markomalley

From CNET: What: Teenagers taking risque photos of themselves are prosecuted for violating child pornography laws. When: Florida state appeals court rules on January 19. Outcome: A 2-1 majority upholds conviction on grounds the girl produced a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child. What happened, according to court documents: Combine unsupervised teenagers, digital cameras and e-mail, and, given sufficient time, you'll end up with risque photographs on a computer somewhere. There's a problem with that: Technically, those images constitute child pornography. That's what 16-year-old Amber and 17-year-old Jeremy, her boyfriend, both residents of the Tallahassee, Fla., area, learned firsthand. (Court documents include only their initials, A.H. and J.G.W., so we're using these pseudonyms to make this story a little easier to read.) On March 25, 2004, Amber and Jeremy took digital photos of themselves naked and engaged in unspecified "sexual behavior." The two sent the photos from a computer at Amber's house to Jeremy's personal e-mail address. Neither teen showed the photographs to anyone else. Court records don't say exactly what happened next--perhaps the parents wanted to end the relationship and raised the alarm--but somehow Florida police learned about the photos. Amber and Jeremy were arrested. Each was charged with producing, directing or promoting a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child. Based on the contents of his e-mail account, Jeremy was charged with an extra count of possession of child pornography. (remainder snipped) First, I am not advocating unmarried 16 & 17 year old children having sex. Second, I am not advocating unmarried 16 & 17 year old children photographing themselves having sex. Third, I am not advicating unmarried 16 & 17 year old children e-mailing the above-mentioned photographs to each other. But this is a bizarre case. A 16 year old girl being convicted of child pornography. A 16 year old girl being the victim of child pornography. The same girl. The same incident.

Just givin ya a hard time bro

Actually, in one case, I encountered somebody who was a very close friend. But 15 years had passed. I went back to the Church. He still stuck with his TWI philosophy (even though he'd been M&A'd back during LCM's initial purge of the Corps and had gone through a couple of the offshoots...) I had spent time in multiple different countries. Done multiple different things. Been deployed many times. Finished my college. Retired from the service and had a good job. Got married with children. Had a house and a mortgage. Yada yada yada. He got divorced. Rented rooms from other people. Still did the typical TWI-like odd jobs for a living. Never went back to school. See, when I was in TWI, young and single, I thought that this life he had was really great. No major strings. Ready to move whereever and whenever needed (for Gawd, ya know). That's great...and I don't see a problem with that, in of itself, to this day...if your primary job is working for God and you do what you need to keep a roof over your head and food on the table and clothes on the back, more power to you. But in this particular case, the guy hadn't ever grown. The illusion of being in ministry for God was not there anymore...he didn't have a fellowship, didn't go out witnessing, didn't help the poor, didn't teach the ignorant, or anything else. but he hadn't developed any... Aimless, is what I guess I'm trying to say. It's like I grew up. He never did. Don't get me wrong, I'm not being disparaging of the guy. I thought and still think the world of him. I really do. But the point is that he was like in limbo. That's what I was trying to get at. There was too much separation now. Hope that clarifies...

Uh huh, I see somebody lurking at 8:30 on 2/8... not even 48 hours yet...

Very punny

Congrats!

Thank you. In that context, I didn't comment. I only commented after reading the article Shellon linked... ...because of the potential for abuse the laws advocated by that article leave open. Points all made. Back to lurking mode on the thread. Peace.

I can't see how anybody could even reasonably get that from my statement. Your response: I wasn't going to either, but now I will: mark, any man who doesn't think he can consider a woman's need for him to stop during the act should do the responsible thing and take an oath of celibacy. Was extremely condescending. Particularly considering we haven't previously exchanged comments, I think it shows that somebody's stereotypes are peeking out. (Particularly when one considers your other comments on this thread) But whatever. btw, thanks Abi!

