Baby Meredith is here - Anna Duggar baby watch

[DeFrauder]

I actually think that he does need treatment in the here and now. There is no shame for him to go through a program, and it would be an act of good faith on his part. It would show that he is committed to being healthy.

Even if Josh had acted once and never again, I would believe that he needs to go through some treatment, especially as he did not have adequate treatment at the time of the offences. It is fair to say that the extreme stress of the entire world becoming aware of his actions, the cancellation of the show, and the extreme backlash from the public are all weighing heavily upon him. I would imagine that he is feeling guilt about his actions (unless he is a sociopath) and going through a program would help him out there, as well.

The rest of the family could benefit from further counselling and analysis, as well. For example, Jill and Jessa are probably confused about why a bunch of people started criticizing them after their Fox interview. If they are feeling re-victimized, as they say they are, they would benefit from some attention to these feelings.

Treatment for mental health issues are always a good thing and it is unfortunate that some people feel uncomfortable with getting help.

Umm... I'm just gonna step in for one for one more second and then I'm OUT! :)

So, I don't agree with all you have said, here, but I'm just going to respond to the bolded, and respond to it in light of all you have said, today.

Many people don't seek treatment because of misinformed opinions like yours.

You have embodied the spirit of mental health stigma with your labelling of Josh Duggar as pedophile based on spotty information which may or may not be accurate and certainly is not therapeutically derived. People are fearful of "labels" and misdiagnoses - so, instead of seeking treatment, they avoid it. You're absolutely correct that it is so unfortunate that people feel uncomfortable seeking treatment - I'm glad we can agree on one thing. I'm so sorry that we have to come at it from opposite directions.

[MalteseBaby]

I actually think that he does need treatment in the here and now. There is no shame for him to go through a program, and it would be an act of good faith on his part. It would show that he is committed to being healthy.

Even if Josh had acted once and never again, I would believe that he needs to go through some treatment, especially as he did not have adequate treatment at the time of the offences. It is fair to say that the extreme stress of the entire world becoming aware of his actions, the cancellation of the show, and the extreme backlash from the public are all weighing heavily upon him. I would imagine that he is feeling guilt about his actions (unless he is a sociopath) and going through a program would help him out there, as well.

The rest of the family could benefit from further counselling and analysis, as well. For example, Jill and Jessa are probably confused about why a bunch of people started criticizing them after their Fox interview. If they are feeling re-victimized, as they say they are, they would benefit from some attention to these feelings.

Treatment for mental health issues are always a good thing and it is unfortunate that some people feel uncomfortable with getting help.

DeFrauder, I am of the opinion that every person who has ever lived can benefit from good therapy. :)

Maybe I should have said that part explicitly, but the other part is that the person has to want therapy and want to change.

I've seen wonderful breakthroughs in group therapy related to childhood and teenaged abuse with a mediocre therapist because the clients were doing the work, and I've seen treatment given by fabulously talented and empathetic psychiatrists end in suicide as soon as the person was discharged home.

Usually, there are clues that people are not ready for discharge from a treatment program, but today, at least in the USA, insurance companies decide how long the length of stay is, not the doctor, not the treatment team, not the patient or their family.

I think our mental health system is so broken that the only people who truly get the help they seek are the lucky few who get on Dr. Phil and get an all expenses paid stay at a long term residential treatment program of 30 days or more or have private funding to pay $50,000-100,000 or so for their own 30-60 day inpatient stay at a great facility for their particular problems ( drugs, abuse survivor, PTSD, severe depression not responsive to anti-depressants, eating disorders, things like that). Insurance companies usually pay for 5 days max now. NOTHING can be accomplished in 5 days.

That's why I left the field. I saw the needs but my hands were tied to give the help needed in in-patient settings.

That's also why my first post about " Does Josh need therapy now?" addressed outpatient therapy only. Intensive 30-60 day inpatient programs are usually very very good, but insurance companies won't pay and most people can't pay.

[DeFrauder]

DeFrauder, I am of the opinion that every person who has ever lived can benefit from good therapy. :)

Maybe I should have said that part explicitly, but the other part is that the person has to want therapy and want to change.

I've seen wonderful breakthroughs in group therapy related to childhood and teenaged abuse with a mediocre therapist because the clients were doing the work, and I've seen treatment given by fabulously talented and empathetic psychiatrists end in suicide as soon as the person was discharged home.

