Jill, Derick & the Kids: Moving On!!

[Ohiopirate02]

29 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/0997318732/ref=dp_ob_custreviews_bk_cm_cr_acr_img?showViewpoints=1

No matter the book, isn't 3 & 5 a little young to learn about porn?

She posted about the Junior edition which should be fine for Israel.   I think Jill's heart is in the right place, but I would have suggested a more neutral book on the idea of bad touch.  

[ginger90]

[GeeGolly]

21 minutes ago, NotthebadVictoria said:

How old was she when she was molested by her brother? At the end of the day it’s teaching them to talk about uncomfortable things so I could see why she is doing this. 

I'm not making the connection between porn and the molestation.

I taught my kids about good touch/bad touch boundaries long before they ever knew what porn was. Long before they even knew what sex was.

The internet was in its infancy when my kids were around middle school age, so I realize things are different now, but teaching about porn at ages 3 & 5?

[emmawoodhouse]

Yeah, it's JILL who's calling it porn. 

[ginger90]

 

Video:

 

 

[Nysha]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

I'm not making the connection between porn and the molestation.

There are many things we don't know about the molestation. There were rumors Josh was caught viewing porn on the Internet when he was campaigning with JB. A lot of perpetrators use porn to groom children, even preschool children. 

[NotthebadVictoria]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

I'm not making the connection between porn and the molestation.

I taught my kids about good touch/bad touch boundaries long before they ever knew what porn was. Long before they even knew what sex was.

The internet was in its infancy when my kids were around middle school age, so I realize things are different now, but teaching about porn at ages 3 & 5?

Good touch/Bad touch respecting your bodies and the bodies of others can all be in a group of lessons together. Pretty sure Jill’s porn isn’t porn hub hardcore porn but nudity and such, either way, she’s having a conversation about this and I’m not mad about it. One of the pictures from the Amazon review shows it saying if you accidentally see it you’re not a bad kid, that’s a complete 180 from her brainwashing that you’re evil and everything you do is evil. It’s a sensitive topic for sure but clearly this is important to her. I wonder how much her therapist had to do with this.

[rue721]

I find it really disturbing that she’s being “proactive about discussing porn” — wtf?!

It’s great for kids to be taught about consent and bodily autonomy! But is that what this book is about?

[sleepysuzy]

The average age kids first see porn is 11, but increasingly kids see it earlier. Scenarios like this happen: 11-year-old finds porn, shows it to 9-year-old sibling who shows 8-year-old neighbor, who shows six-year-old cousin, who tells five-year-old classmates. 

I've seen it play out firsthand when I was a kid and some older neighbor kid stole a Playboy, and I have seen it as an educator over the past few years with internet porn. I think Jill being proactive is good.

Edited November 9, 2020 by sleepysuzy

[Zella]

1 hour ago, NotthebadVictoria said:

I wonder how much her therapist had to do with this.

I was wondering this too. I could be mistaken, but I'm also not finding that it comes from an overtly religious organization. 

[lascuba]

3 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/0997318732/ref=dp_ob_custreviews_bk_cm_cr_acr_img?showViewpoints=1

No matter the book, isn't 3 & 5 a little young to learn about porn?

Fundies are obsessed with porn and start teaching their children about it at a very young age. This has nothing to do with the molestation, other than tangentially (Porn is evil and leads to other sins, etc.).

There's an old episode of of 19K featuring the Bates where one of the really young Bates boys says something about the evils of porn.

[Nysha]

4 minutes ago, Zella said:

I was wondering this too. I could be mistaken, but I'm also not finding that it comes from an overtly religious organization. 

I don't know how overtly religious the book is, but according to the author's bio she is a " leader in the Safeguard Alliance of the National Coalition to End Sexual Exploitation". This is an interfaith group that fights such evil things as same-sex marriage, sex shops, and comprehensive sex education in schools. 

[Zella]

5 minutes ago, Nysha said:

I don't know how overtly religious the book is, but according to the author's bio she is a " leader in the Safeguard Alliance of the National Coalition to End Sexual Exploitation". This is an interfaith group that fights such evil things as same-sex marriage, sex shops, and comprehensive sex education in schools. 

