| Author |
Message |
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Friday, June 05, 2015 - 7:40 pm 
Interesting that you bring up gays being evil, because isn't that the opinion of the Duggars, including the girls?
I don't get your point. My point is that not all opinions are valid. Not the Duggar's opinions of gays, and not necessarily our opinions of the Duggars. It cuts both ways.
It is one thing to question them, and I can understand that. I have no objection to it. It is another to say definitively that we know that they were coerced and they can't possibly have really forgiven their brother. We know no such thing. And it is another to pity them or feel sorry for them, a stance I also disagree with. We should be able to honor them as adults who make their own choices about their views and beliefs, as far as they are able within their family framework. It diminishes people to "feel sorry" for or "pity" them.
They may have honestly forgiven him, they may have been coerced or felt like they needed to. I have no idea. And I have said that before. I know it's a long thread, but it's in there somewhere. 
However, what I was speaking to is that the term "survivor" as used within the therapeutic community is not limited to any particular definition. Most often it is used to describe anyone who is alive, without qualifications about how well they may be doing. That it would be out of the therapeutic norm to have some kind of litmus test of "survivor" and perhaps not only not helpful, but also damaging to those who have experienced abuse.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Friday, June 05, 2015 - 7:48 pm
The specials had been filmed as the family was dealing with the molestations.
As I understand it, the molestations occurred in 2002-2003, and their first special was filmed in 2005, with more in 2006 and 2007.
The subsequent investigation came in 2006, and nothing came of it either. The series started in 2008.
|
Onlyhuman
Member
08-04-2001
| Friday, June 05, 2015 - 8:05 pm
I guess I see the 2 year gap when Josh returned to the family and the filming of their first special as pretty close, especially since the decision to film would have been made before that point. The molestations occurred over a period of 15-18 months(?) so I didn't assume that the family recovered instantaneously. But either way, they still decided to do the series after the police investigation AND a referral to child protection by the police. That was on going, but didn't stop them from going ahead with filming. I just feel that they had already seen first hand how negative putting themselves in the public eye could be, why risk it?
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Friday, June 05, 2015 - 8:27 pm
Well, I'm not really that interested in their decision to do the tv show. I just wondered about the timeline since you brought it up.
My personal belief is that society at large is over-invested in these things, and the advent of social media negative gossip and piling on, and the need for "journalists" to pry out every single detail of someone's imperfect life is a pox.
No family is perfect. Pretty much everyone has skeletons or things they'd like to keep private. If no one went on tv because some of their skeletons/secrets might be revealed, no one would go on television. Or the ones that did wouldn't be interesting enough to watch.
So, to me, the more important issue is the societal view that lacks any respect for people's privacy, and the lack of tolerance for their imperfections.
Seems as soon as someone is found out as imperfect, the networks and sponsors, who were previously happy as clam to make money off of them, turn tail and run.
It's all unseemly. IMO.
|
Kappy
Member
06-28-2002
| Friday, June 05, 2015 - 8:35 pm
"I know that sounds harsh."
WOW. Just wow.
|
Keldogg
Member
08-12-2005
| Friday, June 05, 2015 - 8:45 pm
We need to stop using euphemisms like "imperfections". Sexually fondling siblings over the course of time is not what I consider an "imperfection". Then to go on TV and use that celebrity platform to accuse people whose lifestyle is different than yours of being a danger to children? They quoted a statistic tonight...they said 2/3 of families have this type of "incident" happen in families. If they believe that is true, why dont they preach against that and leave the LGBT alone?
|
Texasdeb
Member
05-23-2003
| Friday, June 05, 2015 - 9:30 pm
I will agree w/what Keldogg posted!
Josh should have NEVER taken a paid position & actively pursued his beliefs when he had this questionable stuff in his own past. Did he think that somehow, "Daddy" got rid of this?
I will follow this story - just to find out how "Daddy gets rid of this"------no other reason to follow this on my part. I'm done with anything positive they may do.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Friday, June 05, 2015 - 9:32 pm
Who was using a euphemism? I was speaking in general. And frankly... There are a lot of families.... As I have posted multiple times now .... that have experienced sibling sexual activity. It's not uncommon.
What we need to do is stop demonizing it and start problem solving.
Maybe instead of obsessing about the Duggars we could leave them alone and focus on the larger issue?
|
Jag2000
Member
07-01-2009
| Friday, June 05, 2015 - 9:57 pm
I wish the Duggars would go far, far away. I'm soo tired of hearing about them. Every news channel is giving them way too much air time. There is one comment I will make about the interviews that I couldn't help but notice....all the fake crying by Michelle....not a tear dropped. Amen!
|
Onlyhuman
Member
08-04-2001
| Friday, June 05, 2015 - 10:29 pm
Karuuna, I would say "sibling sexual activity" is a pretty neutral euphemism for "a 15 year old touched a 5 year old sexually" because it seems to imply some sort of mutual consent and exploration, and that was not the case! every training I've ever had uses the term sibling sexual abuse when it is not mutual or there is an age imbalance.
