Anna Duggar baby

[GracieJane]

33 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

There are also those that go for the 18 year old who looks like she's 12.  or younger . . . . (while it isnt' technically a crime, the girl is appealing because she looks like a kid.)

This is the entire concept behind „barely legal“ p*rn. If you really want to be disillusioned with the state of the world, look up the most popular p*rn searches. Get the boat, Noah! 

[lauraw4321]

19 minutes ago, GracieJane said:

This is the entire concept behind „barely legal“ p*rn. If you really want to be disillusioned with the state of the world, look up the most popular p*rn searches. Get the boat, Noah! 

The things Josh allegedly viewed are not even in the same category of existence as b@rely leg-l prn. I heard a description of one of the videos on a podcast called Hunting Warhead. I won’t write the name of the video or describe it. It is revolting and horrifying beyond belief. 

[LMD]

37 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

I am not knowledgeable enough to know. But we need strategies for addressing whatever it is. Not enough is being done to figure this out and protect as many children as we can.

All sexual assault is not about "sex" but about power, hurting others or at least this has been what I have deduced from the mental health community. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to figure out ways to fight it, intervene, protect, see if we can't figure it out and stop it before it happens. Punishment can't be the only option because it is reactionary. The threat of punishment did not stop Josh the Pervert from downloading that video or the other 200+ images. So we need to look for more, try harder, we being the experts, the researchers, the policy makers, communities, families, whomever.

I didn't say anything about punishment.

We wouldn't say it's important to call rapists 'non-consent-attracted people' just so we can gently coax them into maybe admitting they have a problem.

The Josh situation has happened because of a million layer cake of denial and minimisation.

We need strategies, the first one has to be facing the ugly truth. It's not an orientation, it's a paraphilia. Treating it like the former is not helpful - it is a lie that these renowned manipulators want people to believe.

Edited November 17, 2021 by LMD

[Faith-manor]

1 minute ago, lauraw4321 said:

The things Josh allegedly viewed are not even in the same category of existence as b@rely leg-l prn. I heard a description of one of the videos on a podcast called Hunting Warhead. I won’t write the name of the video or describe it. It is revolting and horrifying beyond belief. 

I also unfortunately know more than I would like because when my sister was a social worker on Kentucky, she ended up hearing about it from LEO's she worked with. She never watched it but had to read very graphic descriptions. It is no wonder social workers burn out so freaking fast!!!!

[Faith-manor]

2 minutes ago, LMD said:

I didn't say anything about punishment.

We wouldn't say it's important to call rapists 'non-consent-attracted people' just so we can gently coax them into maybe admitting they have a problem.

The Josh situation has happened because of a million layer cake of denial and minimisation.

We need strategies, the first one has to be facing the ugly truth. It's not an orientation, it's a paraphilia. Treating it like the former is not helpful - it is a lie that these renowned manipulators want people to believe.

I never said it wad an orientation. I don't know why you insist on pinning that on me. Good grief. I hate the effing scam bags! I am not going to engage you again.

[LMD]

1 minute ago, Faith-manor said:

I never said it wad an orientation. I don't know why you insist on pinning that on me. Good grief. I hate the effing scam bags! I am not going to engage you again.

pinning what on you? You quoted me. 

Jeez, I was just contributing to the conversation not personally attacking you! Sorry. 

 

[GracieJane]

17 minutes ago, lauraw4321 said:

The things Josh allegedly viewed are not even in the same category of existence as b@rely leg-l prn. I heard a description of one of the videos on a podcast called Hunting Warhead. I won’t write the name of the video or describe it. It is revolting and horrifying beyond belief. 

I read about it too and regret it. There are some evils that are better left unknown. But JD didn’t wake up one day and decide to search for such wretched material, this is just a point on one end of the spectrum of p*rn. The vast majority of p*rn features violence done by men to a woman. With increased exposure, more violence is required to get the same “effect”. I will bet my entire retirement that JD was a heavy violent p*rn user for YEARS before he was arrested. Until we draw bright lines around p*rn this will get much, much worse.
Just kidding, it’s too late.

Edited November 17, 2021 by GracieJane

[Katy]

There is research.  There is some evidence that cognitive behavioral therapy can help a lot if you are young.  To my knowledge there is nothing that helps an adult.

