Joshley Madison Part 6 - Sin, Confess, Repeat

[Special friend]

Sunshine1491 - I like your theory and wish/hope it is true. I think Josh will never be happy trying to fit into the narrow mold of "godly Gothard male", and it would be better for everyone involved (mainly Anna and his children) for him to admit it, cast off the remaining traces of that cult, and try to start over, figure out what he is willing to believe and to commit to. If he wants to be a playboy and fool around - then do so, but get divorced first! I don't think Anna wants to leave her beliefs behind - she always seemed quite content in her role as wife and mother. So maybe she can find some other fundie guy and try again. (Word to the wise Anna - don't let your dad pick out the guy this time. He's craptastic at that sort of thing.)

I don´t think that is what would happen at all. More likely, Josh would live the life he wanted to live and Anna would be required to stay single and pray for him to change his mind and return. She would never be able to marry again. Her entirely life, she would be re-living every small mistake she ever made and regret forever all the things she did to "push him away". It makes me sad just thinking about it.

[Lazuli]

To the first bold, I'm not so sure she has said it wasn't consensual. Bad analogy warning, but I find Ferris wheels terrifying but willingly took a ride on one last weekend. As she's portrayed in her films in this manner, I very much doubt it's the first time a customer tried to recreate a scene with her. Again, until SHE says she didn't agree, I don't agree there is any proof he assaulted her. And I think it's wrong of posters out here to claim they know what actually happened.

I like this analogy about consent. youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8 (I broke the link because I'm not sure if youtube videos are OK to post.)

I gather from the quotes that I've seen by Danica that she didn't like the violence, and that it was not negotiated ahead of time that he wanted rough sex. He simply did it. She could not consent to it after the fact.

Her reticence to not have sex with Josh again, and her eliciting a promise that he wouldn't get rough if she agreed, suggests she didn't want or like it the first time.

Throwing a woman violently around is considered physical assault, even when the woman consents to it. What Josh did had a sexual element to it, so, I call that sexual violence. I don't call it rape, however, since the sex was consensual.

You have to be pretty sure about your partner if you're going to get into rough sex play or BDSM. This came up in Canada recently with the Jian Ghomeshi sexual assault case. I thought US laws were similar when it came to assault.

But I do agree with you, Jennifer, that a lot of this is speculation. But it's not wild speculation. There is a certain logic at play. Danica didn't say she loved having rough sex with Josh. She said it terrified her.

To the second bold, I agree. He very possibly raped one of the little girls. However, it's not fully clear what he actually did. Time (the police asked the questions 3 years later) and parental coaching have obscured the truth, possibly forever.

However, saying "Well, if he probably digitally raped his sister this means he probably had non-consensual sex with a prostitute 12 years later" is huge leap.

Josh is a bad dude, no question. But lets not grab onto tabloid stories and construct theories around them using what we think we know about his past to support them. Half the tabloid rumors seem to start with this place as it is. If Josh sexually assaulted someone, let the accuser(s) come forth and tell their story in a real venue. He's entitled to face his accusers, and unlike with the Bill Cosby victims, the statute of limitations ain't up.

I was mostly referring to the two police reports that were filed on the molestations, which called what Josh did felony forcible sexual assault and mentioned genital touching. I'm not sure what constitutes a felony in Arkansas law. I thought felony meant penetration, but perhaps I'm wrong. Do you know?

[Lazuli]

Let's not forget dear Jessa was vigorously supporting Josh and dismissive of the aggressive sexual assaults on her little sisters when she thought she still had a chance at a TLC show just a few months ago.

Now that chance is clearly gone, and Josh is suddenly evil SOB for looking at porn and cheating on his wife.

Sorry, but that's fucked up.

It may seem fucked up, but her behaviour is not unusual for an incest survivor coming out of denial. I don't know what's going on for her, though. It's all speculation.

