Anna Duggar and the M Kids - Part 4

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

47 minutes ago, Hisey said:

When I was a young teen, I found condoms in my father's coat pocket, more than once. I was kind of puzzled, I knew something was wrong about this, but I couldn't really tell you what it was. Could that be how Anna felt, if she found such a "clue"?

Would Anna even know what a condom looked like? They didn't use them, and when you see them in the drugstore, they're in a box. Would she even recognize a wrapped condom?

Assuming Josh used protection and was stupid enough to bring a condom home (used or otherwise), I'm not sure she'd have any idea what it was or why he had one. 

[Percy]

I seem to remember that Danica stated that she and Josh had unprotected sex.  Given that Josh was brought up to believe contraception was a sin, at least when he had sex with Danica he did not break the HUGE sin of using contraception.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

7 minutes ago, Percy said:

I seem to remember that Danica stated that she and Josh had unprotected sex.  Given that Josh was brought up to believe contraception was a sin, at least when he had sex with Danica he did not break the HUGE sin of using contraception.

Well, that's assuming her accounts are true, which I'm still not certain about. Especially considering the timeline conflicts and how the stories have changed. Danica waited until AFTER there was proof that Josh was using AM. And she initially defended his actions when she first released the story before taking back her dismissal and claiming that he battered her. I have absolutely no problem calling bullshit on her accounts without concrete proof. It's not like it's unheard of for people to suddenly come out with "sex scandal" stories and lawsuits to boost their own fame, take down someone else, and/or get a lot of money from a settlement. 

[sophie10130]

I gotta get back to the Anna sleeping in the girls dorm since it's been bugging me.

What seems more like something JB would do is film Anna in one of the other buildings taking care of the children on her own and waiting for her husband to return to her for PR purposes but actually have her living in the girls dorm at the TTH in secret, not the other way around like some are speculating (she lives in another house, but they filmed her in the girls dorm). I feel like her living in the girls dorm seems controlling to most people (well, because it IS controlling) so that would be something TLC would want to hide.

This is of course leaving out the option that she chose to be in the girls dorm. But I can't really wrap my head around that one.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

50 minutes ago, sophie10130 said:

I gotta get back to the Anna sleeping in the girls dorm since it's been bugging me.

What seems more like something JB would do is film Anna in one of the other buildings taking care of the children on her own and waiting for her husband to return to her for PR purposes but actually have her living in the girls dorm at the TTH in secret, not the other way around like some are speculating (she lives in another house, but they filmed her in the girls dorm). I feel like her living in the girls dorm seems controlling to most people (well, because it IS controlling) so that would be something TLC would want to hide.

This is of course leaving out the option that she chose to be in the girls dorm. But I can't really wrap my head around that one.

She might have chosen it because she felt that she needed to be around people. I can see that, especially if she's really struggling with coping and she has 4 children to tend to. Also, growing up in that culture doesn't really teach you how to be alone, so being on her own with 4 small children could be the most terrifying thought in the world. 

TLC doesn't really try to cover anything up for "image sake." I mean, we are talking about the same company that aired an episode where everyone was upset about Duggar time, even the crew, while featuring the Duggars more or less laughing it off. Plus, "JB being controlling" is probably really far off most of the viewers' radars because they DONT know about the cult and they probably think it's really nice that his family isn't throwing Anna under the bus. And, I personally don't see it as controlling at all. Frankly, I see it as promising because it seems like they're not blaming Anna for Josh's transgressions, which they'd be proned to do thanks to the cult. 

Depending on when that segment was filmed, she might not have been living with the Duggars full time, but more staying there while not at with her own family. TLC is not know for really caring about continuity (especially with the Duggars) and could easily have spliced that in there to make it look like it was long term so they didn't have to film more scenes. 

She also could have personally requested that the family act as if she's living at TTH just to gain some privacy. The family has a lot of properties in their name and she could very easily be at any one of them, just trying to stay out of the limelight. 

[Special friend]

I also do not see it as a problem that Anna is living in the girl's room.

After all, she has girls/women her own age living there with her. Plus, it seems that they acutally moved furniture around to give her some privacy (created her own semi-peivate area).

