Details Emerge in Josh Duggar Case

Josh Duggar is in very serious trouble. There is no other way to spin this.

According to the evidence presented, he created a fairly sophisticated system for the purpose of crcumventing Covenent Eyes, a popular Christian anti-porn accountability platform. He created a separate Linux partition; the password was one that he made; he even covered it with a family screen saver. He used a Tor browser to access the “dark web”. He used BitTorrent for file sharing.* This is how people with these dark fantasies obtain the types of porn that Duggar obtained.

(I note this because it is important to point out that this type of porn is NOT something you will find on a conventional porn site. It is NOT something that you obtain accidentally. To obtain it, you have to be intentional in your methods. The people who exchange this type of media are very meticulous. Law enforcement goes to great lengths to track these guys down, and we are still miles behind.)

When the Department for Homeland Security raided his auto dealership in 2019, Duggar, without being told why they were there, asked them, “What is this about? Has someone been downloading child pornography?”

That was a confession.

Prosecutors claim the illegal images show child pornography involving minors ranging from the age of 12 to as young as toddlers of 18 months.

Faulkner testified that the images were exchanged via a peer-to-peer file sharing called BitTorrent. The forensic investigation also found a program on the desktop called Covenant Eyes, which allows a user to “quit porn” by reporting to an accountability partner — in this case wife Anna — if the user visits porn sites. To get around triggering a report, Josh allegedly installed a Linux partition, which divided the computer’s hard drive into two isolated sections to hide what was being viewed in one of them. He also used a TOR browser to surf the dark web. The way he accessed that part of the computer was by inputting a special password — and the one used was one Josh often used for other accounts, including for personal banking, which included his birth year in the password.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/josh-duggar-child-pornography-case-trial-bail-home-confinement-000211966.html

Almost as bad: Duggar is not only out on bail, he also gets unlimited visitation with his children, as long as his wife supervises.

Rachael Denhollander has a great thread on the whole mess.

At this point, we know what Josh Duggar is, just as we know what O.J. Simpson is. Whereas O.J. skated on the murder charges, I strongly doubt that Duggar will skate here. What IS bothersome is the patriarchs who are doing–and have done–next to nothing to protect Anna and her 7 children. Her family made her stay with Josh in 2015–they refused to support her if she left him–even when it became apparent that he was a very dark man who had cheated on her, even sleeping with a porn star.

I don’t want to hear another word about how “patriarchy protects women and children.”

EVERY DAMN TIME we have an offender in the ranks, the only ones protected by the system are the perpetrators. When it’s time to kick ass for Jesus, the victims–even when they are boys–are the only ones taking the beatings.

Tell me, how much protection did Josh Duggar’s sisters get? Tell me, how much protection did Anna Duggar get? Tell me, how much protection did any #churchtoo victim get when they went forward?

Tell me: who is looking out for Anna Duggar and her kids? She has 7 kids, including the airplane in the hangar. She is married to a husband who is turned on by the torture of infants and toddlers. He hates children. He probably hates women, too.

And yet, no one–NO ONE–in her family is helping her leave that POS. They forced her to stay with him in 2015. This is clearly an abusive marriage, but where are the patriarchs in this major league who talk a great game? Where is Mohler? Piper? Grudem? Ware? Wilson? DeYoung?

Hell, WHERE ARE HER FAMILY? WHERE IS HER PASTOR AND CHURCH COMMUNITY?

A couple months ago, I remarked that it would have been nice if an evangelical leader had punched Ravi Zacharias in the mouth and told him where to stick his empire. Peter once told Simon the magician, “may your money perish with you.”

Where are the Christian leaders with the dump truck-sized balls to call these guys out?

Not too long ago, a good friend of mine remarked–in a conversation about domestic violence–that, while leaders are all focused on what the victim (often a woman) can and can’t do, they need to DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE ABUSER.

And she wasn’t wrong. For whatever reason, these chest-beating Manly Men are ALMOST ALWAYS mysteriously absent when it’s time to kick some ass.

During the war in Vietnam, one of the worst chapters in our involvement there was the My Lai Massacre: where two officers–Ernest Medina and William Calley–ordered and participated in the mass murder of as many as 500 South Vietnamese civilians. I would draw the comparson to #churchtoo.

