Jim Bob and Michelle giving tv interview

[Mergath]

The girls were asleep for some (the first) incidents. JB and Michelle even referred in the interview to the "awake" incidents that occurred later. 

 

Only when pushed a bit. They did their best to make it sound as if there were only sleeping incidents. When Kelly finally got around to asking about the later stuff, they seemed to have this attitude of, "Oh, that, pffft."  

[Mom-ninja.]

So let's see....

 

Do not allow boys to babysit

 

Do not allow boys to change diapers

 

Do not allow younger siblings to sit in boys' laps

 

If one does these things it will safeguard families from molestation. Those rules didn't work out so well for them did it? Or did they start those rules after the incidents? I'm betting no.

 

Tell boys they are inherently dangerous and perverted, and that as such they are never to be trusted around younger children. (Is it just younger girls they are restricted from?)

 

Tell girls that they are born seductresses and must cover and be prim and proper at all times.....even when little.

 

 

This is their plan for preventing any type of sexual perversion? It's not a very effective plan. 

 

 

[DawnM]

The girls were asleep for some (the first) incidents. JB and Michelle even referred in the interview to the "awake" incidents that occurred later. 

 

I missed that.  

[AmandaVT]

Starting a charity to "help children" and then abusing those children is not hypocritical? Perhaps you define it differently then.

 

Lots of people create environments that increase risk factors. The Duggars are not unique in that regard. You seem to be looking at this emotionally rather than rationally.

 

I'm not defending the Duggars. I wish someone could throw the book at them.

 

Both books.

 

Maybe the difference is is that Sandusky was tried and convicted to 30-60 yrs in prison for his crimes and the Penn State football team was also penalized as a result of the abuse. Sandusky was convicted of 45 counts of sexual abuse and was sentenced to an (average) of 45 yrs in prison. Josh should have been convicted of 5 counts of sexual abuse, so maybe a 5 yr jail sentence for him would help to make things right. 

[Happygrl]

The insistence that the girls were asleep and didn't know anything happened really makes me wonder how many other times he did it to a sleeping sister.   I mean, if he got away with it a couple times (until he confessed), then surely he could have easily gotten away with it other times.  Maybe he confessed only to a fraction of the times he actually had.  

 

I'm not making accusations...but the insistence that the girls had no idea & it was only a few seconds each time, if true, leaves me wondering if there weren't many other times.  I'm more suspicious now than I was pre-interview.  

[LucyStoner]

So let's see....

 

Do not allow boys to babysit

 

Do not allow boys to change diapers

 

Do not allow younger siblings to sit in boys' laps

 

If one does these things it will safeguard families from molestation. Those rules didn't work out so well for them did it? Or did they start those rules after the incidents? I'm betting no.

 

Tell boys they are inherently dangerous and perverted, and that as such they are never to be trusted around younger children. (Is it just younger girls they are restricted from?)

 

Tell girls that they are born seductresses and must cover and be prim and proper at all times.....even when little.

 

 

This is their plan for preventing any type of sexual perversion? It's not a very effective plan.

And if that is all true, what woman would ever marry a man? You'd have to be totally insane to reproduce with a man.

[sunflowerlady]

I did not watch the interview, but am reading about it here on the board.

 

How does this fit in their "buddy system", I wonder?  I recall watching one of their shows where Michelle was pregnant and was going to have a girl. One of the little boys was so cute because he wanted to be the big buddy to the new baby. So there must be some precedent of boys being a big buddy. I wonder if they could only be buddied up with another boy.

[LucyStoner]

There are certain worldviews that increase the probability of sexual abuse, namely, those who promote unequal power between the genders, surround sexuality with unrealistic restriction, paint males as inherently unable to control their urges, paint females as "stumbling blocks" that must be covered in a grain sack, and just plain surround fertility and sex with so much promotion and intrigue.

 

I do think we, as parents, should not cling to a belief of, "my kids would NEVER do that," whether we're talking about sneaking alcohol, peeking through a hole in the girl's locker room, looking at p@rn on the internet, or any other wrong behavior. At the same time, though, I don't understand a parenting (or life) philosophy that is so suspicious of every male, simply because they are male, that they come up with a "rule" that no boy plays hide-and-seek with his sisters or that boys letting baby girls sit on his lap are certainly up to no good.

While sibling incest and sexual abuse happens in all demographics, you are right that it is a misstatement that it often happens with no precursors or risk factors. Most cases are in homes with more than one risk factor.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25432976/

 

"The results were consistent with the idea that SI in many families was the cumulative result of four types of parental behaviors: (a) factors that lower external barriers to sexual behavior (e.g., permitting co-sleeping or co-bathing of sibling dyads), (b) factors that encourage nudity of children within the nuclear family and permit children to see the parent's genitals, © factors that lead to the siblings relying on one another for affection (e.g., diminished maternal affection), and (d) factors that eroticize young children (e.g., child sexual abuse [CSA] by a parent)."

[gardenmom5]

I always forget Huckabee's role in that murder spree in our area. For those not familiar, 4 cops died at the hands of a man who was supposed to be in prison for life. It was very tragic.

 

and for those who aren't familiar with this case - the cops were not even on duty.  they were sitting in a booth in a coffee shop drinking coffee when he walked up to them and just started shooting. one was able to get a shot off and wound him before he died.

 

he was shot several days later by his would-be fifth victim who realized who he was and shot him first.

