DisRuptive1

A whole lotta work for a little tiny shrimp. I'd rather just go to Bubba/Gump Shrimp Co.

The story was inappropriately done. If you're going to write a story about prayer, make it someone devotional and show God in a good light rather than saying that praying will get God to cause some other girl to get raped. The story would have been a bit more inspiriation if the rape happened all together, rather than get transfered to the other girl. What if the other girl prayed to God to watch over her too? She got raped. Does that mean she didn't pray hard enough? What about all the people that have been sexually abused? This story tells them they didn't pray hard enough or God turned his back on them.

I had a childhood dream in preschool of being Michael Jackson (when he was black ). Then in high school I took a mechanical drawing class and wanted to be an architect. Sometime during my Junior year of high school I realized I was pretty fricken' good at math. Not actually at getting good grades or whatever, or showing my work, but I was good with numbers, good at understanding them, and running them quickly through my head. I proved this time and again for 2 and a half years after high school working for Toys "R" Us as, for some reason, I always ran the numbers in my head when doing change and such. I can subtract any number from 100 quickly in my head. (100 pennies in a dollar you know). So at that time I thought about being an Actuary, since I'd end up taking a ton of math classes in college which wouldn't be too bad. I joined the church near the end of my freshman year of high school in April. My mom and my brother were getting baptized (stupid SOB husband of my mom's got them hooked) so I figured I might as well too, just to not black sheep myself signifigantly from the family. I woke up at 5am every morning I had seminary and to help wake myself up, I'd turn on TV, which was always set to Fox, and COPS! would be on. So for about 3 and a half years I watched COPS! episodes and started to like that and I got interested in law. I thought about being a lawyer but I wanted a more active job (I was fat at the time). So I chose law enforcement. I took some classes in college but they sucked. The law ones didn't but I had to take stupid crap like interpersonal writing and ethics (all ethics teachers should be shot, don't freakin' spend 30 minutes telling me about the word "ought"). The school I was going to offered a police academy class to get my P.O.S.T certificate (Police Office Standards and Training). But the school's sucked, so I bailed on that. When I turned 21 I tried to go to various police stations and get enrolled in their police academies. The difference between this one and the one at the college was I didn't have to pay for it. In fact, they paid me! And after that I'd be guaranteed a job, assuming I passed the academy. But there were a few tests that had to be taken. And at like every written test I went to there were 70 other candidates trying out. There was also a backround investigator there who would advise us if we should continue or not, based on past behavior, since they were going to find out about it anyways (we would be forced to take a polygraph test if we wanted in). Before the written test I talked to the backround investigator and he told me I should wait until the Statute of Limitations had expired on a felony I had committed when I was younger (the Statute of Limitations is 3 years in California, the felony was harmless, by the way). So I figured even if I could apply I'd have to go up against a lot of competition (my dream at this point was to get onto a S.W.A.T. team). I did some research and found out a lot of police officers are former Marines, and I mean a lot! So I looked into the Marines and found that they had S.W.A.T. teams also, although they were called S.R.T. So I applied for the Marines, had some physical problems but eventually worked them out and got sent to bootcamp. It didn't work out there (too little sleep, sickness, insanity), so they let me go. Before I left for the Marines, I had gotten a job at an insurance company that my mom also worked at and spent 2 months there (I left Toys "R" Us for sexual harassment reasons). When I came back from the Marines, I was able to get my job back at the insurance company and I've been there ever since. Bit of a long tale, but I've had many dreams, mostly broken now I bet he's heard better.

13. You or your parents had to sign an electronic contract that said they would be responsible for the actions of people under the age of 13 or something like that. ISPs aren't allowed to contract to those under 13.

Hahahaha. Isn't that strange? That pornography is just prostitution with a camera? Yet it will never be made illegal. But maybe something else will...

Sure I can. Franken: I don't see why you're reading this though. From your other posts you seem like a virgin who's never lusted after a girl. But help me out and tell me what you don't agree with in my post and WHY. Cal, let's argue symantics. I didn't write the study, I just read it. I gave a conclusion about the article only talking about the sex crimes part, not rape. You're confusing my conclusion with the name of the study which contains rape and talks about it. It doesn't conclude what you said though. I believe I also said before that rape in most cases is not a sex crime but a crime in which sex is committed. I said it was rooted in hate, anger and power. What I didn't describe are the victims of most rape. Date rape aside, victims are usually older elderly women (I know, eww) or women walking out alone at night, both being people that might have difficulty defending themselves. The rapist uses sex as a way to humiliate the victim and show power over them by showing them that he can have what they value most. And as he sees it, it also helps his self esteem.