If the Duggars had taken him to a qualified therapist when he first did this it might have helped.  As is, he should be in prison for life, IMO.  I don't think prison needs to be a punishment.  I'd be fine if it was like the videos I've seen of a prison in Norway - more of a dorm than a cell.  The point, to me, is not punishment but keeping children safe.

[Faith-manor]

It should be noted too that if the DA in Arkansas can charge him when the feds are done with him. I hope they do. Stack the sentences. The DA got the CSA cop that JBob to teen Josh to for counseling on enough counts that he was sentenced to 50+ years. Adding that to the 10-20 of the feds would keep him from getting to his children.

My understanding of the video is that you don't just happen onto it. It is dark web stuff and the person has to go looking for it which is why the "it just popped up and I exited immediately" defense doesn't work. But I am not techie so I really do not understand that part of the case. Dark web for me means websites like astronomy blogs with back background and white print, and I really hate that. So I do not play an internet expert on t.v. nor in real life!

[MercyA]

I'm guessing that while Anna knew Josh met women using an online site, the actual name of the site probably wasn't used a lot in conversations in the home. If she was keeping herself away from media about the incidents, maybe she just didn't hear the site's name much at all. Maybe she's always liked the name Madyson and was going to name her baby what she wanted.

It boggles the mind, it really does, but I have to assume the name of the site just never really sunk into her brain. Maybe?

[Elizabeth86]

6 hours ago, MercyA said:

I'm guessing that while Anna knew Josh met women using an online site, the actual name of the site probably wasn't used a lot in conversations in the home. If she was keeping herself away from media about the incidents, maybe she just didn't hear the site's name much at all. Maybe she's always liked the name Madyson and was going to name her baby what she wanted.

It boggles the mind, it really does, but I have to assume the name of the site just never really sunk into her brain. Maybe?

Your probably right.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, MercyA said:

I'm guessing that while Anna knew Josh met women using an online site, the actual name of the site probably wasn't used a lot in conversations in the home. If she was keeping herself away from media about the incidents, maybe she just didn't hear the site's name much at all. Maybe she's always liked the name Madyson and was going to name her baby what she wanted.

It boggles the mind, it really does, but I have to assume the name of the site just never really sunk into her brain. Maybe?

I think that’s a generous assumption, but to me the most important aspect of this story is the *Josh* definitely knows the name of the site. In a much-more-drastic version of “well I don’t want to name the baby that because that was my high school girlfriend’s name”, if Josh had a kind bone in his body, he would have vetoed the name. (With any spelling) To me, the fact that he permitted/chose/whatever the name “Madison” points to his sick power dynamic. 
 

Also, given this is not her first daughter, it doesn’t really make sense to say she just loved the name so much she used it anyway. There were a few names I loved but would not consider because of people in my past with that name. 

[WildflowerMom]

7 hours ago, Katy said:

There is research.  There is some evidence that cognitive behavioral therapy can help a lot if you are young.  To my knowledge there is nothing that helps an adult.

If the Duggars had taken him to a qualified therapist when he first did this it might have helped.  As is, he should be in prison for life, IMO.  I don't think prison needs to be a punishment.  I'd be fine if it was like the videos I've seen of a prison in Norway - more of a dorm than a cell.  The point, to me, is not punishment but keeping children safe.

Just jumping off from this post...  I'm not about to delve into this topic on google 😱, so I'm taking you at your word here and it does make sense to me.    I don't think you can change an adult's attraction.  Can you change an adult's behavior around the people they're attracted to?  Maybe, maybe not.   But once they've offended (I'm talking about, say an adult and a child 11 and under, just to throw a number out there), do we really want to rely on therapy (no matter the kind) or rehabilitation facilities (no matter the type)?    I sure don't.   Once they've offended and have been convicted, prison for life.    

[TravelingChris]

12 hours ago, Elizabeth86 said:

Meh. I used to have a guinea pig named Sarah, now a daughter. 😆

I had a guinea pig named Katie and now have a daughter named Kathleen.

[Scarlett]

11 hours ago, LMD said:

pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. To pretend it is, is to belie the truth that a sexual attraction to children is a form of sadism - the attraction is to the use of power for destruction of innocence. Pedophiles don't love children, they hate them and are attracted to committing violence against them. Victims have seen that hate and evil up close. 

I'll repeat this at every opportunity until my dying day. 

The first step in helping them can't be to collude in lies about their motivations.

That seems similar to how rape is not about sex but about violence.  People have to understand the core motivations before they can begin to offer 'fixes'.

