Josh Duggar incident

[TheHuckster]

All right, let me ask you a question, actually I have a couple of questions, but I'll start with this one. What if all of sudden pooping was a sin before you were married? What do you think would happen? A baby would be a sinner within the first couple of minutes of life, and then the possibility that we would die, because you know, poop is toxic. When you put it that way, it is ridiculous on its face. Of course pooping is not a sin, because it is a biological function. So is sex. Sex is a biological need, and when that is repressed, bad things happen. Granted, a lack of sex won't kill you, but the point still remains.

As someone who had tried to become celibate (to the point of masturbation), I can't answer that one. All I can say is it's a matter of serious will-power. At least to voluntarily ejaculate. Nevermind the fact that ejaculation does happen whether you actively jerk it out or not, making the whole "spilling the seed" thing complete bollocks.

My second question is how did couples in the olden days reconcile their sex life with God before official governments got involved? All is a wedding truly is a ceremony to prove that you are married to your family and friends, and a legally binding contract.

Well, you got married at a church, for one thing. How far back are you talking about?

[Kheldarson]

.

My second question is how did couples in the olden days reconcile their sex life with God before official governments got involved? All is a wedding truly is a ceremony to prove that you are married to your family and friends, and a legally binding contract.

The groom and the bride's father would agree on a dowry, present the agreement to the tribal elder/priest, the elder/priest would lead a ceremony in front of the community and now you can bump uglies

[cewfa]

Still has no religious basis in my mind. Sounds like rules made by humans for humans. I think an all-knowing, all-powerful, loving and just God doesn't care how often or under what circumstances we ejaculate or have sex under. I think God has better things to do and worry about.

[Hyena Dandy]

Granted, a lack of sex won't kill you, but the point still remains.

Which is why that metaphor falls apart. Yes, repressing your sexual urges can lead to bad things. But you're not going to die from not having sex. You will die from not pooping for several months. You're just creating a strawman here. Rather than trying to understand an alternative perspective, you're pointing out why it's wrong from your perspective. The "If (X) was a sin, would you not do it?" is a silly question, because it ISN'T a sin. And while someone's philosophy may be based on the idea that they will not do things declared sins, it's also often based on an idea that says that the force demanding that you not do it is just and wise. Thus, while you could look at abstaining from sex and think "Uh..That sounds like not a great plan, but okay," you can know that your not pooping would not come from a just authority.

It's like the military. You obey any order, becuase it comes from a proper authority. And if what you're ordered to do is illegal, then it's not a just authority. Similarly, if doing something horribly idiotic is a sin, then the force commanding it cannot be a just authority. There's also the idea of Natural Law, which argues

1) The purpose of sex is procreation.

2) The purpose of marriage is to bind people together, and protect and continue the family

3) Therefore, to have sex outside of marriage, is wrong, because you shouldn't be trying to procreate unless you're willing to devote yourself to protecting the kid. Even if it's through surrogacy. I think most people would have a problem with someone who says "I want to have a kid. I mean, I want to just throw it in a dumpster after, but I want to be pregnant and give birth."

That, for many, philosophically, is what sex outside of marriage IS. Now, I disagree with that. You may as well. That's fine, but at least try to understand it. For me, I think that the first premise is the problem, and that sex serves other purposes.

All is a wedding truly is a ceremony to prove that you are married to your family and friends, and a legally binding contract.

You're taking the modern definition, and applying it to a previous culture. Weddings were various things at various times, but in the past in Europe, the wedding almost ALWAYS involved an official governing body. The Church kept records of who was married and who wasn't. Now, from the state's perspective, a wedding is just a contract. From my perspetcive, it's a contract, and a ceremony. But from the perspective you're discussing, it's a religious rite. The church, not the state, marries you.

Edit: Because discussion continued.

Still has no religious basis in my mind. Sounds like rules made by humans for humans. I think an all-knowing, all-powerful, loving and just God doesn't care how often or under what circumstances we ejaculate or have sex under. I think God has better things to do and worry about.

You do, they don't. It's coming from, at the very least, a different sect of the same general religion. There's a difference between it having a religious basis, and it having your religious basis. My religion doesn't go on the Hajj, but there's certainly a religious basis for it in the religion that does.

[jedimaster91]

Still has no religious basis in my mind. Sounds like rules made by humans for humans. I think an all-knowing, all-powerful, loving and just God doesn't care how often or under what circumstances we ejaculate or have sex under. I think God has better things to do and worry about.

