This is the best essay yet on the whole sleazy Duggar mess:

[catbyte]

https://trendyand2kids.wordpress.com/2015/05/23/dear-duggars-sincerely-me/

"Dear Josh Duggar,

You did not make a mistake when you were 14. You committed a crime. Sin is not always just sin. When you victimize others, specifically children, it is simply unacceptable. Intentionally sneaking into a sleeping girl’s bedroom at her most vulnerable state is not only a violation of her privacy, it is a violation of her whole world. Her breasts and vagina were not yours to explore. You did not commit this atrocity just once. You became addicted to the feeling of power that came over you every time you committed the unthinkable, and got away with it. Once you started, you could not stop. You were not just “curious”. You became obsessed, to the point where your own sisters became just female flesh in your mind, flesh that was yours for the taking/fondling.

You held on to your secret for years. You probably felt sorry, and may have even stopped your midnight escapades at some point, but your choice to stay silent until you got caught only further victimized the girls you abused. Their self image and view of human sexuality for the rest of their lives is now and forever 100% rooted in their first sexual experience, which you forced upon them. They can never get that back, no matter how many times you said you were sorry, or how long you talked to your parents or your church leaders about it. You cannot tearfully “pray away” damage of this magnitude."

...snip



This whole thing makes me actually queasy, but the sanctimonious, self-righteous, hypocritical defense of this little sleazeball by "good Christians" makes me even queasier. I wish I believed in hell because every last one of them deserve to burn in it.

[Solly Mack]

1. Even if there was a hell it would be too good for him and his ilk.

[shenmue]

2. Yes

[onecaliberal]

3. :

[captainarizona]

4. duggar now leading in g.o.p. presidential polls

Mike hukaboob said it best just because josh duggar got caught doesn't mean other home schoolers will get caught!

[pnwmom]

5. One question. This letter speaks of his "choice to remain silent."

I assume this means he should have spoken out. What was he supposed to say, to whom, and how should he have done it?

I am NOT defending the crimes he did commit. I'm asking this particular question. How should the 14 year old have come forward, exactly? When his sister finally accused him, his father's response was to take him to a police officer who himself was a sex offender. If the 14 year old had turned himself in earlier, his father would probably have taken the exact same worthless action.

To me, the 14 year old is a convenient scapegoat. The parents were the ones fully responsible.

[catbyte]

6. I took it to mean that Josh Duggar, as an adult, chose to remain silent all the while becoming the

face of a hate group (according to the SPLC) dedicated to denying equal rights to gay people and denying women the right to choose. The hypocrisy is stunning, even for baggers like the Duggars. I agree that the parents are responsible, too. I feel so sorry for their daughters. That was one hell of a message they sent to them--the men folk are to be protected, you chattel...er, girls...not so much. It's sickening.

[libdem4life]

8. Well meaning people on this board have absolutely No Clue about the multigenerational hell of incest

Just like the battered wife with 6 kids...why didn't she just leave him. That has to be one of the most uninformed and idiotic notion in domestic relationships. Protective Services won't touch it, nor will law enforcement. Current case in point.

This is the reason...poor adult role models, poor adult supervision, poor adult prosecution, poor adult re-training...I could go on and on. Or, just fill in the word "failed" rather than "poor" and you have what Josh had...nothing but his hormones and basal drives to drive down his newly embarrasing adolescence, but we all know...those early hormones don't "drive down" easily.

Will go further as to say, that the reason the 12 year old girl was spared...probably having her periods. Safe incest has to happen before that. Then it's like it didn't happen, or the statue of limitations times it out and expunges it and no one asks any more questions.

Hell the Duggars won't even let one of the girls leave the home to go to college...and I believe she's legally an adult.

And yes, Chattel/slave ownership is the correct term. We know how those stories of slave "escape" turned out. It is no different for women or minors.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

10. Good theory

Because women get pregnant from being touched all the time.

More likely that he didn't bother the oldest daughter because he thought she would be more likely to tell their parents.

[libdem4life]

12. You make my point. Nothing was said about pregnancy. Incest is breaking the boundaries of a child

and that includes digital or fondling or otherwise power over and humiliating another helpless...male or female. Masturbating in front of a sibling is incest. And the 12 year old, are you even half-serious? That's why she was "saved". She could get pregnant and that's easily proven with DNA and the like. No one said Jim Bob was behind the times on the legal and physical stuff. And I'm going to suggest that it went further than fondling. It's like a bear to honey when the Queen Bee is gone.

And, who's going to believe her. She certainly didn't tell about her sisters...whom she apparently loves. She has what's called Survivor's Guilt. Often they feel more guilty, that and the other girls would have denied it and she would have been ostracized. Guess you didn't hear about the sick "blanket training".

