Duggar Interview

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Given his history, it was ridiculous of him to take a big job with the Family Research Center.

If you had that history, had repented, and believed in the cause, how could you take that job, knowing what damage your past could do to the cause you so passionately believe in?

But, he’d have a lot more choices if his family had raised their children with adequate educations. As it is, he’s a guy with a GED, a wife and about to have four kids. In today’s world, that’s a tough row to hoe.

I think his education is probably pretty adequate. He ran what appeared to be a successful Used Car Business. Not to mention the TLC money that has to be stashed under his mattress. Jim Bob might be a brainwashing father, but the golden boy of that family will be set up nicely. The girls however may have a less than stellar education. But I am not basing that on homeschooling but rather on how that family seems to devalue the females in it. I think Josh, is a very smart and educated young man. I would put him up against the girl’s husbands any day! Either way, he has it better than most who come out of college with a generic degree and student loans. I’m sure his adoring supporters will find something for him… I wouldn’t worry too much about Josh. It is the ones like Jessa and Jenna who are liable to fall in the same toxic relationships that their dad has modeled for them. You know, though I should have unfollowed him long ago, Ben Seewald’s IG has been so quiet lately. It is kind of nice…

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I completely agree with Xantippe in this exchange:

Memaw: We may not agree with their religious beliefs but whatever counseling they had for Josh, WORKED, and he has lived a good, respectful life since. He has a nice young family, and what is all this doing to them?

Xantippe: We do not know that.

Up until several weeks ago, most of us would have thought it absurd to be told that Josh molested FIVE girls as a teen. That kind of compulsion does not disappear easily.

IMHO what I really find chilling about those who have minimized what Josh did and are blithely assuming he is a changed man, is because I wonder, is this how they would react to similar situations in their OWN communities. What if they found out a “nice young Christian man” down the street was guilty of sex crimes in the past. What if that man, and his family, also insisted he had repented, been forgiven by God, “transformed by the power of Jesus”, and were fine now.

Some posters have stated they would have no problem letting Josh baby-sit their kids, but it’s easy to say that when you know you’re never going to actually meet this guy. But are they actually stating that if the same story came out about a “nice young Christian man” who actually lives in their neighborhood, that they would be fine with having him baby-sit their kids too?

IMHO though I don’t want to be uncharitable I’d much rather have such people be hypocrites who are letting the Duggars off easy because they’re upset a show they found entertaining is likely off the air.

However, from what I understand the girl who was not a family member was NOT the 5year old, the girl who was not a family member was old enough to act as a baby-sitter. It’s actually pretty obvious who the 5 year old is if you check the current ages of the Duggar kids. In fact, the reason we even know one of the victims was 5, is because the record was destroyed on the grounds, that one of the victims, who is still a minor, petitioned the court to do so. If she is still a minor 12 years after the fact, she can’t be older than 17, hence she must have been 5 then. (BTW, considering everything we know about the family, I doubt she requested this on her own initiative.)

BTW, I suspect I’m not the only one who got the feeling that Jessa was trying to keep Jill in line during that interview. Jessa definitely seemed to be channeling Jim Bob during that interview and sticking to the “company line” so to speak. But it seemed that Jill was on the verge of challenging this narrative more than once. Especially when Kelly asked if the other victims had forgiven Josh, and Jill stated that she didn’t want to speak for them. But Jessa was happy to do so. I really got the feeling that if Jill was alone, she would have been more candid.

Now, certainly people react to trauma in different ways. Jessa may indeed have moved on herself and may just be naively assuming that since she did, so did everyone else involved. But note that she and her husband aren’t actually independent from Jim Bob and she might be feeling subtle, or not so subtle, pressure to toe the line. At least per the show (which I know lags behind actual events by months) Ben is still unemployed and the two are still living in one of Jim Bob’s rental properties - ironically, the one Josh and Anna lived in before the moved to DC. This is quite different from Jill’s situation. Not that her husband is rich by any means, but he does have a job of his own.