Don't cheat

Think back to the day in the disco or the singles' bar. Isn't that what guys sort of did? :blink:

A pleasure... You and I both... Princeton Wordnet is not exactly the proper resource for that definition. I would suggest the Urban Dictionary for that slang: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=prowl

According to Princeton's Wordnet, "to bugger" means: sodomize: practice anal sex upon

Actually, it's got nothing to do with that. I look at the forensics of the situation. The prima facie proof that a rape happened is provided by physical evidence, right? (Look at the Duke case as a current example) - Damage and bruising around the genital area - DNA collected from the victim pointing to the fact that the accuser was in proximity - DNA collected from the victim pointing to the fact that sexual relations did, in fact, occur Those data points are what prosecuters use to determine whether a rape accusation can be easily supported or whether it's a matter of he said/she said. Not to say that all he said/she said cases are unprovable, but they're very, very difficult to prove in of themselves. If you have a situation where, during the midst of coitus, the female withdraws her consent, all of the above physical data points will be present. If the man doesn't stop when the woman withdraws her consent, she has physical evidence to back her up. Just requires a hospital to do a rape kit. If the woman decides that the man didn't stop fast enough and accuses him of rape, she has physical evidence to back her up. Just requires a hospital to do a rape kit. If the woman has regrets afterwards and later decides that she didn't "really" give consent, she has the physical evidence to back her up. Just requires a hospital to do a rape kit. Any of the above happens, the man's f*cked. It's just a hypothetical to me, as I am happily married, thank you. But if I was still single and prowling, I would have to make some serious decisions on whether it's worth it or not. And no, I'm not just talking about a one night stand. I'm talking about being in a relationship for a while. Before finding Mrs. Right, I ran into a few really flaky women...the degree of flakiness I didn't discover in some cases until many weeks into a relationship. And, frankly, I wouldn't put doing something like this beyond some women I've met in my varied past. Not all, not most, not even a decent minority, but a couple... So bottom line is that my previous remark was not based on a personal lack of control, but on the 11th Commandment ("Thou shalt, in all circumstances, cover thy arse") BTW, I would wager excathedra's comment was not spoken as a feminist. She knows that I am Catholic. She hates the Catholic Church with almost as much passion (and maybe even more) than she hates TWI. It's not my place to say why (it's for her to share)...but I can perfectly understand why she does. The comment about celibacy was (I interpret) a slam against the Catholic Church. (Something like supposedly celibate priests buggering pubescent boys). The topic really hasn't come up since you signed onto the site, so I could understand why you'd not 'get it.' Don't like my opinion? Alert on my post and ask Paw to ban me. Otherwise get over it.

Ya bro, take good care.

After reading this thread... ...if I was still single, I think I'd have to take an oath of celibacy.

About $150-$180 a week for three of us. And that's with shopping at a military commissasry for the majority of the groceries. (If I want a steak, I'll go someplace else and for small trips I'll just go to a Food Lion or a Giant around here) Groceries seem to me to be far, far more expensive here in the DC area than other places I've lived. Maybe it's inflation, maybe it's regional. But I seem to remember shopping at Publix when I lived down in Georgia and prices were far cheaper than they are here...FAR cheaper.

When I left, I left. No forwarding address. No telephone. I intentionally dropped contact with all of my TWI friends for years. I ran into a couple of them a few years ago...and found that there was far too much water under the bridge to resume anything more than an acquaintenship. The experience taught me not to bother searching old TWI friends out. (Of course, your mileage may vary -- YMMV) If I happen to run into one during the course of my life, all well and good. Otherwise...(again, imho/ymmv)...why dredge up the past that comes with resurrecting an old 'twi' friendship (whether the person is "in" or "out")?

I have been thinking about building a car computer based on a mini-ITX or nano-ITX form factor single board computer... Have a couple of questions for more knowledgeable geeks out there: 1. Anybody ever work with a mini-ITX or nano-ITX form factor SBC? Any experience with the EPIA processor? 2. Anybody know how to interface an SD media chip with IDE or SATA? (IDE solid state hard drives are small...and not cheap. I can find SD chips for $15 for a 2GB chip) 3. Anybody with experience with Windows XP Embedded? (I want to be able to use Rhapsody with this computer...and Rhapsody needs XP to work, so can't load Windows CE or Linux) Thanks in advance...

So I guess having sex in Denver (the mile high city) doesn't count? :biglaugh:

