The Duggars: In the Media and TLC

[Darknight]

TLC is possibly taking a note from the Duck Dynasty scandal where A&E acted immediately, suspended Phil Robertson "indefinitely," then reinstated him a little over a week later because certain fans were up in arms demanding his return. It was embarrassing for the network and they had to do a lot of backpedaling. But with all of these sponsors dropping like flies, it just seems inevitable that this show, in this form, is a goner.

I still don't get why these networks are so scared of fans. Is money that important? ? I swear these people could commit murder and all they have to do is repent and it's all better

[Hpmec]

If TLC thinks they can salvage this by spinning off a series focusing on Jill and Derick and Benessa, they can go ahead and try, but I think it would be about as interesting as watching paint dry. They'd have to pretend as though Josh, Anna, and kids don't exist, which would mean they couldn't be part of any filmed family group activity. And what about Boob and J'Chelle, the parents who failed to protect their daughters and kept a known molester in the home. Could they ever show their faces on camera? The Dillards and Seewalds have nothing to offer that viewers haven't seen before. I think TLC needs to look at the situation realistically and put the Duggar franchise out of its misery.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Hpmec

[Suzee2]

According to a prominent reality executive speaking on the condition of anonymity told TheWrap, both “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo” and the Duggar show, which launched in 2006, may have bypassed the network’s usual vetting process.

 

The Duggar series ... began as a one-off special on TLC’s sister network Discovery Health. “When TLC absorbed the show, they had a family that had only been screened for an hour-long documentary and took them to series,” the insider said. “It would’ve been much different had they ordered numerous episodes at the start.”

According to the reality exec, the vetting process on cable networks is far laxer than broadcast TV’s.

 

“The big networks, say, ABC with a show like ‘Wife Swap,’ do an intense screener: full physical and mental health histories and a drug test. People often fail,” the reality-show insider told TheWrap. “When you get to cable, you find it’s not as professional.”

 

 

The article goes on to say that despite this lapse in vetting, it's unlikely anyone at TLC will lose their job over it, and since their focus has been on "freak show" programming, they'll probably try to ride out the scandal rather than change their focus.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/inside-tlc-19-kids-counting-disaster-why-network-220358875.html

[cheatincheetos]

Rick Santorum is slated to announce his run for the White House later today (yeah, good luck with that, Ricky, let us know how that works out for you). It just occurred to me that he's been very quiet about his connection to the Duggars since the scandal broke. No press release, no Facebook post, no public support. He's been a lot more cautious than Mike Huckabee who came out in support of Josh and has been getting blasted by the voters he thought he would be scoring points with. 

 

And Santorum is the politician the Duggars have done the most to support. They've been right beside him on the campaign trail every step of  the way. He's been more than happy to associate himself with their celebrity. I guess it's times like these when you find out who your friends are, huh, Jim Bob.

Part of Santorum and Huckabee's problem is that all the GOP candidates court the religious right now and there are over a dozen running.

 

Santorum is also the only major politician (meaning, he actually gets major press) who genuinely welcomed the Duggars' support. Even Huckabee was always sort of lukewarm about it. (The Iowa visit much discussed here was a tiny blip on the political scene.). I've always wondered if Santorum were really angry that the Duggars so quickly dumped him for Huckabee, after he was so enthusiastic about them. And of course, there have been a number of anti-Catholic remarks made by Generation II that probably did help matters either.

The evangelical church where our parents made us had lots of venomous things to say about Catholics and Mormons. It was pretty amusing years later to see all those people line up behind Mitt Romney anyway. I wonder what they think of Jeb Bush for switching to Catholic and if it was a ploy to try getting Latino votes.

[Patricia07]

I wonder if there is any kind of "morality clause" in the Duggar's TLC contract.

[Jenniferbug]

I love soccer, and I'm a woman. I've followed it (and the Duggar family) for years.

Who are the remaining sponsors?