IMO, she most likely asked for it. It might seem easier for her to be around people at this time. Falling apart is not her best option with four young children depending on her. And being around people might provide her with enough distraction / contact to help her prevent that.

Plus, she has round-the-clock babysitting, plus cooking and housecare done for her. (I am sure she pitches in, but she is not solely responsible.)

Also, grwoing up in a large family, I am sure she enjoys being around a lot of people. It might help her take her mind off of things while she is waiting and can't do anything to influence the outcome of Josh's therapy.

And lastly, I think it is not a bad thing, because the family unanimously supports her and helps HER, while Josh is the outcast. She is pittied and helped and supported as part of the family and he has the whole family against him, and has to earn back their trust.

I see this situation as the Duggars supporting Anna, while it is made clear that Josh really needs to change before he can come back. 

To me, this is exactly the right reaction. And Anna is looking very good, so likely the living arrangement is not something she resents, but something that is working well for her.

[Gossamer1]

5 hours ago, Percy said:

I seem to remember that Danica stated that she and Josh had unprotected sex.  Given that Josh was brought up to believe contraception was a sin, at least when he had sex with Danica he did not break the HUGE sin of using contraception.

So, cheating on a spouse is bad but using contraception is really, really bad? 

I wonder what the Duggar reaction would have been if a child had been produced from his philandering. 

[HarleyQuinn]

So did anyone manage to grab a screen cap of the different rings she was wearing? I'm so curious about that.

[vienna]

6 hours ago, DuggarsTheEndIsNear said:

Well, that's assuming her accounts are true, which I'm still not certain about. Especially considering the timeline conflicts and how the stories have changed. Danica waited until AFTER there was proof that Josh was using AM. And she initially defended his actions when she first released the story before taking back her dismissal and claiming that he battered her. I have absolutely no problem calling bullshit on her accounts without concrete proof. It's not like it's unheard of for people to suddenly come out with "sex scandal" stories and lawsuits to boost their own fame, take down someone else, and/or get a lot of money from a settlement. 

Why are People not willing to give Danica the benefit of a doubt? Just because she is a porn star she can not be ashamed of being assulted? If what she states is true (and I am not saying it is) then it would seem plausibe to me that she did not want to talk about it from the very beginning, as victims of sexual assault -even when porn stars or maybe especially then - are usually ashamed, and especially fear that nobody believes them anyway.

What would her financial benefit be? She already made money from her interviews. She hast to know that her case is weak and getting money from it is unlikely (and if it will not be so much). She has to know that a lot of/most people will not believe her. I think that the lawsuit is something really stressful and uncomfortable for her. So the downsides of the lawsuit for me are much bigger than the possible but unlikely money. The major reason to still go through with it would be if what she states is true.

[ksgranola1]

Quote

 

The fact that she changed her story to "rough sex" sounds like lawyering to me. I can see a fat attorney*apologies to the attorneys on here, by we have all known one* saying, "Honey, you work in the sex trade. You're not gonna get anything w/that story. Now was he ROUGH? I mean if you tell me he was rough we can get some of that Duggar money ol' Jim Bob is hiding. Not the Duggar kid, he's toast but ol' Jim Bob is LOADED &will pay anything to save face. Now tell me again, how rough was it."

Also, what porn star doesn't have a diaphragm or the pill? It's her livelihood that would be screwed for all time if she got pregnant.

 

[actuallyjessica]

20 minutes ago, ksgranola1 said:

The fact that she changed her story to "rough sex" sounds like lawyering to me. I can see a fat attorney*apologies to the attorneys on here, by we have all known one* saying, "Honey, you work in the sex trade. You're not gonna get anything w/that story. Now was he ROUGH? I mean if you tell me he was rough we can get some of that Duggar money ol' Jim Bob is hiding. Not the Duggar kid, he's toast but ol' Jim Bob is LOADED &will pay anything to save face. Now tell me again, how rough was it."

Also, what porn star doesn't have a diaphragm or the pill? It's her livelihood that would be screwed for all time if she got pregnant.

 

unprotected sex, as in unprotected from STDs.

