Josh Duggar Part 11 - The End of Rehab Is in Sight

[EmCatlyn]

2 hours ago, ksgranola1 said:

If he had kept his big mouth shut after AM broke,  he could have minimized the fall-out. But NOOO, he had to go on to make a public statement saying he was addicted to porn, & that he was unfaithful.  No one else has come forward. Maybe he could have kept some of this under his hat & he wouldn't be in Daddy's Jesus Jail.

Maybe you are right. On the other hand, I think he may have been afraid that, just as his AM accounts were "outed," there would proof forthcoming of at least one affair through AM.

I think JB demanded to know the truth and, after Josh had told him, ordered him to write the confession, keeping it vague but covering what might be disclosed through AM.  There was some uncertainty about including the porn--the first version included it, then it was removed, then it came back--but, as I recall, the confession of "infidelity" was always included, which makes me think that this was something Josh worried would come out of AM.

The porn confession always struck me as a way to ease into the infidelity confession.  It wasn't, you see, that Josh woke up one morning and said, "I am tired of being Godly and having sex only with my devoted, not-very-sexy, pregnant wife.  Where can I discretely find a woman with whom to be unfaithful? Aha! Ashley Madison, just the thing."  

Instead what happened was one morning he accidentally saw a Victoria's Secret bra and panty ad.  This stirred up desires, which, since Anna was busy with some baby or another (and didn't look like those models in their undies anyway), led him to look at some other ads, maybe telling himself he would buy a sexy outfit for Anna to wear between pregnancies.  But one of the places he went to shop also had porn and he clicked on the site and the next thing he knew the Devil was building a fortress in his heart and he was watching porn and... you know <ahem> pleasuring himself.  

Then,  since all sins are equal, once Josh had succumbed to porn, he figured he might as well enjoy himself.  When the Devil showed him the AM site, Josh hardened his heart against Jesus (another part of him was probably getting hard too, at the idea of a real life woman with maybe more experience than he had) and, anyway, he joined AM.  And it all began with porn. Men are so vulnerable !

Luckily there is prayer prison for those who want to get back with God.

[Mothership]

9 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

The porn confession always struck me as a way to ease into the infidelity confession.

Yup!  I'll say it again, I think porn is a great excuse for the leghumpers.   After all, porn isn't Joshley's fault, porn is the fault of the godless media that puts all those [NIKE] images of women out there.   I'd even go so far as to suggest that any porn Josh is watching is pretty mild stuff.  This is a family that probably considers anything R-rated porn.  Porn is the quiver-version of victim blaming.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

8 minutes ago, Mothership said:

Yup!  I'll say it again, I think porn is a great excuse for the leghumpers.   After all, porn isn't Joshley's fault, porn is the fault of the godless media that puts all those [NIKE] images of women out there.   I'd even go so far as to suggest that any porn Josh is watching is pretty mild stuff.  This is a family that probably considers anything R-rated porn.  Porn is the quiver-version of victim blaming.

Hard to believe there was a time in all of our lives when not a one of us had spent even a single moment speculating on Smuggar's fap material of choice.  

In those days of yore I think we all spent less time throwing up in our mouths.

Im going to get to work on a time machine and once it's fully tested I'll come back for the rest of you!

(Fair warning, I'm going back so far in time I'm going to be at the apex of my own Nikeness (because why not?  ) so those of you who would be minors or not yet born when we step out into the late 80'- mid 90's are going to have book a seperate shuttle.)

and while I think they mean actual porn when talking about Josh ITA with @Mothership that they'd put Porkys in the same category.

[ksgranola1]

JB, this is the reason young men need to be able to
"sew a few wild oats" before they go walking down the isle.

[Mothership]

@HerNameIsBuffy  please take me with you in your time machine.  I never really appreciated my NIKE days!

[DarkAnts]

Porn is not the problem it's just an easy out for major underlining problems. I saw it in Utah. Lawmakers want to call porn a public health crisis. They don't want to call it a mental health crisis because they would have to admit that things like depression are a problem.

[Flyinthesoup]

2 hours ago, Whoosh said:

So, I won't try to label or lump together the various types of people who might want to say "hey, let's not say Dillon is absolutely lying beyond any reasonable doubt when the reality is we still just don't know what that agreement is even saying let alone why she agreed to it".  I will, however, suggest that if the community as a whole decides it is OK to bash down that or any other well reasoned view with sufficient vehemence, I think they need to understand exactly what that means in terms of the future of the community.  I think it is fine to try to severely restrict some types of views (eg blatant racism, sexism, homophobia, etc), but I think people should think long and hard about what the ultimate impact of those choices and decisions will be.

