Duggars

[wft]

The topic is sexual abuse and the criminality of it. I am perfectly on topic.




Arcbound already answered this quite satisfactorily. The media gave a free pass to Lena, because she is a woman.

The Duggar on the other hand, is a male and gets no such pass. Consequently, Lena gets praised for her actions whilst the male gets financially ruined and ostracized.



She molested her sister as well. Why does it bother you that I point this out?

He is being vilified in the media. If you were truly concerned about children and molestation, wouldn't you be more concerned about the molesters that society is NOT going after?




Ah yes, now you make it about me personally again.

Danger: 2
Pena: 0

• My child custody facts destroy your arguments, while you make claims with no evidence.
• Now the double-standard on molestation is brought to light, and you attack me personally.

You are losing Pena, losing very badly.

The best example you could find was a 7 year old. That's right Lema Dumham was 7. Not even apples to oranges. Your comparison is beyond ridiculous. You have absolutely no argument, but you do have a lot of arrogance.

Danger, you're at -1000. Have you studied negative numbers?

 

[Maximus Rex]

Rex Would Have Gave His Kid a Righteous Ass Whoopin'

The liberal media will try to pin this on conservatives but how can child molestation have a statute of limitations? Liberal legislators and liberal judges.

Because there's only three things that there isn't a statute of limitations is murder, kidnapping, and now (since you can preserve the evidence,) rape. What does liberal legislators and judges have to do with this considering that this family is from a hella conservative state with hella conservative judges and legislators?

A lot of people have expressed outrage that the parents didn't turn their son into the police and have him removed from the home and put in jail when this happened. Is that what you guys would have done as parents? Maybe it's because I'm older, but I tend to think if it could have been settled and kept within the family, I would have done that, without involving the government.

There's only three things which would cause me to disown my child and to act as if he or she never existed.

1) Be convicted of treason.

2) Be a tranny freak.

3) If my kid is a boy doing some sort of faggot ass Ghetto Gaggers or some other type of gay porn.

4) Be child molester

If that was my Duggar was my child does that sh*t at the 15, that's old enough to know better, so I would beat his ass, (not a spanking, but as in a fight,) and called the police.

What do you think the family should have done?

The father should have done what I would have did.

Maybe it's because I'm older, but I tend to think if it could have been settled and kept within the family, I would have done that, without involving the government.

So you would have been cool with having a sexual predator in your home? Fascinating.

 

[zekko]

I heard this morning that Sarah Palin had also pointed out the double standard between this case and Lena Dunham's. But her focus was not on males vs. females, it was religious conservatives vs. liberals. Dunham was a liberal, so she gets a pass. The Duggars are conservative Christians, so not only is the kid a scumbag, the whole family gets attacked.

So you would have been cool with having a sexual predator in your home? Fascinating.

I wouldn't be "cool" with any of it. And it does sound like this Josh kid took things too far. But apparently he was 14 when this happened, not 15 (I wasn't that familiar with the story).

To my eyes, he was a minor, and I'm not sure that sending him off to jail would be the best thing to do. One thing I'm sure of, beating the kid not as a parent but as in a fight is the wrong thing to do. And you would probably just land yourself in jail along with your son.

This isn't talked about much, but I do think that a lot of kids do a little experimenting sexually within their family - although more commonly with a cousin maybe instead of a sibling. In a case like the Duggars, where the kids are home schooled, and they don't get out to see a lot of other kids their age, and they are a big family like that, I could see how something like that could happen. Which is not to say I approve, because I don't.

And I do think that it sounds like this Josh kid took things a little too far to dismiss too lightly. My main question would be how his behavior is as an adult, because to do something like that as a minor is one thing, and to do it as an adult is a whole different thing altogether.

 

[zekko]

If people really cared about the children, then they would hold ALL parties accountable for this kind of thing, not just Christians and boys. But it isn't about the children at all, it is about attacking and destroying specific groups through any means possible.

Good point. I'm sure the liberals who are attacking the Duggars for their handling of this despise the daughters/sisters/victims just as much as the rest of them. The people who put out this story put out the names of the victims and subjected them to media scrutiny. sarcasm on/ But of course it's all "for the children". /sarcasm off

 

[Peña]

I heard this morning that Sarah Palin had also pointed out the double standard between this case and Lena Dunham's. But her focus was not on males vs. females, it was religious conservatives vs. liberals. Dunham was a liberal, so she gets a pass. The Duggars are conservative Christians, so not only is the kid a scumbag, the whole family gets attacked.

