Jump to content
IGNORED

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


nelliebelle1197

Recommended Posts

On 10/11/2021 at 2:12 PM, EmCatlyn said:

For the Duggars just watching porn is the sin—it doesn’t matter much if the porn depicts consenting adults or victimized children: it is the same sin.  They probably don’t understand that it is worse when children are involved—for the same reason that they don’t understand that an older brother pulling down the panties of a younger sister is not the same as two same-age kids playing doctor. (I am not referring to any specific actions of Josh, just speaking generally.)

So aside from the very real desire to protect the Duggar brand, I suspect there is also less of a sense that CSA porn is worse than regular porn.  They probably don’t want to think about it too much (the Duggars are big at not thinking).  My guess is that even though they know that Josh was watching CSA, many in their world don’t see how this relates to children in their real lives or is any worse than watching porn. 

Totally agree with this. It’s very hard to understand if you weren’t raised this way. I was raised in a conservative Christian home and I had ZERO understanding of different levels of wrong. I was told that many things were “bad” Growing up and even into my adult years I thought premarital sex was just as bad as murder or armed robbery. I had absolutely no clue that there were some actually very wrong bad things and others that were just a matter of opinion. Things I believed were all equally wrong were any sex outside of man/woman marriage, drinking alcohol, smoking, drugs, stealing, lying, assault, porn (of any kind), murder, etc. Things that were “bad” but I guess to a lesser degree cause everyone seemed to do them anyway were gossip, bad language, white lies, losing your temper, etc. I would do the lesser bad things but I would have never dared do any of the big bad sins. Now as an atheist looking back the biggest issue I have with Christianity was with the hell was with the focus on purity?!!  It makes zero sense!  Having sex is not “bad” in any way (unless it’s forced!)   
 

All said to say I agree they see ALL pornography as equally sinful and would have a very bad time realizing the child pornography is on a whole other evil level!

  • Upvote 16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under Gothard is child porn worse than normal porn?

Josh and his siblings have been raised that porn is bad.

They've also been raised that women and girls must not tempt men.  Women who do porn are viewed as temptresses (or best case scenario heathens who don't understand and need to be saved).

Instead of don't rape/assault under Gothard restrictions are placed on the victims.  After Josh, the Duggar kids weren't allowed to play hide and seek.

There's a wisdom booklet where a teenage boy, blames the assault on his toddler sisters on the fact that after a bath they were allowed to run through the house naked.  Another where someone blames it on having to change diapers and getting curious.  The booklet talks about taking stops to make it easier on the men/boys.  To not let them change diapers, to not let toddlers ever be naked at home, to ensure little people dress modestly.

This is an environment where they view small children and babies as able to tempt adults and have some responsibility to their assault.  Where women are also infantilised and single women shouldn't be looking after themselves and some people argue that a woman's consent means nothing.  It's her father's (if she's single) and husband's consent when it matters.  Women and children are both meant to be under someone's authority and not make independent decisions.

How can you go from that environment and understand why looking at sexual pictures of children is different to looking at sexual pictures of women?

Especially when porn is already very bad in their circles.

 

DISCLAIMER - I understand the difference between child sexual assault images and adult porn, but there are lots of complicating factors which may mean that Anna and their community don't fully understand  (or agree with) the differences.

None of what of I said in any way excuses or mitigates what he's done.  He knows its not OK (which is why he used TOR) and everyone else including Anna also knows its horrific and need to stop excusing their own damaging beliefs.

Edited by imokit
To strengthen my condemnation of all of them.
  • Upvote 16
  • Disgust 2
  • I Agree 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly I hope he's arrogant enough to go to trial and the jury is disgusted enough to convict quickly (assuming the prosecution proves his guilt) and recommend the maximum sentence. 

I am sick to death of so many fundies getting away with things and believing that they are "blessed" by God because they follow a ridiculous legalistic list of rules. Josh (and JB) need reality to smack them in the face and teach them some real humility. 