I don't get what you're saying. Did he cheat on you with his testimony?

Of course it is. But who was responsible for taking down the first one I wrote?

It would help if you quoted specific tidbits from those articles. I think I went over most of the reasons why pornography ISN'T harmful, so it would be beneficial to the thread to present original ideas that I haven't covered.

Porn, and the people who make it, are far from perfect, but there’s a lot of mud thrown about by people who spend their time trying to re-run Roe vs. Wade, The Scopes Trial and other fights lost years ago. Thanks to Fox News, The Washington Post and talk radio, being involved in pornography means having to defend yourself against the rabid accusations of self-righteous blowhards. Here are nine answers to nine common accusations it's not worth losing one of your nine lives over. 1. Porn harms children This argument takes two forms. Firstly, that children exposed to sexual material are harmed by it. This is doubtful. Are children harmed by seeing images that distress them? Of course. Are images of sexual pleasure distressing? No. Should any child be seeing images they can’t comprehend and might upset them? Probably not. When I was six I thought women got pregnant when men hugged their wife in a special way (it made sense at the time). If I’d have seen an image of what really happened, I might have asked questions, but the image wouldn’t have distressed me. Why should it? A kid sees stuff like that when he goes to the bathroom, it's not much different. Of course there’s porn that contains images of degredation and torture that are entirely unsuitable for young kids, but that’s got nothing to do with the sex in the images. Nudity in a picture of torture and/or degredation are probably the least harmful things in the photo. The other argument is that child pornography is connected to pornography and therefore all pornography somehow promotes the abuse of children. This is fatuous. Child pornography is a record of child abuse. That most children who suffer abuse aren’t photographed doesn’t make their abuse any more acceptable. Child abuse satisfies the urges of pedophiles, and a pedophile with a camera is no more a pornographer, than a murderer with a camera is a film director. The idea that pornographers don’t mind seeing children being abused is a myth. The idea that people who film child abuse are the same people who make and sell mainstream porn is a lie. 2. Porn breaks up families This argument is always supported with anecdotal evidence and anecdotes aren’t worth the paper their written on. They usually concern some ‘good’ father who someone ‘gets sucked in’ to watching porn and then is ‘lost’ until (and here’s the predictable kicker) he finds the ‘strength’ to resist through God. People who tell stories that end with God saving the day are recruiting. Pastors, do-gooders and nuts make these stories up and put them on the internet. Twenty embellished re-tellings later and they’re fact. They have them for drugs, homosexuality, porn and anything else they’ve decided is ‘evil’. Most ‘anti’ websites are long collections of partisan ‘research’ and anecdotal ‘evidence’. The idea they being spread is that ‘the family’ is ‘under attack’ from outside forces and that unless we ‘fight back’ the end is nigh. It scares people and that’s its purpose. Organizations that seek to control people know that scared people follow anyone who can show them a way out of the fear they’ve been sold. The National Socialists are the classic example, they argued that Jews are bad, we’ll handle the Jews, now do as you're told or the Jews are going to get you. Never believe anyone who’s using psychology that Adolf Hitler was fond of. 3. Porn is immoral Immoral means ‘failing to adhere to moral standards’ and moral standards are a matter of opinion. Amoral means ‘without, or not concerned with moral standards’ and most porn is amoral because moral standards are impossible to define. What is moral depends on your viewpoint. To Vegans, eating meat is immoral. To some Christians not going to church on Sunday is immoral. To know what prevailing moral standards are you have to look at what people do, not what they pretend they do. If you do you’ll see that most people’s morals are infinitely flexible. They’ll tell you that observing speed limits near schools, not over-eating and helping people in need are moral, but only behave that way when it’s convenient for them. Porn is worth $10 billion a year in the US alone. If the moral standards of our society say porn is wrong where’s the money coming from? 4. Porn is addictive Anything can be addictive in the wrong hands, which is the clearest proof that many addictions are a choice as much as a need. Even if you accept that porn is addictive, a porn addiction is benign. You don’t have to break any laws to get porn and you can consume it without any impact on the people around you. The only way to make a porn addiction seem scary, is to tie it to other behavior which is wholly unacceptable under any circumstance, and has nothing to do with enjoying sexually explicit material. The people who cite porn as dangerously addictive are more concerned with stopping porn production than helping addicts. Porn addiction is used as an argument to support prohibition by people who are really just upset porn exists at all. Alcoholics are rightly told not to drink, not to try and stop perfectly healthy people like me from having whiskey for breakfast. Campaigning for prohibition using addiction as an excuse has little to do with helping people with a problem, and everything to do with imposing a particular conservative moral agenda. 