Usually, there are clues that people are not ready for discharge from a treatment program, but today, at least in the USA, insurance companies decide how long the length of stay is, not the doctor, not the treatment team, not the patient or their family.

I think our mental health system is so broken that the only people who truly get the help they seek are the lucky few who get on Dr. Phil and get an all expenses paid stay at a long term residential treatment program of 30 days or more or have private funding to pay $50,000-100,000 or so for their own 30-60 day inpatient stay at a great facility for their particular problems ( drugs, abuse survivor, PTSD, severe depression not responsive to anti-depressants, eating disorders, things like that). Insurance companies usually pay for 5 days max now. NOTHING can be accomplished in 5 days.

That's why I left the field. I saw the needs but my hands were tied to give the help needed in in-patient settings.

That's also why my first post about " Does Josh need therapy now?" addressed outpatient therapy only. Intensive 30-60 day inpatient programs are usually very very good, but insurance companies won't pay and most people can't pay.

Yes, therapy won't work if people are not willing to do the work or desire a change in themselves.

I would like to think that Josh WANTS to be a good person and that he WANTS to do his best at avoiding re-offending.

It is really crummy that insurance does not pay--if the US had a single payer universal system, it would be different.

I also think that the Duggars have the means to pay for treatment. They are generally pretty cheap but you would think this is important. Perhaps cost was part of the reason Josh was not sent to a legitimate program in the first place.

[morri]

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.

pedophilia is not molesting or abusing kids, you can do that without being a pedophile, pedophilia is a sexual attraction to kids. As a pedophile(in germany there are therapy prgramms so people can get help before they offend) you ideally don't act on urges but that doesnt make you less of a pedophile.

What I think is that Josh didnt have any other outlet so he turned on his younger siblings, of course it is wrong what he did, and I am not taking any blame from him, as he was at a age where a normal non fundie kid would have noticed it was wrong, but I put more blame on his parents and their cult for promoting the abuse within siblings.

(as an analogy people on prison have same sex intercourse/sex, but out of prison they would not comsider themselves homosexual.)

[VelociRapture]

Yes, therapy won't work if people are not willing to do the work or desire a change in themselves.

I would like to think that Josh WANTS to be a good person and that he WANTS to do his best at avoiding re-offending.

It is really crummy that insurance does not pay--if the US had a single payer universal system, it would be different.

I also think that the Duggars have the means to pay for treatment. They are generally pretty cheap but you would think this is important. Perhaps cost was part of the reason Josh was not sent to a legitimate program in the first place.

That decision would have had nothing to do with money and everything to do with Gothard - allowing Josh to seek treatment outside the home would have meant he was no longer under his father's umbrella of protection... Which goes directly against what he was raised to believe. The Dugfars and Gothard don't believe in mental health counseling because prayer solves everything.

And while I would never say you personally are the only reason people don't seek help, I would say misinformed attitudes like you've shown at times do play a big role in why people don't seek help. People in that position (regardless of what they're dealing with) are terrified of being judged.

[sense and nonsense]

Oh yes. "I" am the reason that people are afraid to see a therapist. That's right--its all ME. Because I said that there is evidence to suggest that an asshole on TV who admitted to sexually assaulting 5 people while they slept is a pedophile.

"I" am the one going on about Josh's dead eyes and how he is drugged up on some psychotropic cocktail that caused those dead eyes. WAIT, NO, that WASN'T me.

Honestly, I don't think I have enough popcorn to get me through today.

[JenniferJuniper]

What I think is that Josh didnt have any other outlet so he turned on his younger siblings, of course it is wrong what he did, and I am not taking any blame from him, as he was at a age where a normal non fundie kid would have noticed it was wrong, but I put more blame on his parents and their cult for promoting the abuse within siblings.

(as an analogy people on prison have same sex intercourse/sex, but out of prison they would not comsider themselves homosexual.)

I blame Jim Bob and Michelle for a lot of this as well, but mostly for how they handled it and didn't protect their daughters when they knew their son had some serious issues.

But what do you mean by "outlet"? Many teen boys his age don't have girlfriends yet. I don't allow my almost 14 year old son access to porn and while I'm sure he has seen plenty of things outside the home and I'm sure he's interested in looking a grown ass naked women (boys in my generation were often stuck with National Geographic) I fail to see how no girlfriends and no porn = I want to sexually explore my five year old sister.

And your analogy about men who have sex with other men in prison is way, way off. Josh's youngest victims were not remotely close to being in his peer group (he was three times the age of the youngest). They could not consent to what he did to them. They were not sexually developed at all. And they were immediate family; most normal people, even teens, are innately appalled by the thought of sexual contact with close family members.