 

this was a couple days after thanksgiving - and he'd bragged about his plans to his family at thanksgiving about how he was going to go start killing cops. no one alerted the police.

[Pawz4me]

Didn't the parents initially say (in the police report, or a statement?) that they first learned of the incidents when one of the girls came to them and told them?

 

But in the interview they said they became aware of them when Josh came and confessed to them?

[unsinkable]

I always forget Huckabee's role in that murder spree in our area. For those not familiar, 4 cops died at the hands of a man who was supposed to be in prison for life. It was very tragic.

I would suggest for those not familiar, they do their own research because he was NOT supposed to be in prison for life. The details are easy to find and I don't want to further derail the thread.

 

I am not defending anyone's actions, certainly not Clemmons, but it is not as straightforward as Huckabee simply commuting his sentence.

[fairfarmhand]

yes! It was so odd. However, he is the weirdo that just can't wait to hear about his daughter getting pregnant. If my dad had told me those words on the eve of my wedding I would have been soooo grossed out! I wonder if they have a TTC calendar for their daughters at home, too?! He is gross to me.

 

Such a strange dynamic. The family seems obsessed with married people getting it on and making babies, but spend the other half of their lives obsessed with women not  being a temptation to men with their long dresses and courting rituals.

 

So weird.

[Guest]

Is the police report still online? Links?

[maize]

The insistence that the girls were asleep and didn't know anything happened really makes me wonder how many other times he did it to a sleeping sister.   I mean, if he got away with it a couple times (until he confessed), then surely he could have easily gotten away with it other times.  Maybe he confessed only to a fraction of the times he actually had.  

 

I'm not making accusations...but the insistence that the girls had no idea & it was only a few seconds each time, if true, leaves me wondering if there weren't many other times.  I'm more suspicious now than I was pre-interview.  

 

Someone posted, maybe on the other thread, a link to an article by a boy who grew up in this kind of environment. He was very worried about going wrong with sexual thoughts or actions, and it sounds from the article that he really did confess every sexual fantasy even to his father. It is possible that Josh D. felt a similar need to confess, I don't think we need to assume that he was trying to hide other instances. 

[albeto.]

Sandusky started a charitable organization to help underprivileged and at-risk youth. He used that organization to meet and groom his victims. 

 

Nevertheless, there is nothing about the NFL that is correlated with sexual assault. The Duggars promote themselves as the living, walking, talking, breathing embodiment of xian morals as found when applying the moral advice of the founding documents of the xian religion. When doing so they, like so many before them, inadvertently created the perfect storm in their own home. Sandusky didn't do anything inadvertently, and he didn't do anything guided by moral principles that he's peddling to the public for fun and profit. The idea that sexual assault and incest happens outside of xianity, or religion even is not contested. People might stop arguing that now. No one supports such an idea. I don't even support such and idea and my opinions about your religion have never been stronger. 

[momacacia]

 

Didn't the parents initially say (in the police report, or a statement?) that they first learned of the incidents when one of the girls came to them and told them?

 

But in the interview they said they became aware of them when Josh came and confessed to them?[/quotes]

 

I found this inconsistent as well. By now, they need to get their story straight.

 

Sometimes I can't figure out if they are really as naive and ignorant as they seem or if it's all a creepy cover. Okay, I know the answer here. Lol. But really, I can see my in-laws handling this the way they did. IBLP-ish counseling would count as "professional counseling," they'd have to out more rules in place, etc. And the fear of their kids being taken away since they're homeschoolers would prevent them from going to police, as well as the ignorance of sexual assault potential and treatment needs for the perp. It's like living in their own little la-la land and with so little contact with "the real world" that they have no concept of the more effective possibilities of dealing with this.

[LucyStoner]

I would suggest for those not familiar, they do their own research because he was NOT supposed to be in prison for life. The details are easy to find and I don't want to further derail the thread.

 

I am not defending anyone's actions, certainly not Clemmons, but it is not as straightforward as Huckabee simply commuting his sentence.

Huckabee reduced his 108 year sentence (citing that he came from a Christian family), making him immediately eligible for parole and then, despite a very violent history, he was paroled over the objections of the prosecutor who stated he was very likely to reoffend. He violated parole within 1 single day of release yet authorities didn't pick him up until he committed another violent crime in 2004. Arkansas and Washington then allowed his parole for that to be transferred here.

 

He went off the rails while under the supervision of WA state parole and was clearly mentally unstable.

 

He killed 4 cops, the largest number of cops ever killed by one person on a single incident. He ambushed them without any provocation or conflict whatsoever.

 

On his original sentence, he'd not have even been eligible for parole until this year at the earliest and the parole violations should have sent him back to prison even on the reduced sentence and diminished his chance for parole.

 

I don't blame Huckabee or the Arkansas parole board but it was a very tragic series of circumstances and underscores, for me why a family's religion shouldn't increase chances for clemency.

 

Age at release is a key factor in recidivism with recidivism being much lower for people with violent and aggressive histories who are older when they are released. He was paroled very young, at 27 and his violence didn't lay dormant until he decided to ambush 4 cops. My main issue, beyond him, is with WA state authorities bungling the handling of his crimes earlier that year and his family. Members of his "good family" are now on prison themselves.

 

I literally know shoplifters who have had a harder time legally moving while in parole than Clemmons did. I will always be dumbfounded WA state agreed to transfer his supervision here. I am not for locking people up and throwing away the key but I'm also not for denying the risks involved with paroling people young with extremely violent histories.

