The Duggars: In the Media and TLC

[GeeGolly]

33 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

Yep, I get what you're saying. Completely logical. Obviously in a therapeutic sense this is how you handle it and look at it. 

What I feel about the story is different, though, because this is the way it would have gone down had it happened at my house. The particular events of the Duggar story are different from the many stories I could tell in which this sort of sequence occurred, and in my house there was no Gothard teaching involved, just the family's own sick thinking, but my bet -- which could be wrong, of course  -- is that the overall arc of the story is the same .

When Joshley did his sly and curious thing and mommy and daddy went nuts shoving it under the rug so they could get fame, power and money, those girls were little kids who were repeatedly told -- a la Mr. Gothard -- that they'd burn in hell if they didn't instantly forgive their brother and start "feeling" that nothing in the least bad had happened to them. Nothing bad had happened to them because their parents said so. If anything bad had happened that would mean that the parents weren't perfect and of course that can't be true. They are the essential umbrellas of protection in the household and to disbelieve them is to court disaster.  Moreover, in Gothard land, the only real suffering you get comes when you don't instantly forgive sexual molesters and fail to realize that the molestation is showing you your own "blind spots" and flaws. (I swear that's what Gothard's crap says .... And of course it does because it was written by a serial sexual molester who intended to go right on being one until death do him part.) 

So with that being the message poured into their ears day and night for forever, that's what they "felt" about what happened with Joshley. It was nothing! It was never a problem! Mommy and Daddy are our umbrellas of protection so no problem can have happened! (the other thing that Gothard says. Because he -- the sexual molester of young women -- also strenuously teaches that children must always instantly feel and think what their "leader" adults tell them to. Surprise surprise there as well, with him being one of the leaders and all.) 

Then, having adopted these prescribed "feelings" as their own for years, when the evil police and the evil magazine told the bad and false story that their curious brother had done something wrong and maybe even their parents, too (No!!!! Never!!!!), the girls adopted the new prescribed feeling, which was this one: The only bad thing they've ever experienced during the entire history was their pain at having their brother and parents dishonestly maligned in print and their own names put out there.

(And why would it be so bad to have their names put out there? Well, probably nobody's going to spell out this argument for them, but it's bad because it shows for certain that they're the ones that brought this shame onto their brother and their parents. If it weren't for them, nobody'd be accusing their brother and parents of doing anything wrong! This shows clearly that you've betrayed your umbrella of protection, which is just like betraying Jesus, and about the worst -- and most dangerous -- thing you can do.)

Now I completely get why it's therapeutically unsound for anyone to let on to the girls that they think this is the way their "feeling" and "thinking" may have developed. And I get why everybody has to accept it at face value when they say that molestation was never a problem for them at all but the magazine story, years and years after the fact, was. 

Nevertheless, based on my own history, I just simply don't believe that those are the feelings they'd have if they hadn't been in a brainwashing situation from birth and remain in that situation today. It's the same way that I'm sure somebody who's just escaped from North Korea thinks and feels a whole lot of flat-out false stuff that they were brainwashed into and that they'll almost certainly start to doubt after they've spent a few years in the outside world. Of course, the Duggar girls will never go into the outside world. So since they're going to be in thrall to Daddy forever, it may be just as well that they see things his way. (Skeptical that it's ever good for any parents, as they all except Jana will be, to be this deluded, though...)

I do think he's putting them at risk again by signing them onto his cash-grab lawsuit, though. I'm sure they think it's a lawsuit intended to punish the real killers and vindicate their family's unblemished record of excellent parenting. But I'm also sure that JB knows it's just for money and he's either so arrogant and deluded that he doesn't realize the girls could be put into a bad situation by it or he just doesn't give a crap about that. I could go either way on that. Maybe it's both. 

All the more reason to have sympathy and empathy for the girls then ...

[toodles]

19 hours ago, hathorlive said:

I work with victims of sexual abuse and testify in court as an expert witness.  I value the privacy of the the victims.  I'm a bit torn here, however, because the girls did an interview outing themselves, where they diminished the incidents of abuse.  The names were redacted and just because this family has put every moment of their kids lives on TV, doesn't mean that the names were redacted.  Just because we know everything about them and could identify them is not really the police departments fault.  FOIA laws exist so that people and governments are held accountable for their actions.  In this case, Josh's actions were outed.  The girls were protected until they chose to identify themselves. 

The Duggars can't praise publicity for providing them with a great lifestyle and a platform to spout their religious beliefs and then cry they've been violated when that same notoriety spins out of their control to white wash events. 

Now, I will support them if they promise to donate ALL money in any settlement to organizations that work with sexual abuse victims.  Until then, please shut the fuck up and go on protecting your family molester.

Well said.  You don't get it both ways.,  

Grifters gotta grift, but once again the Boob is exploiting his daughters for whatever cash can be squeezed out of a bad situation.  He squeezed all the easy money out of side hugs and hand sex that he could.  Umpteen babies will not support the hundreds of people hanging around the compound.  

If this lawsuit comes to anything, you can bet those girls won't see a single penny from it.

[Marigold]

8 hours ago, Sew Sumi said:

I'm BethG. LOL

I was trying to quote your comment on Jill's page about deflecting blame...only got a part of the quote...anyway...

Highly doubt anyone named Duggar understands such a big word like "deflecting"  

Can't you see the Duggar who scrubs their pages stumped on the word "deflect".  :)  :)

Sew Sumi, next time, please use your 3rd grade vocabulary.  ;)

Edited May 20, 2017 by Marigold

[Churchhoney]

24 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

All the more reason to have sympathy and empathy for the girls then ...

