Joshley Madison Part 6 - Sin, Confess, Repeat

[Pandie5]

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!

It was consensual. It was consensual twice.

I have to believe that if his sisters have read any account of the sex romp, that they will be reframing their mindset on whether they are victims.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

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.

Look, the truth of the matter is that we have NO FUCKING IDEA what kind of long term victim blaming and brainwashing ALL of the victims (and probably Jana as well) went through over ALL THE YEARS since Josh first started copping a feel at night. I don't think that minimizing the behaviors should have been allowed, but I also don't blame Jessa and Jill. I blame their parents. We're talking about girls who have been told that it's THEIR fault their brother is a pervert, that it's THEIR fault they were molested, maybe even that it's their fault Josh started going after the younger sisters. NO ONE in their immediate circle was going to take their side, or has taken their side in the YEARS that people have known. Even Jessa's in-laws sided with Josh. DO you really think that these girls are going to have an opportunity to look at the situation and say "well this is fucked up, my family is fucked up, etc"? And I don't blame them for minimizing it either. If you're made to carry the blame of someone else's crime, aren't you going to sit there and try to make the crime as small as possible? If you think the whole world is going to view you and your sisters as whores because your brother couldn't keep his hands to himself, do you really think that you're going to sit there and say "oh yea, and he definitely touched skin to skin"? No, probably not. You're probably going to sit there and say "well, I mean, it wasn't that bad."

Also, we're talking about girls who NEVER actually got help for what they went through. Nothing real and substantial anyways. Their main source of "help" came in the form of Gothard reprogramming camps and wisdom booklets. These girls are victims of more than just Josh. They're victims of their parents. They're victims of their cult. They're victims of everyone who has ever known the truth of the situation and has kept it covered up.

Furthermore, remember that they did tell the police what was going on and that DHS was involved, yet nothing was fixed, nothing was changed, and the girls still weren't given a voice. Do you really think that people who were kept in an abuse situation by people who were supposed to protect them from abuse are really going to realize that they're better off if they tell the truth about their abuse?

[Wingnut]

It was consensual. It was consensual twice.

I have to believe that if his sisters have read any account of the sex romp, that they will be reframing their mindset on whether they are victims.

bolding is mine

Did I miss something? How does what Josh DID TO his sisters have anything in common with what Josh DID WITH Danica? :?

I am sure they are upset with him about the AM thing. However, I see no correlation between abusing children and consensual sex between two adults. Yes, sex with Danica was illegal and immoral but NOT the same on any level to what he did to his sisters.

Edited: for clarity

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

bolding is mine

Did I miss something? How does what Josh DID TO his sisters have anything in common with what Josh DID WITH Danica? :?

I am sure they are upset with him about the AM thing. However, I see no correlation between abusing children and consensual sex between two adults. Yes, sex with Danica was illegal and immoral but NOT the same on any level to what he did to his sisters.

Edited: for clarity

I'm not sure, but I think that she means that they're behaving as if they're under the impression they're not victims, that Josh is the victim. But, reading about the accounts might make them realize that Josh aint no victim.

[Wingnut]

I'm not sure, but I think that she means that they're behaving as if they're under the impression they're not victims, that Josh is the victim. But, reading about the accounts might make them realize that Josh aint no victim.

Ok, that would make sense and I admit that I am fuzzy in the brain from reading all the back and forth above it (y'all are trying to make the same point BTW just with different words) and a desperate need for more coffee :soda:

[gustava]

Wonkette is reporting that Josh is on the lam from rehab (perhaps using info from FJ).

http://wonkette.com/593568/josh-duggar- ... -and-gross

Mods: I was going to post this in the Josh Rehab thread, but it is locked. If you do not want discussion on this topic, please delete.

[blessalessi]

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.

I'm really, really sorry. I mistook you for another poster who I expected would recognise the heavy sarcasm in my tone. :o To make it worse, I didn't add a single damn smilie and, if it is any small consolation, I now feel like a complete arse for annoying and upsetting you. :(

I was trying to express my utter frustration at my perception of some earlier posts and some earlier posters who seemed to be minimising harm caused to victims by their perpetrators "because they did x or y or z that meant they were asking for abuse". I seized on your professor story to try to express my frustration through hyperbole. But I fucked up, royally, because you are not the poster I thought you were.

And the reference the graphic pics was also in frustration at another board member who frequently posts links to stories of horrific graphic sexual abuse stories, on the pretext that they feel these stories are important for our community to discuss. Maybe they are, but I raise a side-eye at men who claim to be feminist allies but only ever post gratuitous misogynistic shit. Most of the decent men on this board are well above that standard.

Anyway, mea culpa in shitting on your post, and I hope we can move past this because I genuinely enjoy your writing. :)

[Phoenix]

Pure speculation, but just because he isn't attending "mandatory" church and/or bible study sessions doesn't mean he isn't there. I can easily believe he is just in his room sulking. The facility may be covering for him, but why risk their reputation claiming he is there and plugging what sort of services they offer for someone who did a runner? (I don't believe their Bible based non-therapy will do him any good, but they are under enough fire as it is, why invite more for someone who didn't show up?)