5. Porn is the start of a slippery slope Anti-porn activists try to connect anything with a sexual element, including crimes, to sexual material. If they can do this, they can fantasize a cause and effect connection which justifies their prejudice. Sexual crimes are particularly horrifying and never to be ignored but paedophilia, which has always been, and continues to be abhorrent, is not on the rise. The high profile arrests of paedophiles using the Internet are notable for almost never involving the commercial sex industry. It’s always Feds arresting men who respond to entrapment operations. They’re not even subtle. The cops email pictures from accounts with attractive names and send messages to people containing sexually appealing lines. People love to see paedophiles busted of course. Parents are being told that the internet is full of sexual predators and it’s easy for journalists to link the use of porn to perversion. The truth is there is no child-porn industry in America. Aside from being utterly revolting it would be impossible to run and there’s not a demand for it which makes the risk worthwhile to those who’d try. The child pornography that is produced is made by and for perverts who’ll use any technology they think will allow them to remain anonymous. The other crime which porn gets blamed for is rape. This falls down with the understanding that porn doesn’t create desire, it reflects it. If porn could turn people into rapists it could also turn straight men gay and gay men straight. It doesn’t. Links between rape and pornography are tenuous. The majority of people enjoy porn at some point in their life. Saying that most rapists have used pornography is like saying that most of them have worn jeans and then charging Levi Strauss with crimes against women. Linking porn to rape is based on the idea that viewing porn leads to sexual thoughts and sexual thoughts lead to rape. You have to be criminally unstable to make that leap. The idea that ‘normal’ people view porn, get sexually frustrated and then rape goes against everything we know about human nature and the mentality of rapists. Rape is believed to be a crime rooted in anger, hate and power. Studies like ‘Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan’ show that a rise in the availability of porn coincides with a decrease in the rate of sex crimes. 6. Porn is for perverts With 800 million videos being sold and rented in North America each year either porn is loved by everyone, or everyone’s a pervert. Paul Fishbein (founder of AVN magazine) said that anti-porn protestors want us to believe that the porn industry serves 800 guys who each rent a million movies a year. He’s right. People want to enjoy sexual material in every city and state, they spend more on porn in hotels than they do on drinks from the mini-bar. Whatever your thoughts about it, porn’s not a niche interest. 7. Porn can be easily defined If you assume porn is bad, and has to be eliminated, you need to be able to reliably identify it in order to know what to ban. A lot of people claim they ‘know it when they see it’ but this isn’t really true. Everyone knows what they consider to be pornographic, and can guess at what other people do. Coming to a concise agreement between people has proved to be impossible in human history. Unfortunately for detractors, if you can’t define porn, you can’t legislate against it. So can we define it? The word pornography is derived from Greek, who defined it as ‘writing about prostitutes’. That’s obviously too narrow. More modern definitions are can be boiled down into two camps. The American English Dictionary says porn is “printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.” That’s the kind of definition that anti-porn people favor. It separates erotic feelings from emotional ones, puritanically suggesting orgasm is an erotic feeling but has nothing to do with emotion. It also mandates that porn is explicit, which allows for some clearly sexual art to slip under the wire, and guarantees that almost anything explicit can be defined as pornography. Conversely, according to the ‘Encyclopedia of Ethics’ porn is “the sexually explicit depiction of persons, in words or images, created with the primary, proximate aim, and reasonable hope, of eliciting significant sexual arousal on the part of the consumer of such materials.” To quote the great Bill Hicks – “Sounds like every ad on TV to me.” That’s why defining pornography is a fools errand and we’ll never agree on what it is. Accepting that makes porn a concept based on perspective, which shifts from time to time and culture to culture. To see how quickly things change, compare today’s Maxim magazine to the launch issue of Playboy. 8. Porn spreads STD’s The rate of STD’s in the porn industry is well documented and below that found in the general population. More impressive given the large number of high-risk unprotected sex acts a portion of performers are involved in. A lot of porn is shot without condoms, and some people argue that emulating that behavior puts the public at risk. Porn fans who favor condom-free material normally say that condoms get in the way of the fantasy, which suggests they know it’s not real, and are no more likely to copy what they see on screen, than they are to kick someone in the face because they saw it in an action movie. Anyway, if you had a sex life like the kind portrayed in porn movies, without the protections of the porn industry, you’d be a tired fool. Adult performers are less disease ridden than the general population (even though Chlamydia is referred to as ‘porn flu’ by people in the movie trade). The idea that they’re infecting the public with cooties is unfounded. 9. Porn undermines society The argument favored by people with nothing left to say, is that porn, and the business’ that deal in it, turn people and places ‘bad’. These arguments are really about zoning laws. In areas where video stores that carry adult titles are pushed into deserted areas by angry citizens, or in places where the residents are too poor to be bothered about campaigning against a new business opening, crime rates are predictably high. Depressed, poor and deserted parts of town are where the desperate and criminal congregate. If you want to get mugged anywhere on the planet find out where the poor people live and hang out somewhere industrial nearby late at night. If there’s a reason to be there, like a lonely strip club, even better. When sexually oriented businesses are allowed to open in decent locations, like the Hustler store on Sunset Blvd. in Los Angeles, or the majority of the clubs in Vegas, no rise in crime or criminality in adjacent areas is noted. More importantly porn companies, unlike churches which also take in billions of dollars a year, pay taxes.

