Michelle and JimBob aka J'Chelle and Boob

[Wellfleet]

Honestly, I can't tell if most the Duggars are skimming average intelligence at best, or if they've just never been challenged or educated. We know they lack education. Josh and Josiah may be the most articulate of the bunch, but articulate doesn't mean intelligent or vice versa. Jill the Idiot likes to study and read what interests her, but she retains the most dumbass and twisted pieces of information - ie 2/3rds of families face sibling molestation, all those facts and figures about midwifery, but then she let her own labor go on way too long just so she could say she had a natural midwife birth (until she couldn't).

 

Look at the Duggar kids, any of them, in a talking head interview and then look at the Bates kids. You can compare kids of the same age, gender, etc., and the Bates kids are just so much more articulate and expressive, and they can actually form sentences and opinions. Even Anna's two eldest can describe what's going on around them and have conversation, but those Duggars just.......can't communicate without regurgitating some brainwashed phrase or just being incoherent.

 

Agree, and this is really clear when you compare the Duggar and Bates children. The Duggars say the same things over and over - and it's never very interesting or even little-kid amusing. Anna's kids at least seem happy as little kids. None of the smaller Duggars have ever seemed as charged as Michael or Mackenzie. It looks as though the Duggar kids have been stifled from talking much more than they've been encouraged. Very little spark of spontaneous language or thought - everything is trained, rehearsed, rote.

[JocelynCavanaugh]

 Mchelle almost had an aneurysm when Josie ran around without her shrug at Jill's wedding reception. So, it's not a case of what they say, it's a case of what they do. Mchelle obviously thinks that the little girl is potentially enticing someone if she does not cover her shoulders. It's sad in retrospect, knowing what we know now, but that's not the only example of this. It's just the most blatant one that we all saw. 

 

I know they do these things, but I think it's their sad, too-little-too-late attempts at protecting their daughters from more assaults. It may just be semantics, although I don't happen to think so, but even in the case of the Duggars, I think it's important not to flat-out state "they believe their adolescent/school-age daughters brought the molestation upon themselves" unless we have concrete evidence that they do, in fact, believe such a thing. They've given us enough fodder as it is, without us imputing even worse motives onto them. 

[DangerousMinds]

I have not heard or read the Duggars saying anything like this. They have messed up in so many ways, but I have never seen the Duggars blame their daughters for what happened to them. There is no evidence that they believe their young daughters enticed Josh.

According to their beliefs, females' bodies are the reason males feel desire that cannot be righteously fulfilled. Hence the modest dress, etc. even in the youngest. Also, I believe they teach that simply having the lustful thoughts are just as bad as acting on them. Reminds me a lot of Muslims and their burkas, because of the need not to incite men's desires with their bodies. In Saudi Arabia, women still can't drive anywhere by themselves, because what if her car breaks down and a male comes to her aid and she incites sexual desires in him that might cause him to rape her. Her fault.

[JocelynCavanaugh]

According to their beliefs, females' bodies are the reason males feel desire that cannot be righteously fulfilled. Hence the modest dress, etc. even in the youngest. Also, I believe they teach that simply having the lustful thoughts are just as bad as acting on them. 

 

Do we have documentation that they believe this about 5-year-olds? My understanding was that it applied to older teens and grown women. Again, I think it's important that we stick to what we actually know that the Duggars have said or written, because implying that they believe their little girls were "asking for it" seems a bridge too far, even for them. 

 

I don't think the Muslim discussion is relevant since they are quite actively not Muslim.

[DangerousMinds]

From what I've read about fundamentalism and Gothardism, yes they do believe this about females of any age. Just my take on it.

They are certainly not Muslim, but fundamentalists of any religious ilk have very similar ideas iMO.

[JocelynCavanaugh]

From what I've read about fundamentalism and Gothardism, yes they do believe this about females of any age. Just my take on it.

 

Have the Duggars said this, specifically? That's what I'm trying to figure out, because it's such a horrifying thing to accuse anyone of.

