What do you think - America's future

1BadBobcat · Post by **1BadBobcat** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:52 pm

Meth -- Yes, people should avoid taking meth. It's bad stuff. And it was bad stuff when the Army gave it to the GIs during WWII as pep pills and addicted many of them, and it was bad in the 50s when it was widely used as a diet pill for housewives, and addicted many of them. People should only take drugs (including alcohol) if they can do it without becoming addicted. This is not a new problem by any means ... as witnessed by the prohibitionist movement of the early 1900s.

Wrong - it is a new problem. Unlike any problem our society has faced before. The problem results from the chemical makeup of the drug, how it is manufactured, who is manufacturing it, and how it is being distributed. Basically, ordinary household chemicals, such as HEET, red sulfer dioxide (the chemical you find on a match strikeplate), Sterno, etc. are used in makeshift labs by anyone with a second grade education. Instructions are easily found by doing a google internet search. Forget one minute about the users of meth. We have all seen the pictures, heard the stories. The toxidity of the drug literally eats your body up from the inside. The best high you will ever get on meth is the first. From that moment on, a meth addict will chase that high only to spiral downward.

Here's the scary part. Meth affects you - the ordinary person who maybe doesn't do drugs or doesn't know anybody involved with meth. A meth house after a drug bust immediately becomes an EPA cleanup site. A byproduct is created in the manufacture of meth which is a useless combination of sludge and liquid. This chemical needs to be disgarded by the meth maker as it is highly volitile. Of course, the easiest means for this moron to dispose of the waste is to flush it down a toilet, throw it out a window, pour it down a sink drain, etc. Eventually, the waste stands a very good chance of leeching into sewer systems, drinking water, even the surrounding air. In any case, the product can contaminate a third-party without the person even knowing.

I know of good people working in a couple of the drug task agencies across the state that can provide you horror stories. A meth drug bust involves the use of chemical-agent suits and respirators. The byproduct lingers in the air for days, weeks, months. A friend has even been take off active duty in the drug force because after a number of busts he was involved with, the meth byproduct finally leeched through his chemical suit and now he is dealing with the side affects and has lost a good amount of his lung capacity.

Please don't be fooled into thinking this is just another drug problem. And it isn't the same drug that was circulated in the 40's and 50's. It is a much nastier cousin to that early drug. I'll get off my soap box now.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 9:23 am

1badbobcat - Agree with your take on Meth. Lived across a home used to make what the swat team deemed "small, but distributable" amounts of Meth in Edmonds, WA.

basically they made meth for themselves, but needed money to pay bills, so began to make more, and used the 1 acre property as a dump site. Yes all neighbors were affected, and worried about their families.

now in a smaller town, my neighbor is swat team capt. in Tumwater, WA. Tells us all those same stories I'm sure you've heard. the up side is my kids constantly here how these "bad" people that make and use drugs go to jail. May be that plus a good upbringing will keep them for ever trying the stuff. personally, I think my son is so impressed by how "cool" Fred is he'd rather work as swat officer than do drugs

1BadBobcat · Post by **1BadBobcat** » Sat Mar 18, 2006 9:45 am

briannell wrote:1badbobcat - Agree with your take on Meth. Lived across a home used to make what the swat team deemed "small, but distributable" amounts of Meth in Edmonds, WA.

basically they made meth for themselves, but needed money to pay bills, so began to make more, and used the 1 acre property as a dump site. Yes all neighbors were affected, and worried about their families.

now in a smaller town, my neighbor is swat team capt. in Tumwater, WA. Tells us all those same stories I'm sure you've heard. the up side is my kids constantly here how these "bad" people that make and use drugs go to jail. May be that plus a good upbringing will keep them for ever trying the stuff. personally, I think my son is so impressed by how "cool" Fred is he'd rather work as swat officer than do drugs

Keep being an involved parent - that's the secret to winning. I have two daughters, ages 8 & 6, and we already go through the routine: drugs are bad, smoking is bad, alcohol is bad, stay away from strangers, etc. It is sad we have to start the lectures at such a young age, but believe me, if you don't start talking to them about it, someone else will.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Sun Mar 19, 2006 7:43 pm

1Badbobcat: I agree that meth isn't the same as drugs of the past -- from what I understand, it is way more addictive than the drugs in the good old days. It is to old speed what crack is to cocaine. It's cheaper and more addictive ... and easier to make.