My Lai Massacre#churchtoo
South Vietnamese terrorized by communists. They are taught that the Americans are the good guys who will protect them.People–particularly women and children–are taught that the world is evil, and that the Church is a refuge from the world.
A band of American soldiers targeted a village, killing everyone, and even raping the women.Clergy and other leaders, who should be protecting women and children, are instead taking sexual license with them.
The military sought to cover it up. Congress even tried to cover it up. President Nixon and the general public were sympathetic to the perpetrators (William Calley and Ernest Medina), even casting them as victims.Evangelical leaders have overwhelmingly covered for the abusive clergy. They often dismiss, attack, and malign the victims while casting themselves and the offending clergy as the real victims.
A helicopter crew–Hugh Thompson, Glenn Andreotta, and Lawrence Colburn–took decisive action to stop the massacre. They turned their guns on American soldiers, ordering them to stop the killing. Thompson reported this to his superiors, who sought to cover it up.A contingent of victims and advocates–mostly women, some men–have reported abuses and coverups, and have fought to expose the perpetrators.
Thompson and his crew received major blowback at the time, with at least one lawmaker seeking to court-martial Thompson. Public sentiment was overwhelmingly against them at the time. Thompson was considered a traitor in many circles.The victims and their advocates are largely dismissed as liberals and troublemakers, even heretics. They are subject to passive-aggressive attacks by evangelical leaders. Even the conservative ones are subject to attack.
Today, Thompson and his crew are regarded as heroes.The victims who came forward are slowly being recognized for their courage. The advocates are receiving qualified vindication.

Right now, what we need are leaders like Hugh Thompson, Glenn Andreotta, and Lawrence Colburn. THEY stopped the My Lai massacre. THEY turned their guns on Calley and ordered him to stop. THEY testified against Calley at his trial.

Where are the evangelical leaders who will stand up to the well-connected and financed network of abuse apologists, and the systems that enable them?

I’m anything but a liberal, an egalitarian, or a feminist. But as someone who identifies as a patriarch, I find the good-old-boy coverups to be evil on a very high scale. And Duggar is but the latest example.

*Tor and BitTorrent are NOT in and of themselves, evil applications. Good, upstanding software engineers and geeks use those every day without committing crimes.

34 thoughts on “Details Emerge in Josh Duggar Case

  1. The Josh Duggar case is a damning indictment of so-called purity culture, which was already under scrutiny following the Atlanta spa shootings two months ago. It’s also a damning indictment of the teachings of Bill Gothard, whose ministry ended seven years ago amidst his own sexual misconduct scandal. I hope and pray we can finally purge the church of teachings which would make the Pharisees of Jesus’ day blush with envy.

    I find your comparison of #churchtoo to the My Lai massacre to be quite interesting. Just like Lt. Calley’s defenders, the “Evangelical Industrial Complex” isn’t giving up without a fight. Even Rachael Denhollander has come under fire from the EIC’s defenders, many of whom are in today’s Reformed crowd.

    I’m no liberal or feminist either. However, I agree the church has got to change, not to reflect modern secular culture but to better reflect the teachings of Jesus Christ. I could easily see Jesus getting His whip of cords and engaging in some modern-day Temple cleansing.

    • Yep. I’ve seen the blowback–at the high and low level–that the Denhollanders have taken. (Her husband, Jacob, is a PhD candidate at SBTS. While they are definitely complementarian, I have seen the hardcore guys go after them with both barrels.)

      And Big Evangelical is fighting hard, in many cases doubling down, against the victims and their advocates. They have a lot riding on their institution, just like the institutional leaders of Jesus’ day had.

      And we all know what they did to Jesus and the Early Church…

  2. I know what Linux is and I know what a partition is…but I have no earthly idea what anything else is (and probably don’t want to know). Ya, this is sounds intentional, and it should be an open and shut case for the prosecution if he is guilty. One good thing that might come out of this (if there is any good thing) is that now Covenant Eyes knows how people can try to get around their filter, and they should be able to come up with software that will automatically upload to all operating systems on the computer and search the *hard drive* for possible porn. This whole story is simply amazing. It is like wondering how people find out how to get hold of illegal drugs and all the dark web associated illegal drugs. You definitely have to be intentional about it. But, ya, he had better have a reasonable explanation for this stuff being on his computer, or he is going to go to jail for a *long* time!