[lottiedottie]

Part of Santorum and Huckabee's problem is that all the GOP candidates court the religious right now and there are over a dozen running.

 

The evangelical church where our parents made us had lots of venomous things to say about Catholics and Mormons. It was pretty amusing years later to see all those people line up behind Mitt Romney anyway. I wonder what they think of Jeb Bush for switching to Catholic and if it was a ploy to try getting Latino votes.

Funny typo! Tee hee!

[Magoo]

I still don't get why these networks are so scared of fans. Is money that important? ? I swear these people could commit murder and all they have to do is repent and it's all better

 

It's not necessarily that they are afraid of fans clamoring for a show to stay on the air - they fear the ones, like many of us here, who are pushing hard to get it cancelled which = sponsors dropping which = no big advertising dollars, which is the only reason any show is on the air, anywhere.  I work in the business and can tell you from my experience these execs only care about figuring out a way to keep this show on the air and the money rolling in, victims be damned.  They're probably starting to feel defeated right about now, so that's something.

[Oldernowiser]

I wonder if there is any kind of "morality clause" in the Duggar's TLC contract.

If there isn't, TLC/Discovery's lawyers aren't worth a damn.

Lawyers are paid to think the worst, not to drink the koolaid. I'm guessing there's some kind of out for shitting on the franchise, however the network decides to define that.

After all, what was JB going to do, demand that the good behavior requirement be removed? Talk about a red flag...

[3 is enough]

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/dan-savage-wants-to-make-duggar-the-new-santorum-clearly-duggary-needs-o-be-a-word/

Scroll down and click on the photo of Josh with his eyes closed

It is starting to get uglier...

Edited May 28, 2015 by 3 is enough

[Bean421]

I believe the lawyers are working overtime, as they say. The fact that the crisis management firm turned down the "opportunity" to work with the Duggars tells me that JimBoob is not cooperating with anyone and, in all likelihood, isn't even making sense. Not that he ever did, but I suspect he's in a state where he can't be dealt with by rational people. So the lawyers have their hands full.

When did a crisis management firm turn them down? I must have missed that. Not that they'd listen. After all God is on their side and he's all the management they need.

[Churchhoney]

When did a crisis management firm turn them down? I must have missed that. Not that they'd listen. After all God is on their side and he's all the management they need.

 

Reportedly, either yesterday or today. I posted about it over in the Josh and Anna thread. Again, reportedly, they had mulled hiring a very young Kentucky-based PR/crisis management guy who has working with Christian entertainers as one of his specialties. But, again reportedly, he turned them down after what may have been a fairly lengthy conversation period because they didn't meet his criteria for a suitable client. He didn't say exactly why, but he noted that among his criteria are being transparent with him about what's happened, being willing to take suitable lumps for anything you're to blame for, agreeing to pay a reasonable fee, etc.

[cheatincheetos]

TLC still thinks they can salvage this trainwreck. In other words, twenty sponsors dropping out doesn't blow their hair back.

 

http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/19-kids-and-counting-discovery-tlc-josh-duggar-1201506363/

 

If you haven't written a letter or made a phone call yet to any of the 19KAC sponsors, you might want to do so. TLC isn't getting the hint.

I have begun to mention the companies that already promised to drop the show in my messages to the advertisers. Peer pressure!

[Oldernowiser]

When a young, hungry, "faith-based" PR firm turns down the crisis of the year, visibility-wise, and broadly hints that the would-be client is a lying, obstinate, arrogant cheapskate...

this is a lost cause.

[JenCarroll]

If there isn't, TLC/Discovery's lawyers aren't worth a damn.

Lawyers are paid to think the worst, not to drink the koolaid. I'm guessing there's some kind of out for shitting on the franchise, however the network decides to define that.

After all, what was JB going to do, demand that the good behavior requirement be removed? Talk about a red flag...

Seems like in this case, the franchise came pre-shitted.

