One of the Duggars is charged for child molestation

43 posts / 0 new

Thu, 2015-05-21 21:55

takeitslowly

Josh Duggar is the oldest child in the family that stars in the popular show, “19 Kids and Counting.”he is also the executive director of Tony Perkins' Family Research Council Action – the man who runs policy and handles politics for the anti-gay hate group.

In the wake of a tabloid report alleging that he molested several underage girls while he was a teenager, reality-television star Josh Duggar said Thursday that he “acted inexcusably” and was “deeply sorry” for what he called “my wrongdoing.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/05/21/josh-duggar-apologizes-resigns-from-family-research-council-amid-molestation-allegations/

Issues Pages:

LGBTIQ

Fri, 2015-05-22 02:59

bagkitty

The WP article manages to miss a number of imporant points - something outlined in the snippets I am reproducing below couresty of the Joe.My.God blog/website:

varioussourcesquotedatJoe.My.God wrote:

Since the story emerged this week, even more shocking details about Josh’s alleged abuses have come out: Not only did Josh allegedly assault several young women, but his father also waited more than a year before contacting law enforcement. In Touch obtained a copy of the December 2006 Springdale, Ark., police report that showed Josh had been investigated for several offenses against five female minors, including “forcible fondling,” with some of the offenses investigated as felonies.

Jim Bob and his wife, Michelle, were interviewed for the report, which revealed Jim Bob first became aware of his son’s alleged abuses in March 2002, when he was told by a girl that Josh, then 14, had touched her breasts and genital areas on multiple occasion while she was asleep. In July 2002, Jim Bob said his son had confessed to fondling a girl while she was sleeping, which his parents responded to by disciplining him for the incident rather than reporting him to police.

The decision was made that Josh be sent to a “Christian program” (that) consisted of hard physical work and counseling,” which he was enrolled in from March 2003 to July 2003. Michelle later admitted Josh didn’t get counseling, but was sent to stay with a family friend for a period of time, who she said was “kind of” a mentor.

[...]

According to the police report, Josh fondled the genitals and breasts of the girls, some of whom were sleeping, but sometimes they were interacting with him ... in one case reading a book. There was another reported incident 9 months later. According to the police report, the police were not immediately contacted. Instead, Jim Bob, the dad, met with church elders and agreed Josh should be put in a treatment program. The police report says Josh's mom, Michelle, said it wasn't really a treatment center ... they simply sent Josh to a guy who was remodeling a building to do manual labor.

[...]

In 2006, the family was scheduled to appear on "Oprah," and before the show someone sent an email to Harpo warning that Josh had molested girls. Harpo forwarded the email to a hotline, which triggered a police investigation. Cops wanted to question Josh, but Jim Bob lawyered him up and Josh declined the invitation.

[...]

A bizarre turn of events prevented police and prosecutors from finishing their investigation and possibly prosecuting. The state trooper who originally took the report about Josh shortly before 2005 never followed up. That state trooper was later convicted on child pornography charges and is serving a 56-year prison sentence.

[...]

When the state trooper ran into trouble, someone from the Arkansas State Police alerted the Child Abuse Hotline about the Duggar situation that had been sitting inactive. That’s when the Crimes Against Children Division and Springdale Police Department got involved. By then the three-year statute of limitations had passed and it would not have been possible to pursue prosecution of Josh if the allegations warranted, so the investigation was discontinued. “A technicality prevented any further action,” a source familiar with the case told In Touch. “That’s been the biggest regret in all of this.” (The statute of limitations has since been lengthened.)

[all emphasis added by me - bk]

The WP article also neglects to mention that Jim Bob Duggar served in the Arkansas House of Representatives where he was vice chair of the House Corrections and Criminal Law Subcommittee - something that the local police would have been quite aware of and would have likely influenced their responses.

The timeline is also important... the police appear to have been contacted only AFTER the statute of limitations governing Josh's crimes made prosecution impossible... assuming, of course, these are the only incidents he was involved in.

The WP article also manages to gloss over:

sameasabove wrote:

[...]all those times that the Family Research Council declared that gay people are inherent pedophiles. Or those times that Josh Duggar declared that transwomen are going to molest defenseless little girls in public restrooms.