Absolutely. But that's why the lawsuit enrages me so much. To me it's just transparently Jim Bob, and transparently just for money, and it puts the girls at risk for things I doubt they're in any way prepared for. Plus, I don't think any money they might win in it would do them any real good. For the same reason I don't think their TLC money does them any real good. Unless they learn to stand on their own feet and get money through actual employment, and soon, they're all going to be further screwed down the line (with Joy maybe being the exception, if her husband's actually going to inherit a viable business...) ....

Besides that, if they win the suit it's just going to cement them in their delusions. See, Daddy was right! I never want a damn Duggar to think that. 

And while I have sympathy and empathy for my family members, the sympathy and empathy is more for their deludedness than anything else. i.e., my sympathy and empathy wants them to be kicked out of their damn delusions, not stay in them, because I see how their delusions lead them astray about a ton of additional things. About 99 percent of the time I don't let on to this. I just have the conversations they feel like having, which are pretty much never about the actual facts. About 1 percent of the time I can't stand it any more so I tell them what I think. This has occasionally moved someone a few inches off center but it also causes a lot of turmoil and they sure backslide easy. About 100 percent of the time I feel sick about man's inhumanity to man.

So, to me, feeling sympathy and empathy for the Duggar girls doesn't include hoping that they get to hold onto what I consider the damaging false beliefs that I think they have only because they've been made into puppets by the two evil trolls they call their godly parents. I think they're poor things. But I don't think they're the kind of poor things who are actually helped by having anybody express sympathy. I think all they get from that is the status quo, with which I'm not very impressed. The problem is, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be helped by somebody throwing a bucket of cold water on them and telling them to wake up, either. I think they're the kind of poor things who are basically doomed to be Jim Bob's hand puppets. Long after Jim Bob's moldering in the grave. I have futile sympathy for them. And the whole situation pisses me off beyond belief. It's what's wrong with the human race, in a nutshell, in my opinion. 

[lascuba]

Please tell me that this means the Duggars will have to disclose just how much money they have now compared to before In Touch. I want those financial records.

14 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

And that's a good thing?

Those people got on TV and said the sibling molestation was no big deal and not reporting it to the proper authorities is the correct thing to do. So yes, , them suffering during a trial that they sought out is a very good thing.

13 hours ago, Oldernowiser said:

Can anyone think of a credible reason that isn't just a naked money grab that JimBlob would wait two years before filing, other than he might view the victims as being somehow compromised as marriage material, because that one makes me want to projectile vomit. The idea that a father, any father, would view the molestation of his daughters as somehow being their burden??? I can't with that.

So...why go after this now?

I really think that they all thought things would be back to normal by now, and since that hasn't happened they both want to recoup their financial losses as well as save face. They're too stupid to realize that this lawsuit will have the opposite effect no matter what the outcome...in their minds a win or even settlement means vindication, that god is telling the world that they were right about everything. Also, even if they've considered the fact that they might lose, they might see this suit as a way to prove their honesty. Remember how Jim Bob slandered the (iirc) police chief, saying that she probably accepted a bribe to release those reports? At the time a lot of people were saying that if he really believed that, as well as believing that In Touch had committed libel against them, that the family would sue.

[sometimesy]

Maybe Jill's tweet was a weathervane. 

[GeeGolly]

29 minutes ago, lascuba said:

Please tell me that this means the Duggars will have to disclose just how much money they have now compared to before In Touch. I want those financial records.

Those people got on TV and said the sibling molestation was no big deal and not reporting it to the proper authorities is the correct thing to do. So yes, , them suffering during a trial that they sought out is a very good thing.

I really think that they all thought things would be back to normal by now, and since that hasn't happened they both want to recoup their financial losses as well as save face. They're too stupid to realize that this lawsuit will have the opposite effect no matter what the outcome...in their minds a win or even settlement means vindication, that god is telling the world that they were right about everything. Also, even if they've considered the fact that they might lose, they might see this suit as a way to prove their honesty. Remember how Jim Bob slandered the (iirc) police chief, saying that she probably accepted a bribe to release those reports? At the time a lot of people were saying that if he really believed that, as well as believing that In Touch had committed libel against them, that the family would sue.

Wow, to me that feels worse than seeing their idiots parents mess them up with a skewed belief system. Because half of JB's & M's idiocy is cluelessness. Wishing survivors of molestation more pain feels harsh.

[toodles]

http://pagesix.com/2017/05/19/networks-fight-for-duggar-sexual-molestation-lawsuit-exclusive/

REALLY?  REALLY??????????????  OMG, I have no words.

[JoanArc]

40 minutes ago, sometimesy said:

Maybe Jill's tweet was a weathervane. 

It's kind of beautiful, that for all the attempts outsiders have made to bring the Duggars down (or more accurately - to truth / justice) it'll be their hubris, greed, and idiocy that brings them down.

 

Quote

The suit claims that In Touch published nine articles about the Duggars, which caused the girls to “relive painful memories”

"It was nothing!" Right?

Edited May 20, 2017 by JoanArc

[Catfin]

The Grift is strong with this family. Completely disgusting. 

[Marigold]

4 hours ago, sigmaforce86 said:

This, This, This!  I was going to say the same thing and I wish it was part of the news stories because it's probably the most important point AND it throws the blame for the info becoming public right back where it belongs; on Jim Bob.  As tough as it must be to take your child through the legal system (in "normal" families), if he had followed through and let the court and CPS handle it from start to finish then whole thing would have been official sealed as juvenile court  records.  His choice to sweep it under the rug, not get Josh real help, tell the girls it was no big deal and not allow full follow up left them with an informal report that has no privacy protection for the family especially the girls.  

 

Doesn't this victimize the girls twice?

First, the abuse happened.