[JenCarroll]

Ugh. Just caught their old Santorum commercial. Somehow I'd never realized they had all the kids schilling for him too. But big points to Jinger, for managing to articulate, "Federal entitlement programs." You could almost believe she knew what that meant.

:-)

Edited May 28, 2015 by JenCarroll

[anony mouse]

When a young, hungry, "faith-based" PR firm turns down the crisis of the year, visibility-wise, and broadly hints that the would-be client is a lying, obstinate, arrogant cheapskate...

this is a lost cause.

Or the Duggars turned the firm down and it saw an opportunity to get its name out there. Frankly, making a statement about a potential client seems highly unprofessional to me.

[parisprincess]

I have CNN on and Don Lemon has been covering the Duggar story for the last half hour.  He has talked to several different people about the abuse, and I had to laugh when talking about Josh's statement, he said "Josh said "I" twenty-two times and mentioned the victims twice."   Looks like the whole hour is being devoted to the Duggar story.

[Literata]

(Mods, I moved this to the Smuggar and Anna thread, as it meshed better with the convo there. Feel free to delete here.)

 

I've been writing this in my head all day, so here goes.

 

I would watch a spin-off. I would watch it every week. Even if it's boring, I would still probably watch.

 

I've been asking myself hard questions about why I began watching the Duggars and why I continued to watch them. After all, I'm not their demographic, with the exception of my being female. I have a master's and a director-level position with a large not-for-profit; I was raised Catholic and no longer attend church. I'm a card-carrying, liberal Democrat. I'm a mother who willingly sent my kids to school, didn't bat an eye when they said swear words, and accompanied my teenage daughter to the gynecologist to get her first birth-control prescription. 

 

And yet, I never missed a Tuesday night, and I'm hoping the girls get their own show. Why? Because if not, I'd miss the Duggars. I kind of miss them already.

 

I began watching them because I was curious -- 14 children and pregnant again? What the hell? WHY the hell? And even though I thought the family was bizarre, I looked forward to each subsequent special. 

 

I began to do my research about them, and I learned about Gothard and Quiverfull. I was horrified, but still, I watched. I found TWoP and started to snark, and found that others were like me, which made me feel less strange; other viewers were appalled by MEchelle and Boob, too, but they liked the kids and were rooting for them to eventually break free.

 

As we got to "know" the kids -- obviously, we didn't know them, but you know what I mean -- I liked them even more, and paid even less attention to Boob and MEchelle. I enjoyed Jessa's snark and Jinger's thinly veiled sarcasm; I cheered Jill's and Jana's attempts to integrate to some degree with the outside world. I was happy to see Smuggar and Anna leave Arkansas, even though I was thoroughly disappointed with Smuggar's career choice. I admired Anna's abilities as a mother and enjoyed watching their cute, smart kids. 

 

Just as I enjoyed watching the kids experience Disney World for the first time, I enjoyed watching Jill fall in love, and I liked Derick's relative normalcy. Even though I had hoped they'd somehow wait a while to have a child, I watched Jill's Instagram for updates on her pregnancy, and I was relieved when she had a healthy baby. And the weddings ... I may have shed a tear or two when bumbling Boob gave away his girls.

 

In short, I allowed myself to be sucked into something that wasn't real at all, but from the very first, I was rooting for those kids -- the j'slaves, especially. And I'm rooting for them even more now. I don't know what this scandal means for them; might it give one or two the courage to break away, or will it pull them all deeper into the fold? I don't know. But I can hope, I guess.

 

I don't know how a spin-off would work, really; I have no desire to see Boob or MEchelle or Smuggar on my TV again, ever. But if the girls want to continue the franchise, I think they should be able to try. If it's truly their decision, it would be all that much sweeter. Something ought to be their decision, after all.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Literata

[riverblue22]

If they centered the show around the girls I think they are going to need a bunch more courting kids.  Jill and Derick, Jessa and Ben aren't enough to be half interesting.  Marjorie and Josiah will help.  But they will need others to court and marry.  And Derick does have a job, and I would HATE to see him quit that. Jana won't be courting, I think JD is too old and too introverted to be a draw, Joe could certainly pull in viewers, especially if he really was courting a Bates girl.