[HS Mom in NC]

2 hours ago, WildflowerMom said:

do we really want to rely on therapy (no matter the kind) or rehabilitation facilities (no matter the type)?    I sure don't.   Once they've offended and have been convicted, prison for life.    

I don't think that's the goal of developing therapies.  We're talking about developing therapies and public discussion of therapies so the first time a young person realizes they're sexually attracted to children rather than sexually mature people will be aware that this isn't normal and immediately seek help from a professional for ways to avoid acting on it. 

We live in the US-we don't arrest people unless there's a reason to suspect they've already committed a crime and we only imprison them if there's enough evidence to convict them.  So the reality is it makes logical sense to put some objective research into figuring out if there's a chance we can get some intervention going to that avoids these crimes.  Prevention is worth megatons of cure in these kinds of situations.  I'm not arguing that I'm sure there will be a way to avoid it with therapy, I'm arguing we shouldn't abandon the idea until it's been objectively researched. What else can we do? Just continue to wait until one gets caught and then imprisoning or executing them?  Offenders usually commit multiple crimes before getting caught and most don't get caught.  Let's give it a go and see if we can find a way to avoid more victims by seeing if there's a way to stop at least some from offending in the first place. Maybe it will help.  Maybe it won't.  We owe it to potential future victims to try. The status quo isn't working well enough.

[lauraw4321]

10 hours ago, GracieJane said:

I read about it too and regret it. There are some evils that are better left unknown. But JD didn’t wake up one day and decide to search for such wretched material, this is just a point on one end of the spectrum of p*rn. The vast majority of p*rn features violence done by men to a woman. With increased exposure, more violence is required to get the same “effect”. I will bet my entire retirement that JD was a heavy violent p*rn user for YEARS before he was arrested. Until we draw bright lines around p*rn this will get much, much worse.
Just kidding, it’s too late.

This is where we disagree.  I don't believe there is a straight line from p*rn, that is consumed by millions of people on a regular basis, to what Josh Duggar allegedly watched. While there are good arguments against p*rn consumption, linking it to child SAM does two problematic things: it normalizes child t0rture videos as just a continuum of p*rn, and implies that all consumers of p*rn are at risk of becoming consumers of ... I really can't find the right words for what it is because every phrase I use is a severe understatement. Neither of those is true. It's not on the same continuum, and the vast majority consumers of p*rn never go seeking what JD went seeking.

[Scarlett]

4 minutes ago, lauraw4321 said:

This is where we disagree.  I don't believe there is a straight line from p*rn, that is consumed by millions of people on a regular basis, to what Josh Duggar allegedly watched. While there are good arguments against p*rn consumption, linking it to child SAM does two problematic things: it normalizes child t0rture videos as just a continuum of p*rn, and implies that all consumers of p*rn are at risk of becoming consumers of ... I really can't find the right words for what it is because every phrase I use is a severe understatement. Neither of those is true. It's not on the same continuum, and the vast majority consumers of p*rn never go seeking what JD went seeking.

I would say it is a dangerous possibility that it could lead to that.  Not everyone who tries meth becomes an addict but there is a huge chance they could.  

But the po*n ship has sailed.  There is too much money and legitimacy involved for it to be stopped now.  

[Faith-manor]

3 hours ago, Quill said:

I think that’s a generous assumption, but to me the most important aspect of this story is the *Josh* definitely knows the name of the site. In a much-more-drastic version of “well I don’t want to name the baby that because that was my high school girlfriend’s name”, if Josh had a kind bone in his body, he would have vetoed the name. (With any spelling) To me, the fact that he permitted/chose/whatever the name “Madison” points to his sick power dynamic. 
 

Also, given this is not her first daughter, it doesn’t really make sense to say she just loved the name so much she used it anyway. There were a few names I loved but would not consider because of people in my past with that name. 

Yes. I was proposed to by a boyfriend whom I thought of as only in a casual relationship and said NO, prior to meeting my husband. I broke up with the guy. No moral issues. It would have been entirely inappropriate to suggest to my husband that we name our son the ex-boyfriend's name. And this isn't some slip. Ashley Madison was all over the national media, social media, the Arkansas news linking Josh to it, talked about on the daily shows, was the reason Josh went to pray it away camp, and brought up in the TLC cancellation documents in addition to the breaking news of the crimes against his sisters. They haven't forgotten, and in IBLP the father has the final say in naming a child as the "headship" of the family. The scum bag knew exactly what he was doing.