I wouldn't be "cool" with any of it. And it does sound like this Josh kid took things too far. But apparently he was 14 when this happened, not 15 (I wasn't that familiar with the story).

It does not matter what they are. When their son does crimes and they cover it up it will be talked about. Conservative Christians do not molest their sisters they should be religious people. They are phony and fake and no real Christians do that. Real Christians do not sin like that. They are no Christians. Molesting his sisters is a crime. But you think "he just took things too far."

He is a scumbag for molesting his sisters for years. His family covered up his sexual abuse for years pretending to be a role model family. They should be attacked for what they did. Why are you condoning sexual abuse in the family?

14 years old is old enough to know right from wrong. He should be exposed for what he did. Why are you guys defending a sexual molester? The media should talk about him.

The Duggars are trying to portray themselves as All American squeaky clean familly but were hiding the skeletons of their perverted molesting kid.

Dunham was 7 years old when the incident happened. Her story came out in November 2014 and was talked about then before his. There was no pass. Trying to attack someone for doing something when they were 7 only once is a joke. He was molesting his sisters for years as a teenager and people are defending him. Lot of sick people around today. I guess we should attack every person for doing something when they were 7? :crackup:

To my eyes, he was a minor, and I'm not sure that sending him off to jail would be the best thing to do. One thing I'm sure of, beating the kid not as a parent but as in a fight is the wrong thing to do. And you would probably just land yourself in jail along with your son.

Now you are giving a sexual molestor a free pass like the others are doing. You take away what he did and try to compare what a girl did when she was only 7. Since you are giving a 14 year old a free pass a 7 year old should not even be considered newsworthy.

He was doing it for years since he was 14. With your attitude you think it is ok for 14 year olds to molest kids with no consequences. I just do not understand some people and the thinking they have. What he did are serious crimes and he got a free pass out of jail.

 

[Crossbow]

It does not matter what they are. When their son does crimes and they cover it up it will be talked about. Conservative Christians do not molest their sisters they should be religious people. They are phony and fake and no real Christians do that. Real Christians do not sin like that. They are no Christians. Molesting his sisters is a crime. But you think "he just took things too far."

He is a scumbag for molesting his sisters for years. His family covered up his sexual abuse for years pretending to be a role model family. They should be attacked for what they did. Why are you condoning sexual abuse in the family?

14 years old is old enough to know right from wrong. He should be exposed for what he did. Why are you guys defending a sexual molester? The media should talk about him.

The Duggars are trying to portray themselves as All American squeaky clean familly but were hiding the skeletons of their perverted molesting kid.

Dunham was 7 years old when the incident happened. Her story came out in November 2014 and was talked about then before his. There was no pass. Trying to attack someone for doing something when they were 7 only once is a joke. He was molesting his sisters for years as a teenager and people are defending him. Lot of sick people around today. I guess we should attack every person for doing something when they were 7? :crackup:






Now you are giving a sexual molestor a free pass like the others are doing. You take away what he did and try to compare what a girl did when she was only 7. Since you are giving a 14 year old a free pass a 7 year old should not even be considered newsworthy.

He was doing it for years since he was 14. With your attitude you think it is ok for 14 year olds to molest kids with no consequences. I just do not understand some people and the thinking they have. What he did are serious crimes and he got a free pass out of jail.

MGTOW wouldn't care if the 7 year old was a boy. They want to persecute a 7 year old girl for "equality" as if these fools ever try to be equal to women themselves. To them a seven year old girl is mentally equal to a 14 year old boy so long as they can punish her in the name of "equality".

 

[Jaylan]

Interesting tweets Ive seen today...about how some right wingers see a 14 year old molester and rapist as a kid, but a 12 yr old kid killed while playing with a toy gun in the park "should have known better or been taught better by their parents".

And I certainly would call finger banging your sleeping sisters a forum of rape.

Lord knows right wing support wouldnt be in full swing if a non-christian family or minority family had 19 kids and allowed one of them to be a molester. Nevermind going to a later convicted pervert for help (that family friend who was a disgraced cop who liked kiddie porn)

 

[zekko]

With your attitude you think it is ok for 14 year olds to molest kids with no consequences.

I don't believe I've said anywhere that he should get a free pass or get by with no consequences. I said that in my day, people tried to deal with things like this within the family. Today, people's first reaction is to go to the police and involve the government. I think that's very telling about the mindset in different eras.