[3 is enough]

Mods: feel free to delete if you don't think this is appropriate, but it is a political cartoon, not a meme, so I think it pertains to Duggars in the media,

 

ETA: nevermind, link is not working.

 

Try googling Mike Luckovitch 5/27/2015

Edited May 28, 2015 by 3 is enough

[Sew Sumi]

The sharks are circling the drain (and yes, I'm mixing my metaphors on purpose). :D

 

http://www.people.com/article/experts-say-duggar-family-botched-handling-molestation-incident

 

Another trial balloon, this time with Boob's appeal to their faith. They're getting savaged in the comments (what's new?).

Edited May 28, 2015 by Sew Sumi

[pinguina]

In regards to their media presence I can't help but recall some of the girls' adeptness in taking selfies - particularly Jessa.  She always had the Kardashian (sp.?) pose down: pouting lips, tilted head.  For a family "not of the world", they had iPhones, iPads, laptops and seem to really know how to use them all!  Just an observation.

[brandyelf]

An old article about the Duggars during Jim Bob's Senate run (way before TLC)

http://www.quiverfull.com/articles.php/id20/

[direpup]

They will be the cover story in the next issue of People:  "The Duggars' Dark Secrets"

 

Video clip:

 

http://www.people.com/people/videos/0,,20926233,00.html

[Rhetorica]

Mods: feel free to delete if you don't think this is appropriate, but it is a political cartoon, not a meme, so I think it pertains to Duggars in the media,

ETA: nevermind, link is not working.

Try googling Mike Luckovitch 5/27/2015

Try this:

http://www.gocomics.com/mikeluckovich/2015/05/27

[3 is enough]

Thanks Rhetorica!  Could not get the link to work.

[Pete Martell]

They will be the cover story in the next issue of People:  "The Duggars' Dark Secrets"

 

Video clip:

 

http://www.people.com/people/videos/0,,20926233,00.html

 

"Inside Josh's shocking past" is one of the most generic sells I can think of for what he did. It sensationalizes it while homogenizing it, and making sure the emphasis is all on him, his mistakes, and what a burden it is for him and his parents. This and that cover just turn a horrific string of incidents, inadequately, dangerously handled by his parents, into a dime-a-dozen "struggle" for that opportunistic duo, some noble martyrdom they must overcome, rather than something they helped create and enable.

 

I haven't bought People in several years thanks in part to this family, and I don't see myself ever buying it again.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Pete Martell

[silverspoons]

Another spin/view on things: Inside TLC’s ’19 Kids & Counting’ Disaster: Why Network Is Facing Another Molestation Scandal.

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/inside-tlc-19-kids-counting-disaster-why-network-220358875.html

That article states, " While TLC “might be” 20 percent of Discovery’s total U.S. revenue, he added, even if TLC lost half of “19 Kids” ratings, the dent in total company revenues would be about 0.5 percent".

 

If TLC/Discovery keeps the Duggars over .5 percent of their revenue , keeping them will have nothing to do with money and all about some deal/connections we don't know about.

[Celia Rubenstein]

That article states, " While TLC “might be” 20 percent of Discovery’s total U.S. revenue, he added, even if TLC lost half of “19 Kids” ratings, the dent in total company revenues would be about 0.5 percent".

 

If TLC/Discovery keeps the Duggars over .5 percent of their revenue , keeping them will have nothing to do with money and all about some deal/connections we don't know about.

 

But 19 Kids and Counting is TLC's flagship show (isn't it?).  I think a lot of people probably only discover TLC at all because they initially tune in to watch the Duggars.   And that probably leads to increased viewership for other TLC programs.  TLC may be concerned about the dent that might be put into their overall viewership if they cancel the show.   