[Annie G]

Is the police report still online? Links?

 

This is the original police report In Touch released. It's the heavily redacted one.  

 

Edited to remove link to the report in case it's considered an image and will cause SWB any problems. Sorry, Susan!

[AmandaVT]

Nevertheless, there is nothing about the NFL that is correlated with sexual assault. The Duggars promote themselves as the living, walking, talking, breathing embodiment of xian morals as found when applying the moral advice of the founding documents of the xian religion. When doing so they, like so many before them, inadvertently created the perfect storm in their own home. Sandusky didn't do anything inadvertently, and he didn't do anything guided by moral principles that he's peddling to the public for fun and profit. The idea that sexual assault and incest happens outside of xianity, or religion even is not contested. People might stop arguing that now. No one supports such an idea. I don't even support such and idea and my opinions about your religion have never been stronger. 

 

All good points, but don't forget the biggest point.....Sandusky was tried and convicted and is now spending 30-60 yrs in jail for his crimes. No one is trying to minimize what he did. It's not an apt comparison at all. The question isn't "where's the outrage for Sandusky?" There was plenty at the time and he had his day in court and lost. For a time, his football team was stripped of all of it's titles as well, but that was eventually overturned. 

 

I'll say it again (not to you albeto but to anyone else who is making this ridiculous comparison). SANDUSKY CANNOT BE COMPARED TO JOSH DUGGAR. SANDUSKY WAS TRIED AND CONVICTED FOR HIS CRIMES. DUGGAR IS BEING MADE OUT TO BE A MARTYR AND HIS PARENTS ARE TRYING TO MINIMIZE WHAT THEIR SON DID AND DEFEND NOT PROTECTING THEIR CHILDREN FROM FUTURE ASSAULTS. NOT THE SAME!!!!

[redsquirrel]

Such a strange dynamic. The family seems obsessed with married people getting it on and making babies, but spend the other half of their lives obsessed with women not  being a temptation to men with their long dresses and courting rituals.

 

So weird.

 

I think of them more as a cult obsessed with controlling women's power and their sexuality and a huge virgin/whore fetish. Keep them afraid of men, yet make men their absolute ruler, tell them all men want to rape them because women are the gateway of sin, tell them they are inherently less worthy of God's love because they are women and therefore inherently more sinful, keep them poorly educated and uninformed about the world, make sure they are financially dependent upon men, use physical intimidation if necessary, don't let them make any decisions about their lives, keep them pregnant and raising bushels of children... where have I heard of this before? Oh yes....

 

http://www.domesticviolence.org/violence-wheel/

 

 

And are they really having their poor daughters go on TV and beg to be 'left alone' so they can keep that TV show on?  That has to be one of the most disgusting things I have heard of. I didn't think there was a step below politicians having their 'supportive wife' stand by with a frozen smile on her face while he admits to some horrifying sexual misconduct, but I guess I was wrong. Now we get victims of sexual abuse begging us to forgive the abuser so their parents can keep living off advertizing revenue and speakers fees.

[Laurie]

When Megyn Kelly was in the tv studio, she gave some statistics about victims and abusers as well as a phone number to report abuse.   She used what she called a 2009 "DOJ analysis" of long-term studies which showed  that most offenders are males between the ages of 12-14, and 85-90% are never arrested for sex crimes again.

 

Does this mean that Josh and others like him are highly unlikely to re-offend, or do you think that they just don't get caught again?

 

  

 

 

[elegantlion]

I'm glad my son is almost an adult - age wise. I'm d*mn sick of the boys are going to be pervs card. I'm tired of the persecuted Christian card - THEY put themselves on TV - do they really not get that act comes with a microscope. No one is killing them and telling them they can't be christian. I could say they suck at being christians and I'm still not persecuting them. 

 

If we could still post pictures, I'd post one of Josh and one of Caitlyn Jenner side by side then ask who looks like the pedophile. I think some people would still be confused. 

 

 

[Guest]

When Megyn Kelly was in the tv studio, she gave some statistics about victims and abusers as well as a phone number to report abuse. She used what she called a 2009 "DOJ analysis" of long-term studies which showed that most offenders are males between the ages of 12-14, and 85-90% are never arrested for sex crimes again.

 

Does this mean that Josh and others like him are highly unlikely to re-offend, or do you think that they just don't get caught again?

I wondered the same thing.

 

If I had to bet money, I don't think it is highly likely that he will re-offend. OTOH, I would never, no way, absolutely not marry or have a relationship with a man if I learned he did those things.

[Pawz4me]

This is the original police report In Touch released. It's the heavily redacted one.  

 

http://www.freejinger.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=87&t=26063

 

In the report it says that in the interview on 12/12/06 at the Children's Safety Center James (Jim Bob) stated that in March 2002 one of the girls came to them and told them she had been touched by Josh.  And it goes on to say that in July 2002 Josh came to him and confessed to one incident.

 

So . .  they were either lying in that statement or they were lying in the MK interview when they made it seem like Josh was the one who first told them.

 

I just finished watching all the clips of the interview.  The level of hypocrisy they display is mind boggling.  They're either not intelligent enough to grasp it, or they've been brainwashed enough that they can't.  I think it was especially snort worthy when they accused the tabloids of running this story due to greed.  Yeah, right.  They've spent all these years having one kid after another so they can pimp them out for countless magazine articles and a reality TV show . . . :blink:

[LucyStoner]

The Duggars seem to have a very tenuous relationship with this little thing called "the truth". They aren't that credible.