I agree there is a difference between a seven year old and a 14 year old. However, at the end of the day they are both minors and I'm not sure sending a kid off to jail is the best solution to the problem. Like you say, we shouldn't attack people for what they did when they were seven. But by the same token, how many people would want to be judged for what they did when they were 14?

Finally, I have not followed this story closely. But if I'm not mistaken, I think maybe they did try to solve the problem within the family, but then the kid did it again. And at that point I think they filed a police report? If that's what happened, I think that sounds perfectly reasonable to me, and I don't think the family should be attacked for the way they handled it.

 

[YawataNoKami]

Dunham wrote of her sister:

"As she grew, I took to bribing her for her time and affection: one dollar in quarters if I could do her makeup like a “motorcycle chick.” Three pieces of candy if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds. Whatever she wanted to watch on TV if she would just “relax on me.” Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying."

If the time she did her makeup like a “motorcycle chick” matches up with Dunham’s tweets of her sister dressed like a “Hell’s Angel’s sex property,” Dunham was 11 at the time, her sister five.


"I shared a bed with my sister, Grace, until I was seventeen years old. She was afraid to sleep alone and would begin asking me around 5:00 P.M. every day whether she could sleep with me. I put on a big show of saying no, taking pleasure in watching her beg and sulk, but eventually I always relented. Her sticky, muscly little body thrashed beside me every night as I read Anne Sexton, watched reruns of SNL, sometimes even as I slipped my hand into my underwear to figure some stuff out."

This would have made Dunham 17 and her sister 11 when she masturbated in bed next to her.


The fat pig start at 7 stop at 17

 

[Peña]

Dunham wrote of her sister:

"As she grew, I took to bribing her for her time and affection: one dollar in quarters if I could do her makeup like a “motorcycle chick.” Three pieces of candy if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds. Whatever she wanted to watch on TV if she would just “relax on me.” Basically, anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying."

If the time she did her makeup like a “motorcycle chick” matches up with Dunham’s tweets of her sister dressed like a “Hell’s Angel’s sex property,” Dunham was 11 at the time, her sister five.


"I shared a bed with my sister, Grace, until I was seventeen years old. She was afraid to sleep alone and would begin asking me around 5:00 P.M. every day whether she could sleep with me. I put on a big show of saying no, taking pleasure in watching her beg and sulk, but eventually I always relented. Her sticky, muscly little body thrashed beside me every night as I read Anne Sexton, watched reruns of SNL, sometimes even as I slipped my hand into my underwear to figure some stuff out."

This would have made Dunham 17 and her sister 11 when she masturbated in bed next to her.


The fat pig start at 7 stop at 17

Sad and pathetic MGTOWS, Palin, Duggar defenders do not want Duggar the sexual molester to be talked about in the media. They want to whine and blame the media for doing their job, reporting Duggar's crimes, and wanting to shift the topic to some woman for what she did when she was 7. 7 year olds can not be convicted of crimes. Even the doctors said there was nothing wrong with what she did at 7 years old. Duggar molested several girls for years at age 14 and up. Her incident happened once when she was 7 and was already talked about in the media last year before his story came out. Trying to compare the two is a joke. Trying to blame another person for the terrible crimes he did is even worse.





http://www.people.com/article/lena-dunham-molestation-accusations-twitter

Lena Dunham is fighting back at critics who accused her of molesting her younger sister based on a story in her book, Not That Kind of Girl.

The excerpt in question:

"One day, as I sat in our driveway in Long Island playing with blocks and buckets, my curiosity got the best of me. Grace was sitting up, babbling and smiling, and I leaned down between her legs and carefully spread open her vagina. She didn't resist and when I saw what was inside I shrieked."

"My mother came running. 'Mama, Mama! Grace has something in there!' "

"My mother didn't bother asking why I had opened Grace's vagina. This was within the spectrum of things I did. She just on her knees and looked for herself. It quickly became apparent that Grace had stuffed six or seven pebbles in there. My mother removed them patiently while Grace cackled, thrilled that her prank had been a success."

After the politically conservative site Truth Revolt alleged she had abused her sister, Dunham, 28, took to Twitter.

"The right wing news story that I molested my little sister isn't just LOL – it's really f------ upsetting and disgusting," she wrote.