Perhaps it is time that Duggar take the advice of a Canadian right winger who, until recently, was a provincial premier... and, instead of attempting to portray the LGBT communities as dangerous villians and pedophiles, he should "look into a mirror".

Sat, 2015-05-23 10:38

abnormal

I made this comment on another thread before I found this one.

According to reports, four of the girls that Josh molested were his sisters. It's not difficult to check their birthdates and if you do you'll find that the youngest of the four couldn't have been more than six at the time (and that's assuming that the girls in question were the four oldest sisters - if not ...).

Sat, 2015-05-23 11:24

abnormal

Just correct my post immediately above - I missed one of the sisters when I was going thru the list. If he was molesting the four oldest sisters the youngest one of them would have been 12 at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19_Kids_and_Counting

Sat, 2015-05-23 11:52

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

I am really biting my tongue here.

Sat, 2015-05-23 15:55

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Mike Huckabee says 'no worries,move along' and that's good enough for me...said every right wing Evangelical.

Sat, 2015-05-23 17:01

abnormal

Linked with no comment beyond the observation that Josh may be "okay" under law but there are a number of people that were responsible for hiding things. Are they subject to prosecution? After all, the "Statute of Repose" says that the Statute of Limitations begins running when it's known that a crime has been committed. So when was it known that people were hiding abuse of sexual assault?

As for what Josh is guilty of ...

http://acasa.us/pdfs/Sexual-assault-laws.pdf

Sat, 2015-05-23 19:11

Mr. Magoo

Regarding the thread title: so he WAS charged then?

Because everything except the thread title seems to suggest that while he should have been, he wasn't.

Sun, 2015-05-24 07:37

abnormal

He wasn't charged. The father didn't report him until after the statute of limitations had run its course (though who ever thought of a three year statute of limitations for rape should be shot). Apparently the father did report it to his church's elders and they sent Josh off to some sort of "work camp" for lack of a better word but they didn't report it either.

The case was never investigated because when the father reported it to the police the cop in question was a family friend and no action was taken [as an aside, the officer in question is currently serving a 56 year sentence for child porn offenses].

Wed, 2015-05-27 21:06

#10

takeitslowly

"I don’t believe the citizens of Fayetteville would want males with past child predator convictions that claim they are female to have a legal right to enter private areas that are reserved for women and girls," Duggar warned in the automated call. "I doubt that Fayetteville parents would stand for a law that would endanger their daughters or allow them to be traumatized by a man joining them in their private space. We should never place the preference of an adult over the safety and innocence of a child. Parents, who do you want undressing next to your daughter at the public swimming pool’s private changing area?"

wow..she said this just a few months ago

http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2015/05/01/marriage-table-trans-community-new-target

Fri, 2015-05-29 08:25

#11

abnormal

takeitslowly wrote:
wow..she said this just a few months ago

Point of trivia - Michelle Duggar has an openly gay sister that has been living with her partner for some years.

The thing that floors me is the number of people that are actively trying to defend Josh. And their arguments go beyond "it was just youthful indiscretion".

http://www.westernjournalism.com/a-christian-defense-of-josh-duggar/

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/28/5_demented_evangelical_teachings_that_en...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/michael-seewald-defends-josh-duggar

But then there are some sensible articles on the topic.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/05/anna-duggar-and-the...

Quote:

Anna Duggar (Josh’s wife) is an example of what many women coming out of the Duggar’s fundamentalist Christian subculture go through. They get married young after a brief courtship. (Because of family pressure and perhaps a desperate need to get out of their parents’ home.) They don’t really know the person they are marrying, and they are too inexperienced (having no sex ed, previous boyfriends, or real-world experience) to recognize any red flags that might have risen by this point. They can’t use birth control (because sinful) so they start having children right away.

Anna now has three, with a fourth on the way. She is 26 years old. She was homeschooled her whole life and never went to college. She now claims that she knew when the courtship began that Josh was a child molester. But I very much doubt that Josh used those words — it is far more likely that he said he had “temptations” to which he “succumbed” but “God is good” and he has “asked for forgiveness.” And, in that culture, she would have had no choice but to accept that for face value, because to do otherwise would be to call Josh a liar and to doubt God’s ability to save. Now she’s found out the truth, she has a few more years of experience, and she’s more trapped than she’s ever been.

