Joshley Madison Part 6 - Sin, Confess, Repeat

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Possibly DuPage Regional Airport (DPA)?

Way closer, I didn't even know about that one. I asked the headship and he said either palwaukee or peotone so I looked up peotone to see where it was and its not even built yet.

So much for headships being right about everything. :D

[Toothfairy]

Josh has zero respect for women. His cult taught him women are no more than sex dolls with no feelings. Sex workers are humans doing a job. I don't understand why people look down on them. Porn and stripping are legal careers. They make a living. Josh probably looks down on people like her and think he can treat her like shit.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Just because she is a sex worker doesn't mean she isn't a human being. Sex workers can be violated, mistreated, abused, raped, etc., and deserve fair treatment and respect just like everyone else. They aren't just objects that you (general) get to pay for and use however you want. Consent and feelings are still real and matter. You can't treat sex workers (aka humans doing their jobs) like crap because of their profession. The first quote you posted, about Josh just throwing the money on the dresser and walking out, was only one example of the crappy way Josh treated her.

How can you infer from her post that she was saying sex workers can't be raped, abused, etc.?

I had the same reaction when I read about the money on the dresser. It may not be polite, but it's a business transaction not a date. Not saying that a thank you wouldn't have been nice. But to equate someone ending a business transaction in an abrupt manner to needing to be reminded sex workers are people and can be raped is a huge leap.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

I have to admit I relied on auto-correct.

:lol: :lol: that's why I went with define and not spell in my original post...I'm so reliant on autocorrect the over/under on my being right wouldn't have made me look good!

Auto correct in type and shitty handwriting cover a multitude of spelling sins.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

We were discussing yesterday that some of these Christian programs with the word "teen" in the title actually only take people 18+. I imagine that also gets around mandatory reporting--since most of those state regulations only mandate reporting for minors, except in specific circumstances ( evawintl.org/Library/DocumentLibraryHandler.ashx?id=571 ). Some states are looking at statutes to require mandatory reporting of rape/sexual assault for higher education (which I think is a bad idea but that's for another thread); I wonder if that would apply to "educational" facilities like these?

tl;dr sure sounds like these "treatment" centers are ideally set up so that predators could get away with whatever they like under the guise of teaching Biblical obedience. No wonder Christian Patriarch types love them.

Speaking of which, why the teen in the title if for 18+? I totally get not treating minors due to the liability issues, but is calling it a teen thing some secret signal? Maybe not intended but if it comes up later in life if you had problems and got help at some teen thing most people would infer you were w kid and not a 27 year old father of 4.

I'd think most people would see teen and scroll past if they were looking for adult help so it can't be a good marketing move.

[Themiscyran]

Speaking of which, why the teen in the title if for 18+? I totally get not treating minors due to the liability issues, but is calling it a teen thing some secret signal? Maybe not intended but if it comes up later in life if you had problems and got help at some teen thing most people would infer you were w kid and not a 27 year old father of 4.

I'd think most people would see teen and scroll past if they were looking for adult help so it can't be a good marketing move.

As far as the Bracken group goes (that's the one with a centre in Paragould) it looks like they started out ministering to actual "teens":

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/29/nyreg ... icted.html

(link left in bc news source)

....and at some point switched to adults-only. I can understand keeping the name if it's your "brand" already, I guess. Still, I would also think much of your intended audience would scroll on by, but maybe they don't care.

BTW, the Bracken groups sounds pretty interesting...starting out as hippie Jesus folk and all.

[Rescinded and Mended]

My concern about Danica Dillon's story is that she basically wants it both ways.

I don't believe Josh had any right to be rough with her. I think that if he wanted to pay Dillon for sex, then there should have been a discussion beforehand about what he wanted and how they would interact. Anytime she said no to any of his suggestions or handling of her body, he should have respected that. And he certainly shouldn't have stiffed her for any portion of the agreed-upon amount. Josh could have behaved more respectfully overall, including how he threw the money down and walked out of the room after it ended.

On the other hand, no one would have known anything about his encounter with her if she hadn't spoken up. She claims to care about Anna and the kids, but when was the last time any sex worker stopped a transaction by asking about a spouse and the children involved? It's not her job to concern herself with the families involved, but now she claims that she cares about them, and that Josh needs help? Dillon has more to gain by coming out. She can build her fan base and client portfolio by the attention she is getting from having sex with Josh Duggar. She wouldn't have exposed him if she didn't think she couldn't make money in some way.

