Wow so many good posts and so little time! lol I think there are lots of "adult" conversations about sex abuse going on but the problem is the media, politicians, and general public are having those conversations with erroneous information and bad statistics.

I have to agree that given the same situation I would advise ANY family to do the same thing - I also hate the hypocrisy but I have to say that in a sex offense case I would be willing to accept hypocrisy offered to my son if it meant a normal life.

I also have to agree that Dugger was only a kid himself - I think I remember from another thread talking about kids on the registry that the younger the offender the less likely they are to re-offend.

As I said earlier I am also wowed by the fact that the LE they went to early on did nothing - surprises me. dugger is also very lucky that he lives in a state with such a short statute of limitations. In Fl when they dissolved the statute of limitations for sex offenses it was retro active so at least a few cases that were decades old that were prosecuted

As in most crisis’s the media wields and relishes its great power in providing the public a lens with which to view issues through. They have predictably chosen to be complicit in the climate of fear. In recent years a growing number of experts have been going public to thoughtfully address these critical issues, creating excellent literature references based on years of research working with thousands of suffering individuals, and through sharing personal testimonials of those in recovery. Sometimes they are even willing to brave the dangerous waters of America’s powerhouse cable news outlets.

Far too often we’ve watched as those who control the microphones through which unbiased reporting has seldom flowed, choosing to, strike that, instructed to explode with anger or nervously laugh up their sleeves at those who recognize the seriousness of the situation; claiming that being sexually addicted is nothing more than a straw-man. After all, what does it even mean to be oversexed in a culture that is obsessed with sex? We like sex!

When the logical answer to that question moves the conversation away from the hedonist’s pleasure to the addict’s personal pain, puzzled brows furrow. When it shifts to sexual abuse, the gloves come off and the hate message boils over leaving no room for rational discourse.

The underlying message is; “We don’t want to know about our fellow man’s problems, especially those that deal with sexual compulsivity”. It’s not good press to discuss it, only to bash it. I’m sorry to have to put the media heads on alert but not only is this issue manifesting itself in “those disgusting little people in fly-over country’s lives”, it’s present in their offices, their churches, their children’s schools, their state houses, and for some in their own homes.

I love the old cartoons. They can sometimes show human nature perfectly. That's why we like them. We recognize the parts of ourselves that we would never admit to....

Take for example when the beautiful buxom girl walks by (whether she is a duck or a cat or whatever) and the male of the same specie's (unless you're a skunk who is looking at a cat you think is a skunk) jumps into the air with his eyes bulging and tongue hanging out. He then follows her around, drunken with lust.

That was funny when we were kids. Now it becomes a metaphor for our primitive sexual nature, in which the frontal lobes (which give us our ability to think things through and make different decisions about situations) are shut down and our primitive nature takes over.

People do strange things to try to control this primitive nature. The most common is using external controls, such as sex offender registries and your basic "fear of whatever domination tactic". You can see these strategies used all over the globe.

But ultimately, they don't work. We just end up repeatedly blowing each other to bits in some way.

What does work is actually meditation. In the meditative state, the body downshifts the primitive aspects and allows the more intelligent aspects of us to be in control. At that point, rational discourse can take place. But it can't take place when the skunks eyeballs are bulging out and he is following the beautiful black and white cat with lust in his eyes....or even when someone who, not dealing with the lust but suppressing it, tries to control others into thinking his way. That makes for a chronically stressed society, which further suppresses the ability for the frontal lobes to function. In other words, "Danger, Will Robinson!"

Someday we're going to get it. But, its not that "The truth is out there." The truth is really within each of us. Oh, hey, didn't some guy around 2,000 years ago try to teach us that?

I like that Peek. Very insightful.

It is one thing to advocate against the harms that the registry does to a person's life and to the lives of others such as their family, but it is entirely different to advocate we conceal criminal acts for the sake of avoiding being placed on the registry. To advocate such is, in my opinion, unconscionable and a gross slap in the face to the victims of sex crimes.

