AR - Josh Duggar Admits Molesting Girls As A Teenager - #2

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are people on here that know way more about this then me, but just wondering, maybe a person starts out groping over clothes when someone is asleep, then groping someone under their clothes, and it escalates, and escalates. I'm not just talking about JD, I'm asking this about anyone who starts out this way, without help or even with help, the escalation of worse and worse things? And whether a person likes it or not, the reality is, when you put your family in the spotlight on a reality show, what comes your way is just what happens. That is why most people wouldn't even think to throw their family out there like that, money or no money. It also seems to rip families apart with divorce as well.

In the first interview the parents made it as clear as mud. The first ' series of incidents' involving 2 victims were above clothes, while sleeping ( no big deal ) . The latter series of incidents, I don't recall anyone saying above clothing. I have no idea and don't really care. His behavior escalated and once the girls were safely locked away at night, he began doing things with witnesses while together, reading time, etc. This tells me has zero control over his behavior .
 
JMO if true that the oldest girl wasn't a victim (really, he groped every other female in the house except his oldest sister and his mother??? why did one get left out?? but she might have said she wasn't to protect him or because she was embarrassed or just never woke up) it's not such a good sign regarding Josh's chances of being a pedophile. I mean, if he was just curious about how the female body feels why wouldn't he have wanted to know how the one who probably was closest to puberty felt. But he seemed to gravitate towards the younger demographic (not sure how old the non-family victim was though)

I find that really confusing as well. It could be that he knew she would tattle....so he avoided her. She is the oldest girl and has the most responsibility...correct?
 
When I was growing up, I always had a lock on my bedroom door. Every bedroom door in our house had a lock, and there were no boys at all in our family. I don't think it's at all unusual to have a lock on a bedroom door, and I assume we are not talking about a keyed exterior quality lock, but rather an interior lock that would require the (hollw core?) door to be broken in order to get through from outside, and would open from inside by turning the knob.

According to Jill (above i thought Jessa said it) this was one of the safeguards put in place to prevent more sexual assaults on the girls by their brother, who by this time was a serial attacker.

Yes i think they are called privacy locks. I am assuming they didn't have privacy locks on the girls doors before because they were still very young at the time. But when the sexual predator was found to be lurking in the dark preying on the girls on numerous occasions, they made the decision to add the locks to try and prevent more attacks on these poor little girls. imo
 
Yep, amazing parents put locks on their children's doors to protect them from the other kids in the family.

Wait. What?

That makes it sound incredibly worse than what their claiming the molestation was.....doesn't it?:facepalm:
 
According to Jill (above i thought Jessa said it) this was one of the safeguards put in place to prevent more sexual assaults on the girls by their brother, who by this time was a serial attacker.

Yes i think they are call privacy locks. I am assuming they didn't have privacy locks on the girls doors before because they were still very young at the time. But when the sexual predator was found to be lurking in the dark preying on the girls on numerous occasions, they made the decision to add the locks to try and prevent more attacks on these poor little girls. imo

Yes, that's the distinction. From what I've read the girls didn't explain what type of lock the parents installed but regardless, it's the context that's important IMO.

It's one thing to lock a door to ensure privacy when coming out of the shower or changing clothes and quite another to lock a door at night to keep children safe from sexual abuse by their brother. And I'm pretty sure that distinction was understood by the girls, at least the older ones.

So the message to the girls was that they needed to be locked up at night for their own good. If anything it said that the parents were helpless to control Josh's behavior and so all they could do was to lock up the girls like zoo animals to keep them safe.

How exactly is that "amazing" parenting? Creating physical barriers sounds more like a last ditch act of desperation than a logical, reasonable solution. No more hide and seek, no diapering of babies by the boys, no babysitting by the boys, no children sitting on the boys' laps, locked bedroom doors at night.

Childhood's over kids, now it's Alcatraz - Duggar style. So sad. :(
 
U
I think that by imposing the idea that the girls are victims (and are feeling the trauma of being molested) we are doing a disfavor to victims of abuse (who have been through so much more) by trivializing their past. A brother groping one's breasts while asleep is not the same as a child being raped by an older person. If we call him pedophile and child abuser we are minimizing the acts and deeds of actual pedophiles.