They chose an alternative spelling for Madison, and then even though they have a dog Lily, and grandma's middle name is Lillie, they didn't choose the alternative to make the connection to grandma apparent. 

The first few comments, all from fairly loyal followers on instagram, fellow IBLP fundies, were screen shotted and some of them posted on a few websites. Oy! Even the fundies got it, and were appalled that they named her this and pointed out the Ashley Madison connection to Josh. Others said, "Don't you have a dog named Lily?" People have not forgotten, not even in there sheltered group of "innocent" minded folks, and definitely thought it was a mean-spirited combo to lay on that child. She had to delete a lot of comments. Unfortunately for them, the internet is pretty much forever and being celebrity infamous means someone is always saving your stuff so they can come back later and throw it up in your face. The screen shots of those comments are out there. I personally believe that the slime did this as one last "screw you" to his family, and spineless jellyfish Anna just rolled over for it yet again.

13 days until his trial begins. Emily Baker, a lawyer and vlogger who has been parsing out the legalese of the court documents, and talking about how these cases move along in trial, indicated the plea deal expired Oct.18, but they can petition the court up to ten days before the trial for extenuating circumstances and ask to enter a plea. It is up to the judge whether or not to allow it. So that deadline is rapidly approaching. Monday he filed a petition for a new lawyer which was granted. 😯 I don't know what on earth this indicates, but it seems a little crazy at this stage. Then again, I don't believe "thinks like rational people" is a phrase any of us would apply to him or his father. From her perspective, since all the motions to suppress evidence were thrown out, and the Feds tend to be very, very careful when they build these cases, conviction is pretty much a slam dunk. He also has thrown three of his brothers under the bus plus several other employees in an effort to claim his innocence! I am no fan of any of the Duggars, but I feel sorry for these young me, and it has to be particularly painful that their father has never made a public statement in support of them. JB is a sicko. 

 

 

[gardenmom5]

2 hours ago, lauraw4321 said:

This is where we disagree.  I don't believe there is a straight line from p*rn, that is consumed by millions of people on a regular basis, to what Josh Duggar allegedly watched. While there are good arguments against p*rn consumption, linking it to child SAM does two problematic things: it normalizes child t0rture videos as just a continuum of p*rn, and implies that all consumers of p*rn are at risk of becoming consumers of ... I really can't find the right words for what it is because every phrase I use is a severe understatement. Neither of those is true. It's not on the same continuum, and the vast majority consumers of p*rn never go seeking what JD went seeking.

There are different types and degrees of p*rn.

violent p*rn, Kiddie, etc. - it a whole 'nother ball of wax.  And those do lead to heavier and heavier stuff to get the same fix.

[Jenny in Florida]

17 hours ago, Terabith said:

Unpopular opinion:  I wish people who are attracted to minors were less stigmatized enough to get treatment.  People cannot help to whom they are attracted.  And I have read heart breaking accounts of people who tried desperately to get help but were unable to and who resorted to suicide.  

People who act on that attraction, since it harms innocent people, deserve lots of stigma.  

Your post prompted me to remember this episode of This American Life. Heart-breaking is right.

 

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/522/tarred-and-feathered/act-two-0

[Katy]

3 hours ago, Scarlett said:

I would say it is a dangerous possibility that it could lead to that.  Not everyone who tries meth becomes an addict but there is a huge chance they could.  

But the po*n ship has sailed.  There is too much money and legitimacy involved for it to be stopped now.  

I think the analogy is more like not everyone who gets addicted to caffeine will end up on meth. There’s a lot of lines in between that most people never cross. But otherwise I agree with you. 

I do think the view that all sin is sin is problematic in these things.  We may have all sinned, but the idea that no sin is worse than any others in terms of judgment also implies that no sin is worse than any other in terms of morality or legality, and neither is correct. 

[HS Mom in NC]

9 minutes ago, Katy said:

I think the analogy is more like not everyone who gets addicted to caffeine will end up on meth. There’s a lot of lines in between that most people never cross. But otherwise I agree with you. 

I do think the view that all sin is sin is problematic in these things.  We may have all sinned, but the idea that no sin is worse than any others in terms of judgment also implies that no sin is worse than any other in terms of morality or legality, and neither is correct. 

Right, and the lack of scriptural knowledge keeps people vulnerable to being conned in one of those two directions. With all these scandals breaking, Christians need to be clear on this issue.