My point was that people using drugs isn't something new, and the meth problem isn't a sign that people's morals are on the decline. It's merely a sign that the drugs are getting more addictive.

This would be a good segue into the concept of the prohibition of all drugs, even those that aren't addictive, and how the "war on drugs" artificially makes drugs more expensive, causes property crimes and violent crimes, and pushes people towards cheap, easily produced drugs like meth ... but that would be getting away from the whole moral debate.

But on a macro level ... yes, I totally agree. Meth is bad and people shouldn't do it if unless they know for a fact they won't get addicted. And since that seems like a hard thing to know for a fact, it leads me to think that nobody should try it. I think drilling that message into kids is a good thing.

catsrback76 · Post by **catsrback76** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:35 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:Ahh. Thanks for the link. The guy is in the business of promoting internet filters, so he does have some good motivation for pushing those scary numbers. Unfortunately, he doesn't describe how those numbers were determined/created. If the cash spent on child porn was known, they would presumably have about $3 B worth of transactions as evidence to arrest people for buying it. Otherwise, it appears to be a wild-assed guess ... on the high side for marketing purposes.

As to the regular porn numbers ... I see zero harm in it (outside of people viewing porn at work -- that seems way high. I've heard of people doing it, but it's rare ... and many companies monitor this sort of thing and fire the few people who do).

Regardless of the numbers that you feel comfortable with the facts are that porn is a HUGE business that takes time, money, and victims to the altar of selfishness.
Although you may find porn to be a victimless crime sadly I have not found that the be the case. Even as I write I am working with a man who is losing his job in the military, his wife of almost 30 years and disappointing his two sons and a daughter who are shattered because of dads struggles over porn. To ignore the destructive nature of porn is naive. Cursory browsing of multiple reports make the case a simple one. Yes it is legal but that does not make it victimless and destructive.

On the point on The Jesus Mysteries by Freke and Gandy. Not a novel approach at centuries old attempts to debunk the historicity of Jesus and his life. This is an old heresy that the Council of Nicea dealt with well. But the thing about heresies is that they are all the proof one needs if you're a believer in them.
We both come down to believing our BOOK. You trust your future to The Jesus Mysteries and it's authors, I trust my future to the Old Testament and the New and it's author.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:54 am

catsrcack76:

Porn: I'm sorry to hear that you know someone whose father has a porn addiction. It's a shame that any family has to suffer through addiction.

That being said, being addicted to porn certainly is the exception and not the rule. Most everyone I know has seen porn, and I don't know anybody who has let it negatively impact their life. So although there are porn addicts out there, we can't point to them and suggest that watching porn is destructive to society as a whole, as nearly every single person in this country can watch it, enjoy it, and not end up ruining their life.

An analogous situation is any person with an obsessive/compulsive disorder (which I assume the porn guy you cite is probably suffereing from in some form). We can't say that bathing or cleaning dishes is in itself a destructive vice, but there are people whose lives are destroyed because they do those things obsessively due to these mental disorders.

In other words, a mental disorder involving porn doesn't make porn a bad thing -- it makes the mental disorder a bad thing. The 99% of the population that happily enjoy porn with no negative effects at all shouldn't be considered to be detrimental to society due to the unfortunate mental condition of the vast minority.

Similarly, I wouldn't cite examples of people's lives being destroyed by religion (and the examples are numerous) and extrapolate it to suggest that religion is a bad thing for our society. In certain cases, religion is good for people, but in others, it has been very bad.