  • Upvote 10
  • I Agree 17
  • Love 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On SOME level though, they have to know this is worse though, right? How could they not? Certainly worse than the cheating? Worse than the teenage groping?  And they knew THAT was worse than simple pornography- or two willing teenagers fooling around - they may have beat a kid or humiliated him for watching regular porn but not sent him away to a work camp AND all the other stuff. He got fired from his very conservative Christian spokesman job when it came out- I doubt that the Family Research Council - with it’s similar if less cultish- beliefs would have fired him for watching a little regular porn. So they MUST know CSA, especially the type he’s accused of, is infinitely worse than regular porn? We aren’t talking some mistaken “Barely Legal Teen” type search, where they actually weren’t. Or a fetish video with role play. These are LITTLE kids. All of the normally supportive conservative Christian political figures completely distanced themselves. He topped general twitter trends with people mocking his connection to those figures. They HAVE to know. Right? 

Edited by Mama Mia
  • Upvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

On SOME level though, they have to know this is worse though, right? How could they not? Certainly worse than the cheating? Worse than the teenage groping?  And they knew THAT was worse than simple pornography- or two willing teenagers fooling around - they may have beat a kid or humiliated him for watching regular porn but not sent him away to a work camp AND all the other stuff. He got fired from his very conservative Christian spokesman job when it came out- I doubt that the Family Research Council - with it’s similar if less cultish- beliefs would have fired him for watching a little regular porn. So they MUST know CSA, especially the type he’s accused of, is infinitely worse than regular porn? We aren’t talking some mistaken “Barely Legal Teen” type search, where they actually weren’t. Or a fetish video with role play. These are LITTLE kids. All of the normally supportive conservative Christian political figures completely distanced themselves. He topped general twitter trends with people mocking his connection to those figures. They HAVE to know. Right? 

I would hope that the Duggars would understand that criminal, federal prosecution which could ultimately result in years of jail time, is worse than losing a job at FRC d/t infidelity. And that’s without considering the morals, ethics etc…God Lord the lack of common sense on their part is astounding. But then again, Trump is on TV saying Republicans shouldn’t vote in 2022 and 2024 if the results of the 2020 Presidential election are not overturned. Yes, Republicans, stay home and you’ll surely win all elections.

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

Despite the teachings of IBLP, the Duggars are well aware that adults harming children in a sexual way is not the same as adult porn. This is what they have been screeching about for years, except they claimed it was the liberals/gay/trans communities who would destroy the lives of children by protecting pedophiles. 
 

The issue isn’t that they don’t grasp the horrors of CSA, it is that they exist in culture that downplays abuse when it stems from one of their own. The bad guy is always in the other group, and if one of their own is caught, then it wasn’t really their fault. The conservative, Christian group as a whole tends to want to turn a blind eye to abuse in their own camp while accusing other groups of being the real abusers. 
 

 

  • Upvote 22
  • I Agree 18
  • Thank You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Satan'sFortress said:

Knowing that most people in this situation take a plea, I wonder about the timing of that. If Josh does end up doing that, is it typical to wait this late in the game? 

It is not unusual for a defendant to decide to change his/her plea this late in the game. Even though the Judge has given the parties a deadline for doing so, if they reached an agreement after that deadline but before the trial the Judge would most likely allow it.

3 hours ago, Idlewild said:

His lawyers would have to await the outcomes of the various applications they have filed. If he is taking a plea it’s a tight turnaround to submit an basis that’s acceptable to the prosecution and then prepare the family for what’s going to happen.

Its impossible to know what’s going on with Josh- he may have thought he would win the applications and his prospects at trial would be better. His lawyers have surely now advised him that having had all of them refused, his chances of acquittal are now looking remote and his best chance of avoiding lengthy jail time is to submit a plea by the required time. Whether he accepts this advice of course…

if he does capitulate I think it will be right up to the deadline and they’ll ask for a long adjournment before any sentencing hearing. This will give time for the baby to be born and for him to gather some mitigation about enrolling into proper therapy etc. He’d be crazy to take his chances with a jury - but he may be that arrogant.

I agree w/ your thoughts re: the timeline but have a couple of thoughts on jury trial v. plea.

The Judge cannot ‘punish’ a defendant for exercising his constitutional rights by going to trial, guilty is guilty whether by plea or by jury, so the Judge can’t sentence a defendant to more just because he took his case to jury trial. However, with sentencing a guilty plea is considered an acceptance of responsibility and is a factor in mitigation. If Josh’s attorneys think that Josh’s post jury conviction and post plea sentences would be about the same, then there’s a couple of good reasons to go to trial. First, you never know w/ a jury, so there’s always a shot at acquittal. Second, with a plea you typically must waive your appellate rights, with a trial if convicted you can appeal the conviction.