Let's not let the "is he a pedophile or not" stuff devolve into finding excuses for Josh's reprehensible behavior. I will agree that he was brought up to see women as objects. But there is no doubt he knew what he did to his two littlest sisters was very wrong, he did it anyway, and if his demeanor shortly thereafter is any indication, his experiences didn't humble him in any way. In fact, his ongoing hubris leads me to believe that he has always thought his victims' suffering was no big deal.

So maybe he isn't a pedophile, but I think he was and is a sick, selfish little prick.

[gustava]

True pedophiles wear orange nail polish. I read it on the interwebz, so it must be true.

[VelociRapture]

I blame Jim Bob and Michelle for a lot of this as well, but mostly for how they handled it and didn't protect their daughters when they knew their son had some serious issues.

But what do you mean by "outlet"? Many teen boys his age don't have girlfriends yet. I don't allow my almost 14 year old son access to porn and while I'm sure he has seen plenty of things outside the home and I'm sure he's interested in looking a grown ass naked women (boys in my generation were often stuck with National Geographic) I fail to see how no girlfriends and no porn = I want to sexually explore my five year old sister.

And your analogy about men who have sex with other men in prison is way, way off. Josh's youngest victims were not remotely close to being in his peer group (he was three times the age of the youngest). They could not consent to what he did to them. They were not sexually developed at all. And they were immediate family; most normal people, even teens, are innately appalled by the thought of sexual contact with close family members.

Let's not let the "is he a pedophile or not" stuff devolve into finding excuses for Josh's reprehensible behavior. I will agree that he was brought up to see women as objects. But there is no doubt he knew what he did to his two littlest sisters was very wrong, he did it anyway, and if his demeanor shortly thereafter is any indication, his experiences didn't humble him in any way. In fact, his ongoing hubris leads me to believe that he has always thought his victims' suffering was no big deal.

So maybe he isn't a pedophile, but I think he was and is a sick, selfish little prick.

I could be wrong, but my impression was that morri meant the following:

Yes, most boys that age don't necessarily have a girlfriend. And I'm guessing most parents wouldn't hand them a copy of Playboy or give them the Parental Control code to access certain channels on the television either. That doesn't mean kids don't still find ways of learning about this stuff.

What I took it to mean is that Josh literally had no way of getting information. It sounds unlikely that his parents were talking to him about sex at that age (other than the usual shit about abstinence until marriage because Jesus). It's unlikely he had access to television programs or movies that show loving and consensual relationships between two people. Also unlikely is access to Library materials (such as National Geographic) or Internet access so he could do a bit of research.

Most importantly though, Josh was home-schooled as well (many home-schooled students turn out completely fine, but that's because they have parents who care about their futures and a good curriculum). A great deal of what teens know and learn about sex comes from talking to their classmates and what they are taught in Sex Education classes. Due to the fact that his mother fails at life and sucked as a teacher, Josh did not have access to either of those things.

Its possible he could have seen something while out and about, except he was constantly in the presence of his parents and siblings - he and his siblings were raised to tattle on one another in order to save their immortal souls. I honestly think he never had the opportunity to figure things out in a normal or healthy manner.

None of this excuses what he did. He still acted reprehensibly. I believe you are correct that the majority of teens in his situation likely wouldn't turn to abusing their siblings in that manner and that most teens that age are mature enough to realize doing that is wrong on so many levels. I do think understanding the circumstances surrounding what happened is incredibly important - mostly for Law Enforcement and Medical Professionals who may or may not have been/are involved in this specific case. . . and that's because they need to have a good understanding in order to decide on the best plan of action regarding punishment, treatment, and prevention.

I do agree though, that Josh is a sick and twisted little prick. He deserve every ounce of intelligent and legitimate criticism that comes his way, as do his parents who failed all their children spectacularly.

[JillsFlowerHeadband]

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.

I don't think that anyone is denying that there is some kind of mental deviation that caused Josh's behavior. I'm certainly not. I also don't think anyone is saying that there wasn't anything he did that was wrong or destructive to his victims.

The one thing in which I DO feel sorry for Josh is that he never got the chance to get proper psychiatric treatment from licensed professionals, which regardless of whether he fits the diagnosis of "pedophile" or not, he sorely needed. J-Boob and J'Chelle just covered up what he did, sent him to go build houses and married him off as quickly as they could because they were too cheap and prideful to actually send him somewhere that could really help himJeebus... they failed all their children, including Josh who was a minor at the time... and them I have NO sympathy for.