[blessalessi]

I've been lucky and have not had to face this kind of persecution (or torture: that might be a more accurate word for this kind of abuse) from students. But there's no telling who is going to be violent, or why. Years ago I read an article in "The Chronicle of Higher Education" about a professor who went to prison for shooting and killing his doctoral student because the doctoral student's work wasn't adequate.

She should have listened to the professor the first time he told her her work was inadequate. But nope, she just had to go back for more..... Not the same as "real" murder.

BTW, do you have any graphic photos of the killing, or links to salacious news reports? There are people here who really like to keep these things on the table for discussion, in order to make the world a better place.

[blessalessi]

about Jill using "extended family" to refer to her brother:

as not a fundie expert, I wonder if that choice of words might have to do with the fact that on her wedding day her headship changed from JBoob to Derrick? Like, now she is part of his family and not the Duggar's anymore? Am I approaching this too logically? Anyone who grew up fundie and would know if you are female if after marriage you consider only your husband's family your immediate family?

Or did she just use the wrong word?

So many ????'s

ETA: I wish I could stay a Speshul Snowflake foreverrrrrrrr! :D

She didn't use the term "extended family" when she appeared on the Megyn Kelly interview.

[CyborgKin]

about Jill using "extended family" to refer to her brother:

as not a fundie expert, I wonder if that choice of words might have to do with the fact that on her wedding day her headship changed from JBoob to Derrick? Like, now she is part of his family and not the Duggar's anymore? Am I approaching this too logically? Anyone who grew up fundie and would know if you are female if after marriage you consider only your husband's family your immediate family?

Or did she just use the wrong word?

So many ????'s

ETA: I wish I could stay a Speshul Snowflake foreverrrrrrrr! :D

Yeah I considered that she may have just use the wrong word, or used the word wrongly.

And when I looked up the 'official' meaning of the term 'extended family', the results I received said that it means a nuclear family with other relatives such as grandparents, or uncles and aunts, living together in a household. Which is a different meaning of the term entirely to what we're discussion. So that didn't really help.

Or what mostlylurk said at the top of the page. That makes sense. Though I'd have just said 'family'. Or 'brother's family'. But of course she had to be vague. :angry-banghead:

[Arete]

About Jill and the "extended family" reference: it is very common for fundies to refer to their family of origin with this term once they get married. Using that term in that way is well within the cultural norms Jill grew up with, she isn't using it specifically for the Josh situation.

[blessalessi]

About Jill and the "extended family" reference: it is very common for fundies to refer to their family of origin with this term once they get married. Using that term in that way is well within the cultural norms Jill grew up with, she isn't using it specifically for the Josh situation.

I totally get this, but is it consistent with Jill's own norms? It wasn't "extended family" on the Megyn Kelly show, it was "my brother" "my parents", as far as I remember.

I'm musing aloud here, and that is a question not an argument, btw. :)

[nastyhobbitses]

It seems like a lot of us are talking past each other rather than having a conversation. I am sorry for my part in any of that. Basically my point is that "consensual/nonconsensual" and "legal/illegal" are not the same thing. Something can be nonconsensual even if no one ever says "stop" or "no" and something can be consensual and yet still be illegal. "Rapist" and "assault" are legal terms with legal definitions. Words like "rape" and "assault" can be meant to carry only the legal definition or they can be used in a different way ("they brought in a bulldozer and raped the land" or "her perfume assaulted my olfactory senses").

From my understanding, Dillon's statements indicate that they had an arrangement where J would pay her X amount in exchange for certain services. She has further stated that 1) he did not pay the full amount they had agreed on and 2) he engaged in behaviors that were outside of their agreement. She has reportedly said that this scared her and it sounds like later she further explained the expectations and boundaries of their business agreement and he apologized and agreed to comply with the agreement. To me, she is clearly saying that in their first meeting he acted without her consent to some extent. I have not heard that she implied that his behavior crossed the line into illegal behavior, nor have I heard her attach any legal terms to what occurred.

