(CW: CSA) Josh & Anna 50: Anna Breaking the Opposite of News about the Whodunnit of the Century

[samurai_sarah]

10 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

Very good point. I assume the reasoning is that since it is everywhere, it also is much easier to accidentally have it as part of the porn on the phone / computer. 
But that would seem to not apply to the evil nastiness that Josh had on his computer. It good that they seem to distinguish by age group - he can’t very well say he thought an infant was really 18 - Hopefully they also take torture etc into account. 

I agree with you, especially on taking age into account. And I can logically follow the judges' idea that accidents are more likely, due to availability.

But I would then argue against the judges' position, saying that most people who accidentally download materials of any sort that they don't want, delete them, instead of partitioning their hard drive to keep files they didn't want in the first place. After all, if I want to download a picture of say, Idris Elba, and keep on accidentally downloading pics of, say, Elvis, I wouldn't start a collection. I would also reconsider my search parameters and the places where I search.

So all of that seems pretty deliberate on Josh's part.  "Availability" and "accidents" therefore don't seem worthwhile to consider as mitigating factors in a case like his. What Josh did was vile and deliberate. And like you, I do hope they take the torture into account!

[SassyPants]

Another question- when all your curiosity and independence is squashed during key developmental stages in your life, are those pathways forever blocked or severely muted? As an example, language development. My GD lives in a bilingual home in a predominately Spanish speaking country. From 6moth-2.5 years she was cared for by a Spanish speaking woman. At age 2.5 she started attending a bilingual preschool, and within 4 months she was fully bilingual. Now, there is no way I could learn a  new language in 4 months time. Believe me, I have tried and those pathways are just not as receptive to language development. Could the same be true for some of the skills that JB and M blocked /forbade these people from developing?

Like someone above mentioned, what is the likelihood that Josh, using contorted and Duggarfied logic has somehow construed that what he has done is not wrong because he was not actually engaging in the activities themselves? I truly think that JB and M’s methods produced very, very pedestrian, black/white thinkers and reasoners.

There should be class on how NOT TO parent.

[noseybutt]

20 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

What I just read is that many judges feel the federal sentencing guidelines are too harsh for CSA viewing/possession  because they are based on pre-internet usage. So at the time the laws were made, the numbers of images were much lower, and people had to much more actively search it out. There weren’t one million sex acts on your phone, some of which might have “barely legal” teens who are not in fact legal.  Also there is the issue in at least one of the cases that was mentioned at the hearings (and was a Law and Order SVU episode) - where a teen produces sexual videos, texts them to a boyfriend/ girlfriend who is 18 or 19 - and the 18 year old is charged as an adult with possessing CSA materials. Basically technology changed the landscape.

None of that applies to the level of awful that Josh was convicted of though. And I would like him to get at least 12 years - to protect the M’s and prevent any future M’s - but I doubt that will happen. 

There was also the issue in the earlier days of the internet (and, in some cases, today) the most common way to view CSAM was via file sharing. So any possession charge automatically had a distribution charge.  
 

1 hour ago, Dandruff said:

I think he knew how socially unacceptable and illegal it was, but am not sure he saw it as wrong.

The molestations were allowed to go on for years then his family decided to go on TV and present themselves as wholesome proponents of family values, with Josh featured.  People considered them quirky but lapped it up.  The Duggars did things their way and didn't appear to have any interest in succumbing to the mainstream.  As a result, they ate rice-three-ways and now own planes.  I expect they still consider themselves wholesome. 

Josh was outed as a member of Ashley Madison (while working for the FRC, ffs), was sent away to work and pray it off, then came home and had three more children with a wife who remained loyal to him.  The family - sans him - managed to stay on TV, with associated perks.

Josh was convicted of receiving/possessing CSAM and his father confronted a judge to try to help him.  Expensive lawyers are also doing their best to help.  His wife appears to be staying loyal.  He continues to claim he's not guilty.

I genuinely wonder what he believes he did wrong.

I agree with this analysis. 

As far as the question asked by @SassyPants regarding his ability to reform and live by the rules of society, I think a better question is, Why would he change? He was trained to live a double life and chasing the forbidden in secret seems to be the one thing he lives for.

[Cam]

2 hours ago, Dandruff said:

I think he knew how socially unacceptable and illegal it was, but am not sure he saw it as wrong.