[Sew Sumi]

I know they do these things, but I think it's their sad, too-little-too-late attempts at protecting their daughters from more assaults. It may just be semantics, although I don't happen to think so, but even in the case of the Duggars, I think it's important not to flat-out state "they believe their adolescent/school-age daughters brought the molestation upon themselves" unless we have concrete evidence that they do, in fact, believe such a thing. They've given us enough fodder as it is, without us imputing even worse motives onto them. 

I don't think that it's a big stretch that they impose these hyper-modest rules on the young girls because of what happened to the older girls (who were wearing bloody Little House dresses, for crying out loud!). Of course they didn't say anything like that; now we know WHY they didn't say anything like that. The finger would have pointed far too close to home, and they were doing all that they could to forget that it happened, but at the same time, try to make sure it never happened again. The two aren't mutually exclusive to for the hypothesis to be proven true.

[DangerousMinds]

It really is horrifying. Michelle talks about "stirring up desires," etc all the time (and this means the girls only), and the modest dress, even on little Josie. Although their clothing has become a lot less "modest" in recent years. I wonder how that fits with these beliefs about stirring up male desires.

[bluebonnet]

The bikini story has been told over and over and over and over and over and over again.  Yes, it's explicitly been stated by the Duggars that girls are in charge of controlling male sexuality.  

[JenCarroll]

Do we have documentation that they believe this about 5-year-olds? My understanding was that it applied to older teens and grown women. Again, I think it's important that we stick to what we actually know that the Duggars have said or written, because implying that they believe their little girls were "asking for it" seems a bridge too far, even for them.

I don't think the Muslim discussion is relevant since they are quite actively not Muslim.

AFAIK, they haven't said that the daughters caused Josh to molest them. But they do say frequently, as a general principle, that women and girls are responsible for the desire they provoke in men. Additionally, if you read some of Gothard's materials on counseling molestation victims and teen molesters, there's a case where the teenaged molester says he was unable to control his "curiosity" after seeing his very young sisters running around in towels after their baths. The document also lists having boys change baby girls' diapers as a possible contributing factor leading to molestation. This is real, ATI-sanctioned doctrine. I don't think there's been any implication that the Duggar parents think the girls' behavior in the moment caused Josh to molest them. But when you put together what we have heard Michelle say (repeatedly) and what the ATI materials say, I don't think its much of a stretch to infer that they do think their behavior in general was a factor. You're right, as far as I can recall they haven't come straight out and said so. They haven't addressed the question at all. But they do subscribe to this belief system.

Edited because grammar. Is a thing.

Edited June 11, 2015 by JenCarroll

[JocelynCavanaugh]

AFAIK, they haven't said that the daughters caused Josh to molest them. But they do say that, frequently, as a general principle, and if you read some of Gothard's materials on counseling molestation victims and teen molesters, they present a case where the molester says he was unable to control his "curiosity" after seeing his very young sisters running around in towels after their baths. The document also lists having boys change baby girls' diapers as a possible contributing factor leading to molestation. This is real, ATI-sanctioned doctrine. I don't think there's been any implication that the parents feel that the girls' behavior in the moment caused Josh to molest them. But when you put together what we have heard Michelle say, repeatedly, and what the ATI materials say, there's some implication that they may feel the girls' behavior in general was a contributor. You're right, as far as I can recall, they haven't come straight out and said so. They haven't addressed the question at all. But they do subscribe to this belief system.

 

I see what you're saying. I guess what I'm getting at is that it could be one of those things where people subscribe to a certain set of beliefs until it hits home. I'm thinking of the stories of conservative Christian families who have a change of heart once one of their own children becomes pregnant out of wedlock, or comes out of the closet, etc. While they may be Gothardites on balance, I have trouble believing that Jim Bob Duggar honestly believes that his 5-year-old daughter defrauded her brother and caused him to molest her, regardless of their over-arching beliefs. (Michelle, who knows? I think she's truly mentally ill.) 