Anyway, welcome @Secular Sweetness.  I feel you expressed a less common view very eloquently and respectfully.

I can't read that word without thinking of Jilly...I thought you were going to make a joke!   sorry, I couldn't resist.

4 hours ago, ksgranola1 said:

If he had kept his big mouth shut after AM broke,  he could have minimized the fall-out. But NOOO, he had to go on to make a public statement saying he was addicted to porn, & that he was unfaithful.  No one else has come forward. Maybe he could have kept some of this under his hat & he wouldn't be in Daddy's Jesus Jail.

I'm glad he spoke out.  When I initially read his statement, it read to me as if someone who was glad his hand got caught in the cookie jar.  It was as if he was glad to get it all out and he just blurted it out.  I think it was his way of calling it quits!  I think he wanted out of the mess and was glad to finally see light.  

[Coy Koi]

5 hours ago, Flyinthesoup said:

I'm glad he spoke out.  When I initially read his statement, it read to me as if someone who was glad his hand got caught in the cookie jar.  It was as if he was glad to get it all out and he just blurted it out.  I think it was his way of calling it quits!  I think he wanted out of the mess and was glad to finally see light.  

It's possible that he could have blurted something out spontaneously to his family or church elders or whomever, but I'm sure the statement was much more intentional, because we know Daddy and probably some public relations guy had to approve/write it first, and they would never let him release something based on his honest feelings and actions instead of the good of their brand. They already tried the minimizing and deflecting route last time and that went over like a lead balloon, so onto the next tactic. If they could have been sure that no evidence of cheating would come out, there's no way in hell they would have admitted it.

[paulypepper]

12 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Don't I know it.  That's why all my babies with Alex Van Halen are imaginary.

Kidding aside, this is my recollection as well.  He never admitted to anything with her.

Interesting you chose the drummer and not the guitar player...

[luv2laugh]

9 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Hard to believe there was a time in all of our lives when not a one of us had spent even a single moment speculating on Smuggar's fap material of choice.  

In those days of yore I think we all spent less time throwing up in our mouths.

Im going to get to work on a time machine and once it's fully tested I'll come back for the rest of you!

(Fair warning, I'm going back so far in time I'm going to be at the apex of my own Nikeness (because why not?  ) so those of you who would be minors or not yet born when we step out into the late 80'- mid 90's are going to have book a seperate shuttle.)

and while I think they mean actual porn when talking about Josh ITA with @Mothership that they'd put Porkys in the same category.

Buffy OT but where are your avatars from? It seems so familiar but can't figure it out...

[sockiemom]

I don't understand continuing to give DD the benefit of the doubt. The stipulation says attachments that would conclusively prove her claim was fabricated. 

'Fabricated' is a pretty specific word. 'Conclusively' is extremely specific. It doesn't say 'can't support' her claim. Not 'claim is not factually accurate.'

This says she absolutely made up her claim. 

There are other ways to phrase a dismissal that don't call the plaintiff a lying liar.

For some reason everyone (the judge, the lawyers, Duggar and DD) agreed that it was appropriate to use that language.

Why would the judge and DD herself allow that? Even if she "only" lied about one little thing, why do you suppose the judge is signing off on something that discredits her entire claim? Because Joshie is his buddy? Because he hates porn stars? Because he was so intimidated by the Duggar name?

In my experience, this is something that happens when a judge is so irate at a party's egregious behavior that they make a point to  commit it to the public record.

 

[Whoosh]

I agree with much but not all of what you said, but I think you have left out the other half of the equation here.  

Both parties agree that Duggar has conclusive proof that Dillon fabricated something, but he is unwilling to show it.  Clearly, Duggar did not have the burden of proof in court, but both he and Dillon chose to argue at least parts of their case in the court of public opinion.  Failure to make the proof he has public will raise questions in the minds of the public whether that is fair or not.  

Further, there are tons of ways to phrase a dismissal.  You could phrase it something like "the parties both agree that Duggar has conclusive proof that would show Dillon's claims are entirely fabricated and that Dillon and Duggar never, ever met."  Or "the parties both agree that Duggar has conclusive proof that would show that, although the two parties did indeed meet and have very rough sex, it was entirely consensual and therefore Dillon's claims in this suit are fabricated".  There are probably literally millions of other ways of phrasing the agreement that would be relatively clear.  They could have used any of those.  They didn't.  That is reality.

