Duggar Family

[hipmamajen]

What does # 6 mean? "6. If the abused was not at fault"

Again, this is just from my knowledge of some folks "in the life." And to be fair, most of the rightest-wing, most evangelical Christians I've ever dealt with believe that this situation is wrong and horrifying! So whomever wrote this bit of pedophilia apologetics is REALLY on the fringes of the fringe...

They mean if the person who was abused was not also culpable in the situation.

You know how from time to time articles pop up where girls have been asked to wear more clothing or less makeup, because their appearance or demeanor may cause the boys around them to be distracted? Imagine that thinking, but times a zillion.

I can not tell you how many times mothers are admonished to provide modest dress for their girls, because exposing their bodies is a "stumbling block" in the path of the brothers in the Christian faith. Not just the kids, all the men. And this isn't just in religious writings, it's in homeschooling articles, parenting books, forums everywhere.

A thread I've seen more than 100 times (I'm not exaggerating) goes something like this: My daughter has been invited to a girls-only pool party at the home of a friend. The parents will be there and involved the whole time, and many of the girls going are her friends from church. We have a modest swimsuit for her, so I know my daughter will be properly attired, but my concern is that the other girls at the party will likely be wearing regular one- and two-piece suits, and there is a teenage boy who lives at the house. I feel it is wrong for my daughter to take part in this, when there will be so many scantily clad girls parading around in front of this poor boy. I don't want the parents to think I condone such indecency, and the Bible says, 'Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers.' So my question is this: When I decline the invitation, should I tell the parents all my concerns so that they have a chance to consider the situation they're putting these children in, since their everlasting testimony is at stake? Or should I just politely say, 'No, thank you,' and keep them in my prayers?

Before we go any further, you have to click the "modest swimwear" link in that paragraph. Then you have to understand that I am not stretching the truth on this, I have seen this discussion over, and over, and over. And finally, you have to really try to see that some of the people out there believe that they are helping by doing these things, like "guarding the eyes of the men." I didn't make that term up.

So, to some folks out there, a small subset of a small subset of Christianity, a girl who has dressed immodestly (which to some groups can mean showing wrists, ankles or her hair, or wearing pants), or has acted in ways that are not feminine, is partially to blame for any abuse that followed. It's the same argument you hear in other cultures, "She was asking for it!" with an extra helping of "the poor young man just couldn't help himself." And sometimes there are even rationalizations about how Eve led Man to the Fall, for hers was the first sin. (Still not making this up.)

Reminder: There are not a lot of people who believe this way.

 

[skimom2]

Again, this is just from my knowledge of some folks "in the life." And to be fair, most of the rightest-wing, most evangelical Christians I've ever dealt with believe that this situation is wrong and horrifying! So whomever wrote this bit of pedophilia apologetics is REALLY on the fringes of the fringe...

They mean if the person who was abused was not also culpable in the situation.

You know how from time to time articles pop up where girls have been asked to wear more clothing or less makeup, because their appearance or demeanor may cause the boys around them to be distracted? Imagine that thinking, but times a zillion.

I can not tell you how many times mothers are admonished to provide modest dress for their girls, because exposing their bodies is a "stumbling block" in the path of the brothers in the Christian faith. Not just the kids, all the men. And this isn't just in religious writings, it's in homeschooling articles, parenting books, forums everywhere.

A thread I've seen more than 100 times (I'm not exaggerating) goes something like this: My daughter has been invited to a girls-only pool party at the home of a friend. The parents will be there and involved the whole time, and many of the girls going are her friends from church. We have a modest swimsuit for her, so I know my daughter will be properly attired, but my concern is that the other girls at the party will likely be wearing regular one- and two-piece suits, and there is a teenage boy who lives at the house. I feel it is wrong for my daughter to take part in this, when there will be so many scantily clad girls parading around in front of this poor boy. I don't want the parents to think I condone such indecency, and the Bible says, 'Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers.' So my question is this: When I decline the invitation, should I tell the parents all my concerns so that they have a chance to consider the situation they're putting these children in, since their everlasting testimony is at stake? Or should I just politely say, 'No, thank you,' and keep them in my prayers?

Before we go any further, you have to click the "modest swimwear" link in that paragraph. Then you have to understand that I am not stretching the truth on this, I have seen this discussion over, and over, and over. And finally, you have to really try to see that some of the people out there believe that they are helping by doing these things, like "guarding the eyes of the men." I didn't make that term up.