 

It seems like, since we have no definitive proof that they believe this particular thing, it's up to the individual to decide whether 1+1=2 or 2000 here. I just appreciate that this site tries to steer us away from spreading rumors and speculation without good reason, and my questions are in that spirit.

[JenCarroll]

People are certainly capable of holding two conflicting views at the same time. I appreciate the spirit of the question, and you're right that saying, "They blame the daughters," may be going a little too far.

There's definitely something wrong with Michelle!

:-)

Edited June 11, 2015 by JenCarroll

[farmgal4]

It really is horrifying. Michelle talks about "stirring up desires," etc all the time (and this means the girls only), and the modest dress, even on little Josie. Although their clothing has become a lot less "modest" in recent years. I wonder how that fits with these beliefs about stirring up male desires.

One of the craziest things I ever saw on the show:

I believe it was after a wedding, and Michelle was on the front porch of their house talking to some other woman. Josie was running around in a sleeveless dress. When Michelle finally noticed that Josie was running around baring her shoulders, she freaked! She took her hands and started trying to cover Josie's upper arms and shoulders and saying, "Josie! Where's your jacket! Oh my goodness!" and on and on, just basically freaking out about a four-year-old having bare arms/shoulders. It was at that precise moment when I decided that Mother of the Year was full-on crazy as a loon.

[Fuzzysox]

I thought maybe Jim Bob might have been a wild child and his parents thought a Christian school would straighten him out...thanks guys for your input on my question.

Bwhahhahaaa thanks for the laugh! I think was Boob was always a dork and walked a straight line.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Fuzzysox

[Sew Sumi]

That situation at Jill's wedding was what I described about 10 posts up, w/r/t Mechelle almost having an aneurysm.  I looked for the video on YouTube, but I'm not putting in the right search parameters. But yeah, majorly hyper vigilant for no apparent reason aside from "modesty." Without the Gothard playbook, it can be shrugged off, with the Gothard playbook, and the prior molestations, it's sick. 

[Lemur]

They haven't flat-out said they blame the girls.

But, Buzzfeed (I know, I know) did post this very interesting article on ATI and molestation within the family:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemcneal/a-homeschooling-program-promoted-by-the-duggars-has-troublin#.ry5KP9Zrl

Edited June 11, 2015 by Lemur

[farmgal4]

That situation at Jill's wedding was what I described about 10 posts up, w/r/t Mechelle almost having an aneurysm.  I looked for the video on YouTube, but I'm not putting in the right search parameters. But yeah, majorly hyper vigilant for no apparent reason aside from "modesty." Without the Gothard playbook, it can be shrugged off, with the Gothard playbook, and the prior molestations, it's sick.

You're right, it's beyond sick, knowing what we know now. Sicker still is knowing that a child molester can get turned on just by looking at a little girl's bare shoulders.

[JenCarroll]

It was at that precise moment when I decided that Mother of the Year was full-on crazy as a loon.

It took you that long? ;-)

[zenme]

As a teacher, I've come across several cases where siblings might be split between public and private school.  Sometimes it's due to behavior, grades, acceptance rates, scholarship, etc.  It's really not that unusual.

 

I went to Catholic school K-12 and I knew of several families who had a child or 2 (especially high school age), who wanted to go to public school with neighborhood friends.  Also, where high school was concerned, I knew of families where a child didn't pass the entrance exam to get in, and had to go to a local public school.  I don't think it's all that unusual that Deanna didn't got to private school with Jimbo. 

[GEML]

I don't think that it's a big stretch that they impose these hyper-modest rules on the young girls because of what happened to the older girls (who were wearing bloody Little House dresses, for crying out loud!). Of course they didn't say anything like that; now we know WHY they didn't say anything like that. The finger would have pointed far too close to home, and they were doing all that they could to forget that it happened, but at the same time, try to make sure it never happened again. The two aren't mutually exclusive to for the hypothesis to be proven true.

