(CW: CSA) Josh & Anna 50: Anna Breaking the Opposite of News about the Whodunnit of the Century

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

8 minutes ago, noseybutt said:

I too have seen cycles with how offenders take responsibility (or not) or blatantly deny (or not). I wonder if it's worse now just because of overall political divisiveness in the country.  It's easier to exploit or fight back even when obviously guilty in times of change, confusion, or chaos.  (Not to mention the Q beliefs over the child abuse cabal.)
 

Josh has access to money and so I'm not surprised he's continuing the legal fight. You never know what good defense attorneys might come up with, no matter how long the shot.

He knows what he did, the question is, does he understand what he did is wrong?  My guess is that he truly does not. Or at least it's no worse than viewing "normal" porn in his mind.  He may see the children as having been victimized at the time they were being photographed, but in his mind, that's over now.  He probably thinks his viewing of the material has no further impact on the victims - what's done is done.  So why shouldn't he be free to watch this material as he would anything else that gratifies him?  Toss in the patriarchal views about women and children and we're left with a guy who feels what he did was perfectly okay. How dare they try to send him away for years!  

[waltraute]

40 minutes ago, Anne Of Gray Gables said:

Josh has access to money and so I'm not surprised he's continuing the legal fight. You never know what good defense attorneys might come up with, no matter how long the shot.

He knows what he did, the question is, does he understand what he did is wrong?  My guess is that he truly does not. Or at least it's no worse than viewing "normal" porn in his mind.  He may see the children as having been victimized at the time they were being photographed, but in his mind, that's over now.  He probably thinks his viewing of the material has no further impact on the victims - what's done is done.  So why shouldn't he be free to watch this material as he would anything else that gratifies him?  Toss in the patriarchal views about women and children and we're left with a guy who feels what he did was perfectly okay. How dare they try to send him away for years!  

I agree with your first paragraph. I would also agree with your second one except:

Spoiler

He was viewing baby torture porn. And the worst of the worst of that terrifying genre. I don't think there is any way he can twist that around in his mind to be okay, no matter how far away the viewing was from the original acts. He knows.

 

[noseybutt]

50 minutes ago, Anne Of Gray Gables said:

Josh has access to money and so I'm not surprised he's continuing the legal fight. You never know what good defense attorneys might come up with, no matter how long the shot.

He knows what he did, the question is, does he understand what he did is wrong?  My guess is that he truly does not. Or at least it's no worse than viewing "normal" porn in his mind.  He may see the children as having been victimized at the time they were being photographed, but in his mind, that's over now.  He probably thinks his viewing of the material has no further impact on the victims - what's done is done.  So why shouldn't he be free to watch this material as he would anything else that gratifies him?  Toss in the patriarchal views about women and children and we're left with a guy who feels what he did was perfectly okay. How dare they try to send him away for years!  

Another way to phrase this, from the perspective of our legal system, he absolutely understands what he did was wrong.

But from a moral development perspective, not so much. He is that entitled.

2 minutes ago, waltraute said:

I agree with your first paragraph. I would also agree with your second one except:

  Hide contents

He was viewing baby torture porn. And the worst of the worst of that terrifying genre. I don't think there is any way he can twist that around in his mind to be okay, no matter how far away the viewing was from the original acts. He knows.

 

Honestly, I act like I know what he knows but we don't really know. It is horrific to contemplate that he might understand the CSAM was legally wrong yet he may have developed some sort of internal justification for the behavior. 

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

7 minutes ago, waltraute said:

I agree with your first paragraph. I would also agree with your second one except:

  Hide contents

He was viewing baby torture porn. And the worst of the worst of that terrifying genre. I don't think there is any way he can twist that around in his mind to be okay, no matter how far away the viewing was from the original acts. He knows.

 

He knows it's illegal and surely understands the acts were horrific, but no matter what he was looking at, I don't think he ever saw - or sees - that he added any additional harm by viewing the images.  He's an entitled narcissistic piece of human garbage who will never get it.  

