Baby Meredith is here - Anna Duggar baby watch

[Nic]

I think they're desperate enough, both being unemployed, that I can't put it past them to name Meredith after Viera, hoping for more appearances and money.

Talk about being AWKWARD for ol' Viera...Yikes.

[anjulibai]

Viera has a talk show now, perhaps they will try to see if they can get on it for Josh's first interview. I'm sure they are going to shop that around at some point.

[VelociRapture]

I'm not sure. It's possible, but I think they just liked the name more than anything. :think:

[DGayle]

I decided to look for Meredith Viera's middle name. We're spelling her last name wrong. It's Vieira! 2 i's in there.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

I'm half glad that they may stop that practice (it's too precious and takes away their children's individuality), but it will sound weird if they have another kid (please for the love of god don't). Mackynzie, Michael, Marcus, Meredith, and...Tom.

I don't know, I have plenty of friends who are the only ones in their family without a certain initial and it's never been weird. Heck, I'm an e and my siblings are c. Even with vastly different styles (my name is VERY, EXTREMELY unheard of, but my siblings have extremely common, found on at least 1 occasion in every classroom names). Sure, there were sometimes I was jealous of them, but mostly because I hate how no one can EVER pronounce, spell, or remember my name, but no one has a problem with theirs; but I've generally found it to be nice, especially when it came time to label things (which was always done with initials in my house).

[FundieFarmer]

In another thread, someone said that was just a bug eyed look, yet now I am thinking it is just a kid version of Michelle bug eyes :D

I think it's entirely possible that all of our mothers were right, and Michelle's face actually did freeze like that. And now it's hereditary.

[Mama Mia]

Based on what we know there is good evidence that he is a pedophile. The youngest victim we know about was 5 years old. He was post puberty, all his victims were pre-puberty.

I don't see any minimization of "real" pedophilia anywhere on FJ.

I think there are a couple of problems with using the label " pedophile" in this particular situation:

--" Puberty" is a very vague and undefined area. It isn't a one day event, like a birthday, where you can clearly say where a young person is in the process. It also lasts a long time. IIRC the average is two years, and there is a big range in starting and ending dates - particularly for boys who don't have a milestone physical marker like mensturation. It's very clear if you were talking about a 20 year old man molesting a 5 year old girl. The molester is clearly " post - puberty" the victim is clearly " pre- puberty" that's not the case here.

The two youngest victims - aged 5 and 8 ( ish) --were pre- puberty. ( although even then, it's possible, but not likely the 8 year old was in puberty) The older two sisters, at 10 - 12 were likely at some point in the puberty process . And the teen age babysitter would presumably be post puberty.

Additionally, boys Josh's age are generally also considered to be in puberty developmentally. Just looking at the show, the boys seem to enter puberty on the average to late end. They definitely don't seem to be a bunch of early bloomers.

It's not a life state people tend to put a lot of thought into starting and ending dates. They just are aware there are a lot of physical and emotional changes, often resembling a hormonal hurricane, over a period of a couple of years sometime between 9 ish and 16 ish., depending on the kid.

"Puberty" , as a developmental time period, very, very vague, but it's what is used to define the very serious issue of pedophilia. Which , in simplest terms, is a person post- puberty being primarily sexually attracted to pre-puberty children. But its a problematic concept when used with young adolescents - offenders or victims- who might be anywhere in the process. If Josh's multiple victims had been exclusively very young children , the pedophile label might be more likely accurate, even if technically he was too young to have the diagnosis.

--- Another issue is that he seemed to be mostly oportunistic --and because of how totally insular the family was his opportunities were almost always his sisters, who were younger. But he did take advantage of the opportunity that came up with a sleeping babysitter - who was his age or older.