That being said, I did find both girls sincere when they stated that the media firestorm was more hurtful than the actual events. Ironically, the married girls actually may be more affected than the girls still living at home, who are probably not given as much of an opportunity to read tabloids or watch TV, and don’t have as active a social media presence. (Jinger does has a FB site, but she only used it to post some photos a couple years ago. She seemed to have abandoned it even before the story broke.)

I also wondered if Jill and Jessa are upset not just because they were revealed as victims, but because they actually see themselves as “tainted” by what Josh did, and are perceiving the media coverage as uncovering their own sin and shame. Note that materials such as the ATI “lesson” I quoted from earlier expressly DO state the victims of sexual abuse share culpability. Not to mention Michelle Duggar’s own statements, and those are just her PUBLIC statements. Who knows what she told those victims in private. I think that if the parents dealt with this situation better the first time around, the victims might not have felt as re-victimized when it became public

(Though of course, if they really handled it correctly, they would never have displayed their family on Reality TV, and it would never have gone public in the first place, because no one would have cared about the Duggars enough to dig up any dirt about them.)

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I completely agree with Xantippe in this exchange:

IMHO what I really find chilling about those who have minimized what Josh did and are blithely assuming he is a changed man, is because I wonder, is this how they would react to similar situations in their OWN communities. What if they found out a “nice young Christian man” down the street was guilty of sex crimes in the past. What if that man, and his family, also insisted he had repented, been forgiven by God, “transformed by the power of Jesus”, and were fine now.

Some posters have stated they would have no problem letting Josh baby-sit their kids, but it’s easy to say that when you know you’re never going to actually meet this guy. But are they actually stating that if the same story came out about a “nice young Christian man” who actually lives in their neighborhood, that they would be fine with having him baby-sit their kids too?

IMHO though I don’t want to be uncharitable I’d much rather have such people be hypocrites who are letting the Duggars off easy because they’re upset a show they found entertaining is likely off the air.

However, from what I understand the girl who was not a family member was NOT the 5year old, the girl who was not a family member was old enough to act as a baby-sitter. It’s actually pretty obvious who the 5 year old is if you check the current ages of the Duggar kids. In fact, the reason we even know one of the victims was 5, is because the record was destroyed on the grounds, that one of the victims, who is still a minor, petitioned the court to do so. If she is still a minor 12 years after the fact, she can’t be older than 17, hence she must have been 5 then. (BTW, considering everything we know about the family, I doubt she requested this on her own initiative.)

BTW, I suspect I’m not the only one who got the feeling that Jessa was trying to keep Jill in line during that interview. Jessa definitely seemed to be channeling Jim Bob during that interview and sticking to the “company line” so to speak. But it seemed that Jill was on the verge of challenging this narrative more than once. Especially when Kelly asked if the other victims had forgiven Josh, and Jill stated that she didn’t want to speak for them. But Jessa was happy to do so. I really got the feeling that if Jill was alone, she would have been more candid.

Now, certainly people react to trauma in different ways. Jessa may indeed have moved on herself and may just be naively assuming that since she did, so did everyone else involved. But note that she and her husband aren’t actually independent from Jim Bob and she might be feeling subtle, or not so subtle, pressure to toe the line. At least per the show (which I know lags behind actual events by months) Ben is still unemployed and the two are still living in one of Jim Bob’s rental properties - ironically, the one Josh and Anna lived in before the moved to DC. This is quite different from Jill’s situation. Not that her husband is rich by any means, but he does have a job of his own.

That being said, I did find both girls sincere when they stated that the media firestorm was more hurtful than the actual events. Ironically, the married girls actually may be more affected than the girls still living at home, who are probably not given as much of an opportunity to read tabloids or watch TV, and don’t have as active a social media presence. (Jinger does has a FB site, but she only used it to post some photos a couple years ago. She seemed to have abandoned it even before the story broke.)

