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

[justoneoftwo]

1 minute ago, sophie10130 said:

from what i understand, yeah. just like how we don't use the word f*ggot or colored etc. anymore

So is there a proper term for sex worker who is what a prostitute was specifically?  Sex worker is very vague.  

[SilverBeach]

On 1/27/2016 at 0:07 PM, church_of_dog said:

Toe-up socks vs. top-down socks?  And in a really amusing (well, to me at least) coming together of two normally-unrelated topics, the standard yarny argument is generally over knitters vs. crocheters...  who are otherwise known as... hookers.  I'll just show myself out.

Team Hooker here

[sophie10130]

7 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

So is there a proper term for sex worker who is what a prostitute was specifically?  Sex worker is very vague.  

that, I do not know. I understand, though. Because there are cam girls, but they might not have sex in exchange for money. there's a distinction between the two, obviously, that sex worker does not differentiate between.

[Whoosh]

I may be behind the time on the proper terminology, but here are my thoughts.  The term sex worker typically suffices for most situations and purposes, but I agree that there are times you may want to discuss things with a bit more specificity than that term alone allows.  I think at that point, you will likely be judged based on both the specific terms you use and the overall context and meaning of what you are saying when you use them. So, I try to (and I hope I succeed), to mostly use the phrase sex worker as I feel it is accurate, nonjudgmental and nondiscriminatory.  I rarely need to distinguish between an adult film actress and another type of sex worker, but when I do I will use the term prostitute (as I did above when I said that prostitutes are rarely arrested) or I will take the time to say "has sex with clients in exchange for payment".  Then there are times when I might use more derogatory or degrading language, but if people pay attention to the context, I am not actually meaning to judge or bash the sex worker - I am meaning to mock people who are nasty and judgmental, hypocritical, etc. (see article linked below).

People can dislike and refuse to use PC terminology and/or phrasing (and really thought processes) all they want - the rest of society will judge them accordingly.  Whether they realize how inappropriate they might be will depend to a large extent on the people who they choose to surround themselves with and pay attention to.  

My grandmother was (IMHO) a wonderful woman in most ways.  She used the term "coloreds" until her final days.  I typically gave her a break on that as I saw that as a result of the fact that the term was widely used and deemed acceptable by people she knew and interacted with for much of her life combined with the fact that she largely only interacted with people of similar age, race, and background.   So, if she said something like "I saw that adorable show about the coloreds this week.  Rudy Huckstable is adorable" - I gave her a pass (though I would sometimes but not always remind her of the changing times).  If, however, she made some nasty or derogatory comment about people and/or was insulting them based on the color of their skin - that didn't get a pass with me.  I hope that makes sense.

tl;dr - people really can use whatever language they want and express whatever types of thoughts they want - they will be judged accordingly by the rest of society.  That's life.  Here is an article I found in a quick search that discusses this a bit.

https://www.good.is/articles/whore-prostitute-hooker-or-sex-worker-what-should-you-say

[justoneoftwo]

Very interesting article.  I will say I generally avoid saying sex worker in most conversations because usually the difference is important.  This may reflect the type of conversations I have about sex work more than anything else though.  Again most of the time I'm talking about individuals who have defined their work themselves, so I use whatever term they are using.  It is a lot harder in this case, where she calls herself a porn star (as far as I can tell) but the actions in question fall under other types of sex work.  

[Whoosh]

13 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

Very interesting article.  I will say I generally avoid saying sex worker in most conversations because usually the difference is important.  This may reflect the type of conversations I have about sex work more than anything else though.  Again most of the time I'm talking about individuals who have defined their work themselves, so I use whatever term they are using.  It is a lot harder in this case, where she calls herself a porn star (as far as I can tell) but the actions in question fall under other types of sex work.  

The first time I wrote something that specifically stressed the fact that she was alleging to have had sexual relations with someone in exchange for payment - I think I used about 30 words to convey the thought.  At some point we do just need words that convey the proper meaning.  I do think that given the words at our disposal at this point in time overall context and meaning is important in how a person's language choices are received by others.  

[justoneoftwo]

Just now, Whoosh said:

The first time I wrote something that specifically stressed the fact that she was alleging to have had sexual relations with someone in exchange for payment - I think I used about 30 words to convert the thought.  At some point we do just need words that convey the proper meaning.  I do think that given the words at our disposal at this point in time overall context is important in how a person's language choices are received by others.  

I would hope that context is the largest issue in how things are received, but I have found that is not always the case.