And to me, the important counter point is that the Duggars allowed their daughters to dress less "modestly" as they get older. Shorter skirts, tighter shirts, less sleeve. Still modest by any standard, but a far cry from their late childhood/early adolescence. So I don't know that they personally blamed the girls at all.

[springtime]

A formerly benign passage from Michelle from the article on home schooling children with reading difficulties...

 

 

I'd say, "Okay, you've got 15 minutes, and you're going to read this book to your 3-year-old sibling, who loves to be read to anyway. It doesn't matter if you get the words right or not." I think by them practicing that way it allowed them to be teach themselves by inadvertently teaching their younger sibling.

Edited June 11, 2015 by springtime

[HooHooHoo]

I have often wondered why it was Jim Bob who "got to go to a private Christian school" and his sister went to public school? Was a young Jim Bob in need of a stricter Christian atmosphere due to some behavioral problems of his own? Does anyone know why he went and Deanna didn't? After this Josh thing, and Jim Bob's constant and continuing sexual innuendos and jokes on TV, can't help but think if he was difficult as a boy to "keep in line". I am asking any poster out there who maybe grew up with him or went to school with him and knows what the motivation was for this?

Maybe this is giving Jim Bob's parents too much credit, but I am in a similar situation. I have 3 kids in K-8 Catholic school. The eldest will start public high school and my middle is going to Catholic high school. The reason? We have looked at both of our children and picked the best choice for them as individuals (academically, socially, and sports). The third we will decide for as she gets older.

[Churchhoney]

JimBob was in the school's first graduating class, 1983. (it's an elementary school as well as a high school, and it opened in 1976). And according to Wikipedia, at least, that graduating class had only 12 students. For a certain kind of kid -- an insecure kid, for example -- an environment that small and sheltered would seem to be a "privilege," I think. Heck, you could be BMOC by besting only 11 other kids.

 

 

Also -- on Deanna -- she of course wouldn't have been able to graduate from Shiloh Christian in any case, because they obviously didn't plan to have a senior class until the year that her little brother was scheduled to graduate. That alone could explain why she might not have gone there. (might have been other reasons too, of course)

Edited June 11, 2015 by Churchhoney

[inkworks]

One of the craziest things I ever saw on the show:

I believe it was after a wedding, and Michelle was on the front porch of their house talking to some other woman. Josie was running around in a sleeveless dress. When Michelle finally noticed that Josie was running around baring her shoulders, she freaked! She took her hands and started trying to cover Josie's upper arms and shoulders and saying, "Josie! Where's your jacket! Oh my goodness!" and on and on, just basically freaking out about a four-year-old having bare arms/shoulders. It was at that precise moment when I decided that Mother of the Year was full-on crazy as a loon.

Can anyone tell me which episode this is from?

[ZoloftBlob]

While they may be Gothardites on balance, I have trouble believing that Jim Bob Duggar honestly believes that his 5-year-old daughter defrauded her brother and caused him to molest her, regardless of their over-arching beliefs. (Michelle, who knows? I think she's truly mentally ill.)

 

Well, Jimbob is the same dad who refused to allow his daughter to be on a date with her future husband without a brother present because well... she'd rip off her dress and spread for anyone if she wasn't chaperoned by her ten year old brother, apparently. There's a serious *trust* issue surrounding the girls sexuality - the girls can't be trusted and I do wonder if it stems from them "defrauding" their brother.

 

I also respectfully point out that Jimbob and Michelle have never said the girls weren't to blame, not once, and all of the safeguards involve the females being restricted in dress and activity. Who's to blame? The ones being punished for the rest of their lives. Maybe, instead of locking eight girls in their one bedroom to "protect" them from their brother who roams free doesn't look, to me, like the perpetrater being punished with a consequence, while his victims are restricted and confined.

[JenCarroll]

Can anyone tell me which episode this is from?

Jill's wedding.

