Josh and Anna 55: Settling in at Seagoville

[Shannonsnarks]

On 7/27/2022 at 8:15 AM, Cam said:

David Waller’s letter of support is effed up in oh so many ways. Totally disgusting. Yeah, the judge definitely has to think of the children. But as a means of protecting them from Josh. Dumbo David really could not or chose not to grasp such a simple concept. Sickening

His letter I found the most messed up tbh 

[SorenaJ]

I’m not 100 % versed in the Bible - does it say anything about what to do if the headship is incarcerated? Maybe their reaction saying Josh must be at home to lead and support is family is because they genuinely don’t know what to do with an unavailable headship? 
 

Had Josh passed away, Anna might remarry, but now she can’t, and she doesn’t have an immediately physically present spiritual and financial leader/umbrella of protection. 

[sableduck]

2 hours ago, SorenaJ said:

I’m not 100 % versed in the Bible - does it say anything about what to do if the headship is incarcerated? Maybe their reaction saying Josh must be at home to lead and support is family is because they genuinely don’t know what to do with an unavailable headship? 
 

Had Josh passed away, Anna might remarry, but now she can’t, and she doesn’t have an immediately physically present spiritual and financial leader/umbrella of protection. 

The Bible only has a couple of stray verses here and there that talk about the man being the head of the home.  It’s Gothard who focused so much on it.  Really, most of the stuff that the Duggars believe comes from Gothard, not the Bible. 

 

[Letgo]

David Waller seems to be agreeing with Anna about Josh not being guilty. While none of the letters address the crimes Josh committed, David skirts it when he wrote that Josh has ”chosen not to own something he claims he has not done” after saying how Josh “publicly owned his mistakes and has been transparent about his faults” for “decisions he has made.” But THIS time Josh says he didn’t do it. Therefore, be lenient! David attended much of the trial yet he he either ignores the evidence or advocates allowing Josh to go home to his minor children in spite of a conviction on downloading and possessing  horrific CSA. That’s from the senior pastor at a Baptist church. David has at least six kids himself. HOW could he write that letter? 

[GuineaPigCourtship]

As to how he could ignore the evidence? Who knows?

But if he believes him to be innocent and a good family man, it makes sense he'd believe he should go back to the wife and kids. He's known Josh for a long time and denial can be pretty strong.

[EmCatlyn]

4 hours ago, Letgo said:

David Waller seems to be agreeing with Anna about Josh not being guilty. While none of the letters address the crimes Josh committed, David skirts it when he wrote that Josh has ”chosen not to own something he claims he has not done” after saying how Josh “publicly owned his mistakes and has been transparent about his faults” for “decisions he has made.” But THIS time Josh says he didn’t do it. Therefore, be lenient! David attended much of the trial yet he he either ignores the evidence or advocates allowing Josh to go home to his minor children in spite of a conviction on downloading and possessing  horrific CSA. That’s from the senior pastor at a Baptist church. David has at least six kids himself. HOW could he write that letter? 

It is not the evidence of the CSA materials that David, Anna, and others who believe Josh innocent are ignoring.  It is the evidence that it was Josh who downloaded and viewed the material.  It is “denial” but it is also part of a pattern that does not trust “expert opinion” and suspects any information that does not fit with one’s preconceived beliefs.  David, Papa Waller, Anna and possibly some of the Duggar brothers feel that Josh is innocent and that the “evidence” against him is some plot against their brand of Christianity or a dreadful mistake that the government did not try hard enough to correct.

The molestation background, which many of us (including the judge) found supported the idea that Josh was indeed attracted to prepubescent children, is for many of these people just a “youthful offense” that Josh repented and prayed away a long time ago. It should not have been allowed into testimony. And what Bobye Holt had to say was a malicious exaggeration from a betraying friend.

So someone like David may indeed see Josh as a victim of circumstances and/or anti-“Christian” prejudice.  Even if he suspects Josh may have had more of “pornography problem” than Josh wants to admit, David may think that either Josh downloaded the CSAM accidentally or that he downloaded stuff he didn’t realize would be so awful.  Remember also that, according to many IBPL people, “viewing porn” of any kind is equally sinful as molesting a child.