Second, the father did not follow up and because of poor parenting decisions, the girls records are able to be accessed and published? A minor girl cannot be held accountable for the stupidity of their parents. 

I am really surprised at this whole privacy situation. I had no idea about any of this.  I really believed that this was private.  Don't they always tell girls to "tell someone".  Well, apparently not, depending on if the offender is charged and prosecuted. How is a girl supposed to know all this at the time?    

I have three minor daughters. I have to say that if any of them were sexually assaulted, I would really rethink how I would handle it. I would retain an attorney immediately so my daughters would be protected and not misled by a police officer or any other officials.  What if it's a violent assault?  My daughter has to worry about this while in an emergency room and a police officer is interviewing her? 

I'm completely disgusted at all of this. I really hope I am not understanding this correctly. The message I get is that "private is not really private" 

Edited May 20, 2017 by Marigold

[Oldernowiser]

If they had filed that lawsuit two years ago, it would have made some sense to me. Again, it took them two years to get mad enough and feel exploited enough to get a lawyer?

And now they're selling the opportunity to revisit their trauma in the most public way possible to the highest bidder? I've had some things in my past that it took me decades to be able to say to a therapist... I'd rather cut off my arm than discuss them in public, let alone televise it.

It comes down to this...first, whether their premise that they're doing this to protect other victims passes the smell test...nope. Based on everything we've seen from these people, they don't give a rusty damn about others and teach that victims bring sexual abuse on themselves, anyway.

Second, if in fact the girls deep down wanted nothing to do with this lawsuit or all the shenanigans two years ago and are being strongarmed by JimBob...then I hope he dies ugly and soon. But if that's what is happening here, they are far better actors than they've ever shown any bit of in the past.

I get what GeeGolly is saying, but it's tough to feel any sympathy for victims who reject the molestation was bad, supported burying it and instantly forgiving the abuser, and are now bringing it all back up publicly for money.

[doodlebug]

5 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

Say there were two guys in the Vietnam war; Head Cook Clint and Troop Leader Larry.  Clint heard stories of the front line and lost a couple of buddies and came home with PTSD. Larry was at the front line and saw and participated in gun fire came home without PTSD.

Larry can't be outraged that the war occurred, but Clint can be?

From what I'm hearing the Duggar 4 can only be upset that the molestations were made public if they feel damaged and hate Josh & their parents. And because their parents suck they should garner no sympathy as survivors of molestation. 

I'm guessing my perspective is different because many of the folks I work with have relationships (broad term) with their abusers and come from crappy homes. 

I don't think anyone blames the Duggar girls for being outraged that their story went public.  However, being outraged and deserving compensation are two different things.  And publicly declaring that their only motivation is to protect the rights of other children who were abuse rings pretty hollow when the Duggar girls express no outrage that their parents did little to stop the molestations and repeatedly protected their molester at their expense.  It's the willful refusal to see the facts as they really are and to acknowledge that the whole situation was handled poorly and that it started with their parents that fires most of us up.

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, lascuba said:

 

Those people got on TV and said the sibling molestation was no big deal and not reporting it to the proper authorities is the correct thing to do. So yes, , them suffering during a trial that they sought out is a very good thing.

 

Yikes. I'd go with this if it were just Jim Bob (....and Michelle and Josh...). But while I'd like to hit the girls upside the head, I really don't want them to have to go into a courtroom. I don't think any of them is actually up to that. Plus two of them are mothers of young children and have relatively useless husbands, and I'd hate to see their little kids get even more fallout as mom collapses or goes ballistic or whatever. 

I really really don't want JB to get some big settlement out of it. Of course, my top option is that the four girls wake up some morning soon and say -- Oh, crap -- Dad's just setting us up for something horrible here, and then he'll pocket a lot of the cash if there is any. And then they call the lawyers and end the suit. And then they figure out that they've been played for patsies their whole lives and stop being marionettes. Of course that's not going to happen. So my second preference is that both sides kind of blink and JB just gets to go away. Or he gets to go away with $100 or something. Or he gets to go away after paying the other guys' court costs. Of course that won't happen either. Which is another reason why the whole thing makes me sick. 

Might be worth it if it somehow ended in them getting taken off the air, I suppose. But I'm sure that won't happen either. I just don't see how this can end well for anyone. But I suppose that's because I don't call a big wad of cash falling into Jim Bob's pocket and his stupid family being further seduced into further brainwashing about his genius a win of any kind. Crap.

[lascuba]

33 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Wow, to me that feels worse than seeing their idiots parents mess them up with a skewed belief system. Because half of JB's & M's idiocy is cluelessness. Wishing survivors of molestation more pain feels harsh.

Survivors of molestation don't get a free pass. They're still adults with agency and it's condescending and irresponsible to refuse to hold them accountable for their words and actions because something bad--that they deny was all that bad--happened to them when they children. 

[EarlGreyTea]

I wonder at the timing of this. They've waited this long. Couldn't they have waited until after Joy's wedding? This dredges up all the drama yet again, and now her wedding (already pretty overshadowed by the fact that it's, what, the fifth in the family?) is going to be up alongside articles about this lawsuit. And people will now be going on Josh watch yet again at her wedding, like they did for Jinger's, only even worse, because the lawsuit is so fresh.

When God was choosing people to bestow brains on, the Duggars were not on the short list.

Edited May 20, 2017 by EarlGreyTea

[Nysha]

4 minutes ago, Oldernowiser said:

I get what GeeGolly is saying, but it's tough to feel any sympathy for victims who reject the molestation was bad, supported burying it and instantly forgiving the abuser, and are now bringing it all back up publicly for money.