Also, Who here is bothering the Duggars? No one posting here has called their house or stalked them online, as far as I can tell. They have appeared on two hours of TV in the last three days. People talk about what they see on TV. It's why these forums exist.
In general, I have seen an outpouring of good wishes for the girls. On other forums, I have been amazed at how much positive has come out of the revelations, as people open up and share their own experiences with abuse and recovery. The care taken to honor and respect each other is not something I usually associate with the Internet. Personally, I experienced an opening of my eyes, as I followed links to Christian bloggers who made me aware of my own prejudices.
In all honesty, when the news first broke, I thought it was the usual tabloid BS. Only when Josh resigned and released his statement did I read up on everything. I think the coverage would be dying down except new fuel was just added, so it has gone back into overdrive. But who is responsible for that?
|
Naja
Member
06-28-2003
| Friday, June 05, 2015 - 11:19 pm
That's when I realized it was serious, Onlyhuman, when Josh resigned from his position at the LGBT hate group. And the group is truly categorized in the hate group category and watched for possible violence.
I will talk about how awful Josh and his parents are every single day until they stop demonizing LGBT people.
|
Texannie
Member
07-15-2001
| Saturday, June 06, 2015 - 7:20 am
I keep writing and deleting posts. I am not a Duggar 'fan', but I did enjoy their show and watch off and on. It sort of fascinated me. I guess the way the Kardashians fascinate some. I completely abhor many of their political views and disagree with many of their interpretations of the bible. I don't really care one way or another if the show comes back. I am the one who makes the decision whether or not I watch something or not. So having said all of that...Is the outrage that young girls were molested or that someone who is openly against homosexuality molested young girls? it seems to me the outrage is only because of the perceived hypocrisy of the Duggar family. They are certainly not the first 'public figure' who has been discovered to have skeletons in their past. Would it be easier to believe that the family could heal if we like their views better?
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, June 06, 2015 - 7:38 am
Why the "WOW. Just wow.", Kappy?
|
Keldogg
Member
08-12-2005
| Saturday, June 06, 2015 - 7:48 am
I can speak only for myself. I am upset by the hypocricy. But thats not the only thing that I am upset about. I am upset that girls in the home and the community were knowingly exposed to future abuse for this time span because the parents believed this could be taken care of with locks on doors and banning hide and seek. I am upset that the focus seemed to be on saving the male while believing the girls werent affected by this. And I am upset about the attempt to place the blame on everyone else.
|
Muffin
Member
08-29-2007
| Saturday, June 06, 2015 - 8:47 am
Texannie, I also keep writing posts and deleting them. What bothers me most about this whole thing is the hypocrisy of the family. They tried to appear like the best parents - their children were totally under control, all happy, happy, their kids all got along with each other, etc. the parents were always calm and were bringing up all these kids without any problems. They used their fame to speak out against others, I don't remember that in the first few years. Then the news (wanted to use a different word) hit the fan and we find out that their skeletons are huge, and that how they handled was not keeping their Daughters safe, but instead, their main concern was covering it up! That is my opinion.
Now, they are trying to downplay it. Yes, they say it was wrong, and are calling it "incidents" and that all is good now because they have all forgiven Josh.
It's the hypocrisy of this family that I can't stand. Speaking out against the LGBT community, etc. that makes me angry. Having interviews to convince us that Josh made bad "choices" but it's all okay now. They had counseling and everyone is just fine and dandy again. Preventing their girls from sitting on their brother's lap, or not playing hide and seek as pairs of boys and girls hiding together, yes, those are the proper steps to take?? I call that living in lalaland!!!
Maybe if they had been able to mix with other children of different faiths and been able to have conversations about sexuality would not have brought this on! They were shocked. by Josh's actions but that is because they are so sure that their teachings were the only thing those kids needed to learn to be about to get through their childhood. Prevent them from knowing other types of religions that are also good and giving them sex education that they might have received at a regular school was not necessary in their world. I do believe in prayer, but it doesn't solve everything and it isn't all you need to do to grow up properly. Just my opinion.
Had Josh been able to associate with other teenagers and girls, he wouldn't have had to molest his sisters without consent and go after young girls or a 5 year old. Those side hugs didn't teach them anything.
If you raise your children properly and openly discuss sex with them, and are able to teach them properly, then you can trust them. The Duggars don't trust their children!! They send chaperones with them when they are "courting" because they don't trust them! Trust between a parent and child is important.
I can't talk as a psychologist about them, because I'm not one, but not all parents are. Many times I questioned myself as a parent, but apparently I did okay in the end. My children were not perfect, but they had a normal, good childhood and knew that I trusted them! Constant open communication with your children is more important than quoting bible verses and reading scriptures!
|
Keldogg
Member
08-12-2005
| Saturday, June 06, 2015 - 9:24 am
My other concern is that the way the D uggars handled it could be put out there as an example for other families to deal with this type of situation. That scares me.
|
Texannie
Member
07-15-2001
| Saturday, June 06, 2015 - 9:54 am
The limiting physical contact, not letting him babysit ect as a deterrence doesn't surprise me or seem so out of normal. I often times used neighborhood teenage boys to babysit my kids when they were younger...it just seemed to work well, they played better with both kids versus teenage girls seemed to pretty much leave my son alone and focus on my daughter...anyway, i was stunned by how many of my friends who said they would never have a boy babysitter because they would be afraid of abuse.
i think most parents are shocked to find out one of their children abused another. Even if they suspect, there is still that initial shock. Wouldn't that be a normal reaction?