All this is to say that David and others who defend or excuse Josh are not sufficiently connecting the crime that they don’t believe Josh was guilty of with the crimes he committed as a teenager.  Therefore they won’t see Josh as a risk to little girls.  (Incidentally, Josh’s molestations and the CSAM he got caught with all suggest that it is not all children but little girls that would be in danger from him.)  

Needless to say, I think David is wrong and Josh was guilty.  

 

[Father Son Holy Goat]

15 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

It is not the evidence of the CSA materials that David, Anna, and others who believe Josh innocent are ignoring.  It is the evidence that it was Josh who downloaded and viewed the material.  It is “denial” but it is also part of a pattern that does not trust “expert opinion” and suspects any information that does not fit with one’s preconceived beliefs.  David, Papa Waller, Anna and possibly some of the Duggar brothers feel that Josh is innocent and that the “evidence” against him is some plot against their brand of Christianity or a dreadful mistake that the government did not try hard enough to correct.

The molestation background, which many of us (including the judge) found supported the idea that Josh was indeed attracted to prepubescent children, is for many of these people just a “youthful offense” that Josh repented and prayed away a long time ago. It should not have been allowed into testimony. And what Bobye Holt had to say was a malicious exaggeration from a betraying friend.

So someone like David may indeed see Josh as a victim of circumstances and/or anti-“Christian” prejudice.  Even if he suspects Josh may have had more of “pornography problem” than Josh wants to admit, David may think that either Josh downloaded the CSAM accidentally or that he downloaded stuff he didn’t realize would be so awful.  Remember also that, according to many IBPL people, “viewing porn” of any kind is equally sinful as molesting a child.

All this is to say that David and others who defend or excuse Josh are not sufficiently connecting the crime that they don’t believe Josh was guilty of with the crimes he committed as a teenager.  Therefore they won’t see Josh as a risk to little girls.  (Incidentally, Josh’s molestations and the CSAM he got caught with all suggest that it is not all children but little girls that would be in danger from him.)  

Needless to say, I think David is wrong and Josh was guilty.  

 

Oh good, child molestation is just a youthful mistake, I guess my PTSD can pack it in now.

[GuineaPigCourtship]

This cult is monstrous to belittle trauma to their members, especially children.  Not that that's news to anyone here.

[Howl]

Is it possible that David Waller refuses to address Josh's guilt because prison takes Josh away from his Gothard-ordained patriarchal head-of-household role and God would never do that?  I have to wonder if David believes the molestation accusations against Gothard himself. 

[EmCatlyn]

13 hours ago, Father Son Holy Goat said:

Oh good, child molestation is just a youthful mistake, I guess my PTSD can pack it in now.

That’s the IBPL view especially when it comes to young boys molesting their sisters. It is not news.  Josh got away with what he did before because his actions were minimized and excused.

Once you grant that this is the twisted way they think in this cult, it is not surprising that some of those people don’t worry that Josh will hurt any kids now that he is an adult.  Of course this is disgusting.

I am really sorry you have to live with memories of abuse.  

[Alisamer]

On 8/1/2022 at 7:07 AM, sableduck said:

The Bible only has a couple of stray verses here and there that talk about the man being the head of the home.  It’s Gothard who focused so much on it.  Really, most of the stuff that the Duggars believe comes from Gothard, not the Bible. 

Exactly. And you have to think back to Biblical times, also. Like, despite what Gothard and Lori Alexander and others want to think, the women weren't sitting at home idle with dinner on the table waiting for dad to get home from work back then. The men were working in the fields or at their trades, the shepherds might be gone for extended times if they were moving the animals to better pastures. The women were also working in the fields or at trades, and even those who were "homemakers" were essentially running the household - doing the marketing, trading, selling, managing servants, etc. Women had authority in the home. Everyone worked, extended family was normally close if not within the home itself, and the whole group worked toward the common good.

[neuroticcat]

Yes, this. The fundie version of "stay-at-home-wives" is some idealization of 1950s white American family life. If fundies taught critical thought, adults should be able to quickly see that their version isn't even possible for most families throughout history or around the world.