He knows it’s wrong. He was raised/indoctrinated in a church system which preaches that sex is only acceptable between a man and a woman who are legally married; any deviation from that is a sin. 

Edited March 25, 2022 by Cam

[noseybutt]

2 hours ago, Cam said:

He knows it’s wrong. He was raised/indoctrinated in a church system which preaches that sex is only acceptable between a man and a woman who are legally married; any deviation from that is a sin. 

There is where language gets tricky. I agree that he both was taught and himself teaches (by association) that sexual behavior outside of heterosexual marriage is sin. His partitioning of the computer indicates that he knew it was illegal.

Yet, in terms of moral development, he also lived a life where the kind of double life he seems to adore was normalized. There were either no (or minimal) penalties from within his family and faith community. He still had a job, housing, support of his family.... Basically, he could do what he wanted within his own little world with minimal risk that anyone within that world would call him out.

That's where the question comes in as to just what kind of moral compass Josh has. What kind of behavior does he really believe is wrong? What are his limits? 
 

[Bastet]

  There is wrong and there is “wrong.”
   I think a morally developed person acts as they do because of love of others and concern for the community. They act from deeply held convictions.  (“I couldn’t live with myself if I didn’t help that child.”) A less developed person is just out to avoid punishment—either physical or emotional. 
  Christianity is a pretty big umbrella. The kind of Christianity that the Duggars and most fundies seem to subscribe to is very much sin and punishment driven. Conversion is how you avoid hell and hence all the fire and brimstone sermons—it’s an acknowledgment that this should be your primary impetus to declare yourself born again. Add to that the denigration of good works versus faith—whatever faith might mean in the absence of good works. It’s all about you and your pain and how you avoid the eternal flames, the love of neighbor seemingly downplayed in comparison. Maybe this makes a Josh more likely. Why should he care about his community or society or even his family? Sure, he’s going to hell, but he’ll worry about that when he’s old.  Meanwhile he’ll have his fun in whatever depraved form he prefers.  

  I’m not offering this as an alternative explanation of his behavior, but as another possible aspect of his thinking. Certainly his narcissism is key. As a narcissist he is his own god and defines his own morality, such as it is. 

Edited March 26, 2022 by Bastet

[Cam]

As much as I am against the Duggar cult, I would not say that living a double life is normalized within their ranks. It may be minimized, excused and/or forgiven, but they are pretty straight forward about sex involving a married male and female couple. No self pleasure, no premarital anything, no same-sex unions. No looking at a woman who isn’t fully covered from neck to ankle. Female children are covered with modesty stuff.
 

Just because some Duggars support Josh, and it seems less and less are willing to do that publicly, not everyone in their cult does. Imo, I think Josh probably gave off creepy vibes to a lot of people within their church and community, and they were not surprised when his criminal activity was revealed. 
 

 

[SassyPants]

6 hours ago, Cam said:

As much as I am against the Duggar cult, I would not say that living a double life is normalized within their ranks. It may be minimized, excused and/or forgiven, but they are pretty straight forward about sex involving a married male and female couple. No self pleasure, no premarital anything, no same-sex unions. No looking at a woman who isn’t fully covered from neck to ankle. Female children are covered with modesty stuff.
 

Just because some Duggars support Josh, and it seems less and less are willing to do that publicly, not everyone in their cult does. Imo, I think Josh probably gave off creepy vibes to a lot of people within their church and community, and they were not surprised when his criminal activity was revealed. 
 

 

Well…maybe what you describe in your initial paragraph above is a result of their knowledge of all the less than healthy men who exist among them. Didn’t they reference a healthy % of families among their ranks that had experiences similar to those displayed by the younger Josh Duggar?

[neuroticcat]

I don't understand why there would be low recidivism with CSAM. Whatever moral hesitancy a viewer needed to get past to download or compartmentalize initially wouldn't be "cured" by some jail time, especially assuming it's rare to be caught on the first viewing. It seems that fear of punishment isn't a great deterrent especially with no guarantee of getting caught.

Until we have serious prevention (attempts at deleting) and strong prosecution, we don't take this seriously societally. I read the recent WaPo article attempting to be sympathetic to the Perp (!!!) about one of Judge Jackson's cases where Perp got a minimal sentence b/c at 18 he was downloading CSAM of age 8+. Six years later (at age 24) he was caught looking for images age 11-12. He explained by saying he was a mixed up kid from a religiously strict and homophobic community and that led to his behavior - it made me angry to see that presented as a "pass."