I also wondered if Jill and Jessa are upset not just because they were revealed as victims, but because they actually see themselves as “tainted” by what Josh did, and are perceiving the media coverage as uncovering their own sin and shame. Note that materials such as the ATI “lesson” I quoted from earlier expressly DO state the victims of sexual abuse share culpability. Not to mention Michelle Duggar’s own statements, and those are just her PUBLIC statements. Who knows what she told those victims in private. I think that if the parents dealt with this situation better the first time around, the victims might not have felt as re-victimized when it became public

(Though of course, if they really handled it correctly, they would never have displayed their family on Reality TV, and it would never have gone public in the first place, because no one would have cared about the Duggars enough to dig up any dirt about them.)

It would be handy if you linked that ATI handout again. I think it would be a good thing to comment on. I would like to get others views of it. Especially the supporters of this counseling that “worked”

 

[pensmama87]

You know, IIRC, this story broke the day after the season finale. And I had been watching the show starting this season because I was bored and hey, at least there wasn’t swearing and maybe I’d learn a few practical household running things (but not so much, because it’s clear that even if they choose to do things cheaper than they could have, they are clearly not hurting for money).

At the very end of the season finale, the interviewer asked the family if there were any predictions for what the future held for the family, and Josh said something about more courtships, and then looked over at the older girls and asked them about it. And there was just something so…weird…about the way the girls looked at him when they said “no.” It did register in my mind, but I just dismissed it as their desire to be private, no thanks, why are you drawing attention to the fact that I am still single when I’ve got younger siblings courting and married, etc.

Then the story broke and that whole interaction just majorly gave me the creeps.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

It would be handy if you linked that ATI handout again. I think it would be a good thing to comment on. I would like to get others views of it. Especially the supporters of this counseling that “worked”

Sure Hoosier Daddy, here are the links. Now, I should note as a disclaimer that the handout was posted on a site that is meant to provide resources for those who “escaped” that subculture. I copied the quotes from their commentary on the handout, but they posted an actual PDF of the handout as well, that certainly looks like the real thing.

The article is titled How “Lessons From Moral Failures in a Family” Blames Victims.

And here is the link to the PDF copy of the actual “lesson”.

I won’t post all of the content here as I’m pretty sure that’s against CAF rules, but I’ll post the summary at the end of the “lesson” and the commentary about it.

The lesson summary:

“Every precaution should be taken by families so that a similar tragedy will not happen among their children. Once it does happen, it can never be undone, and the scars last a lifetime. Therefore, the following factors should be carefully considered for application in every home.

:black_medium_small_squareo not tolerate laziness by any child. Plan a full day’s schedule.

:black_medium_small_squareo not argue with your children over surface problems. Probe for root problems.

:black_medium_small_squareo not neglect moods of depression in your children. Plan a time to talk it out.

:black_medium_small_squareo not allow boys to change diapers, especially of baby sisters.

:black_medium_small_square:Insist on modesty at all times.

:black_medium_small_square:Teach the children to recognize wrong behavior in moral areas.

:black_medium_small_squareray for protection from pornography. Prepare them to resist it by reading Prov. 1-7.

:black_medium_small_square:Establish open, honest accountability for daily victory in thoughts, words, and actions.

:black_medium_small_squarerovide warnings on immorality from Biblical accounts such as Samson, Tamar, etc.

:black_medium_small_squarerovide guidelines on all physical contacts between children.

:black_medium_small_squarerohibit roughhousing, wrestling, and inappropriate touching of brothers with sisters.”

And the critique:

Four troubling, recurring themes in this document are: the subtle blame of child victims for inviting their own abuse; the lack of distinction between normal physical contact among siblings and the behavior of a sexual predator; the lack of distinction between normal adolescent interest in sexuality and abnormal sexual interest in children; and the lack of distinction between objectionable (legal) consensual sexual behavior and illegal sexual assault. This list presents a queasy hodgepodge of all of these categories

This is especially important in the case of “Insist on modesty at all times,” which sickeningly underscores the former abuser’s implication that the attire and conduct of young children can make them somehow complicit in their own sexual abuse, as well as “Provide warnings on immorality from Biblical accounts,” which appears to conflate child molestation with the voluntary sexual conduct of adults. .