--- A really huge factor in considering " pedophile" as a label is also that his culture just doesn't seperate out sexes and ages of people the way the rest of society does. They teach their children virtually zero about sex, but put very strict boundaries between " adults and children" and " male and " female" . People are children ( for all practical purposes ) until they marry. Males are one category of people who shouldn't touch another category of people - females- until they marry. When kids reach puberty and become sexually interested they are just taught " don't touch girls. Don't be alone with girls. Don't think about girls. If you do anything sexual you'll go to hell. They don't seem to really have a seperate category for

" teenager" where there is increased freedom, flirting, crushes, maybe dating, and a focus for attraction. Until they are ready to court and marry it's ALL just " stay away from girls" . From anything I've seen there isn't the normal cultural rules people learn growing up - where little kids are seen as a seperate category than sexually developed , but still not adult, males and females. To them, a 5 year old and a 15 year old seem to be have the same level of decision making and independence.

[Wenny]

My husband's name and sibling sets go: J, J, J, C (husband), J. Everyone notices it.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

The baby is adorable. All of Anna's children are. Anna looks good too.

I was cringing during the whole Jim Boob/DQ birth announcement. Just awful. They are trying so hard to stay relevant. And DQ acting like she loves Marcus so much ... she only reached out to scratch his back once Boob was holding him because the camera was rolling. She is so out of it.

I really feel for Jana, Jinger and Joy and wish they would get out of that house and take Hannie, Jennifer and Jordan with them.

The worst part, for me, was how much higher Michelle's voice went when she was trying to talk to him. Like it's not already bad enough without that....

[DeFrauder]

I see FJ has another Certified Medical Professional. :roll:

Not only do we not have evidence that Josh is primarily attracted to prepubescent children, we don't have evidence that Josh is attracted to prepubescent children in any sense. Molestation does not necessarily spring from sexual attraction, and I think this claim is even more tenuous given his age and level of repression at the time of the offences.

If you think saying that there's no evidence that Josh is a pedophile (and there isn't) is the same as defending him, you're an idiot.

I dunno. I think the idiots are people that read a police report that describes Josh serial molesting a minimum of 5 prepubescent children over a period of years and still believe there is no evidence that Josh is a pedophile.

Is there proof that he has offended again? Not that we know of.

Is it probable that he has offended again? Yes, based on the high number of victims we know about. If you read more than the first sentence in the Wikipedia article you would know he has a higher than average number of victims and has had inadequate treatment. Plus scientists have had no real success in curing pedophiles. I hear Jesus works wonders though.

I don't know WHAT the big deal here is.

There is utterly no substantial difference between a pedophile and a child molester. They both prey on children who are unable to consent to sexual contact. Are you really hung up on the idea that Josh might not be an actual pedophile but just a bad person who went out of his way to hurt children?

In my mind it is WORSE if Josh is NOT a pedophile, but instead simply CHOSE to hurt a minimum of 5 children when he decided to sneak into their beds while they were sleeping.

I guess Josh was just making a "mistake"? There is no proof that his actions meant anything except that he was under a lot of stress? Oh poor Josh. Now that he has Jesus, maybe he can get a job at a day care.

[nelliebelle1197]

My goodness! Pushing the issue are we? You should be ashamed for this lame excuse for protecting Josh. You are kinda sounding like J and M here. Really world, it was just some mild inappropriate touching, over the clothes except for the few times when it wasn't....

From the wikipedia article that was posted to "prove" how the definition does not apply to Josh:

lets go through that definition and the entire article for that matter:

Josh meets this criteria. From what we know, Josh initiated sexual contact with a minimum of 5 prepubescent girls. He didn't convince them to participate. He repeatedly snuck into their room at night and accosted them while they were sleeping! Notice they say generally? That is because children reach puberty at different ages. The point is that pedophilia is an interest in children that have not yet sexually developed. From what I understand all the victims we have been told about were under 12 and one was only 5. Correct me if I am wrong about their ages.

Here they point out that a prepubescent child could be as old as 13. What this sentence means is that it can STILL be pedophilia if the victim is as old as 13. Don't NOT DIAGNOSE as pedophilia if the victim is 13. We are not DIAGNOSING anyway---that is what medical professionals do. That sentence was an instruction to medical professionals. We are snarking and putting 2 and 2 together.