Not necessarily. If you believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful, and loving God, He absolutely would care about the well being of His children. With the physical and emotional repercussions of sex it's understandable He wants us to be careful with it. Think about it. How would you feel if it was your son or daughter that had sex with someone, the relationship didn't work out for whatever reason, and now they're devastated, heartbroken, and possibly humiliated because kids are jerks? Now imagine somebody got pregnant as a result and/or someone got a disease that may or may not be curable and you think God wouldn't care about that? It may seem like small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, but what good parent wouldn't be concerned about their child dealing with an emotional upheaval and difficult decisions? Did you spend late nights looking for your child's special blanket or toy? And if so, didn't you have better things to worry about like how you were going to put food on the table or that deadline for a work project? Of course. But finding that item was of great importance to the child, so it became of great importance to the parent. God is the same way. He loves His children and wants the best for them.

I think we can all agree abstinence-only education doesn't work. It leads to a vast ignorance on how sex works and what the different bits do. Sex education is important, regardless of one's moral or religious standings. I come from a religious family, but I also come from a medical family. I remember my parents getting us a computer program--designed for kids--that taught about all the different body systems with a separate, special program about reproduction and pregnancy. I couldn't have been more than 6 or 8 and my siblings were even younger. My parents were also very (age appropriately) candid with us when we asked questions even if it was awkward. We were definitely not ignorant and we were also taught bounderies. I didn't view sex as gross or sinful (except for being little and thinking my parents kissing was gross ). Though it seems like I might be the exception rather than the rule. Which is sad because it's absolutely possible to have a comprehensive sex education and still choose not to engage in it until marriage.

Would a better sex education have helped in the Duggar's situation? Possibly. If Josh did indeed molest his sisters more out of curiosity than malice, knowing and understanding the human body more may have prevented it. Both by knowing (at least in a textbook sense) what the female body looks like and understanding the feelings and urges he was having as a 15 year old boy going through puberty. That is where his parents failed him.

[cewfa]

I'm not advocating that we all get together and have an ultra gang-shag orgy. I think promiscuity is wrong and a sin. However, sex in a committed relationship? I don't see a problem with that. Sometimes committed relationships don't work out for whatever reason. My point is that, yes, God does care about what we do, but God also sees the big picture. Focusing on sex being wrong, just because it is not in a marriage relationship is not seeing the forest for the trees. Marriage ceremonies are just a dog and pony show anyways, much like 9 out of 10 churches are on their face.

[Kheldarson]

I'm not advocating that we all get together and have an ultra gang-shag orgy. I think promiscuity is wrong and a sin. However, sex in a committed relationship?

How do you define committed if not in a ceremony/contract that declares you'll forsake all others? Plus recall that a number of these rules were during a time when property ownership was passed through family lines. Hard to prove who should get what if you have no clear cut family unit.

Marriage ceremonies are just a dog and pony show anyways, much like 9 out of 10 churches are on their face.

Certainly welcome to your opinion, but I have found that quite the opposite is true. Marriage ceremonies are deeply personal expressions of the couple's commitment and, much like church, you're going to get out of it what you put in.

[cewfa]

Maybe in your case it is a deeply expression of your personal commitment, but as a whole I'll believe that when the divorce rate lowers some.

[KabeRinnaul]

Maybe in your case it is a deeply expression of your personal commitment, but as a whole I'll believe that when the divorce rate lowers some.

It likely won't drop much in the future unless the marriage rate also drops, because there are four major factors in it going up, and I don't see any of those trends reversing anytime soon.

First, there are a few minor factors. One is the increasing secularization of society. With a reduction in the influence of organized religion, the pressure to remain in a bad marriage is also reduced.

Another is an increased emphasis in marrying for love. Without other reasons, second thoughts on how much you really like your partner can be enough to end it.

Finally, there's our ever-increasing lifespans. "Til death do you part" used to mean about twenty years or so. You might not have the patience for an iffy relationship when it means fifty years.

But the biggest factor is increased equality between the sexes. Historically, women weren't generally allowed to pursue a divorce. In cases where they were, the woman was essentially giving up her home, family, and income. She'd be totally destitute if she couldn't return to her parents' family. And the likelihood of her remarrying was basically zero.

You're a lot more willing to tolerate your asshole husband when the alternative is to become an impoverished spinster.

[Gravekeeper]

For those of you trying to defend or excuse this because of his upbringing or repressed sexual urges I'd just like to point out the youngest girl he molested was 5. He also confessed to his dad on three separate occasions.

Josh was *18* when the police report was filed because his parents tried to cover it up and ended up running out the statue of limitations and thus Josh was not charged with anything. As a result, the records are not protected as a juvenile records and were available by FOIA request.

If you want to blame anyone for the release of the records, blame his parents. By hushing it up to run out the statue they also negated having the records sealed as juvenile.

[shadowmaster]

For those of you trying to defend or excuse this because of his upbringing or repressed sexual urges I'd just like to point out the youngest girl he molested was 5. He also confessed to his dad on three separate occasions.

Josh was *18* when the police report was filed because his parents tried to cover it up and ended up running out the statue of limitations and thus Josh was not charged with anything. As a result, the records are not protected as a juvenile records and were available by FOIA request.

