Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

maraleia

By maraleia
in Counting On

Recommended Posts

LilyoftheValley

LilyoftheValley

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Just sayin.

 

Well, not entirely. It's also about putting a whopping proportion of humanity -- all women and all of your offspring -- under the complete power of a bunch of insecure but nevertheless arrogant, power-mad men, for both sexual and other purposes.

 

Truly. That's all it's about.

Yup.  At least when it come to Josh, Jim Bob, and Gil Bates, I see this movement as a way for men who would otherwise be working class men with just a high school diploma having a way to feel empowerment and like they are in charge.  Notice how no educated white collar types with good salaries and relatively high-powered jobs are attracted to this lifestyle?  No, it is the men who are about one step above white trash who go for it.  It makes them feel smart and in control when in reality they are of only average intelligence and are only qualified to do work that pays less than 50k a year.  

  • Love 6
  • Replies 39.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • GeeGolly

    1526

  • Churchhoney

    1075

  • JoanArc

    1061

  • Sew Sumi

    1049

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

hoosier80
hoosier80

New show title: 10 to 20 Years and Counting 

MargeGunderson
MargeGunderson

Someone on Reddit just described Josh’s face as a glistening glazed ham. I am considering divorcing my husband and marrying that poster. 

doodlebug
doodlebug

Well, for many of us, it's the difference between 'imperfect' and 'non-PC' and being a criminal.  Josh is a child molester and his parents actively intervened in his situation to avoid him being punis

Posted Images

JoanArc

JoanArc

Yup.  At least when it come to Josh, Jim Bob, and Gil Bates, I see this movement as a way for men who would otherwise be working class men with just a high school diploma having a way to feel empowerment and like they are in charge.  Notice how no educated white collar types with good salaries and relatively high-powered jobs are attracted to this lifestyle?  No, it is the men who are about one step above white trash who go for it.  It makes them feel smart and in control when in reality they are of only average intelligence and are only qualified to do work that pays less than 50k a year.  

Gil Bates had a well paying job, and there are a few in the movement who are doctors, etc. Anyone can feel insecure and power mad.

  • Love 7
Aja

Aja

Woah, woah, woah, woooooaaaaah.  Hold on a minute here.  Am I getting this right?  Is this entire "religious movement" really just all about access to women's vaginas?  

 

Well, not entirely. It's also about putting a whopping proportion of humanity -- all women and all of your offspring -- under the complete power of a bunch of insecure but nevertheless arrogant, power-mad men, for both sexual and other purposes.

 

Truly. That's all it's about.

How typical that a couple of liberal heathens would COMPLETELY overlook and ignore the most sacred tenet of religious fundamentalism--to make money.

  • Love 6
Tunia

Tunia

Are Ma and Pa Duggar keeping track of Anna's cycles? It does look like they had JD fly her to Josh the second she was thought fertile.

 

Fortunately for Anna, this seems to be a situation where Reformers Unanimous, rather than Jim Boob and Mechelle, is in charge of the visitation dates, and they seem to be pretty firm in their restrictions.  I think the schedule is first visit at 45 days and then subsequent visits in 45 day intervals, but only if the client/patient/inmate is in good standing and playing by the rules.  Now if her cycles coincide...oh well.

  • Love 1
Defrauder

Defrauder

Anna just deal with it and move on, you didn't lose anything but an illusion. The illusion isn't going to change.  It will remain an illusion today, tomorrow, next month and next year.  You deal with losing it now or you deal with losing it later, either way Josh never was the person you thought he was and never will be. You'll have to deal with that fact someday if not today.  

  • Love 15
Churchhoney

Churchhoney

Danica Dillon has an interview in Hustler magazine about sex with Josh:     

http://hustlermagazine.com/april-2016#!april-2016-features-danica-dillon/hu01091 

 

Well, she's certainly got herself quite the little career builder here. Can't say I begrudge her that at all, but at the same time it increases my skepticism about her full credibility.

  • Love 6
kokapetl

kokapetl

Danica Dillon has an interview in Hustler magazine about sex with Josh:

http://hustlermagazine.com/april-2016#!april-2016-features-danica-dillon/hu01091

Has she given up the lawsuit? That interview was probably not a good idea, Ms Dillon saying she knew she was traumatized by Josh because she felt the same way all the other times she was traumatized doesn't help her pin her injuries on Josh.
  • Love 8
kokapetl

kokapetl

(edited)

Interesting, but I doubt she twitter stalked him, or knew his location.