There are so many women who use marriage to escape in this subculture (because that’s the only socially accepted way out) only to find out (once they have the added responsibility of small children to care for) that they’ve jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire. I see, time and again, young women in their twenties with multiple small children, no job experience, and no marketable skills trying to navigate the world of divorce, custody and support, and protective orders, all while trying to live on their own for the first time in their life. They are some of the bravest and most extraordinary women I know.

When someone like Anna chooses to stay with someone like Josh, it’s not necessarily because they blindly believe that everything is fine. (Although she might well still be that naive.) It’s often because they feel walled in with no place else to go. She is a victim here too, as well as her children.

As an aside, at her wedding, Anna's father made a statement that until then he (the father) had been Anna's master and now that had been transfered to Josh.

Fri, 2015-05-29 08:29

#12

abnormal

BTW, as expected the Duggars homeshool their children. This is the program they use.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/26/duggars-homeschooling-sex-abuse...

Quote:
One document, “Counseling Sexual Abuse,” strongly suggests that victims are to blame for their own abuse. The guide instructs victims to ask themselves “Why did God let it happen?” and offers potential reasons like “immodest dress,” “indecent exposure” and “being with evil friends.”

In other words it was the girls' fault, not Josh's.

BTW, I double checked the ages of Josh's sisters and it seems that the oldest one wasn't among his victims. That means my original comment that the youngest sister he molested couldn't have been more than six at the time.

Fri, 2015-05-29 13:29

#13

abnormal

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/05/funny-or-die-mocks-duggars-hypocrisy

Mon, 2015-06-01 23:15

#14

Bacchus

A woman from exactly the same fundi group with her experiences and views on the situation

Thu, 2015-07-02 13:57

#15

bagkitty

It appears this may in fact end up in court, albeit civil rather than criminal: Josh Duggar faces sexual abuse lawsuit from molestion victim outside Duggar clan.

Towleroad wrote:

Josh Duggar may find himself in court soon as the unnamed, non-family member in the Duggar molestation scandal announced that they’re preparing to file a civil suit against him reports In Touch Weekly.

Although the statue of limitations on the case expired, legal experts say the victim maintains the right to sue under Arkansas Code Annotated Section 16-56-30 where a sexual abuse victim may pursue civil action if they start to experience effects of that abuse several years later.

Thu, 2015-07-02 17:09

#16

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

While I despise everything the Duggars stand for, I don't think Josh Duggar being sued is a good thing. His parents, though - that would be nice to see. Josh was a minor when he abused those girls, but his parents covered things up and allowed him to continue. Ultimately, they're responsible.

Thu, 2015-07-02 20:40

#17

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Josh was a minor when he abused those girls, but his parents covered things up and allowed him to continue. Ultimately, they're responsible.

Curiously, I think the law makes a special exception for even intelligent human children.

If my dog jumps the fence and destroys your rose garden, I'll be held responsible.

If my child sets fire to your garage, well, "that child is a minor, and kids will be kids".

Thu, 2015-07-02 23:12

#18

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

If the molestation had been handled through the justice system, he'd have been a young offender, and there are provisions for how the system deals with age, capacity, etc. The lawsuit is civil law, however - IMV, the greater harm was done by Jim Bob and Michelle, who prevented the justice system from dealing with the matter appropriately and allowed the boy to continue his criminal activity.

Thu, 2015-07-02 23:47

#19

6079_Smith_W

Not to mention that there are a lot of differences in a civil case than in a criminal one - most notably the threshold of proof. And an exponentially greater sideshow factor. Not so good.

I don't know a damned thing about these people, except I assume they are on TV., and they sure have been cluttering up my facebook feed.

Fri, 2015-07-03 11:00

#20

abnormal

One good thing about this is that, because the stature of limitations with respect to criminal charges has run its course, nobody will be able to invoke the Fifth or otherwise refuse to testify. And that not only applies to the Duggars but it applies to their church elders (who I believe that Jim Bob spoke to) as well as anyone else.

