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

[FluffySnowball]

2 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

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.

That’s crazy. Oh the other hand, the purity cult places a huge emphasis on women staying virgins until marriage. How’s that explained to girls without mentioning sex? 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

2 minutes ago, FluffySnowball said:

That’s crazy. Oh the other hand, the purity cult places a huge emphasis on women staying virgins until marriage. How’s that explained to girls without mentioning sex? 

By treating them like children and giving vagaries like not to let anyone touch them in their bathing suit zone.  Which for fundies is most of their bodies.  

14 minutes ago, Idlewild said:

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! 

I agree - her following would have made her attractive for a tell all or even exclusive interviews for bigger $ if she were dishing the dirt.

I know it's not who she is, and she doesn't have it in her, but had she taken her brother up on his offer of a place to stay she could have made enough from a tell-all (especially then when interest was high and she was not yet complicit) to hold her for a time while she got her shit together.

But those aren't the actions of someone with Anna's worldview.

[nokidsmom]

16 hours ago, nausicaa said:

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. 

I do hear you, and agree that someone deciding to stay with a cheating spouse is a private decision (also know people who have done).  Still there will be those whose minds who will boggle over it, especially if the cheating is publicly known as it is in this case.   

But I realized something that I didn't make clear in my earlier post.   Anna learned some very damning things about her husband in a very short amount of time.   I can see her viewing the molestations as something that occurred before their marriage, not necessarily liking it but accepting it as something that happened before.  But then learning of his cheating, while perhaps forgiveable in itself, taken together with the molestations, plus the overall dishonesty from her husband and people around her, it just seems like it would be a bridge too far to consider staying around that.   But then again, maybe that's just me.   

16 hours ago, nausicaa said:

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. 

IIRC, when she had Meredith, she got a lot of sympathy, having her baby while Josh was in Jesus Jail.  However when she went on to have 2 more, that's when she got the criticism from people wondering what the hell was she thinking.  

17 hours ago, nausicaa said:

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. 

The sad part is that we know they didn't get any serious counseling, something that both of them needed very badly.   Having babies to save your marriage, just no, especially for this marriage.  Let's just say I feel badly for those last 2 kids.  

[Giraffe]

I also feel sad for the oldest couple of M’s. What were they told why their dad left for a long time? There’s no way they escaped unscathed, even in that insular setting. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

6 minutes ago, Giraffe said:

I also feel sad for the oldest couple of M’s. What were they told why their dad left for a long time? There’s no way they escaped unscathed, even in that insular setting. 

Idk what they know, but it's going to be a very rude awakening for all of those kids when they find out.

[nokidsmom]

8 minutes ago, Giraffe said:

I also feel sad for the oldest couple of M’s. What were they told why their dad left for a long time? There’s no way they escaped unscathed, even in that insular setting. 

No matter what they were told, I can't imagine that they didn't pick up on surrounding tensions and sadness, especially from their mother.

3 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Idk what they know, but it's going to be a very rude awakening for all of those kids when they find out.

Ideally, I would like to think they can be somewhat prepared as time goes on, in an age appropriate way, because there will be a time that they all will find out the inglorious truth.   Better yet, the family goes private and disappears.  But I doubt it because this whole family is still addicted to being in the public eye on some level and still seems to operate according to what they think the world should be rather than how the world really is.   Public reactions to their scandals don't seem to have caused any rude awakenings for them nor cause them to lower their profile so my bet is these kids will find out the hard way.  

[Giraffe]

4 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

12 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Idk what they know, but it's going to be a very rude awakening for all of those kids when they find out.

? Ignore the double quotes

 ? I see all of the M’s leaving the compound soon after their 18th birthday. When the first couple leave the rest will follow. They live in such dishonesty now. I’m not saying they should be told what their father did, but secrecy is such a mindf___. How bizarre it will be to grow up in such a harsh environment* where hitting (“spanking”) is the first line of control and yet eventually find out what their dad did and all he got was Jesus jail.  
 

* no matter how much Anna appears to enjoy motherhood, she still idolizes Michelle and I believe she’s raising her kids just as steeped in gothardism as the oldest Duggars were. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

8 minutes ago, nokidsmom said:

No matter what they were told, I can't imagine that they didn't pick up on surrounding tensions and sadness, especially from their mother.

