Anna mention it? It is alarming, as is everything about them, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I wonder how the mechanics and purpose of her menstrual cycle was explained to her and if she had any foreknowledge of that before it happened.

  • Upvote 8
  • I Agree 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
marmalade

Anna herself said that she and her mom had the talk about two weeks before the wedding. I believe she added that she wouldn't have had it any other way.

  • Upvote 5
  • Sad 10
  • Thank You 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilverBeach
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

You may not have noticed but I am, in fact, British, albeit British living in the US.

No, after all my years on the board, I didn't know! Never picked this up. Consider me edified.

Edited by SilverBeach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilverBeach
5 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

I prefer accurate and precise descriptors for serious and criminal behavior but, again, keep on using sex pest if you want.

Palimpsest, I appreciate the detailed justification for your opposition to the term. As a British person, you certainly understand the cultural relevance of using sex pest as a descriptor more than I do. That's a good aspect of FJ, cross-cultural learning.  I knew you didn't like the term, and felt it was trivializing, but not why.

Consider my hand slapped, although there was no need to imply that I take serious and criminal behavior lightly, as my post history reflects no such thing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
elsiedindin

I do have real sympathy for Anna. I think it’s hard for someone who hasn’t experienced it to imagine the level of coercion and control in a fundamentalist family/community. It’s the same sort of situation when an abused partner isn’t able to leave the relationship. The issue isn’t that the abused person is weak or stupid or complicit in their own abuse. The abusive partner has effectively brainwashed the victim into thinking they need each other, that life would be over without this relationship and that things will get better. Anna has probably never had a relationship with anyone in her life who genuinely cared about her and wanted the best for her. From childhood she’s been taught to repress just about every emotion to the point that she probably can’t identify the negative emotions she undoubtedly feels as anything other than “sin” or “temptation”. It took me years to figure out that not everything I felt bad about was my fault, and that other people were responsible for their own choices. And I was free in every way, while Anna is still thoroughly enmeshed with no obvious way to break free, as well as a personality and upbringing that pushes her to make absolutely everyone happy without giving a single thought to what she might prefer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AussieKrissy

My thought for the day, I wonder what any fundie would think of shows like escaping from polygamy, I do know that it is a tv show but it still does show some of the real horrors FLDS and Kingston people face. Would they recognise some of themselves in the people on the show? Would they be supportive of the people leaving or would they condemn them?

It baffles me how FLDS and kingston can get out but Gothards do not seem to. except a few Kellers 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
patsymae
1 hour ago, Bobology said:

This hadn't occurred to me and it is quite plausible.

A couple of recent posts mentioned that Anna knew nothing about sex/mechanics of sex until a few days prior to her marriage. How is this known? Is this standard operating practice for their flavor of fundies or at some point did Anna mention it? It is alarming, as is everything about them, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I wonder how the mechanics and purpose of her menstrual cycle was explained to her and if she had any foreknowledge of that before it happened.

I do remember shortly after the wedding, honeymoon episode with her in her modest swimwear which Josh talked about, talking about how people think that people like her don't enjoy "the physical side of marriage" but they were wrong.
That's all I got.

  • Upvote 1
  • Disgust 4
  • Thank You 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dandruff
8 hours ago, SassyPants said:

The billion dollar question. How did JB think he would get away with shilling Jesus and family values with this under his own roof? He is either an idiot or one of the biggest narcissistic egomaniacs ever to walk the planet.

He's an adept businessman and a politically-connected good ol' boy.  He could also reasonably expect other families in their close-knit fundie group to keep their mouths shut about Josh's "problem", since if he confided in them they probably also confided in him.  He may have also thought that the show was a gift from the Lord, so why question it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sabine

would any of the Duggar Daughter in Laws be given custody of their children if they were to divorce? 

would they be able to afford a decent divorce lawyer? 

Just wondering, and just how much would expecting to lose ones children play into staying married with someone like Josh Duggar? 