[unsinkable]

I'm not sure why you are continuing this derailing but your first statement is not correct. Clemmons himself cited he came from a Christian family, not Huckabee.

 

Again, I urge people to do their own research.

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2009/11/30/2010388798.pdf

 

Page 20

 

 

Huckabee reduced his 108 year sentence (citing that he came from a Christian family), making him immediately eligible for parole and then, despite a very violent history, he was paroled over the objections of the prosecutor who stated he was very likely to reoffend. He violated parole within 1 single day of release yet authorities didn't pick him up until he committed another violent crime in 2004. Arkansas and Washington then allowed his parole for that to be transferred here.

 

He went off the rails while under the supervision of WA state parole and was clearly mentally unstable.

 

He killed 4 cops, the largest number of cops ever killed by one person on a single incident. He ambushed them without any provocation or conflict whatsoever.

 

On his original sentence, he'd not have even been eligible for parole until this year at the earliest and the parole violations should have sent him back to prison even on the reduced sentence and diminished his chance for parole.

 

I don't blame Huckabee or the Arkansas parole board but it was a very tragic series of circumstances and underscores, for me why a family's religion shouldn't increase chances for clemency.

 

Age at release is a key factor in recidivism with recidivism being much lower for people with violent and aggressive histories who are older when they are released. He was paroled very young, at 27 and his violence didn't lay dormant until he decided to ambush 4 cops. My main issue, beyond him, is with WA state authorities bungling the handling of his crimes earlier that year and his family. Members of his "good family" are now on prison themselves.

 

I literally know shoplifters who have had a harder time legally moving while in parole than Clemmons did. I will always be dumbfounded WA state agreed to transfer his supervision here. I am not for locking people up and throwing away the key but I'm also not for denying the risks involved with paroling people young with extremely violent histories.

[maize]

 

 

Off topic, but I like your new avatar :)

[zoobie]

When Megyn Kelly was in the tv studio, she gave some statistics about victims and abusers as well as a phone number to report abuse. She used what she called a 2009 "DOJ analysis" of long-term studies which showed that most offenders are males between the ages of 12-14, and 85-90% are never arrested for sex crimes again.

 

Does this mean that Josh and others like him are highly unlikely to re-offend, or do you think that they just don't get caught again?

That study is discussed in the super long thread. It covers every single sex-related incident. The stats are true across that large group. However, looking at what actions were detailed in the police report (multiple incidents, multiple victims, nonconsensual touching, escalation, brazenness, and so forth), that would place him in a much higher risk of reoffending group than little Sammy who played doctor at school. The study did not parse those out; it was used to discourage states from placing juveniles on sex offender registries with no hope of getting removed. (Ironically, something Jim Bob wanted in Arkansas when he was a legislator.)

 

Is anyone surprised that Fox would cherry pick statistics? ;)

[SKL]

... I don't understand a parenting (or life) philosophy that is so suspicious of every male, simply because they are male, that they come up with a "rule" that no boy plays hide-and-seek with his sisters or that boys letting baby girls sit on his lap are certainly up to no good.

 

This is not just to you, but to others who complained about this.

 

They were responding to the oft-repeated allegation that they did nothing to protect their girls after knowing their son had molested them.

 

Also, there is a suggestion that having lots of kids increases the chances of them being together unsupervised and able to molest.  You seemed to agree with that.

 

Their personal experience put them on notice that very bad things can happen and they didn't want them to happen again.  With Josh or any other child.  They also did not indicate that the "no 2 alone together" was only about boys.  Girls can abuse too.

 

If they had not told about safeguards to keep their older kids from having too much opportunity with the younger kids, then everyone would continue accusing them of doing "nothing" to protect.  So now, instead, everyone is accusing them of - what - overprotectiveness?  When you have something like that happen in your house, IMO you can be forgiven for going a little overboard on protectiveness.

 

We should not assume that the language used in telling their kids these rules implied that all males are sex maniacs and all girls are sex objects.

 

I am not suspicious of every male, but I don't have a problem with safeguards that prevent unsupervised togetherness when kids are at vulnerable ages.  Call me jaded.  I have been the little girl sitting on the dirty-minded males' laps more than once.  And I know other women who would have liked to have those rules in place.  Of course most men are totally safe, but it hurts nothing to avoid unnecessary access.

 

I just think comments like this are proof that no matter what they do or don't do, it's going to be wrong.

[Anne in CA]

When Megyn Kelly was in the tv studio, she gave some statistics about victims and abusers as well as a phone number to report abuse.   She used what she called a 2009 "DOJ analysis" of long-term studies which showed  that most offenders are males between the ages of 12-14, and 85-90% are never arrested for sex crimes again.

 

Does this mean that Josh and others like him are highly unlikely to re-offend, or do you think that they just don't get caught again?

Certainly some of both. Some offenders of that age were experimenting with behavior that when they got caught and punished permanently lost it's allure. I helped a friend shoplift once and felt so gross I never stole anything ever again. Certainly some youthful sex offenders must have the same experience with feeling dirty and the getting caught took the power out of the crime and they quit

 

But some of them probably polish their act, choose victims more carefully, or even worse, become se& tourists, doing their heinous acts in countries like Thailand where they won't be punished..