[Whoosh]

I get that some people don't believe Dillon and that is fine.  I get that some people believe Josh is far worse than we have yet heard and THAT is fine.  FJ has very few rules about what can and can not be fodder for harsh and degrading speculation from random strangers on the internet.  I am shocked each time someone violates those rules.  I simply don't understand why anyone needs to drive the ISB into territory the community has deemed unacceptable.

For some topics, there is no hard and fast rule with regard to speculation, yet I am constantly shocked that people will "go there".  If people have never worked with victims of sexual assault, let me inform you that MANY victims are reluctant to report anything at all and stories change all the time for a variety of reasons that all of us would likely understand if we stood in those shoes.  Events that occur well after the assault (such as a huge media scandal which leads to people on the internet NAMING YOU as having had an illicit affair with the person in question), may CHANGE THINGS and cause you to either report the assault OR file a lawsuit for damages that would not have occurred had the publicity NOT taken place.  Granted, people also lie and make false accusations.

The FACT is, we have NO IDEA what happened, if anything, between Duggar and Dillon.  There is NO PROOF either way.  You CAN NOT SAY that you KNOW any particular party is lying in this situation.  Someone making absurd and insulting statements about a make-believe story about a condom wrapper is NO EXCUSE for behavior that otherwise shouldn't happen.

Just so people understand exactly what they are saying (though much of it is not against any FJ written "rule"), some people are accusing Dillon of committing libel or slander in which one is imputing serious sexual misconduct, which is defamation per se and is an actionable wrong.  In some jurisdictions (though not PA), criminal charges can actually be filed for some types of defamation.  People can feel perfectly comfortable saying whatever they want about Dillon and her story, but what she is sometimes being accused of is actually defamation per se (which is actionable) and may indeed be a criminal offense in some jurisdictions (though not hers).  Further, there is also the chance that people are dragging the victim of a violent sexual assault through the mud.  Do we know anything for certain?  NO, WE DON'T.

Anyway, people can keep driving that bus in any direction they so choose that doesn't violate the rules of FJ.  Others will likely keep speaking up when the situation becomes absurd or uncomfortable.  

*Just one further comment - some people are also engaging in speculation which amounts to "imputing serious sexual misconduct" when they talk about Josh.  Seriously, people, think this shit through.

ETA - this rant was triggered by this conversation, but turned into more of a general rant about comments on various threads and over time.  It isn't directed at any individual.  

[TXGirlInAMaterialWorld]

  My mouth dropped when I saw that Anna was living in the girls room.  Seriously?  I can understand wanting to be near family, maybe even in the same house (in your own 1-2 private bedrooms).  But moving in with your sister-in-laws in one giant girls dormitory under the absolute control of JB's headship is just too strange.

  I think JB & Michelle are making sure they keep a very tight leash on Anna and her kids.  Why wouldn't Anna instead go to Florida to be with her parents? I wouldn't be surprised if JB conned Anna and Josh into signing over all assets and even some sort of temporary guardianship of the children under the guise of protecting them from the "evil government agenda of persecuting their family". 

  The Duggars clearly do not realize how weird and twisted this looks to the outside world. 

[st4rfl33t]

18 hours ago, MatthewDuggar said:

Where is JD sleeping?  I've still yet to see or hear any solid proof he owns and lives in his own home.  Isn't Josie still in a crib?

JD lives in his own house, which is in his name, up the street from where the Dullards used to live in Rogers, AK.

11 hours ago, DuggarsTheEndIsNear said:

Assuming Josh used protection and was stupid enough to bring a condom home (used or otherwise), I'm not sure she'd have any idea what it was or why he had one. 

IIRC, his trysts with DD were unprotected.. (I realize now someone has already said this).

I don't think Smuggar knows what those 'magic balloons they sell in the pharmacy' are used for. Lol

[Alicja]

 

Danica is a professional, and while engaging in BDSM, she and her partner probably have a discussion beforehand about what is and isn't okay, what safeword to use, and to get a mutual understanding with one another. The processes that go into the before, during, and after are what differentiates BDSM from sexual assault (and any sex act, really). Because Danica never mentioned that he asked for rough sex and thus never had this discussion, it's safe to assume that Danica was traumatized from the encounter, because she never had time to prepare. Trauma makes it very difficult for some to remember details of the incident, which is why I'm cutting her slack on changing details. I was sexually abused as a very young child, and it's very difficult for me to remember some of the details that would "solidify" my claims against my abuser, due to time and trauma. The only times I can recall everything are during flashbacks and nightmares.