[Sullie06]

On 7/30/2022 at 7:11 PM, anjulibai said:

That doesn't seem like it would be effective long term. Treatment for such issues should be an on going process. People like Josh need to get therapy the entire time they are in prison. 

So I can only speak to our specialized treatment,, but there is a period of intense, high impact treatment and that portion lasts about 18-24 months. During that time the offender has to participate in both group and individual counseling, they have to attend victim advocacy groups, they will incorporate re-unification if the victim would like to do so (often time with family offenses), they address other needs if they present (mental health, substance use, housing concerns, employment) and they must complete a specialized "educational" program as well. Once they "graduate" the program they then transition to after care which is less intense but still requires them to have 1-1 sessions, usually at least a couple times a month with a licensed therapist who specializes in "problematic sexual behaviors."

[Giraffe]

Thanks @Sullie06. How long does the after care typically last? Is it something where he could be in actual therapy for his 20 years’ probation?

[Melissa1977]

On 8/4/2022 at 6:41 AM, neuroticcat said:

Yes, this. The fundie version of "stay-at-home-wives" is some idealization of 1950s white American family life. If fundies taught critical thought, adults should be able to quickly see that their version isn't even possible for most families throughout history or around the world.

The "typical" perfect 1950's family portrait was always a well-off family with few children. Quiverful fundies are nostalgic about a life that involved birth control and fathers with accredited degrees, two things they actually hate.

[Coconut Flan]

22 minutes ago, Melissa1977 said:

The "typical" perfect 1950's family portrait was always a well-off family with few children. Quiverful fundies are nostalgic about a life that involved birth control and fathers with accredited degrees, two things they actually hate.

Indeed.  I was a child in the 50s and my parents both worked as did my cousin's parents.  We stayed with our grandmother during the day.  The friends I had whose mothers stayed home all had professional level fathers and usually two children.  The doctor's family did have five, but that was unusual.  Oddly there were many hidden things to that perfect 50's appearance like the lawyer's wife who didn't clean house or cook and was a closet alcoholic.  The public rooms in their house were lovely.   They were only used for entertainment.  The rest of the house was an undecorated total mess.  

[Antimony]

1 hour ago, Melissa1977 said:

The "typical" perfect 1950's family portrait was always a well-off family with few children. Quiverful fundies are nostalgic about a life that involved birth control and fathers with accredited degrees, two things they actually hate.

There's a book on this, that is unfortunately collecting dust on my shelf right now but I've been meaning to read, called "The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap" by Stephanie Coontz. I hear good things. 

I've always found this nostalgia a little strange because even the most obvious media examples disprove it, and it seems weird that our cultural memory is so short and so easily retconned. I'm relatively young, and I wasn't all that conscious for any pre-third millennia happenings, but still. My avatar gives it away that I'm a big MASH fan and while those are people in the 70's writing about the 50's, they're people who were there for the 50's writing about it as adults, with a pretty clear set of spicy opinions on it. We see a lot of blurring between the 50s and the 70s in MASH, but we get all the "sinful" greatest hits -- premarital sex, adultery, alluding to queerness, cross-dressing, alcoholism. And then just...Hitchcock's work. Sure, maybe Psycho (1960) comes out a little late for the Ultimate Fundie Nostalgia Era but Rope might be one of the most fricked up films I've ever seen and that comes out in 1948. It's weird that this whole myth is so easily destroyed by like...just a little contemporary or next-generation media. This is also just such a surface level take down, but it's weird to me that Fundies lean towards "old media must be wholesome" and I'm like, "Sweet, I can show the kids Hitchcock's work?"

In any case, I started this post because of my favorite etmology fun fact and then I got all fired up, but I can here to note that the word "husband" can be split into "hus" and "band" which makes it obvious that it comes from "house" and "bond" where "bond" refers more to a meaning of "to dwell". So, "Guy that stays in his house" or, sometimes, "a fellow who keeps a house". It's a little associated with ideas of owning land but it also alludes to how much work keeping a household was in The Oldey Times and how much of what we might consider "women's housework" would have traditionally been shared by men, housebuns. You have to add "house" to get "housewife". In some ways, "house husband" is redundant, which is...funny to me. None of this is really a huge takedown of their Nostalgia Delusion, but I think this would make some Fundies just a little irked. 