    • Well, the thing about Covenant Eyes–and related blocking/accountability software–is that there will always be a workaround for those who wish to circumvent it.

      Tor is a highly-encrypted browser that uses a multi-layer (onion) encryption scheme. In and of itself, it is not evil. The problem is that while the browser is good if you want to keep nefarious parties from viewing your browsing, it is also useful if you are trying to do evil things yourself.

      BitTorrent is a highly-encrypted file transfer software. It can be used for good purposes or for evil. The problem is, those tools–Tor and BitTorrent–are the tools of the Dark Web. It’s called “Dark” because users in that realm work in an anonymous fashion, and content is only accessible with said tools (i.e. Tor, BitTorrent, etc.) And in at least one study, as much as 80% of the traffic on the Dark Web is related to child sexual abuse materials (CSAM); i.e., child porn.

      Covenant Eyes would have to spend a lot of money to have software that covers both Linux and non-Linux partitions. What you would need: something that captures browsing at the ISP. But by the time it gets there, if he’s using Tor or BitTorrent, it may already be encrypted.

      Another possibility: CE could pick up keystrokes.

  3. Looks like God’s doing. Because while the same evils definitely exist outside the Church visible. God is most zealous for the purity of his Bride.

    As for being a Patriarch it still remains good as God commanded it and considered it good. Despite such evils. I trust God’s Wisdom on this. Somehow the alternatives are even worse by comparison. He thinks it’s Best regardless. Not least because judgment will always begin at the house of God.

    • I don’t think God called patriarchy good; it’s not an element of creation. It IS, however, a consequence of the Fall. Patriarchy is a necessary evil.

      It is both a burden on the man (headship) as well as a reflection of the natural tendency of the man (to subject, dominate, etc.)

      The flip side of that, however, is feminism, which is ALSO a product of the Fall. That corresponding command from God reflects both a burden on the woman (her desire for her husband) as well as a natural tendency of the woman (to undermine and even seek to supplant his position).

      Patriarchy, in its various iterations, can be both protective and can exemplify the best of manhood (good) as well as the worst (Taliban, hard compers, Wilsonites, Quiverfull, Gothard, Phillips). Sadly, in the Church, we are seeing the worst in the conservative sector.

      Feminism, in its various iterations, is both a pushback against the extremes of patriarchy (good) and a murderous power play (institutionalized abortion, very bad).

      Each, on the endpoints, has its brand of heresy.

      • Oh I definitely agree. Although the little quibble is that. I think that prior to the fall. Adam named the animals which would indicate his dominion over them.

        Likewise Adam named his Wife. At first calling her “Woman” for she was taken out of Man. Indicating pre-fall headship.

        Likewise if it was meant to look like the relationship between Jesus Christ and his Church. God and His People. Then just like Male and Female it was intended as a symbol of how God relates to us and vice versa. Which would make it a great good.

        Before the fall it was more libertarian since the world wasn’t fallen. But afterwards as we have seen. God needs to support it.

        I’d say if Christ is not the head of either the Man or the Woman in the relationship. It will fail in its purpose. As demonstrated here very clearly.

        • Here’s the thing, though: what you are describing pre-Fall is not patriarchy. There is no “rule” going on. There is no command that he rule over her. That he named her is likely an issue of order: he named the animals before God made her. The patriarchist take–that there is patriarchal rule before the Fall is a major stretch.

          OTOH, after the Fall, it’s a different ballgame. God said that he shall rule over her. That’s a command.

          But like I said, the flip side of that is that, to accept that patriarchy is a result of the Fall–and it is–also requires that we accept that feminism is also a consequence of the Fall, as God’s pronouncements to Eve are also in the form of a command.

          The issue for us: given the redemptive work of Jesus in his life, death, and Resurrection, what does that do to gender relations?

          Does the Resurrection leave us with an egalitarian framework, much like we had pre-Fall?

          Are we left with a hard patriarchy which we had after the Fall but before Jesus?

          Are we left with a soft patriarchy in which the husband is the head of the wife, with the emphasis on the husband loving her as Christ loved the Church–the emphasis on self-sacrifice–and her submitting to that much as the Church out to submit to Christ?