The fact Josh was a child of 14 years is irrelevant to the fact that he still committed sex crimes upon multiple children. In fact, as it is reported, he continued to do so even after his family purportedly tried to get him into counseling. This is a strong indicator that at the age of 14 he demonstrated visible signs of being a sexual predator -- this of course does not seem to be important based on the comments I have read, and yet, if it were you child who was victimized by this guy you would surely sing an entirely different tune.

Throughout Josh's life he has lived with the knowledge that he committed criminal acts and that he, his family, and his church helped him conceal such to avoid all degrees of accountability. Now he wants to play some religious card in that because I repented and apologized he should not be held accountable for his conduct of not only committing the criminal acts but also evading accountability by deceit and all while slamming anyone whose morals or values he did not like or agree with, and thus, he is the epitome of being a freaking hypocrite.

To have any degree of credibility in such a volatile subject, so as to effectuate change, one must be able and willing to realize their are boundaries where the common arguments against a law should not and do not apply. In other words, to advocate for Josh is a major slap in the face for his victims and those who are on the registry that should not be, or whose lives are worse now than before, because to advocate for Josh is to say that its okay for folks like him to evade accountability but the average Joe should be penalized. That is not equality of law and isn't that the core of the argument against the registry - that all citizens should be treated equal under the law????

So, disagree with me all you want, but I am not about to put folks like Josh on one pedestal and claim they should not be held accountable, while the average Joe is being slammed by these laws at every turn and opportunity possible. Josh was a public figure, moreover, a public figure who stood on religious grounds to condemn others for behaviors that he is every bit as guilty of committing. In my opinion, he should be held to a higher standard.

@LegalGuardian I have not advocated for the concealment of criminal acts. What I did was state that I understood why the Duggars concealed this and that if faced with a similar situation that I would likely do the same. That is not the same as advocating concealing all sex crimes "just to avoid registration". Just so we are clear if a 27 year old man assaulted my children in this manner I would be singing a different tune. I would be singing a different if it was an adult child of mine that victimized my other minor children but that isn't the case here or what I was talking about. Here we are talking about children being assaulted by another child and in that circumstance as a parent I would want to help and protect ALL of my children, not just the victims. Even if it was some one else's minor child that was the offender I would at the very least consider concealment.

The sad truth is I would not be able to provide all the help and care all of my children needed as my only choices are to limit the care and type of help both the victims and the offender receive because I concealed the acts of the offender or I quite literally sacrifice the life of a child. If it was just about registration I might feel differently but it isn't. Life as a registered citizen is about far more than "just having to register". The fact that those are the only two choices we have is what I find unconscionable so if I'm advocating for anything it's for a third option where everybody gets the help they need without destroying anymore lives. Your current approach of unilaterally feeding the justice system fresh children is just not something I can accept and in the past in other circumstances you have advocated differently yourself.

I have not put Josh Duggar on a pedestal nor have I said he shouldn't have been held accountable. He should have as a juvenile with programs developed for juveniles that do not result in the offenders being permanently removed from the family with absolutely no support, forced to be a ward of the state until they reach adulthood and having to spend the rest of their life as a registered citizen. It's my third option that doesn't exist. Josh Duggar's age at the time of his offenses is entirely relevant and as a legal guardian of any type deep down you know all the reasons why juveniles should not be treated as adults. You've even posted some of those reasons in the past and they're why I'm disagreeing with you now.

I agree Aladdin. I've thought about this a lot too, I cannot see sacrificing a child to the justice system like I was for a crime I committed as a young teen.

I have another hypothetical for you, let's say your wife is a mandatory reporter, would you hide it from her as well if you found sexual abuse among your children?

Advocate, again I agree.
I know, I haven't said anywhere that I wouldn't report it....I do understand why some may choose not to, but understanding it, and advocating for, are 2 different things. We do need other alternatives rather than just throwing them on the registry, and messing up the whole family further.
I'm not entirely sure how I would handle a child on child situation in my own family, but I'd probably startmwith retaining a lawyer if I had the means to, and asking about damage control from the get go...if there's any that could be done.
I think a major part of this, is that when the system takes over, the parents are powerless to do pretty much anything.
I for one hate that feeling.