[SKL]

While sibling incest and sexual abuse happens in all demographics, you are right that it is a misstatement that it often happens with no precursors or risk factors. Most cases are in homes with more than one risk factor.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25432976/

 

"The results were consistent with the idea that SI in many families was the cumulative result of four types of parental behaviors: (a) factors that lower external barriers to sexual behavior (e.g., permitting co-sleeping or co-bathing of sibling dyads), (b) factors that encourage nudity of children within the nuclear family and permit children to see the parent's genitals, © factors that lead to the siblings relying on one another for affection (e.g., diminished maternal affection), and (d) factors that eroticize young children (e.g., child sexual abuse [CSA] by a parent)."

 

 

This would indicate that sibling incest happens more often in families with more relaxed views on sexuality.  Except for possibly ©, I don't think any of these risk factors apply to the Duggars as far as we know.  (Of course we do not know everything that happens when the cameras are not rolling.)

 

[SKL]

 

I'll say it again (not to you albeto but to anyone else who is making this ridiculous comparison). SANDUSKY CANNOT BE COMPARED TO JOSH DUGGAR. SANDUSKY WAS TRIED AND CONVICTED FOR HIS CRIMES. DUGGAR IS BEING MADE OUT TO BE A MARTYR AND HIS PARENTS ARE TRYING TO MINIMIZE WHAT THEIR SON DID AND DEFEND NOT PROTECTING THEIR CHILDREN FROM FUTURE ASSAULTS. NOT THE SAME!!!!

 

I'm not saying it's totally comparable, but if you recall, there were years of cover-up on behalf of Sandusky.

 

And Sandusky was an adult.  And he was implicated in a lot more incidents, more in number and greater in seriousness.  And nobody sent him away or disciplined him or set up safeguards knowing that he was an offender.  Multiple people just turned a blind eye.  And they too were keeping quiet because their cash cow would be killed if the word got out.

[Guest]

responding to the oft-repeated allegation that they did nothing to protect their girls after knowing their son had molested them.

Right, but they said "the boys", NOT "Josh." Of course it makes perfect sense to put JOSH on lock-down, to disallow JOSH from being one-on-one with any girl, to not permit JOSH to hold the little girls on his lap. This is not what they said. They obviously concluded that *every* son they have is in equal danger of "stumbling" given a moment's chance, instead of zeroing in on what treatment/assistance JOSH needed to be presumed no risk to little girls.

[LucyStoner]

This would indicate that sibling incest happens more often in families with more relaxed views on sexuality. Except for possibly ©, I don't think any of these risk factors apply to the Duggars as far as we know. (Of course we do not know everything that happens when the cameras are not rolling.)

 

The second most common predictive factor is parental sexual abuse.

 

I have said it before and will say it again. Incest doesn't happen in a vacuum. It is highly unlikely that Josh is the first or last person in his family tree to have committed acts of sexual abuse.

 

Also, the lack of boundaries that we do know about (dry humping your wife in front of your embarrassed kid on video and involving your children in your TTC schedule) are a form of sexual abuse.

 

I would say there are probably many risk factors for the Duggars and incest.

 

ETA- the correlation between siblings sharing a bed and incest could also be

connected to poverty. While incest happens in all demographics, it is most common in families with high levels of housing and economic instability. As I understand it, that factor is more of an issue when kids *don't have their own beds*, not when siblings doze off together by choice or accident (say, when one is reading a bedtime story to the other).

 

Also, I consider myself to be very relaxed about sexuality but we meet none of the factors in the link except for that the boys have bathed with other kids prior to the time they developed modesty (as have most toddlers with siblings and cousins and which is the least common factor). I don't think you can conclude that these things are a function of being "relaxed about sexuality".

[MyThreeSons]

Nevertheless, there is nothing about the NFL that is correlated with sexual assault. The Duggars promote themselves as the living, walking, talking, breathing embodiment of xian morals as found when applying the moral advice of the founding documents of the xian religion. When doing so they, like so many before them, inadvertently created the perfect storm in their own home. Sandusky didn't do anything inadvertently, and he didn't do anything guided by moral principles that he's peddling to the public for fun and profit. The idea that sexual assault and incest happens outside of xianity, or religion even is not contested. People might stop arguing that now. No one supports such an idea. I don't even support such and idea and my opinions about your religion have never been stronger. 

 

I responded to this statement: "You referenced football, which is not a charity to help children.  The hypocrisy is not on Sandusky because he never promoted himself as an example of moral behavior."

 

I believe that Sandusky did hold himself up as some sort of moral standard when he created a charitable foundation that helped underprivileged and at-risk youth. 

 

Also, please leave the poor NFL out of this. Sandusky was associated with a college team (Penn State), not a pro team. The NFL has enough P.R. issues without being associated with Sandusky. 

[SKL]

Right, but they said "the boys", NOT "Josh." Of course it makes perfect sense to put JOSH on lock-down, to disallow JOSH from being one-on-one with any girl, to not permit JOSH to hold the little girls on his lap. This is not what they said. They obviously concluded that *every* son they have is in equal danger of "stumbling" given a moment's chance, instead of zeroing in on what treatment/assistance JOSH needed to be presumed no risk to little girls.

 

Having been surprised by Josh, their oldest, should they wait until other kids do the same thing before they protect their daughters from it?  Imagine the firestorm if it came out that one of the other boys did the same thing after the parents knew about Josh.