          I would propose that the New Testament gives us the latter.

          Eschatalogically, we will have an egalitarian structure, but patriarchy and feminism–in some form or another–will be with us until that happens.

          Given the cultural context of the time, the Pauline model clashes considerably with the Graeco-Roman paterfamilias model of patriarchy, which puts a great emphasis on his prestige, his authority, and her place under all of that.

          What we are getting from the patriarchist high-fliers in the NeoCalvinist circles is closer to the Graeco-Roman paterfamilias and less like the Pauline model.

          • In the pre-fall creation. I don’t think either Man or God needed to “rule” in the same sense as after the fall.

            So it would make absolute sense that it would be the case that the sense of ruling over the Woman is unnecessary as a result of perfect harmony.

            Likewise post resurrection. Roles of marriage since it’s superseded by the marriage to Christ. This would render Patriarchal sex roles unnecessary. And the return to harmony will make the rule of Christ over us much the same as Adam over Eve.

            Even during the time of Abraham his Patriarchy wasn’t hard like the Romans. All the Biblical Patriarchs down through Israelite history confirmed more to the Christ and Church model than the Pater Familias model.

      • Is there any proven way to screen out bad eggs from marriage beforehand. Off the top of my head. If a person treats a waiter terribly it’s a massive red flag in how that person will treat his spouse later on.

        Or how that person acts under pressure since the mask is harder to sustain when that person’s mental resources are taxed.

        Anything else?

        • Two words: canoe trip. Get them in a canoe, put him in the back. And have a smartphone ready to record everything. She will try to control him; he will push back. Watch how they work together, or against each other. 😀

          In general: look for ways to get them in situations where (a) things become unpredictable and they get blindsided, and/or (b) they might be tempted to cut corners on integrity.

          Look at the way each treats their parents.

          Another thing: look at the people he hangs out with; look at the preachers he prefers; ask him what his idea of headship is, what his expectations are of her (and vice versa). If he’s talking about her submission but does not say much about what it means to love his wife as Christ loves the Church, then it’s a problem.

          Here’s the thing: it’s ok to have a plan going into the marriage. But you have to be willing to accept that things will often stray from those plans. The issue is how you respond to that. This goes for him and her.

          As for how headship/submission work, we need to be honest: there’s a lot of flexibility in that. I’ve taught enough Bible studies to know that there are families where the woman is the more mature party in the house, and the husband refuses to learn or grow. In fact, there are no small amount of those. We can ask, “Why don’t the women pick better men?” but it’s hard to recognize the good ones. They are clouded by perception, just as the men often are. And yes, I’ve seen otherwise good men pick some crappy wives.

          Part of the problem with the patriarchists is that they seek to impose a model for how all marriages must work, when in fact things can be flexible and still conform to Ephesians 5.

          Does she have to be a SAHM in order to be a perfect Ephesians 5 wife? No.

          Does her submission require that he make every decision? No. Collaborative leadership is permissible. In fact, in the spirit of Genesis 2, I highly recommend that.

          I’ve seen good marriages where the men are the strong leaders. I’ve seen good marriages where the women tend to share the power balance equally with their husbands. I’ve seen good marriages where the woman is stronger spiritually than he is. (When those work, it’s b/c the husband is comfortable in his skin and rolls with things. He also is a hard worker in his own right, and she does not use her spiritual strength to undermine him.)

          • Interesting. I think of all those observations. Especially the more relatively egalitarian relationships. The Captain and 1st officer relation is a good description.

            First officers can be very formidable and the Captain in his Wisdom heeds his advice. But the Captain always have the final say. Since God sees every potential decisions and all potential outcomes(Which is why prophecy is always right). That I believe is the optimum model.

            What’s your thoughts on Titus 2 which is used in support of being SAHM?

            Although it doesn’t seem to exclude women running a home business (Proverbs 31).

          • I would not take Titus 2 as a command that women MUSTbe SAHMs. There is no Biblical law commanding such.

            (There is definitely a discussion to be had regarding division of labor, however. But even then, there are principles in play, not hard commands that a woman must stay home. A large part of the problem of modern patriarchists is that they insist on a one-size-fits-all approach, and Titus 2 is their proof-text.)