Books: I don't "believe" any one book or look to any one book for evidence of my future. I just look to ideas that are supported by compelling historical evidence. The evidence in the Jesus Mysteries has not been refuted by anyone in anything I have found. The only counter-argument I have heard was the original one that suggests that "the devil planted those earlier stories to confuse us." That doesn't seem like a compelling counter-argument, and essentially acts as an admission that the stories were lifted from the religions that preceded Christianity (which is quite obviously what much of Christianity as we know it truly is).

This isn't to say that anybody should ignore the Bible or discount their faith in the philosophy of Jesus as described by the Bible. It merely shows that the Bible isn't a literal history, and is rather a book of very sound philosophy. I find more comfort in people doing the right thing because they embrace the philosophy of Jesus as opposed to those who do so only because they fear eternal damnation. There's a lot more sincerity in the former than the latter, and I prefer a world that is full of sincerely good people as opposed to people who are just following strict rules out of fear of a bad afterlife.

catsrback76 · Post by **catsrback76** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 9:48 am

BAC: Sadly the story of my friend and his struggle with porn is not a novel one. Far too many times, coming from far too many men typically, I have sat with a story from very well adjusted, normal married men who have had to deal with the impacts of porn in their lives. A school counselor, local business man, farmer/rancher, preacher... normal every guys fill my files with their stories.

True, men and women exposed to occassional porn are not likely to become "addicted", but to say that most people who are so "exposed" (sorry I couldn't resist) suffer no effects that taint the mind and heart misses the point. Does that make it less immoral? According to Jesus only if you so view it and do not lust. The last porn I saw illicited that very thing. Again my point has been that morality is defined by Gods nature and given for our good and protection ( the guardrails ) for personal and interpersonal relationships. To step out of the moral harness is not to live free but to court the very bondages and destructions that come from free failing from a plane with no parachute. True, you're having fun, but the ground is going to arrive at about 160mph at some point.
The government study on the effects of pornography done in the 90's ( sorry I haven't taken the time to look up the link) detailed what consistent, longterm exposure produces as fruit in the lives of normal men and women like you and I. Sadly the results speak for themselve and it ain't pretty. Just like the meth ads running in Montana, "Not even once" is the way to handle porn. It is not only immoral, it's derivatives are not better sexual lives and freedoms but sadly more deviant sexual lives, more hedonism and broken fidelities.

On the Jesus Mysteries, Brad with your refined level of skeptism you surprise me that you would even mention it as a refuting of the historicity of Jesus. Serious liberal non-believers who have no time for Jesus as messiah do not base their decisions on the flimsy and wreckless "quasi-scholarship" surrounding those discussions. No one takes them serious, even serious non-believers. To attack the straw man they build is the stuff of books not internet discussion boards.
This link, if you are serious, will get you a beginning at working through this classic heresy. http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:53 am

As to porn and sexuality in general, it appears that we will have to agree to disagree. In short, from our respective experiences, it appears that your friends should avoid porn (and sexual thoughts of most kinds) at all costs, but mine seem to be fine with it and have no problems as a result. Everybody wins.

Going back to the Jesus Mysteries, you seem to be using the word "skepticism" in a way that is different from how I would explain it. My skepticism means that I base my opinions and beliefs on facts. Whichever theories have the best factual support, I will choose to believe over lesser-proven theories. Skepticism does not start with a beginning assumption that the Bible is literal, and then only change if one gets a notarized statement from God saying that the original thesis is incorrect.

I am going to guess that you haven't read the book in question (as you haven't debated on the facts in the book at all, but rather to vague "Jesus-myth" theories that you dismiss out-of-hand), so debating its merits is rather difficult. It is a well-researched and factually robust book. I reviewed the website you provided, and it did not speak to the theories in the Jesus Mysteries at all. It did, however, include a LOT of the straw man arguments that you speak of ... but none of the evidence or theories presented in the Jesus Mysteries.