So, to some folks out there, a small subset of a small subset of Christianity, a girl who has dressed immodestly (which to some groups can mean showing wrists, ankles or her hair, or wearing pants), or has acted in ways that are not feminine, is partially to blame for any abuse that followed. It's the same argument you hear in other cultures, "She was asking for it!" with an extra helping of "the poor young man just couldn't help himself." And sometimes there are even rationalizations about how Eve led Man to the Fall, for hers was the first sin. (Still not making this up.)

Reminder: There are not a lot of people who believe this way.

The girls' suit looks very much like a Muslim swim 'burka'. Interesting. And, yeah, there are people who buy that cow wholesale. I have a good, non-Evangelical friend who homeschooled and started hanging with the Evies, some of whom tout this stuff. Her girls suddenly had to wear huge, tent-like t-shirts for swimming (along with not being allowed to read/watch Harry Potter because wizards. Funnily enough, that didn't apply to LoTR, because the author was Christian *smdh*), and she became a Fundamentalist (showing a fundamental lack of knowledge about her own religion, as our faith doesn't teach that everything in the bible should be taken as literal truth). Takes all kinds, I guess.

 

[hipmamajen]

I just saw this on Facebook today and thought I'd post it here:
I could’ve been a Duggar wife: I grew up in the same church, and the abuse scandal doesn’t shock me

 

[not_nadine]

I don't have the words I want to say about that article right now.

wow.

 

[Dana Jean]

That article was discouraging.

I do have to say though, I like when a man holds a door for me, or opens my car door. I don't think that's submissive. I just like the old fashion consideration of that. I think it's sweet.

 

[Lepplady]

Again, this is just from my knowledge of some folks "in the life." And to be fair, most of the rightest-wing, most evangelical Christians I've ever dealt with believe that this situation is wrong and horrifying! So whomever wrote this bit of pedophilia apologetics is REALLY on the fringes of the fringe...

They mean if the person who was abused was not also culpable in the situation.

You know how from time to time articles pop up where girls have been asked to wear more clothing or less makeup, because their appearance or demeanor may cause the boys around them to be distracted? Imagine that thinking, but times a zillion.

I can not tell you how many times mothers are admonished to provide modest dress for their girls, because exposing their bodies is a "stumbling block" in the path of the brothers in the Christian faith. Not just the kids, all the men. And this isn't just in religious writings, it's in homeschooling articles, parenting books, forums everywhere.

A thread I've seen more than 100 times (I'm not exaggerating) goes something like this: My daughter has been invited to a girls-only pool party at the home of a friend. The parents will be there and involved the whole time, and many of the girls going are her friends from church. We have a modest swimsuit for her, so I know my daughter will be properly attired, but my concern is that the other girls at the party will likely be wearing regular one- and two-piece suits, and there is a teenage boy who lives at the house. I feel it is wrong for my daughter to take part in this, when there will be so many scantily clad girls parading around in front of this poor boy. I don't want the parents to think I condone such indecency, and the Bible says, 'Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers.' So my question is this: When I decline the invitation, should I tell the parents all my concerns so that they have a chance to consider the situation they're putting these children in, since their everlasting testimony is at stake? Or should I just politely say, 'No, thank you,' and keep them in my prayers?

Before we go any further, you have to click the "modest swimwear" link in that paragraph. Then you have to understand that I am not stretching the truth on this, I have seen this discussion over, and over, and over. And finally, you have to really try to see that some of the people out there believe that they are helping by doing these things, like "guarding the eyes of the men." I didn't make that term up.

So, to some folks out there, a small subset of a small subset of Christianity, a girl who has dressed immodestly (which to some groups can mean showing wrists, ankles or her hair, or wearing pants), or has acted in ways that are not feminine, is partially to blame for any abuse that followed. It's the same argument you hear in other cultures, "She was asking for it!" with an extra helping of "the poor young man just couldn't help himself." And sometimes there are even rationalizations about how Eve led Man to the Fall, for hers was the first sin. (Still not making this up.)

Reminder: There are not a lot of people who believe this way.

I don't think the question "What does #6 mean" meant that they didn't understand the wording. I think they meant that it's ridiculous to imply that somebody that's been abused could be considered culpable in any way. Saying that the victim was "asking for it" by dressing in any way is archaic and unforgivable. A woman can walk around naked and it still doesn't give a man "permission" to abuse her. The implication that a victim is responsible by any measure is infuriating.

 

[Lepplady]

That article was discouraging.

I do have to say though, I like when a man holds a door for me, or opens my car door. I don't think that's submissive. I just like the old fashion consideration of that. I think it's sweet.

