(CW: CSA) Josh & Anna 51: An Unappealing Appeal

[nelliebelle1197]

It is amazing Josh cannot just do the right thing once in his damn life and take his punishment.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2022 by nelliebelle1197

[SorenaJ]

@Antimony On the topic of addictions/habits/compulsions, what would it be called if I can't function if I don't get chocolate? Can that be a compulsion? If I first get the need, then I cannot have a functioning or comprehensive thought, I can't answer phones, emails or do data entry or search for anything until I get chocolate. I will literally wander off until I get it from the shop, if it's not in the house.

I have been in meetings not listening to a word, because the only thought in my head is "I need chocolate". I don't need a lot, just a bit, it calms me down. Any other sugary treat won't do, it has to be sugary chocolate. And I cannot think about anything else until I get it. Can that be an addiction? Is it a compulsion? Obsession? (actually it does sound kinda obsessive) 

Can any food be truly addictive?

It is more than a habit, because I couldn't stop. My other habits I can stop, and choose not to do it, but this one, I can't choose. My brain will just shut down until I get it.

[EmCatlyn]

@Antimony wrote:

Quote

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 completely agree that something can be “obsessive and compulsive and habitual without being an addiction.”  The word “addiction” (like the words “adopt,” and “rape” and a dozen others) have been expanded to include a lot of “similar but not identical” situations.

That being said, whatever is going on with Josh seems to be more than just a belief that he is special and can get away with things.  He seems driven to go deeper into forbidden areas. Maybe it is the absence of empathy plus no personal moral compass plus the weird message of his religious community that all sins are equal.  In any case, I suspect that he is driven by some compulsion no lesser than the compulsion people who identify as “porn addicts” would feel.  What makes him different (definitely worse) is that his compulsion extends to viewing brutal sexual acts against children.

[Antimony]

1 hour ago, SorenaJ said:

@Antimony On the topic of addictions/habits/compulsions, what would it be called if I can't function if I don't get chocolate? Can that be a compulsion? If I first get the need, then I cannot have a functioning or comprehensive thought, I can't answer phones, emails or do data entry or search for anything until I get chocolate. I will literally wander off until I get it from the shop, if it's not in the house.

I have been in meetings not listening to a word, because the only thought in my head is "I need chocolate". I don't need a lot, just a bit, it calms me down. Any other sugary treat won't do, it has to be sugary chocolate. And I cannot think about anything else until I get it. Can that be an addiction? Is it a compulsion? Obsession? (actually it does sound kinda obsessive) 

Can any food be truly addictive?

It is more than a habit, because I couldn't stop. My other habits I can stop, and choose not to do it, but this one, I can't choose. My brain will just shut down until I get it.

Chocolate is probably a bad example because it contains (albeit, mild) drugs. It contains caffeine and theobromine. Theobromine has no prescription use, but --

Quote

At doses of 0.8–1.5 g/day (50–100 g cocoa), sweating, trembling and severe headaches were noted, with limited mood effects found at 250 mg/day.

(For reference, a Ghirardelli dark Chocolate Bar is about 100 grams, so this is a very real and relatively normal consumption level that could make you feel this way. I don't actually even necessarily think a clinician would find this troubling, even. )

Similarly, I am colloquially (not medically) "addicted" to Diet Coke. Diet Coke is my caffeine-source-of-choice, but it's not really about the Diet Coke, it's about the caffeine, which I do have a dependence on. 

While you and I can be obsessive and compulsive about our format of choice, the fact of the matter is we aren't chemically dependent to the mixtures known as Chocolate or Diet Coke. We're chemically dependent on aspects of it. So, we might get physical withdrawal symptoms from those but you don't get physical withdrawal symptoms from porn. 

"Food Addiction" is complicated in this framework because well...it's by necessity that one is dependent on food, right? Obviously. I mean, you'd die. So, what is colloquially considered "food addiction" is more often actually just "binge eating disorder". So, while somebody might become emotionally dysregulated or upset or, well, cranky, because they can't get a binge-food of choice, they won't experience the same physical withdrawal that is present in a chemical dependency. On the other obvious end, there are plenty of people who don't eat and receive all their nutrition in a way that bypasses their mouth and (NG, G-Tube, PEG, take your pick) and live perfectly normal and fulfilled lives and still get their dopamine from something else. 

As for all those feel good chemicals, you can get pattern forming behavior from them, for sure. I swipe through TikTok because it gives me a bunch of quick dopamine, I catch Pokemon in Arceus for hours because it gives me that sweet, sweet dopamine hit when I see that Pokeball latch closed. I could describe both of those things as "addictive" but the fact of the matter is, I could get the dopamine from other sources. I would just have to make a better choice. 