Ideally, I would like to think they can be somewhat prepared as time goes on, in an age appropriate way, because there will be a time that they all will find out the inglorious truth.   Better yet, the family goes private and disappears.  But I doubt it because this whole family is still addicted to being in the public eye on some level and still seems to operate according to what they think the world should be rather than how the world really is.   Public reactions to their scandals don't seem to have caused any rude awakenings for them nor cause them to lower their profile so my bet is these kids will find out the hard way.  

I agree.  I hope at least some of them retain whatever spirit they have to muster up valid anger and demand Anna explain her choices.

[viii]

I don't think all the M children will leave, but I do hope that at least a couple will have enough courage to question how they've been raised. It's not an easy path to question everything you know. 

[nokidsmom]

24 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I hope at least some of them retain whatever spirit they have to muster up valid anger and demand Anna explain her choices.

I don't think it has occurred to Anna of this possibility.  She might be in for a rude awakening of her own.

[Idlewild]

It’s a horrible thought to imagine MacKynzie  getting access to a smartphone & Googling her name knowing the likely response will be punishment for looking & Anna and Michelle gushing that Jesus forgave him and there’s no need to worry. Awful. 

Edited March 11, 2020 by Idlewild
Typo

[kmachete14]

Am i in the minority to think Anna doesn't really care at all? According to what she's been told, its "normal" for incestuous type curiosity in families, that her husband was punished and learned the error of his ways as a child, that his sisters weren't really affected at all and forgave him, and in her mind, it was a childhood mistake irrelevant to him now. 

In terms of the cheating, he never admitted to actually having an affair, just making the accounts and chatting. That was the devil tempting him, good thing he didn't follow through! And then he went to Jesus jail and has been a good husband ever since. Meanwhile, while he was gone, she became best friends with his sisters, got sympathy from her circle, and was surrounded by all people that supported her decision to stay in the marriage. Honestly life might be even better for her now. 

She has a cowed husband that learned his lesson, she has the security of family business, and she has her own castle (home) to be the queen of when it comes to homeschooling her kids, dressing them cute, and branding the #littleduggars. 

People also forget the power of compartmentalizing things. 

[nokidsmom]

13 minutes ago, kmachete14 said:

People also forget the power of compartmentalizing things. 

IIRC when Josh was in Jesus Jail, there was an interview with Anna where she spoke of Josh's betrayal.  One thing she mentioned was "going back to the way things were before" or something like that.    While she looked to be in a lot of (emotional) pain, that statement jumped out at me.   It was my first clue that she was not going to leave, quite the opposite, she wants to carry on as if this didn't happen. 

[Giraffe]

39 minutes ago, nokidsmom said:

...she wants to carry on as if this didn't happen. 

Damn. If any of the kids leave Anna will have a lot of anger aimed her way! 
 

(I say this from watching my own family of origin, but I believe there are studies on this, too.) Anna’s in for a rude awakening when any of the kids leave. Often the non-addict, in this case it’s Anna, is the target of more anger from the kids than the addicted parent because they’re seen as the one who could’ve actually changed things while the addict was off in their addiction. As in, “you could’ve divorced him and yet you chose not only to stay with him but to dig into your delusions even further and pretend life’s perfect.”
 

Unfortunately for Anna she’ll find out the hard way not everyone enjoys living in a land of lies and deception. Some of us love the truth and reality too much to keep supporting illusions, even if it means having little or no contact with our families of origin. No, she is in no way to blame for any of her husband’s actions, but she IS responsible for how she handled life after she found out.

Edited March 11, 2020 by Giraffe
Removing an extra word

[nokidsmom]

13 minutes ago, Giraffe said:

(I say this from watching my own family of origin, but I believe there are studies on this, too.) Anna’s in for a rude awakening when any of the kids leave. Often the non-addict, in this case it’s Anna, is the target of more anger from the kids than the addicted parent because they’re seen as the one who could’ve actually changed things while the addict was off in their addiction. As in, “you could’ve divorced him and yet you chose not only to stay with him but to dig into your delusions even further and pretend life’s perfect.”

ITA.  Saw this with a family member and some friends who were shocked that their kids held them more responsible as opposed to the addicted/cheating/abusive parent.   It prompted the family member to finally initiate a divorce.   It really shook her out of the delusion that she was doing the right thing by her family in staying and pretending that everything was really ok.