Ah okay--my bad! I just didn't dig enough. I had been surprised the acknowledgements I could see didn't seem particularly religious, but it seems like the authors/organization are maybe keeping it on the downlow. Or the religious content just isn't visible on the preview in Amazon. 

 

Edited November 9, 2020 by Zella

[emmawoodhouse]

14 minutes ago, Nysha said:

I don't know how overtly religious the book is, but according to the author's bio she is a " leader in the Safeguard Alliance of the National Coalition to End Sexual Exploitation". This is an interfaith group that fights such evil things as same-sex marriage, sex shops, and comprehensive sex education in schools. 

More proof that Jill hasn't changed in her core beliefs all that much. She could have found another book. I think the Dillard boys will be well protected from porn for quite some time.

[NotthebadVictoria]

48 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

I think the Dillard boys will be well protected from porn for quite some time.

I personally don’t see a problem with this.

[emmawoodhouse]

1 minute ago, NotthebadVictoria said:

I personally don’t see a problem with this.

Did I say there was one? I merely made a statement based on what little we know of these people and their core beliefs.  I hope the boys are able to avoid porn until they are curious enough to safely seek it out.

[madpsych78]

I think the conversation about good touch/bad touch is appropriate even at this age. I do feel a little squirmy about the use of the word "porn" in this discussion with a three and a five year old. I was pretty sheltered growing up (although not fundie) and I didn't know anything about porn until like high school I think lol. 

 

 

[Joan of Argh]

6 hours ago, ginger90 said:

 

Video:

 

 

Sam is cute as a button, love hearing his excitement over the zebras and Isreal is a sweet big brother.

Jill's kids seem so natural compared to the Seewalds... Sometimes Spurgeon is so fake that I can't watch and have to turn it off.

[GeeGolly]

Its hard to know where this came from, but I'm guessing it came from Jill's Fundyism.

There's many evils of the internet, from bullying, sharing personal information, making purchases from shady sellers, inappropriate images and yes, porn. I just feel she's throwing these boys into the deep end of the pool before they even know what the internet is. 

She's a stay at home mom and they seem to have one laptop among the four of them. The chance of Izzy running into porn at this point accidently are zero. If a schoolmate finds porn and tells Izzy, the chances of him finding it on the internet on purpose is zero. So if this is about the internet, I would start with generalizations about the dangers and get more specific as the boys have more access.

If this is about sexual abuse then Jill is way off base. Not all sexual abuse is connected to porn. Most folks who view porn don't abuse others. And if she is discussing her childhood molestation and Josh's porn viewing habits with her therapist, her therapist would help her tease this out, because it would be foolish and harmful to let Jill think there is a concrete connection between the two. The evils of porn is way off in the future in regard to teaching respect of one's own body and respect of others' bodies, for two little boys.

Which brings me back to my original thought - Fundyism.

 

Edited November 9, 2020 by GeeGolly

[QuinnInND]

15 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

I'm not making the connection between porn and the molestation.

I taught my kids about good touch/bad touch boundaries long before they ever knew what porn was. Long before they even knew what sex was.

The internet was in its infancy when my kids were around middle school age, so I realize things are different now, but teaching about porn at ages 3 & 5?

Porn and molestation are probably connected for Jill. Josh molested her and was caught watching porn. I think it's the "all sex is bad unless it's in marriage" thing. Maybe she thinks that's where Josh got the idea to molest her from. Who knows.  But Jill is teaching the boys something they're far too young to understand.  Opening a can of worms that doesn't need to be opened. Sex and porn aren't interchangeable. I'm sure JoshUa still watches it on the sly. My son just turned 9. His limited internet use is monitored by myself and his father. We've got parental controls on the computer he uses. Am I concerned about him somehow finding porn on the internet? Yes. Moreso because the hardcore porn I did for 5 years is still out there. I don't want him finding pictures or vids of his mom getting gangbanged by 10 guys. But I'll do what I can, in an age appropriate way to keep that from happening as much as possible.  Not give him more info than he needs.

