Josh Duggar, the oldest of 19 biological children of a reality TV family in Arkansas. Accused of downloading dozens if not hundreds of images of child pornography. Apparently he also went to lengths to bypass computer programming meant to alert his wife (seriously) that he was looking at porn. In case you forgot, he also reportedly molested more than one of his younger sisters when he was a teenager. His wife, simultaneously innocent and in the running for worlds greatest schmuck is pregnant with their seventh child.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/jos ... 11966.html

Perhaps watching his parents exploit their children for cash and promotion of their perky fertility cult altered his perception.

Once a pedophile, always a pedophile. I'm sure God will forgive him, though. After all, he is a good christian. His parents and siblings statements of "support" have been very lukewarm.

The incredible thing is this dude molested his sister and STILL became an evangelical reality star. They'll seriously accept anything so long as it proclaims to luv thuh Lawd.

Aaron747 wrote:

The incredible thing is this dude molested his sister and STILL became an evangelical reality star. They'll seriously accept anything so long as it proclaims to luv thuh Lawd.

Well, he is from Arkansas...

alfa164 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

The incredible thing is this dude molested his sister and STILL became an evangelical reality star. They'll seriously accept anything so long as it proclaims to luv thuh Lawd.

Well, he is from Arkansas...

1. He made that joke himself at one point. Joke obviously didn’t age well.
2. His diddling did not become publicly known until well after the family entered the public consciousness. He was fired from whatever religious lobbying group he worked for after the information became public knowledge.

johns624 wrote:

Once a pedophile, always a pedophile. I'm sure God will forgive him, though. After all, he is a good christian. His parents and siblings statements of "support" have been very lukewarm.

I would say he was a a very bad Christian.

bennett123 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Once a pedophile, always a pedophile. I'm sure God will forgive him, though. After all, he is a good christian. His parents and siblings statements of "support" have been very lukewarm.

I would say he was a a very bad Christian.

The problem with the Christian narrative is many Christians use it to give their own bad behavior a pass. “I never said I was perfect. I’m flawed. I sin.” What they leave out is they seem to think that it still gives them the right to demand others behave in accordance with their wishes.

Ironically, his Dad was vice chair of the House Corrections and Criminal Law Subcommittee during his time in the Arkansas House of Representatives for District 6.

God must love hypocrites, he made so many of them like this jerk. I hope if the evidence is there to cause his being convicted, he gets a long term in a hard core jail. Child porn is so dead wrong on so many levels, very illegal in the USA for good reason that it needs heavy penalties for its consumers and makers.

This also brings up the issue of serious problems with most so-called 'reality' programing. Background checks are poorly done. They encourage the worst of human behavior, especially greed. Too many involved are attention whores and the producers are exploitative. Too many situations are scripted or exaggerate danger or conflict. I also don't like the exploitation and possible life long psychological damage of children who may not want to or should participate in such programs. I also don't like seeing with the '19 Children' the promotion of extreme religious views, how having so many children is bad for the planet.

bennett123 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Once a pedophile, always a pedophile. I'm sure God will forgive him, though. After all, he is a good christian. His parents and siblings statements of "support" have been very lukewarm.

I would say he was a a very bad Christian.

My point exactly. That's why I didn't capitalize it.

ltbewr wrote:

I also don't like seeing with the '19 Children' the promotion of extreme religious views, how having so many children is bad for the planet.

Don't you know: they need to spread "the word" around.

And, apparently, they feel the need to spread the sperm around, too...

alfa164 wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

I also don't like seeing with the '19 Children' the promotion of extreme religious views, how having so many children is bad for the planet.

Don't you know: they need to spread "the word" around.

And, apparently, they feel the need to spread the sperm around, too...

The wife always wore a dress for "easier access".

luckyone wrote:

Josh Duggar, the oldest of 19 biological children of a reality TV family in Arkansas. Accused of downloading dozens if not hundreds of images of child pornography. Apparently he also went to lengths to bypass computer programming meant to alert his wife (seriously) that he was looking at porn. In case you forgot, he also reportedly molested more than one of his younger sisters when he was a teenager. His wife, simultaneously innocent and in the running for worlds greatest schmuck is pregnant with their seventh child.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/jos ... 11966.html

Perhaps watching his parents exploit their children for cash and promotion of their perky fertility cult altered his perception.

When he was first arrested the authorities did not disclose what he was taken into custody for. My first though, child porn.

ltbewr wrote:

.