@Independent Anybody that is a mandatory reporter is not a person that would be very high on my relationship candidate list much less marriage worthy. Our views would be so contrary we'd both be miserable :)

In all seriousness though in that situation I don't think anything could or should be hidden from a wife or a husband. Despite the reporting requirement the decision on what to do or not do needs to be a joint one and would be yet another example of why there needs to be other better options for juveniles and families.

I have talked a lot about what I would have done had I been in the same situation as the Duggars but I do want to point that I can also understand why others would go ahead and report it and that I don't condemn that either. What I condemn is the lack of other viable options.

Yes, agreed, the lack of options is the problem.

Looking at it from a moral perspective, it would be better for all involved that the child perpetrator is immediately held responsible. This allows the victims to recover faster and know their parents do not condone the behavior or that it was anyway their fault. It also allows the child perpetrator to move on and fix the errors in thinking that lead to the abuse in the first place.

We know reporting will always lead to harm for the child perpetrator in the form of life long registry, in ability to get jobs, develop normally. The question is how much harm would it be to the victim(s) if there was no report? That's the question that is at the heart of this for me. If the harm would be equal ir greater for the victim in my eyes, I would report to police. If it would be great for the child offender I wouldn't, but I'd find a way to do therapy for all involved. Probably find a retired counselor or find some loophole.

I can totally understand why the Duggars handled this the way they did. We had a situation several years ago, after my husband was on probation for molesting our daughter. A family member tried to accuse my young teenage sons of doing things to our 5 yr old son and there was an investigation. We took our oldest son to a lawyer but could not afford to hire one. In the end, I just refused to let the detective talk to my son and the whole thing went away. I didn't believe the accusations for a minute, but it was the fear of the law and the system that pushed me to act the way I did. I had to protect all of my children, not just the 5 yr old. (he did go to counseling and was also investigated by Children and Youth who found the accusations unfounded) The fear I lived with for months and months though, was horrendous!

Even what is considered the "good" way to handle these problems is "bad". Its going to take a higher order of thinking to solve this problem because no matter what you do, a lot of people are hurt. Sorry about your situation, Mom2404, but glad you got through it.

I must admit, this case has me thinking a lot. First, to all those that back the Duggars such as their church affiliations and Huckabee saying everyone deserves a second chance need to be tested on that concept.

One of the other things is I do not believe half of what the Duggars (already outed for dismissing certain details) or for that matter the reporters (we know how they play) that are digging up dirt are saying, they all have their own agenda. I even wonder if Josh confessed or was caught, only those involved directly knows exactly how it all came down.

I absolutely believe it is entirely possible Josh has never re offended and never will.

I hope people that feel this could not possibly happen in their family wake up and realize it can and does happen regardless of how they raise their children.

The problem with "mandatory reporter" is that it's being expanded in many places. I would not be surprised if in the coming years, I will be included in that status, as I work in an agency that deals with poverty issues and has components where there are already mandated reporters.

What if Josh actually is a pedophile, i.e., born with that sexuality? It is quite possible, since only he himself really knows. Unbridled reproduction is a tool of power in the patriarchal belief system of the Duggars. Jim Bob discusses it directly. In one article he even said, "Let the multiplying begin." So the more Duggars, the more people to infect with their beliefs, the more power for the patriarch.

Of course, this is really just a fantasy, because ultimately, your children are not you. Despite how you raise them, they do become their own people with their own issues (as we have seen with Josh). Those kids look like perfect, healthy little children on TV, but what are the odds that all of those children really are healthy or that they won't develop mental illness in their teens or that one may get involved with drugs or that at least one is actually gay. They should rename "Reality TV" as "Fantasy TV" because that is actually what it is.