And I just had the horrible thought that JoshUa might have stumbled across some of my movies or pics. Ewwwwww. The thought of him whacking off watching me is sickening. 🤢 

 

Edited November 9, 2020 by QuinnInND

[Snow Fairy]

Maybe she just wants to teach her kids about inappropriate touching? Does anyone know what the book actually says?

[Tikichick]

Israel attending school has to be a seismic shift for Jill.   Perhaps she's trying to head off potential outside influences she feels are lurking, lying in wait for her son?   I'd much rather she choose the route of equipping her sons with knowledge so that they may understand to potentially protect themselves should the need arise -- as opposed to the way her own parents responded when actual threat existed and became actions in her home when she was growing up.

The boys having some kind of framework of actual knowledge to put things in as opposed to being shamed or made to feel sinful would be a huge step forward IMO.   Hopefully this is a good indication they'll have puberty and their changing bodies explained to them in a few years instead of twisting their normal drives into abusive and public humiliation.   

[Jynnan tonnix]

I agree that it's way too young to teach them that. When and why would they ever come across porn for at least another few years. I'm assuming that any internet usage at this point is strictly not just monitored, but part of a particular, limited activity between a child and a parent. The kids aren't out there going to the corner store by themselves either, where they might find magazines (which, as far as I know, are sealed up in plastic wrappers anyway, but I have no idea, to be honest, what the availability is). 

And I do firmly believe that the human body, in the context of art, is something that kids can and should be comfortable with. I do realize that I'm probably a bit more liberal on this than a lot of Americans are, but maybe it has something to do with my English upbringing. I know that when my younger son was in preschool - he was about four - this was in California, I happened to be taking a figure drawing class in the building next door, which overlapped with the time that he got out. They would just walk him over, and he'd come in and sit with me until the class was over - at that point, it was just a long pose, so although there was a nude model in the class (sometimes male, sometimes female), at that point during the class they were generally just in some sort of sitting position rather than moving around or bringing attention to themselves. No one seemed to mind the little four year old boy in there. He never seemed to think it was anything strange, and never even really asked any questions as far as I remember. He knew that Mommy liked to draw, and never seemed to think that drawing a naked person was any big deal.

I suppose mileages may vary on whether or not this was appropriate, but it certainly didn't cause any undue trauma.

[ouinason]

This book, from what I saw of it and the video of the author talking about it, is basically "there are good pictures and there are bad pictures.  This is what bad pictures are, this is how you deal with seeing them by accident."  At the age that these kids are, there is nothing there that is shaming or unhealthy about that.  

Now, when they get older, this attitude continuing is harmful.  To a 3 and 5 year old, porn is damaging.  To a teenager it needs context and a conversation.  An adult thinking it's the devil is ridiculous.  The general attitude of the organization that the Author seems to have backed is .... concerning to me.

 

 

[Ohiopirate02]

24 minutes ago, Jynnan tonnix said:

I agree that it's way too young to teach them that. When and why would they ever come across porn for at least another few years. I'm assuming that any internet usage at this point is strictly not just monitored, but part of a particular, limited activity between a child and a parent. The kids aren't out there going to the corner store by themselves either, where they might find magazines (which, as far as I know, are sealed up in plastic wrappers anyway, but I have no idea, to be honest, what the availability is). 

 

Youtube.  The answer is Youtube.  There are some sick individuals out there who create videos to scare kids and game the algorithm to appear even in the child-friendly setting.  So your 4 year old is watching his/her allotted daily time on their tablet and are enjoying whatever video they fancy, then the next video that autoplays starts off innocuous then abruptly shifts into porn or violence.  Some videos get flagged, but there is no way for Youtube to have a human watch every video uploaded to their site in its entirety to make sure the video is child friendly.  And, as soon as one video is taken off the platform and its creator banned, another 4 appear.