Dillon is entitled to any feelings she has on the matter, but it will benefit her more in the long run by speaking out, and that's even if there's a chance she could be lying. Looks to me like she and Josh have exploited each other.

[Sister Mozz]

I'm reading through homeschoolersanonymous.wordpress.com/2013/12/11/finding-freedom-from-my-demons-nicholas-ducotes-story-part-two/ and came across this passage:

Now where have we seen that bolded phrase recently, hmm? Maybe that's why it got edited out of Josh's statement? (Sorry if someone's already pointed this out. I might have forgotten reading it during the past few weeks.)

That most definitely is Gothard phrasing and teaching. My parents were in ATI for 6 years, and even though it's been 20 years since they somewhat "got out" (stopped going to seminars and using the curriculum) they still blame everything on the devil. It takes a conscious effort not to roll my eyes when this comes up. The devil this, the devil that. :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Alicja]

You can buy gel kits at Walmart and CVS, they give you the same shiny look as salon gel. I just had gels taken off, I thought it was just polish but no, these required soaking in acetone and now my nails look like crap.

Super! I'll have to pick one up sometime. My mom is really into at-home gel manis, maybe I can borrow some of her gel polishes.

[laundry]

Are you kidding me? She actually said this? Nobody knew anything about this until SHE went to the media with it, and probably nobody ever would have known anything about it if she hadn't. This woman it utterly full of shit.

To be fair, in several magazine articles there were speculations about Danica and Josh before Danica had spoken out. This was probably because she was the only one of the porn stars Josh "liked" on his fake FB account, and she was one who offers online services. So even if she hadn't spoken with InTouch and all that, people could still know about her and keep speculating until she confirmed or denied it. When her face was out there anyway, why not tell her side of it, (and try to get as much out of it as she can.)

[Themiscyran]

My concern about Danica Dillon's story is that she basically wants it both ways.

I don't believe Josh had any right to be rough with her. I think that if he wanted to pay Dillon for sex, then there should have been a discussion beforehand about what he wanted and how they would interact. Anytime she said no to any of his suggestions or handling of her body, he should have respected that. And he certainly shouldn't have stiffed her for any portion of the agreed-upon amount. Josh could have behaved more respectfully overall, including how he threw the money down and walked out of the room after it ended.

On the other hand, no one would have known anything about his encounter with her if she hadn't spoken up. She claims to care about Anna and the kids, but when was the last time any sex worker stopped a transaction by asking about a spouse and the children involved? It's not her job to concern herself with the families involved, but now she claims that she cares about them, and that Josh needs help? Dillon has more to gain by coming out. She can build her fan base and client portfolio by the attention she is getting from having sex with Josh Duggar. She wouldn't have exposed him if she didn't think she couldn't make money in some way.

Dillon is entitled to any feelings she has on the matter, but it will benefit her more in the long run by speaking out, and that's even if there's a chance she could be lying. Looks to me like she and Josh have exploited each other.

I get what you are saying, but I'm not sure why it has to be either/or? Like, she could be in it for the money (I'm sure she is--In Touch pays for interviews) but also genuinely think Josh is a creepy guy?

I doubt she offered advice to Anna unsolicited--that sounds like the kind of question the interviewer would ask '"Do you have any advice for Anna and Josh?" We didn't really get to see/hear the prompts she was being given.

I'm sure she made some pretty cold calculations and figured that if she was going to be the subject of speculation and gossip bc of the Fb connection, she might as well get some $$ out of it--with the business she's in, she has an expiration date and she's smart to wring every cent out of it while she can.

At the same time, she might genuinely be pissed when she found out who he was and the pious bullshit he was shoveling about purity and the sanctity of straight marriage. She might even feel genuinely at least a little bad when she learned about Anna, who knows -- yeah,it's not her business to find out if her clients are married, but the Duggars don't exactly have an average American marriage, and Anna really is extraordinarily trapped. I'm sure she's a bundle of contradictions like most human beings, anyway.