Hope this helps. I personally got the feeling they paint sexual abuse as essentially a sin of sex/lust, instead of a sin of control, even violence, which is VERY different than the way most sexual abuse victims are counseled. But it seems many Catholics share this view, since so many have compared what Josh did to consensual adultery, same-sex marriage, etc. But many people seem to think “eh, a boy grabbing a girl’s breast or crotch is no big deal compared to what does disgusting sodomites do!” Completely ignoring that one act is NOT consensual and the other is, even if they are both sinful.

 

[Darryl_Revok]

I think his education is probably pretty adequate. He ran what appeared to be a successful Used Car Business. Not to mention the TLC money that has to be stashed under his mattress. Jim Bob might be a brainwashing father, but the golden boy of that family will be set up nicely.

Josh may be the golden boy, but the squandered potential has to sting. The whole FRC gig was more than a simple lobbying job; it was the promise of influence far beyond their hellish corner of Arkansas. It was the promise of legitimacy, beyond being a reality freak show. Like the Godfather: “I thought that when it was your time, that you would be the one to hold the strings. Senator Duggar. Governor Duggar. Somethin’.”

 

[ucfengr]

First of all: two wrongs do NOT make a right and just because the “left” has ignored or minimized sexual abuse by their media darlings, does NOT make it moral for the “right” to do the same thing. Maybe it is in the land of “realpolitik” but I’m not a politician and I will call things as I see them regardless of who does it.

Is anybody saying “two wrongs make a right”? But, isn’t it appropriate to contrast the media reactions of the decade old incidents involving a 14 year old boy with the reactions of much more recent, and arguably, much more egregious actions of a nearly 70 year old former President of the US, and husband of a major party frontrunner dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2584309/Bill-Clinton-identified-lawsuit-against-former-friend-pedophile-Jeffrey-Epstein-regular-orgies-Caribbean-compound-former-president-visited-multiple-times.html? I had to go outside the US to find coverage of Clinton’s association with a convicted pedophile. Compare that with US media coverage of Josh Dugger, or Marco Rubio’s traffic tickets.

Personally, given what little I know about the Duggers, I’d be hesitant to hold them up as an ideal that people should try to emulate. I think the whole 19 kids thing is a little strange, and what I know about their rules on dating and interacting with the opposite sex is peculiar, to say the least. That said, they are probably better role models than just about anybody else on “reality TV”. Granted, that’s a pretty low bar.

 

[Convert_in_99]

I’m reminded of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. Why are we throwing stones at the Duggar family? Josh went and sinned no more. Doesn’t God’s forgiveness count for anything? To those of you with children imagine if one of your children comes out and reveals that they have done a hideous sin. It could happen just as easily.

I agree that what the parents did by exposing them to the media in the first place was a hideous crime, especially since they knew beforehand that this could come to light. Think of the terrible evil of doing that to your minor son. Knowing he comitted not just a sin, but a crime and risking this present nightmare for him and his future family! I think great crime was done TO Josh as well.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Is anybody saying “two wrongs make a right”? But, isn’t it appropriate to contrast the media reactions of the decade old incidents involving a 14 year old boy with the reactions of much more recent, and arguably, much more egregious actions of a nearly 70 year old former President of the US, and husband of a major party frontrunner dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2584309/Bill-Clinton-identified-lawsuit-against-former-friend-pedophile-Jeffrey-Epstein-regular-orgies-Caribbean-compound-former-president-visited-multiple-times.html? I had to go outside the US to find coverage of Clinton’s association with a convicted pedophile. Compare that with US media coverage of Josh Dugger, or Marco Rubio’s traffic tickets.

No one has specifically said that, but IMHO while I wouldn’t deny that media bias is a thing, I think many of the Duggar defenders are jumping on that side topic as a way to deflect ANY criticism of the Duggars, and hoping to sidetrack the conversation. When people use this strategy, I personally find that a sign that they know they have no ammunition to defend the Duggars on their own merits.