UA works too. Unauthorized leave. They use that in the Marines. Recruits get it all the time.

Attendence isn't required but taking the sacrement is.

He's got a tough life behind it all too. He has a child which he takes care of since the mom ran away. Rather than put her up for adoption, he raises her himself.

So it's like classmates.com where you put in all your personal information into a database but realize that you can't participate or have your name show up on anybody else's searches unless you pay a fee. So it's like being able to put your name on a piece of paper and put it in a hat, but be unable to grab any pieces of paper in that hat until you give the holder of the hat $5. Big rip. There are better sites anyways.

Prayer is all right and dandy but baptism is the best bet. Also, Catholics have been doing this for hundreds of years. If she truly is possessed, you should speak with a Catholic authority as they know how to do exorcisms.

It's uplifting to conquer fears too. Sadly, I've run out of them to conquer

Just because it's posted online doesn't mean that the sacredness of it is taken away.

Well at least men are physically stronger or able to be physically stronger than women. So we aren't all that pathetic. Women still need us to lift heavy boxes and stuff for 'em.

And of course she doesn't "officially" have the authority to act in God's name. It's not the priesthood that we don't recognize, it's the authority.

Well he did start dating as we know of this new woman. He just kept a promise for a woman he [once] loved.

I said this first! I doubt it. Certainly they'll make another "Terri's" law but after that we'll all probably forget about this and it won't be brought up until the next PVS person's life hangs on the balance of a judge's decision.

At least you get a nice supply of new missionaries coming to your house every so often.

Something about a whole lot of heat and wind makes me think that the california deserts aren't the best place for nuclear waste.

That's assuming the USA is fair and good and male-dominated. But women have too much power. I don't think a woman could really rape a man without help. I don't think she could over power him or anything. If a man feels scared of losing his life he'll be able to overcome the limits of his body and over power any woman who's struggling with him. But if the woman had a gun, it would be a different matter. And it is phsically possible to rape a man. Especially when the sensations felt are new to the man, no matter how ugly and fat the woman is he can still get the woman impregnated. What is important to realize, however, is that rape is not exactly considered a sexual crime. When a man is the one committing it, it is usually to be dominant towards a woman. That's why girls alone at night and elderly women get raped. It's not very often that you see a very attractive woman raped. And it is very unlikely for a woman to get raped if she travels with someone, even if it's another woman. I do think that Billy is being led on. Obviously since Latourneau got pregnant with his kid, he experienced some new "sensations." I think he is after these "sensations" in his continuing affairs with her. And now they are going to get married. Does anybody else believe that this marriage would be based on love, at least from Billy's point of view? (And possibly a question for another thread; would this marriage be any different than another young person, such as a young adult, getting married?) In my opinion, I think Billy just wants to get sex from Latourneau. But I also understand why. I had a few teachers in my day that I wouldn't have minded hitting on me, although I really didn't realize it up until this point (when I'm single ) But it was wrong for Latourneo because it's like offering a kid chocolate cake for breakfast rather than ickey tasting oatmeal. Obviously the kid is going to take the chocolate cake. He has no idea how much damage the chocolate cake will cause him in the future. That's just my take on the situation.

That does seem rude that he wouldn't let them stay with her when she died.