It didn't come up in this interview, but I actually kind of laughed at the In Touch interview where she said something about how she felt kind of icky when she learned she'd been with Josh Duggar because of the molestation reports. I mean, in Duggarworld, she's in the most sinful, most degraded line of work ever. So how did JB and Michelle react at hearing a porn star/sex worker thinks that they're the icky ones? :lol:

[HerNameIsBuffy]

To be fair, in several magazine articles there were speculations about Danica and Josh before Danica had spoken out. This was probably because she was the only one of the porn stars Josh "liked" on his fake FB account, and she was one who offers online services. So even if she hadn't spoken with InTouch and all that, people could still know about her and keep speculating until she confirmed or denied it. When her face was out there anyway, why not tell her side of it, (and try to get as much out of it as she can.)

There were multiple people liked on that FB account and I can't name another one without looking it up, and I've read every part of this thread. People reading here are ordered of magnitude more aware of who's who in this thing than normal people.

If she hadn't said anything she'd be one of the many he happened to like and she wouldn't have been on Entertainment Tonight. Speculation without confirmation would have died fast - as the tabloids would have had nothing to go on.

Tbh I am far more skeptical of her story after seeing the interviews. She doesn't present in a way that's credible, at least how I read it, and while that may mean nothing it doesn't help her in public opinion.

She lost me with private person and concern for Anna. Please.

As gross as I think Smuggar is in a way she kind of exonerated him when she said he had watched certain scenes of hers and thought that was how she wanted it, apologized profusely, and was like "a different person" the second time. Don't get me wrong - what she's described sounds like a horrible way to spend time with Smuggar - but she went public with a plausible reason why he could have been the way he was.

And to me when she emphatically and deliberately states that she didn't say no and that it was consensual, but that it "felt like rape" seems like a calculated statement to make her story as salacious as possible without incurring legal action.

I haven't seen the scenes in question but is it possible that her pushing him off and saying he was rough is something he misunderstood to be part of the deal? If the scenes are rough is her fighting back in this way something he could have thought was how that kind of sex goes?

And ftr I know sex workers can be raped and assaulted just like everyone else and it's no less horrific when it happens to them. But the way she explains this it seems like she and Smuggar had two different ideas of what the service entailed. I would think that someone in that line of work would make sure expectations were outlined at the onset, if it's rough like that explain the concept of a safe word and set it up, and set the boundaries when negotiating for the transaction. In a business transaction the professional should know better than the client what needs to be covered before contracting for service.

From what she's saying it doesn't sound like they had a clear agreement regarding the transaction. As the professional that's on her.

IT contractors spell out exactly what is covered in a quoted price because clients can have no idea (or ridiculously inflated ideas) of what is reasonable in the scope of service. It's up to the person who does have this information and makes their living doing this to spell it out rather than assume the client has a working knowledge of the situation.

I can't believe I'm defending Smuggar over this, and as a person I still think he's indefensible, but if you look at this as a business transaction his culpability is in stiffing her part of her fee. That's bullshit and it baffles me that anyone would take a client a second time who didn't pay properly before.

[blessalessi]

blessalessi, thank you for your kind words, and I'm sorry that we misunderstood each other. If we ever had cross words at some long-distant part of this thread, I have now officially forgotten about them (and in any case I was probably pretty sarky if we DID ever have cross words. Which I can't remember. Not at all.)

Mwah! Thank you. You didn't have to come back but I feel so much better that you did. :)

ETA: I consider that, in thanking my post, themis has kind of outed herself as the person to whom I thought I was addressing my original snark. So: themis, meet cochise. You're both awesome! :lol:

[Ralar]

I just painted my nails a lovely shade of peacock blue today. It won’t last long but I like the half rubbed off look. I tried Janburry (sp) once but the tips became all ragged and caught on my crochet.*

*To people who may be confused as to why people are talking about nail art, try searching the pedicure maneuver. ;)

PLEASE please please name the new thread "Joshly Madison a Series of Mild Inappropriate Events.†as was suggested early on.

What aout "Joshly Madison: a Series of EXTREME Inappropriate Events. . . . smile.â€

[Themiscyran]

Mwah! Thank you. You didn't have to come back but I feel so much better that you did. :)

ETA: I consider that, in thanking my post, themis has kind of outed herself as the person to whom I thought I was addressing my original snark. So: themis, meet cochise. You're both awesome! :lol:

Really sorry for the miscommunication and glad that was cleared up. And to cochise for being really gracious about it. Things were flying fast and passionately and I know I wasn't as articulate as I would have liked (keep forgetting to distinguish between "you" [general] and "you" [not general] which makes it sound like things are meant personally when they are meant generally. Maybe I should just go ahead and sound like the Queen and say "one," :lol: )

[Rescinded and Mended]

I get what you are saying, but I'm not sure why it has to be either/or? Like, she could be in it for the money (I'm sure she is--In Touch pays for interviews) but also genuinely think Josh is a creepy guy?