Not having an education etc would be one reason to staying, but if you know you would lose all your children? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tangy Bee
5 hours ago, marmalade said:

Anna herself said that she and her mom had the talk about two weeks before the wedding. I believe she added that she wouldn't have had it any other way.

Wow...that might explain that intense hand sex they were having. I bet Josh had already been sneaking around on the internet to prepare himself and I don't blame him. Somebody has to know what they're doing. Just wish he had kept his hands off his sisters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Idlewild
5 hours ago, elsiedindin said:

I do have real sympathy for Anna. I think it’s hard for someone who hasn’t experienced it to imagine the level of coercion and control in a fundamentalist family/community. It’s the same sort of situation when an abused partner isn’t able to leave the relationship. The issue isn’t that the abused person is weak or stupid or complicit in their own abuse. The abusive partner has effectively brainwashed the victim into thinking they need each other, that life would be over without this relationship and that things will get better. Anna has probably never had a relationship with anyone in her life who genuinely cared about her and wanted the best for her. From childhood she’s been taught to repress just about every emotion to the point that she probably can’t identify the negative emotions she undoubtedly feels as anything other than “sin” or “temptation”. It took me years to figure out that not everything I felt bad about was my fault, and that other people were responsible for their own choices. And I was free in every way, while Anna is still thoroughly enmeshed with no obvious way to break free, as well as a personality and upbringing that pushes her to make absolutely everyone happy without giving a single thought to what she might prefer. 

I could understand this if she was a quiet passive person- but she’s not. In the FRC days she was out their vocally supporting bigoted views. She has now turned her attention to abortion- happy to stand at the side of the road screaming at women, retweet vitriol and bang the drum big time for Trump. She uses her fame, or infamy, to sell products and continues to gush over the in law she that we all agree behaved appallingly, referring to them with cutesy names so perhaps we’ll forget what abusive pieces of shit they are.

If what you say was true she’d stick to simpering beside her husband- she does plenty of that too of course.

She rejects privacy and is proactive in putting her views and family in the limelight- she gets no pass from me.

  • Upvote 9
  • I Agree 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mrs Ms
14 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

It took me 30 seconds to find his 2015 statement on the Duggar site.  Judge for yourself, and note that he did not mention Ashley Madison even though he had been caught red-handed in that cookie jar.

Yeah, yeah.  He cops to cheating and a possible porn addiction.   He tries to get away from his actions when he was *only* 14 and 15.  And says sorry.  But I doubt he has any real empathy for his victims.

 

If this is from the official Duggar site, then it is the 3rd version of his apology at least. Much like the Michelle anti abortion drivel that they passed off as a homage to Jubilee, his statement kept on getting edited to try drown out the critics horror at his first “apology” attempt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HerNameIsBuffy
12 hours ago, Bobology said:

This hadn't occurred to me and it is quite plausible.

A couple of recent posts mentioned that Anna knew nothing about sex/mechanics of sex until a few days prior to her marriage. How is this known? Is this standard operating practice for their flavor of fundies or at some point did Anna mention it? It is alarming, as is everything about them, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I wonder how the mechanics and purpose of her menstrual cycle was explained to her and if she had any foreknowledge of that before it happened.

She mentioned it, I don't recall when.  But she said that she didn't need to know before then.

Leave it to fundies to put basic facts of life on a need to know basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Idlewild

Just to add to my earlier post ( & sorry for the typos) . If Anna didn’t have full disclosure about Josh’s behaviour then it is utterly reprehensible of the Kellers and Duggars. However unlike most women ‘encouraged’ into seemingly favourable marriages only to discover they married a sociopath, Anna could have done something about it when the truth come out.