Josh has been given special treatment for many years, why would this be any different, especially among fellow fundies?

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

Ok, that would make sense and I admit that I am fuzzy in the brain from reading all the back and forth above it (y'all are trying to make the same point BTW just with different words) and a desperate need for more coffee :soda:

Haha it took me a while, too. I just figured that's what she meant since she said that Danica's was consensual.

[2manyKidzzz]

Googled Josh Duggar Entertainment Tonight and found the interview with Danica.

I did not see it discussed here and don't know how to post it.

She said it was consensual but it felt like rape.

My shallow self just wonders if they will have it on the show tonight. That I don't know.

I wonder how many hours of prayer are going on at the TTH today. ???????? :pink-shock:

Edit typo

[Whoosh]

Look, the fact of the matter is that AT NO POINT IN TIME has Danica EVER said that what happened WASN'T consensual.

Look, we can agree to disagree. The FACT is that it appears we are using the term "consensual" differently here (which I have mentioned several times). The FACT is that many people believe that if you agree to sexual relations (with or without exchange of money in return for those relations), that is implied consent for "whatever". The law does not support that view. My personal definition (non-legal) of consent does not support that view.

Bottom line, unless the parties have explicitly agreed that "anything goes" or laid out ground rules for exactly what is consented to beforehand, I consider it highly likely that sexual relations where one party describes the encounter as "terrifying" and winds up repeatedly pushing the second party off saying "that's too rough that's too rough" may well be "non-consensual" TO SOME EXTENT. Further, unless the parties have explicitly agreed that "anything goes" beforehand, I consider it highly likely that a sexual encounter where one party says she was forced to preform oral sex and "felt like [she] was being raped" to be "non-consensual" TO SOME EXTENT.

AGAIN, "non-consensual" is not the same as "illegal" and the definitions of these things are not immutable or carved in stone. Until quite recently, it was presumed that marriage gave conjugal rights to a spouse and therefore a wife could not revoke consent to sexual relations. In other words, there was no such thing as "non-consensual" sexual relations with your wife. Many people still think this way. Many people also still believe "you can't rape your wife". The law now disagrees with that view. I disagree with that view and many people always did. Further, I think the underlying though process is dangerous and damaging. Opinions on what "consensual" means have and will likely continue to vary across time and individuals. I have every right to my opinion on the issues despite the fact that you want to try to "should" me out of them.

Does any of this rise to the level of criminal behavior? In the present conversation, I am not sure that question is even relevant as I don't think anyone is alleging criminal behavior (outside the buying and selling of sex, of course). Speaking in general terms and not with regard to this particular case, that is an extremely difficult question that hinges on a detailed understanding of the minute details of the encounter. It is NOT NECESSARY for anyone to specifically say "NO" or "STOP". Many people fail to understand that. The fact that she chose to have relations with this individual after further clarifying the boundaries of the situation does not alter the realities of the initial encounter.

You don't have to agree with me. Dillon does not have to agree with me. We can agree to disagree.

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!

To be blunt, I find this to be pretty damn presumptive and insulting.

1. I do not WANT it to be non-consensual and have not made any statements that could be interpreted as such. The fact that I believe phrases such as "forced to preform oral sex" indicate the encounter may well not have 100% consensual IN NO WAY MEANS I "WANT" IT TO HAVE BEEN NON-CONSENSUAL. Please.

2. I have NO INTEREST in painting Josh as a "monster" and have NOT indicated otherwise in this or any other thread. Not at all.

3. Please tell me where I said she is a victim. I did not. She is certainly entitled to decide for herself if she is a victim or if she considers the sexual encounter to be "consensual" overall. I am not and have not used the phrase "non-consensual" to indicate that she is a victim or that she must feel victimized. I actually find it pretty offensive that you are putting those words in my mouth.

I will try ONE FINAL TIME to clarify my point here. I have no interest in an ongoing exchange where words are put in my mouth or where opinions I do not hold are attributed to me. Viewing this situation in terms of JOSH'S ALLEGED BEHAVIOR, the events Dillon describes include some things that do not seem to have been ENTIRELY "consensual" TO SOME EXTENT. To say that a person must explicitly say "NO" or "STOP" or that they must offer definitive PROOF of such statements before one can call question the level of mutual consent is inconsistent with the law and in my opinion such a requirement would be inconsistent with moral behavior.

I am NOT SAYING Dillon was victimized or that she needs to view herself as having been victimized. I am NOT SAYING use of a level of force your partner was uncomfortable with without having her explicit consent to do so necessarily rises to the level of illegal behavior. I AM saying that the behavior described is troubling to me. While YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME, in my opinion fully "consensual" sexual relations do not include forcing someone to preform particular acts or leaving one partner feeling like they have been raped (again, unless there was a prior discussion and agreement about these things) REGARDLESS of whether anyone feels victimized by the encounter.

Edited too many times for clarity and precision.