This is probably where Josh is. He surely enjoys the dopamine of consuming pornographic content but it isn't meaningfully different than any other feel-good activity. He could just make better choices. Josh could choose to feed his energy into a meaningful relationship with his wife to get that dopamine hit. He could choose to even, fuck it even bad choices are better choices for him, eat Cheetos and play Call of Duty all day. He won't make a better choice because he just doesn't really give a flying fuck. By comparison, somebody with a heroin addiction doesn't really have this choice. They can't get the same chemical response from just choosing to eat In-N-Out -- they have to just wait it out or work through the symptoms of chemical dependency -- because it isn't really just about a dopamine/typical pleasure hit.

I think behavioral problems are very really. I think habits and obsessions can negatively impact people's lives. They impact people. They just do. Things that are obsessive can feel impossible to stop (ask me about my dermatillomania. I mean, don't, I find it very embarrassing, but, you get my point). But I think using the language of chemical dependency really muddies the waters when it comes to CSAM offenders in a way that isn't actually helpful to either (a) people who do want to stop or don't want to offend and would like to remain non-offenders or (b) people who need to be held accountable. I am also immensely bothered by how many conservatives use this language to demonize sex workers in general, as if they were some sort of supernaturally addictive succubi/incubi* instead of people just trying to make ends meet by providing a service. 

*Currently opening to submissions for the name of the nonbinary version of this mythical creature. 

Edit: Here is a model for this question that is non-clinical, but I think is relatively useful. It's four questions, and the answer to each is a spectrum.

1. Is it easy to stop?
2. Will I face physical consequences if I stop?
3. Is it hurting me?
4. Is it hurting other people?

So, for my Diet Coke habit, the answers are;

1. It is relatively hard.
2. I will have headaches and I will be cranky.
3. It is not healthy, but it is not hurting me in a way that is much worse than any other food of choice.
4. It is not hurting other people.

But, for like, heroin the answers are more like;

1. It is extremely hard.
2. My withdrawal symptoms could kill me.
3. It is extremely harmful to me, and it could kill me. 
4. It is emotionally impacting my loved ones and my behaviors around it are possibly hurting them in other ways.

For Josh, it's probably like;
1. It's not easy, but it is my preference to not stop.
2. Nothing will physically happen to me if I stop.
3. It is not physically hurting me, but it is impacting my ability to connect to others.
4. It is undoubtedly hurting other people in a very real way because there are clear victims of my behavior.

All answers are on a spectrum, but Josh's answer to 1 and 2 put this in the "not addiction" field for me for me. You could imagine scoring this on like a 4x10 grid or Likert Variant. 

Edited April 4, 2022 by Antimony

[noseybutt]

21 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

@Antimony wrote:

I completely agree that something can be “obsessive and compulsive and habitual without being an addiction.”  The word “addiction” (like the words “adopt,” and “rape” and a dozen others) have been expanded to include a lot of “similar but not identical” situations.

 

I prefer to classify/conceptualize substance abuse addictions as separate from other problematic, habitual, or compulsive behaviors.  Reason being, the addition of mind altering drugs--while helpful in many situations--can be completely destructive in others. There's an interplay between the social environment and physiological reactions that seem to be unique from, say, problem gambling.

That said, this is far from a settled issue. Many researchers believe the "behavioral addictions" follow similar neural pathways as substance addictions. With the DSM-5, the physiological aspects of addiction (tolerance, withdrawal) were removed from being necessary for diagnosis and instead the focus was switched to drug use causing impairment in everyday life. Problematic gambling was added as a diagnosis, with problematic internet usage included "for future study." 

I think porn is kind of in its own category. Some individuals not in relationships struggle with their porn use because of moral issues, excessive time/energy, or they don't like how it makes them feel. However, most people reporting porn struggles do so within the context of their relationships. There may be differences with their partner over morality, solo sex (esp if that reduces frequency of partnered sex), requests for sexual behavior that may be normalized for the porn user but not the other, etc. In some more extreme cases, porn can function something like a fetish where it becomes difficult for the porn user to orgasm without it. 

I think we are pretty good at thinking through what a person is attracted to in terms of physical attributes or activities. We don't always have the language to talk through attraction and sexuality in terms of attachment. Porn use is sex without emotional attachment--no connection to another person. 

Josh is kind of fascinating because he was portraying the public persona of the attached family man while also finding sexual outlets that were completely NOT about attachment.

Edited April 5, 2022 by noseybutt

[Bluebirdbluebell]

So I apologize if this was already covered, but Josh's sentencing was moved to May. He was supposed to be sentenced yesterday. Here is an article about it.

I'm annoyed. Just sentence the creep and move on.

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

25 minutes ago, Bluebirdbluebell said:

So I apologize if this was already covered, but Josh's sentencing was moved to May. He was supposed to be sentenced yesterday. Here is an article about it.

I'm annoyed. Just sentence the creep and move on.

