Josh Duggar was arrested today

[TravelingChris]

2 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

Thinking about how Josh is allowed to go to work. Will anyone actually patronize his business? I can see people going in to harass him instead.

I know that we would stay very far away from anyone with those kind of charges or actually lots of charges= like we wouldn't also patronize a dealership that was involved in fraud.

[HeartString]

2 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

I know that we would stay very far away from anyone with those kind of charges or actually lots of charges= like we wouldn't also patronize a dealership that was involved in fraud.

There will be some that come to his dealership to “support” him because they’ll refuse to believe the charges…  The mean ole guvment going after good Christian men.   Persecution!  Canceling!   He’ll get some business from that.  

Edited May 7, 2021 by HeartString

[hjffkj]

6 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

Thinking about how Josh is allowed to go to work. Will anyone actually patronize his business? I can see people going in to harass him instead.

I can't imagine the type of person who would knowingly continue to patronize his business.  But I do hope he doesn't get harassed.  That type of behavior can escalate into dangerous situations too quickly

[Spryte]

16 minutes ago, HeartString said:

Language marches on.  Awesome no longer means full of awe, cool no longer means slightly warmer than cold, hip isn’t a body part.  Creepy means what it means.  We all have lexical pet peeves.   

Yep.  Semantic drift.  It’s a thing, though sometimes annoying!

[maize]

23 minutes ago, EKS said:

I have, and I think that using it as such for all instances of sexually inappropriate behavior is incorrect and has had the effect of diluting the actual meaning of the word.  This is unfortunate.

Words mean what people within a community use and understand them to mean.

It is linguistic nonsense to claim that the actual meaning of a word is somehow separate from the things people use and understand that word to mean.

[KungFuPanda]

What about “skeevy?” Can we agree that JB is skeevy?

[fairfarmhand]

3 minutes ago, KungFuPanda said:

What about “skeevy?” Can we agree that JB is skeevy?

How about gross? Is that nuanced enough?

[TechWife]

54 minutes ago, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

Grown men behaving sexually in a kid environment sends up a red flag that they have boundary issues related to sex and kids.  That's alarming or creates a fear like, "If that's how he's behaving in public and in front of the cameras, what's he doing around kids in private with no social norms to restrain him?" 

This, exactly. This was a big warning flag in front of who knows how many people that didn’t call him on the inappropriate behavior. He was effectively grooming everyone that was there by pushing the boundaries to see how much he could get away with and by normalizing the behavior. 

[Laurie]

42 minutes ago, hjffkj said:

@EKS the word creepy has long been accepted as a term used for sexually inappropriate behavior.  I find it fascinating that you have never heard it used as such

I had been using creepy in a more generic way, too.

However, after hearing Sean Hannity refer to Pres. Biden as "creepy Uncle Joe" for months on end that's the more specific meaning/type of behavior I associate the word with now.   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSSMG0MaEnQ

 

 

[LucyStoner]

47 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

This is what I keep thinking about the whole thing.  I am also religiously conservative.  My dh and I are very affectionate but he would never behave that way in front of ANYONE!  There is not a human alive that dh would say to me in front of them 'Does that turn you on.'  Bizarre is a good word for that.

Yeah, never in either the first 20ish years of our marriage or the next decades to come would me or my husband ask the other what turns the other on *in front of other people* and especially *in front of our child*.  Also, after decades of marriage it stands to reason that we both know what the other one likes already, call me crazy 😛.   We are not in the least bit conservative but there are things you just don’t discuss publicly.  Honestly, it’s that more than the golf swing thing that strikes me as creepy here.  

The thing is, he has Michelle’s consent, she’s on board with this flavor of overshare.  They staged this for attention on a cable television show.  I think JB is creepy but I don’t need to exaggerate and call that humping to make the leap to JB and Michelle are creepy creeping creepesters.  

My FIL often spoke inappropriately about his sexual relationship with his wife to his sons when they were kids and teens.  It wasn’t healthy or comfortable for his sons in the least.  

Edited May 7, 2021 by LucyStoner

[Danae]

The behavior was juvenile. The man is a creep.  Creeps use juvenile sexual behavior in public because it has plausible deniability of being “not creepy” but it erodes boundaries and torments the target because if she objects then she’s overreacting and can’t take a joke.  
 

He’s getting his kick not by the friction of rubbing his private parts on someone but by exerting power to embarrass his targets (his wife and his daughter) in a sexually charged way.

[HS Mom in NC]

14 minutes ago, HeartString said:

There will be some that come to his dealership to “support” him because they’ll refuse to believe the charges…  The mean ole guvment going after good Christian men.   Persecution!  Canceling!   He’ll get some business from that.  