Is any of what she has stated or implied true? I am pretty sure we will never know for sure. I agree no one should put words in her mouth.

One thing that rubs me the wrong way is the idea that the standards for "appropriate" behavior (legal, moral or otherwise) would be different simply because someone is in the sex-trade or because they make movies that depict certain behaviors. If a pro wrestler enters into a verbal contract which says a guy can punch the wrestler in the stomach for a $5 fee, the guy can then punch that wrestler in the stomach provided he pays the $5. If instead the guy picks up a table and breaks it over the wrestler's head and then tosses him 3 bucks, I doubt many people would think that was OK or to be expected (regardless of what they had seen portrayed on television).

I do agree everyone should be careful in choosing their words and should be willing to explain their word choices if called on it.

Yeah, I think that what went down with Josh and Danica was, well, what a lot of non-consensual sex looks like: Yes, let's have sex, wait I really don't want to do that, this wasn't what I wanted to do, but I'm too scared/submissive/afraid you'll stop loving me/afraid you won't pay me/whatever to tell you no or stop, so I'll just go along with it. Maybe next time you'll listen.

Legal or illegal, Josh is a creep who at BEST has trouble reading social cues/distinguishing fantasy from reality (and that's some major benefit of the doubt I'm giving him -- I mainly hypothesize it because that was what was going on with my ex, who reminds me of a not-fundie, smarter Josh) and has never gotten appropriate help to learn to do those things (still not even remotely an excuse for ANY of his actions, since most people with those problems are good people who don't sexually assault people, but it would explain a lot), and more likely has zero respect for women and treats them like disposable sex robots, whether they're his own wife or a sex worker.

[JenniferJuniper]

I totally get this, but is it consistent with Jill's own norms? It wasn't "extended family" on the Megyn Kelly show, it was "my brother" "my parents", as far as I remember.

I'm musing aloud here, and that is a question not an argument, btw. :)

I think sometimes people forget just how hard these grifters grift.

Yes, Josh was her brother for the Kelly interview and is now "extended family". And Jessa was all apologies for him in May and now is all, Dude's totally evil.

We can speculate that Jessa and Jill perhaps suddenly are just coming to grips with their molestation. Or that they were forced by their parents to feel or at least express feelings of total forgiveness towards Josh in May and this event is the straw that broke the camel's back.

But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, or in the case of the Duggars, a dollar is just a dollar.

I think it's more likely that a) Jill and Jessa have detested Josh for years, but put on the Fox dog and pony because they and their husbands knew a show was on the line (and remember they are under their husbands' headships now. The husbands call all the shots) or b) They've forgiven Josh long ago just as they said because it was so mild but now they're pissed that he's destroyed the Duggar brand forever and they will never again be able to profit from it. And hubbies are gonna have to go out and get day jobs like the rest of the non-reality show starring public.

Again, who's to say? But it just all seems so convenient to me.

And then there is poor Famy, who's husband-to-be publicly bemoaned the fact that their "fans" won't be able to see their wedding on TV. Where's that gagging smilie when you need it?

[Arete]

I think you pretty much nailed them, but I also think both have been using a lot of dictionary words lately to make themselves sound more thoughtful that they actually are. They are both in way over their heads and don't realize how bad their "education" is showing.

[breakfree]

Haven't seen it posted that dear Zsuzsu has now weighed in on this whole thing. stevenandersonfamily.blogspot.nl/2015/09/micheal-pearl-makes-fool-of-himself.html

Short version: She was right and has always been right, Michael Pearl is an idiotic idiot, game of thrones meme I doubt she fully understands, oh and PS even though Michael Pearl is the worst his wife is super cool and wrote Zsu's favorite book.

[apple1]

Haven't seen it posted that dear Zsuzsu has now weighed in on this whole thing. .

Really ???

Currently there is a whole thread, several pages, right now 6th from the top, on Quiverfull of Snark (pretty much the "main" page/section of FJ) discussing this. Just really.