Those with an aversion to complexity and nuance, (I'm looking at you, Fundies and others) are prone to wanting a super simplified application, but that doesn't make scriptural or legal sense.  Yes, all sin separates us from God and makes us need a Savior because God is perfect in holiness. At the same time, even though we're all sinners, there are some sins that disqualify people from things like leadership, that break church fellowship, etc. So there's a scriptural basis for degrees of sin and degrees of punishment/consequences. When it comes to civil society among human beings, not all sin requires government intervention and those that do usually require different degrees of punishment/consequences. It's a conversation that too many people want to ignore because it isn't overly simplistic.

And they need to remember that scripturally, there are often severe consequences for the repentant, just ask King David. He and his family paid dearly for his sin even though he repented. So this, "I genuinely repented, therefore I should be shown 'grace' by not facing any consequences" isn't a biblical standard. In the New Testament, 1 Cor. 5: 9-12 is very clear on the harsh consequences for sex and other offenders, and we're still subject to earthly government too. There's no getting around it, there's a price to be paid whether someone repents or not.

[Faith-manor]

And in more news because these folks cannot get a grip on their situation, Jbob updated his campaign website and is accusing liberals and "Cancel Culture" of trying to prevent him from being involved in politics! 😠 

This is an epic level of dense combined with malignant narcissism. 

The best thing Arkansas can do is find a reason to lock Jbob up too!

Again, the "how low can you go" game of limbo continues with these people. 

[GracieJane]

6 hours ago, lauraw4321 said:

This is where we disagree.  I don't believe there is a straight line from p*rn, that is consumed by millions of people on a regular basis, to what Josh Duggar allegedly watched. While there are good arguments against p*rn consumption, linking it to child SAM does two problematic things: it normalizes child t0rture videos as just a continuum of p*rn, and implies that all consumers of p*rn are at risk of becoming consumers of ... I really can't find the right words for what it is because every phrase I use is a severe understatement. Neither of those is true. It's not on the same continuum, and the vast majority consumers of p*rn never go seeking what JD went seeking.

Jared Fogle (remember Subway Jared, convicted of possession of CSAM?) lost all his weight eating only Subway sandwiches as a college student. How does a college student afford to eat all his meals at a single fast food chain, you ask? Well, he ran a p*rn rental business from his dorm room for the general college population of non-CASM users, a “vast and extensive collection” he owned (which provided a lucrative income by all accounts). He had 5.6 terabytes of p*rn, that’s about 50 hard drives’ worth. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree, but for every man arrested with CASM, there is a long history of exposure to every type of p*rn.

Most p*rn consumers will never view CASM. But there are no CASM users who haven’t consumed enormous amounts of “normal” p*rn.

In case someone wants to read about JF:

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueCrime/comments/iv7g7e/update_the_rise_and_fall_and_the_depths_of/

 

Edited November 17, 2021 by GracieJane

[Annie G]

This is getting more crazy by the minute. The prosecution wants to bring up the 2002/2003 molestation allegations, and in today’s hearing it was revealed that the two witnesses they want to call are Jim Holt’s wife and Jim Bob Duggar. Bobye Holt has already received her subpoena but get this- they can’t find Jim Bob to serve him! 
Is Bobye called because Josh was supposedly betrothed to her daughter when when he was 14, and thus she knows details of the allegations? Is she the one who wrote the letter and stuck it in the book? Is she the one who alerted Oprah? Is her daughter the unnamed babysitter/family friend Josh admitted to fondling while she slept on their couch?  
I have so many questions…

[Faith-manor]

Yes, I have questions. Jbob is supposed to be running for office. It should not be hard to serve him a subpoena unless he is deliberately hiding. The Holt thing has my brain in a quizzical state.

[gardenmom5]

3 hours ago, Annie G said:

This is getting more crazy by the minute. The prosecution wants to bring up the 2002/2003 molestation allegations, and in today’s hearing it was revealed that the two witnesses they want to call are Jim Holt’s wife and Jim Bob Duggar. Bobye Holt has already received her subpoena but get this- they can’t find Jim Bob to serve him!  

if JB is campaigning - he'll have a posted schedule.

3 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

Yes, I have questions. Jbob is supposed to be running for office. It should not be hard to serve him a subpoena unless he is deliberately hiding. The Holt thing has my brain in a quizzical state.

I wouldn't put it past him.  He knows his creep son is guilty. the campaign is just a way to make money.