Yep. Some people can't separate out the lifestyles choices/convictions vs. the bad behavior.  Some can't help but personalize everything with a tribalistic mindset.  Think of all the circles:

Christian
fundamentalist
conservative
Republican
small government
homechurched
homeschooling
quiverfull
ATI
Southern
rural
blue collar (not college educated)
white

Anyone motivated to play the tribalistic martyr can pick any of those characteristics they share with the Duggars and choose to "righteously suffer" for their convictions at the hands of an unfair, godless world.
 

[HS Mom in NC]

13 minutes ago, Danae said:

The behavior was juvenile. The man is a creep.  Creeps use juvenile sexual behavior in public because it has plausible deniability of being “not creepy” but it erodes boundaries and torments the target because if she objects then she’s overreacting and can’t take a joke.  
 

He’s getting his kick not by the friction of rubbing his private parts on someone but by exerting power to embarrass his targets (his wife and his daughter) in a sexually charged way.

Soooooo a Schrodinger's Douchebag kind of thing.

[LucyStoner]

4 hours ago, hjffkj said:

I won't disagree that the stance is a normal golf thing. However, it is also a huge cliche to 'help' someone with their golf swing in order to get close to them physically. And in the context of everything else in that scene it is clear JB is using it in that manner, not to help M with her golf swing. 

 

I get that it’s a cliche and I’m skeptical that Michelle needs any putt putt golf lessons.  It also sounds like something that was set up for the show.  

They come across as creepy in a whole host of ways (heck, I find his hairstyle gross and who in their right mind keeps their menstrual cycle on the fridge and has their kids remind her to have sex when she’s fertile?  Ick) but I do think that this clip wasn’t as an extreme example as some do nor do I think it’s dry humping.  
 

[Pam in CT]

re getting off on power, rather than rubbing per se

13 minutes ago, Danae said:

The behavior was juvenile. The man is a creep.  Creeps use juvenile sexual behavior in public because it has plausible deniability of being “not creepy” but it erodes boundaries and torments the target because if she objects then she’s overreacting and can’t take a joke.  
 

He’s getting his kick not by the friction of rubbing his private parts on someone but by exerting power to embarrass his targets (his wife and his daughter) in a sexually charged way.

This.

And oh.my.word how thoroughly sick of the JK!! whatsamatterwidyou cantcha take a joke??!! cloak over brutish boorish dominating conduct.  On TV for a show putatively aimed at families.  Modeling to the rising generation exactly *how* to be a brutish bullying boor.  Good grief.

Grow up.

[LucyStoner]

18 minutes ago, Danae said:

The behavior was juvenile. The man is a creep.  Creeps use juvenile sexual behavior in public because it has plausible deniability of being “not creepy” but it erodes boundaries and torments the target because if she objects then she’s overreacting and can’t take a joke.  
 

He’s getting his kick not by the friction of rubbing his private parts on someone but by exerting power to embarrass his targets (his wife and his daughter) in a sexually charged way.

Michelle is whole hog in on this.  She’s not a hapless victim here.  I’ll grant you this behavior is gross towards his daughter and her suitor for sure.  She was getting a kick out of showing the her daughter what wasn’t allowed until marriage.  JB and Michelle have both always seemed more than a bit exhibitionist to me.  

[Katy]

1 hour ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

Thinking about how Josh is allowed to go to work. Will anyone actually patronize his business? I can see people going in to harass him instead.

Moving on from fighting over whether someone in a sex cult who doesn’t want his children to kiss before marriage but who keeps a molester in the home with young children, and who then pays for the defense of a man who allegedly got pleasure from a video abusing and murdering a toddler… my vote is creepy…

Josh is not working, except for maybe for his father.  He closed up the car lot after the raid, sold everything including their house, put his assets in an LLC in his snd Anna’s name, and then opened something like 7 more LLC’s in Anna’s name alone in the public filings in Arkansas the same month.  I’m assuming to hide all their assets in her name alone, since Arkansas isn’t a community property state.

They moved into a windowless warehouse his father owns.  It had been made over inside to be a guest house.  The lack of windows/ fire egress alone would be grounds for CPS to take the kids in other states.

Edited May 7, 2021 by Katy
Allegedly

[MercyA]

39 minutes ago, Katy said:

Moving on from fighting over whether someone in a sex cult who doesn’t want his children to kiss before marriage but who keeps a molester in the home with young children, and who then pays for the defense of a man who allegedly got pleasure from a video abusing and murdering a toddler… my vote is creepy…

That's awful. I know that Josh downloaded video containing the SA of children as young as toddlers, but I didn't know one of them was murdered. Was the killer identified? Has he been arrested?