On another note, Josie does indeed look and act like Honey Boo Boo.

(Late to the party, I know, but I worked two doubles in the past two days and haven't had much time to catch up)

edit for pre-coffee grammar mistakes

[sockinshoe]

I blame Jim Bob and Michelle for a lot of this as well, but mostly for how they handled it and didn't protect their daughters when they knew their son had some serious issues.

But what do you mean by "outlet"? Many teen boys his age don't have girlfriends yet. I don't allow my almost 14 year old son access to porn and while I'm sure he has seen plenty of things outside the home and I'm sure he's interested in looking a grown ass naked women (boys in my generation were often stuck with National Geographic) I fail to see how no girlfriends and no porn = I want to sexually explore my five year old sister.

And your analogy about men who have sex with other men in prison is way, way off. Josh's youngest victims were not remotely close to being in his peer group (he was three times the age of the youngest). They could not consent to what he did to them. They were not sexually developed at all. And they were immediate family; most normal people, even teens, are innately appalled by the thought of sexual contact with close family members.

Let's not let the "is he a pedophile or not" stuff devolve into finding excuses for Josh's reprehensible behavior. I will agree that he was brought up to see women as objects. But there is no doubt he knew what he did to his two littlest sisters was very wrong, he did it anyway, and if his demeanor shortly thereafter is any indication, his experiences didn't humble him in any way. In fact, his ongoing hubris leads me to believe that he has always thought his victims' suffering was no big deal.

So maybe he isn't a pedophile, but I think he was and is a sick, selfish little prick.

I think also that Josh didn't have access to appropriate avenues of exploring relationships and physical contact. I do not want to comment on anyone's children, but 14-15 is usually the age young people begin kissing, dating, fantasizing about others sexually. Josh did not get to date, he did not get to kiss or engage in some consensual petting. Around that age, young people are learning about what they're into, sexually and what romantic relationships (maybe even sexual relationships) are like. If Josh had gone to day school he would have probably gotten to know a group of friends to talk to about sex and maybe even had a first girlfriend. He would also have had the opportunity to go behind the bleachers with said first girlfriend to kiss and pet. That's really par for the course at 14-15. Josh got none of that.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

Seriously, WHY does it matter whether Josh is a "pedophile" or not? We know he engaged in predatory, sexual assaulty behavior.

Also, if you're really that butthurt that an anonymous someone was mean to you on an Internet forum, you have bigger issues. Just my $0.02.

Because it was said that he was going to harm his own children because he's a pedophile. We don't know he's a pedophile, we don't know if he targets children, we don't know if he's still targeting anyone, we don't know a lot of things. Saying he's going to harm his own children based on the fact that he did harm his sisters in the past, especially when saying that his oldest girl is most at risk because of what happened to his youngest victim, is dangerous and uncalled for.

I'm not going to sit here and say that Josh is a victim or any crap like that. He did what he did, and what he did was terrible. But, we have NO evidence to support the idea he's even harming ANYONE, regardless of age, so we shouldn't just state he's a danger to his children as if it's fact.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

I know it's frustrating, but I think the anti-thread drift angst is a bit much. Everybody knows where to find the discussions if they want, but realistically, all things Josh will probably devolve into a discussion about the scandal for a while now, regardless of the origin of the discussion. It's not ideal, but it'll always come back around, like it does on every other thread. It happens all the time all over the forum. The best way to kill it if it's bothering you is to talk about the subject you want to discuss until people give up on the topic.

I did get a good laugh out of baby Merde :lol:

Agreed. Kind of like how every topic about Jill or Jessa (before the scandal broke, I haven't been into either of their threads since then) circled back to how inexperienced/naive they are, how they have no future, how bitchy Jessa is, how Jill is too big of a koolaid drinker, how J'izzy is inappropriately funny, etc.

[HarryPotterFan]

Since someone asked about baby pictures:

twitter.com/JessaSeewald/status/622953477455523840/photo/1

Meredith is adorable.

[FundieFarmer]

Since someone asked about baby pictures:

twitter.com/JessaSeewald/status/622953477455523840/photo/1

Meredith is adorable.

You're right, Meredith is adorable!

The first reply was hate, of course. While I think they certainly had it coming to them even before this situation, it's a shame people write it directly on their page, especially for happy events.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

Oh yes. "I" am the reason that people are afraid to see a therapist. That's right--its all ME. Because I said that there is evidence to suggest that an asshole on TV who admitted to sexually assaulting 5 people while they slept is a pedophile.

