Josh Duggars Sex Abuse Scandal

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting

originally posted by: Mugly
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

the duggar parents are the only ones to blame.
they are not raising well rounded, mentally healthy kids.
anyone who does not see that has blinders on

To say the Duggars are completely and fully responsible is a bit of an overreaction, don't you think? Don't lose sight of the fact that fourteen year olds without question know the difference between right and wrong, so one can't dismiss personal responsibility.

I am unable to find a correlation between religiosity and child sexual abuse within the home. My guess is it's about the same in religious/non-religious homes.

i dont think it is an overreaction at all.
the way they are raising/repressing those kids.
i think it is a fair statement.

im not making a correlation between religiosity and abuse.
i am making a correlation between how the duggars raise their kids.

this is not shock to me at all. i will not be surprised if we find out there is much more of that sort of thing going on.

being religious and being like the duggars is no the same thing

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

You're very brave to deal in facts only Lady - all my respect for that

It's an impossible subject

Being religious or repressed has NOTHING to do with child abuse. You are all shocked because this is a religious family? And you blame repression?

Well, shall we go through the history of internet news and just highlight EVERY case like this one? And how many people today sitting on this thread are condemning them and yet never, never, never call it repression when it isn't in a religious family?

Oh yes, it happens in families that are not religious. Now apply the same standard.

Everyone is angry and shocked because it is a religious family and yet you aren't admitting that it happens in quite a few families, that's why there are entire websites dedicated to it.

The dirty little secret is that it goes on EVERYWHERE, so stopped being so shocked.

Well now, NAMBLA isn't religious at all, yet it is trying to get legislation for man-boy love and marriage. Let's talk about whether or not that is repression.

Then there's this guy

More recently, Lee has questioned conventional views of incest. In a paper, "Behind the Fig Leaf," the professor suggests that "incest brings the family closer together."

That article was written in 1986. But nope, give him a pass because he isn't religious and yet he is advocating incest and he doesn't say the age at where incest is appropriate.

But let's look at the facts, not one of these facts say that it happens more often in religious families. So that throws that idea out the window that it is because of repression.

Social Work Today

Sibling sexual abuse is the least recognized form of incest, while sexual abuse by related adults in a family receives the most attention. Meanwhile, victims of sibling abuse remain unseen, waiting to be found and helped. Social workers are in a unique position to lead the effort to uncover the injuries of sibling incest and promote a climate that supports victims in disclosing their experiences and receiving appropriate services. The prevalence of sibling sexual abuse in American society is not well documented. Researchers estimate that the rate of sibling incest may be five times the rate of parent-child sexual abuse (Finkelhor, 1980). These rates are based on reported incidence, and incest is known to be underreported. Sibling sexual abuse has been dismissed as “child’s play” in many cases and/or as a normal aspect of sexual development. More recent research has documented the traumatic, long-lasting, and damaging effects of sibling incest (Carlson, Maciol, & Schneider, 2006; Weihe, 1997). When sexual acts are initiated by one sibling without the other’s consent, sibling incest is, most often, a serious and secret problem.

It happens EVERYWHERE, so let's stop just blaming the Duggars, who should have beaten the kid and had him sent away or to jail. But why aren't we taking a hard look at this and recognize that is a problem EVERYWHERE.

Repression, not even close.

And if Social Services can't even begin to estimate how often it happens, and yet I bet that on this thread alone there are people who DO KNOW about it, they've had friends who were victims, they might have had family members who were victims and there are probably one or two reading this post who were victims themselves.

Call it a problem with everyone and stop being shocked that it was the Duggar Family, because after all, how many are walking around today that have never been caught? Even right here on this thread there are probably people who knows someone who has done it and got away with it.

And might I remind everyone of Michael Jackson??? Did we forget to call it child abuse in his case? Or do we still download his mp3s?

a reply to: WarminIndy

Being religious or repressed has NOTHING to do with child abuse. You are all shocked because this is a religious family? And you blame repression?

Before you have another tanny-tantrum - or some kind of a cow - you should read what people have been saying

Never assume Windy (it's just shorter...) - never assume...

originally posted by: WarminIndy
You are all shocked because this is a religious family? And you blame repression?

Actually, NO. But, there is major hypocracy with this family. And to deny there is repression in this situation?

IMO - we are born sexual beings of ALL "flavors". We need to stop using children as an excuse to deny early awareness and education.

We need to be 100% open to sexuality and dialogue from first interest ---- not set a chronological age that some adult determines is appropriate.

And yes I do think it happens more often then some want to believe. And I'd guess most families keep it within the family.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: WarminIndy

Being religious or repressed has NOTHING to do with child abuse. You are all shocked because this is a religious family? And you blame repression?

Before you have another tanny-tantrum - or some kind of a cow - you should read what people have been saying

Never assume Windy (it's just shorter...) - never assume...

Read the poster just above this one....

Should we not be concerned?

I waited a day before I posted but kept seeing "repression" and about religious nuttery.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WarminIndy
You are all shocked because this is a religious family? And you blame repression?

Actually, NO. But, there is major hypocracy with this family. And to deny there is repression in this situation?

IMO - we are born sexual beings of ALL "flavors". We need to stop using children as an excuse to deny early awareness and education.

We need to be 100% open to sexuality and dialogue from first interest ---- not set a chronological age that some adult determines is appropriate.

And yes I do think it happens more often then some want to believe. And I'd guess most families keep it within the family.

And at what point chronologically should we allow as 100% appropriate?

1 year-old? 3 years-old?

It's your suggestion, so you tell us what chronological age is it appropriate?

a reply to: Annee

So what do you mean?