"Usually this is stuff I can ignore but don't demean sufferers, don't twist words," she continued. "I told a story about being a weird seven year old. I bet you have some too …"

One person who's apparently taking the situation in stride: Dunham's sister. In her final Tweet, Dunham wrote, "I wish my sister wasn't laughing so hard."















Back in October, nearly a month after Dunham's memoir had come out, the right-wing website Truth Revolt posted a passage from it under the headline "Lena Dunham Describes Sexually Abusing Her Little Sister."

That headline was coupled with a passage from Dunham's book where she describes looking at her sister's vagina:

"Do we all have uteruses?" I asked my mother when I was seven.

"Yes," she told me. "We're born with them, and with all our eggs, but they start out very small. And they aren't ready to make babies until we're older." I look at my sister, now a slim, tough one-year-old, and at her tiny belly. I imagined her eggs inside her, like the sack of spider eggs in Charlotte's Web, and her uterus, the size of a thimble.

"Does her vagina look like mine?"

"I guess so," my mother said. "Just smaller."

One day, as I sat in our driveway in Long Island playing with blocks and buckets, my curiosity got the best of me. Grace was sitting up, babbling and smiling, and I leaned down between her legs and carefully spread open her vagina. She didn't resist and when I saw what was inside I shrieked.

My mother came running. "Mama, Mama! Grace has something in there!"

My mother didn't bother asking why I had opened Grace's vagina. This was within the spectrum of things I did. She just got on her knees and looked for herself. It quickly became apparent that Grace had stuffed six or seven pebbles in there. My mother removed them patiently while Grace cackled, thrilled that her prank had been a success.

Truth Revolt really keyed on the phrase "she didn't resist," which becomes more loaded when paired with that headline.

But there was another factor, too: Truth Revolt's article originally stated that Dunham was 17 at the time — Dunham says she was 7 — changing and charging the passage with pedophilia. Truth Revolt and NRO columnist Kevin Williamson also keyed in on a passage where Dunham writes about masturbating in the same bed with her sleeping sister.

Those factors — even though one was a glaring, irresponsible mistake — were enough to lay a foundation and give people, Truth Revolt readers in particular, the idea than Dunham had abused her sister.

Experts who weighed in said that given Dunham's age, this wasn't — though Palin believes it is — a case of sexual assault.

"This is clearly not a case of abuse," developmental psychologist Ritch Savin-Williams, director of the Sex and Gender Lab at Cornell University, told Slate. "Children have been doing this stuff forever and ever and ever and ever, and they will do it forever and ever and ever."

Sam Rubenstein, a psychotherapist who specializes in childhood abuse, echoed these thoughts to Gawker:

I think you have to take into consideration her age, her history, and the idea that at that age, unless you've gone through severe sexual trauma, there's really almost nothing sexual about it. The same explanation could be used for grabbing the dog's tail. It's the same type of coercion. Just because it's in the sexual venue, people want to attach something to it, but it's almost totally different. It's an innocent type of thing.

John V. Caffaro, a professor at the California School of Professional Psychology and an expert on sibling abuse, explained in a Washington Post column that such non-abusive interactions are normal among siblings:

To be clear, sexual curiosity in children is normal. All children explore their bodies and may engage in visual or even manual exploration of a sibling at times. This is one way that children discover sexual differences between boys' and girls' anatomies. Even siblings of the same gender become curious about variations in shapes and sizes of their sex organs. Two small children exploring each other's bodies does not predestine them to a life of emotional suffering.

Even though experts asserted that Dunham's behavior is normal and doesn't constitute sex abuse, it did not stop people from labeling her as a sexual predator.

Are Dunham and Josh Duggar's stories different?

Yes. Though both Dunham and Duggar's stories involve touching their underage siblings, there are a couple of things that differentiate their stories.

The first and foremost is age. Duggar was around 14 years old in 2002 when he was investigated for molesting girls. Dunham was 7 during that episode with her sister. There is a gulf of difference between a 14-year-old (who is presumably going through puberty) and a 7-year-old when it comes to agency, autonomy, and sexuality. The difference in age between Dunham and Duggar is the difference between a police investigation and two kids playing doctor.

The 2006 police report on Duggar found instances in 2002 and 2003 where Duggar was accused of fondling several minors while they were asleep and while they were awake. Duggar's multiple instances of molestation are another key difference between Dunham's and Duggar's stories.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Things like this between minor children within a family should be resolved by the family. The government has no business usurping the parents and getting involved.