Again, an instruction for medical professionals. A psychiatric diagnosis becomes a legal designation. No serious psychiatric diagnoses are applied to minors under 16 for legal reasons--not because it is impossible for someone at 14 and 15 to have a serious psychiatric disorder. It is very possible for someone to be a pedophile at 14 or 15 years old. They just have the luxury of not having a firm diagnosis until they reach 16.

Josh molested a 5 year old girl when he was 15 years old. There is your 5 year gap.

Why do they point out a 5 year gap? That is so a 15 year old boy is not charged with a sex offense for having a relationship with a 13 or 14 year old girl. Or that a 19 year old is not charged as a sex offender for having a relationship with a 16 year old girl. MOST IMPORTANTLY it is to show that the abuser is showing sexual interest in younger children---not in peers.

Here is some information about the scholarly debate regarding diagnosis of pedophilia:

Note Josh meets both criteria because he acted upon his urges to have sexual activity with prepubescent children. This is the most serious indicator that a person is a pedophile, and the one indicator that cause medical professionals to confidently apply a diagnosis of pedophilia. Scholars are also a bit worried that pedophiles that do not act on urges are lumped in with the people that do. Diagnosis is tricky.

Well, that is some sobering information about how difficult it is to cure pedophilia. I am pretty sure that a non-professional who cures people with hard work and bible passages does not have better success than the scientists who work on this. There is an extremely slim chance that Josh sexually abused 5 different children and then miraculously stopped having the urge to do so.

Oh here we go! Here is the passage that suggests that Josh may only be a child molester and not a pedophile:

I see. Only 25%-50% of child molesters are diagnosed as pedophiles. The other 50-75 percent of people who molest children are JUST ASSHOLES! I guess they just molest children because the children were available or because the molesters were having stress at work. Or maybe because the children were defrauding these poor non-pedophile child molesters! Of note: having a wife does not stop abusers from seeking out children.

BUt there is more:

Here we are getting to the nitty gritty of the difference between a mere child molester and a pedophile molester. HOWEVER I AM AT A LOSS TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE DIFFERENCE IS RELEVANT AT ALL< ESPECIALLY TO THE VICTIMS!!! I will say that Josh started abusing people at a young age, he has a higher than average number of victims--both clues he is in the pedophile camp. On the other hand, most of his victims (that we know of) are his sisters so there is a chance that he remains in the non-pedophile ASSHOLE camp. Those last two sentences scare me.

Finally, after reading all this, I wonder about Josh's stress levels. This might be a bad time for him to be anywhere near children. He needs to get himself to an actual treatment center.

So let me ask--why does it matter if he is an actual pedophile child molester or a non-pedophile asshole child molester? I don't get why one is worse than the other. Please explain.

Can you read? One must be a minimum of 16 before diagnosis and must have primary attraction to children. Josh was not 16 and there is no proof that he has a primary sexual attraction to children. No one is defending Josh. The hyperbole on the Duggar boards has been out of control for a long time. This topic has been rehashed a thousand times and members with professional credentials in this area have stated there was no evidence he is a pedophile. So stop being an idiot.

And hey genius, I am assuming you have low reading comp skills because one of the paragraphs in the Wikipedia article you use for your evidence actually states clearly that the public frequently and erroneously labels all child molesters as pedophiles. I will let you figure out which one.

[twinmama]

Michelle’s face and voice is so disturbing. JB still thinks he has a TV show. the whole video was just weird. “we LOVE our grand-babies†Bullshit. that is the first time I have seen Michelle touch one of them.

Welcome to the world Meredith. I’m sorry about the shit show you have been born into. Stick close to Mack, she seams to be spunky.

Why would Michelle love her grandbabies? Isn't the best part of being a grandmother 1) being around babies again after a long time without 2) all the fun, none of the responsibility? Well, she's had babies recently enough and hasn't had the responsibility of taking care of them in years! No difference between "cuddle the baby, then pass it off to sister mom when it cries" and "cuddle the baby, give it back to its own mom when it cries."