There's a difference between "dominating" and good manners. A man can treat a woman with respect without her having to be subservient to him. Quite the opposite. It means that he holds her in high regard. Should, anyway.

 

[Neesy]

Again, this is just from my knowledge of some folks "in the life." And to be fair, most of the rightest-wing, most evangelical Christians I've ever dealt with believe that this situation is wrong and horrifying! So whomever wrote this bit of pedophilia apologetics is REALLY on the fringes of the fringe...

They mean if the person who was abused was not also culpable in the situation.

You know how from time to time articles pop up where girls have been asked to wear more clothing or less makeup, because their appearance or demeanor may cause the boys around them to be distracted? Imagine that thinking, but times a zillion.

I can not tell you how many times mothers are admonished to provide modest dress for their girls, because exposing their bodies is a "stumbling block" in the path of the brothers in the Christian faith. Not just the kids, all the men. And this isn't just in religious writings, it's in homeschooling articles, parenting books, forums everywhere.

A thread I've seen more than 100 times (I'm not exaggerating) goes something like this: My daughter has been invited to a girls-only pool party at the home of a friend. The parents will be there and involved the whole time, and many of the girls going are her friends from church. We have a modest swimsuit for her, so I know my daughter will be properly attired, but my concern is that the other girls at the party will likely be wearing regular one- and two-piece suits, and there is a teenage boy who lives at the house. I feel it is wrong for my daughter to take part in this, when there will be so many scantily clad girls parading around in front of this poor boy. I don't want the parents to think I condone such indecency, and the Bible says, 'Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers.' So my question is this: When I decline the invitation, should I tell the parents all my concerns so that they have a chance to consider the situation they're putting these children in, since their everlasting testimony is at stake? Or should I just politely say, 'No, thank you,' and keep them in my prayers?

Before we go any further, you have to click the "modest swimwear" link in that paragraph. Then you have to understand that I am not stretching the truth on this, I have seen this discussion over, and over, and over. And finally, you have to really try to see that some of the people out there believe that they are helping by doing these things, like "guarding the eyes of the men." I didn't make that term up.

So, to some folks out there, a small subset of a small subset of Christianity, a girl who has dressed immodestly (which to some groups can mean showing wrists, ankles or her hair, or wearing pants), or has acted in ways that are not feminine, is partially to blame for any abuse that followed. It's the same argument you hear in other cultures, "She was asking for it!" with an extra helping of "the poor young man just couldn't help himself." And sometimes there are even rationalizations about how Eve led Man to the Fall, for hers was the first sin. (Still not making this up.)

Reminder: There are not a lot of people who believe this way.

So what I take from this is that these extreme sects are quite similar to Muslims in their thinking (only not quite as bad, as they don't want women to cover themselves from head to toe).

If my neighbor has a beautiful house and I enter that house and steal some items that I saw through their big picture window, then can I use the excuse that I could not help myself as they were flaunting things that I desired? (maybe a DUMB comparison I admit ).

I think the onus should be on the men to control themselves, not make women dress 'modestly'.

Anyway, I do thank you very much for providing such a well thought out and lengthy answer - it is much appreciated.

I am just as guilty as these Christians when it comes to judging others, actually. A girl in her 20s was at Herzing College when I went there back in 2001 and when I saw her in the washroom wearing a crop top I thought it was inappropriate clothing to go to school in. Maybe something like that would work at the beach or a summer picnic, but I did not see the point of her baring her abdomen.

I recall that I actually said something to her (I had just got out of the military!) and she replied that it was "hot". We had air conditioning in the school. Maybe she wasn't talking about the temperature?

Oh well, like I said, thanks again.

 

[Neesy]

Again, this is just from my knowledge of some folks "in the life." And to be fair, most of the rightest-wing, most evangelical Christians I've ever dealt with believe that this situation is wrong and horrifying! So whomever wrote this bit of pedophilia apologetics is REALLY on the fringes of the fringe...

They mean if the person who was abused was not also culpable in the situation.

You know how from time to time articles pop up where girls have been asked to wear more clothing or less makeup, because their appearance or demeanor may cause the boys around them to be distracted? Imagine that thinking, but times a zillion.

I can not tell you how many times mothers are admonished to provide modest dress for their girls, because exposing their bodies is a "stumbling block" in the path of the brothers in the Christian faith. Not just the kids, all the men. And this isn't just in religious writings, it's in homeschooling articles, parenting books, forums everywhere.