Edited March 26, 2022 by neuroticcat

[Smee]

I wouldn’t say that Josh got minimal/no consequences in his youth. The fundie MO is harsh punishment, followed by total forgiveness. Very much a “you’ve done your penance” approach. We talk about Josh being sent off to dig a hole, but from the way that was described in I Pray You Put This Journal Away, that was no picnic. Nobody so much as spoke to him during that time, and it was disgusting (full of sludge? My memory is a bit hazy) and hard labour. Plus we know they use corporal punishment so I suspect JB had a go at him before he left. In some ways juvenile detention might have been the more humane punishment.

BUT he got zero professional psychological help and that’s where being caught and going through the secular justice system has the most potential to reduce recidivism. Unfortunately I think at Josh’s age, his moral development is pretty much set now, and the best we can hope is that he is kept away from children.

 

[imokit]

12 hours ago, Smee said:

I wouldn’t say that Josh got minimal/no consequences in his youth. The fundie MO is harsh punishment, followed by total forgiveness. Very much a “you’ve done your penance” approach. We talk about Josh being sent off to dig a hole, but from the way that was described in I Pray You Put This Journal Away, that was no picnic. Nobody so much as spoke to him during that time, and it was disgusting (full of sludge? My memory is a bit hazy) and hard labour. Plus we know they use corporal punishment so I suspect JB had a go at him before he left. In some ways juvenile detention might have been the more humane punishment.

BUT he got zero professional psychological help and that’s where being caught and going through the secular justice system has the most potential to reduce recidivism. Unfortunately I think at Josh’s age, his moral development is pretty much set now, and the best we can hope is that he is kept away from children.

 

They punished him the same way would have punished drugs/other forms of rebellion.  Beating him, humiliation, isolation and manual labour.  It was an abusive punishment.

They then changed household rules around to make it harder to do it again.  It was victim blaming and put more work on his sisters.  Boys were no longer allowed to change diapers or put a crying toddler on their lap, small children were no longer allowed to play hide and seek.  This was more work for the older girls his victims.

They also put him back in the house and expected his victims to forgive and forget, violating their right to feel safe in their own home.

They also gave him back his authority over younger siblings and expected normal service to resume from their daughters - obeying, feeding, cleaning, laundering.

JB & M abused all of their kids to differing extents.  Josh was abused physically from a young age, he received an abusive punishment for what he did, which wouldn't be allowed under the justice system.  He got no long term help.  And as horrific as what they did to him, what they did to the rest of their children especially their daughters was far worse.

The best thing for Josh (as well as the other children) would have been to do it properly and legally with licensed secular support, removal from the home +/- juvenile detention and legal support.

[GiggleOfGirls]

23 hours ago, Cam said:

As much as I am against the Duggar cult, I would not say that living a double life is normalized within their ranks. It may be minimized, excused and/or forgiven, but they are pretty straight forward about sex involving a married male and female couple. No self pleasure, no premarital anything, no same-sex unions. No looking at a woman who isn’t fully covered from neck to ankle. Female children are covered with modesty stuff.
 

Just because some Duggars support Josh, and it seems less and less are willing to do that publicly, not everyone in their cult does. Imo, I think Josh probably gave off creepy vibes to a lot of people within their church and community, and they were not surprised when his criminal activity was revealed. 
 

 

 

That probably depends on what is meant by “living a double life” — survivors (the fellow from “I Pray You Put This Journal Away”, for one) have described how many of the men would go up in front of the churches and confess their sexual sins so that kind of sin wasn’t super hidden within the group, but they did apparently try to keep it hidden from The World. 
 

Anyone reading this thread knows it has a big trigger warning overall, but yeah, sibling incest ahead.
 

I just finished reading Heather Grace Heath’s book “Lovingly Abused” (really excellent book! Highly recommend!) and apparently (unsurprisingly) being raped by brothers in ATI is super common. She said that it was at least heavily implied at an ATI training camp (not a punishment camp, but a regular one) that the only reason she wasn’t sexually assaulted as a child the way so many of her peers were was because she didn’t have a brother. 
 

So these things were very openly (and victim-shamingly) talked about within the group, but the public face of the group didn’t openly include any of this when Josh was growing up.
 

Josh would’ve seen his elders admitting to sexual sins without much, if any, consequence (it seems) and then putting on a “we are holy and pure” act for outsiders in order to be elected to public office, preach to others about how they should live, and such. 
 