This also brings up the issue of serious problems with most so-called 'reality' programing. Background checks are poorly done. They encourage the worst of human behavior, especially greed. Too many involved are attention whores and the producers are exploitative. Too many situations are scripted or exaggerate danger or conflict. I also don't like the exploitation and possible life long psychological damage of children who may not want to or should participate in such programs. I also don't like seeing with the '19 Children' the promotion of extreme religious views, how having so many children is bad for the planet.

Reality TV ruined channels like Discovery, The History Channel and TLC. TLC being the channel that carried 19 and Counting. What were once channel's that carried informative and engaging programs turned into a waste land populated by village idiots.

ltbewr wrote:

Child porn is so dead wrong on so many levels, very illegal in the USA for good reason that it needs heavy penalties for its consumers and makers.

Question:
Does watching child porn help pedophiles to control their phantasies?
That guy apparently didn't abuse a child for a very long time. Makes me wonder if child porn helped him.
No argument about production of such videos.

In Switzerland people who are heroine addicts for decades and have failed several therapies can get heroine from the government.
Question is: can the government help pedophiles to lead a normal life or do such people have to be locked away?

Kiwirob wrote:

Child porn may have helped him control is urges but think of the children who were forced to make those images for him to control his urges.

The only way to stop a man like this's urges is castration.

I'm not sure if it helps control urges. But it seems after loosing control in adolescence he got himself under control.

There are enough child porns in the world already. No further child needs suffering.

Just like with child porn, one never comes across statistics about efficiency of castration. Whatever works is fine with me.

Kiwirob wrote:

Sokes wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

Child porn is so dead wrong on so many levels, very illegal in the USA for good reason that it needs heavy penalties for its consumers and makers.

Question:
Does watching child porn help pedophiles to control their phantasies?
That guy apparently didn't abuse a child for a very long time. Makes me wonder if child porn helped him.
No argument about production of such videos.

In Switzerland people who are heroine addicts for decades and have failed several therapies can get heroine from the government.
Question is: can the government help pedophiles to lead a normal life or do such people have to be locked away?

Child porn may have helped him control is urges but think of the children who were forced to make those images for him to control his urges.

The only way to stop a man like this's urges is castration.

Question is - should we castrate, for example, a 17 year old who has sex with a 15 year old?

To Americans, the answer would be a resounding yes, and probably with either no or dull implements and no anesthesia.

I know from experience.

EDIT - you're from NZ, so same as the US when it comes to 17 year olds.

I can't say I'm surprised about this whole situation - I hope the "Quiverfull" folks are proud...

I think in Germany the definition of child abuse requires 5 years age difference.
Also in Germany a 14 year old has the right to decide over her body. Till 16 parents have a right to object, but a court has to decide if the girl is too immature.
Obviously in practical terms this rule is mostly ignored. But if a 18 year old wants to act in porn, what protection does she need when 15? More likely the boy needs protection from her, even if he is two years older.
And of course a 15 year old girl with a 17 year old boy being in love isn't something for criminal courts.

In India a 19 year old boy having sex with a 17 year old girl is considered rape. Should this change?
We met a man who told us that he got his 19 year old daughter married. It was an arranged marriage. He said: "If she falls in love and then the boy leaves her, her reputation is ruined. So better to play it save."

Sokes wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

Child porn is so dead wrong on so many levels, very illegal in the USA for good reason that it needs heavy penalties for its consumers and makers.

Question:
Does watching child porn help pedophiles to control their phantasies?
That guy apparently didn't abuse a child for a very long time. Makes me wonder if child porn helped him.
No argument about production of such videos.

In Switzerland people who are heroine addicts for decades and have failed several therapies can get heroine from the government.
Question is: can the government help pedophiles to lead a normal life or do such people have to be locked away?

The difference between providing heroin to an addict is that assuming all other needs are met (ie, the addict not having to turn to illicit activities to source their substance) the use of heroin only harms the user. The same cannot be said of someone viewing child pornography.

Also, we don't know what he may or may not have been doing in the interim. It clearly appears that he isn't that bright or sophisticated, but beyond what is currently being reported we aren't able to say.