A thread I've seen more than 100 times (I'm not exaggerating) goes something like this: My daughter has been invited to a girls-only pool party at the home of a friend. The parents will be there and involved the whole time, and many of the girls going are her friends from church. We have a modest swimsuit for her, so I know my daughter will be properly attired, but my concern is that the other girls at the party will likely be wearing regular one- and two-piece suits, and there is a teenage boy who lives at the house. I feel it is wrong for my daughter to take part in this, when there will be so many scantily clad girls parading around in front of this poor boy. I don't want the parents to think I condone such indecency, and the Bible says, 'Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers.' So my question is this: When I decline the invitation, should I tell the parents all my concerns so that they have a chance to consider the situation they're putting these children in, since their everlasting testimony is at stake? Or should I just politely say, 'No, thank you,' and keep them in my prayers?

Before we go any further, you have to click the "modest swimwear" link in that paragraph. Then you have to understand that I am not stretching the truth on this, I have seen this discussion over, and over, and over. And finally, you have to really try to see that some of the people out there believe that they are helping by doing these things, like "guarding the eyes of the men." I didn't make that term up.

So, to some folks out there, a small subset of a small subset of Christianity, a girl who has dressed immodestly (which to some groups can mean showing wrists, ankles or her hair, or wearing pants), or has acted in ways that are not feminine, is partially to blame for any abuse that followed. It's the same argument you hear in other cultures, "She was asking for it!" with an extra helping of "the poor young man just couldn't help himself." And sometimes there are even rationalizations about how Eve led Man to the Fall, for hers was the first sin. (Still not making this up.)

Reminder: There are not a lot of people who believe this way.

Wow - if this is what is considered a "modest' swimsuit then I wonder how it would go over at a regular teen pool party. I think the better choice is just to decline the invitation with thanks.
​

 

[Lepplady]

Wow - if this is what is considered a "modest' swimsuit then I wonder how it would go over at a regular teen pool party. I think the better choice is just to decline the invitation with thanks.
​

Bare-naked feet? The SCANDAL!

 

[hipmamajen]

I don't think the question "What does #6 mean" meant that they didn't understand the wording. I think they meant that it's ridiculous to imply that somebody that's been abused could be considered culpable in any way. Saying that the victim was "asking for it" by dressing in any way is archaic and unforgivable. A woman can walk around naked and it still doesn't give a man "permission" to abuse her. The implication that a victim is responsible by any measure is infuriating.

I didn't mean to imply that the person hadn't been able to comprehend the sentence.

And I hope no one thought I was trying to make excuses for the beliefs behind the document. I completely and vehemently disagree with it.

I was merely trying to shed some light on the people who do see life, sex, gender, and the relationship of all of those to God the same way that author does.

Knowing how a person ticks can help understand what moves they will make next, or what other situations may already be bubbling under the surface. More knowledge is never a bad thing.

 

[FlakeNoir]

I didn't mean to imply that the person hadn't been able to comprehend the sentence.

And I hope no one thought I was trying to make excuses for the beliefs behind the document. I completely and vehemently disagree with it.

I was merely trying to shed some light on the people who do see life, sex, gender, and the relationship of all of those to God the same way that author does.

Knowing how a person ticks can help understand what moves they will make next, or what other situations may already be bubbling under the surface. More knowledge is never a bad thing.

No, I understood perfectly what you were saying and I appreciated you passing that on.

 

[Lepplady]

I didn't mean to imply that the person hadn't been able to comprehend the sentence.

And I hope no one thought I was trying to make excuses for the beliefs behind the document. I completely and vehemently disagree with it.

I was merely trying to shed some light on the people who do see life, sex, gender, and the relationship of all of those to God the same way that author does.

Knowing how a person ticks can help understand what moves they will make next, or what other situations may already be bubbling under the surface. More knowledge is never a bad thing.

My curt reply was intended toward THEM. Not you. I'm sorry if I seemed short with you.

 

[hipmamajen]

My curt reply was intended toward THEM. Not you. I'm sorry if I seemed short with you.

Thank you, and no worries. :-D

 

[FlakeNoir]

My curt reply was intended toward THEM. Not you. I'm sorry if I seemed short with you.

I didn't read that as you addressing Jen that way either.

 

[Dana Jean]

I think the channel and all the sponsors who've made a b*ttload of money off of these people should donate a great deal of it to facilities that deal with sexual molestation and abuse!

I have no respect for any sponsor or the network who are trying to clean this up to keep the cash cows on TV and breeding.

 

[not_nadine]

I saw 5 minutes into this and had to turn it off. The permed haired wife was looking at husband with love while he explained above the clothes touching. And a couple of times real touching.