It may not be fully a double life if it’s somewhat openly admitted within the group, but in other ways I think a lot of these folks modeled leading double lives in how they presented themselves to the public (despite using the past tense there, I think they still do).

And with that post I’ve increased my rank to the very (in)appropriate “Nurturing Your Brother’s Manhood” so, um…. 😂

Edited March 27, 2022 by GiggleOfGirls
Minor word changes in one sentence for accuracy

[gustava]

16 hours ago, neuroticcat said:

I don't understand why there would be low recidivism with CSAM. Whatever moral hesitancy a viewer needed to get past to download or compartmentalize initially wouldn't be "cured" by some jail time, especially assuming it's rare to be caught on the first viewing. It seems that fear of punishment isn't a great deterrent especially with no guarantee of getting caught.

Until we have serious prevention (attempts at deleting) and strong prosecution, we don't take this seriously societally. I read the recent WaPo article attempting to be sympathetic to the Perp (!!!) about one of Judge Jackson's cases where Perp got a minimal sentence b/c at 18 he was downloading CSAM of age 8+. Six years later (at age 24) he was caught looking for images age 11-12. He explained by saying he was a mixed up kid from a religiously strict and homophobic community and that led to his behavior - it made me angry to see that presented as a "pass."

I understand your anger; I do think it's a bit more complicated.

[Father Son Holy Goat]

On 3/24/2022 at 8:27 PM, Mama Mia said:

What I just read is that many judges feel the federal sentencing guidelines are too harsh for CSA viewing/possession  because they are based on pre-internet usage. So at the time the laws were made, the numbers of images were much lower, and people had to much more actively search it out. There weren’t one million sex acts on your phone, some of which might have “barely legal” teens who are not in fact legal.  Also there is the issue in at least one of the cases that was mentioned at the hearings (and was a Law and Order SVU episode) - where a teen produces sexual videos, texts them to a boyfriend/ girlfriend who is 18 or 19 - and the 18 year old is charged as an adult with possessing CSA materials. Basically technology changed the landscape.

None of that applies to the level of awful that Josh was convicted of though. And I would like him to get at least 12 years - to protect the M’s and prevent any future M’s - but I doubt that will happen. 

I completely disagree that sentences are too harsh, in fact I think they are too light. The people who watch child sexual abuse materials are creating a market for those materials. Without a market child sexual abuse materials wouldn’t be profitable. I am not naive enough to think if there’s no market people won’t sexually abuse children, it will still happen. But one part of that abuse, knowing the worst moments of your life are someone’s jack off material, will be done.

Edited March 27, 2022 by Father Son Holy Goat

[noseybutt]

2 hours ago, GiggleOfGirls said:

 

That probably depends on what is meant by “living a double life” — survivors (the fellow from “I Pray You Put This Journal Away”, for one) have described how many of the men would go up in front of the churches and confess their sexual sins so that kind of sin wasn’t super hidden within the group, but they did apparently try to keep it hidden from The World. 
 

Anyone reading this thread knows it has a big trigger warning overall, but yeah, sibling incest ahead.
 

I just finished reading Heather Grace Heath’s book “Lovingly Abused” (really excellent book! Highly recommend!) and apparently (unsurprisingly) being raped by brothers in ATI is super common. She said that it was at least heavily implied at an ATI training camp (not a punishment camp, but a regular one) that the only reason she wasn’t sexually assaulted as a child the way so many of her peers were was because she didn’t have a brother. 
 

So these things were very openly (and victim-shamingly) talked about within the group, but the public face of the group didn’t openly include any of this when Josh was growing up.
 

Josh would’ve seen his elders admitting to sexual sins without much, if any, consequence (it seems) and then putting on a “we are holy and pure” act for outsiders in order to be elected to public office, preach to others about how they should live, and such. 
 

It may not be fully a double life if it’s somewhat openly admitted within the group, but in other ways I think a lot of these folks modeled leading double lives in how they presented themselves to the public (despite using the past tense there, I think they still do).

And with that post I’ve increased my rank to the very (in)appropriate “Nurturing Your Brother’s Manhood” so, um…. 😂

This.

They are taught a way to interact within the group and a different way to interact with the world.