Roy, Consider this section of scripture: Luk 15:11 And he said, "There was a man who had two sons; Luk 15:12 and the younger of them said to his father, 'Father, give me the share of property that falls to me.' And he divided his living between them. Luk 15:13 Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took his journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property in loose living. Luk 15:14 And when he had spent everything, a great famine arose in that country, and he began to be in want. Luk 15:15 So he went and joined himself to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed swine. Luk 15:16 And he would gladly have fed on the pods that the swine ate; and no one gave him anything. Luk 15:17 But when he came to himself he said, 'How many of my father's hired servants have bread enough and to spare, but I perish here with hunger! Luk 15:18 I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; Luk 15:19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me as one of your hired servants."' Luk 15:20 And he arose and came to his father. But while he was yet at a distance, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. Luk 15:21 And the son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.' Luk 15:22 But the father said to his servants, 'Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet; Luk 15:23 and bring the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and make merry; Luk 15:24 for this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.' And they began to make merry. Luk 15:25 "Now his elder son was in the field; and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. Luk 15:26 And he called one of the servants and asked what this meant. Luk 15:27 And he said to him, 'Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fatted calf, because he has received him safe and sound.' Luk 15:28 But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, Luk 15:29 but he answered his father, 'Lo, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command; yet you never gave me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends. Luk 15:30 But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your living with harlots, you killed for him the fatted calf!' Luk 15:31 And he said to him, 'Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. Luk 15:32 It was fitting to make merry and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.'" Of course, we all have learned this passage, the parable of the prodigal son, to illustrate how God is always willing to forgive us. But there are a couple of other things to consider: 1. Did the younger son cease to be the father's son when he took his inheritence and left town...and blew it on some "loose living?" Answer: no, of course not. 2. Did the father go out and seek out the son and force him back home? Answer: no...the son had to take the initiative to come back home. He had to humble himself and become repentent. After he did those things, his father welcomed him back into his household and there was rejoicing in the household at the return of the son. 3. What would have happened to the prodigal son had he not become repentent and come home? Answer: Although it's not explicitly stated, it is obvious (imho, ymmv) that he would have died in a far country...with the pigs. The three parables shown in Luke 15 are often grouped together...rightly, IMHO. However, there is a distinct difference between this one and the parable of the lost sheep and the parable of the woman and the piece of silver. In both those cases, he speaks of something that is not really responsib le for its actions. In this case, the subject is talking about a person who is fu lly responsible. While all three show the value that God has for His children, the third, uniquely, shows God's mercy to us. It also shows the impact of free will on that mercy. And this shows what I'm trying to get at with explaining the difference between being born again and salvation. Certainly we are born again of incorruptible seed. Certainly God is our Father. But God also has given us the freedom to do the wrong thing and to walk away. Just as the father in the parable, above, didn't kidnap his son and force him to come back home, God doesn't kidnap us and force us to come back home. But just as the household rejoiced when the son returned, the angels in heaven rejoice when we return. But if the son hadn't decided to return, he would have died estranged. Again, something to consider...

Sounds like an old Bon Jovi song. I know, wrong thread... :redface2:

I believe that you would not find unanimity around here with that assertion.

Mocha is much better...but still like the old original best! (Thanks for leaving it as an available choice)

Well, think about it for a bit. Hedonism is the belief system where the highest good is the pursuit of the happiness or pleasure of the self. How much in the societal mores is geared toward the pleasure/happiness of the self? Hedonism is a particular variant of ego-centrism... the "tendency of people to be concerned above all with their own values, beliefs, and well-being." Children? A very, VERY common line of reasoning given by single mothers having children out of wedlock and by many couples having children is that a child will bring her/them pleasure. Marriage? How many marriages break up because of a lack of pleasure in the relationship? Boredom? Differing career goals? It's my understanding that over half the marriages transacted in society today end up in a divorce. Surely not all of those break up because of abuse. Adultery? (that sounds pretty hedonistic to me) Drugs/Alcohol? Yes, many people self-medicate. But I would submit that the majority of use is for recreation (i.e., pleasure). Entertainment? What has happened with entertainment in recent decades? TV, DVDs, video games, Cable-on-Demand. How much of the humor today is subtle? How many people read serious literature for pleasure? What about music these days? (Yes, I like Rock as much as anybody else..but...) It seems to me like we live in a very hedonistic society...a very ego-centric one, as well. Life seems to be geared around personal pleasure. My point is that if we embrace one sexual lifestyle (that is, on all objective counts, empirically hazardous to the health of the participants) as being acceptable because it is personally pleasurable to the participants, we would be utterly hypocritical if we object to any other sexual lifestyle. Even if it is empirically hazardous to the participants. Don't get me wrong, I don't endorse either lifestyle. I don't think that this is a surprise to anybody here. But don't get me wrong in this way either...in a situation where we live in a society such as this, I don't think some fundamentalist idiots can force acceptable mores on people. The effect of this is to drive the behavior across the county line, to drive the behavior underground, and, eventually, to get pushback. I am firmly of the belief that you can't reform somebody from external pressure. The reform must come from within. Otherwise it won't ever work.

Lisa, My condolences. Requisat in Pacem. (May he rest in peace)