The biggest downside with conviction by jury for a defendant in Josh’s position, particularly if sentencing would be about the same, IMO is that he’ll probably be remanded into custody as soon as the jury finds him guilty, although his attorneys will argue for continued supervised release pending sentencing that’s not likely to happen since the equation has shifted - before he was presumed innocent, now he’s guilty. Along those lines w/ a guilty plea Josh’s attorneys could ask that sentencing be further out enabling him to remain on supervised release w/ the new baby for a bit longer - of course they’ll use that argument as a reason he should remain out pending sentencing post jury conviction as well.

I don’t know enough about Federal sentencing in cases like Josh’s to know how much leeway there is in sentencing, but my impression is there’s not much. I suspect that if convicted by jury Josh’s statement for the probation report will be full of accepting responsibility & of remorse enabling his attorneys to argue that factor in mitigation. There are cases where the defendant’s conduct is egregious enough and the evidence strong enough that the prosecutor may be unwilling to offer much in exchange for a guilty plea - I have no idea whether that applies in Josh’s case.

Edited by sndral
  • Upvote 14
  • Thank You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@sndral  Thank you for the explanation. I’m a lawyer in England. Here, for most offences there is an automatic discount on the sentence for a guilty plea of around 25% when its entered in good time (usually at plea hearing) and reduces right down if it’s entered on the first day of trial. This doesn’t apply if the sentence is a mandatory minimum fixed in law, for example possession of certain types of prohibited firearms carries a minimum sentence of 5 years and you don’t get any reduction for a guilty plea, but it is counted as mitigation.

Everyone has a right to a trial and to put the prosecution to proof- but the sentencing judge also has the right to consider how your behaviour has impacted on victims, for example or the cost to the public purse if you run a trial, especially if the evidence is overwhelming.

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

1 hour ago, formergothardite said:

Despite the teachings of IBLP, the Duggars are well aware that adults harming children in a sexual way is not the same as adult porn. This is what they have been screeching about for years, except they claimed it was the liberals/gay/trans communities who would destroy the lives of children by protecting pedophiles. 
 

The issue isn’t that they don’t grasp the horrors of CSA, it is that they exist in culture that downplays abuse when it stems from one of their own. The bad guy is always in the other group, and if one of their own is caught, then it wasn’t really their fault. The conservative, Christian group as a whole tends to want to turn a blind eye to abuse in their own camp while accusing other groups of being the real abusers. 
 

 

Such BS beliefs/values/reasoning from ADULTS. I have a long religious history involving parochial school education, and am farrrrrrr from perfect, but I can name and accept my transgressions as an imperfect person, and do strive not to make the same repeated mistakes. I just can not abide the ADULT Duggars reasoning at all. How can you possibly spend so much time in Bible study and bathing yourself in religion, yet have no idea of the basics?

This is what happens when people are isolated and poorly educated, generation after generation.

  • Upvote 12
  • I Agree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Howl said:

It might be a good time to remember that Duggars are not just fundies, but are steeped in GOTHARD/IBLP beliefs about sin and that has to be the point of reference on how they dealt with Josh.  How bad is that? Gothard teaches that victims have some level of responsibility and a role in their own abuse. JB and Michelle are steeped in these IBLP teachings.

Excellent point. If people choose to believe victims played a role and have some responsibility then it seems there is no reasoning with them. Whether Josh pleas guilty, or is found guilty after a trial I imagine he will view himself as the "victim", and by his logic he is a "victim" who absolutely had the role and responsibility. I don't see Josh admitting his role of perpetrator. I can see him saying the devil won, and his sinful urges (totally minimizing his horrific crimes) got the best of him. Hopefully if he pleas guilty he will have to admit his role, take responsibility for his actions, and acknowledge the actual victims. 

  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

Such BS beliefs/values/reasoning from ADULTS. I have a long religious history involving parochial school education, and am farrrrrrr from perfect, but I can name and accept my transgressions as an imperfect person, and do strive not to make the same repeated mistakes. I just can not abide the ADULT Duggars reasoning at all. How can you possibly spend so much time in Bible study and bathing yourself in religion, yet have no idea of the basics?