Because of the extreme hierarchy within the families, women and children do face penalties if they engage in sin.  But for the married men/heads of families--there really is no way to hold them accountable. In a closely bonded/enmeshed group, they would theoretically know each other's sins. IMO that dynamic functions a bit like Soviet era kompromat. Or, maybe prisoner's dilemma is a better description of it. A grown man stepping out of line---the group is NOT going to go the authorities for the very reasons explained by @GiggleOfGirls. The other option, to give the person the boot--carries all kinds of liability because they would likely leave angry and with too much information.

I don't think the mothers and fathers in these groups intend to train their sons to live double or deceitful lives. But that is what this process and structure essentially does.

[patsymae]

19 hours ago, Smee said:

I wouldn’t say that Josh got minimal/no consequences in his youth. The fundie MO is harsh punishment, followed by total forgiveness. Very much a “you’ve done your penance” approach. We talk about Josh being sent off to dig a hole, but from the way that was described in I Pray You Put This Journal Away, that was no picnic. Nobody so much as spoke to him during that time, and it was disgusting (full of sludge? My memory is a bit hazy) and hard labour. Plus we know they use corporal punishment so I suspect JB had a go at him before he left. In some ways juvenile detention might have been the more humane punishment.

BUT he got zero professional psychological help and that’s where being caught and going through the secular justice system has the most potential to reduce recidivism. Unfortunately I think at Josh’s age, his moral development is pretty much set now, and the best we can hope is that he is kept away from children.

 

Good points. But, although it was harsh, Josh still had no long-lasting or real-world consequences for his actions. IIRC, people said that when the TV started he was still able to go home for filming while under this punishment. Plus once it was over he got a clean slate, was able to go on to become a TV "personality" and even a lobbyist in Washington, marry and have children, own a home, run a business (as it were), and as far as we know have no personal financial consequences. He did not have a criminal record (juvenile ones don't, as many people including me once, think, just disappear; they just can't be used certain ways), he wasn't publicly registered as a sex offender, he didn't have liens on his income or property to compensate victims, Same with Jesus jail after Ashley Madison. Sin, repent, do a little hard time, and then everything goes back to normal. I'm toally convinced that he and his idiot wife honestly believe that either he will be exhonorated upon appeal or that if he cries repentence the judge will agree he has suffered enough and he'll be back in the warehouse and the used-car shack in a New York minute.

[Sullie06]

In terms of whether Josh knew what he was doing was "wrong", I 've found in my line of work that the vast majority of Sexual Offenders, especially those containing internet usage, believe they are completely innocent. They will still insist that they did nothing wrong long after they have been convicted. That they were set up, or "hacked" or accidently stumbled onto the material. Most do not accept guilt, even when pleading guilty, which many will do to get a plea deal. Sexual Offenders do not want to go to jail/prison, it's the worst possible place for them, many will plead guilty to get Probation and avoid incarceration, even though they think they are innocent.  

[Four is Enough]

2 hours ago, Sullie06 said:

, even though they think they are innocent.  

They know what they did. I refer you to the famous luncheon scene in "Shawshank Redemption", where Dufresne says to the new inmate, "Don't you know? We're all innocent in this place." 

It's pretty much a universal statement in prisons. Sex offenders may be among the most reluctant to admit to anything because of the stigma, but also because of the perceived way sex offenders are treated by the other inmates.

[noseybutt]

9 hours ago, Sullie06 said:

In terms of whether Josh knew what he was doing was "wrong", I 've found in my line of work that the vast majority of Sexual Offenders, especially those containing internet usage, believe they are completely innocent. They will still insist that they did nothing wrong long after they have been convicted. That they were set up, or "hacked" or accidently stumbled onto the material. Most do not accept guilt, even when pleading guilty, which many will do to get a plea deal. Sexual Offenders do not want to go to jail/prison, it's the worst possible place for them, many will plead guilty to get Probation and avoid incarceration, even though they think they are innocent.  

This is really interesting @Sullie06 because I have found the exact opposite with internet only offenders. I am pretty sure I see a much smaller subset of this population than probation. As in, there would be no point in me doing a risk assessment in addition to probation if the defendant was asserting innocence. Generally the internet-only ones are more open with me/more likely to tell a story consistent with the computer forensic evidence. I am guessing I may be getting a specific subgroup.
 

[Sullie06]

13 hours ago, noseybutt said:

This is really interesting @Sullie06 because I have found the exact opposite with internet only offenders. I am pretty sure I see a much smaller subset of this population than probation. As in, there would be no point in me doing a risk assessment in addition to probation if the defendant was asserting innocence. Generally the internet-only ones are more open with me/more likely to tell a story consistent with the computer forensic evidence. I am guessing I may be getting a specific subgroup.
 