[NikSac]

But 19 Kids and Counting is TLC's flagship show (isn't it?).  I think a lot of people probably only discover TLC at all because they initially tune in to watch the Duggars.   And that probably leads to increased viewership for other TLC programs.  TLC may be concerned about the dent that might be put into their overall viewership if they cancel the show.   

 

I knew I'd watched it well before 19 Kids came along, but couldn't remember exactly when so I looked it up on Wikipedia. According to the info there the network as The Learning Channel started in 1980.  It was much more focused on actual learning back then. It was around 1998 when they became TLC and 1999 when they got more into the "reality" TV with stuff like Trading Spaces, A Baby Story (the other "watch babies be born" show), etc.  It looks like their flagship "Family" series type show was Jon & Kate Plus 8, followed about a year later by several other familiar ones including the Duggars.  I was looking at their current programming list though and I don't see too many that would pull in weekly viewers, that's true. There are a few, but also a lot of stand-alone type shows that most people probably just watch if they're bored and the show happens to be on (such as all of the various wedding dress shows).

 

ETA: not that I think they should keep the show on for this reason! But I'm sure it's a consideration.

Edited May 28, 2015 by NikSac

[GEML]

Or the Duggars turned the firm down and it saw an opportunity to get its name out there. Frankly, making a statement about a potential client seems highly unprofessional to me.

Yes, that jumped out to me as well. How noble for them.

[SomePity1066]

I saw this on my FB feed earlier and I was absolutely astounded at TLC's cluelessness. Seriously. What bigger clue-by-four do they need that the vast majority of Americans (hell, human beings) find Josh Duggar's actions (and his parents' inaction) repugnant? I'm wondering if they think they can brazen it out until some other media personality screws up in a gigantic way.

MissyVixen - my friend back in the days of yore at TWoP ! Your use of the phrase "clue-by-four" had me in awe ! You officially win the Internets for the day ! 

 

Your sentiments regarding Josh and his reprehensible actions were enough, but to frost the cake with such eloquent snark is just so satisfying ! I feel like I'm in the midst of Dorothy Parker and Oscar Wilde ! Well done !!!

 

My post here could probably go to the Josh and Anna thread, or the Michelle and JB, so please move if you think appropriate, but my feeling is that every time the Duggars have responded/appeared on media, big OR small, it's been the same wrote, practiced, fakey-fake "family togetherness" BS to maintain the status quo. Their Today Show appearances were as fake as Michelle's Dooney and Bourke purse, and, looking back, I can see the strain on the faces of the children, especially the older girls, way back in the 2008 season and beyond. 

 

Michelle was ALWAYS the checked-out, non-mother with peripheral contact with her "blessings". The older daughter were sad, tired, worked to the bone, but dedicated to fulfilling the wishes of their parents, and therefore, as taught to them, the Lord. The Howlers were always misbehaved monkeys, and the Lost Girls were always lost. 

 

And JB ? Presiding over a fiefdom that was a lie. No matter the kids that couldn't read, the crazy wife spinning out of control with her insane, breathy, cracking voice and obvious need to be forever alone, the creepy/creeping son who damaged the girls in so, so many ways, the badly behaved boys and ignored younger girls - everything was okie-dokie, peachy fine with him ! He is the author and architect of this debacle, and needs to be brought to account. 

 

If he did this ALL, and I mean this seriously, so he could have sex with the cheerleader who mowed the lawn in her bikini, them there's a special, double-hot place in hell for him. No more softball questions - JB needs to be GRILLED, and hard.

[Churchhoney]

Or the Duggars turned the firm down and it saw an opportunity to get its name out there. Frankly, making a statement about a potential client seems highly unprofessional to me.