[emmawoodhouse]

Mem'ries....

https://www.instagram.com/p/CHYieF4gUal/?igshid=1lemrrcd9vnq3

[Zella]

2 hours ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Mem'ries....

https://www.instagram.com/p/CHYieF4gUal/?igshid=1lemrrcd9vnq3

I'm kind of cracking up at her question about first pic as a couple since it is not a pic of them as a couple. It's . . . a really poor quality screenshot of just him. Wait not even a screnshoot--a pic of a screen. 

[lascuba]

16 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

Its hard to know where this came from, but I'm guessing it came from Jill's Fundyism.

There's many evils of the internet, from bullying, sharing personal information, making purchases from shady sellers, inappropriate images and yes, porn. I just feel she's throwing these boys into the deep end of the pool before they even know what the internet is. 

She's a stay at home mom and they seem to have one laptop among the four of them. The chance of Izzy running into porn at this point accidently are zero. If a schoolmate finds porn and tells Izzy, the chances of him finding it on the internet on purpose is zero. So if this is about the internet, I would start with generalizations about the dangers and get more specific as the boys have more access.

If this is about sexual abuse then Jill is way off base. Not all sexual abuse is connected to porn. Most folks who view porn don't abuse others. And if she is discussing her childhood molestation and Josh's porn viewing habits with her therapist, her therapist would help her tease this out, because it would be foolish and harmful to let Jill think there is a concrete connection between the two. The evils of porn is way off in the future in regard to teaching respect of one's own body and respect of others' bodies, for two little boys.

Which brings me back to my original thought - Fundyism.

 

Serious question...would a Christian therapist--one who advertises themselves as such and who a fundie would feel comfortable talking to, do this?

I'm thinking of my cousin who saw a Catholic marriage counselor (not for religious reasons, but she was recommended by a very Catholic friend and cousin didn't put 2 and 2 together). They had been seeing her for a year, he stopped going most of the time because he didn't like being told he needed to change anything, and she continued to see her on her own. Whenever she expressed the idea of separating, the counselor would say, "But think of your beautiful daughter."

 

[yogi2014L]

10 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Youtube.  The answer is Youtube.  There are some sick individuals out there who create videos to scare kids and game the algorithm to appear even in the child-friendly setting.  So your 4 year old is watching his/her allotted daily time on their tablet and are enjoying whatever video they fancy, then the next video that autoplays starts off innocuous then abruptly shifts into porn or violence.  Some videos get flagged, but there is no way for Youtube to have a human watch every video uploaded to their site in its entirety to make sure the video is child friendly.  And, as soon as one video is taken off the platform and its creator banned, another 4 appear.

THIS. This is widely known yet I know SO many parents who let their young children watch youtube unsupervised. Drives me crazy. We will never allow youtube in our house as long as we can help it.

I probably wouldn't feel the need to read that book to my child anytime soon ( she is 2) however I have to appreciate that Jill is looking out for her kids in ways her parents never did. Perhaps Jill believe that Josh's exposure to porn led him into becoming a molester.

I also think porn was probably a HUGE issue in the Duggar home, and probably a huge issue for many other sexually repressed fundie families. All the shaming and public punishments probably made her think that every young boy is going to try to see porn and become obsessed with it like Josh may have been 

[Kiss my mutt]

From my casual reading on the subject, porn addiction is a serious problem in Christian households and there are ministries designed to address this, as well as, counselors who specialize in this. 

[GeeGolly]

6 hours ago, lascuba said:

Serious question...would a Christian therapist--one who advertises themselves as such and who a fundie would feel comfortable talking to, do this?

I'm thinking of my cousin who saw a Catholic marriage counselor (not for religious reasons, but she was recommended by a very Catholic friend and cousin didn't put 2 and 2 together). They had been seeing her for a year, he stopped going most of the time because he didn't like being told he needed to change anything, and she continued to see her on her own. Whenever she expressed the idea of separating, the counselor would say, "But think of your beautiful daughter."

 

It mostly depends if they're truly therapists. LCSWs, LICSWs, LMHCs, LMFTs are bound by a code of ethics. For social workers this code fills a small book. Folk's educated and licensed in the field are bound by their governing body as well as insurance companies. There are legit licensed therapists who advertise as Catholic or Christian but their religious guidance would only be as good as their religious knowledge.