[gustava]

I'm pretty tired of PC (political correctness) being a pejorative term.  Since when is being civil deemed pejorative?  I am a grown woman.  Why should it be PC to refer to me as "girl"?  Why is it wrong for someone of African descent to dislike being called a nigger? 

Yes, I used that word.  We should be offended at the use of that word. 

Yet some would argue that to criticize my use of that word is "politically correct" and is, therefore, somehow wrong. 

Years ago, when I went to register to vote, I went "downtown."  An older black man was trying to register and the white man behind the counter kept calling him "Willy."  Willy was older than the white man behind the counter, but in those days, any white man was "superior" to any black man. 

As a white woman, young though I was, I forced the white man behind the counter to refer to me as "Ms Jones." 

I realize I may not be making much sense but basically, I think the notion of "political correctness" as a pejorative simply gives license to be rude and vulgar.

Ergo:  If I want to be called a "woman" rather than a girl or a chick or a broad or a dame, or if I want to be Ms. rather than Miss or Mrs: and a female who gets paid to have sex prefers the term sex worker.....then she's a sex worker.

[sophie10130]

1 hour ago, gustava said:

I'm pretty tired of PC (political correctness) being a pejorative term.  Since when is being civil deemed pejorative?  I am a grown woman.  Why should it be PC to refer to me as "girl"?  Why is it wrong for someone of African descent to dislike being called a nigger? 

Yes, I used that word.  We should be offended at the use of that word. 

Yet some would argue that to criticize my use of that word is "politically correct" and is, therefore, somehow wrong. 

Years ago, when I went to register to vote, I went "downtown."  An older black man was trying to register and the white man behind the counter kept calling him "Willy."  Willy was older than the white man behind the counter, but in those days, any white man was "superior" to any black man. 

As a white woman, young though I was, I forced the white man behind the counter to refer to me as "Ms Jones." 

I realize I may not be making much sense but basically, I think the notion of "political correctness" as a pejorative simply gives license to be rude and vulgar.

Ergo:  If I want to be called a "woman" rather than a girl or a chick or a broad or a dame, or if I want to be Ms. rather than Miss or Mrs: and a female who gets paid to have sex prefers the term sex worker.....then she's a sex worker.

This is why I'm so mad when Trump supporters say "He doesn't deal with any of that political correctness crap! He's honest and it's refreshing!" 

Like no? He's a racist and bigoted asshole. Do we really want his vulgar ass overseas being diplomatic with other leaders? Dear God.

[hauntedoklahoma]

On January 27, 2016 at 3:39 PM, ShebrewDefrauder said:

I'll out myself here as a bistitchual! I am both a proud knitter (continental!) and a proud hooker, and I love them equally! And I know amongst my knitting friends there is also always the argument over circular needles vs. double pointed needles when working in the round. I am a fan of circulars and using the Magic Loop method, but I also have DPNs for when they are necessary to finish projects off. When it comes to crochet, I think the biggest dispute is usually over pencil style grip and knife-style grip. I've been trying to use pencil since it's supposed to be easier on the wrist but I am finding it close to impossible since I'm so used to the knife grip. Sorry not sorry to drag the conversation yet still away from Joshley's legal indiscretions. 

Bistitual here too! I'm about to blanket train some new hookers here soon, as soon as all of our schedules are arranged properly. 

[HarleyQuinn]

I've always used "sex worker" or "entertainer" as a blanket statement for anyone doing any type of sex work. Prostitute, cam, etc.

Btw, I have a friend that made pretty decent side money on cam. I never realized there was such a huge demand for that.

[InThePrayerCloset]

On 28 January 2016 at 10:41 PM, InThePrayerCloset said:

The "criminal transmission of HIV" occurs in many jurisdictions when someone knowingly and recklessly exposes another to HIV without their consent. This is where the Charlie Sheen accusations come in - he knew he was HIV+ and allegedly did not inform sexual partners, and was therefore allegedly knowingly and reckless in exposing his partners. This is distinct from not disclosing HIV status and having sex whilst using "reasonable precautions" (condoms and antivirals) with an unknowing partner. As @Whoosh stated above, this can occur regardless of whether the exposure occurred during a commercial sexual encounter. 

In many US states and Australia the specific charge of "criminal transmission of HIV" can be pursued through both public health provisions and the criminal law. In other jurisdictions like the UK and parts of the European Union, HIV transmission is dealt with under existing generalist charges such as attempted or actual murder/manslaughter, GBH, or common assault. 

