Jump to content
IGNORED

(Possible CW: CSA) Josh & Anna 35: Embattled in Spiritual Warfare!


nelliebelle1197

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, anjulibai said:

I would like to second this. It's definitely triggering just see it written out like that. 

Thirded. 

  • Upvote 4
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, luv2laugh said:

…[snipped]

I don't think they will announce the birth. The media is already making headlines over them smiling walking out of court and the birth would create even more headlines, resulting in more negative comments from the public. The attorneys are likely advising them not to speak. I wonder if Anna will give birth at the Reber's home?

I can’t imagine why she would go over there to give birth.  It’s not as if Josh has been really involved in prior births (didn’t he fall asleep on camera for M-2 or M-3?) and it would be a huge hassle to get Anna over there and set things up when she goes into labor.  Do you all think that Anna will want this?

What would make more sense would be for Anna to have her baby in relative peace with maybe one of her sisters or sisters-in-law for support.  There are no TLC cameras rolling.  There is no need to show the labor and so forth.

I would think there would be a brief announcement on the Duggar family page if nowhere else.  It could just be something along the lines of “babies are a blessing” and “our new grandchild, Mercy-on-Josh Duggar was born on Saturday.”  

  • Upvote 20
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

I can’t imagine why she would go over there to give birth.  It’s not as if Josh has been really involved in prior births (didn’t he fall asleep on camera for M-2 or M-3?) and it would be a huge hassle to get Anna over there and set things up when she goes into labor.  Do you all think that Anna will want this?

 

i doubt anyone inclusive Anna cares  what Anna wants. Anna will do as she is told, until the day Anna decides that Anna has rights, wants, needs and is entitled to needs ,wants, and rights. Until then she will do as she is told. Sadly so. 

(bold mine) 

  • Upvote 31
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

I can’t imagine why she would go over there to give birth.  It’s not as if Josh has been really involved in prior births (didn’t he fall asleep on camera for M-2 or M-3?) and it would be a huge hassle to get Anna over there and set things up when she goes into labor.  Do you all think that Anna will want this?

I suspect that Anna wants to believe it's her - vs. other entities/concepts - who Josh finds most desirable and will make sacrifices for.  No idea whether or not he's trying to convince her of that or if she can be convinced.  If he goes to prison she's going to have even less control over what influences him than she does now, and that might be really scary and demoralizing.  She's about to have their seventh child, may feel she has done her utter best to be his ideal wife, and look at him now.

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Anna will give birth at the Rebers. How can she look this baby in the eye and say her daddy wasn’t there for her birth like all the others I puke as I write this. My guess is Mac duggar sisters and Michelle there. The rebers have fallen on their sword for jb what’s another inconvenience. 

  • Upvote 3
  • Disgust 5
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Dandruff said:

  She's about to have their seventh child, may feel she has done her utter best to be his ideal wife, and look at him now.

Fwiw, she has done her utter best to be the ideal quiverfull, fully compliant, submissive doormat that her parents,  JB, Of'JB and Josh expected her to be. And here she is and it's like God is laughing in her face telling her that she don't actually matter in the grand scheme of things. And she still gets paraded about by the husband, in laws, lawyers to shore up a sorry fucking excuse for a human being. And it seems she can't even say no, thank you, i am preggers and don't need the aggravation. 

 

  • Upvote 20
  • Sad 2
  • I Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Sabine said:

Fwiw, she has done her utter best to be the ideal quiverfull, fully compliant, submissive doormat that her parents,  JB, Of'JB and Josh expected her to be. And here she is and it's like God is laughing in her face telling her that she don't actually matter in the grand scheme of things. And she still gets paraded about by the husband, in laws, lawyers to shore up a sorry fucking excuse for a human being. And it seems she can't even say no, thank you, i am preggers and don't need the aggravation. 

 

You summed up Anna very well. She does what she is told & believes what she is told to believe. I never believed that she knew the whole truth about Josh. 

  • Upvote 19
  • I Agree 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Dominionatrix said:

Question for you all and @mods Would people be comfortable changing the thread title content warnings from “CW: Child Sex Abuse” to just “Content Warning”?

I really want to respect the wishes of those who requested a cw in the first place, and at the same time I’d also love to be able to log into FreeJinger without the words “child sex abuse” constantly popping up in my feed. It’s upsetting and depressing. Thus far I’ve just muted the topics when I see them, but with the trial coming up it’s realistic that we will have new threads coming up pretty rapidly. 
 

Would labeling the threads with the words “Content Warning” be an acceptable compromise? To me it would achieve the goal of giving folks an adequate warning about triggering content, but I understand and respect that feelings vary. 

Completely agree, I hate seeing those words

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AussieKrissy said:

I think Anna will give birth at the Rebers. How can she look this baby in the eye and say her daddy wasn’t there for her birth like all the others I puke as I write this. My guess is Mac duggar sisters and Michelle there. The rebers have fallen on their sword for jb what’s another inconvenience. 