If you want to blame anyone for the release of the records, blame his parents. By hushing it up to run out the statue they also negated having the records sealed as juvenile.

This has been my major issue with this whole thing (or at least one of them). Granted, I'm looking at it as an outsider that was raised in a fairly open family when it comes to religion, so I don't personally know what the exact environment was like (reading what this movement teaches - and I have done that - with my background and experience - is different than actually growing up in it). BUT (you knew it was coming), I have a very very hard time reconciling "He was curious and might not have known it was wrong based on the lack of sexual education" when it comes to a 15-year-old touching a 5-year-old. I still don't condone unconsensual behavior with age-mates or close to age-mates, but I can somewhat understand the "curious/didn't know it was wrong" argument in that context - but it really stretches it for me when it comes to a 5-year-old. Even with all of the "it's her fault for making you feel that way" and blaming the victim teaching - it's extremely difficult for me to fathom how anyone can think to apply that to a 5-year-old.

Then there's the repeated confessions and the running out the clock and the lack of actual intervention. I don't necessarily think it had to come to law enforcement involvement (I can't even imagine what a parent must go through with a "do I report my kid to the cops" type situation) after that first confession - but DO SOMETHING. The supposed "therapy" that they sent him to, from what I read about it, it was more of the same "teaching" he'd been getting his whole life (I've also read the whole "consisted of physical labor only" thing, but don't remember the source, so I can't comment on the veracity of that) but what he went to wasn't actually an intervention or therapy from what I've been able to piece together, at least in my semi-professional opinion (I'm a psychologist, but don't maintain a license and I teach now instead of "practice").

I'm also on you with the whole release of records thing because of the circumstances you recounted.

My other major issue with this, is that the parents seemed more concerned with the fate of their television show that was in the works at the time than actually dealing with any potential problems. They then used that show to deflect (as did Josh with his position with the FRC and his political activism) - and paint entire groups of people as sexual deviants and child molesters that are a danger to the safety of young children. I'm FAR from a biblical scholar, but to my admittedly novice mind Matthew 7:5 and John 8:7 come to mind.

[NecCat]

For those of you trying to defend or excuse this because of his upbringing or repressed sexual urges I'd just like to point out the youngest girl he molested was 5. He also confessed to his dad on three separate occasions.

That actually makes me a little more sympathetic to Josh. His upbringing and religion places the burden of being responsible for sexual encounters on the female. They teach the male is just a lust filled uncontrolabeast, and the female is required to behave and present modestly to stop the poor male from being seduced by the devil thoughts. What 5 year old have you met that doesn't occasionally strip down and run around nude, or talk about the girl parts and boy parts (giggle, giggle). Kids are shameless, mostly because society hasn't taught them shame yet. The fact that he repeatedly went to the people he trusted (his parents) and confessed, making him think he was possibly doing the wrong thing, and they didn't take it seriously enough to prevent further incidents would only make it more ok in his mind. The fact that his conscience was kicking in in spite of his upbringing makes me think he could have been stopped after (or even before) the first time with proper counselling. His, his sisters and his other victims lives could have worked out ok, but his parents failed this situation at every turn.

As someone else said, as a parent I don't know that I could turn my kid over to the police either, but I certainly wouldn't let him stay in the house with other kids who could be hurt, at least not without a responsible adult chaperone who was informed of the situation and present at all times.

[jedimaster91]

As someone else said, as a parent I don't know that I could turn my kid over to the police either, but I certainly wouldn't let him stay in the house with other kids who could be hurt, at least not without a responsible adult chaperone who was informed of the situation and present at all times.

That's a tough call as a parent and not one I would relish either. That being said, I would definitely be finding a licensed counselor that deals with this sort of thing and not leave any of the children in a potentially dangerous situation. And even with counselling, it would be difficult for me to trust the perpetrator around potential victims ever again.

[Hyena Dandy]

I have a very very hard time reconciling "He was curious and might not have known it was wrong based on the lack of sexual education" when it comes to a 15-year-old touching a 5-year-old.

I have to agree with that. Their sex education isn't good, but it's not THAT bad. The only way I could reconcile is if he somehow had no idea that girls HAD ladybits and was REALLY CURIOUS about what they were. I think what it comes down to is - The Duggars aren't really 'Special.' That is, they're not the only family that raises kids in that culture. If that was really there, you would be getting a LOT more young child molesters.

[jedimaster91]

I have to agree with that. Their sex education isn't good, but it's not THAT bad. The only way I could reconcile is if he somehow had no idea that girls HAD ladybits and was REALLY CURIOUS about what they were. I think what it comes down to is - The Duggars aren't really 'Special.' That is, they're not the only family that raises kids in that culture. If that was really there, you would be getting a LOT more young child molesters.

With that in mind, it does make one curious as to where Josh might have learned those behaviors.