"I" am the one going on about Josh's dead eyes and how he is drugged up on some psychotropic cocktail that caused those dead eyes. WAIT, NO, that WASN'T me.

Honestly, I don't think I have enough popcorn to get me through today.

First of all, yes YOU are the reason. YOU and every person like YOU. Diagnosing someone without the experience in the field and patient background (5 cases of molestation is NOT what it means to have background on a person, they're merely parts of the background) is mislabeling and stereotyping. Your behavior is akin to the people who claim that gun control is a problem because people with mental health issues are the ones committing mass murder despite the evidence that people who commit mass murder are most likely NOT suffering from mental health problems, and that people with mental health problems are more likely to harm THEMSELVES than harm others. Your behavior is the type of behavior that keeps people from getting the help they need because they're afraid of the labels, they're afraid of how people will treat them, they're afraid of the stereotype that drugs make you a zombie or a different person, they're afraid of the stereotype that people who go to therapy are week, they're afraid of the stereotype that therapists and other mental health professionals are quacks out to make them look like fools, etc.

Saying Josh should seek professional to address any issues he MAY have is a lot different than saying he needs to be treated for pedophilia. The first says "I recognize that I don't know what his problem is, but I do think he needs to at least talk about what he went through with someone who is a qualified professional, and not a child molester himself." The second is you being an armchair psychiatrist. You're not qualified to make a diagnosis of him as a pedophile, so you cannot state with certainty that he is one. You can only speculate. And speculation is harmful in this context, even if he did molest 5 girls.

Second, molestation is NOT the same thing as pedophilia. You can be a pedophile and not molest anyone or have any improper sexual behavior. Or, you could be a child molester and NOT be a pedophile, ESPECIALLY when you're not over the age of 16 (which he never was during these events). Developmentally, 15 is not the same as 16, so you can't even say "he was as good as there." And, if he was a late bloomer, like his brothers, its very likely he was still going through puberty at 16, which would mean that he wasn't post-pubescent, which would mean that his actions were not necessarily driven by pedophilia. Sure, a lot of people who are pedophiles can first act on their sexual desires when they're pubescent; but, not everyone who targets a per-pubescent child before they're post-pubescent will be a pedophile. Unless you have evidence that his sexual desires revolve around children, you cannot say that he's a pedophile, even if he was a child molester.

Third, just because you didn't make a crack at medications does not mean that you're not part of the problem. It just means that you chose a different avenue of attack. It doesn't make you any better than anyone else.

[JenniferJuniper]

I think also that Josh didn't have access to appropriate avenues of exploring relationships and physical contact. I do not want to comment on anyone's children, but 14-15 is usually the age young people begin kissing, dating, fantasizing about others sexually. Josh did not get to date, he did not get to kiss or engage in some consensual petting. Around that age, young people are learning about what they're into, sexually and what romantic relationships (maybe even sexual relationships) are like. If Josh had gone to day school he would have probably gotten to know a group of friends to talk to about sex and maybe even had a first girlfriend. He would also have had the opportunity to go behind the bleachers with said first girlfriend to kiss and pet. That's really par for the course at 14-15. Josh got none of that.

Fair enough.

But the last one was five years old!

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

I could be wrong, but my impression was that morri meant the following:

Yes, most boys that age don't necessarily have a girlfriend. And I'm guessing most parents wouldn't hand them a copy of Playboy or give them the Parental Control code to access certain channels on the television either. That doesn't mean kids don't still find ways of learning about this stuff.

What I took it to mean is that Josh literally had no way of getting information. It sounds unlikely that his parents were talking to him about sex at that age (other than the usual shit about abstinence until marriage because Jesus). It's unlikely he had access to television programs or movies that show loving and consensual relationships between two people. Also unlikely is access to Library materials (such as National Geographic) or Internet access so he could do a bit of research.

Most importantly though, Josh was home-schooled as well (many home-schooled students turn out completely fine, but that's because they have parents who care about their futures and a good curriculum). A great deal of what teens know and learn about sex comes from talking to their classmates and what they are taught in Sex Education classes. Due to the fact that his mother fails at life and sucked as a teacher, Josh did not have access to either of those things.

Its possible he could have seen something while out and about, except he was constantly in the presence of his parents and siblings - he and his siblings were raised to tattle on one another in order to save their immortal souls. I honestly think he never had the opportunity to figure things out in a normal or healthy manner.