 

It is, but this is a very young guy (20-something, I believe) who appears ambitious. I don't know why, if you were JImBob, you would have called such a young person in the first place for something this big. But I suppose it may have been because one of his specialties is Christian entertainers.

 

I agree that he probably should have just shut up. But,to be fair, strictly speaking he didn't make a statement about the client.

 

He first said only that, after discussions, he had found that client didn't meet the criteria to be a match with his firm The reporting blogger asked what those criteria were, and the guy said that he wouldn't give specifics about the Duggars but he would tell the guy what his list of criteria included when it came to figuring out whether he and ANY client were a good match. .....

 

And as somebody who recently spent a couple of months speaking at length with a large number of crisis managers -- including small and large operators and several of the biggest names in the business -- I can tell you that the list he gave was the exact same list that I heard over and over again from them, and the same list that appears in books and articles written by and about crisis managers of all sorts, etc. He certainly talks too much, I'd agree, but he didn't say anything that isn't actually textbook in the field, and very basic. And he didn't name the specific dealbreakers that obtained in the Duggar case.

 

I don't think the Duggars exactly turned him down, but I would bet that the decision not to make a deal was pretty mutual.

 

Crisis managers that I talked to said that very often people think they want to hire a crisis manager. But when they hear about what the crisis-management firm will expect them to do, they realize that, no, they actually don't want to -- unless they can get the crisis managers to do things a different way. Several people told me that only a stupid and/or unethical crisis manager will change their way of operating -- or promise to -- to meet a client's objections. And this guy didn't want to do that, it looks like, so he and JimBob weren't a match, and they walked off in separate ways.

 

Would be interesting to know whether there were other candidates and whether someone has taken the job. But I doubt we'll ever know since most people JimBob might have called aren't in their 20s and so would probably shut up.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Churchhoney

[anony mouse]

"Inside Josh's shocking past" is one of the most generic sells I can think of for what he did. It sensationalizes it while homogenizing it, and making sure the emphasis is all on him, his mistakes, and what a burden it is for him and his parents. This and that cover just turn a horrific string of incidents, inadequately, dangerously handled by his parents, into a dime-a-dozen "struggle" for that opportunistic duo, some noble martyrdom they must overcome, rather than something they helped create and enable.

I haven't bought People in several years thanks in part to this family, and I don't see myself ever buying it again.

I actually prefer the way People presented the headline, rather than focusing on the girls. So far, most of the attention has been on Josh. I'm worried when the media decides nothing new is forthcoming from that angle and turns on the girls. Edited May 28, 2015 by starving artist

[GEML]

I actually prefer the way People presented the headline, rather than focusing on the girls. So far, most of the attention has been on Josh. I'm worried when the media decides nothing new is forthcoming from that angle and turns on the girls.

I agree. Until the young women are actually speaking for themselves, I'd rather keep the focus where it belongs - on Josh, whom we actually know something about.

[brandyelf]

Why did we ever make the Duggars famous in the first place?

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/news/a41086/why-did-we-make-the-duggars-famous

[Gianthambeast]

Dr. Drew discusses ATI material

 

Sorry if it's redundant.  I want this Gothard shit to get blown to smithereens. 

Edited May 28, 2015 by Gianthambeast

[NextIteration]

Fox News Devoted Less Than Two Minutes To The Duggar Controversy

 

Kurtz: "Allegations".  Seriously?  Allegations?????

 

Eesh, I used to watch this guy's show on Sundays sometimes when he was on CNN.

[monkeypox]

3 Things the Josh Duggar Scandal Reveals About Christian Patriarchy.

  

"It’s time we see this scandal for what it is: the only logical outgrowth of sick teachings and demented theology meant to enshrine male privilege and keep women and children weak and voiceless.
If we needed visible evidence of how completely failed patriarchy is as a social system and childrearing philosophy, we have it now in spades thanks to the Duggars. And we won’t forget."