Kids play doctor and experiment all the time. It's not really "harmful" to them. It's just due to liberal/progressive brainwashing that people get into a hysteria about it or anything else sexual. If the minors were not from within the same family then it would be up to other family to decide to report it. If the "perpetrator" was over age 16 and the "victim" was under age 12 and it was out and out nonconsensual penetration or rape, then I can see it maybe needs investigating. It's all matter of degree. If it's just young teens and preteens experimenting, that's just something that happens and is really a nonissue.

 

[Maximus Rex]

You're a Sick F*ck

Things like this between minor children within a family should be resolved by the family. The government has no business usurping the parents and getting involved.

Kids play doctor and experiment all the time. It's not really "harmful" to them. It's just due to liberal/progressive brainwashing that people get into a hysteria about it or anything else sexual. If the minors were not from within the same family then it would be up to other family to decide to report it. If the "perpetrator" was over age 16 and the "victim" was under age 12 and it was out and out nonconsensual penetration or rape, then I can see it maybe needs investigating. It's all matter of degree. If it's just young teens and preteens experimenting, that's just something that happens and is really a nonissue.

You just co-signed sexual abuse committed by sexual predators only because they share the same f*cked up political beliefs as you. At the age of 14, you should know that doing things like that is wrong. As I earlier if I were my kid, he would have gotten f*cked up, turned in, and disowned.

 

[Soolaimon]

Things like this between minor children within a family should be resolved by the family. The government has no business usurping the parents and getting involved.

Kids play doctor and experiment all the time. It's not really "harmful" to them. It's just due to liberal/progressive brainwashing that people get into a hysteria about it or anything else sexual. If the minors were not from within the same family then it would be up to other family to decide to report it. If the "perpetrator" was over age 16 and the "victim" was under age 12 and it was out and out nonconsensual penetration or rape, then I can see it maybe needs investigating. It's all matter of degree. If it's just young teens and preteens experimenting, that's just something that happens and is really a nonissue.

Are you nuts?

Sexual abuse is sexual abuse no matter who is involved.

An investigation still needs to take place when it's "in the family". That makes it even worse.

Basically you are saying it's fine for teens to sexually abuse their pree teen siblings. It's just experimenting and it's all a liberal conspiracy to speak out against sexual abuse. You are nuts.

These clowns sure make it their agenda to attack another party for anything even when their side is doing felony acts trying to give them a free pass.

Some people need help.

When you read $hit like this it makes you wonder where their values are.

Not very good.

 

[zekko]

You just co-signed sexual abuse committed by sexual predators only because they share the same f*cked up political beliefs as you. At the age of 14, you should know that doing things like that is wrong. As I earlier if I were my kid, he would have gotten f*cked up, turned in, and disowned.

I'm sure the government would be proud of you.

I can't condone what Josh Duggar did, but I am curious about the topic Stagger Lee brought up (welcome back, Stagger).

I think we can all agree to some extent that "playing doctor" and sexual curiousity is natural to some degree. Like so many things, the question is where do you draw the line. Stagger seems to think the line is when you turn 16. Reading this thread, apparently many think it's okay if you're seven. Duggar was 14, and Rex at least was ready to beat him up and hand him over to the government.

I'm just not so sure that at age 14, a kid should be expected to have the wisdom and self control of Solomon. In my mind, a 14 year old is a minor. Again, in Duggar's case, I agree he went too far. But I read one incident was with his sister of 12.

Just hypothetically, would you be willing to disown your son if he was 14 and his sister was 12? What if they both said it was consentual experimenting? Of course the older one would be more responsible, but at 14, wholly responsible?

I'm just curious as to where y'all think the lines should be drawn.

 

[speed dawg]

I'm sure the government would be proud of you.

I can't condone what Josh Duggar did, but I am curious about the topic Stagger Lee brought up (welcome back, Stagger).

I think we can all agree to some extent that "playing doctor" and sexual curiousity is natural to some degree. Like so many things, the question is where do you draw the line. Stagger seems to think the line is when you turn 16. Reading this thread, apparently many think it's okay if you're seven. Duggar was 14, and Rex at least was ready to beat him up and hand him over to the government.

I'm just not so sure that at age 14, a kid should be expected to have the wisdom and self control of Solomon. In my mind, a 14 year old is a minor. Again, in Duggar's case, I agree he went too far. But I read one incident was with his sister of 12.