None of this excuses what he did. He still acted reprehensibly. I believe you are correct that the majority of teens in his situation likely wouldn't turn to abusing their siblings in that manner and that most teens that age are mature enough to realize doing that is wrong on so many levels. I do think understanding the circumstances surrounding what happened is incredibly important - mostly for Law Enforcement and Medical Professionals who may or may not have been/are involved in this specific case. . . and that's because they need to have a good understanding in order to decide on the best plan of action regarding punishment, treatment, and prevention.

I do agree though, that Josh is a sick and twisted little prick. He deserve every ounce of intelligent and legitimate criticism that comes his way, as do his parents who failed all their children spectacularly.

Not only that, but none of these kids can touch anyone of the opposite gender once they're a certain age. You can't even side hug someone without being on the path to marriage. As someone pointed out on another thread, if the consequences of hugging someone are the same as the consequences of putting your had up a girl's dress without her permission, it allows for a very easy justification of what you're doing. I mean, if you hugged someone and you weren't immediately damned to hell and all this other crap you've been taught doesn't come true, then touching people other ways probably wont damn you to hell either.

These kids are NOT taught the difference between inappropriate touch and appropriate touch. I mean, in the police report, the children said you cant touch someone between the neck and the ankles (or maybe it was knees). That's a large area of "no" in which everything is ranked as the same. Your elbows are just as off limits as your "private areas."

Additionally, their culture teaches that a girl OF ANY AGE can stir desires in a man. They're not taught that there's a difference in the sexuality of a baby/toddler/school aged child, a teenager, and an adult. They're taught that women and girls are the same things, just like they're taught that men and boys are the same thing. They're then taught that women are less than men, and that they belong to men. And, that brothers, regardless of age, are better than their sisters, regardless of age. Someone on here once said in another thread that they're even taught that the sons have more power over their mothers than the other way around. That culture is just a breeding ground for sexual assault of children. And if you're not taught the difference between the body of a young girl and the body of a woman, how are you supposed to differentiate between the two? How are you supposed to know that your actions are more inappropriate if they're against young children than they are when they're against people your own age or older?

Now, I am not one of those people who thinks that Josh is the victim in all of this. Josh is a predator. Josh knew what he was doing was wrong. But, his parents and his culture share the blame. This could have been avoided with better sex education. This could have been avoided by teaching boys that they don't own women. This could have been avoided by not sexualizing the bodies of infants and children. This could have been avoided by teaching the difference between appropriate touch and inappropriate touch.

Furthermore, if his parents had PROPERLY reacted when they first learned of the attacks by removing Josh from the home, getting him REAL help, getting the victims REAL help, and not allowing Josh to be alone with any of his sisters, that would have really helped him AND the victims. If they had taken him to the police like they should have, instead of when the statute of limitations ran out, that would have prevented a lot of the problems. Hell, we wouldn't even know of the events now because he could have had the records sealed on his 18th birthday, instead of having the police reports able to be viewed by anyone with an idea of where to look.

[ClaraOswin]

The M kids all look so similar. Though Marcus is my favorite because he sometimes looks like an old man and he looks so over being a Duggar already.

4.bp.blogspot.com/-zC8jgF1G-wQ/VPfsy4UN-mI/AAAAAAAAQ-M/pdLdvP034aI/s1600/anna-josh-baby-reveal-4-01.jpg

[Srilaura]

It's a very young Michelle.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

I think also that Josh didn't have access to appropriate avenues of exploring relationships and physical contact. I do not want to comment on anyone's children, but 14-15 is usually the age young people begin kissing, dating, fantasizing about others sexually. Josh did not get to date, he did not get to kiss or engage in some consensual petting. Around that age, young people are learning about what they're into, sexually and what romantic relationships (maybe even sexual relationships) are like. If Josh had gone to day school he would have probably gotten to know a group of friends to talk to about sex and maybe even had a first girlfriend. He would also have had the opportunity to go behind the bleachers with said first girlfriend to kiss and pet. That's really par for the course at 14-15. Josh got none of that.

Josh could have gotten that while being homeschooled. Being homeschooled doesnt necessarily mean being denied social interactions. Hell, the Duggars had plenty of opportunities for social interactions. If, instead of focusing on purity and courtships and crap, their culture had allowed for the older kids to be unsupervised, to go on dates either as a group of peers or alone, etc, Josh may not have turned to illicit behaviors.