24 minutes ago, Giraffe said:

Unfortunately for Anna she’ll find out the hard way not everyone enjoys living in a land of lies and deception.

With Anna it will be particularly hard.   No only the lies and deception she is telling herself in order to carry on "the way things were before", and thereby feeding those lies to her own kids, thereby making them parties to the deception, there's the simple fact that her husband's bad behavior is publicly known.  It will always be there even if he stays on the straight and narrow and never messes up again.  There's no way she's going to protect those kids from finding out the truth so she is setting herself up for some nasty surprises almost automatically.   

37 minutes ago, Giraffe said:

No, she is in no way to blame for any of her husband’s actions, but she IS responsible for how she handled life after she found out.

If Josh messes up again, leaves the family, or other problems arise because of him, things could really go to sh*t between her and her kids.   And it would be deserved. 

[FluffySnowball]

3 hours ago, kmachete14 said:

In terms of the cheating, he never admitted to actually having an affair, just making the accounts and chatting. That was the devil tempting him, good thing he didn't follow through! And then he went to Jesus jail and has been a good husband ever since. Meanwhile, while he was gone, she became best friends with his sisters, got sympathy from her circle, and was surrounded by all people that supported her decision to stay in the marriage. Honestly life might be even better for her now. 

She has a cowed husband that learned his lesson, she has the security of family business, and she has her own castle (home) to be the queen of when it comes to homeschooling her kids, dressing them cute, and branding the #littleduggars. 

I don’t actually think Anna feels good about what happened in any way whatsoever. Underneath all the suppressed emotions and cult indoctrination, she still is a human being. And she was betrayed by someone (multiple people actually) she trusted deeply. Josh’s cheating not only revealed he’s interested in other women, it also meant a fall from public grace for both of them. Anna’s no longer the dutiful wife to an aspiring politician, she’s the pitied wife to someone who can’t even show his face on his family’s tv series. 

Sure, staying in her marriage might make Anna feel righteous and she might be proud of her decision. She might also compartmentalize a lot. But what happened must have been scarring. Under all the cultish crap, she is a person with emotions. Not even Gothardism can switch them off. I can’t imagine she shook all the scandals and revelations off. 

Lastly, if I were in her shoes, I’d feel really self conscious after knowing my husband wants to cheat on me. That’s wrong, of course, and there’s no need for that whatsoever. But still, I assume that’s how Anna feels quite a lot, especially when pregnant or postpartum. 

1 hour ago, nokidsmom said:

If Josh messes up again, leaves the family, or other problems arise because of him, things could really go to sh*t between her and her kids.   And it would be deserved. 

I see that happening in the future. I’m 85% certain Josh will leave Anna eventually. It might not happen soon, it might take years if not decades. But eventually, he’ll leave. Maybe when JB and Michelle become older and their control of and power over their children decreases? I don’t know what will cause the final break, but I assume there will be one. And if my prediction should come true, I’ll really pity Anna! Cause then, she’ll have wasted too many years of her life with a man and in a marriage that weren’t worth her commitment. 

Edited March 11, 2020 by FluffySnowball

[Peaches-n-Beans]

5 hours ago, kmachete14 said:

Am i in the minority to think Anna doesn't really care at all? According to what she's been told, its "normal" for incestuous type curiosity in families, that her husband was punished and learned the error of his ways as a child, that his sisters weren't really affected at all and forgave him, and in her mind, it was a childhood mistake irrelevant to him now. 

Honestly, what horrifies me the most is the "normal" aspect of all this. Cause it's not normal, and how can anyone look at being in a situation where it is normal and then the wider world where it's not and be like "Oh yeah my situation is totally fine.". If it happened again, that would be the same reaction. It's just so... mind boggling to me, how can anyone think that 1) it's normal and 2) it's perfectly healthy to live in a situation where its considered normal

[lizzybee]

Gothard has a whole thing in his seminars about not becoming angry and bitter on the behalf of others. I imagine she’s applying that teaching to the molestation information she has. They told her it happened, all was forgiven, and that everyone had moved on. I’m supposing she would view holding grudges about that or feeling outraged on the behalf of the victims to be taking up problems that weren’t hers to deal with and going against her faith. 
 