This is what happens when people are isolated and poorly educated, generation after generation.

To accept that Josh is one of the very bad guys would shake the foundation of their entire belief system. They believe they have the one true way to live. Josh is one of them who was raised in the one true way. If he turned out to be just as evil as they claim the liberal/gay/trans groups are, then their belief system is wrong. Why live by all these strict rules if there isn't a promise that your kid will turn out one of the "good guys"? The bad guys are always in another group, not in their group. I'm not justifying it because they absolutely could accept he did these things, but this is why they resist reality so much. 

Of course, there is no way that some of them didn't read about the horrific things he downloaded and all the evidence that he is guilty, so I suspect this will spark the fire of doubt in at least some of the Duggars. 

  • Upvote 15
  • I Agree 1
  • Thank You 2
  • Love 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, didn’t adult Duggars make some statement that in their circle 2/3 rds of families experienced sexual abuse within the family? So they can poo-poo abuse within the walls of the home, and within their circle, but outside the cone, and where others are involved it is wrong?

I’ll I can say is God bless the Dillards and their circle for slowly but surely unraveling that onion skin and helping to show Jill how dysfunctional the Duggar way of reasoning, dismissing and judging others actually is. I’m so happy that she has the support (family, friends, professionals) that are enabling her to have a fuller, richer and healthier life and lifestyle. 

  • Upvote 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Dandruff said:

When Josh was outed for Ashley Madison why was he sent to Jesus jail in another state?  My suspicion is that Anna wanted him tf out of her sight for at least a good long while.  If she hadn't, couldn't a program have been found that was closer and included family therapy?  At the least, he could have been closer to his kids.  For whatever reason(s) she later took him back, perhaps believed the problems were over, and now this.

 

Because they were looking for a very particular program. It couldn't be local secular therapy. It had to be therapy from an independent fundamental Baptist POV. Reformers Unanimous is a ministry of an IFB church led by a Hyles Anderson graduate. 

  • Upvote 13
  • I Agree 2
  • Thank You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone have the exact quote for them saying sexual abuse is common in their circles? The quotes I've found they have made it clear they didn't view it as molesting or him being a pedophile. They downplayed it has him being curious and making a mistake when he was younger. Michelle was even asked how she could attack the trans community as being dangerous pedophiles when they had a son who molested young children and what he did was nothing like child molesting. 

I would like see them be asked thar question again if Josh pleads guilty. My gut feeling is that they would still try to downplay it. 

  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've forgotten the dates for the timelines of pleading/trial. Frankly Im so sick today, I havent the energy to go look for them. Anybody help me out?. It feels like this has gone on forever and I want to see him in jail.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

To accept that Josh is one of the very bad guys would shake the foundation of their entire belief system. They believe they have the one true way to live. Josh is one of them who was raised in the one true way. If he turned out to be just as evil as they claim the liberal/gay/trans groups are, then their belief system is wrong. Why live by all these strict rules if there isn't a promise that your kid will turn out one of the "good guys"? The bad guys are always in another group, not in their group. I'm not justifying it because they absolutely could accept he did these things, but this is why they resist reality so much. 

Of course, there is no way that some of them didn't read about the horrific things he downloaded and all the evidence that he is guilty, so I suspect this will spark the fire of doubt in at least some of the Duggars. 

Everything above. I think there are several factors at play here in why Josh isn't considered a total reprobate (stealing words from Zsu) by his family. I think @formergothardite has nailed it here -- it would threaten the system -- and a couple other things. Nobody wants to believe their children/family member/brother, etc, would do such a thing, so even for the most secular among us, there might be a little brain worm that goes, "But what if he didn't...?" and that can be really hard for people adjacent to the offender to come to terms with. Now we've combined that with total cult control that prepares you for being an expert in doublethink, and a heavy dose of in-group/out-group psychology. To them, pedophiles are out-group (and they're gonna use some homophobia and sprinkle that all in there) and Josh in major in-group, and in-group/out-group can be a huge variable here. Josh gets patriarchal bonus points, he gets cult bonus points, he gets in-group bias, and he gets an (admittedly, understandable) human belief that somebody you love wouldn't be like that. That's a lot of mind-fuckery to unravel with a SODRT education and one toe even barely out the door, if at all. 