            Keep in mind that Paul’s audience is largely 1st century Graeco-Roman Christians who operate in a Graeco-Roman world where women generally don’t have careers. The jobs available to women in that milieu are menial at best. In fact, in that society, women were generally expected to stay home and take care of the kids.

            Economically, that was the likely reality for most families back then. Day care as we know it was unheard of. Women going to college? They didn’t even HAVE colleges back then. (Christians actually started the first universities.) Career paths for women were slim at best outside of prostitution.

            Today, the economic landscape is different. Women have free access to higher education and most career paths. I’m personal friends with two women physicians, one a dermatologist whose undergrad degree was in chemical engineering, the other a pathology professor at a major university. Both are very much Christians. One of them homeschooled two girls on top of that career.

            In the first century, the paterfamilias brand of patriarchy–a hallmark of Graeco-Roman culture–put a lot of emphasis on his prestige, his honor, his rule. She was expected to be subordinate in that.

            In light of that, Ephesians 5 is actually counter-culture: it puts emphasis on the husband’s duty of self-sacrifice for her. While she is commanded to submit to him as to the Lord, that given command is given in the context of mutual submission.

            As a husband, I take that as a command not to use my authority as a husband–which I see as a given–as a vehicle to seek self-serving ends, but rather use that authority for the good of my wife.

          • And an indication of my earlier point is that the Mosaic Law and the Noahide Law was given after the fall (Galatians 3:19)where before God only forbid the first humans to not eat the fruit.

            Even God had to rule over Mankind far more than he had before the fall.

          • “In the first century, the paterfamilias brand of patriarchy–a hallmark of Graeco-Roman culture–put a lot of emphasis on his prestige, his honor, his rule. She was expected to be subordinate in that.”

            I agree. Although I would have to say that the Hebrews kept at least in the Old Testament the original pattern which God set up since the Fall that hasn’t deteriorated in the case of the Romans and Greeks or the Primitive Tribes where the Father is unknown and only the Mother raises the children. There is a parallel between Christ as a Shepherd and how the Man is to treat his family:

            “He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young.”
            Isaiah 40:11

            We all know that unlike Military Units. Flocks of sheep are to be treated gently. And with encouragement. And that it is far more libertarian form of rule than the use of a more Militaristic analogy which is only most appropriate in war and in regards to far more dangerous situations.

            “In light of that, Ephesians 5 is actually counter-culture: it puts emphasis on the husband’s duty of self-sacrifice for her. While she is commanded to submit to him as to the Lord, that given command is given in the context of mutual submission.”

            I would have to disagree with the more mainstream conservative take on mutual submission:
            https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2014/03/14/is-there-mutual-submission-or-not/

          • Husbands are given the command to Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. So husbands also ought to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are parts of His body.

            In that passage, you don’t see much about commanding and leading–although I would assume that being the head requires that, which is where I disagree with the more egalitarian types–but more about self-sacrificing and going the extra mile for her wellbeing. This is a portrait of headship in which the head uses his authority for his wife’s good.

            The controversy is over the clause that precedes that: “And do not get drunk with wine, in which there is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your hearts to the Lord; always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to our God and Father; and subject yourselves to one another in the fear of Christ.

            Is that last clause relating solely to the preceding clauses, or is that representative of the framework by which Paul explicates particular relationships (husband-wife, parents-children, masters-slaves)? I’d say a reasonable reading of the text–minus verse numbers and headers–allows for the latter.

            If it is the latter, does that convey and egalitarian understanding of marriage, or does that convey a framework for how patriarchy–which has been with us since the Fall and will be until we get to heaven–ought to be understood? I would suggest that the latter (and not the former) is in play.

            The egalitarian ignores the elephant in the room. The patriarchist worships the elephant.

          • “I would not take Titus 2 as a command that women MUSTbe SAHMs”

            Is it possible to be Keepers at home without being SAHM?

          • Yes. It’s called being a help-meet. The real question is “what does being a help-meet look like?”

            The answer to that is “it depends.” This is not a one-size-fits-all prescription, but rather a principle-based one.

            Success in this endeavor–like most endeavors–requires being willing to adjust, rather than impose hard grids where God has not imposed such.

          • Why makes Titus 2 not a biblical command like those that forbid women from teaching and preaching?