I stand by my post...few here have Any Knowledge, and certainly not enough to be judging abused children and families. Hell, it's so lethal, even Social Workers won't deal with it. Incest, that is.

Stop making up stuff to make this anything but sick and twisted.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

13. I haven't made up anything

I responded to the theory that Josh left the 12 year old alone because she was already having a period; the logical conclusion is that you believe he left her alone because she could become pregnant.

Having read the police report, there is no mention of anything other than touching, some of it over clothing. Unless you believe all of the girls were lying, then none of them could have become pregnant from what he did, period or no period.

Sticking to what we know (via the police report) is not minimizing what he did nor the effect on his victims. It's just sticking to what we know rather than making stuff up.

[libdem4life]

16. The below is just short of inappropriate, nigh flippant sarcasm

"Because women get pregnant from being touched all the time.

More likely that he didn't bother the oldest daughter because he thought she would be more likely to tell their parents"

And when I write, I know the Hell of Incest a lot better than fake police reports, adults turning their backs, what families suffer,how children are "groomed".,..in this case Blanket Training "innocent but sick" since babies...in Michelle's own sick description...I'd never heard of that one. There are human and emotional characteristics in every evil that somehow how different participants fit in...it's like addiction theory. There are some definite elements that must be present.

And the belief that the whole truth, the entire truth was told to the Police Officers with all the offenders available to deny the most egregious, and with no bloody body parts or videos to prove it, I've got a bridge to sell you.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

17. Sarcasm is by definition flippant n/t

[libdem4life]

19. Thanks for sharing. Peace Out.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

9. I don't get it either

He was supposed to come out as an adult and say "I molested my sisters when I was 14", which means he would be identifying the victims?

What he did was wrong, no question, but I'm mystified by the notion that, on a board that has on occasion defended adult murderers, they're ready to execute a juvenile sex offender.

My personal opinion is that the reaction has much less to do with what he did than who he is.

[pnwmom]

11. I agree. If he was the son of a beloved Democratic figure,

rather than of a hated conservative, many would probably be having a different reaction.

His actions as an adult -- working for the hate group -- are worthy of condemnation. But his parents are the ones most to blame for what he did as a child. He didn't have the freedom to form any intent when he was living under their roof.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

14. Agree 100% on all points

It doesn't minimize what he did or the effect the abuse had on his victims to say that a 14 year old is the product of his surroundings and upbringing.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. But that hate group he worked for gets praised and legitimized instead of condemned. That's part of

the larger problem here. Family Research Council, the hate group Josh worked for, was an invited participant in the recent Vatican conference against marriage equality. Tony Perkins attended, broadcast live from the event and was quoted in Time magazine as saying the atmosphere was euphoric. The Keynote speaker was of course, Pope Francis. Heard of him? His head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith organized the event. NOM was in attendance and the Heritage Foundation, and even DU's other beloved and hotly defended cleric, Rick Warren was there.

So. It's convenient to say 'a hate group' today but that group was invited by the Vatican to an anti gay conference not 6 months ago. DU often claims the Pope is a progressive hero. Yet he hosts NOM and Tony Perkins, whom you admit is head of a hate group worthy of condemnation. Do progressive heroes legitimize hate groups that need to be condemned? Can't have the cake and also eat the cake. What does it say about Francis that hate groups are invited to his events? What does it say about the discernment of Francis and Muller?

http://time.com/3597245/vatican-evangelicals-mormons-gay-marriage/

[Fla Dem]

18. I disagree with you 100%

I don't care who the person is, if it was revealed that a son of a Democratic figure was found to have committed pedophilia which the Democratic figure then covered up, I would bet 99% of DUer's would condemn both of them without hesitation. Just for example, how quickly did we turn on Gary Hart when he was found to be cheating on his wife, or John Edwards cheating on Elizabeth. Democrats also punished Ted Kennedy for his role in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. While still respected for his role as senator, he was never going to be elected president and the cloud of Chappaquiddick hung over him until the day he died. So I dare say we would do the same if the tables were turned in this situation.

[pnwmom]

20. He was 14 when accused -- not old enough to be classified as a pedophile.

What he did was wrong, and a crime, but not pedophilia.

And, who, in that isolated, warped family system, was there to teach him right and wrong?

[Fla Dem]

21. I know off subject, but Tamir Rice was 12, old enough to be executed

for playing with a toy gun. JSMH

[pnwmom]

22. And who here believes that? No one -- even if he had been carrying a loaded weapon.

I don't think we should be as hypocritical as the right-wingers who support Josh.

Either we believe in the principle that children should be legally treated as children, or we don't. It shouldn't be based on skin color or family origin.

[Liberal_in_LA]

7. this aids activist kicks their ass