This is where I'm at. I felt sorry for the girls 2 years ago, but now they're bringing this all back out so they can make money off something they claim was "no big deal". I think they're going to have a hard to proving the story caused financial hardship for the girls, since they have a new show. And all the In Touch story really did was prove that the Internet rumors about Josh were true, the information was already out before the magazine published it.

[Churchhoney]

38 minutes ago, toodles said:

http://pagesix.com/2017/05/19/networks-fight-for-duggar-sexual-molestation-lawsuit-exclusive/

REALLY?  REALLY??????????????  OMG, I have no words.

I'm still confused by how you can be forced to relive painful memories of something that you claim wasn't painful in the first place. 

If this kind of talk isn't proof that they're hopelessly and endlessly confused about what's going on with them I don't know what is. Plus, of course, it's proof that the whole thing is a big Jim Bob PR stunt to get the the whole damn family (read: him) back on full-time tv. To show all the rest of us what truly godly people are like. What a frigging mess. 

[doodlebug]

4 minutes ago, EarlGreyTea said:

I wonder at the timing of this. They've waited this long. Couldn't they have waited until after Joy's wedding? This dredges up all the drama yet again, and now her wedding (already pretty overshadowed by the fact that it's, what, the fifth in the family?) is going to be up alongside articles about this lawsuit. And people will now be going on Josh watch yet again at her wedding, like they did for Jinger's, only even worse, because the lawsuit is so fresh.

When God was choosing people to bestow brains on, the Duggars were not on the short list.

Many of us suspect that the statute of limitations was about to expire, so waiting to file was not an option.  They also probably couldn't move up the date of the wedding due to having sold the rights to People and TLC and having to work within their schedules.

[toodles]

9 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

I'm still confused by how you can be forced to relive painful memories of something that you claim wasn't painful in the first place. 

If this kind of talk isn't proof that they're hopelessly and endlessly confused about what's going on with them I don't know what is. Plus, of course, it's proof that the whole thing is a big Jim Bob PR stunt to get the the whole damn family (read: him) back on full-time tv. To show all the rest of us what truly godly people are like. What a frigging mess. 

 

12 minutes ago, EarlGreyTea said:

I wonder at the timing of this. They've waited this long. Couldn't they have waited until after Joy's wedding? This dredges up all the drama yet again, and now her wedding (already pretty overshadowed by the fact that it's, what, the fifth in the family?) is going to be up alongside articles about this lawsuit. And people will now be going on Josh watch yet again at her wedding, like they did for Jinger's, only even worse, because the lawsuit is so fresh.

When God was choosing people to bestow brains on, the Duggars were not on the short list.

Mechelle and boob were too busy dry humping at the end of the very long brains line and they missed their turn.

Whatever sympathy I had for the victims is gone.  Selling themselves to the highest bidder did it for me.  And their husbands are just as bad.  Not one of them have the guts to say no to boob.  Shame on the whole lot of them.

 

ETA:  I guess I found my words after all.

Edited May 20, 2017 by toodles

[doodlebug]

5 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

I'm still confused by how you can be forced to relive painful memories of something that you claim wasn't painful in the first place. 

If this kind of talk isn't proof that they're hopelessly and endlessly confused about what's going on with them I don't know what is. Plus, of course, it's proof that the whole thing is a big Jim Bob PR stunt to get the the whole damn family (read: him) back on full-time tv. To show all the rest of us what truly godly people are like. What a frigging mess. 

It's not the memories of the abuse that is painful.  Remember the brainwashing.  If they suffered pain it was because now all their likeminded Gothardite friends knew that the girls were brazen temptresses who lured their brother into committing vile acts, proving to the world that the girls were not Godly enough.  It also exposed their parents to negative publicity that they didn't deserve, being the most Godly, wonderful parents ever,  They will have to claim these things as the cause of their anguish and see how a jury feels about it.

I don't doubt the girls felt pain and anguish over what happened when the reports became public, its just that they are not programmed to feel pain and anguish over the molestation, which is what most of us would feel in that circumstance.

[lascuba]

7 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

Yikes. I'd go with this if it were just Jim Bob (....and Michelle and Josh...). But while I'd like to hit the girls upside the head, I really don't want them to have to go into a courtroom. I don't think any of them is actually up to that. Plus two of them are mothers of young children and have relatively useless husbands, and I'd hate to see their little kids get even more fallout as mom collapses or goes ballistic or whatever. 

I really really don't want JB to get some big settlement out of it. Of course, my top option is that the four girls wake up some morning soon and say -- Oh, crap -- Dad's just setting us up for something horrible here, and then he'll pocket a lot of the cash if there is any. And then they call the lawyers and end the suit. And then they figure out that they've been played for patsies their whole lives and stop being marionettes. Of course that's not going to happen. So my second preference is that both sides kind of blink and JB just gets to go away. Or he gets to go away with $100 or something. Or he gets to go away after paying the other guys' court costs. Of course that won't happen either. Which is another reason why the whole thing makes me sick. 

Might be worth it if it somehow ended in them getting taken off the air, I suppose. But I'm sure that won't happen either. I just don't see how this can end well for anyone. But I suppose that's because I don't call a big wad of cash falling into Jim Bob's pocket and his stupid family being further seduced into further brainwashing about his genius a win of any kind. Crap.

I really believe that JB is the driving force behind this (though I'm not at all convinced that the girls are being railroaded), but in the context of this lawsuit and how lawyers will treat them on the stand? Why exactly should they be given any leeway there (or anywhere else, really)? Yes, we all know about their beliefs and their toxic family dynamic, that they're all emotional 12 year olds, but why should they be treated as such, especially in court? When it comes down to it legal adults with mental capacity (they're stupid but technically they have capacity) should be treated as adults, and that means that in real-life interactions, people should take their words for it that they mean what they say and that they want what they claim to want, and they should be treated accordingly. So when those nitwits get on the stand (GODS, let there be a trial) with their claims of revictimization and all that jazz, yes, the lawyers need to really get on their asses about that and bring up all the shit they said before and make them explain themselves. 