[formergothardite]

5 hours ago, Giraffe said:

Reformers Unanimous 

Ah, the place whose founder is accused of protecting a sexual predator. From what I know of RU(someone I know went through at least some of the program) it is far from any sort of real therapy. 

[GuineaPigCourtship]

1 hour ago, formergothardite said:

Ah, the place whose founder is accused of protecting a sexual predator.

The perfect place to send a known sexual predator! Brilliantly handled as always, Duggar fam.

[formergothardite]

40 minutes ago, GuineaPigCourtship said:

The perfect place to send a known sexual predator! Brilliantly handled as always, Duggar fam.

*First they sent him to a police officer who ended up being  a sexual predator

*Then they sent him to a cult training center whose leader is a sexual predator.

*Then they sent him to a rehab whose leader protected a sexual predator.

Of course Josh’s behavior kept escalating. I bet all he learned was how to cover his tracks a bit better. 

[GuineaPigCourtship]

Fortunately not well enough, although I bet he thought he was being clever enough.

My belief is he knows what he did is legally and morally wrong but doesn't care - or didn't until he got convicted.  I don't think he's too stupid to know it was wrong, but I think he's vile enough to not give a damn about anyone but himself.

[Father Son Holy Goat]

3 hours ago, formergothardite said:

Of course Josh’s behavior kept escalating. I bet all he learned was how to cover his tracks a bit better. 

But not good enough.

[Dandruff]

I hope the M-kids are getting lots of positive attention from family and friends.  Birthdays, especially, must be hard.

[Sullie06]

20 hours ago, noseybutt said:

I too have seen cycles with how offenders take responsibility (or not) or blatantly deny (or not). I wonder if it's worse now just because of overall political divisiveness in the country.  It's easier to exploit or fight back even when obviously guilty in times of change, confusion, or chaos.  (Not to mention the Q beliefs over the child abuse cabal.)

 

That is a very good point about where the country is politically. And it could very well be a factor.

We've also had a sharp increase in sexual based crimes where I am and I think part of that is more reporting of crimes is being done. But on the flip side there seems to be a lot of offenders claiming they are "victims" of moments like Me Too. 

[noseybutt]

2 hours ago, Sullie06 said:

That is a very good point about where the country is politically. And it could very well be a factor.

We've also had a sharp increase in sexual based crimes where I am and I think part of that is more reporting of crimes is being done. But on the flip side there seems to be a lot of offenders claiming they are "victims" of moments like Me Too. 

I suspect they are hearing things in the online communities.  The CSAM users are much more likely to have an online life/persona than other crimes. Plus, the various misogynistic online communities that are not on the dark web and can be accessed freely by anyone: incel, MGTOW (men going their own way), pick up artists, etc. 

 

 

Editing to add a link for anyone interested in understanding the "manosphere" and how the ideology has become increasingly violent, See here. 

Edited March 30, 2022 by noseybutt

[Antimony]

Re: Does Josh Know His Crime is Wrong? 

I think he know it's legally wrong. He might know that it is morally wrong on some levels, and I do mean this as a dunk -- I don't think Josh understands enough about marketplaces and economics to understand the the consumption of a product is something that keeps demand alive, so I actually doubt he understands that level of complicity in the CSAM machine. I truly believe all this, even though Josh runs a business (...questionable...) because I think he's a) probably relatively bad at business and b) doesn't have the amount of empathy or attention span required to actually think through this question. I don't mean this to infantilize or excuse him, I just think he's relatively stupid on following those sorts of trains of thought. I think he could get it, but maybe a flowchart would help. 

Re: Consequences

One thing I'd like to see, and I'm hoping we see as a result of the continuing cultural shift where we love to dunk on crypto, is the regulation banning CSAM offenders from owning/buying/selling/trading cryptocurrency in the future. I don't think this mattered in Josh's case, actually. (He probably doesn't know what the blockchain is). But, in so many other cases it does matter and I think it's a relatively obvious and decent non-carceral consequence. 