More info on an Australian example of this charge can be found at this news site http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/local-news/new-south-wales-news/nsw-man-charged-with-alleged-hiv-transmission-to-other-man/144144

Knitting needles are generally prohibited on international flights... but clearly that's not enforced... 

ETA: sentence re Charlie Sheen

 

2 hours ago, HarleyQuinn said:

I've always used "sex worker" or "entertainer" as a blanket statement for anyone doing any type of sex work. Prostitute, cam, etc.

Btw, I have a friend that made pretty decent side money on cam. I never realized there was such a huge demand for that.

Or selling panties.,, did some googling after that Orange is the New Black episode about it... wow... gold mine... 

[Fundie Bunny]

5 hours ago, gustava said:

I'm pretty tired of PC (political correctness) being a pejorative term.  Since when is being civil deemed pejorative?  I am a grown woman.  Why should it be PC to refer to me as "girl"?  Why is it wrong for someone of African descent to dislike being called a nigger? 

.

Being PC and civil are not the same thing. There is a difference between calling spmeone a deeply pejorative term like nigger and not being able to say prostitute brcause the term might offend someone in some context. It is about respect, not about the words

[InThePrayerCloset]

15 hours ago, Artemesia said:

Maybe the whole point of DD's side requesting therapy records is to force Josh and co. to admit that there are none. If there was real therapy there would be real records.

 

Do you need to prove direct relevance to a fact in issue to request records in the USA? In Australia, requesting counselling records from 10 plus years ago in relation to an event that isn't direct related to the cause of action wouldn't get through the court without specific argument - it'd be called a "fishing expedition".

I 100% see that DD might be trying to establish "tendency evidence" (i.e. a pattern of behaviour in the past that is similar to that which is complained of), but equally, if i was Josh's attorney, id be seeking to get the request thrown out as its irrelevant to the alleged events in 2015. in Australia, this would likely be decided by a judge, and DD's attorney would have a tough job proving that the counselling records are directly relevant to her case.

American Degreed Law Professionals - How would DD's request for historical counselling records be dealt with in PA/USA Fed Court?

[Whoosh]

1 hour ago, Fundie Bunny said:

Being PC and civil are not the same thing. There is a difference between calling spmeone a deeply pejorative term like nigger and not being able to say prostitute brcause the term might offend someone in some context. It is about respect, not about the words

This I agree with.  I think that is the point people are trying to make overall (though I may be wrong).  

9 hours ago, Fundie Bunny said:

Even if it's not her main job, she is still a prostitute. Let's call things by their names.

This come across differently to me, but that could be me or could just be awkward wording or something.

The reality is that people can refer to Dillon in a lot of ways, like the woman, Danica, Dillon, Ashley, the plaintiff, the dancer, that chick suing Joshley, the mother of two who was assaulted.  On and on and on.  So many ways to refer to her.

If someone is referring to her as "the prostitute", I would ask WHY they are choosing to use that wording.  If they are trying to specifically stress the fact that she was selling sex for money, that is probably the best way to refer to her.  There are times when that makes sense.

However, in most contexts it does NOT make sense unless the point is to degrade her or discount something she says or does based on distaste for her side job.  So, if someone says "when working as a prostitute, she expected and deserved to be treated as a human being and not like a pile of shit", I doubt there would be even a peep of backlash or complaint about that.  If someone say "the prostitute posted on twitter in an effort to further her career" - that starts make me wonder what the point is and to question how they are trying to make that point.  If someone says "that dirty prostitute has zero credibility" - I no longer wonder anything.  The meaning there is pretty clear to me.

So, tl;dr - I agree with calling things what they are unless there is widespread agreement that it is clearly pejorative and no longer acceptable.

This THING is a woman and mother with a career in entertainment named Danica Dillon (or Ashley or Ms Dillon or whatever) who is claiming to have been the victim of a violent sexual assault.

One minor detail of the story is that she has pretty much admitted to two acts of engaging in prostitution.

To use a phrase I learned in another thread - what terms Suzi uses to refer to Sally says more about Suzi than it says about Sally.

[Whoosh]

1 hour ago, InThePrayerCloset said:

Do you need to prove direct relevance to a fact in issue to request records in the USA? In Australia, requesting counselling records from 10 plus years ago in relation to an event that isn't direct related to the cause of action wouldn't get through the court without specific argument - it'd be called a "fishing expedition".

I 100% see that DD might be trying to establish "tendency evidence" (i.e. a pattern of behaviour in the past that is similar to that which is complained of), but equally, if i was Josh's attorney, id be seeking to get the request thrown out as its irrelevant to the alleged events in 2015. in Australia, this would likely be decided by a judge, and DD's attorney would have a tough job proving that the counselling records are directly relevant to her case.