[Marigold]

6 minutes ago, lascuba said:

Survivors of molestation don't get a free pass. They're still adults with agency and it's condescending and irresponsible to refuse to hold them accountable for their words and actions because something bad--that they deny was all that bad--happened to them when they children. 

Maybe they were in denial about how bad it really was? Maybe they were in shock over what really happened to them? 

Maybe they changed their mind over the past two years, grew up and processed what the hell happened to them?

That's all I know is that four minor girls were sexually abused by a male.  Everyone admits that it happened so there is no question of someone is lying. Based on that alone, I'm taking the side of four minor girls who were abused.  The fact that those minor girls had Jim Bob as a father and the last name of Duggar, to me, is not an issue.

Truly, I see Jill, Jess, Jinger and Joy as children, being abused by a male.  That is wrong.  The male should've been prosecuted but he wasn't because of poor decisions made on behalf of the 4 minor girls.  Then private information was released about those 4 minor girls.  Again, I feel that is wrong.  I didn't know the privacy law was so lax for minors and that really upsets me. 

 

***My opinion is the timing of the suit is suspicious and I feel Jim Bob is involved in all of this somehow.  But, truly, we don't know that at all. We suspect based on this insane family and all of their shenanigans in the past that is a rating grasb.  I hear what you all are saying and agree that the whole crew can be slippery.  

[Churchhoney]

46 minutes ago, Marigold said:

 

I am really surprised at this whole privacy situation. I had no idea about any of this.  I really believed that this was private.  Don't they always tell girls to "tell someone".  Well, apparently not, depending on if the offender is charged and prosecuted. How is a girl supposed to know all this at the time?    

 

You know, I think the evil folks who've held power over the millennia have brainwashed all of us into something very very very damaging, but very much to their continued advantage, of course.

They've made us believe that shame attaches to people who are abused by stronger people. That it's being abused in some way because you're younger or physically weaker or less malicious or just in the wrong place in the wrong time is what we have to be so ashamed of and hide and keep private. But in fact this whole stupid mythology is just shit that's been pushed on us by the victimizers to keep their misdeeds and their evil natures "private." Mainly so they can keep getting away with it. 

Everybody buys this idea that the victims of evil crap have "a right" not to be known as victims. But I swear that's just a stinking bill of goods we've been sold over the centuries by the victimizers. When the abused aren't known then neither are the abusers. ... Note that what got the Duggar girls unmasked is the fact that their damn parents -- perpetrators par excellence -- were named in the reports. .... So to "protect the girls" the entire source of the evil had to be "protected" too. Bullshit, I say. 

I'm biased on this because I was always the one who went around telling people exactly what was happening in my house. Everyone else was ashamed of their victimhood and were mad to hush everything up.

But I knew who was to blame, and it wasn't me or any of the other victims. So to me it was a badge of pride to tell everybody I could corner about exactly what happened and who was at fault and who wasn't. Of course back in the olden days nobody did a damn thing about abuse in families. So nothing ever happened. People just looked at me blinking. And I'm sure that it wasn't just my family who thought I was nuts, but everyone.

And I still didn't care. The truth was that people were being treated like shit and I was able to tell everybody I could corner who was doing it and what they were doing. So maybe some people felt just a leetle bit more doubt about the "I'm so great" mask that the particular perpetrators in our case so successfully wore. I'm still proud that I was the person who did, even though in a practical sense not one thing was accomplished except that I got a reputation as a nut.

Internally, though, I won. And I won for life. My damn soul was not entirely in chains with some kind of misguided shame over somebody else mistreating me. We should handle out hero's medals to all mistreated people. And they should prominently feature the faces of the people who mistreated them. And they should read -- "This is the piece of shit who mistreated me. If you see this face somewhere, spit on it. And don't believe a word that comes out of this malicious mouth."

The whole shame thing needs to be turned upside down. 

This whole Duggar thing just throws into high relief the incredible backwards crap of it all. Nothing that any Duggar has ever said about this whole history has every made a lick of sense. And that's because our whole way of looking at such things is completely warped. 

Nevertheless, I hope to heck this never goes to court. 

Edited May 20, 2017 by Churchhoney

[Churchhoney]

12 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

It's not the memories of the abuse that is painful.  Remember the brainwashing.  If they suffered pain it was because now all their likeminded Gothardite friends knew that the girls were brazen temptresses who lured their brother into committing vile acts, proving to the world that the girls were not Godly enough.  It also exposed their parents to negative publicity that they didn't deserve, being the most Godly, wonderful parents ever,  They will have to claim these things as the cause of their anguish and see how a jury feels about it.

I don't doubt the girls felt pain and anguish over what happened when the reports became public, its just that they are not programmed to feel pain and anguish over the molestation, which is what most of us would feel in that circumstance.

Yes, exactly. But they aren't putting it that way. They're putting it in a way that, to me, shows how completely confused they are about the whole thing (and that they could use a good, real therapist), and that they don't have a clue about what you're correctly saying here is one of the real sources of their pain. The family's endless lying about what really is going on here means they can't talk about it in a way that makes any sense at all. 

[Marigold]

1 minute ago, Churchhoney said:

You know, I think the evil folks who've held power over the millennia have brainwashed all of us into something very very very damaging, but very much to their continued advantage, of course.

They've made us believe that shame attaches to people who are abused by stronger people. That it's being abused in some way because you're younger or physically weaker or less malicious or just in the wrong place in the wrong time is what we have to be so ashamed of and hide and keep private. But in fact this whole stupid mythology is just shit that's been pushed on us by the victimizers to keep their misdeeds and their evil natures "private." Mainly so they can keep getting away with it. 