Hell, Josh was courting when he was performing those acts. If he was allowed to date the girl instead of court, he could have expressed his sexuality in a way that didn't harm others.

edited because grammar

[Librul]

To say that Josh molested his 5 year old sister when he was 14/15 because he didn't have any "outlets" for his sexuality is beyond bizarre to me. Potayto/Potahto whether you think he is a pedophile, a molester or simply a restricted Fundie with no girlfriend to explore, in my opinion, his explorations of his younger sisters mark him as disturbed and in need of counseling, then and now. Anna and her family are idiots for going through with the engagement and marriage, although to be fair, Anna's father has probably seen and dealt with everything as a prison chaplain.

[NoneandDoneinCali]

What the fuck, FJ. I just had to skip over half of this thread, because I'd rather not read a bunch of pointless bickering.

Guess what? I actually AM qualified to make mental health diagnoses. I have an MS in it. I've spent 2 years and about 3200 hours as a psychotherapist, and am preparing to take my licensing exam in a couple months. Know what I'm not going to do? DIAGNOSE SOMEONE OVER THE INTERNET. You know why? BECAUSE I HAVE NOT INTERVIEWED JOSH, OR LOOKED AT HIS CASE FILE, OR DISCUSSED HIS BEHAVIOR/SYMPTOMS WITH SOMEONE WHO HAS.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW IF HE MEETS CLINICAL DEFINITION OF PEDOPHILIA FROM THAT POLICE REPORT. AND, WHETHER HE DOES OR NOT, HE DID SOMETHING HARMFUL AND ILLEGAL. DIAGNOSIS =/= TO HIS ILLEGAL ACTIONS.

The only, and I do mean ONLY relevance of whether he is a pedophile, is whether he continues to offend. Yes, we can look at statistical likelihoods, but it is MORE important to look at his OWN pattern of behavior. I am not going to cut and paste the symptoms from the DSM, nor any scholarly articles, nor any WIKI pages. I am not even going to weigh with my educated opinion.

- Medication is helpful. Most of my clients take meds. My brother takes meds. My father takes meds. I TAKE MEDS FOR BIPOLAR DISORDER, AND, BY THE GRACE OF CYMBALTA AND SEROQUEL, HAVE HAD NEITHER A HYPOMANIC EPISODE NOR A DEPRESSIVE ONE SINCE I STARTED TREATMENT. YAY, MEDS!!! If meds are warranted, and are at their proper dosage, they can SAVE LIVES. They can also be a temporary fix or "crutch" for someone undergoing a great deal of grief or stress. So wtf, talking about it like it's the mark of who is the sickest. No.

- I am biased, but therapy helps everyone, diagnosis or no. Everyone. You do not have to be in the depths of psychosis or despair to "need" therapy. It does not mean you're sick.

- TREATMENT IS NOT A 100%, SURE-FIRE CURE-ALL. AND I AM ESPECIALLY TIRED OF IT BEING VIEWED PUNITIVELY BY THE COURT SYSTEM, AS IN "He has to do 30 weeks of anger management, at a cost of $2500, as part of his sentence." IT IS MEANT TO HELP. IT DOESN'T ALWAYS. Too many factors here to go into.

Some speculation is perfectly valid - do we think Josh is getting treatment? Do we think he might reoffend with his own children? Okay. But making wild generalizations, thinking you can diagnose someone from limited data, and taking all this personally over 30 pages? Ugh. Let it go.

[VelociRapture]

What the fuck, FJ. I just had to skip over half of this thread, because I'd rather not read a bunch of pointless bickering.

Guess what? I actually AM qualified to make mental health diagnoses. I have an MS in it. I've spent 2 years and about 3200 hours as a psychotherapist, and am preparing to take my licensing exam in a couple months. Know what I'm not going to do? DIAGNOSE SOMEONE OVER THE INTERNET. You know why? BECAUSE I HAVE NOT INTERVIEWED JOSH, OR LOOKED AT HIS CASE FILE, OR DISCUSSED HIS BEHAVIOR/SYMPTOMS WITH SOMEONE WHO HAS.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW IF HE MEETS CLINICAL DEFINITION OF PEDOPHILIA FROM THAT POLICE REPORT. AND, WHETHER HE DOES OR NOT, HE DID SOMETHING HARMFUL AND ILLEGAL. DIAGNOSIS =/= TO HIS ILLEGAL ACTIONS.