Or, they could phrase it the way it is phrased.  I don't believe either attorney is so stupid as to not understand that this agreement left all kinds of questions wide open.  That clearly leaves a lot of questions and doubt in many people's minds.  People don't always sign agreements or agree to settlements because it is the truth or whatever.  They frequently enter into those legal arrangements because it winds up being the lesser of two evils or the best possible outcome for them personally.  Dillon clearly didn't win here, but Duggar didn't get an agreement that requires Dillon to pay his attorney's fees and make a public retraction on twitter either.  Those were the demands he made if he was going to agree to a dismissal.  Didn't happen.  Not at all.  That leaves doubt as to what actually did happen.  Dillon didn't prevail, but Duggar was not found to be "innocent" or not liable.  The case was simply dropped and a very vague agreement was made public.  The agreement says that the plaintiff lied about something and won't ever refile and would dismiss with prejudice (meaning the court won't allow her to ever refile).  Not much else.  Why should people pretend otherwise?

I don't personally think anyone needs to give Dillon any benefit of the doubt, but I think it is perfectly reasonable if they choose to do so.  I think it is perfectly reasonable to acknowledge that what the truth of this situation may be is still entirely unclear unless a person chooses to assume a heck of a lot.  I think it is very reasonable for us all to remember that the system isn't perfect.  That is actually frequently a topic of discussion on FJ and elsewhere - so why is it so surprising to have it come up here?  A brief scan of the internet commentary on this case readily shows that appears that all kinds of people think something fishy is going on with this whole case and that it is likely both parties are hiding something - so why is anyone surprised that this is discussed here?  

Are people going to make these same statements about things if there is a similar outcome in the IBLP/Gothard case?  Seriously, next time there is a verdict or outcome in a court that appears questionable or one that is clearly entirely unfair and unjust, are we going to see this same set of commentators saying - "why would anyone ever question the outcome of a case in a court of law or wonder about the terms of a vague agreement?"  If courts are so very perfect and never ever get it wrong, why was OJ found innocent of an act under one burden of proof in a criminal court and then liable for that same act under another burden of proof in a civil court?  Are we all supposed to just smile and say "well, that is what the outcome was so we mustn't question anything!"?  How does that make sense?  Can any legal professional honestly say that each and every case they have been involved in was resolved in a way that showed one party clearly in the right and the other party clearly in the wrong?  I will personally raise my hand and say that I have been involved in many a case where a person who was very likely innocent was found guilty or a person who was very likely guilty was found innocent.  Civil court is different, sure, but I don't believe for a moment that the same thing doesn't happen in civil courts and I don't think many other people will either.

I personally think that people could act in a manner that doesn't give Dillon the benefit of the doubt, doesn't accuse Duggar of committing all the acts from the complaint, but ALSO doesn't make claims that are simply not true such as saying we know what the terms the agreement she signed actually mean, that she admitted it was all entirely fabricated, that the justice system is perfect and victory always goes to the party in the right, that there is a clear "victor" in this case, that secret settlement deals never occur despite what court documents say, that there is no reason to ever doubt or question the outcome of a case in a court of law, etc.  Those things just are not true.

ETA - the judge didn't make the terms of the agreement public as far as how I read things - Dillon and Duggar agreed to that for some reason and the judge allowed or approved the overall agreement to dismiss with prejudice.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

7 hours ago, luv2laugh said:

Buffy OT but where are your avatars from? It seems so familiar but can't figure it out...

Family Affair.  And old sitcom from the late 60's.  

[halcionne]

2 hours ago, sockiemom said:

Why would the judge and DD herself allow that? Even if she "only" lied about one little thing, why do you suppose the judge is signing off on something that discredits her entire claim? Because Joshie is his buddy? Because he hates porn stars? Because he was so intimidated by the Duggar name?

In my experience, this is something that happens when a judge is so irate at a party's egregious behavior that they make a point to  commit it to the public record.

There's this thing called rape culture, that's why. Sometimes (/s) it even affects judges. 

[JenniferJuniper]

9 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Family Affair.  And old sitcom from the late 60's.  

I've always thought Anissa Jones was one of the most charming child actors ever.