He used to Instagram his FRC Action business travel to some extent. FRC Action promoted his appearances, it may not have been hard to figure out if Josh was out of town on rabble rousing business, and where he was. Edited by Kokapetl
  • Love 2
Churchhoney

Churchhoney

I think the lawsuit will be dismissed if Dillion keeps on talking. Her sister's comments aren't helping her cause either. Leave it to Josh to find a hooker that is a hungry famewhoerewannabe. Better to shut up and let the lawyers do all the talking if she is looking for a payday.

 

It always seemed to me that she was a lot less likely to be looking for a payday than to be looking for increased fame in her niche -- which in turn would lead to a much longer-running series of paychecks.

 

From the very beginning, she's readily supplied media outlets with sexy pics of herself -- and the photos are marketing... the Josh story is just the hook that opened the media door so they would publish those marketing pictures of her. I thought it was remarkable immediately how many erotic-entertainer-portfolio pics she was handing over to numerous outlets and seeing run. And now she's gone straight to Hustler with the tale -- and, again, Hustler is a perfect marketing vehicle for somebody in erotic entertainment.

 

I don't know whether her sister's onto something about DD actually targeting Josh for all this enterprise, but I'm sure that, once it began, she had her eyes fixed on its potential for advertising her services. Wouldn't surprise me at all if she brought the lawsuit mainly as a way to prolong public interest so that she could get more of her photos out there in the right media. She'll get jobs from this. I think that's what she wants, especially since she's getting a bit long in the tooth for her career. This exposure plus the interest generated by her controversy will definitely get her some gigs that she might otherwise have lost to somebody newer and fresher, I expect.

  • Love 6
kokapetl

kokapetl

Ms Dillon travelled to South Africa in September 2015 to promote porn at Sexpo.

I feel sorry for Ms Dillon, her interview with Hustler made it clear she's had a hard life. I hope the Duggars leave her alone if her lawsuit fails, she's a rode hard 28 year old anal porn veteran, she's got nothing, but she couldn't damage Josh's reputation, that was also worth nothing.

  • Love 3
JoanArc

JoanArc

 

He used to Instagram his FRC Action business travel to some extent. FRC Action promoted his appearances, it may not have been hard to figure out if Josh was out of town on rabble rousing business, and where he was.

I think you're still reaching. She twitter stalked him to The Gold Club, and worked a shift there so they'd meet?

 

This part of her interview struck me as real:

 

mq23LgV.png

 

I have no problem with Josh being exploited by a gold digging whore. It's so symmetrical.

  • Love 10
Lemur

Lemur

I think you're still reaching. She twitter stalked him to The Gold Club, and worked a shift there so they'd meet?

Exactly.

 

Granted, my personal knowledge of Philadelphia's finer gentleman's clubs is a bit on the second-hand side (and I always preferred Delilah's anyway), but you can't just show up at a strip club and say "Hey, I wanna work the pole."  Nope, doesn't happen that way.  I mean, maybe if they're having Open Mic night (yes, a club by me has Open Mic night ... it's locally referred to as Scratch-n-Dent night), but you generally don't see that at the higher end clubs.  

  • Love 7
MargeGunderson

MargeGunderson

It doesn't matter if she wanted to meet/have sex with him. It still doesn't give him the right to do things to her that she didn't like or want in the course of having sex. Sex workers still have that choice over what happens to their own bodies.

 

Having said that, I do think she has mixed motives for the lawsuit but frankly, no one has pure motives.

  • Love 12
kokapetl

kokapetl

(edited)

I think you're still reaching. She twitter stalked him to The Gold Club, and worked a shift there so they'd meet?

This part of her interview struck me as real:

mq23LgV.png

I have no problem with Josh being exploited by a gold digging whore. It's so symmetrical.

She didn't need to travel to where he worked, his work had him traveling for PR purposes, his whereabouts were publicized.

Keep in mind Josh's money is Anna's money. Fucking Josh over is fucking Anna over. Does Anna deserve to suffer from extortion by an obvious gold digger? Is that symmetrical?

I went onto the district court of Philadelphia web site and Smuggar is requesting a jury trial. What a fucking asshole.

Isn't this a constitutional right? Why shouldn't a jury trial happen? Edited by Kokapetl
  • Love 1
JoanArc

JoanArc

 

She didn't need to travel to where he worked, his work had him traveling for PR purposes, his whereabouts were publicized.