The only, and I do mean ONLY relevance of whether he is a pedophile, is whether he continues to offend. Yes, we can look at statistical likelihoods, but it is MORE important to look at his OWN pattern of behavior. I am not going to cut and paste the symptoms from the DSM, nor any scholarly articles, nor any WIKI pages. I am not even going to weigh with my educated opinion.

- Medication is helpful. Most of my clients take meds. My brother takes meds. My father takes meds. I TAKE MEDS FOR BIPOLAR DISORDER, AND, BY THE GRACE OF CYMBALTA AND SEROQUEL, HAVE HAD NEITHER A HYPOMANIC EPISODE NOR A DEPRESSIVE ONE SINCE I STARTED TREATMENT. YAY, MEDS!!! If meds are warranted, and are at their proper dosage, they can SAVE LIVES. They can also be a temporary fix or "crutch" for someone undergoing a great deal of grief or stress. So wtf, talking about it like it's the mark of who is the sickest. No.

- I am biased, but therapy helps everyone, diagnosis or no. Everyone. You do not have to be in the depths of psychosis or despair to "need" therapy. It does not mean you're sick.

- TREATMENT IS NOT A 100%, SURE-FIRE CURE-ALL. AND I AM ESPECIALLY TIRED OF IT BEING VIEWED PUNITIVELY BY THE COURT SYSTEM, AS IN "He has to do 30 weeks of anger management, at a cost of $2500, as part of his sentence." IT IS MEANT TO HELP. IT DOESN'T ALWAYS. Too many factors here to go into.

Some speculation is perfectly valid - do we think Josh is getting treatment? Do we think he might reoffend with his own children? Okay. But making wild generalizations, thinking you can diagnose someone from limited data, and taking all this personally over 30 pages? Ugh. Let it go.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

In related news, Meredith is still adorable and Marcus still looks like he resents being born into that family! Yay Mer and Marc!!!

[thoughtful]

Curiosity has brought me to the Duggar forum -- a rare event (I just happen to be more interested in other fundies than I am in the Duggars, but the Big News couldn't be ignored, so I've been catching up).

I've zoomed through threads, so I apologize in advance to those who have tried to explain why calling Josh a pedophile is problematic, if I am repeating a tack you've already tried.

As far as I know, pedophilia is a medical diagnosis. Let me repeat that (and heck, try the British spelling -- maybe it will sink in) -- paedophilia is a medical diagnosis.

Unlike some medical diagnoses, it gets thrown around to mean anyone who has preyed on children. But that is inaccurate. It is not minimizing Josh's actions to simply point out that we do not know that he has such a diagnosis.

Of course, I know others have pointed those two things out repeatedly. So let me try this.

Imagine that someone posted repeatedly that Josh definitely has diabetes or heart disease, due to his fluctuating weight and his posting pics of unhealthful meals on Instagram when he was released from fighting-for-two-spoonfuls-of-tater-tot hell.

Now imagine that we all jumped on that bandwagon and had long threads all about how his known diabetes/heart condition affected this or that about his life.

But we don't know that he has those diagnoses, any more than we know if he has plantar fasciitis or a peanut allergy. (No no! Not the peanut allergy subect! :shock:)

Of course, weight, eating habits and Josh are still pretty volatile subjects. Let me try a more neutral figure and a more obvious medical issue.

Imagine that, while greeting a guest on his show last year, Jon Stewart had stumbled a bit, said "ouch," and hopped back to his chair. Imagine that someone here posted that he'd clearly broken his leg.

Now imagine that people went on and on about the after-effects of his broken leg, pointing out how they never see him get out of that chair, they haven't seen any recent publicity pics that include his legs, clearly he's ending his show due to chronic pain, etc. They say all of this in spite of Stewart, his doctors, and those who know him releasing no such information about his health.

It would be ridiculous speculation about a medical diagnosis that someone imagined based on partial evidence.

And that's what's happening when somebody refers to Josh as a pedophile.

I am not apologizing for Josh or minimizing his actions. He preyed on children -- that's horrifying, disgusting and tragic.

But, as far as we know, he does not have a diagnosis of pedophilia, just as we don't know if he has a diagnosis of diabetes or heart disease, and we don't know that Jon Stewart has a diagnosis of a broken leg.

Therefore, using the word pedophile to describe Josh is inaccurate. It does not bring more gravity to the discussion or make it clear that one disapproves of him more than others, any more than it would enhance a description of what is happening outside my window if I said the grass is purple and the worms are eating the robins.

Make sense?