As soon as somebody can explain to me how stories that are almost identical to the major points in the life of Jesus exist in the mythological historical record well before the existence of Jesus, I will happily listen. Until then, it appears obvious that the story of Jesus includes traditional myths from previous religions. As a skeptical person who looks for objective evidence in the historical texts, this makes perfect sense, and actually fits in with the Gnostic texts very well.

I would love for you to read the book and then discuss with me the shortcomings of thier research or other matters that may arise. I am happy to learn more. But your off-hand dismissal of the book (and assertions that nobody take them seriously, despite the fact that I know a LOT of religious historians do) and its theories/evidence gives me no objective evidence to learn from.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:14 am

as for the short porn off shoot on this thread - in an old soc class they discussed the ins and outs of the industry

it was deemed in the soc studies - although I think bias - that all women were seen as "victims". we were exposed to a few snips in the class, and I remember having to watch this long drawn out ramblings of one of the industries leading ladies "jenna". she talked about how powerful it was for women to be in porn, how women have control in the bedroom - which honestly lets face it women can control whom they take to bed, where men will lay just about anyone whose willing, so too some degree I agree with her. But, what makes me remember this stuff from 97 is that it was all about power and control. not lust, not love, not even sex really, just whom can control the other individual. I guess for those whom have dominance issues i can see where porn would become an addiction. I think for otherwise "normal" people it's just a little spicy foreplay. mostly the victimization was not in the sex acts themselves - but rather all of the plastic surgery, and eating disorders the women have, the drug use was highest amongst straight women having to preform in women on women films, however those had the highest pay and least STD's.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:28 am

and so I don't come across as bias about porn here's a site on it versus biblical teachings.

"I will set no unclean thing before my eyes." (Psalm 101:3)

Pornography & the Bible

Diane Dew

Social & Psychological Effects of Porn

Research has shown that 40 to 50% of rapists use porn to arouse themselves prior to seeking out a victim.

Even brief exposure to violent forms of pornography can lead to anti-social attitudes and behavior - i.e., a more aggressive attitude toward women.

Studies have shown that exposure to porn can lead to increased desensitization to sexual violence and rape.

A strong statistical correlation has been found between circulation rates of porn magazines and rape rates in that area.

_______

Statistics

Pornography is an $8-billion-a-year business.

17.5 million surfers visited porn sites from home computers in Jan. 2000, a 40% increase from 4 months earlier. (Source: US News & World Report, 3/27/2000)

Web surfers spent $970 million accessing porn sites in 1998. (Source: Datamonitor research firm)

Porn accounts for 69% of the $1.4 billion pay-to-view online-content market, compared to video games (4%) and sports (2%). (Source: US News & World Report, 3/27/2000)

16% of the Internet's porn materials are accessed through America Online - which brings in $7 million per month via porn. (Source: US News & World Report, 3/27/2000)

Cyberporn sales accounted for 8% of last year's $18 billion e-commerce. (Source: Forrester Research report)

The top internet porn site boasted more unique visitors in Jan. 2000 than ESPN.com, CDNOW, or barnesandnoble.com. (Source: US News & World Report, 3/27/2000)

In the U.S., nearly 900 theaters show porn films and more than 15,000 adult bookstores and video stores offer porn material.

Pornography is material that "is predominantly sexually explicit and intended primarily for the purpose of sexual arousal." Hard core porn "is sexually explicit in the extreme, and devoid of any other apparent content or purpose." (Source: Final Report of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, p.

About 70% of porn magazines end up in the hands of minors. (Source: Henry Boatwright, Chairman of the U.S. Advisory Board for Social Concerns.)

About 1.2 million children annually are exploited in child pornography and prostitution. (Source: Women Against Pornography)

_________

The History of Porn in America

This section is under construction. Please check back soon.