I am open to the consideration that pedophilia is a hard-wired condition and you can't change it. As such, that invites a difficult discussion about whether such individuals are safe to be alone with children until they are the age of consent. And that's not going to be an easy conversation to have. With regards to chemical castration, the evidence isn't clear that it reduces sex crimes. Personally, I think Josh Duggar should be castrated simply so he cannot deposit anymore sperm in his wife and create more Duggar drones, and his parents considered sociopaths for their obsession with reproduction and exploitation of their children (the dad is the only one that gets paid for the show...), but that's a separate matter. Josh Duggar clearly has demonstrated that he is not safe around children, and should not be permitted to be so.

Some people are just broken. Here you have a prime example. Years after the Ashley Madison issues, and infidelities' and the molestation of his younger sisters , he has more kids, and a much larger problem I just worry for his kids. What else has occurred in that household?

Time will tell more ,but I can't help but think there are going to be years of work for psychologists and those kids.

casinterest wrote:

Some people are just broken. Here you have a prime example. Years after the Ashley Madison issues, and infidelities' and the molestation of his younger sisters , he has more kids, and a much larger problem I just worry for his kids. What else has occurred in that household?

Time will tell more ,but I can't help but think there are going to be years of work for psychologists and those kids.

The only healthy kids that will come out of an ideologically rigid environment like that are those that sever the relationship in one way or another. The parents are insane, and IMHO fostered the environment that nurtured a pedophile.

luckyone wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Some people are just broken. Here you have a prime example. Years after the Ashley Madison issues, and infidelities' and the molestation of his younger sisters , he has more kids, and a much larger problem I just worry for his kids. What else has occurred in that household?

Time will tell more ,but I can't help but think there are going to be years of work for psychologists and those kids.

The only healthy kids that will come out of an ideologically rigid environment like that are those that sever the relationship in one way or another. The parents are insane, and IMHO fostered the environment that nurtured a pedophile.

I think that is what Josh's sister finally did. There are many issues with trust, love, and relationships that get muddled by such smothering environments.

LMP737 wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

.

This also brings up the issue of serious problems with most so-called 'reality' programing. Background checks are poorly done. They encourage the worst of human behavior, especially greed. Too many involved are attention whores and the producers are exploitative. Too many situations are scripted or exaggerate danger or conflict. I also don't like the exploitation and possible life long psychological damage of children who may not want to or should participate in such programs. I also don't like seeing with the '19 Children' the promotion of extreme religious views, how having so many children is bad for the planet.

Reality TV ruined channels like Discovery, The History Channel and TLC. TLC being the channel that carried 19 and Counting. What were once channel's that carried informative and engaging programs turned into a waste land populated by village idiots.

I remember watching the amazing documentaries they used to show when I was a child. These channels have either gone with reality tv or ghost hunting shows. I think the travel channel is basically nothing but ghost hunting now, which has absolutely nothing to do with travel. It’s a sad reminder of where we are as a society right now. These channels sold out to attract the lowest common denominator.

Kiwirob wrote:

Tiredofhumanity wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Child porn may have helped him control is urges but think of the children who were forced to make those images for him to control his urges.

The only way to stop a man like this's urges is castration.

Question is - should we castrate, for example, a 17 year old who has sex with a 15 year old?

To Americans, the answer would be a resounding yes, and probably with either no or dull implements and no anesthesia.

I know from experience.

EDIT - you're from NZ, so same as the US when it comes to 17 year olds.

The age of consent is 16 in NZ, but I doubt a 16 year old would be charged if he/she slept with a 15 year old. You're also confusing pedophilia with teenagers doing what teenagers do. Pedophilia is defined as

"Pedophilia (alternatively spelt paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children."

Using Duggan as an example he assaulted his younger sister and is attracted to prepubescent children, Prince Andrew on the other hand allegedly slept with a 17 year old, perfectly legal in the UK, it does not make him a podophile as he's branded by many, all he's guilty of is gross stupidity and an astounding lack of judgement.

Agree - I'm just saying the laws in most US states, as well as their residents, do not see the obvious difference between the example I brought up and the Duggar situation.

Even a difference of 5 days before the younger person's 16th birthday is all that matters for a felony conviction of the 17 year old "adult". This is in "progressive" Massachusetts by the way.

I would be all for some kind of permanent biological treatment for those like Duggar, but seeing the number of angry parents out there using the law in this way, and the number of district attorneys (barristers in other English-speaking countries) prosecuting to the full extent to look "tough on crime", it'll be a matter of time this will be used on those too young to vote in cases like my example.

Tiredofhumanity wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Tiredofhumanity wrote:

Question is - should we castrate, for example, a 17 year old who has sex with a 15 year old?

