Briefing Book! A Closer Look at Afganistan's Marital Rape Law

April 13, 2009

by CitizenSugar 82

The Afghan "rape law" is nothing new. — The XX Factor
Sarah Palin's pick for Alaska's attorney general allegedly defends marital rape, too. — The Frisky
Apple's Steve Jobs is currently working from home. — geeksugar
Chuck Todd to get his own MSNBC weekend politics show. — Huffington Post
Why Obama shouldn't waffle on Cuba. — Salon
The eldest of Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar's 18 offspring is expecting his own child. — lilsugar

82 Comments

CaterpillarGirl 4 years 5 weeks

practice what you preach, or quote.

chatondeneige 4 years 5 weeks

Right, stef. I took this whole thread off topic. :oy: I do enjoy that instead of replying to me calling you out on your ridiculous comment you just make an equally ridiculous comment. Sometimes I do have to wonder if you're really here to discuss things, or if you're just here to stir up emotions. ;)

stephley 4 years 5 weeks

Your response #39 Chat: "Someday, I hope there will be a conversation on citizen which is about the topic at hand, rather than nit picking and b*tching about what other people have posted."

chatondeneige 4 years 5 weeks

Wow, steph, things that are different and interesting are "freaks" to you? How weird. Based on that qualification, celebrities, people who have kids and enjoy it, people who follow traditionally-Eastern religions, and those who live in farming communities are "freaks" to me! They all have major differences which I consider interesting, so they must be kind of ... freaks! ;)

stephley 4 years 5 weeks

Kind of like... freaks. And I don't watch.

Modus Vivendi 4 years 5 weeks

If you don't want to watch, change the channel. Not that I would say the Duggars are freak shows. They're just different, so they're interesting.

stephley 4 years 5 weeks

And so we get an endless supply of freak shows.

Modus Vivendi 4 years 5 weeks

You can only make reality shows about something interesting. This is America, baby. Corporations can fund whatever they like.

stephley 4 years 5 weeks

Why doesn't some corporation sponsor a small, close-knit family so they can live debt free too?

tiabia 4 years 5 weeks

I didn't say such a thing, but if that's your interpretation of my words, I can't account for that. But in regards to living reality, there really is no way for a family of 18+ to live in such a way without charity and sponsorship.

tiabia 4 years 5 weeks

There is nothing wrong, but we all would be debt free if our house was built by a tv network and corporate sponsorship and our food from charitable donations.

CaterpillarGirl 4 years 5 weeks

So if a company wants to donate goods to you you should refuse it on what basis? that it makes you look greedy?

tiabia 4 years 5 weeks

Although, I guess a plus is that the Duggar family clearly isn't obsessed with the superficiality of varying haircuts (at least the girls) and semi style-conscious clothing and accessories.

Modus Vivendi 4 years 5 weeks

What does it matter how they made their money so long as its ethical and legal?

tiabia 4 years 5 weeks

I agree Steph! I don't want to vilify the Duggars, but I also don't think they should be held up on a pedestal either. One of the Duggar's biggest claims is that they live completely debt free. Of course this is said without the acknowledge meant of charitable contributions and of course some Discovery Channel and corporate sponsored funding...according to wikipedia.

stephley 4 years 5 weeks

I'm not interested in villifying the Duggars - I don't think people should be encouraged to believe that two parents can give 18 (or 15) children the nurturing they need. I get uncomfortable when I hear about couples who adopt a boatload of kids, and I get really uncomfortable when they adopt a boatload of special needs kids. Having/adopting lots of kids and putting them to work raising each other is, IMO, nothing to celebrate.

CaterpillarGirl 4 years 5 weeks

that is the end of the discussion with me anyway.

bluesarahlou 4 years 5 weeks

(According to Wikipedia)

bluesarahlou 4 years 5 weeks

You're right about that Mich, so lets take out the legally adult children. That still leaves 15 children, including 9 under the age of 10.

stephley 4 years 5 weeks

that

CaterpillarGirl 4 years 5 weeks

whats what?

Michelann 4 years 5 weeks

If the oldest child is 21, I assume there must be a few others that are 20 or 19 or 18, right? I don't know many parents who can spend an hour of quality time every day with a 'child' of that age. (Disclaimer: I've never watched the show, read anything about this family, etc.) I don't personally see this as the ideal parenting situation, but as long as the children are well cared for, I'm not going to be too harsh in my judgment of their family decisions.

stephley 4 years 5 weeks

What's that?

CaterpillarGirl 4 years 5 weeks

I get you dont approve, I do, thats that.

bluesarahlou 4 years 5 weeks

My biggest issue with the family is that it's impossible for either of the parents to spend one-on-one time with every child on a daily basis. Let's say 1 hour/child...that's 18 hours. Impossible. 30 minutes/child...9 hours. Still impossible. I can't imagine having a child that won't have my undivided attention for even 30 minutes. They may think they're doing the right thing, people may think they are doing a great job, but I disagree. And CG, since none of us see what's going on behind closed doors, none of us know the facts, parenting wise.

Link Love

82 Comments

You Might Also Like