This doesn't make any sense. She was a porn star. She stripped at club in Philly too. Josh went there because he was in town and wanted some pussy and she was on stage - the logistics of her twitter staking him and setting up some kind of 'random' meeting just don't wash. I'm she she banged him, and realized after Joshgate I broke that she could get a payday. Did they have rough sex? Maybe. I'll need to see the evidence.

 

 

Keep in mind Josh's money is Anna's money. Fucking Josh over is fucking Anna over. Does Anna deserve to suffer from extortion by an obvious gold digger? Is that symmetrical?

Anna was 100% on the famewhore money train too, for years, and hasn't done anything to distance herself from Josh, so yeah, I have no problem with that, either. She made her bed when she married. I have sympathy for her situation, but she's also brought a lot of it on herself. Josh will never change. Every.Single.Adult.Duggar (except maybe, maybe Jana) is a huge user of people. It's their turn to get used.

  • Love 17
kokapetl

kokapetl

Josh's job had him very publicly traveling all around and through adjacent states.

As for "Josh will never change", we aren't psychiatrists. Expert witnesses at a potential trial could include psychiatrists. I'm fairly certain Ms Dillon is going to need one to establish her injury.

Josh seems he'd rather this whole thing go to trial, rather than pay to have it go away.

JoanArc

JoanArc

 

Josh's job had him very publicly traveling all around and through adjacent states.

Occam's razor your theory, it just doesn't hold up to reality.

 

 

As for "Josh will never change", we aren't psychiatrists.

Josh hasn't changed in in years. But yeah, after receiving no meaningful help this time I'm sure he'll shape right up. I would love to hear a psychiatrist try to defend Josh, btw.

 

 

Josh seems he'd rather this whole thing go to trial, rather than pay to have it go away.

It's a civil trial, so the jury has to be 51% certain instead of 100% certain. We'll see who's best on the stand.

  • Love 1
Fuzzysox

Fuzzysox

Josh's job had him very publicly traveling all around and through adjacent states.

As for "Josh will never change", we aren't psychiatrists. Expert witnesses at a potential trial could include psychiatrists. I'm fairly certain Ms Dillon is going to need one to establish her injury.

Josh seems he'd rather this whole thing go to trial, rather than pay to have it go away.

Why, so he can have a bunch of leghumpers with signs screaming "Christian Persecution?"

  • Love 2
Churchhoney

Churchhoney

(edited)

I went onto the district court of Philadelphia web site and Smuggar is requesting a jury trial. What a fucking asshole.

 

I don't know. To me, this seems idiotic on his part. (or the part of his handlers or Jim Bob or whichever strategic genius made this decision)

 

If it actually goes to trial it's going to get even more media attention, because jury trials, even in civil cases, just naturally attract that.

 

And how can press about sex really hurt a person in the sex business, especially somebody who -- in my opinion, anyway -- has been pretty masterfully playing this whole thing for media attention for marketing purposes all along?

 

On the other hand, seems to me increased media attention to Josh Duggar's sex-cum-violence trial can only hurt him and the "Duggar brand." (Is this just wishful thinking on my part? Am I missing something?) I can't see how even a bunch of fundienutters outside the courthouse waving signs about Christian Persecution can save Joshie from being pretty much mashed into the muck by the media and the public commentary on media sites, for the most part.

 

Given the way this went down and the things he did and said back in the beginning, I don't see how Josh's lawyer can credibly make the case that this event actually never happened at all -- which it seems to me is the case he'll have to make to keep Mr. Super-Jesus-y Hypocrite from falling even further in the public's estimation. No matter what anybody thinks of sex workers or of how Danica's handled all this, it's Josh who was repeatedly on teevee and twitter judging the rest of the country for having sex in any other situation than married-hoping-to-produce-a-conservative-Christian-infant.

 

I would think that most people would either judge Danica harshly just because of the work she does and has done or feel that, no matter what work you do, nobody should knock you around in a nonconsensual way. And in the case of those who judge either way, I don't see that she has any further to fall in anyone's estimation.

 

For Josh, on the other hand, no matter what happens in this trial -- unless he has ironclad proof that he's never seen her before and was nowhere near Philadelphia -- it's just going to provide further proof of what an offensive hypocrite he is. And I don't see how that can be good for him (or for the Duggars, really), whether he prevails in the trial or doesn't prevail.