[ArmchairTurnip]

I think fundie kids are not encouraged, as a general rule, to examine their own emotions with any kind of clarity or specificity. Quite the opposite, in fact; the rhetoric is all about "not my will but Thine," especially for girls. Years of that - even barring traumatic events like sexual assault - can leave you all but unable to name what you're feeling, which makes it all the more upsetting when it finally starts to bubble up.

All that to say that I'm inclined not to read too much into Jessa and Jill's specific word choice. They aren't particularly fluid or insightful writers at the best of times, and if we could read their emotional Rorschach right now it would probably look like somebody went crazy with a black crayon.

[breakfree]

Really ???

Currently there is a whole thread, several pages, right now 6th from the top, on Quiverfull of Snark (pretty much the "main" page/section of FJ) discussing this. Just really.

Thanks for letting me know! I mostly stay here and in individuals/families since even just that is too much to keep up with most days.

[Kayel]

-snip-

Short version: She was right and has always been right, Michael Pearl is an idiotic idiot, game of thrones meme I doubt she fully understands, oh and PS even though Michael Pearl is the worst his wife is super cool and wrote Zsu's favorite book.

I am not very familiar with GoT, but if you are referring to "One Does Not Simply" it is from Lord of the Rings. One does not simply walk into Mordor.

[JenniferJuniper]

Haven't seen it posted that dear Zsuzsu has now weighed in on this whole thing. stevenandersonfamily.blogspot.nl/2015/09/micheal-pearl-makes-fool-of-himself.html

Short version: She was right and has always been right, Michael Pearl is an idiotic idiot, game of thrones meme I doubt she fully understands, oh and PS even though Michael Pearl is the worst his wife is super cool and wrote Zsu's favorite book.

Ha. She really is the fundie world's Cersei Lannister.

Love ya, Zoo. You are reliably and consistently evil.

[Queen Of Hearts]

Thanks for letting me know! I mostly stay here and in individuals/families since even just that is too much to keep up with most days.

Don't feel bad, breakfree. Not everyone reads every sub-forum here. Personally, I find it interesting that so many in the fundie world - including some of Josh's siblings and inlaws - are starting to speak out. I suspect some, like Zsu, are realizing that the Duggar's are making the rest of them look even crazier than normal. I bet Boob's head is about to explode! Boob is missing out on his chance to get back on TV. If he would allow a real camera crew to follow him around and document all this as it unfolds and not edit it down to nothing, it would be rating's gold. I'd watch!

[Cochise]

She should have listened to the professor the first time he told her her work was inadequate. But nope, she just had to go back for more..... Not the same as "real" murder.

BTW, do you have any graphic photos of the killing, or links to salacious news reports? There are people here who really like to keep these things on the table for discussion, in order to make the world a better place.

I'm not sure why this mention of a murder has, er, triggered such a strong reaction. Does the fact that the student was male make any difference to you?

No one else has asked for "graphic photos of the killing, or links to salacious news reports" of the murder, so you're alone in requesting those. The answer, in any case, is no. I saw a one-paragraph mention of the murder, shuddered, felt sorry for the family of the victim, and wondered how a professor could get into that mental state, all in about ten seconds. Then I moved on to the next article. In any case, even before a friend of mine was battered to death by his male lover, I've had no desire to trade in graphic photos of killings and salacious news reports about killings.

If the next question is "Do you have any graphic photos of your friend's murder, or links to salacious news reports," my answer is going to disappoint. No, I don't, and I wouldn't provide them or his name if for some reason I did.

[laundry]

With so many magazines I haven't really figured out which is most trust worthy and which is 'always' writing gossip and never a go-to source. I now have at least one figured out. Radar Online is not your number one go-to, if they were I would think they didn't need the most misleading headline ever that is really just 100% clickbait. So incase someone reads here before reading the front page of Radar Online and goes " :pink-shock: " like me for a few moments, I can tell you that NO, "evil molester" (Josh obviously) is not "finally sent behind bars." Lol. I can't believe I actually really thought that for a few moments either. :doh:

(The article is really about how he once talked to convicts in Florida state prison about Christ.)