To Americans, the answer would be a resounding yes, and probably with either no or dull implements and no anesthesia.

I know from experience.

EDIT - you're from NZ, so same as the US when it comes to 17 year olds.

The age of consent is 16 in NZ, but I doubt a 16 year old would be charged if he/she slept with a 15 year old. You're also confusing pedophilia with teenagers doing what teenagers do. Pedophilia is defined as

"Pedophilia (alternatively spelt paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children."

Using Duggan as an example he assaulted his younger sister and is attracted to prepubescent children, Prince Andrew on the other hand allegedly slept with a 17 year old, perfectly legal in the UK, it does not make him a podophile as he's branded by many, all he's guilty of is gross stupidity and an astounding lack of judgement.

Agree - I'm just saying the laws in most US states, as well as their residents, do not see the obvious difference between the example I brought up and the Duggar situation.

Even a difference of 5 days before the younger person's 16th birthday is all that matters for a felony conviction of the 17 year old "adult". This is in "progressive" Massachusetts by the way.

I would be all for some kind of permanent biological treatment for those like Duggar, but seeing the number of angry parents out there using the law in this way, and the number of district attorneys (barristers in other English-speaking countries) prosecuting to the full extent to look "tough on crime", it'll be a matter of time this will be used on those too young to vote in cases like my example.

Well, the problem is there is no concrete age of onset for puberty and sexual maturity. Some religious groups make menarche and sperm discharge the standard for adult vs child in religious and in some cases legal standards. The US isn’t going to do that anytime soon as that can happen in very young kids. That’s why we define—at times somewhat arbitrarily—an age of consent.

I think there are some really good reality shows based on real life. Like Hoarders and 600 Pound Life. Those deal with mental health issues. Following people around while they live their lives is not worth watching, IMO.

As far as this "reality" (and I use the term loosely) person being arrested, he may not have been breaking the law in his home state by having relations with a 17 year old but it was his freakin' sister!

seb146 wrote:

I think there are some really good reality shows based on real life. Like Hoarders and 600 Pound Life. Those deal with mental health issues. Following people around while they live their lives is not worth watching, IMO.

As far as this "reality" (and I use the term loosely) person being arrested, he may not have been breaking the law in his home state by having relations with a 17 year old but it was his freakin' sister!

That's not what happened... his sisters were elementary school aged and he was 14/15.

My example above was just to illustrate issues that may arise when using castration as punishment with our "one size fits all" sex offense laws.

About age of consent, there has just been a change in France, well the age hasn't changed (to some feminists' despair), it's still 15, but something similar to "statutory rape" was introduced, which didn't exist before. Basically if an adult had sex with a 14yo, and nobody complained, nothing happened. If parents complained, but the 14yo said (s)he consented, the adult didn't risk much. Now the adult risks more, we'll see how it goes in practice.

Aesma wrote:

About age of consent, there has just been a change in France, well the age hasn't changed (to some feminists' despair), it's still 15, but something similar to "statutory rape" was introduced...

To use the word "rape" is outrageous. Just like in India.
The feminists wanted the age of consent to increase or decrease?

Sokes wrote:

Aesma wrote:

About age of consent, there has just been a change in France, well the age hasn't changed (to some feminists' despair), it's still 15, but something similar to "statutory rape" was introduced...

To use the word "rape" is outrageous. Just like in India.
The feminists wanted the age of consent to increase or decrease?

The feminists wanted it to increase, since nowadays "active" feminists are of the man hating kind mostly. All men are rapists, or even all sex is rape for them...

I agree about statutory rape being a wrong term (I don't think it's called that way in all US states). I thought we had avoided that in France, but I just checked the new law 2021-478, which is 2 weeks old, and I was wrong, it is called a rape. The basic criterion is for the minor to be under 15 and the other 5 years older and an adult. So I guess a 17yo with a 11yo is still in the previous grey area.

As a 18yo I met a 14yo girl, we didn't have sex when she was that age so no worries anyway, but I wouldn't be a rapist retroactively if it had happened, phew. Her family still tried to cause trouble though, but the police wouldn't even let them press charges.

Aesma wrote:

The basic criterion is for the minor to be under 15 and the other 5 years older and an adult. So I guess a 17yo with a 11yo is still in the previous grey area.