If you check the Arkansas criminal code and look up the definitions of the various degrees of sexual assault it appears that Josh was actually guilty of rape. And by not reporting it his parents and anyone else that knew about it was guilty of criminal endangerment of a child.

Wed, 2015-07-08 08:09

#21

abnormal

Interesting that Jill Dillard (nee Duggar) and her husband Derrick have headed off on a long term mission trip with their son. The timing is convenient since it means that she will not be available to testify about Josh's actions.

In fairness before they got married her husband had been on a mission trip to Nepal and Jill actually went to Nepal with her father to meet him when they started courting. And Jill also said that she wanted to do missionary work and deliver babies in these countries (she's trained as a midwife). So they were clearly going to do a mission trip at some point. It's only the timing that's questionable.

Wed, 2015-07-08 10:37

#22

6079_Smith_W

abnormal wrote:

One good thing about this is that, because the stature of limitations with respect to criminal charges has run its course, nobody will be able to invoke the Fifth or otherwise refuse to testify.

I know we all want to see guilty people punished, but that is actually not a good thing. Those limitations and safeguards are in place for a good reason, and exactly why resorting to civil court for criminal matters poses serious problems.

... not the least of which is a legal culture driven by lawyers who smell money, and no action at all in cases where there is no hope of a big payoff.

And no surprise Harper is pushing that same culture of doing an end run around the law with his "victims rights" agenda.

Thu, 2015-07-09 06:54

#23

abnormal

On this one we're going to have to disagree.

The fact that Josh's parents themselves engaged in criminal behaviour by not reporting his actions (but waited until the Statute of Limitations ran its course) says that they were using those safeguards to do an end run around the law.

Thu, 2015-07-09 12:12

#24

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

They are doing an end run around the law. That's an additional reason I support Jim Bob and Michelle being sued. They knowingly manipulated the law to prevent their kid from suffering consequences and themselves from suffering embarrassment.

Thu, 2015-07-09 17:34

#25

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Those limitations and safeguards are in place for a good reason, and exactly why resorting to civil court for criminal matters poses serious problems.

What's the "good reason" for a statute of limitations on sexual assault?

Thu, 2015-07-09 18:03

#26

6079_Smith_W

The important one I was thinking of was the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than the 50 percent in civil cases.

But although there is no statute of limitations on sexual assault in Canada, the general principle is a good one.

Or maybe we can turn this around. Is it okay to go to any legal lengths to get someone we are sure is guilty? Or are lawsuits when one doesn't have grounds for a criminal prosecution always justified?

(assuming one has deep enough pockets to launch such a civil case)

Thu, 2015-07-09 18:33

#27

Mr. Magoo

The burden of proof is higher because the penalty is also typically higher (i.e. loss of liberty vs. loss of some money).

That said, in some respects I do agree that a civil suit shouldn't be nothing more than "the court of appeals" if you lost out in a criminal trial.

But if a criminal trial is impossible -- let's say because the family of the potential defendant took great pains to aid and abet them until a statute of limitations has passed -- then I don't care so badly. If the Duggars had acted responsibly and in good faith and had their son been acquitted in a fair criminal trial then I'd see this differently.

And FWIW, I personally think that an acquittal in criminal court should be an estoppel to a later civil suit based on the same event(s). If someone wasn't guilty in criminal court then it's a bit bizarre that they could be guilty in civil court. I came to this opinion after the OJ Simpson trial (and I even personally think OJ did it!)

Thu, 2015-07-09 18:58

#28

6079_Smith_W

Yeah, I do sympathize in theory, as I said, I know we all want to see the bad guys get it. But I still think there should be alarm bells anytime we are willing to make an exception and look the other way just because we are sure someone is guilty. There are plenty of cases in which people have made that assumption and been wrong.

And while it might seem like a small penalty, it isn't such a small thing if one is ruined for life, or harrassed out of a job or to suicide, or badgered into silence. The problem with the wild west of civil suits is that it puts the power in the hands of those who have enough money (or a lawyer who smells money)to drag someone else into court.

Last time I was down in the states I couldn't believe the barrage of radio and billboard ads for civil lawyers. They almost made you wish you could get in a car accident so you could take someone to the cleaners and get rich.