I bet that's what's happening is your getting referred the ones who are more appropriate for therapeutic services. I will say that there are, of course, offenders who take full responsibility and they often do very well on Probation and in treatment. But there seems to be a lot more "it wasn't me" offenders right now. 

[Cults-r-us]

On 3/27/2022 at 5:17 AM, imokit said:

They punished him the same way would have punished drugs/other forms of rebellion.  Beating him, humiliation, isolation and manual labour.  It was an abusive punishment.

They then changed household rules around to make it harder to do it again.  It was victim blaming and put more work on his sisters.  Boys were no longer allowed to change diapers or put a crying toddler on their lap, small children were no longer allowed to play hide and seek.  This was more work for the older girls his victims.

They also put him back in the house and expected his victims to forgive and forget, violating their right to feel safe in their own home.

They also gave him back his authority over younger siblings and expected normal service to resume from their daughters - obeying, feeding, cleaning, laundering.

JB & M abused all of their kids to differing extents.  Josh was abused physically from a young age, he received an abusive punishment for what he did, which wouldn't be allowed under the justice system.  He got no long term help.  And as horrific as what they did to him, what they did to the rest of their children especially their daughters was far worse.

The best thing for Josh (as well as the other children) would have been to do it properly and legally with licensed secular support, removal from the home +/- juvenile detention and legal support.

And I'm not sure the intensive treatment he received at the Christian perversion cure camp after his cheating scandals was bogus. I met a lady from a Christian counseling place and we discussed  the current Josh Duggar case. She said a person recovering from addiction has to always be vigilant for the possibility of relapse.

Josh and Anna seemed so full of hope when he was released from rehab. He may, with his flip-phone, been initially committed to abstinence from pornography and restoring his marriage. But he did not remain vigilant, did not employ the strategies he had learned or avail himself of the help he knew how to access frim his previous treatment. He was sneaky and (again) violated his wife's trust.

Whether he can reform is entirely up to him. The main issue is motivation. Sometimes jail is helps people re-evaluate their priorities and change.

[anjulibai]

Josh doesn't have an addiction. 

Watching porn is not the same as watching CSA material. 

People who seek out and watch CSA material are not the same as those with addictions, porn or otherwise. 

My husband has dealt with porn addiction. He has never once been inclined to seek out CSA, nor has he ever come across it on normal porn channels. 

It is not the same thing. 

Edited March 29, 2022 by anjulibai

[formergothardite]

2 hours ago, anjulibai said:

Josh doesn't have an addiction. 

Watching porn is not the same as watching CSA material. 

People who seek out and watch CSA material are not the same as those with addictions, porn or otherwise. 

My husband has dealt with porn addiction. He has never once been inclined to seek out CSA, nor has he ever come across it on normal porn channels. 

It is not the same thing. 

Exactly. Even with Ashley Madison Josh wasn’t try to just watch porn. 
 

Does anyone remember the name of the place Josh went after Ashley Madison? I’m extremely skeptical of Bible based therapy, especially one that the Duggars would choose. 

[noseybutt]

3 hours ago, Sullie06 said:

I bet that's what's happening is your getting referred the ones who are more appropriate for therapeutic services. I will say that there are, of course, offenders who take full responsibility and they often do very well on Probation and in treatment. But there seems to be a lot more "it wasn't me" offenders right now. 

Barring substance abuse, it is true that I am more likely to be referred based on suspected mental disorders. So, there is a disproportionate number with developmental disabilities, TBIs, depression, anxiety, PTSD.  Which, yes, does mean they are more likely to benefit from the therapeutic services because there is something to treat. 

I too have seen cycles with how offenders take responsibility (or not) or blatantly deny (or not). I wonder if it's worse now just because of overall political divisiveness in the country.  It's easier to exploit or fight back even when obviously guilty in times of change, confusion, or chaos.  (Not to mention the Q beliefs over the child abuse cabal.)

 

[Giraffe]

26 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

Exactly. Even with Ashley Madison Josh wasn’t try to just watch porn. 
 

Does anyone remember the name of the place Josh went after Ashley Madison? I’m extremely skeptical of Bible based therapy, especially one that the Duggars would choose. 

Reformers Unanimous