[gustava]

The hyperbole on the Duggar boards has been out of control for a long time. This topic has been rehashed a thousand times and members with professional credentials in this area have stated there was no evidence he is a pedophile. So stop being an idiot.

And hey genius, I am assuming you have low reading comp skills because one of the paragraphs in the Wikipedia article you use for your evidence actually states clearly that the public frequently and erroneously labels all child molesters as pedophiles. I will let you figure out which one.

I agree. Thank you.

[twinmama]

Thank you for saying that. I just stopped taking anti-depressants for my moderate depression and (at times severe) anxiety. I can't even begin to explain how worthless and sub-human I feel when I read uninformed comments regarding what these medications make you look like, act like, or feel like. Feeding into those stereotypes can cause immense damage to those of us who struggle with mental illness every single day.

I really wish people would take a moment to think about what they're saying before they push submit. . .

I've been on Prozac for 3 years, since my twins were babies and I realized I had PPD/A. I'll shout it from the rooftops because it has helped me so much. I don't care who knows it, I don't care that I need it, I don't care that people have stupid wrong ideas about it. It was like flipping a switch to me. From a horrible person who couldn't care for her babies and cried more than two newborns, back to ME. It's been a miracle drug for me and that far outweighs anything anyone could ever say about it. To me.

I think it's funny that people have such misconceptions about something like Prozac. It literally just makes me go back to my normal healthy self. No high, can't even tell I'm on it other than the fact that I feel good!

[twinmama]

My husband's name and sibling sets go: J, J, J, C (husband), J. Everyone notices it.

Is your husband secretly the miscarried Caleb and he actually lived!?! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[VelociRapture]

I don't have time for a lengthy post at the moment. I have free access to the DSM 5 through my college's website. Here's a tidbit of information I was able to find regarding the diagnosing of Pedophilia (I bolded the parts I thought pertinent to this discussion):

Diagnostic Criteria 302.2 (F65.4)

Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

The individual has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

The individual is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old.

Specify whether:

Exclusive type (attracted only to children)

Nonexclusive type

Specify if:

Sexually attracted to males

Sexually attracted to females

Sexually attracted to both

Specify if:

Limited to incest

And another bit:

Adult males with pedophilic disorder may indicate that they become aware of strong or preferential sexual interest in children around the time of puberty—the same time frame in which males who later prefer physically mature partners became aware of their sexual interest in women or men(Cohen and Galynker 2002; Hall and Hall 2007; Seto 2004). Attempting to diagnose pedophilic disorder at the age at which it first manifests is problematic because of the difficulty during adolescent development in differentiating it from age-appropriate sexual interest in peers or from sexual curiosity. Hence, Criterion C requires for diagnosis a minimum age of 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

Its important to note that the DSM 5 is intended for use by Psychologists in formally diagnosing the patients they work with - not for the average ordinary person (such as most of us here).

[2manyKidzzz]

I was uncomfortable watching Josh from the get go because I found him inherently arrogant..this from my own perspective. I have no idea why someone feels they can sexually molest their younger sisters, pedophile, molester or whatever the name, it is just horrible to me and then that his parents really didn't initially do much about it, and then further on didn't take decisive action involving health care professionals. I feel badly for his sisters and the babysitter, and then for Anna, as she was raised in a brainwashed environment. And I feel badly for the M-kids because they will one day surely find out what their father did. Creepy for them, although Gothards probably think since he is their headship that somehow wipes out the creepy aspect.

Calll him this, call him that, he done wrong and now he, and his family are paying a hefty price. The whole world knowing what he did is a lot for Anna and the Ms to deal with.

[FundieFarmer]

I dunno. I think the idiots are people that read a police report that describes Josh serial molesting a minimum of 5 prepubescent children over a period of years and still believe there is no evidence that Josh is a pedophile.

Is there proof that he has offended again? Not that we know of.