Everybody buys this idea that the victims of evil crap have "a right" not to be known as victims. But I swear that's just a stinking bill of goods we've been sold over the centuries by the victimizers. When the abused aren't known then neither are the abusers. ... Note that what got the Duggar girls unmasked is the fact that their damn parents -- perpetrators par excellence -- were named in the reports. .... So to "protect the girls" the entire source of the evil had to be "protected" too. Bullshit, I say. 

I'm biased on this because I was always the one who went around telling people exactly what was happening in my house. Everyone else was ashamed of their victimhood and were mad to hush everything up.

But I knew who was to blame, and it wasn't me or any of the other victims. So to me it was a badge of pride to tell everybody I could corner about exactly what happened and who was at fault and who wasn't. Of course back in the olden days nobody did a damn thing about abuse in families. So nothing ever happened. People just looked at me blinking. And I'm sure that it wasn't just my family who thought I was nuts, but everyone.

And I still didn't care. The truth was that people were being treated like shit and I was able to tell everybody I could corner who was doing it and what they were doing. So maybe some people felt just a leetle bit more doubt about the "I'm so great" mask that the particular perpetrators in our case so successfully wore. I'm still proud that I was the person who did, even though in a practical sense not one thing was accomplished except that I got a reputation as a nut.

Internally, though, I won. And I won for life. My damn soul was not entirely in chains with some kind of misguided shame over somebody else mistreating me. We should handle out hero's medals to all mistreated people. And they should prominently feature the faces of the people who mistreated them. And they should read -- "This is the piece of shit who mistreated me. If you see this face somewhere, spit on it. And don't believe a word that comes out of this malicious mouth."

The whole shame thing needs to be turned upside down. 

I agree with you there.

I'm not a private person and I feel that the Duggar girls should have NO SHAME about what happened.  i wish they had shouted it from the rooftops! I wish everyone who was abused would just say it so we would know the beast that did it!  

I was not sexually abused but my father was physically abusive.  I say it. I will tell you whatever you want to know.  I have no shame.  It's not my fault he beat me and I'm not staying quiet. 

But I know everyone is not like me and you.  Some people are really private people.  My mom never discussed my father and his abuse. She was private by nature and I know she was embarrassed she married such a violent man. She did not appreciate my big mouth! 

The Duggars are confusing because they are public but yet want private when it suits them.  I do understand why it is annoying the crap outta people. ;)

I do feel it should be the person's choice to disclose information and that bugs me about the Duggar situation.  They had no control over the assault, the parents handled it badly and then their life spun out of control when their abuse was revealed.  Something about this situation elicits my sympathy for the Duggar girls on this particular topic. 

[lascuba]

2 minutes ago, Marigold said:

Maybe they were in denial about how bad it really was? Maybe they were in shock over what really happened to them? 

Maybe they changed their mind over the past two years, grew up and processed what the hell happened to them?

That's all I know is that four minor girls were sexually abused by a male.  Everyone admits that it happened so there is no question of someone is lying. Based on that alone, I'm taking the side of four minor girls who were abused.  The fact that those minor girls had Jim Bob as a father and the last name of Duggar, to me, is not an issue.

Truly, I see Jill, Jess, Jinger and Joy as children, being abused by a male.  That is wrong.  The male should've been prosecuted but he wasn't because of poor decisions made on behalf of the 4 minor girls.  Then private information was released about those 4 minor girls.  Again, I feel that is wrong.  I didn't know the privacy law was so lax for minors and that really upsets me. 

 

***My opinion is the timing of the suit is suspicious and I feel Jim Bob is involved in all of this somehow.  But, truly, we don't know that at all. We suspect based on this insane family and all of their shenanigans in the past that is a rating grasb.  I hear what you all are saying and agree that the whole crew can be slippery.  

IANAL but I'm not sure privacy laws for minors are all that lax. We're talking about people who live public lives  and therefore media would be interested in filing FOIA (or the state equivalent) request for their records. Those records were redacted but because they're public figures and tv fans/haters know a lot of details, they were able to guess who was involved, something I think most people wouldn't have guessed would happen. And regardless of what people on message boards were guessing, the media still didn't release names. Also, if the post about privacy laws not applying because there was no trail is correct, well, shit like that happens all the time. There are unforeseen loopholes to laws, and with all this, I'm sure Arkansas and other states will close that loophole if they haven't already.  IMO, you can't extrapolate what happened to the Duggars to the general public. 

As for the rest of your post, again, people shouldn't be treated like our armchair psychoanalysis tells as to treat them. Denial, brainwashing, etc...what does any of that have to do with how people should react to the words that come out of their mouths? I maintain that it's condescending and inappropriate, and no lawyer should hold back when the state some nonsense in court. 

[hathorlive]

39 minutes ago, Oldernowiser said:

It comes down to this...first, whether their premise that they're doing this to protect other victims passes the smell test...nope. Based on everything we've seen from these people, they don't give a rusty damn about others and teach that victims bring sexual abuse on themselves, anyway.

And let's face it, everything their religious cult teaches is that other victims are shameless pants wearing hussies who are damned for eternity.  All victims except them, who are gods purest.  The hypocrisy is sickening.  Again, if they give any judgement to charities for victims of sexual abuse, I'll apologize and say I'm sorry.  But they won't give a single nickel to anyone but their own gravy train.

 

28 minutes ago, lascuba said:

Survivors of molestation don't get a free pass. They're still adults with agency and it's condescending and irresponsible to refuse to hold them accountable for their words and actions because something bad--that they deny was all that bad--happened to them when they children. 