Are you sure it's not "five years older or an adult"?
That a seventeen year old can have sex with an eleven year old is hard to imagine. Seventeen and thirteen is borderline.
An eighteen year old in this case is expected to refrain from sexual relationships with somebody below fifteen.

Fourteen as age of consent without age limitations for the partner like in Germany is in my opinion not o.k. . I think the five year rule should apply to at least till sixteen.

I didn't say they can have sex, but it doesn't fall under the new law, so it isn't rape, it's not sexual assault either, it's something below that. Also minors are judged as minors in France so it would lower the penalty further.

I'm only talking about a "consensual" relationship, which is the tricky part. If the 11yo describes a rape (there was violence, threats, a weapon, etc.) then it's a rape.

What prompted this new law are actually 2 "consensual" sexual encounters, one between a 11yo girl and a 28yo man, and another between a 12yo girl and a 22yo man. The first got a mild sentence because it was that lower felony. The other was even acquitted, because he was put on trial for rape, but according to the law it wasn't rape (the 12yo girl got pregnant, to boot). Under the new law both cases would be rapes.

Aesma wrote:

I'm only talking about a "consensual" relationship, which is the tricky part. If the 11yo describes a rape (there was violence, threats, a weapon, etc.) then it's a rape.

To come back to topic:
Maybe most pedophiles have themselves under control in adulthood, but not adolescence. After all these are rare cases. The man of our topic was such a case.
If a seventeen year old has a consensual relationship with an eleven year old the government may hope that he gets himself under control within a short time. Persecuting him may make that guy unemployable and he becomes a headache for the government for his remaining life.

Sokes wrote:

[
Maybe most pedophiles have themselves under control in adulthood, but not adolescence. After all these are rare cases. The man of our topic was such a case.

Sorry, that's not how it works. Once a pedophile, always a pedophile. Teenagers having sex with a younger teenager is way different than an adult man having sex with young (often pre teen) partners.

Tiredofhumanity wrote:

Question is - should we castrate, for example, a 17 year old who has sex with a 15 year old?

To Americans, the answer would be a resounding yes, and probably with either no or dull implements and no anesthesia.

I know from experience.

EDIT - you're from NZ, so same as the US when it comes to 17 year olds.

Two things here, one what you basing this opinion on? Two, this Duggar case is not about age of consent. It's about child pornography.

The way that some posters are making excuses for him kinda scares me. I remember a certain poster years and years ago who ended up in prison...

LMP737 wrote:

Tiredofhumanity wrote:

Question is - should we castrate, for example, a 17 year old who has sex with a 15 year old?

To Americans, the answer would be a resounding yes, and probably with either no or dull implements and no anesthesia.

I know from experience.

EDIT - you're from NZ, so same as the US when it comes to 17 year olds.

Two things here, one what you basing this opinion on? Two, this Duggar case is not about age of consent. It's about child pornography.

It's not an opinion - actual American law treats 17 year olds as adults without voting rights. Here's sone examples from the state DL and Rep. Marjorie are from:

https://www.dui.info/at-age-17-you-are- ... f-arrested

https://www.jacksonville.com/article/20 ... /801244634

Duggar actually abused his much younger siblings as a younger teen. My comment regarding the 15/17 year old was related to the castration comment; American law and the American electorate does not see a difference between Duggar's recent sick behavior and two high schoolers where one is only three weeks from 16 doing the deed.

Very slippery slope.

Tiredofhumanity wrote:

LMP737 wrote:

Tiredofhumanity wrote:

Question is - should we castrate, for example, a 17 year old who has sex with a 15 year old?

To Americans, the answer would be a resounding yes, and probably with either no or dull implements and no anesthesia.

I know from experience.

EDIT - you're from NZ, so same as the US when it comes to 17 year olds.

Two things here, one what you basing this opinion on? Two, this Duggar case is not about age of consent. It's about child pornography.

It's not an opinion - actual American law treats 17 year olds as adults without voting rights. Here's sone examples from the state DL and Rep. Marjorie are from:

https://www.dui.info/at-age-17-you-are- ... f-arrested

https://www.jacksonville.com/article/20 ... /801244634

Duggar actually abused his much younger siblings as a younger teen. My comment regarding the 15/17 year old was related to the castration comment; American law and the American electorate does not see a difference between Duggar's recent sick behavior and two high schoolers where one is only three weeks from 16 doing the deed.

Very slippery slope.