I don't think being exposed to different kids, cultures, beliefs prevents sexual abuse.
I guess because I work in a substance abuse treatment center and see so many complicated issues, i know that even parents with the best intentions can have children who make mistakes.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, June 06, 2015 - 10:22 am
every training I've ever had uses the term sibling sexual abuse when it is not mutual or there is an age imbalance.
Well, I"m not going to rewrite all my previous posts on this issue. Let me just say that the term abuse is too strong in some cases.
As I said before, years ago, every woman who went into therapy was suspected of having suppressed memories. Turns out that was a wild misjudgment and over zealousness on the part of the profession.
And this is also. The pendulum has swung from minimizing to over reacting. Calls for this man to be on the sex registry, when the vast majority of these issues, even when there is an age imbalance, are resolved and never reoccur are just driving hysteria, not reason.
And I'm glad you have seen good things on the internet. But let's not put our heads in the sand about the bad too. There has been a fair amount of criticism for the women too, for having *dared* to forgive their brother.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, June 06, 2015 - 10:25 am
If you raise your children properly and openly discuss sex with them, and are able to teach them properly, then you can trust them.
If I might say, this is a fairly naive point of view. Children in the best of families, with good parenting, sometimes make horrible mistakes and get themselves in trouble.
I wouldn't be so quick to judge.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, June 06, 2015 - 10:29 am
Texannie, I agree with you absolutely.
I used great caution in choosing male babysitters for my DS. It was a very real concern of mine, one that I have to admit, I didn't feel with the female babysitters. Color me judgmental.
But the fact is, hormonally, teenagers are very different. And so the concern is based on biology.
Life is complicated. Parenting is complicated. No matter how much you try to shelter them these days, kids are exposed to things outside your home that you will not allow in your home.
It is important to have a great relationship with your kids, but that simply does not prevent them from being exposed to the real world.
I do not blame this family for forgiving and accepting their son. They did the best they could, imperfect as it was, and they got a point where it never happened again.
They may have struggled along the way, but all I can see so far is that it worked. Until there is evidence that it did not, that's enough for me.
|
Dogdoc
Member
09-29-2001
| Saturday, June 06, 2015 - 10:57 am
Would the fact that with all those children the older children were responsible for the younger ones give Josh more access to them and power over them?
|
Lilfair
Member
07-09-2003
| Saturday, June 06, 2015 - 11:30 am
Usually, teenaged boys that are " too curious" get hold of their dads playboy or. use the Internet. Teenaged boys do experience hormones and are curious. It's a very small amount that decide to fondle their sisters. My best guess is that his sisters was, in his mind, his only choice.
And again it's this big public hoopla because they are a public family ( their choice) and they use their notoriety to preach their morality....oops.
|
Karuuna
Board Administrator
08-30-2000
| Saturday, June 06, 2015 - 11:58 am
Dogdoc, it's possible.
Lilfair, about 5% of households is not a small amount. JMO.
All incidents like this need to be handled with perspective and in context. Josh likely saw something that made him curious, and then acted out. Yes, it needed to be dealt with. But to me, in all the descriptions that I have read in the police reports, it doesn't rise to the level of abuse. I would call it inappropriate touching/boundaries, and deal with it that way.
Yes, it's their choice to be public. But frankly, I don't think that means you sign away your right to privacy in all matters.
I think the public obsession with knowing every lascivious detail of someone's life; and the gang mentality on social media is a symptom of a sick society.
|
Lilfair
Member
07-09-2003
| Saturday, June 06, 2015 - 12:06 pm
K, well compared to 5% 95% is a high percentage. The overwhelming percent of teens that don't molest their sister is staggering. But of course even 1 child molested is a travesty.
And I'm wondering by "too curious" does that mean too horney?
Historically public figures that preach are preached back to when the skeletons fall out of their closet...it's the price of fame and the benefits that come with being famous.
Their situation would be much different if it wasn't for them publicly demeaning other people's lives....read lgbt segment of society.
Being famous and preaching is a 2 way street. It is unfortunate that Josh's victims are taking the brunt of societies wrath. Maybe if Josh did the sit down interview instead of his parents and sisters this would have a shorter shelf life.
|
Lilfair
Member
07-09-2003
| Saturday, June 06, 2015 - 12:17 pm
The parents would have done the best they could if they had the molester leave the house the first or maybe even the second time he confessed. I definitely don't think they did the best any parent could have.
If you have to keep locks on the girls bedroom doors ...that's a problem and not a solution. These parents failed.
|
|