________
Although pornography is not specifically addressed in Scripture, the principle (viewing/reading what's impure) certainly is:

Matthew 5:28 "If a man looks on a woman to lust after her, he has committed adultery with her already in his heart."

Psalm 101:3 "I will set no unclean thing before my eyes."

Philippians 4:7, 8 "Keep your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus... Whatsover things are pure... if there be any virtue... think on these things."

The word "pornography" comes from the Greek porneia, porneuo, and porne. Porneia is translated "fornication" in the King James Version (Mat 5:32; John 8:41; Rom 1:29; 1 Corin 6:9,13,18; Gal 5:19; Rev 19:2; etc.). Porneuo is the verb "to commit fornication," as in 1 Corin 6:18. Porne is translated "harlot" in Mat 21:31-32; 1 Corin 6:15; and Rev 17:5.

Ephesians 5:5 "For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God."

1 Timothy 1:10 "For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine"

Hebrews 13:4 "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."

Revelation 21:8 "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

Revelation 22:15 "For without are dog, and sorcerers, and
whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie."

Many lustful sins take place in the dark, in secret, but nothing is hid from God:

Hebrews 4:13 "All things are naked and opened to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do."

Numbers 32:23 "Be sure your sin will find you out."

More serious than other sins?
Pornography seems more disgusting than other evils.

1 Corinthians 6:18 "Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. "

1 Corinthians 6:18-20 "What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you ...? therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."

'Just looking'?
Some would argue that looking at the naked human body is not evil, because God made it beautiful, and Adam and Eve were naked in the garden. However, that was before sin entered the picture.
"The eye is the window of the soul," as the saying goes. What we look at does affect us spiritually - and can cause us to sin. David "SAW" the woman naked, before he got ideas to sin with her. Jesus said that if a man "looks at a woman to lust after her, he has committed adultery with her already in his heart"; etc. The sin takes place even before the action is executed.
Scripture gives many examples of men being enticed by the sight of a woman. Shechem saw the woman before he raped her. David saw the woman bathing before he had sex with her. Judah saw the harlot before he had sex with her. It was the same for Samson, etc.

Genesis 34:2 "And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, SAW HER, he took her and lay with her by force."

2 Samuel 11:2-5 "Now when evening came David arose from his bed and walked around on the roof of the king's house, and from the roof he SAW A WOMAN BATHING; and the woman was very beautiful in appearance. So David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, 'Is this not ... the wife of Uriah the Hittite?' And David sent messengers and took her, and when she came to him, he lay with her... And the woman conceived; and she sent and told David, and said, 'I am pregnant.'"

Matthew 5:28 "but I say to you, that everyone who LOOKS on a woman to LUST for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Genesis 38:2-3 "And Judah SAW there a daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua; and he took her and went in to her. So she conceived and bore a son and he named him Er...."

Genesis 38:15-16 "When Judah SAW HER, he thought she was a harlot.... So he turned aside to her by the road, and said, 'Here now, let me come in to you'; ...And she said, 'What will you give me, that you may come in to me?'"

Judges 16:1 "Now Samson went to Gaza and SAW a harlot there, and went in to her."

Judges 14:2-3 "So he came back and told his father and mother, 'I SAW a woman in Timnah, one of the daughters of the Philistines; now therefore, get her for me as a wife.' Then his father and his mother said to him, 'Is there no woman among the daughters of your relatives, or among all our people, that you go to take a wife from the uncircumcised Philistines?' But Samson said to his father, 'Get her for me, for SHE LOOKS GOOD TO ME.'"

Visual stimulation is more common in man than in woman, however. There's just one example in Scripture of a woman lusting after a man by SEEING him:

Genesis 39:7-12 "And it came about after these events that his master's wife looked with desire at Joseph, and she said, 'Lie with me.' But he refused and said to his master's wife, 'Behold, with me here, my master does not concern himself with anything in the house, and he has put all that he owns in my charge. There is no one greater in this house than I, and he has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do this great evil, and sin against God?' And it came about as she spoke to Joseph day after day, that he did not listen to her to lie beside her, or be with her. Now it happened one day that he went into the house to do his work, and none of the men of the household was there inside. And she caught him by his garment, saying, 'Lie with me!' And he left his garment in her hand and fled, and went outside."