Just hypothetically, would you be willing to disown your son if he was 14 and his sister was 12? What if they both said it was consentual experimenting? Of course the older one would be more responsible, but at 14, wholly responsible?

I'm just curious as to where y'all think the lines should be drawn.

At least you are thinking about the real issue. Other posters are simply judging the Duggars based on predetermined notions/politics. See Maximus Rex and Stagger Lee. I agree with Stagger on most things, but on this, I'm not really so sure what I think. Maximus Rex is simply going to condemn the Duggars because they are Christian conservatives.

Rinse, repeat.

 

[Jaylan]

Are you nuts?

Sexual abuse is sexual abuse no matter who is involved.

An investigation still needs to take place when it's "in the family". That makes it even worse.

Basically you are saying it's fine for teens to sexually abuse their pree teen siblings. It's just experimenting and it's all a liberal conspiracy to speak out against sexual abuse. You are nuts.

These clowns sure make it their agenda to attack another party for anything even when their side is doing felony acts trying to give them a free pass.

Some people need help.

When you read $hit like this it makes you wonder where their values are.

Not very good.

Good post.

Also, Josh Duggar didnt just sexually abuse pre teens. He was touching little girls as young as 5 as well. One of his victims is STILL a minor today. Think about that.

And his parents went to a pervert disgraced cop for help. An ex cop now in jail for 56 years for his own kiddie porn and molestation charges. Sick.

For me this has NOTHING to do with politics or religion...despite how some posters try to fall back on that weak argument. Its all about sexual abuse being wrong, and how a hypocritical family protected their predatory son who still molested girls even after he got "help". Wrong is wrong.

Like I said before, a lot of right wingers wouldnt be rallying to defend this family or that pervert if they didnt view him as one of their own. Greg Gutfeld asked a VERY good question about conservative support of the Duggars. Would Conservatives Show Compassion for Duggar if He Were Muslim? We all know the answer would be a big fat NO...and that many people couldnt wait to get the chance to bash Islam and bring up the poor treatment of women in some Muslim nations.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gutfeld-would-conservatives-show-compassion-for-duggar-if-he-were-muslim/

And for once Im actually agreeing with a Fox News host other than Shephard Smith. Gutfeld was right on the money with his remarks about those rallying to defend the Duggars and minimize the wrong in what they did.

EDIT - Josh Duggar molested a girl outside of his family as well. And was NEVER punished for it. Think about that. Certain posters on this forum love to cry about false claims of sexual abuse...but have no issues being soft on the Duggar family allowing and covering up real sexual abuse. No one should be soft on or defend a family that sweeps sexual abuse of young girls (especially prepubescent girls) under the rug. But here we see people trying to make this a political issue and go after "liberals". Deflection tactics at their finest. I see the same thing being done in discussions over the Hastert scandal as well.

This article covers the hypocrisy of those who defend the Duggars. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...o-Conservatives-Fierce-Defense-of-Child-Rape#

 

[Stagger Lee]

What do you mean see Stagger Lee? Zekko articulated my same point a little better. Don't put me in the same league as maximus rex, who insults me with "sick fvck..fvcked political agenda" and others and never gets banned. I didn't even know who the Duggars were. I don't care if they conservative, liberal or in between. I stand by my comments and they apply to any kids and their parents even for liberals/progressives. Preteens and teens experimenting and common even natural (mis)behavior of minor children are a parental issues and not the government's business to muck up with a political/social engineering agenda. My comments have no political basis, it's just the traditional view that people didn't talk about personal family affairs (or their sex life and orientation) and the family dealt with it as appropriate.

 

[speed dawg]

My comments have no political basis, it's just the traditional view that people didn't talk about personal family affairs (or their sex life and orientation) and the family dealt with it as appropriate.

I should clarify, when I say conservative vs. liberal, I almost mean it like right vs. wrong, or normal vs. perverted, or good vs. self-centered. So in that way, no I wasn't meaning to lump you in with Maximus Rex.

I haven't read much on the Duggar and this incident, I'm sort of disgusted with the media's bullsh*t. But in typical fashion, the anti-Christian conservative white haters are saying to crucify him while guys like you are giving the benefit of the doubt. Your way is correct. Not sure if I agree that it should ALL be handled in the family, but again I haven't read much about it.

But yeah, zekko did word it a little better. I'm terrible about communication myself so I can't say anything.

 

[Soolaimon]

I'm sure the government would be proud of you.