[EmCatlyn]

On 3/29/2022 at 8:47 AM, anjulibai said:

Josh doesn't have an addiction. 

Watching porn is not the same as watching CSA material. 

People who seek out and watch CSA material are not the same as those with addictions, porn or otherwise. 

My husband has dealt with porn addiction. He has never once been inclined to seek out CSA, nor has he ever come across it on normal porn channels. 

It is not the same thing. 

I entirely agree that “watching porn is not the same as watching CSA material.”  I don’t understand why this distinction means that “Josh doesn’t have an addiction.”  

Many of us have speculated that Josh is turned on by what is forbidden or transgressive.  This would imply that he is not specifically a pederast, not specifically a “sex addict,” not specifically a “sadist,” etc. but may get his jollies from activities associated with any (and all) of these classifications.

Isn’t it possible that his problem is an “addiction to transgression”?  The way he seems unable to stop, but instead escalates the forbidden behavior seems parallel to how some people go on to experiment and try more and more dangerous drugs as they descend into greater addiction.

Note that I am not excusing Josh or minimizing what he has done in any way.  I am just interested why we wouldn’t call it addictive behavior or “addiction.”  It is definitely much more than “porn addiction,” and I agree that we should not confuse CSAM with regular pornography.  Nevertheless, what else is driving this guy to transgress? Granted that there is something missing in his moral make-up, why does he keep doing things that are self-destructive if he is not driven by some sort of “almost-irresistible urge”?

[Father Son Holy Goat]

3 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

I entirely agree that “watching porn is not the same as watching CSA material.”  I don’t understand why this distinction means that “Josh doesn’t have an addiction.”  

Many of us have speculated that Josh is turned on by what is forbidden or transgressive.  This would imply that he is not specifically a pederast, not specifically a “sex addict,” not specifically a “sadist,” etc. but may get his jollies from activities associated with any (and all) of these classifications.

Isn’t it possible that his problem is an “addiction to transgression”?  The way he seems unable to stop, but instead escalates the forbidden behavior seems parallel to how some people go on to experiment and try more and more dangerous drugs as they descend into greater addiction.

Note that I am not excusing Josh or minimizing what he has done in any way.  I am just interested why we wouldn’t call it addictive behavior or “addiction.”  It is definitely much more than “porn addiction,” and I agree that we should not confuse CSAM with regular pornography.  Nevertheless, what else is driving this guy to transgress? Granted that there is something missing in his moral make-up, why does he keep doing things that are self-destructive if he is not driven by some sort of “almost-irresistible urge”?

It could be all or nothing thinking. In fundiedom, all expressions of sex and sexuality are forbidden outside of marriage so it’s all the same. Consensual kisses in the throughs of puppy love or graphic child sexual abuse materials- eh, it’s all a sin. Along with the lack of accountability for male leadership and an environment where children aren’t valued for themselves, only as numbers in the Lord’s army, it creates a perfect storm for someone like Josh to get away with indulging his very sick urges.
 

Obviously, I don’t agree with it, I’m saying this is one possibility.

Edited April 4, 2022 by Father Son Holy Goat

[noseybutt]

2 hours ago, Father Son Holy Goat said:

It could be all or nothing thinking. In fundiedom, all expressions of sex and sexuality are forbidden outside of marriage so it’s all the same. Consensual kisses in the throughs of puppy love or graphic child sexual abuse materials- eh, it’s all a sin. Along with the lack of accountability for male leadership and an environment where children aren’t valued for themselves, only as numbers in the Lord’s army, it creates a perfect storm for someone like Josh to get away with indulging his very sick urges.
 

Obviously, I don’t agree with it, I’m saying this is one possibility.