No, honey, it's not appropriate to hump your sister. Go hump the neighbor girl down the street.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I waited a day before I posted but kept seeing "repression" and about religious nuttery.

Not interested - you replied to me directly (without having read a single word I said)

Pay attention and you and I can then have a genuine conversation

Although, if you want to rule out any or all references to religious nuttery - I'm going to have to call repression

:-)

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

You're very brave to deal in facts only Lady - all my respect for that

It's an impossible subject

Thanks for that.

Ya know sometimes we take off and speculate on a topic given the facts we have now and it later turns out that what we thought were facts, weren't facts at all. So it may be in this case; too many unknowns, so I'm going to bow out of this conversation.

*bows*

a reply to: ketsuko

So what do you mean?

No, honey, it's not appropriate to hump your sister. Go hump the neighbor girl down the street.

How on earth did you get that from what she said? She's talking about education

You just wanted to dis Annee - and then say something crude - amiright?

:-)

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: WarminIndy
You are all shocked because this is a religious family? And you blame repression?

Actually, NO. But, there is major hypocracy with this family. And to deny there is repression in this situation?

IMO - we are born sexual beings of ALL "flavors". We need to stop using children as an excuse to deny early awareness and education.

We need to be 100% open to sexuality and dialogue from first interest ---- not set a chronological age that some adult determines is appropriate.

And yes I do think it happens more often then some want to believe. And I'd guess most families keep it within the family.

And at what point chronologically should we allow as 100% appropriate?

1 year-old? 3 years-old?

It's your suggestion, so you tell us what chronological age is it appropriate?

Did you miss "FIRST INTEREST"?

Oh! You did.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: ketsuko

So what do you mean?

No, honey, it's not appropriate to hump your sister. Go hump the neighbor girl down the street.

How on earth did you get that from what she said? She's talking about education

You just wanted to dis Annee - and then say something crude - amiright?

:-)

Weird, huh?

Just like WarminIndy ---- slid right past "First Interest".

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Ya know sometimes we take off and speculate on a topic given the facts we have now and it later turns out that what we thought were facts, weren't facts at all.

So true Lady. This is not exactly my field - but I will say that I'm bothered by how much people want to assume, and how many blanks they want to fill in

This is a story that really works for some people, and works against others. It may turn out to be the worst case scenario after all - but I'm still uncomfortable with people using it as a kind of weapon

a reply to: Annee

:-)

Well, while I'm here - that was a good post

I think sex education should start early and everywhere. I'm pretty sure God never said anything about keeping your kids in the dark until it's too late

Win - win

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: ketsuko

So what do you mean?

No, honey, it's not appropriate to hump your sister. Go hump the neighbor girl down the street.

How on earth did you get that from what she said? She's talking about education

You just wanted to dis Annee - and then say something crude - amiright?

:-)

Weird, huh?

Just like WarminIndy ---- slid right past "First Interest".

Nope, didn't miss it...

We need to be 100% open to sexuality and dialogue from first interest ---- not set a chronological age that some adult determines is appropriate.

And what age is appropriate for first interest? And what is the most appropriate education about sex, from first interest?

What that is called is hyper-sexualization of children and it is happening at a young age. That's why the dress litte girls up as grown women for beauty contests.

I did not miss it.

BTW, here is an article from France and the response AFTER a 10 year-old was on the cover of Vogue. Is that an appropriate age?

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

You're very brave to deal in facts only Lady - all my respect for that

It's an impossible subject

Being religious or repressed has NOTHING to do with child abuse. You are all shocked because this is a religious family? And you blame repression?

i think it most certainly does in this instance and i am not shocked at all.

i absolutely 100% blame the parents and their repression.

their kids are not allowed to live life and experience things that 'normal' kids their age experience.

originally posted by: WarminIndy

And what age is appropriate for first interest? And what is the most appropriate education about sex, from first interest?

What that is called is hyper-sexualization of children and it is happening at a young age. That's why the dress litte girls up as grown women for beauty contests.

I did not miss it.

I've got pix of my mom as a child in a beauty contest. It's not a new thing. She won, BTW.

My family tends to be very naturally sexual. We joke about it. We call it "the curse".

My grandson got in trouble in preschool for staring at and touching girls butts. How would you handle it?

I personally believe repressive religion has interfered in humans natural sexual growth. (And NO, I am not saying that sexual advances or touching is OK). I am saying awareness and education is needed.

a reply to: WarminIndy

What that is called is hyper-sexualization of children and it is happening at a young age. That's why the dress litte girls up as grown women for beauty contests.

I'm sure Annee can speak for herself, but I think it's interesting that you assume that this discussion is about rushing children into being sexual

Nothing could be further from the truth - it's about educating children about sex. If you're among the many that believe that children must remain innocent of any knowledge about sex because sex is sinful - then you're only contributing to an environment where children won't know how or when to protect themselves, or they might do something that is sexual without realizing they've crossed a line - honestly...

Children are not in hibernation waiting for permission to wake up - they're intelligent beings with an absolute right to understand how life works

If you really want them to remain protected little dolls until an appropriate moment when they're all of a sudden expected to be sexual - you're setting them up for trouble in more ways than one

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

great post.
big daddy billy bob danny frank duggar and is constantly pregnant wife do not strike me as the type of parents that handle sex education.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: WarminIndy

What that is called is hyper-sexualization of children and it is happening at a young age. That's why the dress litte girls up as grown women for beauty contests.

I'm sure Annee can speak for herself, but I think it's interesting that you assume that this discussion is about rushing children into being sexual

Thanks. You are correct. Definitely NOT about rushing children into being sexual.

Scroll down on this blog. Some children from the 1600s. I had an interest in vintage clothing. Did some research a while back. Dressing little girls up is nothing new. bjws.blogspot.com...