Is it part of the Duggar belief system that fathers should be present at the birth of babies?  Otherwise, why are some of you so certain that Anna will have the baby at the Rebers’?

From what I know of Josh, I doubt he wants Anna to give birth at the Rebers’ house.  She would be getting a lot of attention and it would all be inconvenient for him.  He’d have to act somewhat interested and supportive, wouldn’t he?  As for Anna, she must surely feel more comfortable having the birth at home.

Unless this is a big thing in their belief system, I doubt that Anna would worry about one day telling the baby that Daddy wasn’t there for the birth. (He isn’t going to be there for a lot of things in that kid’s childhood.)  Even if Anna does want Josh around, she tends—as others have pointed out—to let other people tell her what to do.  So whose idea is it going to be that she should have the baby where Josh is?

I guess if it is a big deal in their circle or part of their beliefs, Anna will have the baby at the Rebers’, but otherwise I don’t think it’s what anyone would want. It’s not as if JB can have TLC come over or even do anything on their family page talking about Josh the loving father who just saw a 7th little miracle come into the world.🤷‍♀️  

  • Upvote 8
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually appreciate seeing the Content warning as it currently appears. Yes it's jarring, but it's a good reminder to what's actually here. I think feel like just seeing content warning could be too nondescript a reminder of what's here. I sometimes click on things without thinking. I try not to do that with this thread.

I have no idea what is going in Anna's head. I guess if the Rebers have a bathroom she can give birth there. 

I'm still holding onto hope that they will get divorced once there's a plea or a verdict.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: content warning. I am not triggered, so I don't mind. I know on reddit, there are little "tags", or "flags" next to the title, in a little box in a different colour. On reddit, it's called a flair. The "tag" on Josh & Anna thread could be 'content warning: child sexual abuse'. Could something like that be implemented on FJ? Some sort of similar "tag", so it's not part of the title. Like a similar thing to when a thread turns hot? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: content warning. I am not triggered, but it makes me highly uncomfortable to click on a topic that’s called child sex abuse. Doesn’t matter if there is a CW before it, it feels as if I am purposefully clicking on child sex abuse themes- which feels extremely wrong and weird. Hope I can make myself clear?

But then I am not a fan of trigger warnings anyway, and I will also survive just fine if the title stays as it is.

  • Upvote 6
  • I Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, anjulibai said:

That unshaved look has been popular with several of the Duggar sons for years. They must think it looks good. They are probably trying to get the look that Jeremy and Ben have, but it just doesn't work for their faces. 

The unshaven look only works well if you do keep up with the edges and keep it all on similar length. You can say a lot about Jeremy but he keeps nice clean 'beard-lines'. According to my husband, having a short beard is way more shaving work than having no beard at all.

 

  • Upvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I haven’t been on here much (forgive me if this has been addressed- there are so many threads dedicated to the topic). Do we know if it was ever ordered for the kids to be evaluated by a social worker or doctor? I thought that it was so odd that the judge said no prob for the kids to be around him as long as Anna is there- without further evaluation considering the charges. But I know the system is broken. 

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn’t Josh in Jesus Jail already when M girl 2 was born? I thought he was absent that time around too. Or did he get banished shortly after? Hard to keep up with his transgressions-

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Alisamer changed the title to Josh & Anna 35: Embattled in Spiritual Warfare!

Guys, I love you all, but I have no idea why anyone thinks Josh Duggar or any Duggar or Duggarling or Duggar-adjacent thirsty wanna be has ANYONE advising them on ANYTHING. Especially anyone competent....

  • Upvote 7
  • Haha 5
  • I Agree 5
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I removed the content warning for now, if the discussion heads back toward specifics of Josh's transgressions (for example if new info comes out at trial) then it might need to be added back. 

At this point I think the name "Josh Duggar" is it's OWN content warning, really!

  • Upvote 16
  • I Agree 16
  • Thank You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SassyPants said:

Wasn’t Josh in Jesus Jail already when M girl 2 was born? I thought he was absent that time around too. Or did he get banished shortly after? Hard to keep up with his transgressions-

Josh was between scandals when Meredith was born.

Anna was pregnant with her when we all found out what he did to his sisters.  He lost the DC job and they moved to Arkansas, then she was born.  Then Ashley Madison came out and he went to Jesus jail, leaving Anna with a newborn and 3 other small children.

  • Upvote 9
  • Thank You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I'm shocked that a judge would even consider letting Josh have visitation, even supervised, with the M-kids. 

In college, I interned for social services organizations. It seemed to be standard practice to keep people charged with crimes against children away from children. Even if the person charged was found not guilty in criminal court; CPS was usually involved afterwards, to a point. 

How on earth a court could know the charges against Josh, read the warrants, know his history--and still allow him to spend time with the kids--with his wife as supervisor--is insane to me.  Insane and reckless.