And BTW I’m NOT saying the “right” is alone in using this tactic to defend the indefensible. I’ve seen"pro-choice" people often try to deflect actual discussion of abortion by accusing the “pro-life” side of “only caring about babies until they are born”, putting them on the defensive, and hope to sidetrack the conversation into one discussing the critics themselves, not those being criticized.

Personally, given what little I know about the Duggers, I’d be hesitant to hold them up as an ideal that people should try to emulate. I think the whole 19 kids thing is a little strange, and what I know about their rules on dating and interacting with the opposite sex is peculiar, to say the least. That said, they are probably better role models than just about anybody else on “reality TV”. Granted, that’s a pretty low bar.

I don’t disagree with that part.

Anyway, I do hope for the sake of everyone at this point, that the show does NOT go on, and that Jessa and Jill do NOT fall for the siren song of having their own “spinoff” show. See how even in this topic, people are now dissecting scenes from the show looking for signs of discord between Josh and his family. If J+J have their own show, even if Josh himself doesn’t appear, people are going to be watching from prurient motives now. They’d probably speculate as to whether the girls’ husbands knew and when they knew it. I’ve even seen speculation that if they didn’t know, they will surely mistreat or even abuse their wives now that they know. Or speculating that if the show ends or is cut back, the husbands will abandon their wives now that the gravy train of celebrity is cut off.

I also REALLY hope Jim Bob doesn’t go around suing people left and right, because if he does that, he’s just going to ensure the circus goes on. If he really cared about his own children more than his own ego, he wouldn’t. (I’m not saying he doesn’t care at all about his family, I’m just getting the impression that he cares about himself more.)

ETA: Convert in 99, you’ve answered your own question. I think most people are MUCH more outraged at the way the PARENTS handled this, than what Josh himself did. I know I am.

 

[Xantippe]

BTW, I suspect I’m not the only one who got the feeling that Jessa was trying to keep Jill in line during that interview. Jessa definitely seemed to be channeling Jim Bob during that interview and sticking to the “company line” so to speak. But it seemed that Jill was on the verge of challenging this narrative more than once. Especially when Kelly asked if the other victims had forgiven Josh, and Jill stated that she didn’t want to speak for them. But Jessa was happy to do so. I really got the feeling that if Jill was alone, she would have been more candid.

**I didn’t see it myself, but it is worth remembering that the TV show is these young women’s bread and butter–this is how they feed their families.

So, they really aren’t in a good position to speak candidly. **

Now, certainly people react to trauma in different ways. Jessa may indeed have moved on herself and may just be naively assuming that since she did, so did everyone else involved. But note that she and her husband aren’t actually independent from Jim Bob and she might be feeling subtle, or not so subtle, pressure to toe the line. At least per the show (which I know lags behind actual events by months) Ben is still unemployed and the two are still living in one of Jim Bob’s rental properties - ironically, the one Josh and Anna lived in before the moved to DC. This is quite different from Jill’s situation. Not that her husband is rich by any means, but he does have a job of his own.

Right.

I also wondered if Jill and Jessa are upset not just because they were revealed as victims, but because they actually see themselves as “tainted” by what Josh did, and are perceiving the media coverage as uncovering their own sin and shame. Note that materials such as the ATI “lesson” I quoted from earlier expressly DO state the victims of sexual abuse share culpability. Not to mention Michelle Duggar’s own statements, and those are just her PUBLIC statements. Who knows what she told those victims in private. I think that if the parents dealt with this situation better the first time around, the victims might not have felt as re-victimized when it became public

Right.

(Though of course, if they really handled it correctly, they would never have displayed their family on Reality TV, and it would never have gone public in the first place, because no one would have cared about the Duggars enough to dig up any dirt about them.)

Yes.

 

[ucfengr]

No one has specifically said that, but IMHO while I wouldn’t deny that media bias is a thing, I think many of the Duggar defenders are jumping on that side topic as a way to deflect ANY criticism of the Duggars, and hoping to sidetrack the conversation. When people use this strategy, I personally find that a sign that they know they have no ammunition to defend the Duggars on their own merits.