Thu, 2015-07-09 19:27

#29

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
But I still think there should be alarm bells anytime we are willing to make an exception and look the other way just because we are sure someone is guilty.

To what is this an exception? Who's "looking the other way"?

Quote:
The problem with the wild west of civil suits is that it puts the power in the hands of those who have enough money (or a lawyer who smells money)to drag someone else into court.

The good news is that anyone can have a lawyer who smells money.

Quote:
And while it might seem like a small penalty, it isn't such a small thing if one is ruined for life, or harrassed out of a job or to suicide, or badgered into silence.

A plausible and believable accusation is all that takes. It's not as though if OJ Simpson had also been found not at fault in his civil trial we'd all have no choice but to genuinely agree that he was innocent.

The (plausible, believable) accusation is really what does it, not some tort suit. Look at Bill Cosby. He's fucked because we believe his accusers, not because someone did an end run and sued him.

Quote:
Last time I was down in the states I couldn't believe the barrage of radio and billboard ads for civil lawyers. They almost made you wish you could get in a car accident so you could take someone to the cleaners and get rich.

I think tort law in the US has gotten a bit wacky. But where it seems to me most wacky is in terms of multi-trillion dollar settlements for bruised egos and a small scratch, not in terms of people having a first resort -- not a "last resort", note -- in finding some kind of justice.

I don't disagree with you about most of what (I think) you're saying about tort law as a substitute for criminal law. But in this case it appears the Duggars did everything in their power to leave no other option for their son's victims. What should I be objecting to here? The poor Duggars' valiant attempts to protect their son turning out to be for nothing?

Thu, 2015-07-09 20:10

#30

6079_Smith_W

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
But I still think there should be alarm bells anytime we are willing to make an exception and look the other way just because we are sure someone is guilty.

To what is this an exception? Who's "looking the other way"?

I thought I explained what I was referring to in my first comment:: thinking it is a good thing that an accused person wouldn't have protections of refusal to testify or incriminate one's self, or a statute of limitations.

And I thougth I also made it clear I was speaking in general terms. I'm not sure if that wouldn't apply in this civil case, but I'd say those legal protections are even more important in cases where we think someone has committed the crime, or in fact where they have done so. They aren't just there to protect the innocent. I think it is dangerous to all of us to start thinking it is a good thing for them not to be there just so we can see someone punished.

Thu, 2015-07-09 20:30

#31

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
They aren't just there to protect the innocent.

I don't understand the importance of protecting the not-innocent.

Sun, 2015-07-12 14:26

#32

bagkitty

6079_Smith_W wrote:

[...]

And while it might seem like a small penalty, it isn't such a small thing if one is ruined for life, or harrassed out of a job or to suicide, or badgered into silence. The problem with the wild west of civil suits is that it puts the power in the hands of those who have enough money (or a lawyer who smells money)to drag someone else into court.

[...]

Well, considering that Josh Duggar was serving as executive director of the FRC (Family Research Council), a rabidly anti-gay astroturf group that was added to the SPLC's list of hate groups in 2010 - that he (Duggar) felt compelled to resign from his position when the story broke is fine with me. The FRC has almost patented the use of the "gay men as pedophile" lie in its campaigns, I, for one, was quite happy to see the lightning strike that close to home. Combine this with the participation of his [s]enablers[/s] parents to poison attempts to extend even basic rights to the "T" of the LGBT communities by peddling the lie that MTF adults are seeking public accomodation access to washrooms that conform to their gender identity in order to "molest little girls" you might see why I am quite willing to accept this necessary circumvention of criminal law into the civil arena is just a little thing.

Sun, 2015-07-12 17:57

#33

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
or badgered into silence.

How about "shamed into silence"?

Y'know. Shamed by your own actions. I'd be OK with it if the entire Duggar horde were to shut their Jesusholes.

They rant and rave about homos molesting children and then one of them molests children. Time to go away and be quiet now, forever.

Mon, 2015-07-13 11:30

#34

6079_Smith_W

Look, I haven't actually been following that damned story, and I don't really care about it, since there are hundreds of them and all that sets this one apart is that it involves (I guess) TV people of some sort. They are all grim; this one no moreso because it is in People Magazine.