I don't need to see this.

 

[danie]

Ok everyone, back up. I'm gonna rant and I don't want to get any of it on you...

I've homeschooled my kids my kids since the late 90s, when the internet was young and there weren't a lot of websites out there for people keeping their kids home. So, even though I'm not a fundamental Christian, I have a lot of friends in the community and I've traveled the same "news circles" as it were.

Because of this, I've been aware of the Duggar family and the Quiverful Movement since she was on kid 15 or so. For anyone not aware, members of the Quiverful Movement believe that all children are a blessing and families should take no measures to prevent them. That sounds a little crazy in today's world, but other faiths have the same belief, so it's not like they're alone in that idea.

They also believe in chaste courtship (no kissing until after marriage) and extremely modest dress, and other ideas that in and of themselves have worked at different times or in other places, and may even work well for some people now, but they are certainly not the norm. It's nothing most people would choose, but it would be hard to find something you could point to and say "This practice is objectively abusive, by anyone's standards." For example, they don't practice female circumcision, or marry underage girls off by the handful to creepy old men, or sacrifice children to volcanoes to appease the gods of the harvest.

If you think of them sort of like Amish people with technology and no Rumspringa, you might be getting close. Or Catholics with really, really strict parents, but Post-Vatican II enough to eat meat on Fridays and during Lent. I may just be making this worse....

From their perspective, they are using Biblical principles to raise their children in a world that's ever more out of balance and scary. They avoid most media, because in their minds it is just a way to invite filth into their home, and they instead focus on ideas and materials they consider uplifting and morally correct. Their hope is to raise a generation of righteous leaders who will bring more faith and goodness into the world.

***Please note: I am explaining this the best I can from my interactions with people who hold these beliefs, and I hope I am doing so correctly. If anyone knows more about this than I do, please feel free to fill in gaps or fix any mistakes I've made.***

Personally, I have no beef with another person's religious beliefs. I've been in the homeschooling movement long enough to be concerned for kids from families that "protect them from the evil world" by keeping them unaware of what's out there, because I've seen it go bad enough times to know where that road leads. (But that's a post for another day.)

But I do have an issue with the Duggars, and I've often wondered when the kids grew up and moved away, how long it would take for the "tell-all" books to start hitting the market. Not because they're religious, or because there are a lot of them, but because they are so invested in appearing to be a uniform and perfect product.

19 kids, their names all start with "J." Sweet mother of Abraham Lincoln! And when you see them the girls are all in matching dresses, the boys in matching shirts and pants. Perfectly ironed and unsullied from their hair bows to their toes. If anyone asks, each kid says everything is great, and they never show a messy room or one kid smacking another upside the head with a bowl of Cheerios.

This is not how normal families behave.

Every child is different. And there is no way you can birth 19 kids in a row who will be compliant at the levels those kids appeared to be every time we saw them. There was some serious "discipline" going on in that house. I don't think we've heard the last of the scandals from the Duggar Tribe, not by far.

I give the dad credit for trying to tell somebody what happened when he found out. But then he dropped the ball. Hard. God forbid he take any action, like bring the girls to see a therapist, or keeping the son in some kind of ongoing program. When the first time someone tries to get help for your molested daughters, it's freaking OPRAH, you're a screw up. Plain and simple.

I suspect they didn't want the world to find out that their stair step, matchy matchy, reality show family wasn't perfect, when that's what they were trying to sell us all the whole time. "Sure you think we're crazy, but you'll see. When our kids all turn out perfect, everyone will have to admit we've been right!"

And I'm sure they didn't want to see it, either. No parent does. But that's how parenting is, you keep your eyes open and do your best to help guide your kids, even if that means you have to swim right up "I'm a sh!t parent" creek when the world is watching.

I don't care what they believe. I don't care if they keep having kids until the last one comes out wearing her uterus for a hat. But I do have problems when they care more about what we (the public) think about their family than they do about what their kids need.

Rant over.

Jen, I laughed all the way through this! You are really gifted at writing good information with so many humorous surprises, that I can't wait to read the next sentence! The uterus hat...can't stop giggling!

 

[hipmamajen]

Jen, I laughed all the way through this! You are really gifted at writing good information with so many humorous surprises, that I can't wait to read the next sentence! The uterus hat...can't stop giggling!

Aw, thank you.

 

[EMARX]

I'm not sure who I'm more pissed at. The man for even spewing such crap or a television network for paying them to appear.

Any kind of touching is sexual abuse!!!!!