I can’t speak to others motives, but I think it’s perfectly legitimate to compare and contrast the respective coverage. Regardless of what Josh Dugger and his parents may or may not have done, their ability to cause mischief is anybody’s life is pretty trivial. The same can’t be said for some of the folks that are getting passes on their scandalous behavior.

 

[Xantippe]

ETA: Convert in 99, you’ve answered your own question. I think most people are MUCH more outraged at the way the PARENTS handled this, than what Josh himself did. I know I am.

Right.

Just to start with:

1. Letting him have opportunity to molest five girls. They found out midway and there was lots of fumbling before it stopped (we hope).
2. Keeping the family on TV for a decade.
3. Running a sort of medium-security prison for the kids with a million rules after the molestation episodes. (I realize that it was to prevent a repeat, but it was essentially punishing every child in the house, when just Josh could have been punished.)
4. Finding out that the oldest of your 14 children has molested several younger sisters and then having another five children in rapid succession. In Catholic terms, the molestation episodes sounds like a heck of a “serious reason” to hit the brakes and focus on existing children.
5. Purity talk (like the used bicycle stuff) that would make the victims (or at least some of them) feel bad.
6. Not emphasizing a view of sexuality that would give the girls a more hopeful road forward.

 

[gracepoole]

As for the media’s coverage of this story and people’s responses to it, from the Michael Reagan opinion piece I linked to earlier:

If you found out tomorrow that Barack Obama had molested his young nieces when he was 14, would you call that “a mistake” and say you were willing to forgive him?

What if teenage Barack had been caught molesting, was reprimanded and was then caught molesting again a year later?

Would you still say no purpose would be served by discrediting Barack Obama or his family by “sensationalizing” the story? I bet not.

I bet not, too. I seriously doubt we’d be hearing so much about “forgiveness.”

 

[grasscutter]

According to the interview it was over five years from the time they had dealt with the situation and were approached to do the television show.

At the beginning of the interview this is what Jim Bob Duggar stated, that it had been over and done with five years before they started the television program in 2008. However, the official police investigation was in 2006. I’m no mathematician but I’m pretty sure 8 minus 6 is 2.

And this is what bothers me. The contradictions and inconsistent explanations that seem more about maintaining control of their narrative than with actually telling the truth. I know all families have problems and that these people are not greater sinners than I. I’m just disturbed that they would have an interview on international television and utter statements that anyone with at least a loose grasp on logic could poke holes through.

They also stated that it is unnecessary to disclose their past to random strangers. I agree. However, if it was deemed important enough to disclose to Anna before the courtship, it should also have been disclosed to the producer prior to the filming. What they did was basically deprive the producer of the free will to make an informed decision.

 

[ucfengr]

As for the media’s coverage of this story and people’s responses to it, from the Michael Reagan opinion piece I linked to earlier:

If you found out tomorrow that Barack Obama had molested his young nieces when he was 14, would you call that “a mistake” and say you were willing to forgive him?

What if teenage Barack had been caught molesting, was reprimanded and was then caught molesting again a year later?

Would you still say no purpose would be served by discrediting Barack Obama or his family by “sensationalizing” the story? I bet not

I bet not, too. I seriously doubt we’d be hearing so much about “forgiveness.”

I’m very skeptical that such a story would be covered. You have to go to the British papers to find out that Bill Clinton is cavorting with a convicted pedophile on his private island where “he kept young women as sex slaves”, while his wife was in the Senate, contemplating a presidential run, and he was ostensibly raising money for charity.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2584309/Bill-Clinton-identified-lawsuit-against-former-friend-pedophile-Jeffrey-Epstein-regular-orgies-Caribbean-compound-former-president-visited-multiple-times.html

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I’m very skeptical that such a story would be covered. You have to go to the British papers to find out that Bill Clinton is cavorting with a convicted pedophile on his private island where “he kept young women as sex slaves”, while his wife was in the Senate, contemplating a presidential run, and he was ostensibly raising money for charity.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2584309/Bill-Clinton-identified-lawsuit-against-former-friend-pedophile-Jeffrey-Epstein-regular-orgies-Caribbean-compound-former-president-visited-multiple-times.html

Could you please stop trying to distract us from the main topic, which is the Duggars? Ok, Bill Clinton is a philandering scumbag, what else is new.