[Secular Sweetness]

On 2/6/2016 at 2:02 PM, ksgranola1 said:

If he had kept his big mouth shut after AM broke,  he could have minimized the fall-out. But NOOO, he had to go on to make a public statement saying he was addicted to porn, & that he was unfaithful.  No one else has come forward. Maybe he could have kept some of this under his hat & he wouldn't be in Daddy's Jesus Jail.

It always seemed really strange to me that they made that public statement, plus the funny fact that they revised it a couple of times.  Here's our official statement, no wait we're changing it (nobody will notice right?)....  It definitely didn't seem like it was penned by Josh.  I've had the feeling that JB was behind it with his big ego, not realizing he should have had a very good PR person called in to tell them what to do.  Sure seemed out of the ordinary to have a scandal break and then have the accused person immediately confirm their wrong doing.  Would have been great to see Josh read his statements in front of the press.  I think JB must have learned a lesson and went for a good lawyer for the DD case.

[Bad Wolf]

I jusr reread Josh's confession. He said that he was addicted to porn and unfaithful to Anna. Now, I don't speak fundie, but does unfathful equal adultery in fundie speak? He never once used the word adultery. Masturbation is a sin to them, so maybe spilling his seed on the ground while watching porn would be considered being unfaithful to Anna.  I know he had the two AM accounts, but we don't know for sure that he followed through.

Just curious, and hoping that someone who is proficient in the fundie language could clarify.

[JenniferJuniper]

6 minutes ago, Secular Sweetness said:

It always seemed really strange to me that they made that public statement, plus the funny fact that they revised it a couple of times.  Here's our official statement, no wait we're changing it (nobody will notice right?)....  It definitely didn't seem like it was penned by Josh.  I've had the feeling that JB was behind it with his big ego, not realizing he should have had a very good PR person called in to tell them what to do.  Sure seemed out of the ordinary to have a scandal break and then have the accused person immediately confirm their wrong doing.  Would have been great to see Josh read his statements in front of the press.  I think JB must have learned a lesson and went for a good lawyer for the DD case.

I can almost see Jim Bob with his hands on Smug's throat yelling, "Did you have relations with other women?  Did you??"  And Josh whimpering that he did.

Why publicly confess?  To get out in front of the stories of any women who might come forward?  Very possible, but it didn't do much good as someone still ended up coming forward with dramatic fictional stories about him.

The awkward statement and the revision are proof that they did not use a PR person.  So was the statement a way of Jim Bob punishing Josh?  Of making sure he was very thoroughly humiliated?   His actions had already cost them the TV show, caused his parents much embarrassment (although they fully deserve that for their own actions), and we know Boob has a bad temper. I can see him temporarily losing his mind over this.

3 minutes ago, Bad Wolf said:

I jusr reread Josh's confession. He said that he was addicted to porn and unfaithful to Anna. Now, I don't speak fundie, but does unfathful equal adultery in fundie speak?

It might, but I don't think Josh was talking fundie.  He'd been in the secular world for awhile and I don't think he would ever have agreed to say that unless he was physically unfaithful.

[Bad Wolf]

@JenniferJuniper every time I see your name, that song runs through my head for the rest of the day. 

[Cleopatra7]

14 minutes ago, Bad Wolf said:

I jusr reread Josh's confession. He said that he was addicted to porn and unfaithful to Anna. Now, I don't speak fundie, but does unfathful equal adultery in fundie speak? He never once used the word adultery. Masturbation is a sin to them, so maybe spilling his seed on the ground while watching porn would be considered being unfaithful to Anna.  I know he had the two AM accounts, but we don't know for sure that he followed through.

Just curious, and hoping that someone who is proficient in the fundie language could clarify.

If Josh had just been looking at porn and masturbating, his statement would have said something like, "I sinned with my eyes by looking at porn, but I confessed to my wife and Jesus forgave me." That wouldn't be cause enough for Jesus rehab. The fact that the first AM account was made in Arkansas indicates that Josh got bored with Anna pretty quickly. Whether he really met anyone through AM may never be known, but he clearly cheated with someone, and did things so severe that just confessing to Jesus and Anna wasn't enough. As much as fundies hate porn, Josh did more than look at porn to have him disappear so completely.

[JenniferJuniper]

16 minutes ago, Bad Wolf said:

@JenniferJuniper every time I see your name, that song runs through my head for the rest of the day. 