I don't really think any of this is an excuse, but when I think of all these factors I think, "Of course that's why they're acting this way." It is really hard to think about somebody you love and used to trust and finally settle on, "My feelings about them make sense, and what they did was wrong, and I am at peace with the fact that it might never be logical or forgivable to me." 

As for Anna, I think morally she is wrong but strategically, what she is doing right now makes sense to ensure her comfort and in-group status. 

As for their downplaying of it, I mean...people in secular communities do this too. How many people have said, "Well that happened to me as a kid and I turned out fine and it wasn't really that bad" when what they really might mean is, "That happened to me as a kid and if I recognize the pain in you, I have to recognize the pain I feel, and so I must invalidate you to keep myself from being hurt." It's not the same as, say, physical damage but if I cut my hand, and you cut your hand, and you want a bandage then how could I reasonably give you one while letting myself bleed out? If I want to ignore it, I can't acknowledge anybody else's injury. This has to be really true in communities where sexual and physical and psychological and emotional abuse are particularly prevalent. 

[This has caveats, right, like anything else. Plenty of bad things have happened to me that I, personally, have no pain about so instead of saying "That happened to me and it wasn't that bad," I think/say, "That happened to me, and I realize how scary that must have been, but I think our circumstances were different and I wish yours had been better." For example, I have been roofied and frankly, I left the situation without fear or worries about it happening again and in general, but I am also of-the-world enough to realize that what happened was objectively scary, even if I lucked out on the overall experience. Or, "Oh, I also had that medical procedure, but it didn't hurt, I'm sorry yours did, the practitioner you had must have been not as good." It's hard for secular people to understand that things can be objectively traumatic but generate varying amounts of lasting trauma. Imagine fundies!]

Also, while I'm writing this novel (can a witty poster teach me the art of brevity?), I do want to mention that Jessa's ignorance may have led her to a potentially-correct conclusion re: Josh as a danger to children. I don't think Jessa, or the family, would make this decision for good reasons. I don't know that they know enough to do so. I doubt it. I know that if I had kids (I don't), they'd never get near anybody with a CSAM charge. However, that's my emotional response, because the data is so murky and unclear. Some researchers say consumption of CSAM correlates with "contact" offenses (i.e. abusing a child they are close to). Some say it doesn't correlate at all. Some papers say 50-75% of CSAM consumers offend against children, some say it's as low as 1%. My view, as a human person and scientist, is that we don't have enough data to know and the nature of the question makes the research necessarily full of caveats. This is part of why, in addition to the innocent-until-proven-guilty belief, that Josh was let out on bond. If we had hard evidence that people who consume CSAM will always abuse a child, I don't think we would see the result the saw in the bond hearing. I don't know enough on sexual psychology to speculate on why this is the case, but there is very likely a class of people who do consume CSAM and will never commit a "contact offense". Are they still complicit? Yes. Absolutely. It's still immoral and criminal and gross, but it is something we certainly need more understanding on. Normally, I'd be a real nerd about and link a bunch of sources here but it's pointless - they all disagree with each other. We just don't know. 

What is also true is that recidivism for sexual offenses is kind of, really, strangely low. It's about 10%. General crime recidivism is 83%. Maybe we under-detect child abuse (we do). Maybe the people who become the Josh Duggars of the world were raised in pressure cookers of psychological fuckery (I think this is partly true and I think it's true for Josh and I think the IBLP and Jim Bob and Michelle have a big ol' slice of Complicity Pie to eat here). Maybe we could lower that rate, or the offense rate to begin with, that with better understanding of the psychology (I think this is partly true too). [As an aside, homicide recidivism is really low - 1.2% because you can't murder the same person twice.] For me, this is all good news in a shitstorm. A single square of toilet paper in a state-fair porta potty. A single star in the void of space. But it also suggests to me that maybe, if we could all learn more and do better, and parent better than the Duggars, then maybe we could really improve things. Maybe.

I'm sorry for all this. I'm gonna go work on some creative writing or something because clearly I have some thoughts to get out. 