Is it probable that he has offended again? Yes, based on the high number of victims we know about. If you read more than the first sentence in the Wikipedia article you would know he has a higher than average number of victims and has had inadequate treatment. Plus scientists have had no real success in curing pedophiles. I hear Jesus works wonders though.

I don't know WHAT the big deal here is.

There is utterly no substantial difference between a pedophile and a child molester. They both prey on children who are unable to consent to sexual contact. Are you really hung up on the idea that Josh might not be an actual pedophile but just a bad person who went out of his way to hurt children?

In my mind it is WORSE if Josh is NOT a pedophile, but instead simply CHOSE to hurt a minimum of 5 children when he decided to sneak into their beds while they were sleeping.

I guess Josh was just making a "mistake"? There is no proof that his actions meant anything except that he was under a lot of stress? Oh poor Josh. Now that he has Jesus, maybe he can get a job at a day care.

But see, that's where you're wrong. Sure, the mechanics of the actions are the same on the surface, but the degree of the action as well as the psychology behind it are different. The way I understand the difference is almost like the difference who between someone who does a line or two, and an addict. That's not to say the first person didn't like the coke, but it is to say that it liking the coke a few times doesn't equate an actual addiction to it. Just as there is a difference in someone who did the drugs a few times and an addict, there is a difference between a molester and an actual full-blown pedophile. This is obviously a very loose, low-level metaphor, and is not at all meant to either incriminate all drug users OR minimize molestation, but it is to say that based on everything you've shared here, the two things really aren't the same at the minute level- and that's why people are being specific about the verbiage. Maybe the words/condition/theories are interchangeable to you, but medically and legally speaking, they're not.

Pedophilia is determined by a very specific set of criteria, that from our galaxy-level view of what's going on here, we can never be sure that Josh fits. Words like "probably" and "based on" are fine if you're suggesting that something may have happened, but they're not okay to use to define someone as a pedophile, especially because they denote that you have no evidence for the very things you're trying to say. You're pushing a correlation = causation argument, and that's a very tricky row to hoe. And, I apologize for being crass, but the cold truth is that while the ages of Josh's sisters fit the definition of pedophilia that you gave, we must be careful to remember that at the time, those were the only females around him (for the most part) except for his mother. That is a very small sample size from which to determine full-blown singular pedophilic attraction. We know of no other incidences outside of what happened at his house, and in fact seen nearly exclusive attraction to Anna. But I'll eat my hat if someone comes forward with evidence to the contrary.

And I think it's safe to say you would be hard-pressed to find anyone on FJ saying that Josh's actions were simply a mistake– or to find anyone who would be an apologist for what he did. I haven't seen anyone- least of all Nelliebelle. Just because someone is encouraging you to look at the true definition of what you are saying doesn't mean they condone Josh's actions.

ETA: As for the difference the semantics make in Josh's case, it probably makes no difference to his victims...but I'd wager it makes all the difference in the world to his children, their children, his younger sisters, and all the younger females he comes in contact with moving forward.

[DeFrauder]

[

Can you read? One must be a minimum of 16 before diagnosis and must have primary attraction to children. Josh was not 16 and there is no proof that he has a primary sexual attraction to children. No one is defending Josh. The hyperbole on the Duggar boards has been out of control for a long time. This topic has been rehashed a thousand times and members with professional credentials in this area have stated there was no evidence he is a pedophile. So stop being an idiot.

And hey genius, I am assuming you have low reading comp skills because one of the paragraphs in the Wikipedia article you use for your evidence actually states clearly that the public frequently and erroneously labels all child molesters as pedophiles. I will let you figure out which one.

Would you let him watch your kids?

Do you understand what a "diagnosis" means and why the standardized diagnostics tool says to wait until a person is 16 before being given a definitive diagnosis by a doctor? Do you know that the DSM is simply a guideline? It is not scripture. It is rewritten frequently to reflect advances in research. The "16 years old" thing has nothing to do with whether or not they have the psychiatric disorder in question. They wait until age 16 to apply a diagnosis of schizophrenia, too. That does not mean that children under 16 cannot have schizophrenia. It means that they are waiting for as many symptoms to manifest as possible.