I doubt she offered advice to Anna unsolicited--that sounds like the kind of question the interviewer would ask '"Do you have any advice for Anna and Josh?" We didn't really get to see/hear the prompts she was being given.

I'm sure she made some pretty cold calculations and figured that if she was going to be the subject of speculation and gossip bc of the Fb connection, she might as well get some $$ out of it--with the business she's in, she has an expiration date and she's smart to wring every cent out of it while she can.

At the same time, she might genuinely be pissed when she found out who he was and the pious bullshit he was shoveling about purity and the sanctity of straight marriage. She might even feel genuinely at least a little bad when she learned about Anna, who knows -- yeah,it's not her business to find out if her clients are married, but the Duggars don't exactly have an average American marriage, and Anna really is extraordinarily trapped. I'm sure she's a bundle of contradictions like most human beings, anyway.

It didn't come up in this interview, but I actually kind of laughed at the In Touch interview where she said something about how she felt kind of icky when she learned she'd been with Josh Duggar because of the molestation reports. I mean, in Duggarworld, she's in the most sinful, most degraded line of work ever. So how did JB and Michelle react at hearing a porn star/sex worker thinks that they're the icky ones? :lol:

I agree with so much of this, people can be complicated, and that such cases don't have to necessarily be either/or. I think what was sticking in my craw was that Dillon sounded a bit like she was taking the moral high ground when she was giving advice to Anna and the kids, when both Dillon and Duggar have exploited one another in varying degrees. However, in context, it does make sense if she was posed that particular question (regarding Josh's family) by the interviewer, and this is also one of those instances where framing matters. It is possible that Dillon might not have come out with that on her own had she not been prompted in her interview.

And I just wanted to say, I've really been enjoying your posts, Themiscyran. :)

[laundry]

There were multiple people liked on that FB account and I can't name another one without looking it up, and I've read every part of this thread. People reading here are ordered of magnitude more aware of who's who in this thing than normal people.

If she hadn't said anything she'd be one of the many he happened to like and she wouldn't have been on Entertainment Tonight. Speculation without confirmation would have died fast - as the tabloids would have had nothing to go on.

(trimmed quote)

I was just thinking that even though she seems to don't mind the attention now, it could be true that she initially didn't want her face in this scandal. It wasn't like she out of nowhere spoke out, it started with speculations because she was one of his likes. (He had many friends, but only a few likes, and that's probably why the media that speculated singled her out, in addition to her online services, since Josh had paid for AM.)

I remember reading about the speculations and wasn't sure what to really believe, and then when the InTouch article came I was a little :shock: That's why I remembered that she was dragged into this without starting it herself (in the media.) But you are probably right that speculation without confirmation would have died fast, and I realize that I didn't need to point out what I did because it really doesn't matter. :)

I am not sure if the rest of your post was questions for me. I haven't seen the ET interview with Danica (only read some quotes from it on here.)

[st4rfl33t]

Shoot, if you're paying that much for the kit, why not just pony up for a manicure with the gel polish? I'm never as happy with my nails when I paint them myself vs getting a manicure so if you're going for something that will hopefully last a while, why not have a nail tech do it for you?

I agree. $50-$60 a pop for a hard gel or soft gel (shellac/gel polish) manicure at a salon, where you can pick your colour and design and change it every time) is a much better deal than buying a kit that costs an arm and a leg and comes with only 1 colour of polish.. Then if you want to buy another colour of polish they cost like $10-$15 (in Canada) each... so in the end I guess it's your call.. but you can spend an arm and a leg starting an arsenal of gel polish or you can spend the same amount in the end getting them done professionally for the rest of your life.. Not to mention the quality of the work that a tech can do will always be superior to a home job.. I know I can't do a home gel polish treatment without it starting to peel the next day.