American Degreed Law Professionals - How would DD's request for historical counselling records be dealt with in PA/USA Fed Court?

First I want to speak to the issue of getting any mention of the molestations into evidence at all.  There are a few ways that Dillon's attorney might try to get the fact that the molestations occurred into evidence.  The first has been discussed a few times.  If Duggar or his attorney attempts in any way to try to present Duggar as an upstanding person of good moral character or whatever, the plaintiff is then free to use examples of prior bad acts or other character evidence to try to disprove that line of defense.  It is far more detailed, but that is the gist of that bit.

If Dillon is claiming that learning of the molestation scandal in some way furthered the harm she suffered as a result of the alleged sexual assaults, I could easily see her trying to introduce the media outburst surrounding the molestations into evidence.  I honestly don't know if that would fly or not.  It would depend on what Dillon is claiming exactly and the judge would need to weigh the importance of allowing her to use all available evidence to try to prove her claims versus the generalized rule that evidence of prior bad acts is admissible unless it falls into a specific category.

Next, to address the question of trying to get ahold of any type of therapy records during discovery.  I am sure Dillon's attorney may have made that request and I am pretty sure there is no way that Duggar's attorney would simply comply with that request.  The general rule here (don't quote me) is that discovery is pretty wide open and anything one party thinks might even possibly be remotely helpful in proving their case (or in uncovering other evidence that would help prove their case) is fair game.  HOWEVER, it is also known that this is somewhat a problem in the American legal system and that fishing expeditions do occur (often as a pure intimidation factor or time waster to drive up attorney's fees and not really related to the case at all).  Add to that the fact that even if the records were somehow relevant, I don't see any way that anyone could prove the need to allow the plaintiff or her attorney to review any such records would rise to the level that it warrants tossing aside the right to client-therapist privilege when it comes to therapy.  

In short, I don't think there is much of a chance at all of any therapy or treatment records that may exist being turned over during the discovery process.  I could be wrong.  I think there is an outside chance that if this goes to trial, the plaintiff might try to get public information or Dillon's experiences surrounding the molestations into evidence.  If she were successful in that, I would still see the actual police reports as possibly being suppressed as too prejudicial and/or not adding enough additional RELEVANT detail as to warrant the prejudice that might come from introducing those records into evidence.

Those are my best guesses based on my personal education and experience and I could well be wrong.  Anyone with reason to disagree with any of that, please correct any errors or misstatements I have made.

[OnceUponATime]

8 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

If Dillon is claiming that learning of the molestation scandal in some way furthered the harm she suffered as a result of the alleged sexual assaults,.

She could do that?

I can completely understand how learning of the molestation scandal could further emotional harm. But would a court be likely to award extra damages in such a circumstance? In the aforementioned circumstance it seems to me that the futher damages are caused by the moral indignation of the plantif and not due to the actions of the defendant (In my non-lawyer eyes). 

[Whoosh]

1 hour ago, OnceUponATime said:

She could do that?

I can completely understand how learning of the molestation scandal could further emotional harm. But would a court be likely to award extra damages in such a circumstance? In the aforementioned circumstance it seems to me that the futher damages are caused by the moral indignation of the plantif and not due to the actions of the defendant (In my non-lawyer eyes). 

I am not really sure on this at all to be honest.  When an individual commits an unlawful act that results in a harm, they are liable for that harm and all reasonably foreseeable "real" outcomes unless those outcomes really are the result of something else.  So, if I improperly moor my boat and it runs down the shore causing all manner of damage - I am liable for that if my improper mooring of my boat was unlawful and led to reasonably foreseeable damage.  If it forces another boat off it's mooring that was properly moored and that boat goes on to cause massive damage, I might be wholely or partially responsible for that too, as it is reasonably foreseeable and the damage would not have occurred but for my unlawful act.  Specific laws may override what I am saying here, but this is a basis for legal theory.

In one document I read, I believe Duggar's attorney mentioned that Dillon had not named third parties that should also be named as defendants in the lawsuit.  I honestly have no idea, but my gut feeling on that is that she is in fact saying that the publicity surrounding the molestations and the AM account furthered her harm.  I think the defense to that would be that that was not reasonably foreseeable and any possible burden for that resulting harm is carried by whomever is responsible for those two scandals hitting the media and NOT by Duggar.  The statement that caused me to think that could have been about something entirely different and I may have misread it or read a whole lot into it that wasn't there at all.  Well, I KNOW I read a lot into it, regardless of what was said that actually made me think this.  