I think that I fleshed out the issue between the label "pedophile" compared to "child molester", but we can discuss it further if you insist.

Simply based on that wiki entry (a poor source anyway), we have two types of people who might sexually abuse children.

1. the child molester: not a pedophile. Just an asshole who sexually abuses children when s/he feels stressed, bored, or has unfulfilled sexual urges. From what I understand, you believe that Josh is merely an asshole.

2. the pedophile: this is a person who has neurological differences in the brain compared to people that are not pedophiles. The pedophile may or may not act on sexual urges toward children. Many never act on their urges because its pretty much universally accepted in most cultures that child molestation is wrong. The vast majority of known pedophiles are non-exclusive. Meaning they have sexual relationships with adults as well as having urges to have sex with children. Pedophiles that are child molesters hurt their victims in the same way as non pedophile child molesters do.

Now I realize that I have low reading comprehension, but I am aware that "classification" is a theoretical process. That means that dividing mental illness into types is based on theories of what we know about each illness. Both type 1 and type 2 are "ideal types". That means that if the individual being classified by their symptoms is more like type 1 they will be classified as type 1. If their symptoms conform more to type 2, then they will be classified as type 2. It is RARE for people to fit perfectly into a type. It more an issue of "most resembles" and people will straddle more than one type.

Getting back to Josh. Based on the wiki article we are using, we can match up a number of his symptoms to both type 1 and type 2.

You did not respond to my question about what DIFFERENCE it makes if Josh is a child molester or a pedophile. I see absolutely no difference considering he has a bunch of victims. The only relevant difference is that some pedophiles do not act on their urges and we already know that Josh has. So, I am eager to learn what this difference is.

Take your time, I am refilling my popcorn bowl.

[Imrlgoddess]

Here's the gist ya'll.......

He was a kid, who lived in a fucked up world, who did some fucked up things. Plain and simple. Folks can label him and the situation allllll they want.

He was never tested against the DSM-5 for any disorder that anyone is (publicly) aware of.

He'll never do time for the crimes.

He won't go to a real psychiatrist or psychologist to find out if there is, was, or ever will be a propensity toward any behavior.

Hell, we don't even know for honest and for true that he wasn't victimized himself thus leading to the behavior.

Is it really necessary to split hairs over a term in this particular situation? I have yet to see a fan of the dude here....all his coming out did for him was drive home a previously existing creepiness/bad feeling/yuck factor. His dear little wife is never going to leave him. He could beat her day in and out, he could potentially do something to one of their children....she won't leave. She will stay and pray and hope that gawd changes his heart.

My hope is that he's past it, he raises his kids and never revisits the behavior again on anyone else. And I hope that the public knowledge of it all in some way opens up eyes of people who assume life is wine and roses in the fundie community.

[DeFrauder]

DeFrauder: I'm really pleased you tried to do your research, there. You certainly did lots of quoting and probably a decent amount of reading. The trouble is that you missed the most important part of any diagnosis - interviewing the patient, gathering information from key family members and making observations of body language, defenses, behaviors over time, etc.... in a private and confidential setting in which one can be honest about their motivations, actions and fantasies.

I've said it before here, been criticized, but will say it again - it is incredibly damaging to Josh Duggar, his wife, his family and, indeed, his victims, to continue to give him a label of "pedophile" (or any other clinical diagnosis like depression, etc.) based on the tasty nuggets of information that are fed to the press.

I didn't "diagnose" him. I read the police reports and concluded in my own mind that he is a pedophile. If he doesn't want strangers on the internet to refer to him as a pedophile, he shouldn't have sexually assaulted 5 children--although I admit that the 5th victim may have been an adult. None of us owe any duty to a public figure who does heinous things.