There are too many variables. I can see scenarios where a 15/17 is acceptable. For instance, if the pair had known each other for a long time and were in a relationship. But if some random 17 year old just started going with a 15 year old, that should raise red flags. In Duggar's case, he molested his younger sisters so, yes, castration would be appropriate IMO.

seb146 wrote:

Tiredofhumanity wrote:

LMP737 wrote:

Two things here, one what you basing this opinion on? Two, this Duggar case is not about age of consent. It's about child pornography.

It's not an opinion - actual American law treats 17 year olds as adults without voting rights. Here's sone examples from the state DL and Rep. Marjorie are from:

https://www.dui.info/at-age-17-you-are- ... f-arrested

https://www.jacksonville.com/article/20 ... /801244634

Duggar actually abused his much younger siblings as a younger teen. My comment regarding the 15/17 year old was related to the castration comment; American law and the American electorate does not see a difference between Duggar's recent sick behavior and two high schoolers where one is only three weeks from 16 doing the deed.

Very slippery slope.

There are too many variables. I can see scenarios where a 15/17 is acceptable. For instance, if the pair had known each other for a long time and were in a relationship. But if some random 17 year old just started going with a 15 year old, that should raise red flags. In Duggar's case, he molested his younger sisters so, yes, castration would be appropriate IMO.

Castration would be appropriate if for no other reason this perky fertility cut has one fewer stud horse in the pasture. Yes, that is just my opinion and never going to be enforced.

seb146 wrote:

Tiredofhumanity wrote:

LMP737 wrote:

Two things here, one what you basing this opinion on? Two, this Duggar case is not about age of consent. It's about child pornography.

It's not an opinion - actual American law treats 17 year olds as adults without voting rights. Here's sone examples from the state DL and Rep. Marjorie are from:

https://www.dui.info/at-age-17-you-are- ... f-arrested

https://www.jacksonville.com/article/20 ... /801244634

Duggar actually abused his much younger siblings as a younger teen. My comment regarding the 15/17 year old was related to the castration comment; American law and the American electorate does not see a difference between Duggar's recent sick behavior and two high schoolers where one is only three weeks from 16 doing the deed.

Very slippery slope.

There are too many variables. I can see scenarios where a 15/17 is acceptable. For instance, if the pair had known each other for a long time and were in a relationship. But if some random 17 year old just started going with a 15 year old, that should raise red flags. In Duggar's case, he molested his younger sisters so, yes, castration would be appropriate IMO.

If you're referring to sexual conquest "games" that's not what I mean.

Kids in HS hook up all the time - should we raise the authoritative red flag every a junior (17) gets with a sophomore (15) as you suggest? Is several months long enough to know each other etc...? If Ms. Whitaker waited 3 weeks for the guy's 16th birthday, would it have really mattered outside of GA law?

American culture has been glorifying (irresponsible) teen sex since the early 80s through Hollywood movies like "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" and "American Pie" (not to mention all the slasher films over the last 40 years everyone seems to enjoy). No wonder the kids are curious.

Yet at the same we have this zero tolerance attitude towards it and it's reflected in our laws and "abstinence only" sex ed curricula in some places. For someone as critical of law enforcement as you are, I thought you would realize this.

As Duggar's case illustrates, a lot of childhood sex abuse happens at home with people who the victims know. If he wasn't taught that women are breeding factories and able to socialize with females closer to his own age when he was 14/15, I wonder if none of this abuse would have happened.

Tiredofhumanity wrote:

American law and the American electorate does not see a difference between Duggar's recent sick behavior and two high schoolers where one is only three weeks from 16 doing the deed.

Very slippery slope.

It's individual states' laws that are relevant here and in most states that's not true.

https://njdc.info/wp-content/uploads/20 ... isions.pdf

Tiredofhumanity wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Tiredofhumanity wrote:

It's not an opinion - actual American law treats 17 year olds as adults without voting rights. Here's sone examples from the state DL and Rep. Marjorie are from:

https://www.dui.info/at-age-17-you-are- ... f-arrested

https://www.jacksonville.com/article/20 ... /801244634

Duggar actually abused his much younger siblings as a younger teen. My comment regarding the 15/17 year old was related to the castration comment; American law and the American electorate does not see a difference between Duggar's recent sick behavior and two high schoolers where one is only three weeks from 16 doing the deed.

Very slippery slope.