How can addiction to porn be overcome?
Giving in to lustful desires is a sign of spiritual weakness. Ephesians 6 tells us what armor to put on, to be "strong" in spiritual battle.
If you don't want to get slaughtered in battle, don't go dancing in the minefields. Former alcoholics don't hang out in bars. Fill that free time with a positive activity: Read a book. Sing a psalm. Call a friend. Visit a nursing home. Pray. As the saying goes, "Idleness is the devil's workshop."
Christians especially should not practice such sins, as we will be held to a stricter standard:

1 Peter 4:17 "Judgment must begin first at the household of God."

Luke 12:48 "To whom much (light) has been given, much (responsibility) will be required."

Is it possible to overcome this sin?

1 Corinthians 6:9, 11 "...such were (past tense) some of you. But now...."

Being tempted is not sin (even Jesus was tempted) - but giving in to it, or seeking it out, surely is.

______________

"For he hath called us out of darkness and into his marvelous light!"

1 Peter 2:9

______________

Legal Definition of Obscenity

The 1973 case of Miller v. California defined "obscenity"as material that meets all three of the following conditions:

1. The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interests.

2. The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state (or federal) law, and

3. The work taken as a whole, lacks serious, artistic, political or scientific value.

Related Bible Studies:

Adultery & Fornication: A Study in the Scriptures

Holiness: A Study in the Scriptures

Temptation: A Study in the Scriptures

Spiritual Warfare

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACTION BOX

What Can I Do?

Contact Movie Gallery President Harrison Parrish, and urge him to get out of the pornography business. Movie Gallery is the nation's third largest video store chain.

Mr. Harrison Parrish, President
Movie Gallery
900 Main St.
Dothan, AL 36301
Phone: (Toll Free) 1-800-472-2494
Email: sales@moviegallery.com
mailto:sales@moviegallery.com

RESOURCES

Return to Diane's MAIN PAGE

.

The following groups are actively engaged in the war on porn:

National Law Center for Children and Families
http://www.nationallawcenter.org/
3819 Plaza Dr.
Fairfax, VA 22030-2512
(703) 691-4626

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:25 pm

briannell wrote: and I remember having to watch this long drawn out ramblings of one of the industries leading ladies "jenna". she talked about how powerful it was for women to be in porn, how women have control in the bedroom - which honestly lets face it women can control whom they take to bed, where men will lay just about anyone whose willing, so too some degree I agree with her. But, what makes me remember this stuff from 97 is that it was all about power and control. not lust, not love, not even sex really, just whom can control the other individual. I guess for those whom have dominance issues i can see where porn would become an addiction. I think for otherwise "normal" people it's just a little spicy foreplay. .

That was probably Jenna Jameson. She was on Bill O'Reilly's show on FOX (speaking of foxes) one night and I was very impressed. No, not with how hot she is, but how well she represented herself and her industry. She touched upon the "control" issue, but she expanded the conversation/debate into other areas and had O'Reilly stumped as he could only turn back to saying 'porn is bad' and didn't really have much of a comeback to what her points were. He, of course, was able to move slightly away from the point and counter her. Porn in the area that she's involved isn't much different than many prime time shows. Actually I wouldn't be surprise if the prime time shows, since they reach many more people, have just as much affect in deviant behavior terms as does porn. I'd like to see the figures for men (and women) in terms of sexual arousal that leads to aberrent behavior from watching Desp. Hosewives or Melrose Place. You don't need much imagination (and many porn movies are spin offs of these shows) to picture Eva Longoria gettin' busy with the gardener by the pool. HBO ran a documentry called Pornucopia: Going Down in the Valley. It was a behind the scenes look into main stream porn with interviews of everyone involved. It seemed to be run like any other business.
People get addicted to all kinds of things and sex is one of them. Porn may trigger this in some people, but don't bars trigger alcohol addiction? Smoke shops trigger nicotine habits? Fast food joints trigger fat addiction? I'd bet that cigarettes, alcohol and fat cause a heckuva lot more problems than porn.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:58 pm