[JenniferJuniper]

With so many magazines I haven't really figured out which is most trust worthy and which is 'always' writing gossip and never a go-to source. I now have at least one figured out. Radar Online is not your number one go-to, if they were I would think they didn't need the most misleading headline ever that is really just 100% clickbait. So incase someone reads here before reading the front page of Radar Online and goes " :pink-shock: " like me for a few moments, I can tell you that NO, "evil molester" (Josh obviously) is not "finally sent behind bars." Lol. I can't believe I actually really thought that for a few moments either. :doh:

(The article is really about how he once talked to convicts in Florida state prison about Christ.)

I wouldn't trust any of them. I think there is probably some degree of truth to basic story lines (i.e. he almost surely saw prostitutes) but I'm careful not to believe everything because, as you point out, there is such a need to get grabbing headlines that some embellishment is almost certainly going on. Where the truth ends and that begins, who knows.

Have you seen the one about the prostitute who was "almost" pregnant with Josh Duggar's baby? :roll:

[Cochise]

I can always use a little cash; maybe I should contact Radar Online? I could tell them about my wild and lurid night of love with Josh and explain that I got herpes, genital warts, and a pregnancy scare out of it. Maybe I can throw in details about hot wax and gags and handcuffs. I'm seeing big bucks. Yes, we weren't in the same state and I'm post-menopausal, but Radar isn't going to be bothered with details like that. Big bucks!

[laundry]

I wouldn't trust any of them. I think there is probably some degree of truth to basic story lines (i.e. he almost surely saw prostitutes) but I'm careful not to believe everything because, as you point out, there is such a need to get grabbing headlines that some embellishment is almost certainly going on. Where the truth ends and that begins, who knows.

Have you seen the one about the prostitute who was "almost" pregnant with Josh Duggar's baby? :roll:

I read about the pregnancy-scare here first, but even though I had myself a little "believer of gossip magazines" scare ( :embarrassed: ) when reading the Josh in jail headline, I don't usually believe something just because it's written in an article. I guess those kind of articles is what is really representative of online gossip magazines.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

There does NOT always need to be a clear "NO" in order for an encounter to be nonconsensual. In fact, there does NOT always be a clear "NO" in order for an encounter to be ILLEGAL because it was nonconsensual. I have no idea what the actual circumstances of any encounter that may or may not have taken place between D and J may have been. I DO AGREE people should not be using the word "rape" or otherwise indicating illegal activity (although, of course, buying and selling sex is illegal in most jurisdictions). Perhaps we just disagree with each other on what "consent" means here.

Obviously sex workers are not required to sleep with every guy who wants it. The fact remains none of us here have much of a clue as to what actually occurred OR why this woman made the decisions she made.

It is and will continue to be my opinion that if I don't consent to certain acts or behaviors but someone does it anyway, that may well be nonconsensual in a given context. Of course, if I don't explicitly REFUSE either, it is a grey area. Nonetheless, failure to say "NO" does not necessarily mean that whatever occurs is either legal or consensual.

Edited for clarity.

Look, the fact of the matter is that AT NO POINT IN TIME has Danica EVER said that what happened WASN'T consensual. People WANT it to not be consensual because it makes Josh a "monster." But, she's never said it wasn't. So, UNTIL she says that it wasn't consensual, NO ONE has the right to say that it wasn't. I don't care if YOU wouldn't consent to it or if it sounds too scary for YOU. If she's not claiming things, neither should you.

For god sakes, your victimizing a woman who has every right to decide for herself if she was a victim or not!

[doggie]

What she and Josh did was illegal even if he behaved himself so everything they did was against the law.