And yes, that means Josh sexually assaulted her. Whether or not he meant to cause her harm is up for debate, though, because we have nothing from him.

I'm defending Danica because I know how trauma can impact a person, and I think Danica is very brave to speak out against her assailant so boldly, especially with the stigma sex workers face everyday. It took me years to finally tell someone about the abuse I endured. Rape culture fucking sucks, man, and it makes me so happy when I see other survivors being so brave in the face of adversity.

</rant>

[lascuba]

I'm one of those skeptical of Danica's version of events. I just find it hard to believe that she would agree to condom-less sex with a client she knew nothing of, and had sex with him again even though he didn't pay her all he owed the first time. Granted, I'm not in the sex industry, but whatever the the work one is doing, I don't expect that level of rookie mistakes in someone who's been doing it as long as she has. This has nothing do with thinking that a sex worker can't be sexually assaulted, but back when she first contacted In Touch, before the lawsuit was filed, I thought the story sounded off.

[st4rfl33t]

Just now, lascuba said:

I'm one of those skeptical of Danica's version of events. I just find it hard to believe that she would agree to condom-less sex with a client she knew nothing of, and had sex with him again even though he didn't pay her all he owed the first time. Granted, I'm not in the sex industry, but whatever the the work one is doing, I don't expect that level of rookie mistakes in someone who's been doing it as long as she has. This has nothing do with thinking that a sex worker can't be sexually assaulted, but back when she first contacted In Touch, before the lawsuit was filed, I thought the story sounded off.

Having worked as one in the past, I 100000% percent agree that consenting to unprotected sex with a client is extremely negligent.. not to mention unbelievably stupid.

[justoneoftwo]

2 minutes ago, lascuba said:

I'm one of those skeptical of Danica's version of events. I just find it hard to believe that she would agree to condom-less sex with a client she knew nothing of, and had sex with him again even though he didn't pay her all he owed the first time. Granted, I'm not in the sex industry, but whatever the the work one is doing, I don't expect that level of rookie mistakes in someone who's been doing it as long as she has. This has nothing do with thinking that a sex worker can't be sexually assaulted, but back when she first contacted In Touch, before the lawsuit was filed, I thought the story sounded off.

I'm with you.  The big one for me is doing it again after he didn't pay properly the first time.  

Her story should be investigated and she will have (or should have) the chance to prove it in court.  That is how it should work.

[Whoosh]

I am pretty much on board with y'all about some of that, but Dillon hasn't really said she consented to unprotected anything, has she?  I may be overthinking here, but while she is NOT alleging rape as she consented to SEX, she IS alleging sexual assault.  I could easily conjure up a story that fits that information.

In terms of the not paying the first time - she had stated that he didn't pay 100% the first time.  I will say again that as a former service worker (bartender and waitress), I DID FREQUENTLY welcome back customers who had walked on a tab.  I welcomed customers who refused to tip or were shitty tippers ALL THE FREAKING TIME.

In my opinion we don't have anything close to all of the facts and it doesn't really matter if anyone understands the choices either party involved made.  The legality of what happened (if anything happened) rests on the facts of what HAPPENED, not on whether anyone was making good decisions that make sense.  I totally get that people see reasons to have doubt (I do too, though my reasons are not the ones typically thrown out there).  At any rate, the courts will determine what is provable fact under the appropriate standards of evidence (unless it is settled out of court - then we will just never know).

[justoneoftwo]

4 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

I am pretty much on board with y'all about some of that, but Dillon hasn't really said she consented to unprotected anything, has she?  I may be overthinking here, but while she is NOT alleging rape as she consented to SEX, she IS alleging sexual assault.  I could easily conjure up a story that fits that information.

In terms of the not paying the first time - she had stated that he didn't pay 100% the first time.  I will say again that as a former service worker (bartender and waitress), I DID FREQUENTLY welcome back customers who had walked on a tab.  I welcomed customers who refused to tip or were shitty tippers ALL THE FREAKING TIME.