[chila]

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but I found an old interview where someone had blatantly asked Michelle if her family had dealt with any "rebellions" or shifts from faith by her children and she totally denied it. I wouldn't expect her to mention the molestation on daytime radio, but she could have admitted to some troubles without being explicit.

http://youtu.be/barGW4O3F1I (starts at 10:30)

[st4rfl33t]

What aout "Joshly Madison: a Series of EXTREME Inappropriate Events. . . . smile.â€

And it's clear our defensive manuvers are still not sticking.

People. We get it.

[Jentacular]

Looks like Josh's baby(scare)mama saw what happened to Danica and is telling her story sans name?

Victims of sexual crimes certainly should be allowed to have their names withheld from news stories. I don't think credibility automatically should be given to any story or individual who comes forward and wants to anonymously sound the possible pregnancy alarm. It elevates the scandal and multiplies clicks, but it doesn't pass the litmus test for journalism.

[TL;DR]

Personally, I'm partial to Zoya polishes, with a thick coat of Seche Vite on top.

[st4rfl33t]

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but I found an old interview where someone had blatantly asked Michelle if her family had dealt with any "rebellions" or shifts from faith by her children and she totally denied it. I wouldn't expect her to mention the molestation on daytime radio, but she could have admitted to some troubles without being explicit.

http://youtu.be/barGW4O3F1I (starts at 10:30)

You can hear the resistance in her voice when she answers that particular question... she sounds like she's looking over at JB and he is shaking his head going "UH UH NO WAY DON'T SAY IT BITCH" :naughty: :shhh:

It's funny. I also listened to part 2, with the caller who is a mother of 11.. and at the mall some bystander told her that her and her husband should be spayed & neutered LOL...

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

There were multiple people liked on that FB account and I can't name another one without looking it up, and I've read every part of this thread. People reading here are ordered of magnitude more aware of who's who in this thing than normal people.

If she hadn't said anything she'd be one of the many he happened to like and she wouldn't have been on Entertainment Tonight. Speculation without confirmation would have died fast - as the tabloids would have had nothing to go on.

Tbh I am far more skeptical of her story after seeing the interviews. She doesn't present in a way that's credible, at least how I read it, and while that may mean nothing it doesn't help her in public opinion.

She lost me with private person and concern for Anna. Please.

As gross as I think Smuggar is in a way she kind of exonerated him when she said he had watched certain scenes of hers and thought that was how she wanted it, apologized profusely, and was like "a different person" the second time. Don't get me wrong - what she's described sounds like a horrible way to spend time with Smuggar - but she went public with a plausible reason why he could have been the way he was.

And to me when she emphatically and deliberately states that she didn't say no and that it was consensual, but that it "felt like rape" seems like a calculated statement to make her story as salacious as possible without incurring legal action.

I haven't seen the scenes in question but is it possible that her pushing him off and saying he was rough is something he misunderstood to be part of the deal? If the scenes are rough is her fighting back in this way something he could have thought was how that kind of sex goes?

And ftr I know sex workers can be raped and assaulted just like everyone else and it's no less horrific when it happens to them. But the way she explains this it seems like she and Smuggar had two different ideas of what the service entailed. I would think that someone in that line of work would make sure expectations were outlined at the onset, if it's rough like that explain the concept of a safe word and set it up, and set the boundaries when negotiating for the transaction. In a business transaction the professional should know better than the client what needs to be covered before contracting for service.

From what she's saying it doesn't sound like they had a clear agreement regarding the transaction. As the professional that's on her.

IT contractors spell out exactly what is covered in a quoted price because clients can have no idea (or ridiculously inflated ideas) of what is reasonable in the scope of service. It's up to the person who does have this information and makes their living doing this to spell it out rather than assume the client has a working knowledge of the situation.

I can't believe I'm defending Smuggar over this, and as a person I still think he's indefensible, but if you look at this as a business transaction his culpability is in stiffing her part of her fee. That's bullshit and it baffles me that anyone would take a client a second time who didn't pay properly before.

I completely agree with everything you said. That's how I feel about the whole situation, too.

I also want to add that I'm also not certain that her story is at all true. It really doesn't hurt DANICA in any way if she's making this up. She's brought attention to her, her work, and her side work. She's given many men fantasies they might not otherwise have. She's only going to see a profit from this, regardless of how true her statement was. That fact alone is enough to make me question it's validity; but with the pictures others claim to have found of Josh with his entire family on the dates that coincide with her account, I'm just having a really hard time believing the story.

[st4rfl33t]

I'm pretty sure it was linked to his AM account.

Yeah it was the same email..