ETA: Asked and answered. The man who made the torture video of the 18-month old also killed an 11-year-old child. 😞 

Edited May 7, 2021 by MercyA

[MercyA]

1 hour ago, hjffkj said:

just speaking openly here because of how well you evaluate things to make sure you have fully formed your opinion with all relevant info.. I don't think you can do that with the sound off. He specifically tell the kids not to do what he is doing.  So, if he didn't intend it to be of a sexual nature there  would be no issue with that.  Earlier in the scene he asks if something he does turn M on, which just continues to show that he is trying to make the whole ordeal a sexual thing.

Ah, fair enough. I'll make myself do it later. But not while I'm eating lunch. 

[hjffkj]

2 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Ah, fair enough. I'll make myself do it later. But not while I'm eating lunch. 

ha, smart

[KungFuPanda]

39 minutes ago, Danae said:

The behavior was juvenile. The man is a creep.  Creeps use juvenile sexual behavior in public because it has plausible deniability of being “not creepy” but it erodes boundaries and torments the target because if she objects then she’s overreacting and can’t take a joke.  
 

He’s getting his kick not by the friction of rubbing his private parts on someone but by exerting power to embarrass his targets (his wife and his daughter) in a sexually charged way.

Is he aware enough of other people to know he's embarrassing them?  He strikes me as an overconfident dufus who thinks bragging about his prowess makes him look like a stud.  Maybe HE is impressed when other men act that way?  He gets so much positive reinforcement he just might believe he is to be admired. 

14 minutes ago, LucyStoner said:

Michelle is whole hog in on this.  She’s not a hapless victim here.  I’ll grant you this behavior is gross towards his daughter and her suitor for sure.  She was getting a kick out of showing the her daughter what wasn’t allowed until marriage.  JB and Michelle have both always seemed more than a bit exhibitionist to me.  

I think both of them have made out like bandits.  They are very successful big fish in a teeny tiny, albeit overpopulated, pond.  They're grifters just like all of he televangelists before them who got rich telling other people how to live and trading on the hope that if you follow their lead, YOU can be successful too because "God will provide."

 

7 minutes ago, Seasider too said:

Do we really have to move past the debate over what’s creepy? Because, ^^^

We do NOT.  As long as we don't get the thread locked we can debate this indefinitely.  People who don't like it are free to focus on their own tangents and ignore the rest.  Policing thread content isn't going to magically start working on THIS thread and I'll never understand the optimism of those who try it.

 

1 hour ago, EKS said:

And hopefully there will be a word to take the place of creepy that retains the fear element.  I can't think of any at the moment.

Predatory?  

[KungFuPanda]

7 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Who was this? That's awful.

This is what Josh was watching, multiple times,  and why the feds caught him.  They weren't looking for HIM.  They were following the videos to see who was watching them and they found him.

[Corraleno]

7 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Who was this? That's awful.

Josh. He was downloading what's known as "hurtcore," which is about torture and humiliation of the victim. The video that the investigator described as one of the most horrific things on the dark web shows the rape and torture of three children, including a screaming 18 month old baby. The man who made that video murdered one of the children in it, and is in prison for life. The other two children, including the baby, survived but with permanent injuries. 

[hippymamato3]

Just now, Corraleno said:

Josh. He was downloading what's known as "hurtcore," which is about torture and humiliation of the victim. The video that the investigator described as one of the most horrific things on the dark web shows the rape and torture of three children, including a screaming 18 month old baby. The man who made that video murdered one of the children in it, and is in prison for life. The other two children, including the baby, survived but with permanent injuries. 

This is effing horrifying. I am so  disgusted that they released him. I actually threw up reading about this. 

[MercyA]

 

9 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Josh. He was downloading what's known as "hurtcore," which is about torture and humiliation of the victim. The video that the investigator described as one of the most horrific things on the dark web shows the rape and torture of three children, including a screaming 18 month old baby. The man who made that video murdered one of the children in it, and is in prison for life. The other two children, including the baby, survived but with permanent injuries. 

Thank you. Found the Wiki article on [deleted]. Horrifying. Pure evil. I take back what I said about no one being all monster. 

Edited May 7, 2021 by MercyA

[Katy]

19 minutes ago, MercyA said:

That's awful. I know that Josh downloaded video containing the SA of children as young as toddlers, but I didn't know one of them was murdered. Was the killer identified? Has he been arrested?