Is there an actual definiton of sexual abuse? It sounds like you are saying only penetration and a beating and perhaps a hostage/tied up situation is real and everything else isn't worthy of being called sexual abuse?

This offends me because I was a victim of "mild abuse" by an uncle that only lasted a few minutes and where I coudn't escape and now in my mid 40s i am still dealing with the effects of that and having a parent who didn't protect me (knowing it would likely happen) and didn't care when I told her.

I have been to therapy about it and all therapists have called that sexual abuse.

Its also like saying stage I cancer isn't really cancer because those with stage IV are going to die and so they have the real true cancer experience.

Or someone with mild post partum depression isn't having the true experince because she didnt kill her kids like Andrea Yates did.

It sounds like you have joined the minimizing club and that makes me sad that you want to classify what is and isnt sexual abuse according to your terms.

It also makes me sad and I feel like this is an example of how women are our own worst enemies sometimes. :(
 
In the first interview the parents made it as clear as mud. The first ' series of incidents' involving 2 victims were above clothes, while sleeping ( no big deal ) . The latter series of incidents, I don't recall anyone saying above clothing. I have no idea and don't really care. His behavior escalated and once the girls were safely locked away at night, he began doing things with witnesses while together, reading time, etc. This tells me has zero control over his behavior .

Well we know where he picked up his zero control from after watching JB dry humping Michelle on the golf course. Its all starting to look almost like learned behavior to me.
 
I think that by imposing the idea that the girls are victims (and are feeling the trauma of being molested) we are doing a disfavor to victims of abuse (who have been through so much more) by trivializing their past. A brother groping one's breasts while asleep is not the same as a child being raped by an older person. If we call him pedophile and child abuser we are minimizing the acts and deeds of actual pedophiles.

No. There are different kinds of sexual abuse, just as there are different kinds of physical abuse, but it is all called abuse and that's OK. It is very, very common for victims/survivors of abuse to do this kind of comparison and feel like they are making too big of a deal about their own experience because someone else had it worse. It's OK to say that what JD did was sexual abuse and it doesn't take anything away from someone who was brutally raped. And it's OK for someone who was groped to say that that behavior really hurt them and that doesn't make them dramatic or selfish or unempathetic toward "real" abuse victims. My stepdad would on occasion push and hit my mother and once of twice he'd grab her by the neck--but neither he nor my mother not any of us kids at the time thought he was a "real" abuser.

This idea that victims of "mild" abuse are trivializing "real" abuse survivors hurts everyone--because even people who experience the worst abuse feel guilty and selfish for reporting and can look to someone who had it worse--especially when it's a loved one in the family.
 
On this page of police report , one of the children recalls the name of the book being read as ' King Aaron' while discussing the incident in the living room in front of witnesses.

http://imgur.com/a/zqPMi#21

Now think about defining moments in your life. This child recalls the title of the book ........ this incident made a BIG IMPACT. I don't care what the parents say, these children were scarred. Please seek outside counseling, young ladies and for the ones still minors, please encourage or sue, if you have to, for the right to take them to real , professional counseling. :(
 
This was in our paper today. Interesting and heartbreaking statistics.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/0...viving-child-sexual-abuse.html?referrer=&_r=0


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From your link ""Also, the greatest number of serious sexual assault charges were for “forcible fondling in 45 percent of all sexual assaults reported to law enforcement.” Forcible rape came in second at 42 percent.

Lastly, while most sexual assaults occur in a home, “Young victims were generally more likely to be victimized in a residence than were older victims.”

Forcible fonding is a SEXUAL ASSAULT ! The law makes it very clear it is not a mistake or an accident or a lapse. It is a sexual assault !
 
Well we know where he picked up his zero control from after watching JB dry humping Michelle on the golf course. Its all starting to look almost like learned behavior to me.