            I think that passage applies to only married women and not single women. Since everything has costs and benefits I don’t see any reason why such sacrifices may be not be necessary in God’s eyes at least.

            If it’s impossible to have modern careers and be a “keeper at home” at the same time that is. Likewise there are downsides to daycare:
            https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-daycare

            Should women choose careers to leave children in their care.

            There are also arguments due to the change in historical circumstances that would nowadays make women being Pastors valid for example too. I have seen such attempts to equalise those sex roles using historic changes as justification as well.

          • There are also downsides for her being a SAHM and not being in the workforce.

            If the husband dies, she’s now on her own with few options. And you cannot assume that the Church is going to pick up the slack and carry that burden. (I just saw that happen with a young family: they just had a baby; he got COVID. He died. She’s now holding the bag.)

            If she’s a younger widow, she may have good marriage prospects, but it would take a strong Christian man who is willing to self-sacrifice in a very less-than-ideal situation. And the more children she has, the worse that gets.

            This dynamic, by the way, was a problem in post-Reformation Europe, as the Protestant Reformation helped curtail what few economic opportunities women had outside the home. When their husbands died, they were suddenly thrown from an already marginal situation into poverty.

            My point here: there are tradeoffs to every choice.

            And yes, day care has tradeoffs, as does homeschooling, private schooling, and public schooling. It’s called thorns and thistles.

            The Bible does not give you a command as to which paradigm you must choose, as we all strive to make the best of a bad situation. My wife has worked in day care, so she can give you the good, the bad, and the ugly. I’ve seen enough public and private school baggage to give you the good, bad, and ugly.

            (A physics teacher in my public high school was busted for child molestation. A sexual predator hired into a Christian private school that I once attended. The blowback from that led to the shutdown of that school. I know of homeschooling situations where the husband used that as cover to sexually abuse a child.)

            As for the Old Testament period, do you think women didn’t work outside the home? Of course they did. And so did the children. Does that sanctify child labor, or is that merely a representation of the realities of economic necessities and tradeoffs?

            Does the Bible command women to stay at home? No. The Proverbs 31 woman either works outside the home or in a hybrid arrangement. She is one who seeks to be the help-meet for her husband. That’s the bottom-line.

            How that looks like for every situation, there is no prescription from Scripture, although we have some descriptions.

            Fact is, in Titus 2, there was a problem in the church with women–who were at home by societal paradigm (paterfamilias)–being busybodies who spent time gossiping and spreading false doctrines and speculations, rather than being vigilant in their socially-defined roles.

            This fits in with 1 Timothy in that the women, particularly the widows, in Ephesus were a large part of the problem: they were engaging in a lot of speculations, and that was bleeding down to the younger widows and even the non-widows, thus creating a cadre of idle busybodies.

            In that light, Titus 2 is less a command to a woman to not have a career, but rather to those women who are at home.

            There are economic tradeoffs to everything. And trust me, if you think every family can afford one income, then you and I are watching a different football game.

            Fact is, I’m the sole income earner in my house, a family of 3 (with a cat and a dog). We drive two beat-up vehicles, my health insurance premium (including the subsidized portion) is almost 4 times the size of my mortgage. We barely have margin at the end of the month. And ours is a VERY middle-class existence.

            Fact is, the economic landscape has changed over the past 50 years. We can argue how and why that has happened–and there would probably be a substantial level of agreement–but the what is what it is. What was a lot more tenable 50 years ago is only marginally-tenable today.

            Even in my very complementarian church, you have very few families where there is a single income earner with a SAHM. In most families, they both work full-time. In some families, we have wives working part-time.

            In one family, the dad stays home with the kids and homeschools.

            My point here: the issue of whether (a) he works and she stays home, (b) she works and he stays home, or (c) they both work full-time, or (d) one has the primary income and the other has part-time income, is a division of labor issue.

            Against that backdrop, the Pauline corpus speaks to both general and particular, providing a framework for husbandly headship that is given to self-sacrifice and not power for self-interest, her submission as a Gospel witness, mutual submission in the interest of each other’s well-being, parenting with both discipline and grace, with diligence and hard work in employment (slavery) situations and vigilance rather than busybodiness in SAHM situations.

          • Okay that makes sense. I think that also is a general principle of Authority as well. As the heads of whatever organization of group ought to use their headship for the good of the subordinates.