[lulu69]

I realize this may be a little OT, but driving home tonight (yes, a female driving alone!) AC/DC's 'Highway To Hell' came on the radio & I immediately thought of the Duggars.  Boob & MEchelle's heads would just explode listening to ol' Bon extoll the joys of fulfilling desires in a unrightous manner..."living easy, living free"...... :-P

[dillpickles]

I realize this may be a little OT, but driving home tonight (yes, a female driving alone!) AC/DC's 'Highway To Hell' came on the radio & I immediately thought of the Duggars. Boob & MEchelle's heads would just explode listening to ol' Bon extoll the joys of fulfilling desires in a unrightous manner..."living easy, living free"...... :-P

"Livin' righeous, livin' pompous~ don't need no readin' don't wanna write. I wanna keep my show on TLC~"

[NikSac]

And to me, the important counter point is that the Duggars allowed their daughters to dress less "modestly" as they get older. Shorter skirts, tighter shirts, less sleeve. Still modest by any standard, but a far cry from their late childhood/early adolescence. So I don't know that they personally blamed the girls at all.

 

Perhaps they were only concerned about the "little kids" defrauding anyone.  I mean a 4 year old with her bare shoulders and all is apparently more alarming than knee length skirts. (yuck!!)

[bluebonnet]

Ugh, I watched that Jill's wedding episode earlier just to see the thing with Michelle and Josie's shoulders.  I didn't see anything like that happening in this episode though I might have zoned out sometimes because it was seriously wtf worthy.  There is something really disturbing about spending over an hour listening to people talk about sex without them ever saying the word sex.  At one point, it's actually referred to as 'progress'.  

[NikSac]

Ugh, I watched that Jill's wedding episode earlier just to see the thing with Michelle and Josie's shoulders.  I didn't see anything like that happening in this episode though I might have zoned out sometimes because it was seriously wtf worthy.  There is something really disturbing about spending over an hour listening to people talk about sex without them ever saying the word sex.  At one point, it's actually referred to as 'progress'.  

 

I remember seeing it but I don't remember when - I thought it was Jill's wedding episode too though. I can't make myself watch it again to see.

 

That was Anna wasn't it?  With the whole Practice and Progress thing.

[Oldernowiser]

I remember seeing it but I don't remember when - I thought it was Jill's wedding episode too though. I can't make myself watch it again to see.

 

That was Anna wasn't it?  With the whole Practice and Progress thing.

Okay, words cannot express how much I hate myself for this, but...what?

[bigskygirl]

Practice make progress, and progress makes babies!

[NikSac]

Okay, words cannot express how much I hate myself for this, but...what?

 

Sorry, I replied and forgot that everything I was replying to wouldn't show up. 

 

1. Josie's "bare shoulders" and Michelle's freak out about it - I thought that was in Jill's wedding episode?  Maybe not though.

2. Somewhere in that episode Anna said "practice makes progress, and progress makes babies." (I'm assuming that's where sex=progress came from)

Edited June 11, 2015 by NikSac

[Sew Sumi]

Can anyone tell me which episode this is from?

It wasn't from an episode. Someone posted the video to YouTube. This was from the super secret reception at the TTH. TLC didn't cover that. 

 

eta: I looked for it yesterday when the subject came up, but I am apparently not using the right search commands. :/

Edited June 11, 2015 by Sew Sumi

[Churchhoney]

Perhaps they were only concerned about the "little kids" defrauding anyone.  I mean a 4 year old with her bare shoulders and all is apparently more alarming than knee length skirts. (yuck!!)

 

It's the same way that a muscle in your back disappears when you ought to lift a two-year-old but magically reappears when you water ski.

 

I really think a lot of this is a result of putting yourself and your 'mission" on reality tv. Almost inevitably, you end up falsifying your life -- and, worse, tacitly teaching your kids to falsify theirs. 

[Oldernowiser]

Practice make progress, and progress makes babies!

"Progress" meaning he actually manages to hold off long enough to...defraud...the little woman close enough for the little swimmers to make it to the ovum without having to navigate five linear feet of bedsheet and pole jump from there into the baby making zone?