In my opinion we don't have anything close to all of the facts and it doesn't really matter if anyone understands the choices either party involved made.  The legality of what happened (if anything happened) rests on the facts of what HAPPENED, not on whether anyone was making good decisions that make sense.  I totally get that people see reasons to have doubt (I do too, though my reasons are not the ones typically thrown out there).  At any rate, the courts will determine what is provable fact under the appropriate standards of evidence (unless it is settled out of court - then we will just never know).

Did you welcome back people who walked on the tab or the tip?  Were you in charge of allowing people back?  I also wonder what is common in the industry.  I welcome back clients who debate and won't pay the full bill all the time, because it is expected in the industry so if someone who knew told me that was normal I would reevaluate if I believed her.  Ultimately we will probably never be in a good position to judge, but I have my doubts, even before Josh says his side, and thats not a great position for a Plaintiff to be in.  (Not that I'm in the jury pool anyway, but if others think as I do its a problem for her case).

[Valerie3kids]

15 hours ago, Hisey said:

When I was a young teen, I found condoms in my father's coat pocket, more than once. I was kind of puzzled, I knew something was wrong about this, but I couldn't really tell you what it was. Could that be how Anna felt, if she found such a "clue"?

Would Anna even know what a condom looked like? They didn't use them, and when you see them in the drugstore, they're in a box. Would she even recognize a wrapped condom?

That is a good thought. She may have had no idea what it even was since they have never used any type of birth control. She wasn't taught birth control by her family. He could have easily told her the AM on the computer was for work or some kind of story. Anna believe in Josh and all his promises to her. She really had no "reasons" to think otherwise even though many of us may think differently.

[Whoosh]

23 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

Did you welcome back people who walked on the tab or the tip?  

Yes - in fact that is EXACTLY what I just stated I did.  So, again, YES.  Please let me know if you would like a more detailed explanation as to why myself and other service workers would make this type of sound, well reasoned decision.

23 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

Were you in charge of allowing people back?  

Yes.  As I have stated in the past (which no one likely remembers), in one establishment I was THE ONLY EMPLOYEE ON THE PREMISES most of the time and I made ALL such decisions on my shift whether the owner was there or not.

23 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

 I also wonder what is common in the industry.  I welcome back clients who debate and won't pay the full bill all the time, because it is expected in the industry so if someone who knew told me that was normal I would reevaluate if I believed her. 

I have never been a high priced sex worker, so I do not know the industry standard.  However, a bit less than $1,500 is not bad pay for a few hours work IN MY BOOK and this woman knows that the time she has to be realizing that type of hourly pay is quite limited by the nature of the industry.

23 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

Ultimately we will probably never be in a good position to judge, but I have my doubts, even before Josh says his side, and thats not a great position for a Plaintiff to be in.  (Not that I'm in the jury pool anyway, but if others think as I do its a problem for her case).

People can think whatever they want, ultimately the court will decide (unless it settles out of court or is dropped).  One thing I will say is that if I were Dillon's attorney and the case were presented to a jury at some point, I would use my peremptory challenges to remove people with certain ingrained thoughts and beliefs on these matters from the jury pool.

 

ETA - I don't think the industry standard really matters much - it would be Dillon's decision at that moment that matters.  If her story were in question on that, HER prior standard would likely be used to try to prove or disprove the story if possible.  If not, then someone may resort to industry standard.

[justoneoftwo]

Just now, Whoosh said:

Yes - in fact that is EXACTLY what I just stated I did.  So, again, YES.  Please let me know if you would like a more detailed explanation as to why myself and other service workers would make this type of sound, well reasoned decision.

Yes.  As I have stated in the past (which no one likely remembers), in one establishment I was THE ONLY EMPLOYEE ON THE PREMISES most of the time and I made ALL such decisions on my shift whether the owner was there or not.

I have never been a high priced sex worker, so I do not know the industry standard.  However, a bit less than $1,500 is not bad pay for a few hours work IN MY BOOK and this woman knows that the time she has to be realizing that type of hourly pay is quite limited by the nature of the industry.