This. This. This!  I refuse to treat them like six year olds even though they have the intellect of one.  They are grown women (with the exception of Joy) who are married with kids of their own.  Would they let that kind of abuse go on with their kids?  Would they even call it abuse?  You don't get to downplay the criminal actions your brother committed and then turn around and sue everyone not involved in the criminal activity.  Many people suffer trauma as kids but still pick up their jacks and get on with life. 

Again, we haven't heard them send out robo calls demanded tougher privacy laws for juvenile victims.  We've not seen them get into with Mike Huckabee and ask him to use his political connections to protect the victims.  They don't care about making the laws better or stronger.  They care about a paycheck.  I feel for the little girls who were thrown to the lions in favor of the oldest son, but behavior like this makes me despise Christians.  I hope they get fed to some legal lions for this bullshit.

And since they are adults and have the ability to watch TV shows with lawyers and judges and crime stuff, maybe they should ask "what would it like to be deposed?  Would I have to put my hand on the bible and then say the word "penis" in public?"   They want a free check but they have no clue what it will cost them.  Not that Jim Bob cares.

[sometimesy]

@hathorlive 

Joy is also a grown woman. She is young, but she is an adult woman. 

[BitterApple]

The first line of the police report states: "The victims are blank, blank, blank, blank who live with their parents Jim Bob and Michelle blank." 

Given that the previous page identifies the four victims as female and there were only five female children in the Duggar household at the time, they might as well not even have bothered with blacking *some* details out. I can't imagine there's that many Jim Bob's and Michelle's in that tiny town that there was even the slightest chance this could've been another family. I understand the report was obtained legally, but I still don't think it was ethical to release that kind of information. YMMV.

[toodles]

Selling your story to the highest bidder for spin and profit, regardless of who is behind the idea is handing the plaintiff a loaded gun IMHO.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV.  We all saw how well that went for OJ in his civil case.

[hathorlive]

Which is a great reason the Duggar family should use the power of their television show to preach about privacy protections of victims.  But they won't.  Because they don't care.  This is all about information that got out that hurt their image and slowed their revenue stream.  They have downplayed and minimized what happened, saying the report was false.  How can it be damaging when it didn't happen that way, the report was wrong, nothing bad occurred? 
They can't be outraged when nothing happened.  And that's what they've been spinning since this came out.

[Love2dance]

@Churchhoney, the courage, and moral compass you possesed as a child/ young adult was remarkable. And every day you are teaching those of us on this site important lessons. Thank you!

[toodles]

But there is no Binjermins to be made off of the it never happened  story.  If it never happened, how can they make $$$.  The big money comes from the poor wronged girls and how they never wanted people to know.  Two years after the information was released.  They weren't victims of Josh or their parents.  They were victims of the ebil media and fake news.

There is no money to be made from trying to change a law that allowed the release of the information to happen in the first place.  

[Rabbittron]

Just my 2 cents did they file the case to take the heat off Smuggar's lawsuit?

[sometimesy]

Is there a disconnect with their audience, or will the dirt dug up here completely bury Josh and possibly the show. I'm trying to think of any motivation the tabloid would have to settle this quickly and I really can't think of one. 

[lascuba]

2 minutes ago, sometimesy said:

Is there a disconnect with their audience, or will the dirt dug up here completely bury Josh and possibly the show. I'm trying to think of any motivation the tabloid would have to settle this quickly and I really can't think of one. 

I can't imagine In Touch will settle...everything they did was within the law. They didn't lie about a thing, and if nothing else a trial will give them years worth of fodder. I'd like to think that the owners and lawyers aren't at all bothered by this. 

I'm guessing the Duggars might have a case against the city, but even then, they redacted the minors' info while keeping JB/M's names in. Yes, that made things a lot either for internet sleuths, but the letter of the law was followed. And it would be a fair argument to say that it was the Duggars' TV show and their own release of private information like ages and such that made any outing of victims possible. Hell, In Touch could even argue that JB's former political career, their open sponsorships of political candidates, and Josh's position in a political group made everything they did a matter of public interest.

[ginger90]

What was the actual date this law suit was filed?

[Mollie]

Pickles posted this:

"Anyway, you should be aware that no one knew for sure, before this lawsuit was filed, that Jinger was a victim and Jana wasn't. We just assumed this by reading the 'Alice' letter that was posted on a message board many years ago.

"Jinger has never admitted being molested and Jana has never denied not being a victim. Jinger did not appear on Fox News to lie about the crimes committed by her brother as Jessa and Jill did and her age was not a giveaway in the police reports as was Joy's case. So, being accused of breaching Jinger's privacy needs to be thrown back at the woman's father. Jim Bob must be proud at officially outing Jinger after all these years."

Actually, just from the police reports which were released, you can't even tell who the perpetrator was or if male or female because the pronouns were blacked out.  In Touch pointed at Josh from an inside source.  The next day Josh confesssed online.  Without that disclosusre, you could read the reports and just as easily conclude that Jana was the molester or another brother.

1 minute ago, ginger90 said:

What was the actual date this law suit was filed?

May 18, 2017

[Absolom]

2 hours ago, doodlebug said:

Many of us suspect that the statute of limitations was about to expire, so waiting to file was not an option.  They also probably couldn't move up the date of the wedding due to having sold the rights to People and TLC and having to work within their schedules.

Which again emphasizes the dim witted nature of the Duggars.  They've known, could have known, should have known the statute of limitations for two full years so could easily have scheduled the wedding at a "better" time or filed the lawsuit at a different time.

Edited May 20, 2017 by Absolom

[ginger90]

On the duggar family blog (not run by duggars) they quoted Jill's tweet about the suit but didn't acknowledge that's where it was from.