If I were Josh - not that I can imagine being Josh - I'd want out of the jail and into Federal prison. So the delay probably isn't a happy thing for him. And that makes me happy.   

[Dandruff]

3 hours ago, Anne Of Gray Gables said:

If I were Josh - not that I can imagine being Josh - I'd want out of the jail and into Federal prison. So the delay probably isn't a happy thing for him. And that makes me happy.

Josh is the one who requested the delay:

https://www.news10.com/news/crime/josh-duggar-sentencing-delayed-until-may/

I just wonder what he hopes to accomplish by it.

[Father Son Holy Goat]

On 4/4/2022 at 2:11 PM, Antimony said:

As for all those feel good chemicals, you can get pattern forming behavior from them, for sure. I swipe through TikTok because it gives me a bunch of quick dopamine, I catch Pokemon in Arceus for hours because it gives me that sweet, sweet dopamine hit when I see that Pokeball latch closed. I could describe both of those things as "addictive" but the fact of the matter is, I could get the dopamine from other sources. I would just have to make a better choice. 

This is probably where Josh is. He surely enjoys the dopamine of consuming pornographic content but it isn't meaningfully different than any other feel-good activity. He could just make better choices. Josh could choose to feed his energy into a meaningful relationship with his wife to get that dopamine hit. He could choose to even, fuck it even bad choices are better choices for him, eat Cheetos and play Call of Duty all day. He won't make a better choice because he just doesn't really give a flying fuck. By comparison, somebody with a heroin addiction doesn't really have this choice. They can't get the same chemical response from just choosing to eat In-N-Out -- they have to just wait it out or work through the symptoms of chemical dependency -- because it isn't really just about a dopamine/typical pleasure hit.

I think behavioral problems are very really. I think habits and obsessions can negatively impact people's lives. They impact people. They just do. Things that are obsessive can feel impossible to stop (ask me about my dermatillomania. I mean, don't, I find it very embarrassing, but, you get my point). But I think using the language of chemical dependency really muddies the waters when it comes to CSAM offenders in a way that isn't actually helpful to either (a) people who do want to stop or don't want to offend and would like to remain non-offenders or (b) people who need to be held accountable. I am also immensely bothered by how many conservatives use this language to demonize sex workers in general, as if they were some sort of supernaturally addictive succubi/incubi* instead of people just trying to make ends meet by providing a service. 

*Currently opening to submissions for the name of the nonbinary version of this mythical creature. 

Further compounding all of this is conservative Christianity’s definitions of sex and porn addiction. Many people in that world have the idea that if you watch porn at all, you have a porn addiction. If you have a healthy, consensual relationship with someone outside of marriage, you have a sex addiction. When the idea of ‘normal’ sexuality becomes so warped it effects people’s ability to see when their behavior is problematic and get help. 
 

1 hour ago, Dandruff said:

Josh is the one who requested the delay:

https://www.news10.com/news/crime/josh-duggar-sentencing-delayed-until-may/

I just wonder what he hopes to accomplish by it.

Finding one person in NWA who will speak favorably about him?

To be fair, it’s a tall order.

Edited April 7, 2022 by Father Son Holy Goat

[xenobia]

I don't mind. He's still in prison - no matter what prison he's in - and can't hurt anyone. That's the most important thing for me. 

Edited April 7, 2022 by xenobia

[SorenaJ]

2 hours ago, Dandruff said:

Josh is the one who requested the delay:

https://www.news10.com/news/crime/josh-duggar-sentencing-delayed-until-may/

I just wonder what he hopes to accomplish by it.

Maybe he is in denial about his guilt, and as long as he is not sentenced, it is not "real". Once he has been sentenced, it'll all probably be more real to him. 

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

10 hours ago, Dandruff said:

Josh is the one who requested the delay:

https://www.news10.com/news/crime/josh-duggar-sentencing-delayed-until-may/

I just wonder what he hopes to accomplish by it.

Josh's attorneys requested it.  Either because they had some scheduling issues or because they are trying to put even more distance between the trial and the sentencing in hopes that it provides a little bit of a buffer.  But for Josh, jail is probably much worse than prison is going to be for him. 

[patsymae]

4 hours ago, Anne Of Gray Gables said:

Josh's attorneys requested it.  Either because they had some scheduling issues or because they are trying to put even more distance between the trial and the sentencing in hopes that it provides a little bit of a buffer.  But for Josh, jail is probably much worse than prison is going to be for him. 

Isn't this the jail where they did the experimental Covid injections on prisoners that Kristin Nicole Whatever thought was such a great idea? I agree it's probably worse than prison is going to be for him. But I also agree that he probably doesn't expect he'll ever go to prison. There's no doubt in my mind he thinks JB and the lawyers are going to pull out a Hail Mary pass (apologies for the Catholic reference lol).