She had a large SM following and the Duggars were desperate to control the damage- had she said she wanted to separate they would have had to support her otherwise she could have given a couple of well chosen interviews and they’d have sunk without a trace and she could have earned enough to set her and the children up somewhere else. 
of course she wouldn’t have had all the privileges of Duggar life, the people gushing about her godly forgiveness and she would have probably had to work but at least she’d have peace of mind for her and her children and some self respect. The latter 2 were clearly not as important as bowling nights with Lolly and Pops. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
viii
12 hours ago, AussieKrissy said:

Would they recognise some of themselves in the people on the show? Would they be supportive of the people leaving or would they condemn them?

Personally, from my experiences in growing up in a fundamentalist cult, I don't think they would recognize themselves in the people on the show. It's a lot easier to see the twig in someone else's eye than the log in your own. And I do think they would be supportive of people leaving because they believe religions like FLDS to be false, so of course they'd encourage them to leave - same for Muslim, Catholic, etc. 

9 hours ago, Sabine said:

would any of the Duggar Daughter in Laws be given custody of their children if they were to divorce? 

Yes. At the end of the day, they're still American, lol. It's not like this is the ancient times where the man's family could just sweep in and take the children. Mothers are favoured in custody, and I don't think that would change for the Duggars if any of them split. 

44 minutes ago, Idlewild said:

She had a large SM following and the Duggars were desperate to control the damage- had she said she wanted to separate they would have had to support her otherwise she could have given a couple of well chosen interviews and they’d have sunk without a trace and she could have earned enough to set her and the children up somewhere else. 
of course she wouldn’t have had all the privileges of Duggar life, the people gushing about her godly forgiveness and she would have probably had to work but at least she’d have peace of mind for her and her children and some self respect. The latter 2 were clearly not as important as bowling nights with Lolly and Pops. 

Social media following means squat when it comes to leaving your husband, your family, and everything you have ever known. It's easy to support someone online, but none of her followers would have been able to take her in and provide for her and her four children. It's actually really bothersome to me that someone would view it as this simple, because it's really not. 

I do think if Anna had pushed for a separation than they would have supported her publicly, but there would have been A LOT of working happening in the background for a reconciliation. Fundies like them don't divorce; it's not really done because they take their vows so seriously, and genuinely believe it's a damning sin to divorce. And you're giving Anna a lot of credit for her thought process - I genuinely don't believe it would occur to her to think if she stayed, she would receive so much attention and praise for forgiving him, etc. I think she stayed because she has been brainwashed into believing that leaving would have been worse, and she by staying she was honoring God. 

At the end of the day, majority of fundies sincerely believe their lifestyles and actions are honoring God. 

  • Upvote 4
  • I Agree 1
  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HerNameIsBuffy
24 minutes ago, viii said:

Yes. At the end of the day, they're still American, lol. It's not like this is the ancient times where the man's family could just sweep in and take the children. Mothers are favoured in custody, and I don't think that would change for the Duggars if any of them split. 

Especially in smuggar's case where he's publicly admitted to child molestation.  I can't imagine him getting custody over her.

26 minutes ago, viii said:

At the end of the day, majority of fundies sincerely believe their lifestyles and actions are honoring God. 

But do they ask the follow up question of themselves...doesn't God want me to protect my children?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
viii
16 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

But do they ask the follow up question of themselves...doesn't God want me to protect my children?

I genuinely believe Anna truly thought staying with her husband was protecting her children. They have a lot of twisted views about children of divorce, and broken homes. Not to mention, I don't think Anna views her husband as a child molester. She knows the situation (now), but I think she believes it happened when Josh was a child himself. I don't think she views Josh as someone being unsafe around her children. Keeping her family together was probably the best option in her eyes. 

Perhaps I'm giving Anna too much credit, but from my experiences, this is what I know from fundies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Idlewild

When I mentioned her SM following I should have made it clear I meant in the context of she had a medium to publicise any shenanigans by the Duggars if she had wanted to leave and that gave her more power than most wronged women from patriarchal cults. 
I don’t think Mrs Godlylady follower would be offering to take her and the children in! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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