People can think whatever they want, ultimately the court will decide.  One thing I will say is that if I were Dillon's attorney and the case were presented to a jury at some point, I would use my peremptory challenges to remove people with certain ingrained thoughts and beliefs on these matters from the jury pool.

I'm sorry I seem to have offended you, I was simply asking for more details about your experience in an or statement as the two statements are, to me, different.  Clearly it as an and statement which I did not understand.  Now I do.  Thanks for that.  

Neither of us knows the standard of the industry, that was my point.  If someone on here does know I would be interested to find out if it was common or acceptable to invite back clients who did not pay the agreed upon rate the first time.  Having more information would be valuable.  

Of course any lawyer would use challenges to remove people with ingrained thoughts on some topics, thats the point.  I would challenge anyone with a membership to this site for cause.  On the other hand, everyone has some ingrained thoughts, having both been on a jury and used helped to chose which jurors to eliminate I will say it is not that simple.  You can try to eliminate people with ideas about sex work, sure, but ideas about how businesses are run and how clients should pay?  Everyone has ideas about that, usually along the lines of pay the agreed upon price.  In the end though most people have ideas about how the world works, and we actually want that in jurors.  

Jury selection in this case would be fascinating, there are so many types of people who one side or the other wouldn't want.  In many ways I would love to see this go to trial, though I don't think it will.  

[Whoosh]

8 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

I'm sorry I seem to have offended you, I was simply asking for more details about your experience in an or statement as the two statements are, to me, different.  Clearly it as an and statement which I did not understand.  Now I do.  Thanks for that.  

Neither of us knows the standard of the industry, that was my point.  If someone on here does know I would be interested to find out if it was common or acceptable to invite back clients who did not pay the agreed upon rate the first time.  Having more information would be valuable.  

Of course any lawyer would use challenges to remove people with ingrained thoughts on some topics, thats the point.  I would challenge anyone with a membership to this site for cause.  On the other hand, everyone has some ingrained thoughts, having both been on a jury and used helped to chose which jurors to eliminate I will say it is not that simple.  You can try to eliminate people with ideas about sex work, sure, but ideas about how businesses are run and how clients should pay?  Everyone has ideas about that, usually along the lines of pay the agreed upon price.  In the end though most people have ideas about how the world works, and we actually want that in jurors.  

Jury selection in this case would be fascinating, there are so many types of people who one side or the other wouldn't want.  In many ways I would love to see this go to trial, though I don't think it will.  

Not at all offended, just entirely unclear as to the confusion in this exchange:

41 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

I will say again that as a former service worker (bartender and waitress), I DID FREQUENTLY welcome back customers who had walked on a tab.  I welcomed customers who refused to tip or were shitty tippers ALL THE FREAKING TIME.

 

33 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

Did you welcome back people who walked on the tab or the tip?

 

23 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

Yes - in fact that is EXACTLY what I just stated I did

 

Having been a defense attorney, I am well aware of how jury selection works.  I know the types of questions I would ask in a case such as this and I know what types of jurors I would tolerate in case the rest of the pack was "worse" and I know which type I would not tolerate.  If we disagree on anything here, it is likely about what percent of the population would be categorically unable to believe a service worker would welcome back a client after being harmed or stiffed on pay in a prior encounter.

[justoneoftwo]

8 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

Not at all offended, just entirely unclear as to the confusion in this exchange:

 

 

 

Having been a defense attorney, I am well aware of how jury selection works.  I know the types of questions I would ask in a case such as this and I know what types of jurors I would tolerate in case the rest of the pack was "worse" and I know which type I would not tolerate.  If we disagree on anything here, it is likely about what percent of the population would be categorically unable to believe a service worker would welcome back a client after being harmed or stiffed on pay in a prior encounter.

You are probably right, although I also thing we are disagreeing on how many of the jurors would be "worse" for each side.  I imagine in this type of case both sides would run out of challenges before getting into the topic of would a service worker welcome back a client under these circumstances.  I will also say you don't need to get to categorically unable to believe it before you seem to be objecting.  I believe it in many circumstances, as an example, but without further information as to if it is normal, I don't believe her (there were also other issues, but this was the final one for me).  It would be interesting to see what evidence both sides presented, which is why its too bad this case will likely never go to trial.