If you want to discuss media bias maybe you can start your own topic. In any case, FNC had almost no coverage about the Duggars until they landed their “exclusive”, so the bias cuts both ways. (I actually watch FNC at times myself, but I certainly am not in denial about what their slant on the news is.)

I don’t think gracepoole was referring to the media, anyway, though maybe Michael Reagan was. Since most of the Duggar support has not come from the mainstream media.

 

[LightBound]

Could you please stop trying to distract us from the main topic, which is the Duggars? Ok, Bill Clinton is a philandering scumbag, what else is new.

If you want to discuss media bias maybe you can start your own topic. In any case, FNC had almost no coverage about the Duggars until they landed their “exclusive”, so the bias cuts both ways. (I actually watch FNC at times myself, but I certainly am not in denial about what their slant on the news is.)

I don’t think gracepoole was referring to the media, anyway, though maybe Michael Reagan was. Since most of the Duggar support has not come from the mainstream media.

My apologies. I directed that member over here because on another thread, he didn’t seem to know all that was involved with the whole Duggar situation of sweeping things under the rug, the cop that didn’t report what he should have (and is now incarcerated for child porn) and how the Duggars follow a cult mentality of childrearing and skewed Scripture interpretation (from a founder with multiple complaints of sexual harassment/molestation). I felt he should be made aware of these things so we didn’t have another member that was minimizing the damage done to the Duggar girls and the other victim.

 

[gracepoole]

I don’t think gracepoole was referring to the media, anyway, though maybe Michael Reagan was. Since most of the Duggar support has not come from the mainstream media.

Indeed. It has come from conservatives – politicians, specifically – who Reagan claims should have stood up and asked important questions of Duggar. And he further claims that Republicans should have asked important questions of the FRC. He actually asked his questions about Obama to Huckabee, who has maintained support for the Duggars:

We all know why Huckabee blew it. He had Iowa on his mind, not God.

He didn’t want to lose the support of the Duggar family or his Christian base, so he decided to call Josh Duggar’s child molesting a “mistake.”

 

[xNoOnex]

It’s fairly disgusting that some people are actually defending the Dugger’s because Josh “sought forgiveness” and is a “good Christian”. Even more disgusting that some people are comparing his actions to adultery.

Adultery, while sinful, is a sexual sin between two adults. Rape and molestation is not sexual. Rape and molestation is about control. And its a violation by a powerful party against one that is less so. Need people be reminded that one of his victims was five?

This isn’t a case of someone making a little “mistake”. It’s a case of someone doing something that is a great evil.

 

[MaryT777]

Dr Drew had a segment on the Duggars and it was noted the Duggars built a new home at some point (allegedly AFTER Josh had been back from treatment which consisted of working construction for a friend as I understood it) and the house was built such as the boys and girls rooms were on opposite sides of the house. You had to walk through the Master Bedroom to get to the girls room.

I wonder how much trust they had in Josh’s recovery if truly this is how they lived afterward. I can’t imagine living in a house where there are locks on the door of your room, and your room was built such that there was no access except through the Master Bedroom to protect you from your brother who has a problem with child molestation.

The problem with this scenario is the issue with the FIVE 5 year old sister was he molested her while she was sitting on his lap and he was reading a story and then again in a laundry room.

Also the older girls said in an interview that they said they could no longer play “hide and seek” with Josh.

All of this seems so sad to me. He needed treatment from a licensed professional and to live in a house where there are locks on your door, and you are accosted as a 5 year old girl in your own home is so very very very sad.

Prayers for all involved.

Mary.