I said SEVERAL times I was talking about general concerns about the bad trend of turning to civil law when one doesn't have a strong enough case, or fails on a technicality to get a criminal charge or conviction, or when one thinks the criminal courts haven't done their job to one's satisfaction and punished someone enough.

I'm also concerned that the only people who always have this recourse are those with money and connections.

Mainly, I was concerned about being pleased that certain protections and standards don't apply in civil court - those same standards we hope are there to protect us when we are on the receiving end.

I'm only being half facetious when I say I am sure these are really really bad people and you larding on more isn't really relevant to my point. On the other hand, the assumption that somone being a right-wing Republican Christian gay hater has any bearing at all on this alleged crime and means that they deserve to be convicted any more kind of adds to my case.

I know you don't mean to say that the law shouldn't apply to people some consider "good" (Julian Assange, for example), so how does the reverse have any bearing? We aren't talking about karmic law or god's judgment, but rather, but the real thing.

However bad these baddies might be, I am sure in People Magazine land they are nowhere near as bad as people we know who are guilty (without trial) and haven't been punished properly who are gang members, Native, Muslim, or Black, transient, schizophrenic, Anarchist or Communist, or have other qualities that ensure an automatic conviction and maximum penalty in the legal and public court.

Hopefully this makes the distinction clear, and I don't have to start quoting Robert Bolt at you - the part in the play where he asks how far would you be willing to break the law in order to catch the devil.

I know we are talking about devils here; doesn't matter. My point is about our way of thinking about the law, not how much they deserve punishment.

Thu, 2015-07-16 12:27

#35

abnormal

It's official, the Duggar's show is cancelled. Seems that we're not clear of them yet - there is supposed to be a special on child molestation and two of the Duggar daughters are supposed to appear. We'll have to wait and see if they manage to whitewash this one.

Thu, 2015-07-16 14:14

#36

Mr. Magoo

Well, if any network should take some action against child molestation it's TLC; they've now shitcanned two of their flagship shows over it.

Thu, 2015-07-16 14:17

#37

josh

One less reality freak show. But I'm sure they'll have no problem coming up with another. It's all part of the learning process.

Thu, 2015-07-16 17:09

#38

Mr. Magoo

Remember how some of the "new" cable channels seemed like they had so much fascinating potential when they were new? TLC, The Discovery Channel, A&E, Animal Planet... It was like if Bill Nye, Neil DeGrasse-Tyson and Penn and Teller got together to make TV.

Now they're all just "the Sex Lives of Nazi Sharks" or "The Likeable Hillbillies of Backward Mountain" or "When Hoarders Attack!".

Fri, 2015-07-17 09:20

#39

abnormal

josh wrote:

One less reality freak show. But I'm sure they'll have no problem coming up with another. It's all part of the learning process.

I wouldn't call this young lady a freak.

http://www.people.com/article/transgender-teen-jazz-jennings-i-am-jazz

Fri, 2015-07-17 19:40

#40

Mr. Magoo

I'm not asserting that she's a freak.

But being a freak is less about who you really are, and more about why people want to look at you.

Fri, 2015-07-17 21:09

#41

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Remember how some of the "new" cable channels seemed like they had so much fascinating potential when they were new? TLC, The Discovery Channel, A&E, Animal Planet... It was like if Bill Nye, Neil DeGrasse-Tyson and Penn and Teller got together to make TV.

Now they're all just "the Sex Lives of Nazi Sharks" or "The Likeable Hillbillies of Backward Mountain" or "When Hoarders Attack!".

Don't get me started. I have sat in on a producer info session for a network where we were literally told that if you could put "drunk" in front of the title of a project you were pitching them and it made sense, it was probably something they'd go for.

Wed, 2015-08-26 15:46

#42

josh

Josh Duggar enters rehab for porn addiction.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/josh-duggar-rehab-pornography-addictio...

Fri, 2015-08-28 13:04

#43

abnormal

It just keeps getting better. In addition to the two Ashley Madison accounts and the OK Cupid account it seems there was a Twitter account (more than slightly pornographic) but now we see this

http://www.unilad.co.uk/articles/this-porn-star-had-terrifying-sex-with-...