I can't condone what Josh Duggar did, but I am curious about the topic Stagger Lee brought up (welcome back, Stagger).

I think we can all agree to some extent that "playing doctor" and sexual curiousity is natural to some degree. Like so many things, the question is where do you draw the line. Stagger seems to think the line is when you turn 16. Reading this thread, apparently many think it's okay if you're seven. Duggar was 14, and Rex at least was ready to beat him up and hand him over to the government.

I'm just not so sure that at age 14, a kid should be expected to have the wisdom and self control of Solomon. In my mind, a 14 year old is a minor. Again, in Duggar's case, I agree he went too far. But I read one incident was with his sister of 12.

Just hypothetically, would you be willing to disown your son if he was 14 and his sister was 12? What if they both said it was consentual experimenting? Of course the older one would be more responsible, but at 14, wholly responsible?

I'm just curious as to where y'all think the lines should be drawn.

Looks like Zekko is on board and has no problem with sexual abuse in the family.

Why couldn't this pervert get a real girlfriend like normal guys and experiment on her instead of his sisters?

"Playing doctor" is for little kids outside the family. Not for a 14 year old guy to finger his different pre-teen sisters.

Minors that are 14 will be convicted and will go to Juvenile Detention Centers until they are 21 for sexual abuse. I guess you have no understanding of the laws Zekko. Learn something about it.

A 7 year old has less reasoning skills than a guy that's 14. Didn't you know that?

And it wasn't only 1 incident with Duggar. It was many incidents and police were investigating what he did and his family tried to hide that from the public.

You are nuts as well thinking that what he did is perfectly fine.

The guy has serious issues and trying to hide behind religion as an escape from people questioning him is a fvcking joke.

Maximus Rex is simply going to condemn the Duggars because they are Christian conservatives.

Do you think sexual abuse shouldn't be condemned?

Who cares if they are Christian, Catholic, Jewish, Atheists, whatever.

Sexual abuse should be condemed period!

For me this has NOTHING to do with politics or religion...despite how some posters try to fall back on that weak argument. Its all about sexual abuse being wrong, and how a hypocritical family protected their predatory son who still molested girls even after he got "help". Wrong is wrong.

You made an equally good post as well.

Trying to hide behind religion and politics is weak and makes no difference when you are guilty of committing crimes. That person should be jailed and condemned regardless of his/her political/religiouus affiliation.

Laws are for the individual not what you believe in or what you belong to. That becomes irrelevant once the law is broken.

Whiners and Conservatives are trying to make this a political and religious issue telling us that you can't talk about a "Conservative Christian" committing crimes. What kind of bull$hit is that? If he did a crime he should do the time and the press is obligated to report it.

On one hand they want to protect their poster boy from any bad press claiming what he did is "innocent". And on the other hand they want to convict some chick and drag her through the mud for an incident that has less merit.

Nothing but hypocrisy from these people!

EDIT - Josh Duggar molested a girl outside of his family as well. And was NEVER punished for it. Think about that. Certain posters on this forum love to cry about false claims of sexual abuse...but have no issues being soft on the Duggar family allowing and covering up real sexual abuse.

Great point that nobody wants to talk about.

Christian Conservatives feel they can do anything and get away with it.

If you're a liberal or non religious they will spit in your face and want to sentence you for life.

 

[Stagger Lee]

I should clarify, when I say conservative vs. liberal, I almost mean it like right vs. wrong, or normal vs. perverted, or good vs. self-centered. So in that way, no I wasn't meaning to lump you in with Maximus Rex.

I haven't read much on the Duggar and this incident, I'm sort of disgusted with the media's bullsh*t. But in typical fashion, the anti-Christian conservative white haters are saying to crucify him while guys like you are giving the benefit of the doubt. Your way is correct. Not sure if I agree that it should ALL be handled in the family, but again I haven't read much about it.

But yeah, zekko did word it a little better. I'm terrible about communication myself so I can't say anything.

I got it now. This the way I see it no matter what family it is. No, I didn't know anything about the Duggars and I'm not defending them per se. Although from what I read in this thread, I don't think anything egregious enough to justify law enforcement action happened. I do agree the media and certain people are probably attacking them and holding a double standard because they are I guess a white, conservative, Christian family. What I was saying was better explained by zekko, ie, drawing the line somewhere sensibly or traditionally (not where progressives now draw it with their sex, rape hysteria, "save the children (from fellow children in this case) hysteria" and double standards) and it being a matter of degree.