iaafan - That is probably her. It was funny in that I took this class, which was led by a female prof from University of Maryland this was a 400 level class about human sexuality and society- for those interested in social work careers, you deal a lot with different issues in society. It was a mixed class, we took a questionnaire prior to the snips and when we were done watching we also did a reaction discussion. what stood out to me was how uncomfortable all of the men were, they were angry to be subjected to that in a room of women other than their mates. while the women could of really cared less. women see breasts all of the time, so it's not uncomfortable to see the female body, in fact the women were funny asking about different positions and joking how they wish their partners were THAT flexible

while the men were very embaressed

not only because of their physical reaction to viewing the porn, but they saw it as "dirty" when not in the context of watching with their partners, or goofing with the guys.

it did seem that it was ran from a complete power perspective, but so is the mob, right? women were in control for the most part, as men can only "act" for so long and so many ways, it was up to the women to "sell" it on camera. I was surprised how many are married and bring their hubbies to the sets to "coach" the other men. That shocked me, but they saw it as dollar signs and not infedelity. Jenna went on about how her and her husband another porn star were emotionally married and "faithful" when not under contract to preform, and that she had her own company and didn't see woman on woman as "cheating". surprisingly she admitted being jealious of seeing other women with her husband, so I guess that's normal in every relationship.

also, many "actress" in the industry admitted to growing up in very normal faith based homes, and did not believe they were inconflict with religious beliefs, a few even felt that their parents were proud of them

-sidenote- as Brad will at some point have a bachelor party I'm sure a blow up sheep and a few movies are headed his way

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:44 am

Hilarious. Obviously a very memorable day at school. I've been amazed at male reactions when the topic of sex comes up around women, too. You'd think they'd really start yukking it up, but like you said it's the women that have the most fun with it.

I actually saw Jenna's dad being interviewed. He's a cop or ex-cop and seemed like your average Joe in every way. Seemed very accepting and supportive of his daughter's career/lifestyle. Not that most parents wouldn't, but some probably drop off the deep end.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:15 am

iaa - I have to admit it was pretty funny, which is why I remember the 1 lecture we had on porn and it's impact on marriage. i doubt many of the men in the class went on to becoming couples therapists. the porn made them uncomfortable, but when we discussed sexual erotica and fetishes, they nearly keeled over!

On a serious note and back on thread I guess that would go with catsrbacks deviant behavior aspect ruining society, and to some degree I agree with him. the "fetish" discussion you'd assume would be on various toys, but NO it was on bizarre sexual requests partners may have and the pyschological reasons they may have for them. Honestly a good amount of the stuff was "tame" like swingers, sex toy parties, but some (fecal eaters, men that need to actually nurse from lactating women to achieve arousal, dominatrix, men that can only get arousal when bondaged and anal sex with gerbils) made my jaw hit the floor!

The fact that our society has so many people in it with these quirks was disheartening. I wanted to toss holy water all around me and thank God I'm not this twisted

guess that's why I don't want to enter marriage therapy as a profession, I'd be so disgusted if someone came into my office with some of these issues i couldn't "guide" them well.

iaafan · Post by **iaafan** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:30 pm