Sorry!  It's not that I'm a huge Donovan fan and Jennifer's not my real name. A good friend of mine had a little girl named Jennifer who had special needs.  She absolutely loved hearing her name in the song.  She died shortly before I joined here in 2011 and I chose the user name in her honor.

[refugee]

4 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Family Affair.  And old sitcom from the late 60's.  

I always thought in the back of my mind that there was something between the guy and the butler who were raising the little girl...

36 minutes ago, Bad Wolf said:

I jusr reread Josh's confession. He said that he was addicted to porn and unfaithful to Anna. Now, I don't speak fundie, but does unfathful equal adultery in fundie speak? He never once used the word adultery. Masturbation is a sin to them, so maybe spilling his seed on the ground while watching porn would be considered being unfaithful to Anna.  I know he had the two AM accounts, but we don't know for sure that he followed through.

Just curious, and hoping that someone who is proficient in the fundie language could clarify.

Depends on the flavor of fundie, I guess. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus makes a point that just looking at a woman with lust is equivalent to committing adultery. Some fundies take that and run with it.

Didn't Jimmy Carter say something to that effect at one time? Or am I remembering wrong?

[JenniferJuniper]

5 minutes ago, refugee said:

I always thought in the back of my mind that there was something between the guy and the butler who were raising the little girl...

Mr French and Uncle Bee-ell?  No!

[sockiemom]

I've spent some time in federal court, dealing with federal judges. This is between DC and NY. The judges around these parts are quite precise. I guess a judge could get into the specifics of the case, and fact-finding in their dismissal, and maybe even namecall the parties. But, really, they don't write things that way 'round here.

This is a dismissal, not a judgement.

I'm not saying must be 'cause the court said so. I know that when they "find facts" that doesn't mean they can change the fabric of reality.

I'm saying that language means something. To think it was a mistake, or the judge really meant he hates rape victims (?), or meant she is a tiny liar, is naive. 

This is a victory for the defendent, as much as is possible in our "justice" system. So, Duggar didn't want to drag out surveilance tapes of his getting down at the tittie bar or whatever. So, she didn't have to pay his attorney fees. That would take more money, more filing, more fighting, for what? 

Everyone already thinks he's a jackass. Neither of them are a shining example of morality. What would he be gaining? 

I'm not seeing the connection to rape culture, which does exist, I believe.

I've seen courts do a lot more than this as far as revictimizing victims, and promoting rape culture. <cough~Cosby~cough> 

 

[jacduggar]

7 hours ago, sockiemom said:

I don't understand continuing to give DD the benefit of the doubt. The stipulation says attachments that would conclusively prove her claim was fabricated. 

'Fabricated' is a pretty specific word. 'Conclusively' is extremely specific. It doesn't say 'can't support' her claim. Not 'claim is not factually accurate.'

This says she absolutely made up her claim. 

There are other ways to phrase a dismissal that don't call the plaintiff a lying liar.

For some reason everyone (the judge, the lawyers, Duggar and DD) agreed that it was appropriate to use that language.

Why would the judge and DD herself allow that? Even if she "only" lied about one little thing, why do you suppose the judge is signing off on something that discredits her entire claim? Because Joshie is his buddy? Because he hates porn stars? Because he was so intimidated by the Duggar name?

In my experience, this is something that happens when a judge is so irate at a party's egregious behavior that they make a point to  commit it to the public record.

 

I know this is an unpopular opinion and I might go down in flames for it, but I see it on snark sites all the time (usually I ignore it).

 

I think the bias here is that he's a Duggar, so it MUST be his fault. I see it all the time in the Jill thread. Izzy has a bruise or bump, or he's on a blanket for one photo, therefore he MUST be abused and MUST be blanket trained. I scratch my head and wonder if these people have ever actually seen a toddler learning how to walk, because they quite literally walk or crawl directly into things (which makes marks). It's how they learn not to do it. 

 

Because Joshley made these admissions, he MUST have assaulted DD even though he has proof (that we won't ever see but the judge did and it was good enough for him) that he didn't do it. It's kind of like that phrase, when you don't like someone everything they do is offensive to you. We all hate the Duggars, therefore everything they do is bad and everything they're accused of must be true. The reason people are so adamant in this particular situation is because both sides are offensive. I choose to believe that she lied, which alienates victims. Obviously some people are choosing to believe she did not lie, which is rape culture.