Some religious entities, including some Catholic churches, provide counseling support through laymen. An unlicensed, non-educated person, providing counseling can say anything they want. It really is the same as a friend supporting a friend.

A sound therapist providing support to a client who is deeply religious educates themselves on their client's beliefs by asking the client questions, in order to respect the belief system. Asking questions also allows the client to examine their belief system in new ways, if that is where the client is at emotionally and spiritually. A therapist would not, however, encourage or endorse anything that is dangerous to their client, like child abuse or spousal abuse and are bound to contact DCF or the police if they even suspect this is happening. Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists (or any licensed therapist providing this support) do not provide therapy with the sole goal of keeping marriages and families intact. They provide support in the form of exploring family dynamics and discuss ways to improve them. Or, if need be, they discuss healthy ways to dissolve a marriage.

Licensed therapists are educated in child development as well, so in the case of Jill wanting to teach her children about the dangers of porn, the therapist would educate Jill as to her child's state of development and also discuss her home life. But first the therapist would find out why Jill thinks this is necessary, not only because its not a typical thought of most parents with such young children, but also to asses for safety. 

To put this in better context, the first thing a sound therapist does after taking a very robust assessment of the client is to ask the client to set goals. This informs the therapist on the best framework to use in helping a client obtain their goals.

[satrunrose]

9 hours ago, Kiss my mutt said:

From my casual reading on the subject, porn addiction is a serious problem in Christian households and there are ministries designed to address this, as well as, counselors who specialize in this. 

I've noticed this too, but I've never been able to suss out whether it's 

a) A real problem that is causing legitimate harm to relationships

b) A symptom of a bigger problem (i.e. the real problem is a sexually repressive culture that causes expressions of sexuality to happen in less healthy ways).

or c

c) A problem only in the minds of certain groups and therefore wildly exaggerated in scale and severity (see same-sex marriage, the existence of trans people, sex outside of marriage). 

 

Personally, I think porn is on list of sex-related topics that should be discussed in age appropriate ways, but I would say that's 8-10 not 3-5.

[lascuba]

Thanks for the explanation, @GeeGolly.

 

1 hour ago, satrunrose said:

I've noticed this too, but I've never been able to suss out whether it's 

a) A real problem that is causing legitimate harm to relationships

b) A symptom of a bigger problem (i.e. the real problem is a sexually repressive culture that causes expressions of sexuality to happen in less healthy ways).

or c

c) A problem only in the minds of certain groups and therefore wildly exaggerated in scale and severity (see same-sex marriage, the existence of trans people, sex outside of marriage). 

 

Personally, I think porn is on list of sex-related topics that should be discussed in age appropriate ways, but I would say that's 8-10 not 3-5.

I think that's it. Considering their views, any amount of porn viewing is addiction, and anything from a nude photo to a romance novel is considered porn.

Edited November 10, 2020 by lascuba

[FizzyPuff]

17 hours ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Mem'ries....

https://www.instagram.com/p/CHYieF4gUal/?igshid=1lemrrcd9vnq3

How did she get away with that when Mom and Pops where chaperones? 

[Kiss my mutt]

I’m not endorsing these (lay) counselors or ministries, I’ve just heard of them over the years. I would not go to an unlicensed professional in any field.  

[Growsonwalls]

I don't see anything wrong with teaching kids about boundaries with "good touch bad touch." The issue is the delivery -- how is Jill presenting this to the boys? We actually don't know because we don;t see the conversation. If she's talking more generally about how porn leads to "bad touch" then that's not that productive.

I will say that there are a lot of cases of child molestations in fundie circles. And so it might not be a bad idea to be pro-active if Izzy and Sam are going to participate in church summer camps and stuff like that in the future. I also think Jill probably has severe trust issues due to her upbringing and that might be something she passes onto her kids.

[GeeGolly]

8 minutes ago, Growsonwalls said:

I don't see anything wrong with teaching kids about boundaries with "good touch bad touch." The issue is the delivery -- how is Jill presenting this to the boys? We actually don't know because we don;t see the conversation. If she's talking more generally about how porn leads to "bad touch" then that's not that productive.

