Life Is Short; Have an Affair

[Catholic_Lady]

If Josh's psychologist came forward and said his parent's upbringing were to blame for his molestation, I'd believe it. Until then, I think it's best not to blame the parents when we don't actually know.

The relation between sexual repression and violence is a fact. A teenaged boy, not allowed contact with the opposite sex or any expression of his sexuality in a house full of girls roughly his age is a recipe for disaster. It's apparent.
And seeing how his father was not a sex offender, the genetic factor you talked about is excluded, and even then its significance is rather overstated. The explanation is quite obvious.

If you're using the argument that it can't be genetic because otherwise his dad would be a molester too, then the same argument can be used to say it wasn't due to his upbringing otherwise all his other siblings would be molesters too. 

All I'm saying is that it's a very incriminating accusation to say that a person's parents are to blame for that person having molested or raped someone. The Duggar's have 19 kids. As far as we know, only one of those 19 has this problem. It just seems like a rash judgement.

[The Grand Nudger]

1/19 might be an awfully damning number, Cath.  It's pretty fair to say that something went wrong in that house.  If you shook hands /w the next 19 people you saw on the street, how many of them do you think are likely to have molested their siblings? How many people do you work with, can we count the 19th of every one of them among that number. It's a disturbing notion, I think you'd agree. Thing is, it's not just this one case, this one family.......eh? Sexual repression and sexual offense are buddies, they seem to be awfully close when we go a'lookin. It;s obviously not -solely- a "christian problem"...but it's just as silly to excuse whatever component christianity brings to that table. We're not pretending that it doesn't bring the repression in spades...are we.....?

[Longhorn]

The relation between sexual repression and violence is a fact. A teenaged boy, not allowed contact with the opposite sex or any expression of his sexuality in a house full of girls roughly his age is a recipe for disaster. It's apparent.
And seeing how his father was not a sex offender, the genetic factor you talked about is excluded, and even then its significance is rather overstated. The explanation is quite obvious.

If you're using the argument that it can't be genetic because otherwise his dad would be a molester too, then the same argument can be used to say it wasn't due to his upbringing otherwise all his other siblings would be molesters too. 

All I'm saying is that it's a very incriminating accusation to say that a person's parents are to blame for that person having molested or raped someone. The Duggar's have 19 kids. As far as we know, only one of those 19 has this problem. It just seems like a rash judgement.

Not really. Most of their children, afaik, are female, and that alone renders them less likely to be sex offenders. And for the cause to be genetic, his father had to be a molester too. Not *all* boys raised this way will become sex offenders, but it will undoubtedly affect them in a negative way.

You keep saying that I'm blaming their parents. I'm not. I'm blaming the idea of repressing sexual urges, and most of all I'm blaming Josh Duggar. Duh.

[Catholic_Lady]

If you're using the argument that it can't be genetic because otherwise his dad would be a molester too, then the same argument can be used to say it wasn't due to his upbringing otherwise all his other siblings would be molesters too. 

All I'm saying is that it's a very incriminating accusation to say that a person's parents are to blame for that person having molested or raped someone. The Duggar's have 19 kids. As far as we know, only one of those 19 has this problem. It just seems like a rash judgement.

Not really. Most of their children, afaik, are female, and that alone renders them less likely to be sex offenders. And for the cause to be genetic, his father had to be a molester too. Not *all* boys raised this way will become sex offenders, but it will undoubtedly affect them in a negative way.

You keep saying that I'm blaming their parents. I'm not. I'm blaming the idea of repressing sexual urges, and most of all I'm blaming Josh Duggar. Duh.

Well when you said it was their "preaching" that caused it, and that it was the way they were raised, I'm not sure how that does not implicate the parents who were the ones who taught them these ideals and raised them in this way. 

Also, just because a person may be genetically predisposed to a particular type of sex drive, or sexual deviance, preference, etc, doesn't necessarily mean his parents have it too.  

I still stand by that it's rash judgement to assume that it was their upbringing that caused a person whom you have never even met to molest other people, and that we should try to avoid such judgments. Agree to disagree I guess.