  • Upvote 21
  • I Agree 1
  • Love 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

Does anyone have the exact quote for them saying sexual abuse is common in their circles? The quotes I've found they have made it clear they didn't view it as molesting or him being a pedophile. They downplayed it has him being curious and making a mistake when he was younger. Michelle was even asked how she could attack the trans community as being dangerous pedophiles when they had a son who molested young children and what he did was nothing like child molesting. 

I would like see them be asked thar question again if Josh pleads guilty. My gut feeling is that they would still try to downplay it. 

The only quote I’m aware of was Jill’s during the Kelly TV interview - “I mean statistics say two-thirds of families deal with something like that and that’s only the families who are reporting it.” Here’s a link to the transcript of the broadcast https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/exclusive-duggar-sisters-want-to-set-the-record-straight

I think we can safely assume that Jill wasn’t out researching any statistics and was simply parroting what she’d been told.

More interesting to me was Jessa’s comment when Jill said “It’s very mild compared to what happened to some.” Jessa added “I know so many girls” but Jill cut off whatever Jessa was going to say.

Rereading that interview in light of what we know now is chilling. 

  • Upvote 10
  • Sad 1
  • I Agree 2
  • Thank You 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Not that josh's mom said:

I've forgotten the dates for the timelines of pleading/trial. Frankly Im so sick today, I havent the energy to go look for them. Anybody help me out?. It feels like this has gone on forever and I want to see him in jail.

Oct 18, 2021 last day to let court know you are changing plea

Oct 20, 2021 last day to submit signed plea paperwork

Oct 22, 2021 If there is a change of plea, this will be the court date to enter the plea

Nov 30, 2021 Trial

Feel better! I agree, it feels like this has gone on forever. 

Edited by ifosterkittens
trial date
  • Upvote 5
  • I Agree 1
  • Thank You 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Antimony said:

Also, while I'm writing this novel (can a witty poster teach me the art of brevity?), I do want to mention that Jessa's ignorance may have led her to a potentially-correct conclusion re: Josh as a danger to children. I don't think Jessa, or the family, would make this decision for good reasons. I don't know that they know enough to do so. I doubt it. I know that if I had kids (I don't), they'd never get near anybody with a CSAM charge. However, that's my emotional response, because the data is so murky and unclear. Some researchers say consumption of CSAM correlates with "contact" offenses (i.e. abusing a child they are close to). Some say it doesn't correlate at all. Some papers say 50-75% of CSAM consumers offend against children, some say it's as low as 1%. My view, as a human person and scientist, is that we don't have enough data to know and the nature of the question makes the research necessarily full of caveats. This is part of why, in addition to the innocent-until-proven-guilty belief, that Josh was let out on bond. If we had hard evidence that people who consume CSAM will always abuse a child, I don't think we would see the result the saw in the bond hearing. I don't know enough on sexual psychology to speculate on why this is the case, but there is very likely a class of people who do consume CSAM and will never commit a "contact offense". Are they still complicit? Yes. Absolutely. It's still immoral and criminal and gross, but it is something we certainly need more understanding on. Normally, I'd be a real nerd about and link a bunch of sources here but it's pointless - they all disagree with each other. We just don't know. 

What is also true is that recidivism for sexual offenses is kind of, really, strangely low. It's about 10%. General crime recidivism is 83%. Maybe we under-detect child abuse (we do). Maybe the people who become the Josh Duggars of the world were raised in pressure cookers of psychological fuckery (I think this is partly true and I think it's true for Josh and I think the IBLP and Jim Bob and Michelle have a big ol' slice of Complicity Pie to eat here). Maybe we could lower that rate, or the offense rate to begin with, that with better understanding of the psychology (I think this is partly true too). [As an aside, homicide recidivism is really low - 1.2% because you can't murder the same person twice.] For me, this is all good news in a shitstorm. A single square of toilet paper in a state-fair porta potty. A single star in the void of space. But it also suggests to me that maybe, if we could all learn more and do better, and parent better than the Duggars, then maybe we could really improve things. Maybe.

 

I agree with most of this.  The issue with Josh is that we know he has committed contact offenses multiple times.  The times we know about were years ago and he was a teenager.  We don't have any evidence that he's committed contact offenses since.