Leaving Eden did recently do a very good re-read of Proverbs 31 through a feminist Christian lens as a means of reclaiming it and pointing out the weird way fundies read it, which was very good, as well. 

[BlackberryGirl]

33 minutes ago, Antimony said:

There's a book on this, that is unfortunately collecting dust on my shelf right now but I've been meaning to read, called "The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap" by Stephanie Coontz. I hear good

One of my all time favorite books. It’s right within reach, and I read it and refer to it often.

 

[GiggleOfGirls]

39 minutes ago, Antimony said:

There's a book on this, that is unfortunately collecting dust on my shelf right now but I've been meaning to read, called "The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap" by Stephanie Coontz. I hear good things. 

I've always found this nostalgia a little strange because even the most obvious media examples disprove it, and it seems weird that our cultural memory is so short and so easily retconned. I'm relatively young, and I wasn't all that conscious for any pre-third millennia happenings, but still. My avatar gives it away that I'm a big MASH fan and while those are people in the 70's writing about the 50's, they're people who were there for the 50's writing about it as adults, with a pretty clear set of spicy opinions on it. We see a lot of blurring between the 50s and the 70s in MASH, but we get all the "sinful" greatest hits -- premarital sex, adultery, alluding to queerness, cross-dressing, alcoholism. And then just...Hitchcock's work. Sure, maybe Psycho (1960) comes out a little late for the Ultimate Fundie Nostalgia Era but Rope might be one of the most fricked up films I've ever seen and that comes out in 1948. It's weird that this whole myth is so easily destroyed by like...just a little contemporary or next-generation media. This is also just such a surface level take down, but it's weird to me that Fundies lean towards "old media must be wholesome" and I'm like, "Sweet, I can show the kids Hitchcock's work?"

In any case, I started this post because of my favorite etmology fun fact and then I got all fired up, but I can here to note that the word "husband" can be split into "hus" and "band" which makes it obvious that it comes from "house" and "bond" where "bond" refers more to a meaning of "to dwell". So, "Guy that stays in his house" or, sometimes, "a fellow who keeps a house". It's a little associated with ideas of owning land but it also alludes to how much work keeping a household was in The Oldey Times and how much of what we might consider "women's housework" would have traditionally been shared by men, housebuns. You have to add "house" to get "housewife". In some ways, "house husband" is redundant, which is...funny to me. None of this is really a huge takedown of their Nostalgia Delusion, but I think this would make some Fundies just a little irked. 

Leaving Eden did recently do a very good re-read of Proverbs 31 through a feminist Christian lens as a means of reclaiming it and pointing out the weird way fundies read it, which was very good, as well. 

I have that book and have been meaning to read it soon as well. It looks fantastic!

 

The nostalgia stuff was weird for sure. I grew up being allowed to only read books from before 1965 (later amended to be non-adult books from before 1965 after I read The Mill on the Floss by George Eliot) unless I specifically asked permission. 
 

But I also had seen all the Marx Brothers’ movies from a fairly young age (there’s only black-face in one that I know of, but there’s so much woman-chasing and sexism 😱), Three Stooges, Abbott and Costello, etc were regular features as well; but we weren’t allowed to watch the old Addam’s Family or Bewitched even though the Munsters were okay? 
 

I read the (horrifically racist) Elsie books as a tween. 
 

And, oddly enough, both Isaac Asimov and Edith Nesbit were fine for me to read even though Asimov wasn’t at all religious and Nesbit helped found the socialist Fabian Society — but their books were older and didn’t have sex in them so it was okay! I also read a ton of LM Montgomery, including her lesser-known (non-Anne of Green Gables) books, which had references to “good friends” in very likely Boston marriages (not using the latter phrase).

 

I was allowed to be exposed to an odd combination of things including Hitchcock, Star Trek (of all sorts), and old Twilight Zones.