 

IMO it makes sense to prevent things from happening before they happen.  Of course you have to be smart about it, but I don't see the rules they describe as being that extreme.

[catz]

Having been surprised by Josh, their oldest, should they wait until other kids do the same thing before they protect their daughters from it?  Imagine the firestorm if it came out that one of the other boys did the same thing after the parents knew about Josh.

 

IMO it makes sense to prevent things from happening before they happen.  Of course you have to be smart about it, but I don't see the rules they describe as being that extreme.

 

Personally, I wonder more what wasn't talked about.  What kind of sex ed are the kids getting?  Do they have conversations about good touch/bad touch, masturbation, privacy, etc?  Are the girls laid with more responsibility because the boys aren't to be trusted?  Is that safe or right?  Have their views on developing sexuality changed?

[catz]

The second most common predictive factor is parental sexual abuse.

 

I have said it before and will say it again. Incest doesn't happen in a vacuum. It is highly unlikely that Josh is the first or last person in his family tree to have committed acts of sexual abuse.

 

Also, the lack of boundaries that we do know about (dry humping your wife in front of your embarrassed kid on video and involving your children in your TTC schedule) are a form of sexual abuse.

 

I would say there are probably many risk factors for the Duggars and incest.

 

ETA- the correlation between siblings sharing a bed and incest could also be

connected to poverty. While incest happens in all demographics, it is most common in families with high levels of housing and economic instability. As I understand it, that factor is more of an issue when kids don't have their own beds, not when siblings doze off together by choice or accident (say, when one is reading a bedtime story to the other).

 

:iagree:  All we know to this point is what has been reported.  I would not be at all surprised if more has gone on than we've heard about. 

[Guest]

Also, there is a suggestion that having lots of kids increases the chances of them being together unsupervised and able to molest. You seemed to agree with that.

No, that is not what I am agreeing with. I am not agreeing with "chances" making it likely. I am agreeing with the belief that in a mega-large family, that institutes a children-parent-younger-siblings system in order to get things done, there is a greater probability of abuse.

 

Over the years, there have been certain events on the TV show that I have said were bothersome to me, on the basis that the younger kids seek comfort from their older "Buddy" sibling. When Jackson got lost at the airport, he was sobbing hysterically on Jana's lap, with Michelle gazing stupidly about in the background. When Jennifer was frightened of JB in a costume, it was Jill she cried out for, not "Mommy!" Events like that. The siblings have abnormal influence, IMO, because Michelle has delegated all her bothersome parenting chores away.

 

When I was on the QF loop many years ago, I remember the ATI/Pearl parents discussing what level of child chastizement the sibling "buddies" are allowed to have over their younger sibs. IT WAS SCARY SH$T. I felt like I was reading the emails from Crazy-Town. This was shortly before I realized that, while I thought larger families were pretty cool, there was no way in a billion years I was going to embrace the parenting and marital philosophies espoused by people in that group.

[Guest]

Having been surprised by Josh, their oldest, should they wait until other kids do the same thing before they protect their daughters from it? Imagine the firestorm if it came out that one of the other boys did the same thing after the parents knew about Josh.

 

IMO it makes sense to prevent things from happening before they happen. Of course you have to be smart about it, but I don't see the rules they describe as being that extreme.

You don't paint all the boys as equally likely because you were shocked to learn about the one. It is never fair for younger siblings to be treated with mistrust because an older sibling screwed up. I had this happen in my own upbringing and it sucked dirt.

[SKL]

No, that is not what I am agreeing with. I am not agreeing with "chances" making it likely. I am agreeing with the belief that in a mega-large family, that institutes a children-parent-younger-siblings system in order to get things done, there is a greater probability of abuse.

 

Over the years, there have been certain events on the TV show that I have said were bothersome to me, on the basis that the younger kids seek comfort from their older "Buddy" sibling. When Jackson got lost at the airport, he was sobbing hysterically on Jana's[/] lap, with Michelle gazing stupidly about in the background. When Jennifer was frightened of JB in a costume, it was Jill she cried out for, not "Mommy!" Events like that. The siblings have abnormal influence, IMO, because Michelle has delegated all her bothersome parenting chores away.

 

When I was on the QF loop many years ago, I remember the ATI/Pearl parents discussing what level of child chastizement the sibling "buddies" are allowed to have over their younger sibs. IT WAS SCARY SH$T. I felt like I was reading the emails from Crazy-Town. This was shortly before I realized that, while I thought larger families were pretty cool, there was no way in a billion years I was going to embrace the parenting and marital philosophies espoused by people in that group.

 

On the topic of older siblings caring for younger ones, this was my favorite part of growing up (I practically raised my youngest sister and did a lot for my youngest brother).  So I don't see anything wrong with that per se.  It's been a pretty normal part of family life for as long as we have history.  It may seem abnormal today because most households don't have kids with that much difference in age any more.  Unusual now, maybe, but pathological, no.

[redsquirrel]

They are assuming that there is something inherently wrong with their sons, instead of something inherently wrong with how they treat their children

[catz]

They are assuming that there is something inherently wrong with their sons, instead of something inherently wrong with how they treat their children

 

Yes.  This.  Exactly.  They kept talking about safeguards in place.  They never said anything about changing their attitudes, actual hands on parenting, or how they might approach sexuality with their kids.  I wonder how much of their "safeguards" are the older girls responsibility. 