Again, I really am not positive.  I would, however, be shocked if Dillon's attorney didn't try to get mention of the molestations into evidence this way or some other way.  HOWEVER, that doesn't mean the judge will allow that.  Further, even if the judge DID allow that, there will be limits as to what can come in.  I can't see any reason that the details of any possible treatment that may have happened decades ago would be seen as relevant since Dillon didn't have that information.  The police reports - I am not sure, but again, I think the interests of juvenile Josh and the others involved in all that would override any perceived added value of allowing the police reports in versus just going with all the stories and information all over the internet that is NOT the police reports.  

But ultimately, my answer is I really don't know.  My focus was criminal, not civil and this isn't really an issue much.  I don't know what exactly Dillon is claiming and to be totally honest I don't know the minute details of how the court would make decisions on all that or how it would be impacted by specific laws and practices other than this kind of general theory of civil liability.

[Whoosh]

The eggshell skull rule is something to also consider (though may not end up being relevant to this case at all).  Just something to think about when considering what types of harms an individual might be held liable for after committing an unlawful act.  In essence, the legal theory is that it is reasonably foreseeable that some people are fragile and that a defendant is not absolved from liability just because the victim of resultant harm is exceptionally fragile.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull#Exceptions

[Whoosh]

1 hour ago, Whoosh said:

It would depend on what Dillon is claiming exactly and the judge would need to weigh the importance of allowing her to use all available evidence to try to prove her claims versus the generalized rule that evidence of prior bad acts is admissible unless it falls into a specific category.

I caught this typo too late - that should read "evidence of prior bad acts is INadmissible unless..."

[missegeno]

7 hours ago, sophie10130 said:

This is why I'm so mad when Trump supporters say "He doesn't deal with any of that political correctness crap! He's honest and it's refreshing!" 

Like no? He's a racist and bigoted asshole. Do we really want his vulgar ass overseas being diplomatic with other leaders? Dear God.

Yeah, I really want to know how Trump plans to handle foreign affairs since major world powers (e.g. the UK) have already banned him.

[caszandra]

The UK didn't ban Donald Trump from the country.  After a petition was organised which collected 570,000 signatures the issue was debated in Parliament, Donald Trump was branded a "buffoon" a "demagogue" and a "wazzock" by MPs but no direct action was taken as a result of the debate.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12105940/donald-trump-muslim-ban-uk-debate-live.html

[gustava]

5 hours ago, Whoosh said:

Even if it's not her main job, she is still a prostitute. Let's call things by their names.  (I think fundie bunnie said this.)

If we're going to call things by their names, let's just call Danica Dillon a whore.

(of a woman) work as a prostitute. "she spent her life whoring for dangerous men"synonyms:work as a prostitute, sell one's body, sell oneself, be on the streets "she spent her life whoring"

[Whoosh]

46 minutes ago, gustava said:

If we're going to call things by their names, let's just call Danica Dillon a whore.

(of a woman) work as a prostitute. "she spent her life whoring for dangerous men"synonyms:work as a prostitute, sell one's body, sell oneself, be on the streets "she spent her life whoring"

Yeah that quote isn't me talking - that was fundie bunny.  If people feel comfortable calling her a whore and they are willing to accept the feedback they get on that choice of language in terms of what it says about THEM - go for it.  It speaks volumes and calls into question any opinions they have of the veracity of her claims in MY mind.

ETA - as far as I know, the ONLY evidence we have that Dillon has ever engaged in acts of prostitution is her own statements about sexual relations with Duggar in exchange for money - so if someone disbelieves those, they really have NO GROUNDS for calling her a prostitute AT ALL.  If they want to call all adult film stars whores - hey.  Why not.  I believe the fundies would call all female actors that engage in anything remotely sexual on screen a whore right?

ETA2 - if we call all female actors whores or all female adult film stars whores who spent their whole life whoring - what do we call the men in the scenes with them - STUD?

ETA3 - what do we call the (mostly) men that drive the market for adult films?  Good christians?  Fathers and breadwinners?

 

[Chickenbutt]

Something is swirling in my head after reading Whoosh's posts. Forgive me if it makes no sense, I will try to make it clear.

Could DD want to present the molestations, not for the molestations themselves, but to show that there was no "real" counseling after the fact and that is why the assault happened. Her thoughts may be, JD had issues way back then and those issues were never resolved resulting in escalation of issues and her eventual assault.