Edited June 12, 2015 by Oldernowiser

[lookeyloo]

I remember the Josie shoulder incident too and I thought it was from Jill's wedding.  They are standing outside the house, Michelle in her charming gray layered dress, and while she was talking to someone, maybe the camera, Josie appeared without her jacket on.  I guess I was tickled that she could become so flustered by that, until I knew the rest of the story.  Which is about the girls being responsible for tempting the boys.  Oy.

[Bella]

What I remember is that many people in this forum commented on that little scene between Michelle and Josie.

 

And that is why I do not doubt that they saw it.

[JoanArc]

What I remember is that many people in this forum commented on that little scene between Michelle and Josie.

 

And that is why I do not doubt that they saw it.

Here it is. "Duggar Reception" found it on youtube.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECKuKNj5rKs

 

Knowing what we all know now, that a 5 year old is sexually defrauding and at fault, I have this to say to Michelle (Language warning):

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cStRa4OiUlQ

 

I hope the oopma loompa bronzer melts her countenance off.

[Absolom]

It was the clip where Michelle was talking to the woman from the wedding dress shop and they were talking about the alterations.  They were standing on the porch and Josie ran by.  Michelle seemed exceedingly embarrassed that Josie had removed her jacket. 

 

Yes, a bunch of us saw it.  It was on the TLC website perhaps at one time.

 

ETA:  So there it is. :)

Edited June 11, 2015 by Absolom

[bluebonnet]

That was...disappointing.  It's not exactly the word I was looking for, but I thought it would be something outrageous.  Instead, it's just Josie having put on her wedding dress after she'd apparently already changed clothes and Michelle noting that she lost part of the outfit in the process.  Then she just goes on with the conversation.  

 

ETA: And the most disturbing part of that conversation, I thought, was Michelle keeping her hand on the other woman's arm for so long.  Though, that's a YMMV sort of thing.  I don't like random people giving me prolonged touches.  

Edited June 11, 2015 by bluebonnet

[Vaysh]

Here it is. "Duggar Reception" found it on youtube.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=ECKuKNj5rKs

 

 

I'm not really seeing any of the supposed freaking out TBH. Michelle looks more relaxed, animated and happy than I've seen her in ages and the "covering up" Josie's shoulders with her hands just looks like she's illustrating the point they were talking about. i.e modesty in the wedding party dresses. I agree that using the word modesty in relation to a little girl is weird and rather off-putting, but Michelle doesn't look particularly upset or anything. I agree with bluebonnet; from the commentary here I was expecting something a lot worse.

[JoanArc]

FWIW, I think we've confabulated two different interviews, because I remember a version where Michelle pulls a jacket over Josie shoulders. My youtube-fu fails me in finding that one.

[ZoloftBlob]

Honestly, I have to agree, I was expecting something a little more "NO MORE WIRE HANGERS!" the way people were describing it.

[CofCinci]

I didn't know that. I was also under the assumption that JB's family wasn't in great financial shape. In the first book they wrote he told a story when he was young,that his mother had nothing to make for food and was reduced to using a decorative jar of rice to feed him with. At any rate, he certainly isn't poor now.

Oh please. I don't believe a word Jim Bob says. Lil' Jim Bob probably liked to eat paste and had his eyes on the decorative rice for months.

[NikSac]

FWIW, I think we've confabulated two different interviews, because I remember a version where Michelle pulls a jacket over Josie shoulders. My youtube-fu fails me in finding that one.

 

Yes this is what I'm remembering too. That interview with the dress-maker wasn't bad at all IMO, I could see myself saying that as in "oh crap where's that jacket I just paid for?" (although I probably wouldn't mention "modesty" as part of it, but it didn't seem all that odd). Still, great find JoanArc!  I just think there's another video or clip  or something out there. I'll try looking again.

[JenCarroll]

I notice Michelle's back muscle put in an appearance for that scene...

[JellyFishQueen]

Has the 911 report been discussed yet? @stares at pages of comments

[JenCarroll]

It's mostly in the media thread, I think.