 

I think it's easy to look back and say in the good ole days we didn't interact much with parents, wear bike helmets, seat belts, and learned sex ed from our friends and we're ok.  It's a relatively new concept that sexual abuse in families would actually be reported at all.  I'm sure much of it never is.  I don't know any adults who say they're bitter because their parents were integrally involved in their day to day upbringing and have open communication with them.  I think you can have a strong relationship with parents AND siblings.   

 

[Guest]

On the topic of older siblings caring for younger ones, this was my favorite part of growing up (I practically raised my youngest sister and did a lot for my youngest brother). So I don't see anything wrong with that per se. It's been a pretty normal part of family life for as long as we have history. It may seem abnormal today because most households don't have kids with that much difference in age any more. Unusual now, maybe, but pathological, no.

Caring for I have no issue with. Raising I do. Apparently you don't. Oh well. We disagree.

 

I cared for my younger siblings often, but I can tell you, it was frequently sub-optimal. Tweens and teens don't often make good substitute parents in our culture. I was no exception.

 

Also, I can't remember this for certain, but I think in earlier years, all the older sibs had younger "buddies" in the Duggar family, but they switched to only the girls being buddies at some point. Presumably, this would be the precipitating event. I remember one of the early shows where Josh was trying to reason a recalcitrant toddler to accept naptime, while JB and M were about to leave in the van with the seats removed for a grocery run. So I think the olders were all buddies to a sib until some point when the girls took on all the serogate parent duties.

 

What would happen if they had six boys before they had ten girls? Instead of four conveniently-placed girls who could run everything and be sub-mothers to three or four younger brothers and sisters.

[6packofun]

I think of them more as a cult obsessed with controlling women's power and their sexuality and a huge virgin/whore fetish. Keep them afraid of men, yet make men their absolute ruler, tell them all men want to rape them because women are the gateway of sin, tell them they are inherently less worthy of God's love because they are women and therefore inherently more sinful, keep them poorly educated and uninformed about the world, make sure they are financially dependent upon men, use physical intimidation if necessary, don't let them make any decisions about their lives, keep them pregnant and raising bushels of children... where have I heard of this before? Oh yes....

 

http://www.domesticviolence.org/violence-wheel/

 

 

And are they really having their poor daughters go on TV and beg to be 'left alone' so they can keep that TV show on?  That has to be one of the most disgusting things I have heard of. I didn't think there was a step below politicians having their 'supportive wife' stand by with a frozen smile on her face while he admits to some horrifying sexual misconduct, but I guess I was wrong. Now we get victims of sexual abuse begging us to forgive the abuser so their parents can keep living off advertizing revenue and speakers fees.

 

Wow...wow, I am NO fan of the Duggars and do think they are involved in a cult, but those are some pretty amazing assumptions about how this specific family lives their lives.  "Tell them they are inherently less worthy of God's love because they are women"???  You may not agree with the basic ideas of the husband being a head of the home and all of that, but I'd love to see a clip, a quote, or anything that proves that THEY really believe women are less worthy of God's love.  I get the anger here--and I think the couple did a piss-poor job of defending themselves and making it clear that they were advocates for their daughters--BUT now it just seems like we're making sh*t up.  In THIS case, I'm only interested in what THIS family believes and has done.  Don't make up a set of beliefs that are horribly wretched and then say that they adhere to them.

 

I'm not defending their behavior in this situation.  I'm defending them against wild accusations about their belief system that are being made without basis.  Even knowing what Gothard himself has done in the past or what his teaching materials say, etc., we CANNOT assume that Duggars = Gothard.  (I don't like what I see from EITHER, btw, and I hope that when this blows over I never see the Duggars on tv again, honestly. Fat chance, I'm sure.)

 

And now that I'm done with that, I'd like to know (in general, this is not to redsquirrel) why so many people think they have the right to say that the Duggar girls who were victimized need to continue being victims.  It's like no one can possibly believe that a person can be molested and NOT live their lives in the shadow of that pain every day of their lives, forever. Really?  You never get over it?  I DID.  DId it affect me for some time, YES.  And yet I can watch stories like this without crumpling into a little ball and going back to that 11-year old girl I was or feeling victimized all over again. (Not everyone can do that, I know, but it's not a foregone conclusion that they will NEVER recover.)  Why do people assume that these girls have been brainwashed into being OK with it and that they haven't really healed?   I understand that people think they've been trained to be weak through this family's belief system.  But what if they are NOT weak?  What if they are strong, in spite of it all, and just want to be left the hell alone?  I think many people WANT them to be weak so that they can blame the family (and their beliefs) even more.  What happens if their forgiveness and healing are REAL?  Oops, that might blow our narrative up so let's make it clear that they must be pretending.  Maybe we'll see something totally different when the girls are interviewed Friday.

 

I really, really did not want to defend anything about this family.  And I'm not really defending THEM, per se, I'm trying to defend clear thinking and NOT making wild assumptions without real knowledge.

[gardenmom5]

Such a strange dynamic. The family seems obsessed with married people getting it on and making babies, but spend the other half of their lives obsessed with women not  being a temptation to men with their long dresses and courting rituals.

 

So weird.

it's the ATI/gothard etc. dynamic. (which also seems prevalent in whatever gave rise to ATI's warped vision.) very prurient.  VERY.

 

hello - there's a heck of a lot more to life than s3x.