[Themiscyran]

It was consensual. It was consensual twice.

This conversation has taken a very dangerous turn.

Agreeing to sex does not mean that you agree to everything and anything whatsoever that your partner wants to do to you. People who are into kink set clear boundaries and negotiate ahead of time. If you agree to sex and then pull a Jian Ghomeshi on your partner, you are in the wrong.

Danica Dillon made it extremely clear she did not agree to being slapped across the face and thrown around like a doll. In her interview she says she pushed him off, even though she did not verbalize a "no." She says it "felt like" rape. She doesn't use the word rape, and that's her prerogative. But he crossed a line of consent by getting rougher than she wanted and ignoring her attempts to communicate that.

Doing that to someone is wrong. Compliance is not consent. If your partner is pushing you away or indicating discomfort, stop. If you want to have sex where you role-play that kind of thing, negotiate a safe word. Don't ever ignore boundaries.

(edited for missing words)

[Themiscyran]

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."

I haven't seen anything here suggesting someone is really really really hoping that somebody got raped so that they can turn Josh into a monster.

That's not okay.

[singsingsing]

What the ever loving fuck, people. Literally, what the fuck.

[ArmchairTurnip]

According to TSOTDRT, this is one of those situations in which the conversation should now turn to nail polish, yes?

My own pedicure is a month old. I did just buy a new lip stain from Clinique, though, with the dubious name of Chunkiest Chili. I think the marketing team must have been hung over.

Pretty color though.

[IreneIssh]

What the ever loving fuck, people. Literally, what the fuck.

Seriously! I feel like I keep coming over to this thread, realize this debate is still going on and heading right on out. Can we please move on to another topic?

(Not that there haven't been some really awesome points made and some good discussion, but this is getting to be more of a bummer than this Josh business already is on it's own)

[VTSleeper]

Seriously! I feel like I keep coming over to this thread, realize this debate is still going on and heading right on out. Can we please move on to another topic?

(Not that there haven't been some really awesome points made and some good discussion, but this is getting to be more of a bummer than this Josh business already is on it's own)

I wholeheartedly agree. The important points have been made. At this point nobody is going to change another's mind - for better or for worse. Let's move on.

[refugee]

My pedicure wore off and so I took the rest off with polish remover.

Cooler days are upon us, and I may be wearing socks from here on out, instead of flip-flops.

Is it worth applying bright polish once more, if it's just going to be under socks all the time?

[Talitha Cumi]

Quoted because this was an awesome point. Women's shelters always need help, and don't forget about legal aid. LA was so helpful when I was leaving an abusive husband. Even just getting some basic legal advice cheaply is such a godsend in those circumstances.

And even if there isn't anything in the local community that specifically helps women and children, you can always see if the local homeless shelter or food pantry needs stuff like sanitary napkins or other items more specific to women and/or children.

Hey Themiscyran, my department (law library) is putting together a presentation on legal resources for women victims of domestic abuse. What kind of information did you find helpful in your case?

[paganhomeschooler]

I just did a Jamicure last weekend. I've got the Converse ones, turquoise with white polka dots, and puff flower. Next week, I'll swap them out for some of my crafty ones. Craft show season is upon. I'm thinking knitted stripes and needles and thread.

[What the fux say]

My pedicure wore off and so I took the rest off with polish remover.

Cooler days are upon us, and I may be wearing socks from here on out, instead of flip-flops.

Is it worth applying bright polish once more, if it's just going to be under socks all the time?

While in spirit I vote an absolute YES! (hey, it's our toes, we should make them pretty for our own selves), in reality, I am lazy enough to vote no. But when you really need a good pedicure for mental health, who cares what time of year it is, you know?

[What the fux say]

Also, no matter what time of year it is, I almost always stick with my absolute favorite color ever: OPI's London Park After Dark. It just works for me better than any other color.

[ViolaSebastian]

While in spirit I vote an absolute YES! (hey, it's our toes, we should make them pretty for our own selves), in reality, I am lazy enough to vote no. But when you really need a good pedicure for mental health, who cares what time of year it is, you know?

Or, if you're like me, you need to get one to keep your heels from looking like something out a work of Tolkien. :? No matter what I do, what I moisturize with, it always happens again.

[Marissap]

My pedicure wore off and so I took the rest off with polish remover.

Cooler days are upon us, and I may be wearing socks from here on out, instead of flip-flops.

Is it worth applying bright polish once more, if it's just going to be under socks all the time?

Personally I feel weird without toe nail polish. So my vote is yes!

:lol:

[What the fux say]

Or, if you're like me, you need to get one to keep your heels from looking like something out a work of Tolkien. :? No matter what I do, what I moisturize with, it always happens again.

Have you tried the heavy duty foot creams that you find in the... whatever it's called... "feet" section in Walgreens or CVS? It's where they have all the shoe inserts and whatnot. Body lotion just won't work for feet, you've got to invest in some good, heavy duty cream. If you've already tried that route, you have my sympathies. I know that sometimes it truly is impossible to keep under control without regular pedicures.