Does anyone know where this quote on there is from, by chance?

"This case is solely about protecting children who are victims of abuse. Revealing juvenile identities under these circumstances is unacceptable, and it’s against the law. The media and custodians of public records who let these children down must be held accountable. This case has vast implications for all our children. We hope that by bringing this case to the public’s attention, all children will be protected from reckless reporting." 

-Jill Dillard, Jessa Seewald, Jinger Vuolo, and Joy Duggar 

Edited May 20, 2017 by ginger90

[Mollie]

2 minutes ago, ginger90 said:

On the duggar family blog (not run by duggars) they quoted Jill's tweet about the suit but didn't acknowledge that's where it was from.

Does anyone know where this quote on there is from, by chance?

"This case is solely about protecting children who are victims of abuse. Revealing juvenile identities under these circumstances is unacceptable, and it’s against the law. The media and custodians of public records who let these children down must be held accountable. This case has vast implications for all our children. We hope that by bringing this case to the public’s attention, all children will be protected from reckless reporting." 

-Jill Dillard, Jessa Seewald, Jinger Vuolo, and Joy Duggar 

That's a quote from Page Six, given to them from an unidentified source.

http://pagesix.com/2017/05/19/networks-fight-for-duggar-sexual-molestation-lawsuit-exclusive/

[kokapetl]

21 minutes ago, Mollie said:

Pickles posted this:

"Anyway, you should be aware that no one knew for sure, before this lawsuit was filed, that Jinger was a victim and Jana wasn't. We just assumed this by reading the 'Alice' letter that was posted on a message board many years ago.

"Jinger has never admitted being molested and Jana has never denied not being a victim. Jinger did not appear on Fox News to lie about the crimes committed by her brother as Jessa and Jill did and her age was not a giveaway in the police reports as was Joy's case. So, being accused of breaching Jinger's privacy needs to be thrown back at the woman's father. Jim Bob must be proud at officially outing Jinger after all these years."

Actually, just from the police reports which were released, you can't even tell who the perpetrator was or if male or female because the pronouns were blacked out.  In Touch pointed at Josh from an inside source.  The next day Josh confesssed online.  Without that disclosusre, you could read the reports and just as easily conclude that Jana was the molester or another brother.

May 18, 2017

You could tell who 3 of the victims were just by the length of the redacted names. Jill and Jana could be individually identified because the non victim with a 4 letter name was working towards their high school diploma, and Jill was too young to be that person. 

[Catfin]

I wonder if the spouses are complicit in the filing. Bin is a clueless idiot, Derek should have insight, having been raised in the real world. Jeremy as well. My disgust for these people grows. 

[SMama]

It saddens me that although married (Joy soon to be), Boob is the definite headship of the 3. Joy had to go along, the 3 not at all. I would have expected Jeremy to object, based on what further damage the exposure, depositions, etc. would cause his already fragile wife. Boob and Mullet are certainly despicable, reprehensible, amoral creatures. 

[ginger90]

So, unless I missed it, the privacy issue is centered on the females, and does not include the minor (at the time) male, correct?

[Mollie]

16 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

You could tell who 3 of the victims were just by the length of the redacted names. Jill and Jana could be individually identified because the non victim with a 4 letter name was working towards their high school diploma, and Jill was too young to be that person. 

The general public wouldn't even know the girls' names nor their ages.  The public was vaguely aware of the 19-kid family named 'Duggar' (not from the TV show, but from appearances on Good Morning America and from magazine articles), but that's about it.  Their die-hard fans support them no matter what they do.  The disclosure of the police reports, outing of pervert Josh Duggar and the exposure of the coverup by Jim Bob and Michelle gave the Duggars more notoriety than they ever had before.

From memory, I doubt that anyone on this forum can name all 19 kids and their ages.   

3 minutes ago, ginger90 said:

So, unless I missed it, the privacy issue is centered on the females, and does not include the minor (at the time) male, correct?

Josh was 18 when the police investigated.  The reason he wasn't charged with a crime is because the statute of limitations at that time had expired.  In fact, they never interviewed Josh because he wouldn't come in voluntarily, like Jim Bob promised the police that he would.  Instead, he hired a lawyer, after two big law firms refused to represent him.  Because of the statute of limitations (no doubt, pointed out by Josh's lawyer), the police couldn't force him to come in.

Edited May 20, 2017 by Mollie

[ms.o]

I work in the foster care system and have had several cases "hit the media". Reports were blacked out, FOIA was done appropriate, etc but sometimes it was pretty damn obvious who the victim was: "John Doe sent to prison for rape of daughter". Sometimes they are not: "John Doe being charged with moleststion of 12 yr old girl".  Obviously my kids DID NOTHING WRONG, but all the personal details of their abuse being put out there embarrassed the hell out of them. 

It was especially difficult for the cases where victim wasn't obvious. Online commenters can be trolls and schoolmates can be horrible. One of my foster kids had all of her new friends talking about her abuse not knowing it was her. She told me later she felt even more violated and just wanted to scream "fuck you".

so - I do understand concept of protecting victims in that the media doesn't need to put out details, ages, etc for gossip. If the victim wants to talk, that is their choice and no one elses

that being said -The Duggars can shut it .  Do NOT feed me this bullshit that this is to protect others. I don't believe you AT ALL.  This is to save your brand and that's it. 

Edited May 20, 2017 by ms.o

[Churchhoney]

5 minutes ago, ms.o said:

that being said -The Duggars can shut it .  Do NOT feed me this bullshit that this is to protect others. I don't believe you AT ALL.  This is to save your brand and that's it. 

 

Well, also for cash.

[Rabbittron]

I  hope when they lose the case they are made to pay for the Intouch and tke Arkansas lawyers.