Reminds me of an old Woody Allen movie where an angel appears to the prisoner and tells him not to worry, he'll be saved. So he goes to the firing squad whistling. And comes back as a ghost-- "I got screwed."

[Dandruff]

12 hours ago, SorenaJ said:

Maybe he is in denial about his guilt, and as long as he is not sentenced, it is not "real". Once he has been sentenced, it'll all probably be more real to him. 

I wouldn't be surprised if he's in denial about it, but that shouldn't affect the legal billing.  Is JB (who I suspect isn't in denial) paying the bills or is it Anna?

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

9 minutes ago, Dandruff said:

I wouldn't be surprised if he's in denial about it, but that shouldn't affect the legal billing.  Is JB (who I suspect isn't in denial) paying the bills or is it Anna?

I don't think Anna is allowed to have a real penny in her own name.  I know they play endless shell games, but just like the Dillards and TLC, Jim Bob is the one actually in control of everything.  

But even without the show, I'm sure JB is still loaded and what you and I would balk at paying, is probably chump change to him. I agree, JB is not in denial one bit, but he probably thinks fighting for as long as they can may help raise some doubts about Josh's criminal behavior.  Not with the legal system maybe, but perhaps within their own fundie circles. 

[noseybutt]

6 hours ago, Anne Of Gray Gables said:

Josh's attorneys requested it.  Either because they had some scheduling issues or because they are trying to put even more distance between the trial and the sentencing in hopes that it provides a little bit of a buffer.  But for Josh, jail is probably much worse than prison is going to be for him. 

I can't speak for Arkansas but where I am, there is tremendous backlog in the legal system. It's a combination of the pandemic backlog plus lots of people sick and trials cancelled in Jan and Feb because of the omicron wave plus labor shortages. The turnover in our local District Attorney and Public Defender offices is mind boggling. There's a judge shortage too.  

Now is not a good time to be arrested. Speedy = Meh, we'll get to it when we get to it.

 

[EmCatlyn]

2 minutes ago, Anne Of Gray Gables said:

I don't think Anna is allowed to have a real penny in her own name.  I know they play endless shell games, but just like the Dillards and TLC, Jim Bob is the one actually in control of everything.  

But even without the show, I'm sure JB is still loaded and what you and I would balk at paying, is probably chump change to him. I agree, JB is not in denial one bit, but he probably thinks fighting for as long as they can may help raise some doubts about Josh's criminal behavior.  Not with the legal system maybe, but perhaps within their own fundie circles. 

There is property in Anna’s name.  She couldn’t be prevented from selling it and using the money any way she chose.  However she doesn’t choose to do so.  She apparently lets Jim Bob and/or Josh make all the decisions.

The question then is whether Anna — at the bidding of either Josh or JB— is using money from property that is in her name to pay Josh’s lawyers or  whether Jim Bob is providing the money.

My guess is that it’s Jim Bob doing everything and that Anna is told, “sign here” when needed.  But that’s just a guess.

[SPHASH]

17 hours ago, xenobia said:

I don't mind. He's still in prison - no matter what prison he's in - and can't hurt anyone. That's the most important thing for me. 

I do.  The sooner he gets to an out of state prison the better.  That way Anna can't visit him as much.

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

2 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

There is property in Anna’s name.  She couldn’t be prevented from selling it and using the money any way she chose.  However she doesn’t choose to do so.  

Unless she she and the pest owe him money and there is some other legal agreement in place.

Either way, I don't think she'd dare sell anything in her name without the express approval of whoever her headship is.

[arareyeah]

A former RNC aide just got sentenced for possessions of CSA images. Apparently there's a group chat where these sickos talk out it. Pre Ashley Madison, Smuggar worked for RNC, no? Could it be he got access to these images from the same group?

(The RNC aide pleads guilty and got 12 years. Let's hope Smuggar gets at least that much)

[marmalade]

No, he worked for the FRC, Family Research Council.

[zee_four]

7 hours ago, SPHASH said:

I do.  The sooner he gets to an out of state prison the better.  That way Anna can't visit him as much.

There's no in person visits. Its all on this for profit prison company version if Skype. Even if she goss to the jail which night not be allowed because of COVID, she is not seeing him face. Its that and calls just like DOC/BOP/prison. Federal prison is much nicer than the state system, both jail and DOC. Its still prison but everyone I know who has been incarcerated would rather take federal prison if given a choice,  except for the distance (back when there was face to face visits, and they don't do probation/parole.

[Dandruff]

54 minutes ago, marmalade said:

No, he worked for the FRC, Family Research Council.

Wonder what he was researching.

[SorenaJ]

3 hours ago, Dandruff said:

Wonder what he was researching.

New and innovative ways to oppress women! 

[arareyeah]

10 hours ago, marmalade said:

No, he worked for the FRC, Family Research Council.

Whoops. Wrong org. But still crossing my fingers for the at least 12 years thing.