There are too many variables. I can see scenarios where a 15/17 is acceptable. For instance, if the pair had known each other for a long time and were in a relationship. But if some random 17 year old just started going with a 15 year old, that should raise red flags. In Duggar's case, he molested his younger sisters so, yes, castration would be appropriate IMO.

If you're referring to sexual conquest "games" that's not what I mean.

Kids in HS hook up all the time - should we raise the authoritative red flag every a junior (17) gets with a sophomore (15) as you suggest? Is several months long enough to know each other etc...? If Ms. Whitaker waited 3 weeks for the guy's 16th birthday, would it have really mattered outside of GA law?

American culture has been glorifying (irresponsible) teen sex since the early 80s through Hollywood movies like "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" and "American Pie" (not to mention all the slasher films over the last 40 years everyone seems to enjoy). No wonder the kids are curious.

Yet at the same we have this zero tolerance attitude towards it and it's reflected in our laws and "abstinence only" sex ed curricula in some places. For someone as critical of law enforcement as you are, I thought you would realize this.

As Duggar's case illustrates, a lot of childhood sex abuse happens at home with people who the victims know. If he wasn't taught that women are breeding factories and able to socialize with females closer to his own age when he was 14/15, I wonder if none of this abuse would have happened.

Glorification of sex between young people has been around much, much, much longer than you think. It is not all corners of the country where they are horrified by sex.

There should be a case by case basis for relationships. I don't have a problem with 17/15 in a relationship. I would raise an eyebrow over 17/14 or if 17 will be 18 in a week so they have to see if they can get date a 15.

Most sexual abuse does happen between people who are close and even related. I blame his upbringing but I also blame being sheltered and being force fed the stereotype of men have to be strong on the outside. That asking for help is weak. I don't know if that was the case here, but I know that still exists.

Tiredofhumanity wrote:

It's not an opinion - actual American law treats 17 year olds as adults without voting rights. Here's sone examples from the state DL and Rep. Marjorie are from:

https://www.dui.info/at-age-17-you-are- ... f-arrested

https://www.jacksonville.com/article/20 ... /801244634

Duggar actually abused his much younger siblings as a younger teen. My comment regarding the 15/17 year old was related to the castration comment; American law and the American electorate does not see a difference between Duggar's recent sick behavior and two high schoolers where one is only three weeks from 16 doing the deed.

Very slippery slope.

You make the statement that Americans would resoundingly support castration for a 17 year old who has sex with a fifteen year old. And be castrated with dull instruments with no anesthesia, a rather ridiculous thing to say.

In an attempt to support your opinion you posted a link to two articles. The first one was in regards to DUI laws, which have nothing to do this subject. Add to that, Georgia is but one state. Not the entire country. The second article blows your whole argument out of the water. Here's a quote from it Her conviction 12 years ago for that act, which would not be illegal for someone that age today,. Which makes me ask, did you even read the article?

johns624 wrote:

Sokes wrote:

[
Maybe most pedophiles have themselves under control in adulthood, but not adolescence. After all these are rare cases. The man of our topic was such a case.

Sorry, that's not how it works. Once a pedophile, always a pedophile. Teenagers having sex with a younger teenager is way different than an adult man having sex with young (often pre teen) partners.

He wasn't having a consensual relationship with a similar aged girl. He touched several of his sisters, often during sleep. Since he was 14, 15 I have to assume at least some were pre adolescent.
He was sick then, he is sick now. But he had himself under control the last years.
To put him in jail for years for watching videos is in no proportion to punishments for rape, adult or otherwise.

Sokes wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Sokes wrote:

[
Maybe most pedophiles have themselves under control in adulthood, but not adolescence. After all these are rare cases. The man of our topic was such a case.

Sorry, that's not how it works. Once a pedophile, always a pedophile. Teenagers having sex with a younger teenager is way different than an adult man having sex with young (often pre teen) partners.

He wasn't having a consensual relationship with a similar aged girl. He touched several of his sisters, often during sleep. Since he was 14, 15 I have to assume at least some were pre adolescent.
He was sick then, he is sick now. But he had himself under control the last years.
To put him in jail for years for watching videos is in no proportion to punishments for rape, adult or otherwise.

We don't know if he had himself under control--we don't know what he was looking at during his "porn addiction." We just know what they did find was fairly recent activity.

Sokes wrote:

But he had himself under control the last years.

Being "under control" and "not getting caught" are two different things. Who knows what else his family has been covering up? I'm surprised his family hasn't turned on him already. After all, he derailed their gravy train...