Gothard also has a thing about keeping things for yourself from God and not giving them over to Him. He says that allows footholds for Satan to come in and cause all sorts of problems for you. Assuming she also fully believes that teaching, she would believe there would be a lot of unnecessary pain and difficulty in not choosing to give her feelings of pain and betrayal over to God and forgiving Josh for all of the unfaithful behavior. 
 

I believe she believes the most loving and Christian thing she could do for Josh is to remain at his side and refuse to give up on him regardless of what he’s done. That would be emulating Christ and emulating the God-Sinner relationship: faithfully pursuing her husband is in the same way Hosea obeyed God and stayed with his prostitute wife Gomer. 
 

Anna, I’m guessing, believes that it’s not about her feelings, or the difficulties she’s faced, it’s about her relationship with God. She said herself that she made a promise to God that she would be Josh’s wife and love him for better or worse. 

[Perrierwithlemon]

8 hours ago, FluffySnowball said:

Oh the other hand, the purity cult places a huge emphasis on women staying virgins until marriage. How’s that explained to girls without mentioning sex? 

This is an interesting question. My guess is that they use biblical terminology, but they don't define them. (i.e., be pure, think about what is good; sexual immorality is bad, and words like "intercourse," "sleeping with," etc. may not hold much meaning beyond being generally "bad" because young girls may not know what sex is yet.) It's all very vague and general, and I think the girls are probably discouraged from asking questions or showing any signs of curiosity because sex is such a taboo topic to them. But it is entirely fine to talk about, and encourage, purity. 

When vague terms like "sexual immorality" are used, girls might put anything remotely sexual/romantic in that category. I think this is where the "don't hold hands," "don't hug," and "don't kiss" ideas originate.

8 minutes ago, lizzybee said:

Anna, I’m guessing, believes that it’s not about her feelings, or the difficulties she’s faced, it’s about her relationship with God. She said herself that she made a promise to God that she would be Josh’s wife and love him for better or worse.

Yes to all of what you said. Her decision to stay with Josh, in her mind, makes her a better, more godly wife. That is what strength is to her. That is what she has been taught. And that is what she sticks to. (However, most Christians I know view adultery as a valid (and biblical) reason for divorce. So I think she is taking the whole promise/vow thing very seriously. Otherwise I don't understand why she would stay with him.)

[scoutsadie]

5 hours ago, FluffySnowball said:

 I’m 85% certain Josh will leave Anna eventually. It might not happen soon, it might take years if not decades. But eventually, he’ll leave. Maybe when JB and Michelle become older and their control of and power over their children decreases? I don’t know what will cause the final break, but I assume there will be one. And if my prediction should come true, I’ll really pity Anna! Cause then, she’ll have wasted too many years of her life with a man and in a marriage that weren’t worth her commitment. 

I just can't imagine this actually happening, short of Josh being discovered molesting someone new. (And sadly, I'm not sure she would leave him then.)

[Sabine]

15 hours 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. 

The point is not that she or they are still American, the point is that the Duggars in Arkansas have power and influence and they could very well argue that they are better suited to raise these children rather then a now divorced Mum with limited earning options. 

The point is that it would not be the first women who is not getting the children because the husbands family is rich, powerful and connected, and she is essentially nothing more then a helpmeet.  So yeah, on paper she might have all the rights of an American, but in real life the question stands, does she have her own bank account? does she have property - any, including jewelry, or anything else of value in her own name? Or is she fully and totally depended on the Duggar Family for housing and even her three meals a day. Because if she is, and i suspect all the daughter in laws are, then i suggest that she might have a good chance to not be given the children in case of a divorce - if she is the one initiating it. 

Also, i am old enough to remember women getting divorced in the early 70's where that shit with no bank account and all belongings in the husbands name often led to total destitution of the women and her children in the case of divorce. 

[Idlewild]

1 hour ago, Sabine said:

The point is not that she or they are still American, the point is that the Duggars in Arkansas have power and influence and they could very well argue that they are better suited to raise these children rather then a now divorced Mum with limited earning options. 