 

Sometimes the quality of your outcome in a crisis depends on the expectations you've asked people to have of you. Simply by virtue of being in the sex industry, Danica's basically given the world no expectations. So she can't fall. But Josh deliberately, vociferously and over and over (along with his whole family) has done nothing all his life but insist that we should have the very highest expectations of his behavior. So he's got miles to fall off that self-constructed pedestal even now, it seems to me.

Edited by Churchhoney
  • Love 12
leighdear

leighdear

(edited)

Hopefully it's the collective Duggar ego once again exerting itself and overestimating the support they will get from the fundie community, and society at large.  Every piece of dirty laundry the lawyers can air will be added to the knowledge base.  If it keeps one leg-humper from donating to their "causes" or gives a single person pause about supporting their agendas, it will be worth it in my opinion.  

 

Creating doubt about the family's piety can be as powerful as proving Josh innocent of the charges.  

Edited by leighdear
  • Love 9
Aja

Aja

(edited)

A jury makes sense if you look at it from a Duggar/LAWYR perspective:

1) God is on Josh's side. It's the heathens and librul media that are crucifying him. Therefore, what better way to get back at them then to shame the whore as publicly as possible, which I'm sure they feel will be a piece of piss. I mean, hard is it to discredit the whoriest whore who ever whored? There is no way a jury wouldn't rule in Josh's favor, because Christian!

2) God only knows (ha!) how many other pooches Joshie has screwed. I'm guessing there's probably at least a few. Paying Ms. Dillon off to make her quietly go away would set an extremely tempting precedent. However, if they know they are going to get SHAMED like that FIRST WHORE who tried to litigate, it will discourage similar suits.

3) This is more of a guess, but won't LAWYR'S payday, both in money and publicity, be way bigger with a jury trial? If that's the case, I could see it being pretty easy for LAWYR to talk a simpleton like Josh into one.

Edited by Aja
  • Love 17
Churchhoney

Churchhoney

Churchie, as always, you make excellent points. However, let's not underestimate the power of self righteousness, victim, and, above all, DENIAL in the Duggarlike Christian mindset. To that one segment of the population, a sex worker will almost surely be the evil temptress, while Joshley will represent a good Christian who temporarily fell to the machinations of a (gasp!) sex worker, but now he has made himself humble with sincere remorse, and has rededicated his life and marriage to Jesus. To the Duggarlike Christians, Joshley will always be the victim, while Ms. Dillon will never be seen as anything but a harlot who will surely burn in hell for tempting the poor little now-repentant sinner, Joshley.

 

Yeah, I suppose a lot of fundienutters won't like him any less. I still have a hard time seeing many of them liking him more after a trial goes forward, so long as the trial doesn't present really pretty strong evidence that he didn't do anything. After all, he was only repentant after the fact, and since he participated in the first place, there's a lot less room to see it as Christian persecution from the outset. I'm sure some will yell, Christian persecution! but I don't see how anything's going to come out that could make many be very enthusiastic when they yell it. And, honestly, that's what I think he would need to get any actual concrete redemption out of this.

 

Because most of us non-fundienutters (and we're the largest group, and some of us are even fundies, I'm pretty sure) certainly will like him less after a jury  trial and the accompanying media. And, to me, that just amounts to a bunch of people liking him just as much as they did before and a whole bunch more liking him even less. So -- still a net loss on my calculation.

  • Love 3
Churchhoney

Churchhoney

I hope you are right. But think you may be giving undue credit to that faction of fundies, whose whole narrative is about temptation, sin, repentance, and salvation due to Jesus, which will be basically the way the whole Joshley thing will be spun as his defense.

 

Well, you're certainly right about that being their schtick!

 

I'm still thinking that "once bitten, twice shy" will also be a lurking influence that may make at least some of them less enthusiastic in embracing old Joshley again, despite their schtick.

 

And, you know, they can't tell that sin and redemption narrative in court. That can only be put out there through the Duggars' own communications channels and to whatever degree they can convince the media to parrot it -- and I think their chances of getting the media to parrot it much, if at all, are slim. So only the leghumpers who really closely follow the Duggars' own utterances, expressed through their own web presence and those of their close friends and most trusted fans, are likely to get a good dose of that narrative. I'd lay money on its not getting expressed very much from pulpits, for example.

 

After all, while some still stand by Gothard, for example, he's lost a lot of influence and followers over the years. Not everyone who has that schtick follows it to its ultimate conclusions, clearly.