The creator of the video with the two toddlers, one of which was killed, is in prison for life in the Philippines.  I didn’t look further into whether that man is also who created the rest of the videos in the file, and if the other girls (up to age 9) are safe or not.  Frankly I couldn’t get past the first paragraph of his Wikipedia entry without getting physically sick.  I had nightmares last night.

I have been a foster parent to kids who were abused so I thought I had a higher tolerance for knowing about this than typical, but it was way too much.  I’m not going to give sources because I don’t think anyone not in law enforcement or a jury should know how awful it is. 

[Katy]

4 minutes ago, MercyA said:

 

Thank you. Found the Wiki article on…………………..Horrifying. Pure evil. I take back what I said about no one being all monster. 

Please delete his name.

[MercyA]

1 minute ago, Katy said:

Please delete his name.

You got it.

[Katy]

10 minutes ago, MercyA said:

 

Thank you. Found the Wiki article on ……,.,,,,,,,,,,, Horrifying. Pure evil. I take back what I said about no one being all monster. 

Please delete his name here too.

[EKS]

47 minutes ago, Katy said:

Moving on from fighting over whether someone in a sex cult who doesn’t want his children to kiss before marriage but who keeps a molester in the home with young children, and who then pays for the defense of a man who allegedly got pleasure from a video abusing and murdering a toddler… my vote is creepy…

This, exactly.  The putt putt thing is nothing compared to this stuff.

[Katy]

4 minutes ago, EKS said:

This, exactly.  The putt putt thing is nothing compared to this stuff.

My point was it's all creepy.

[Danae]

I feel awful for the people who will be on the jury.  They need to hear detailed enough descriptions that it’s clear this isn’t “boys will be boys” or “every man’s problem” or “hey, who hasn’t looked at porn at some point and maybe some of the images were a little more hard-core than he expected.” And that is enough for nightmare fodder.

[hjffkj]

Oh my, that wiki.   How do monsters like this exist?  I'm sitting here with my 14 month old cuddling up with me and I can't stop crying for all the unloved and abused children in this world.

[EKS]

8 minutes ago, Katy said:

My point was it's all creepy.

Yes, well, most people today aren't interested in exploring nuance.

[Katy]

6 minutes ago, EKS said:

Yes, well, most people today aren't interested in exploring nuance.

nuance, weeds, it's all in your perception.  Also once you read anything on linguistics you learn it's not good to correct other people's language.  Changing the definition and pronunciation of nuanced language is how language evolves.  You can teach kids the standards but language evolves.  To say nothing of whether it's appropriate to publicly judge the feelings and perceptions other adults express.

[HeartString]

I thought the testimony about that video specifically said they weren’t sure that Josh had watched it in particular or if it was part of a package.  Now everyone is saying he watched it over and over.  Where is that coming from? 

[Katy]

1 minute ago, HeartString said:

I thought the testimony about that video specifically said they weren’t sure that Josh had watched it in particular or if it was part of a package.  Now everyone is saying he watched it over and over.  Where is that coming from? 

I was confused about that too, but I think the problem was the reporting.  Because the judge clearly asked Mrs Reber if she understood that that his charges included offenses against toddlers, plural.

[HeartString]

1 minute ago, Katy said:

I was confused about that too, but I think the problem was the reporting.  Because the judge clearly asked Mrs Reber if she understood that that his charges included offenses against toddlers, plural.

If they’ve had it for 2 years I don’t see how they don’t know whether or not the file was played on that computer at some point, but I thought I saw a quote that left it as a question.  

(It was in his computer, he’s legally responsible.  I’m not saying he isn’t.  Just trying to clarify the details.)
 

 

[Katy]

4 minutes ago, HeartString said:

If they’ve had it for 2 years I don’t see how they don’t know whether or not the file was played on that computer at some point, but I thought I saw a quote that left it as a question.  

(It was in his computer, he’s legally responsible.  I’m not saying he isn’t.  Just trying to clarify the details.)
 

 

My understanding is that the court didn't specify which of the videos he played while they used playing them interspaced with texting and doing other things like leaving reviews as evidence that it was him who was the guilty party (vs his brothers). But this wasn't a free file.  My understanding is that this file costs $10k, and people who download it know exactly what is in it.

ETA:  Meaning he possessed the video for at least 3 days, and after paying that much for it he presumably watched every video in the file.

Edited May 7, 2021 by Katy

[prairiewindmomma]

6 minutes ago, Katy said:

I was confused about that too, but I think the problem was the reporting.  Because the judge clearly asked Mrs Reber if she understood that that his charges included offenses against toddlers, plural.