 

 

 

[LucyStoner]

And now that I'm done with that, I'd like to know (in general, this is not to redsquirrel) why so many people think they have the right to say that the Duggar girls who were victimized need to continue being victims. It's like no one can possibly believe that a person can be molested and NOT live their lives in the shadow of that pain every day of their lives, forever. Really? You never get over it? I DID. DId it affect me for some time, YES. And yet I can watch stories like this without crumpling into a little ball and going back to that 11-year old girl I was or feeling victimized all over again. (Not everyone can do that, I know, but it's not a foregone conclusion that they will NEVER recover.) Why do people assume that these girls have been brainwashed into being OK with it and that they haven't really healed? I understand that people think they've been trained to be weak through this family's belief system. But what if they are NOT weak? What if they are strong, in spite of it all, and just want to be left the hell alone? I think many people WANT them to be weak so that they can blame the family (and their beliefs) even more.

 

 

Healing or not healing from sexual abuse is not a function of being strong or weak.

 

Being a victim of sexual abuse is just a matter of fact, not something one sheds if they are strong enough.

 

I don't want the Duggar girls or anyone to be the victim of sexual abuse.

 

I also don't tolerate coverups, lies and spiritual abuse about sexual abuse. ATI materials on sexual abuse are truly repugnant. It seems unlikely to me that the most public family of ATI would have had the ability to protect their girls from that toxic, and abusive, teaching.

[SKL]

I dunno.  If you looked at what they teach at the church I take my kids to, you could assume all kinds of things about my parenting.  If you'd sat in on my last Sunday School class, you would think Harry Potter was banned around here, instead of being my youngest daughter's passion.  You might think I teach my kids to be against alternative lifestyles etc.  Or that they've never worshipped in a Hindu temple, attended a Muslim Eid festival, or attended Yoga classes.  You'd be wrong.

 

Most public figures have a public persona that is very different from what happens when the cameras aren't rolling.  Very likely that is the case with the Duggars.  The fact is that we don't know.

 

Honestly, I think some of the true facts are probably worse than what has been reported by the Duggars, but I also think they exercise a lot more free will as parents than folks give them credit for.

[Catwoman]

There was one question -- I forget what it was now, but one that was not unexpected, I thought -- where Michelle paused for quite awhile as she seemed to gather her thoughts about how to word her answer. I must admit that I'm cynical enough that I wondered whether she really didn't have a ready answer or whether she was trying to make it look like that.

I'm glad you mentioned that, because I was thinking the same thing -- and I also noticed that she seemed to be trying to make herself cry a few times. It seemed forced and unnatural, like she was trying to seem all upset and heartbroken, but that she was really just putting on a show.

[albeto.]

I responded to this statement: "You referenced football, which is not a charity to help children.  The hypocrisy is not on Sandusky because he never promoted himself as an example of moral behavior."

 

While I do recognize there are several similarities, I disagree that doing a work of charity is the same as promoting oneself as the embodiment of superior morality. Helping kids is not the same as promoting the idea to the public one can know and follow and benefit from the superior moral advice given to humanity by an extraterrestrial, superior-in-every-way being. 

 

I believe that Sandusky did hold himself up as some sort of moral standard when he created a charitable foundation that helped underprivileged and at-risk youth. 

 

Making a public name for himself in part as a helper of children when in reality he was taking advantage of their vulnerability is the epitome of hypocrisy as well. I do so agree. It's reprehensible and I'm glad he was caught and dragged out into the public square and his reputation publicly flogged, tarred, and feathered. I don't agree his hypocrisy is in the same league as the Duggars, but I wouldn't want my kids anywhere near either of them. My contention is in response to the implication that because Sandusky did this, we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking Josh Duggar's confession addresses anything more than your average, run of the mill sexual assault. I disagree. This isn't comparable to Sandusky precisely because the Duggars make a profit off the idea they have a superior moral code, a more reliable one, and those who don't share it are dangers to society. I get that Josh was a teen, likely confused as all hell in that house. I imagine he was probably a victim of sexual abuse as well. While there's no way to know that, it would certainly fit the pattern, and would come as no surprise. I hold 14 year old Josh to a different accountability than creepy-middle-age-year-old Sandusky. I hold Jim Bob and Michelle ultimately accountable here, and it's they who carry the brunt of the culpability in my opinion. And they do so not only because they refuse to accept readily available information, choosing instead to adhere to bizarre claims made and maintained only by faith, and so set up their kids to be vulnerable to dysfunction of the worst kind, but they make a living frightening gullible people about other people through horrible, hateful lies that underscore the hypocrisy of their own disgusting behaviors. To the best of my knowledge, Sandusky did not do anything even remotely similar to this. 

 

Also, please leave the poor NFL out of this. Sandusky was associated with a college team (Penn State), not a pro team. The NFL has enough P.R. issues without being associated with Sandusky. 

 

You're absolutely right. That's just sloppiness on my part (like referencing Pelé, who wasn't even a football player, lol). The point I'm making is about the moral code associated with the two people being compared, because one of them makes a living by peddling the superiority and reliability of this moral code. The other made a living in sports. While I recognize football does have a code of ethics, a code Sandusky breached (teamwork and trust, etc), it does not promote itself as having The Superior Code of Ethics And We Know This Because It Came From The Smartest Being In The Whole Entire Universe Who Knows Everything (except human behavior), And Can Bestow Favors When Following Such Advice As Staying Under The "Umbrella Of Protection" (except when it doesn't - ooh, mystery).