I will say that there are a lot of cases of child molestations in fundie circles. And so it might not be a bad idea to be pro-active if Izzy and Sam are going to participate in church summer camps and stuff like that in the future. I also think Jill probably has severe trust issues due to her upbringing and that might be something she passes onto her kids.

Too true! Its teaching about porn at this young of an age that is off, IMO.

[GeeGolly]

Is the slab of concrete that Jill brought the boys to, the same slab that Joe proposed to Kendra at?

[ginger90]

18 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Is the slab of concrete that Jill brought the boys to, the same slab that Joe proposed to Kendra at?

He proposed at Joy’s wedding. He asked Kendra to “enter into a courtship” on the slab. 😁

[FizzyPuff]

1 hour ago, ginger90 said:

He proposed at Joy’s wedding. He asked Kendra to “enter into a courtship” on the slab. 😁

I wonder if Kendra ever regrets saying yes to Joe? Three babies in three years, and more to come, poor girl. 

[Ohiopirate02]

10 minutes ago, FizzyPuff said:

I wonder if Kendra ever regrets saying yes to Joe? Three babies in three years, and more to come, poor girl. 

Why would she?  This is what she was raised to do.  

[ozziemom]

2 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Why would she?  This is what she was raised to do.  

And she might as well take care of her own kids instead her siblings. I’m sure she is happy within her very small world. And if she isn’t, she can read some biblical stories.

[FizzyPuff]

12 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Why would she?  This is what she was raised to do.  

I know that’s what she was raised to do but I wonder if she thinks whoa this is too much, maybe we should slow down on the kids. 

[Ohiopirate02]

1 minute ago, FizzyPuff said:

I know that’s what she was raised to do but I wonder if she thinks whoa this is too much, maybe we should slow down on the kids. 

We've had this discussion before over on the JoKen thread, and I do believe that Kendra sees nothing wrong with popping out baby after baby.  She and Joe are still in love and sex is not a chore for Kendra.  Once that second part changes, they may begin to be able to go a year without a blessing, but as long as Kendra is enjoying it, the baby train will continue.  

[Temperance]

5 hours ago, FizzyPuff said:

I know that’s what she was raised to do but I wonder if she thinks whoa this is too much, maybe we should slow down on the kids. 

It's worth-noting that Kendra's parents' kids are more spreadout. They have 8 children with one on the way. 

Kendra and Joe are closer JB's and Michelle's pace. 

[GeeGolly]

3 hours ago, Temperance said:

It's worth-noting that Kendra's parents' kids are more spreadout. They have 8 children with one on the way. 

Kendra and Joe are closer JB's and Michelle's pace. 

Garret is a little older than his Uncle Isiah. Will baby number #3 be older than baby #9?

And Addison was squished into between the 4 other babies.

[emmawoodhouse]

54 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Garret is a little older than his Uncle Isiah. Will baby number #3 be older than baby #9?

And Addison was squished into between the 4 other babies.

Yes, baby 3 will be older than baby 9. Kendra is due in February, Christina in May.

[ginger90]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CHqgKm9A_ER/?hl=en

[leighdear]

Well, I imagine the same people that have shredded Jinger to bits for getting an un-needed pedicure with a friend are going to be as equally rabid about Jill going with a friend for a piercing.  So many unnecessary outings.  And Jill actually has a child in school, so she's not just exposing her family the way Jinger is, she's potentially exposing all the kids HER kid goes to school with.   

Seems even more irresponsible to me.  But then they all do tend to set themselves up for these things. 

[ginger90]

3 minutes ago, leighdear said:

Well, I imagine the same people that have shredded Jinger to bits for getting an un-needed pedicure with a friend are going to be as equally rabid about Jill going with a friend for a piercing.  So many unnecessary outings.  And Jill actually has a child in school, so she's not just exposing her family the way Jinger is, she's potentially exposing all the kids HER kid goes to school with.   

Seems even more irresponsible to me.  But then they all do tend to set themselves up for these things. 

So far the comments are advice on the piercing, mug, and glasses.