Edited May 28, 2015 by monkeypox

[Gianthambeast]

Fox News--maybe that can be their new Station once TLC dumps them. /sarcasm

[kathe5133]

Dr. Drew discusses ATI material

 

Sorry if it's redundant.  I want this Gothard shit to get blown to smithereens. 

Isn't Dr. Drew an addiction specialist?  Why is he weighing in?  And why am I pretending to ask.  He is weighing in because it is "newsworthy".  It's a way to get Dr. Drew's name out there.  He's not bringing any insight to the issue, he's just railing against them much like we are here.  It's a live action version of these posting boards.  I am having a day where I am just shaking my head at how stupid some people are, from the Duggar's and their supporters, to the "politicians" to famewhores like Dr. Drew.  If God is up there, he needs to come down and do some "smiting"! 

[cheatincheetos]

People is reporting 15 sponsors have pulled their ads, including:

 

...

 

http://www.people.com/article/19-kids-counting-sponsors-pull-ads-molestation-scandal

I wonder, did they ever have Heinz? (maker of Ore Ida tater tots ;p)

[cheatincheetos]

Coke and McDonalds needs to drop out. Two brands that don't need the association with child molestation.

What else would one expect from that Jezebelle, Ronald McDonald, all caked with makeup and wearing brazen red, just like the whore of Babylon! And how about that scheme to bring back the Hamburglar as a sex symbol? Defrauder! Nike!

Edited May 28, 2015 by cheatincheetos

[Pete Martell]

I actually prefer the way People presented the headline, rather than focusing on the girls. So far, most of the attention has been on Josh. I'm worried when the media decides nothing new is forthcoming from that angle and turns on the girls.

 

That was one of my concerns with the article, and that cover of Jim Bob and Michelle. That it's being redirected into being about a family struggle.

[Churchhoney]

Apologies if this has already been posted. Here's an ex-Gothardite lawyer, graduate of Gothard-affiliated Oak Brook law school, on ATI-type fundieism and the Duggar situation. Nothing much here that we haven't heard or said already, but interesting given who's saying it, I think:

 

http://fiddlrts.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-duggars-how-fundamentalisms.html?spref=fb

 

One interesting part here that I haven't seen mentioned much, though:

 

"c. Sexual desire is presented in a gendered way.

 

"...The idea is that women don’t really want sex. However, they trade it (and their bodies) to men in exchange for commitment - that is, a promise of lifetime financial support.

 

"Thus, females will always want to say no to sex, so the man will have to impose on them to some degree....Again, this makes for problems when it comes to a discussion of consent. Because women will never say “yes” voluntarily, “no” is meaningless....

 

"For a young man raised in this worldview, then, he has no real reason to hope that a woman might actually desire to have sex with him. Thus, at some point, he will simply have to take what he wants. And who might be available and weak enough to be imposed on? Perhaps young girls…"

 

 

 

[Julia]

Fox News Devoted Less Than Two Minutes To The Duggar Controversy

 

Kurtz: "Allegations".  Seriously?  Allegations?????

 

Eesh, I used to watch this guy's show on Sundays sometimes when he was on CNN.

Howie Kurtz? Howie Kurtz is the guy who wrote in the Washington Post that he didn't out Newt Gingrich's affair with his current wife until after the impeachment was over even though "everyone knew" because he didn't see how it was relevant. Howie Kurtz has An Agenda.

[cheatincheetos]

"c. Sexual desire is presented in a gendered way.

 

"...The idea is that women don’t really want sex. However, they trade it (and their bodies) to men in exchange for commitment - that is, a promise of lifetime financial support.

 

The female orgasm is a secular humanist myth! Myth, I tells ya...

[may2]

Hulu has dropped them.

[RowdyCam]

Unlike Huckabee, Rick Santorum isn't coming to their defense. I was very happy to see him speak out against them on Good Morning America. George asked him about the Duggar scandal, and Santorum called it "sickening" and said his prayers and thoughts are with those poor girls, the victims.