Edited August 5, 2022 by GiggleOfGirls
Autocorrect messed up my “were”s

[Antimony]

38 minutes ago, GiggleOfGirls said:

I was allowed to be exposed to an odd combination of things including Hitchcock, Star Trek (of all sorts), and old Twilight Zones.

Star Trek is slaps because it does not need to be unhinged levels of horny in the middle of otherwise non-horny plots, and yet, it chooses to do so. God Bless the Progenitor of Fanfiction.

Spoiler

I am still losing my mind knowing that after O'Brien asked Bashir to tell him about the one woman Bashir truly loves, the first thing Bashir offers up is, "She had beautiful feet." which is such a weird thing to say and is so horny and has no social skills whatsoever. O'Brien is trying to have a deathbed conversation in this episode, and Bashir is over here just broadcasting his foot fetish.

I love Star Trek, a perfect show. No notes, no flaws, all winners. 

 

[libgirl2]

3 hours ago, Antimony said:

There's a book on this, that is unfortunately collecting dust on my shelf right now but I've been meaning to read, called "The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap" by Stephanie Coontz. I hear good things. 

I've always found this nostalgia a little strange because even the most obvious media examples disprove it, and it seems weird that our cultural memory is so short and so easily retconned. I'm relatively young, and I wasn't all that conscious for any pre-third millennia happenings, but still. My avatar gives it away that I'm a big MASH fan and while those are people in the 70's writing about the 50's, they're people who were there for the 50's writing about it as adults, with a pretty clear set of spicy opinions on it. We see a lot of blurring between the 50s and the 70s in MASH, but we get all the "sinful" greatest hits -- premarital sex, adultery, alluding to queerness, cross-dressing, alcoholism. And then just...Hitchcock's work. Sure, maybe Psycho (1960) comes out a little late for the Ultimate Fundie Nostalgia Era but Rope might be one of the most fricked up films I've ever seen and that comes out in 1948. It's weird that this whole myth is so easily destroyed by like...just a little contemporary or next-generation media. This is also just such a surface level take down, but it's weird to me that Fundies lean towards "old media must be wholesome" and I'm like, "Sweet, I can show the kids Hitchcock's work?"

In any case, I started this post because of my favorite etmology fun fact and then I got all fired up, but I can here to note that the word "husband" can be split into "hus" and "band" which makes it obvious that it comes from "house" and "bond" where "bond" refers more to a meaning of "to dwell". So, "Guy that stays in his house" or, sometimes, "a fellow who keeps a house". It's a little associated with ideas of owning land but it also alludes to how much work keeping a household was in The Oldey Times and how much of what we might consider "women's housework" would have traditionally been shared by men, housebuns. You have to add "house" to get "housewife". In some ways, "house husband" is redundant, which is...funny to me. None of this is really a huge takedown of their Nostalgia Delusion, but I think this would make some Fundies just a little irked. 

Leaving Eden did recently do a very good re-read of Proverbs 31 through a feminist Christian lens as a means of reclaiming it and pointing out the weird way fundies read it, which was very good, as well. 

There is a very good movie, Far From Heaven, with Julianne Moore that takes place in the 50s. In the movie, her husband is a closeted gay man. I found it very telling for the time period. 

[Antimony]

12 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

There is a very good movie, Far From Heaven, with Julianne Moore that takes place in the 50s. In the movie, her husband is a closeted gay man. I found it very telling for the time period. 

You might like The Price of Salt, which was recently adapted into Carol. I haven't seen Carol, but I read The Price of Salt on a plane once. 1952. It's pretty good. 

[libgirl2]

2 minutes ago, Antimony said:

You might like The Price of Salt, which was recently adapted into Carol. I haven't seen Carol, but I read The Price of Salt on a plane once. 1952. It's pretty good. 

I'm familiar with the movie and have heard of the author. Thanks. 

[Jana814]

31 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

There is a very good movie, Far From Heaven, with Julianne Moore that takes place in the 50s. In the movie, her husband is a closeted gay man. I found it very telling for the time period. 

I remember that movie. I thought Julianne Moore was great in it. 

[libgirl2]

2 minutes ago, Jana814 said:

I remember that movie. I thought Julianne Moore was great in it. 

She was. It was such a gorgeous and sad movie.