Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, learn to read. The poster had a link with a definition of rape included. That was a definition from the FBI, NOT the poster you keep saying is trying "redefine" the word.

If he did indeed insert his fingers into them, then, yes, it was rape...according to the FBI. Not just some internet loon.

The problem is I think the PP who keeps making light of rape and splitting hairs on semantics is an internet loon.

"She was in a short skirt, she asked for it" "We were out on a date, she owed me" "We are married, so it isn't rape."

I'm not making light of anything. I've been the victim of sexual assault before. I think it does a huge disservice to actual victims when you try to insert untrue facts and definitions for embellishment. There was no rape. Stop making stuff up. It makes you look overly dramatic and not in touch with reality.

Actual victims, eh?

Rape culture at its finest.

Yes, actual rape victims. Breast touching is not rape. Vulva touching is not rape. Ass grabbing is not rape.

This makes me sad.

Anonymous wrote:PP, you should ask yourself why it is so important to call fondling "rape." There's already a big enough problem with victims being called liars by their assailants. Don't help rapists out by lying and contributing to rape culture. Just have a conversation like an adult.

Not the PP but why if someone disagrees on DCUM why are they suddenly accused of not being an adult? How about not resulting to insults, that is how you have a conversation like an adult.

PP, you should ask yourself why it is so important to call fondling "rape." There's already a big enough problem with victims being called liars by their assailants. Don't help rapists out by lying and contributing to rape culture. Just have a conversation like an adult.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, learn to read. The poster had a link with a definition of rape included. That was a definition from the FBI, NOT the poster you keep saying is trying "redefine" the word.

If he did indeed insert his fingers into them, then, yes, it was rape...according to the FBI. Not just some internet loon.

The problem is I think the PP who keeps making light of rape and splitting hairs on semantics is an internet loon.

"She was in a short skirt, she asked for it" "We were out on a date, she owed me" "We are married, so it isn't rape."

I'm not making light of anything. I've been the victim of sexual assault before. I think it does a huge disservice to actual victims when you try to insert untrue facts and definitions for embellishment. There was no rape. Stop making stuff up. It makes you look overly dramatic and not in touch with reality.

Actual victims, eh?

Rape culture at its finest.

Yes, actual rape victims. Breast touching is not rape. Vulva touching is not rape. Ass grabbing is not rape.

Anonymous wrote:The fact that not a single writer at xojane wanted to touch this story is interesting. The comments are an interesting read as well.

http://www.xojane.com/janes-stuff/6-thingsincluding-the-end-of-19-kids-and-counting-none-of-us-were-expecting

Not true. She states in the first paragraph her title is misleading.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, learn to read. The poster had a link with a definition of rape included. That was a definition from the FBI, NOT the poster you keep saying is trying "redefine" the word.

If he did indeed insert his fingers into them, then, yes, it was rape...according to the FBI. Not just some internet loon.

The problem is I think the PP who keeps making light of rape and splitting hairs on semantics is an internet loon.

"She was in a short skirt, she asked for it" "We were out on a date, she owed me" "We are married, so it isn't rape."

I'm not making light of anything. I've been the victim of sexual assault before. I think it does a huge disservice to actual victims when you try to insert untrue facts and definitions for embellishment. There was no rape. Stop making stuff up. It makes you look overly dramatic and not in touch with reality.

Actual victims, eh?

Rape culture at its finest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, learn to read. The poster had a link with a definition of rape included. That was a definition from the FBI, NOT the poster you keep saying is trying "redefine" the word.

If he did indeed insert his fingers into them, then, yes, it was rape...according to the FBI. Not just some internet loon.

The problem is I think the PP who keeps making light of rape and splitting hairs on semantics is an internet loon.

"She was in a short skirt, she asked for it" "We were out on a date, she owed me" "We are married, so it isn't rape."

I'm not making light of anything. I've been the victim of sexual assault before. I think it does a huge disservice to actual victims when you try to insert untrue facts and definitions for embellishment. There was no rape. Stop making stuff up. It makes you look overly dramatic and not in touch with reality.

The fact that not a single writer at xojane wanted to touch this story is interesting. The comments are an interesting read as well.

http://www.xojane.com/janes-stuff/6-thingsincluding-the-end-of-19-kids-and-counting-none-of-us-were-expecting

Anonymous wrote:PP, learn to read. The poster had a link with a definition of rape included. That was a definition from the FBI, NOT the poster you keep saying is trying "redefine" the word.

If he did indeed insert his fingers into them, then, yes, it was rape...according to the FBI. Not just some internet loon.

The problem is I think the PP who keeps making light of rape and splitting hairs on semantics is an internet loon.

"She was in a short skirt, she asked for it" "We were out on a date, she owed me" "We are married, so it isn't rape."

I wish I wasn't thinking about this, but I find the fact that he did this while they were sleeping so horrific. If you watch the first special, 14 kids and pregnant again they lived in a tiny house with all boys in one small room and all girls in another small room. I mean were the other girls in that room aware of what was happening? Did they think this was normal since he is their oldest brother and must be submissive to him, so when he touched them they felt this was just what happens?

At best at child raised in a Gothard Family has a warped sense of intimacy then add all this?

Whatever TLC does, I hope they are getting the girls some actual therapy and setting up monetary funds for them. Better yet I hope Jinger finally frees herself, grabs Joy and Jana and they all sue TLC, ATI and Gothard.

That is my happy place fantasy.

So, I am curious. This is the official statement from TLC:
An Official Statement About 19 Kids and Counting

Effective immediately, TLC has pulled all episodes of 19 Kids and Counting currently from the air. We are deeply saddened and troubled by this heartbreaking situation, and our thoughts and prayers are with the family and victims at this difficult time.

You can still watch full episodes on the website.

First, do you think TLC was aware of this when they started airing the Duggars and

Second, do you think they will cancel the show or like A&E wait for the fury to die down and bring it back, retooled a bit?

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how many of their rules (side hugs, etc) were manufactured after the molestations.

Yup, I brought this up earlier.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read that a judge ordered the records destroyed the other day and that it was done. Is this true?

Also, I read that he fondled girls top and bottom but didn't read about rape.

A poster here seems to have assumed he's a racist because of one person's behavior on camera.

Definitions of rape (warning triggers on page) https://www.rainn.org/get-information/types-of-sexual-assault/was-it-rape

Touching their genitals fits withing the definition.

Fondling is not the same thing as penetration. Your attempt to redefine "rape" is offensive.

From the definition (triggers) "“Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

Your attempt to make light of it is offensive.

Do you have any source that said there was vaginal penetration? Please note there is a difference between a vulva and a vagina.

You are so gross, I hope you don't have daughters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read that a judge ordered the records destroyed the other day and that it was done. Is this true?

Also, I read that he fondled girls top and bottom but didn't read about rape.

A poster here seems to have assumed he's a racist because of one person's behavior on camera.

Definitions of rape (warning triggers on page) https://www.rainn.org/get-information/types-of-sexual-assault/was-it-rape

Touching their genitals fits withing the definition.

Fondling is not the same thing as penetration. Your attempt to redefine "rape" is offensive.

From the definition (triggers) "“Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

Your attempt to make light of it is offensive.

Do you have any source that said there was vaginal penetration? Please note there is a difference between a vulva and a vagina.

PP, learn to read. The poster had a link with a definition of rape included. That was a definition from the FBI, NOT the poster you keep saying is trying "redefine" the word.

If he did indeed insert his fingers into them, then, yes, it was rape...according to the FBI. Not just some internet loon.