 

I'm not saying that Josh will lose all the leghumpers. But even losing a mere handful -- while failing to produce a strong wave of increased support from the others (which you expect and I, being an optimist?!, don't!) -- would produce a net loss for him in reputation and viability. Since the jury-trial spectacle will certainly sink him further with everybody else.

  • Love 2
duggarshow

duggarshow

It doesn't matter if she wanted to meet/have sex with him. It still doesn't give him the right to do things to her that she didn't like or want in the course of having sex. Sex workers still have that choice over what happens to their own bodies.

 

Having said that, I do think she has mixed motives for the lawsuit but frankly, no one has pure motives.

 

I agree with this statement in theory. She did have a choice about what happened to her body, as do we all. She exercised her choice, however, when she went back the second time and accepted more cash. If the first time was as unpleasant as she claimed it was, why would she return? Said cash, maybe?

  • Love 5
farmgal4

farmgal4

It doesn't matter if she wanted to meet/have sex with him. It still doesn't give him the right to do things to her that she didn't like or want in the course of having sex. Sex workers still have that choice over what happens to their own bodies.

 

Having said that, I do think she has mixed motives for the lawsuit but frankly, no one has pure motives.

I just watched a 1-minute clip of a "gangbang take-down challenge" starring Danica Dillon. If that clip is used by the defense during the trial, she doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of receiving one dime IMO. It's more than obvious that this woman doesn't mind being treated like dirt as long as she's getting paid for it.
  • Love 2
kalamac

kalamac

I just watched a 1-minute clip of a "gangbang take-down challenge" starring Danica Dillon. If that clip is used by the defense during the trial, she doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of receiving one dime IMO. It's more than obvious that this woman doesn't mind being treated like dirt as long as she's getting paid for it.

On camera work is very different from real life. Using a video she made while surrounded by camera people and directors probably wouldn't be allowed as evidence, when the trial is about something that happened in private without a support system to provide during and aftercare (which does happen on porn shoots - reputable ones at least - because they want their stars to be fit to continue working).

  • Love 11
MargeGunderson

MargeGunderson

I agree with this statement in theory. She did have a choice about what happened to her body, as do we all. She exercised her choice, however, when she went back the second time and accepted more cash. If the first time was as unpleasant as she claimed it was, why would she return? Said cash, maybe?

We're in agreement. Her story has some issues, and the second visit in particular suggest that there's more to it. I was reacting specifically to a few previous posts that seemed to suggest that since she was paid to have sex she didn't have any room to complain.

  • Love 2
MichaelaRae

MichaelaRae

(edited)

But it doesn't - or shouldn't - matter why/if Danica "went back" a second time. For money. For the delusion that it would be different. For fear of retribution. For shits and giggles. Regardless of her reasons for meeting with Josh again, she retains autonomy over her body and how she chooses to use it. Period. Full stop. It's like, if I walk through a bad neighborhood and get mugged, that crime against me is wrong and punishable. If I walk through that same neighborhood a week later and I'm mugged again, it's still a crime, it's still wrong and it's still punishable. Because my right to NOT be mugged remains in force. I didn't ask for it or negate my rights by going back into the neighborhood. Whether I chose to walk through that neighborhood because it's the only way to get to my job, or because I'm a lazy bitch taking a shortcut - my reasons don't MATTER. What I do for a living (let's say I let people beat up on me for a living) doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that something I did not want to happen, something that is criminal, was done to me.

 

I have absolutely no idea whether Danica is full of shit, lying about the whole thing or not. I suppose that's what courts of law ultimately are for. But I do have an issue with the idea that because of choices she made or what she does for a living, it negates even the idea that she could be telling the truth or that something wrong happened to her.

Edited by MichaelaRae
  • Love 22
Fuzzysox

Fuzzysox

Exactly. Ms. Dillon's exploitation of the situation for publicity will largely serve to erode the public perception of her credibility, which the Duggars will, as always, exploit to claim anti-Christian conspiracy and persecution, and ultimately Joshley's innocence being wantonly led astray by a defrauding nonbeliever. After all, 'he was just a good Christian man who was a little too interested in girls.' That played well in Peoria once, so we can expect to see The Sequel. The Duggarlike Christians LOVE to play the victim/martyr card.

It's ALL disgusting.

I'm shocked that they didn't give a call to good ole Doug Phillips (he's a lawyer)  he knows all the ins and outs of being a good ole boy being "tainted" by an evil whoreish woman who tempted him into cheating on his wife. *I'm sickened by typing that*

  • Love 1
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...