[nelliebelle1197]

I didn't "diagnose" him. I read the police reports and concluded in my own mind that he is a pedophile. If he doesn't want strangers on the internet to refer to him as a pedophile, he shouldn't have sexually assaulted 5 children--although I admit that the 5th victim may have been an adult. None of us owe any duty to a public figure who does heinous things.

You can conclude in your own mind as much as you want. That does not mean you are correct. The fact that you are willingly to remain steadfast in your wrongheaded conclusion speaks volumes about your application of critical thinking.

And yeah, it does minimize the damage done by men - and a few women- who desire and pursue physical intercourse with infants and children to them into the same category as some sneaky dickhead who sneaks touches. I read a newstory about a woman who was arrested because she had a child because her boyfriend had a sex fantasy about sex with his daughter. The girl and her younger brother were repeatedly raped by the man from the time they were infants. This creature then left the woman, found another woman to offer her daughter, then proceeded to rape both girls. He had the first woman sexually abuse the daughter via Skype so he could continue his fantasies whenever he wished after they split up. If you conflate that with what Josh did, go right ahead. Just don't expect others to agree.

[MalteseBaby]

I see FJ has another Certified Medical Professional. :roll:

Not only do we not have evidence that Josh is primarily attracted to prepubescent children, we don't have evidence that Josh is attracted to prepubescent children in any sense. Molestation does not necessarily spring from sexual attraction, and I think this claim is even more tenuous given his age and level of repression at the time of the offences.

If you think saying that there's no evidence that Josh is a pedophile (and there isn't) is the same as defending him, you're an idiot.

I'd just like to say, as someone who has an advanced degree in Psychology, and who has both diagnosed and treated psychological disorders, that I would never be an " armchair" diagnostician regarding something as complex as pedophilia or the like. This is especially murky territory to delve into when the offender and the victims were both so young. If pedophilia was present, it doesn't " go away", most likely, but the offender has to state that he or she is attracted sexually to minors or be caught in the act of sexual activity related to minors, including child pornography. ( or the MMPI or other types of testing may show a strong enough pattern so the lines of discussion are open with the client). It's not something we can know by looking at him or anything of that sort, or from reading the DSM and applying diagnostic criteria which we do not know to fit what happened in the Duggar household with Josh, his sisters, and a babysitter.

I do strongly believe that in the Duggar household, with 2 SMALL bedrooms for 12-13 children of both sexes in the former house they occupied, there were extremely unhealthy dynamics present which could have precipitated impulsive acts related to the curiosity factor we have discussed since Josh's actions became public knowledge. Thus, they were not acts of pedophilia but of immature sexual curiosity acted on inappropriately and without normal boundaries.

The only exception known to us at this time is the non-familial babysitter of unknown age. However, the types of examples we have read in the police narratives from 12-13 or so years ago cannot be the basis for calling someone who is now 27 or so years old a pedophile.

Based upon experience, I believe he was a teenager without proper boundaries at that time. Situational in the past, and not habitual at this time. This does not excuse or minimize what happened to the girls at all, but is more input so we can put what happened into context and stop arguing the Pedophile diagnosis over the Internet.

[Rescinded and Mended]

I think they're desperate enough, both being unemployed, that I can't put it past them to name Meredith after Viera, hoping for more appearances and money.

I'm on the fence about this one. On the one hand, I think Anna and Josh probably really do like the choice as an M name, and it's a good one. Meredith is a very pretty name. On the other hand, the current scandal at hand hasn't prompted Josh to have the good sense to keep the hell out of social media, which has increased the level of scrutiny against his wife and children. This in addition to the comments posters continue to make that revile Josh himself.

So he's clearly looking for some kind of attention, even if it's the wrong kind. Wouldn't surprise me if on some level he was hoping that Meredith Viera herself would call up, congratulate him, and offer the Duggars an interview, no matter how preposterous and revolting the notion of it is to the rest of us.

[mollysmom]

Isn't Grandma Duggar's name "Mary"? Is it possible they named the baby after her?