I suggested something similar in an earlier post (#905). Most assuredly, Josh, but perhaps all of the Duggar children received mixed messages from their parents regarding the need to remain pure and not do anything to cause sexual stimulation in the opposite sex while they watched their parents' overtly suggestive behaviors. If any of us saw a couple dry-humping in public, we'd most likely avert our eyes or perhaps gently suggest that they "get a room" and hope they understood ;)
 
Yes, that's the distinction. From what I've read the girls didn't explain what type of lock the parents installed but regardless, it's the context that's important IMO.

It's one thing to lock a door to ensure privacy when coming out of the shower or changing clothes and quite another to lock a door at night to keep children safe from sexual abuse by their brother. And I'm pretty sure that distinction was understood by the girls, at least the older ones.

So the message to the girls was that they needed to be locked up at night for their own good. If anything it said that the parents were helpless to control Josh's behavior and so all they could do was to lock up the girls like zoo animals to keep them safe.

How exactly is that "amazing" parenting? Creating physical barriers sounds more like a last ditch act of desperation than a logical, reasonable solution. No more hide and seek, no diapering of babies by the boys, no babysitting by the boys, no children sitting on the boys' laps, locked bedroom doors at night.

Childhood's over kids, now it's Alcatraz - Duggar style. So sad. :(

Brilliant summation of a very tragic reality the girls had to endure in their precious young lives. imo
 
I wonder what the statue of limitations for accessory after the fact is in Arkansas?
 
I think that by imposing the idea that the girls are victims (and are feeling the trauma of being molested) we are doing a disfavor to victims of abuse (who have been through so much more) by trivializing their past. A brother groping one's breasts while asleep is not the same as a child being raped by an older person. If we call him pedophile and child abuser we are minimizing the acts and deeds of actual pedophiles.

No we aren't. What he did was sexually abuse children. Just because it's not an older person attacking a child, does not mean it's not assault and a serious crime. Should we really start assigning levels to child molestation?
 
No we aren't. What he did was sexually abuse children. Just because it's not an older person attacking a child, does not mean it's not assault and a serious crime. Should we really start assigning levels to child molestation?

Sounds like that's what Faux News and the Duggar's want to do, along with the politicians that came out in support of them.
 
Sounds like that's what Faux News and the Duggar's want to do, along with the politicians that came out in support of them.

Right and Fox has a huge audience and mostly ( speculative ) conservative Christian types. So do we really need all of those viewers thinking less than rape is not really molesting?
 
There are actually levels in criminal statutes re sex abuse. First through third degree. Just like there is in murder.

It so amazes me that people want to give Josh a pass. I bet if it was a Muslim neighbor, we would be hearing about nuking the kid.

BTW, the NY Times article that was posted above says 14 is the most common age of starting this hobby.

When I was in college, a friend had a window peeper. At the time, 40 years ago, she reported to police. They said it was no big deal.

Now we know they start with peeping and move up the ladder to more and more actions.
 
I think Josh didn't abuse his oldest sister because he didn't have enough authority over her to get away with it, but there is also the possibility that he was only sexually interested in pre-pubescent girls and by the time he started offending she was older than his age of interest.
 
wow. The girls do present themselves better than their parents, but they are saying the exact same things that their parents said the other night. Sometimes they are repeating their parents words verbatim, in contradiction with what is in the police reports. This seems so clearly rehearsed, and the story they are telling is just not believable.

I think their denial and minimization of the molestation could be dangerous for other victims, because it could encourage other victims to minimalize and rationalize abuse.

I'm confused at the reasoning for Jessa to say this: "Bauer Media, the parent company of the tabloid is a major *advertiser censored* provider".

I don't think she understands that *advertiser censored* is legal, but child molestation is not legal.

I feel sorry for the girls, but I would hate for them to be featured in a spinoff, for fear that little girls would see them as role models.
I agree. What they are saying seems very rehearsed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
149
Guests online
926
Total visitors
1,075

Forum statistics

Threads
589,931
Messages
17,927,844
Members
228,004
Latest member
CarpSleuth
Back
Top