            Not treat his underlings with contempt as if being under authority ought to be a burden and a curse. I think that’s what our LORD said to not “Lord it over others”.

            As if hand or foot ought to be despised. Perhaps in that sense they are submitting to those under them as God submits to us in the Sacrificial work of Christ. Is that correct?

          • Have you read this?
            https://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html

            Summed up an explanation of why according to this man Patriarchy is essential for the existence of advances civilization in that it invests men in family life and the project of civilization.

            And it seems a very common feature in advanced civilization.

            Many cultures who remained hunter gatherers often featured men who never knew their fathers. Likewise criminals both men and women disproportionately come from single mother households.

            Tell me what you think when you have time to read through it.

        • Okay. Then I have no objections. Because one of my arguments in regards to the division of labor is predicated on the incompatibility of being a keeper at home and working long hours at the office.

          And I thought that Proverbs 31 solved that dilemma since said woman is running a household business and managing maidens as their employer yet she is close enough at hand to raise the children for example. Thereby fulfilling the requirement of a 2nd stream of income not being incompatible with being a keeper at home.

          Likewise it seems the Pandemic has cut the long hours at the office far from home in favor of remote work so that being sorted as we speak.

    • Porn addiction is often fairly complex. The problem is that, in Church circles, ministers often assume that this is a simple matter of lust. It is often much deeper than that, although it certainly has a lust component.

      Also, a lot of ministers assume that getting married–and having regular sex–will fix a porn problem. As Ame can attest, that won’t work. This is because (a) the factors that drive a porn addiction are not going to be solved by simply having more sex; and (b) biochemically, porn produces a different reaction in the brain (dopamine) than sex (oxytocin). Making matters worse, a lot of ministers will advise the wife to simply give her husband more sex. Sadly, that won’t work for the stated reasons. Fact is, she could ride him like a Derby horse every night, and that will not fix the problem. His porn addiction is not her responsibility. Nor is her porn addiction his responsibility.

      I say the latter because women are increasingly getting snagged by conventional porn.

      • In regards to porn. It seems the war against pornhub has been won. They have been ruined by lawsuits and conviction of illegal activity. And 80% of credit card companies that did business with them have cut off payments.

        https://gab.com/Ghallagher297/posts/106252552147844707

        Since they can’t pay their bills they are going to be gone soon.

        As to the comment I agree. Those ministers should instead point to those websites I mentioned. Because it’s proven to work with those people on how they overcame porn addiction.

        • I will cry no tears for PornHub. May it rot in Hell. Laila Mickelwait has done a wonderful job exposing their tacit approval of sexual assault videos.

          Having said that, there will always be some other outfit waiting in the wings when PornHub is gone. There’s a Hell of a market–literally–for that product. And PornHub is just one fish in that ocean.

          I’m old enough to remember when it was Larry Flynt, Bob Guccione, and Hugh Hefner dominating that industry. They’re all dead now; Playboy is a shell of its former self; Penthouse went bankrupt and what is left of it is next to nothing. But the porn industry has exploded by multiple orders of magnitude since those days.

          I don’t get their revenue model. I have friends who brag about how they get porn for free. If so much of it is available for free, how on earth do these outfits make such big $$$?

          TBH, I just don’t follow the industry, other than some occasional news reports from activists and journalists I follow.

          • Satan gives the Kingdoms of the world to whomever he wishes. So I wouldn’t doubt nafarious forces funding such things.

  4. I think Josh Duggar fed the lust monster until it culminated in what we see now. This video goes into what goes on in the brain and what gives rise to fetishes which is what Josh Duggar ended up having as a result of feeding his addiction as he went down darker and darker routes to have the same buzz as originally
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l6KyGPGEJY

    • With JD, the problem is that it was more than just a lust issue that was driving him. His molestations at age 14 were indicative of predatory tendencies that carried a sense of entitlement.

      When his family became aware of his molestations, they failed to provide the appropriate intervention. This required law enforcement and therapists. It takes real professionals to confront those predatory tendencies early-on, when confronting those has a higher-percentage of success. They failed to do that.

      And as Rachael Denhollander so aptly pointed out: everyone except for JD bore his consequences. And here we are now.

Leave a Reply to singleman Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.