 

Side note, I couldn't handle working in social services. God bless anyone who can. Traumatizing, frustrating, exhausting work--for less money than I made waiting tables.  

  • Upvote 9
  • Love 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My only issue with Anna is she looks so swollen.  I hope she does not have preeclampsia and they attempt a home birth.  The last things those kids need is something to happen to Anna due to birth complications.

  • Upvote 12
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, HereComesTreble said:

Honestly, I'm shocked that a judge would even consider letting Josh have visitation, even supervised, with the M-kids. 

In college, I interned for social services organizations. It seemed to be standard practice to keep people charged with crimes against children away from children. Even if the person charged was found not guilty in criminal court; CPS was usually involved afterwards, to a point. 

How on earth a court could know the charges against Josh, read the warrants, know his history--and still allow him to spend time with the kids--with his wife as supervisor--is insane to me.  Insane and reckless.

 

Side note, I couldn't handle working in social services. God bless anyone who can. Traumatizing, frustrating, exhausting work--for less money than I made waiting tables.  

Josh is being kept from other people's children.  Haven't even rapists sometimes successfully argued for visitation or custody?  It seems that the carnal act of producing a child confers some rights, or at least the potential for them, on people profoundly unfit to be parents.

We have no way of knowing whether Josh has been a terrific father or whether the M kids are or may be at risk, but I hope the judge does.

  • Upvote 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HereComesTreble said:

Honestly, I'm shocked that a judge would even consider letting Josh have visitation, even supervised, with the M-kids. 

In college, I interned for social services organizations. It seemed to be standard practice to keep people charged with crimes against children away from children. Even if the person charged was found not guilty in criminal court; CPS was usually involved afterwards, to a point. 

How on earth a court could know the charges against Josh, read the warrants, know his history--and still allow him to spend time with the kids--with his wife as supervisor--is insane to me.  Insane and reckless.

 

Side note, I couldn't handle working in social services. God bless anyone who can. Traumatizing, frustrating, exhausting work--for less money than I made waiting tables.  

So, it’s been talked about before but the federal system and state are not the same thing in the USA. The federal judge was only deciding Pretrial release conditions. They are basically making sure he shows up to court, and isn’t a public danger.

At the state level there would hopefully be a child services investigation by social workers. It would be handled in family court and we wouldn’t know about it here. Those proceedings are separate and a family court judge could make an order forbidding him from seeing his children without more supervision or at all. Whatever happened there is likely to never be found out here unless someone close to the family finds out and leaks details. 

39 minutes ago, Dandruff said:

Josh is being kept from other people's children.  Haven't even rapists sometimes successfully argued for visitation or custody? 

Yes they have. Getting supervised visitation especially when the other parent isn’t fighting against it and the victims were not his own children isn’t unusual. 

  • Upvote 11
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Alisamer said:

I removed the content warning for now, if the discussion heads back toward specifics of Josh's transgressions (for example if new info comes out at trial) then it might need to be added back. 

At this point I think the name "Josh Duggar" is it's OWN content warning, really!

I would like to respectfully ask that some form of the content warning be put back on this thread. Yes, it was upsetting, but it was good reminder that the content here can be upsetting. Right now this thread is fairly innocuous, which makes it worse, because someday I click here absentmindedly and people will be discussing child sexual abuse in graphic detail.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HereComesTreble said:

Honestly, I'm shocked that a judge would even consider letting Josh have visitation, even supervised, with the M-kids. 

In college, I interned for social services organizations. It seemed to be standard practice to keep people charged with crimes against children away from children. Even if the person charged was found not guilty in criminal court; CPS was usually involved afterwards, to a point. 

How on earth a court could know the charges against Josh, read the warrants, know his history--and still allow him to spend time with the kids--with his wife as supervisor--is insane to me.  Insane and reckless.

 

Side note, I couldn't handle working in social services. God bless anyone who can. Traumatizing, frustrating, exhausting work--for less money than I made waiting tables.  

Child Sexual Abuse Images are classified as Non-Contact Child Sexual Abuse. I've linked an article which indicates that some professionals believe 1st time convicted offenders are at low risk for engaging in "Hands-On" Child Sexual Abuse, although they make clear that a psych evaluation should be conducted, and mental health issues addressed. I realize that might be a lofty expectation in our country. 

  • Upvote 4
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Alisamer changed the title to (Possible CW: CSA) Josh & Anna 35: Embattled in Spiritual Warfare!
7 minutes ago, Bluebirdbluebell said:

I would like to respectfully ask that some form of the content warning be put back on this thread. Yes, it was upsetting, but it was good reminder that the content here can be upsetting. Right now this thread is fairly innocuous, which makes it worse, because someday I click here absentmindedly and people will be discussing child sexual abuse in graphic detail.

Yeah, I agree with this. I think having a content warning is pretty important when it comes to this subject. 

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Coconut Flan locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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