Yes, and look at her response. She said she agreed because her husband asked her to. That is code speak for, “No, I don’t want to do this.”

This is a new judge and I think she is in over her head. 

[Katy]

Just now, prairiewindmomma said:

Yes, and look at her response. She said she agreed because her husband asked her to. That is code speak for, “No, I don’t want to do this.”

This is a new judge and I think she is in over her head. 

Maybe, but most of the lawyers I've seen comment say they let him out because the prosecutor knew he had it for 18 months and didn't arrest him earlier because they admitted they didn't think he was a danger to the community...  His own family maybe but not the community.

[KungFuPanda]

11 minutes ago, HeartString said:

I thought the testimony about that video specifically said they weren’t sure that Josh had watched it in particular or if it was part of a package.  Now everyone is saying he watched it over and over.  Where is that coming from? 

It could be because he would download-watch-erase-repeat, so some of the videos were seen  multiple times. I may be wrong, but it seems like he could have gotten away with watching one or two videos, but it was the sheer volume of traffic that wore a path to his door and it was the worst of the videos that were tagged and followed. 

[prairiewindmomma]

See, and my .02 as an attorney is that they knew this was going to be high profile. They literally scheduled this for the new judge. I totally understand the doing a thorough investigation end of things, but this feels political—like the good ole boys were getting together to protect one of their own.

House arrest pending trial isn’t uncommon—they don’t want to foot the housing bill—but I think the wife didn’t want to take him and is doing so begrudgingly because she has to submit to her husband. That was the jist of my comment—she is wrapped up in that unhealthy culture of wives submitting to their husbands and acting against their own best judgments.

[HS Mom in NC]

1 minute ago, Seasider too said:

And hopefully the fact that he paid for it means there’s a trail directly to him? Because my fear is that his attorneys will do their best to clear him by trying to lay blame elsewhere. 

Or someone will do something stupid with jury selection or something else that will throw any conviction into question.

[Katy]

1 minute ago, Seasider too said:

And hopefully the fact that he paid for it means there’s a trail directly to him? Because my fear is that his attorneys will do their best to clear him by trying to lay blame elsewhere. 

Some tabloid said that's exactly why Anna believes he is innocent... he told her it was an employee.  He told the officers his brothers had access to his computer.

[Katy]

1 minute ago, prairiewindmomma said:

See, and my .02 as an attorney is that they knew this was going to be high profile. They literally scheduled this for the new judge. I totally understand the doing a thorough investigation end of things, but this feels political—like the good ole boys were getting together to protect one of their own.

House arrest pending trial isn’t uncommon—they don’t want to foot the housing bill—but I think the wife didn’t want to take him and is doing so begrudgingly because she has to submit to her husband. That was the jist of my comment—she is wrapped up in that unhealthy culture of wives submitting to their husbands and acting against their own best judgments.

Yeah, and you'd think being in a family that owns something like 5 planes would definitely make him a flight risk.  IDK.

[KungFuPanda]

1 minute ago, prairiewindmomma said:

See, and my .02 as an attorney is that they knew this was going to be high profile. They literally scheduled this for the new judge. I totally understand the doing a thorough investigation end of things, but this feels political—like the good ole boys were getting together to protect one of their own.

House arrest pending trial isn’t uncommon—they don’t want to foot the housing bill—but I think the wife didn’t want to take him and is doing so begrudgingly because she has to submit to her husband. That was the jist of my comment—she is wrapped up in that unhealthy culture of wives submitting to their husbands and acting against their own best judgments.

I think with these latest details his good ole boy currency will plummet and he’ll be safer in jail.  

[prairiewindmomma]

Fwiw, I do really feel for all of the attorneys, jury, and everyone else who is going to have to be exposed to what is on those tapes. I still think about some of the protection from abuse and child in need of care cases I worked 20 years ago. 😞 I left that area of work because it was so very, very heavy.

[TravelingChris]

4 minutes ago, Katy said:

Some tabloid said that's exactly why Anna believes he is innocent... he told her it was an employee.  He told the officers his brothers had access to his computer.

Yeah, an employee wouldn't have access to split up a hard drive, install Linux, etx, etc.

[Katy]

Just now, prairiewindmomma said:

Fwiw, I do really feel for all of the attorneys, jury, and everyone else who is going to have to be exposed to what is on those tapes. I still think about some of the protection from abuse and child in need of care cases I worked 20 years ago. 😞 I left that area of work because it was so very, very heavy.

I wish we had a hug like.