I suspect this has a lot to do with it. Fundamentalism often leads to weird ideas around consent. I have talked to many young religious men who believe consent is granted at time of marriage. Which means there is no such thing--in their mind--of marital rape. And masturbating to an old Playboy magazine is as morally wrong as molesting a child.  

The same young men vary widely as to how they perceive the rules within the broader culture ("the world"). Some of the more isolated ones are remarkably ignorant that no, not anything goes in "the world." That cultural norms exist. And laws. And there is this concept called consent that is fluid and must be granted by a sexual partner who is of age, of sound mind (not intoxicated or asleep), and willing. 

Josh has moved outside his religious circle plenty enough to understand the legal concept of consent. There is no question in my mind that he understands that what he did is not legal. But his overall moral development seems very stunted and he engages in a lot of risky behavior--whether out of compulsion or just because he feels entitled to the thrill, who knows.

[Smash!]

7 hours ago, noseybutt said:

I have talked to many young religious men who believe consent is granted at time of marriage. Which means there is no such thing--in their mind--of marital rape.

Very interesting post! I’m curious, goes this the other way around too, for example if the wife wants to get more action in bed, is the husband expected to do it or does the wife as the helpmeet cater to his needs?

[SorenaJ]

22 minutes ago, Smash! said:

Very interesting post! I’m curious, goes this the other way around too, for example if the wife wants to get more action in bed, is the husband expected to do it or does the wife as the helpmeet cater to his needs?

I don't know, but I don't think the husband would be expected to do it. He is the headship, and what he says, goes. The wife submits to him, so I think he is okay to say no. 

[GiggleOfGirls]

31 minutes ago, SorenaJ said:

I don't know, but I don't think the husband would be expected to do it. He is the headship, and what he says, goes. The wife submits to him, so I think he is okay to say no. 

I suspect this is correct because when my (fundy-lite pastor) father taught that, actually, the husband needs to be fulfilling the wife’s needs in bed also, that concept was seen as a really big deal (in a good way) to all the women in the class.
 

He pointed out that the idea that women don’t “burn with passion” (or whatever euphemism he used) is a modern cultural construct and that Biblically it’s clearly a reciprocal situation. 
 

He never really preached much about submission when I was growing up, and the above teaching was done in a church where he wasn’t the pastor and after I was an adult.
 

I’m trying to think how to contextualize his stances. He’s always been more of a “the husband gets the final word in a disagreement” type of headship vs the wife owes her headship constant submission sort.
 

He has also never really understood how taking his beliefs to their logical conclusions could lead to Vision Forum, ATI/IBLP, or Above Rubies-type beliefs; but we absolutely had folks in his past congregation who were super into both VF and AR and he attended at least a couple of Gothard’s conferences as a young man (I feel very fortunate that he didn’t get sucked into that any further!).

[DefraudedByPlaid]

59 minutes ago, GiggleOfGirls said:

and he attended at least a couple of Gothard’s conferences as a young man (I feel very fortunate that he didn’t get sucked into that any further!).

My father also attended one of Gothard's conferences (as a teen); at the time he thought Gothard's obsession with authority was strange. It's hard to imagine how different my life would have been if my dad had been sucked in like the first-gen ATI-ers we follow on FJ.

[Antimony]

17 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

I entirely agree that “watching porn is not the same as watching CSA material.”  I don’t understand why this distinction means that “Josh doesn’t have an addiction.”  

Many of us have speculated that Josh is turned on by what is forbidden or transgressive.  This would imply that he is not specifically a pederast, not specifically a “sex addict,” not specifically a “sadist,” etc. but may get his jollies from activities associated with any (and all) of these classifications.

Isn’t it possible that his problem is an “addiction to transgression”?  The way he seems unable to stop, but instead escalates the forbidden behavior seems parallel to how some people go on to experiment and try more and more dangerous drugs as they descend into greater addiction.