Yes, back on topic. My question would be does porn play more of a part in crime than alcohol, drugs, greed. I'm thinking there are several seemingly innocuous industries that are much more harmful than porn. I think there's a lot of dishonesty among those in the nutrition and prescription medicine businesses. I'm more concerned about, and spend much more time evaluating, what my family and I eat and take to cure whatever ails us than I am about some sicko doing something horrific to us. Not that I'm not wary of sickos, but I gotta believe tht the chances are much greater that someone under my roof becomes a junk food junkie and overweight, and then susceptible to all kinds of ailments from it. Where are the ads (realistic ads that explain the basics, not the 6-minute ab fad ads) about exercising and staying in shape? Our society seems to look at all people who are in shape as being vane.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:48 pm

iaafan - yes i think you're correct about the drug industry. It is sickening to know how many people can be cured or at least live longer if they could simply afford their medications. I think we'll have to really dive into the health care system as a whole. I don't see the great strides that we as a nation should be making. Look north, I have a few Canadian friends that go on and on about how wonderful it is to have a controlled health care system in place.

I hate that the first thing you're asked by a doctor is "who is your insurance provider?" rather than "what brings you to the hospital today?" at least being military I may bitch a lot about certain aspects of active duty life - but NEVER about the health care. it may be a pain sometimes to get the appointment, but as much as my family has used the system, i'm glad the doctors are worried about what is the problem, rather than how they're going to get paid.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Sat Mar 25, 2006 12:06 pm

comprahensive health care for all citizens! This is horrid.

Back to Story - Help
L.A. Investigating Alleged Patient Dumping By GREG RISLING, Associated Press Writer
Sat Mar 25, 4:23 AM ET

Authorities are examining a surveillance tape that shows an elderly woman wandering Skid Row in a hospital gown and slippers as they investigate the practice of hospitals and police agencies dumping homeless people downtown.

Carol Ann Reyes, 63, of Gardena, was taken from a Kaiser Permanente hospital in Bellflower on Monday to the downtown area known as Skid Row, authorities said.

A surveillance camera outside the Union Rescue Mission showed Reyes walking from the direction of a taxi that had just driven away. She wandered the street for about three minutes before a mission staff member brought her inside.

City officials have been looking into the alleged dumping of homeless people in Skid Row, a ramshackle area downtown.

Several hospitals have acknowledged that they put some discharged indigent patients with nowhere else to go into taxicabs headed to the area because it offers a chance for getting services and shelter. Los Angeles police also are investigating whether other law enforcement agencies dump people without anywhere else to go downtown.

"We have been looking into homeless dumping for some time, and this (tape) gives us another example of what has been going on," said Frank Mateljan, a spokesman for the city attorney's office.

Diana Bonta, vice president of public affairs for Kaiser Southern California, said the hospital attempted to find a shelter for Reyes, but when that failed, it was determined that she would be taken to the Union Rescue Mission. Hospital officials are trying to find out why Reyes, who was in the hospital after suffering a bad fall, was left on the street still wearing her hospital gown and slippers.

The incident violated hospital policy and will not occur again, she said.

"We have a policy of treating our patients with compassion and care," Bonta said. "This should not have happened."

Andy Bales, president the Union Rescue Mission, where Reyes remained, said the incident was the third in the past week in which security cameras caught taxis dropping people in the area. The problem will continue until a coordinated discharge plan between hospitals and shelters is created, he said.

"We just can't drop people off like baggage," he said. "We can't have a society where these people have nowhere to turn when they need care."

State Sen. Gil Cedillo of Los Angeles, a Democrat, has introduced a bill that would prohibit any arresting agency from taking people who need drug treatment, mental health services or shelter outside their jurisdiction.

Los Angeles County officials are also considering establishing five regional homeless centers in an attempt to reduce dumping, the Los Angeles Times reported Friday.

The regional homeless centers plan would spread the responsibility of caring for the homeless to suburbs instead of concentrating it downtown, the newspaper said. Each 30-bed center would operate 24-hours a day and would accept people from hospitals, police and care providers. The goal would be to find the resident permanent housing and services such as mental health and substance abuse treatment, officials said.

Copyright © 2006 The Associated