[Aroura]

Sure, I'll try a more succinct description.  Our moral support or tacit acceptance of the situation these people have found themselves in erodes the foundational support, ensconced by our constitution, state...and federal laws, for those very same liberties and protections we would hope to possess ourselves.  

We cannot refer to the fact that they are cheaters and that cheating is illegal to explain or justify this behavior, no ones been convicted of cheating.
We cannot refer to their immorality to explain or justify this behavior, our moral judgements are irrelevant in this context.

Our behavior, in this moral support, in this tacit approval, in these implied justifications, in that small amount of joy - is plainly, simply, -against- our own best interests, in contradiction with who we claim to be, and in glaring defiance of how we handle other, similar situations - even on these boards (leaving the US behind for a moment, as it were).  That the situation makes it difficult for us to see that clearly, or immediately, is what makes it such an interesting situation, to me.

Thank you.  Sorry it took me a while to reply, I was otherwise occupied on this site.

I understand you points.  I do agree with them, as well actually.  It's just that feeling like I should and feeling like do are not the same, even when I know it.

At any rate, it's a character flaw for me to work on (for most people, I suppose).  It is wrong to invade their privacy in the way it was done. It wasn't like cops arresting people or anything.
It's wierd, but IRL I'm totally anti-vigilante.  On the net, I guess I had not really thought it ALL the way through.

[Whateverist]

My point was only to show that there are people behaving badly in all groups. And leaving he Democratic party solely due to Clinton's wrongdoings would be just as fickle as leaving Christianity solely due to Josh's wrongdoings, IMHO.

I don't disagree.

[thesummerqueen]

If you're using the argument that it can't be genetic because otherwise his dad would be a molester too, then the same argument can be used to say it wasn't due to his upbringing otherwise all his other siblings would be molesters too. 

Not necessarily. Nature vs nurture are more nuanced than that.

[Catholic_Lady]

If you're using the argument that it can't be genetic because otherwise his dad would be a molester too, then the same argument can be used to say it wasn't due to his upbringing otherwise all his other siblings would be molesters too. 

Not necessarily. Nature vs nurture are more nuanced than that.

I know they are, lol. That's my point. You can't say "oh there's no way this person is this way due to nature because his dad isn't this way" in the same way that you can't say "oh there's no way this person is this way because of nurture because his siblings aren't the same way." I agree, they are more nuanced. Both of them. I was using Vic's own logic about the former to make a case for the latter, but truth is they are both weak points. I just don't think we should pretend to be someone's psychologist and say the person's upbringing by the parents caused them to do whatever horrible thing they did. It's rash judgement, and unfair to the parents.

[The Grand Nudger]

What's unfair about it?  It;s not as though anyones trying to pin some malice on good ole mom and dad.  That they created an environment strongly correlated with maladaptive sexual behaviors is simply a demonstrable fact.  The road to perdition is paved with good intent.

It's like lining a crib with razor blades, and then saying "well, I didn't -mean- for the baby to get cut, we were trying to keep the dingos out!". Okay, fictitious pyschotic person, maybe you're dense, but when you line something with razor blades....things have a tendency to get cut. No one is blaming mommy and daddy, we are recognizing that mommy and daddy contributed by creating a situation with -less than random- outcomes. Sexual repression seems to be encouragement towards sexual offense, regardless of the intent or character of the repressor. It might be an unpleasant acknowledgement, but it isn't unfair.

[Catholic_Lady]

What's unfair about it?  It;s not as though anyones trying to pin some malice on good ole mom and dad.  That they created an environment strongly correlated with maladaptive sexual behaviors is simply a demonstrable fact.  The road to perdition is paved with good intent.

It's like lining a crib with razor blades, and then saying "well, I didn't -mean- for the baby to get cut".  Okay, fictitious pyschotic person, maybe you're dense, but when you line something with razor blades....things have a tendency to get cut.  No one is blaming mommy and daddy, we are recognizing that mommy and daddy contributed.

Whether intentional or not, saying the actions of someone else (in this case the parent's) are the cause of someone molesting their sisters, is extremely incriminating.

I find it foolish and rash and unfair to throw around such accusations without at least being that person's psychologist. I find this to be pretty basic principle to have, but if y'all disagree, then so be it.