Note that I am not excusing Josh or minimizing what he has done in any way.  I am just interested why we wouldn’t call it addictive behavior or “addiction.”  It is definitely much more than “porn addiction,” and I agree that we should not confuse CSAM with regular pornography.  Nevertheless, what else is driving this guy to transgress? Granted that there is something missing in his moral make-up, why does he keep doing things that are self-destructive if he is not driven by some sort of “almost-irresistible urge”?

You'll find me on the side of "Josh doesn't have an addiction" because there is not a wealth of any real scientific evidence that there even such a thing as porn addiction. It isn't recognized by the APA and there's plenty of addiction experts who warn that it is not accurate to describe an over-use of porn as an "addiction". 

On the other side of this, you'll see a lot of places are starting to refer to what we call addictions as "chemical dependency" because that is slightly more accurate and reflects the changes in brain chemistry when somebody develops a dependency towards alcohol, etc. There's no "chemical dependency" towards porn. It just can't happen. (Before I get yelled at -- yes, there's dopamine, blah blah blah, but there is no meaningful re-wiring of the brain to lead to porn-specific withdrawals. There's nothing chemically magical about porn.)

Something can be obsessive and compulsive and habitual without being an addiction, sure. It's probably that Josh is obsessive about pornographic content, he might have a habit of viewing it everyday (or, with more frequency, if the AMA is to believed) but he isn't addicted to it in a way that you can be to drugs. That narrative is used, especially in his circles, to demonize all pornographic content and alleviate his own responsibility to his actions, aside from being medically nonsensical. 

I also disagree that the urge is "almost-irresistible" because we don't really have evidence that Josh himself has ever tried to resist. We only have meaningful evidence that other people around him have tried to make him stop. We can't know that it's almost irresistible unless he's actually agreeing to try and I just don't believe he ever has. He hasn't even really needed to, either. There are too many ways around Covenant Eyes. I mean, if my family tried to stop me from eating my favorite say....trying to think of something I eat that is a little objectively distasteful...feta cheese on buttered toast...and I didn't agree with them I would simply take out cash to buy these things. Make it in the night. It wouldn't be an addiction, just a dirty toasty secret. 

I also don't even believe that a nearly irresistible urge is required to access CSAM, just a strong enough belief that you're too smart to get caught and that's not even a trait exclusive to pedophiles. Many people believe that about many transgressions. I really thing Josh is just a case of too much ego (obvious), non-exclusive pedophilia, and a broken moral compass, and there's no real "addiction" in it. I can see how that's probably unsatisfying as an explanation, but I think that's really just all there is. 

Edited April 4, 2022 by Antimony

[pupper]

18 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

I entirely agree that “watching porn is not the same as watching CSA material.”  I don’t understand why this distinction means that “Josh doesn’t have an addiction.”  

Many of us have speculated that Josh is turned on by what is forbidden or transgressive.  This would imply that he is not specifically a pederast, not specifically a “sex addict,” not specifically a “sadist,” etc. but may get his jollies from activities associated with any (and all) of these classifications.

Isn’t it possible that his problem is an “addiction to transgression”?  The way he seems unable to stop, but instead escalates the forbidden behavior seems parallel to how some people go on to experiment and try more and more dangerous drugs as they descend into greater addiction.

Note that I am not excusing Josh or minimizing what he has done in any way.  I am just interested why we wouldn’t call it addictive behavior or “addiction.”  It is definitely much more than “porn addiction,” and I agree that we should not confuse CSAM with regular pornography.  Nevertheless, what else is driving this guy to transgress? Granted that there is something missing in his moral make-up, why does he keep doing things that are self-destructive if he is not driven by some sort of “almost-irresistible urge”?

Easy answer: Satan/Beansie fight hardest to bring down good Christians like Joshy. And in Josh's case, Satan is clearly winning.

[nelliebelle1197]

New thread. Same old horror.

https://www.freejinger.org/topic/34364-cw-csa-josh-anna-51-an-unappeal-appeal/