But we know that Josh can.  He was not a curious prepubescent child playing doctor with a similarly aged child.  He was a teenager praying on his little sisters and a family friend.  Joy was 5, when he molested her as a teenage boy.

We know he's looked at a variety of child sexual abuse images, including that of girls who the same age as those he molested.

He therefore can't fall into that low risk group, if it exists (and as you say, the evidence for this group existing is unclear).

It may well be that there is a group of people who look at images but would never have sexual contact with a child.  But Josh has a record.  The infuriating thing is that his parents protected him (and the Duggar brand) over his sisters at the time.  And that that means that his track record won't be used in court and I doubt prosecution and judge will be able to use in sentencing.

The Duggar cover up for teenage Josh, could theoretically put their grandchildren at risk.

We know Josh is attracted to young girls.  We know he has had sexual contact with girls who are related to him before.  We know that every time he's been locked down from an internet/access point of you, he has gotten around it.   The fact that these images were downloaded after Jesus jail and the post Ashley Madison lockdown says how clever he is at getting around restrictions.

We don't know his mental state right now.  Will his sex issues and desperation push him into a corner?

  • Upvote 20
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, imokit said:

 

I agree with most of this.  The issue with Josh is that we know he has committed contact offenses multiple times.  The times we know about were years ago and he was a teenager.  We don't have any evidence that he's committed contact offenses since.

But we know that Josh can.  He was not a curious prepubescent child playing doctor with a similarly aged child.  He was a teenager praying on his little sisters and a family friend.  Joy was 5, when he molested her as a teenage boy.

This is true, all of this is pretty moot since Josh has offended. This was in my first draft of these thoughts but got lost. But, that didn't stop the family from keeping him from kids, so why would this...I guess it (sadly) tracks. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Antimony said:

What is also true is that recidivism for sexual offenses is kind of, really, strangely low. It's about 10%. General crime recidivism is 83%. Maybe we under-detect child abuse (we do). Maybe the people who become the Josh Duggars of the world were raised in pressure cookers of psychological fuckery (I think this is partly true and I think it's true for Josh and I think the IBLP and Jim Bob and Michelle have a big ol' slice of Complicity Pie to eat here). Maybe we could lower that rate, or the offense rate to begin with, that with better understanding of the psychology 

I did some reading on teen sexual abuse about 2-3 years ago and one source said that if teens get proper treatment at the time the rate of reoffending is 3%. Josh never got that when he was 15. I'm not saying he has done anything physical with children but he clearly has issues with sex. (I meant recently and was not referencing the abuse he committed as a young teen.) He's awaiting trial on child porn charges, he signed up for a site intended to enable affairs for married people, he has cheated on his wife, and has been accused of assault by a sex worker, I think? So he is definitely not living the life of a devoted young Christian husband.

I really wish Josh could get some secular treatment that doesn't view this simply as sin and as Josh letting Satan in his life. It certainly IS sin, but he needs psychological help. Didn't someone post an explanation from a former Gothard-raised young woman who said they view sex abuse and child sex abuse more as the fault of the victim-or something similar? 

Edited by Letgo
for clarity
  • Upvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was wondering could Josh give an Alford plea? That’s where he excepts a punishment but never actually admits to a crime.

  • Upvote 3
  • WTF 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Letgo said:

Didn't someone post an explanation from a former Gothard-raised young woman who said they view sex abuse and child sex abuse more as the fault of the victim-or something similar? 

Here is a link to some of IBLP’s teachings on children being molested.              https://homeschoolersanonymous.net/tag/iblp/#jp-carousel-11801    

It is horrifying but it isn’t exactly saying all the fault is the victim’s. And the child molester is called evil and in need of the proper punishment. It also blames the child’s parents. The Duggars, even in that interview posted earlier, maintained Josh wasn’t really a child molester. 
 

Now Gothard did also teach that victims should try to see why God let it happen and try to see if they had done something to cause the sexual assault and that it wasn’t that awful since it only impacted the body and not the spirit. But the people who assaulted children were taught as being evil and doing something awful. But in the Duggar case, they never viewed Josh as being more than a curious boy who made a mistake. And I really think they still view child molesters as being part of another group, not their own so they are desperately trying to come up with ways to downplay the current situation.

Josh better not get an Alford Plea.
 

 

  • Upvote 4
  • I Agree 1
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.