The point is that it would not be the first women who is not getting the children because the husbands family is rich, powerful and connected, and she is essentially nothing more then a helpmeet.  So yeah, on paper she might have all the rights of an American, but in real life the question stands, does she have her own bank account? does she have property - any, including jewelry, or anything else of value in her own name? Or is she fully and totally depended on the Duggar Family for housing and even her three meals a day. Because if she is, and i suspect all the daughter in laws are, then i suggest that she might have a good chance to not be given the children in case of a divorce - if she is the one initiating it. 

Also, i am old enough to remember women getting divorced in the early 70's where that shit with no bank account and all belongings in the husbands name often led to total destitution of the women and her children in the case of divorce. 

Women being favoured in custody arrangements when the wife left the marriage is a historically recent phenomenon- in the early part of the last century it wasn’t so. A famous example is the break up of Princess Diana’s parents - Diana was only 7 and went to live with her mother but her father successfully won custody of her, most believed due to his powerful connections.

That said, the revelations about Josh’s molestation should have been a blocker to sole custody and I doubt his parents could convince anyone about concern for welfare given they did fuck all about Josh.

[finnlassie]

18 hours ago, Idlewild said:

It’s a horrible thought to imagine MacKynzie  getting access to a smartphone & Googling her name knowing the likely response will be punishment for looking & Anna and Michelle gushing that Jesus forgave him and there’s no need to worry. Awful. 

This reminded me, hasn't the Duggar family used some sort of censorship mobile plan for all of the kids living at home? The one that they can also spy on like every website and message they've ever visited or sent. I wouldn't be surprised if the same was done for M-kids, and they would definitely try to block certain search words.

[viii]

7 hours ago, Sabine said:

The point is not that she or they are still American, the point is that the Duggars in Arkansas have power and influence and they could very well argue that they are better suited to raise these children rather then a now divorced Mum with limited earning options. 

The point is that it would not be the first women who is not getting the children because the husbands family is rich, powerful and connected, and she is essentially nothing more then a helpmeet.  So yeah, on paper she might have all the rights of an American, but in real life the question stands, does she have her own bank account? does she have property - any, including jewelry, or anything else of value in her own name? Or is she fully and totally depended on the Duggar Family for housing and even her three meals a day. Because if she is, and i suspect all the daughter in laws are, then i suggest that she might have a good chance to not be given the children in case of a divorce - if she is the one initiating it. 

Also, i am old enough to remember women getting divorced in the early 70's where that shit with no bank account and all belongings in the husbands name often led to total destitution of the women and her children in the case of divorce. 

This reads like a book, lol. The Duggars are not that rich, powerful or connected that they would be able to take Anna's children and leave her with zero rights. It's 2020, women are capable of working even if they don't have secondary education. Anna could find ways to support her children, so a judge isn't going to decree her an unfit parent because she has limited earning options. The very fact that you call her 'nothing more than a helpmeet' is more likely to give her custody than have her lose it, because she is the primary care-giver and those children are attached to her. 

Combine that with Josh's history and the Duggar scandals, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any judge to rule in Josh's favour for sole custody. 

Not to mention, I think Josh would shit his pants at the very idea of it. Lord knows he didn't want half of those children to begin with, let alone being legally responsible for raising them on his own. 

[Sabine]

12 minutes ago, viii said:

This reads like a book, lol. 

Nah, really it does not, was quite common. A

12 minutes ago, viii said:

Combine that with Josh's history and the Duggar scandals, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any judge to rule in Josh's favour for sole custody. 

You be surprised what money and influence can buy. Also Michelle was mother of the year, they have political support (Boob was a local politician right?) , they are pro life, live in a big house with lots of helpmeets and unpaid baby sitters, etc etc etc, and could potentially take better (in terms of housing, feeding, supervision) care of the children then the women could with three jobs to make ends meet. And yes, men do get custody if they can make the argument that they are better set up to take care financially. 

12 minutes ago, viii said:

Not to mention, I think Josh would shit his pants at the very idea of it. Lord knows he didn't want half of those children to begin with, let alone being legally responsible for raising them on his own. 

Michelle nor Boob give a flying fudge about what any of their children want/wanted. These grand kids are Duggars and as such as much property of Michelle and Boob as Josh was and still is.  Can you imagine one of the little girls getting married in 10 odd years? -  The Duggars, third generation, still counting. 

I still think that it would be a formidable task for any of these home schooled, married of young, mothers of several should they want to leave their husbands and fight against their in laws for what legally should/would be theirs.