Current Events - Page 5

10 · 09-18-2006, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by happy stud

They have this shit on tv right now about Debra LaFave that good looking stupid bitch that was fucking her 14 year old student. What I would like to ask everybody is do you think her husband had a real small dick or he just didnt know how to fuck?

I think it has to do with her mental state studly.....i.e. she's a nut job....

happy stud · 09-18-2006, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10

I think it has to do with her mental state studly.....i.e. she's a nut job....

No question shes fucked up in the head but why fuck around with a kid? I think she knew she was good looking and nothing would happen to her. She could argue that since the boy wanted to fuck her he wasnt violated in the literal sense of the word rape.

Überschwanz · 09-18-2006, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by happy stud

No question shes fucked up in the head but why fuck around with a kid? I think she knew she was good looking and nothing would happen to her. She could argue that since the boy wanted to fuck her he wasnt violated in the literal sense of the word rape.

But he wasn't old enough to give consent in the first place. That's what statutory rape is. It doesn't mean a rat's ass if he said yes.

10 · 09-18-2006, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by happy stud

No question shes fucked up in the head but why fuck around with a kid? I think she knew she was good looking and nothing would happen to her. She could argue that since the boy wanted to fuck her he wasnt violated in the literal sense of the word rape.

Hey, this same question could be asked of any man who sleeps with an underage girl. Why a kid? I personally find it sick and twisted for either a man or a woman to have an inappropriate, physical relationship with a kid.

Do you remember Mary Kay Laternau?? She had an affair with one of her students like 10 years ago or so. Anyway, she was ordered to stay away from him from the courts and of course she didn't listen. So, she met with him again and this time he got her pregnant. Of course, she lost her teaching job, lost her husband and her own kids and ended up in prison. Stupid bitch!

And, what adds a very "close to home" twist on this. This crazy bitch was a brides maid in my ex wife's cousins wedding.....how's that for bizaar?

happy stud · 09-18-2006, 12:54 AM

All Im saying is obviously people dont give a shit what the law actually says or they would have thrown her ass in prison. Whether anybody likes it or not people assoiciate a woman having sex with a consenting under age male a helluva lot differently than a man having consenting sex with an under age girl.

10 · 09-18-2006, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by happy stud

All Im saying is obviously people dont give a shit what the law actually says or they would have thrown her ass in prison. Whether anybody likes it or not people assoiciate a woman having sex with a consenting under age male a helluva lot differently than a man having consenting sex with an under age girl.

You're absolutely correct stud. I wouldn't argue this for a minute. And, it's alot less likely for an underage boy to go to the police with this sort of thing than it would be for an underage girl. Personally, the offense is the same regardless of whether it's a man or a woman who committed it.

The guy is usually labeled as a pervert or a sick, twisted freak who can't keep his dick in his pants. A woman, on the other hand, I think is viewed the same but to a lesser degree. I think people would tend to feel sorry for the woman as opposed to wanting to throw the book at the man. It's all a bullshit double standard.......

happy stud · 09-18-2006, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10

You're absolutely correct stud. I wouldn't argue this for a minute. And, it's alot less likely for an underage boy to go to the police with this sort of thing than it would be for an underage girl. Personally, the offense is the same regardless of whether it's a man or a woman who committed it.

The guy is usually labeled as a pervert or a sick, twisted freak who can't keep his dick in his pants. A woman, on the other hand, I think is viewed the same but to a lesser degree. I think people would tend to feel sorry for the woman as opposed to wanting to throw the book at the man. It's all a bullshit double standard.......

Its a partial double standard. If this 14 year old boy actually wanted to fuck her and she didnt threaten him or blackmail him in any way hell man I dont feel sorry for him. He aint emotionally scarred for life the way some of these assholes want you to believe. Man I would have been cooler than owl shit if I could have fucked my 8th grade teacher. I would have made so much money selling pussy hairs, panties, photos, tampons and all kinds of other things she used. No fucking way hes a damn victim and all this political correct bullshit aside thats what the jury thought also.

10 · 09-18-2006, 01:07 AM

Well, technically, he IS a victim. This is by legal definition of child molestation. He absolutely IS a victim. However, I once again hear what you're saying stud. Of course he's not emotionally scarred for life. That's a load of crap. However, the law is the law and she broke it. It doesn't matter whether or not he hit on her first or how this all transpired......point is she had an unlawful, inappropriate relationship with a minor child and she's going to get nailed hard. I bet most people on the jury would feel the same way.

happy stud · 09-18-2006, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10

Well, technically, he IS a victim. This is by legal definition of child molestation. He absolutely IS a victim. However, I once again hear what you're saying stud. Of course he's not emotionally scarred for life. That's a load of crap. However, the law is the law and she broke it. It doesn't matter whether or not he hit on her first or how this all transpired......point is she had an unlawful, inappropriate relationship with a minor child and she's going to get nailed hard. I bet most people on the jury would feel the same way.

I just got through watching the program and all she got is fucking house arrest. The jury threw all the technical bullshit out the window and realized he was flirting with her so he obviously wanted to fuck her real bad. I realize she still could have and should have stopped it before it got out of hand but she didnt. The jury was smart enough to know his dick was raging good and hard and he wanted to fuck her real bad. Putting the age issue aside he wanted was the aggresser at first. I gurantee you if she was a big fat 300 pound woman he wouldnt have been flirting with her. Naw man if I was on that jury and heard all this evidence theres no way I would have found her guilty either.

Überschwanz · 09-18-2006, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by happy stud

I just got through watching the program and all she got is fucking house arrest. The jury threw all the technical bullshit out the window and realized he was flirting with her so he obviously wanted to fuck her real bad. I realize she still could have and should have stopped it before it got out of hand but she didnt. The jury was smart enough to know his dick was raging good and hard and he wanted to fuck her real bad. Putting the age issue aside he wanted was the aggresser at first. I gurantee you if she was a big fat 300 pound woman he wouldnt have been flirting with her. Naw man if I was on that jury and heard all this evidence theres no way I would have found her guilty either.

Actually I don't believe it even went to trial stud. The kid's mother begged the prosecutors to let LaFave take the plea deal and the judge reluctantly agreed. She got off easy because of the kid's mom.

10 · 09-18-2006, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by happy stud

I just got through watching the program and all she got is fucking house arrest. The jury threw all the technical bullshit out the window and realized he was flirting with her so he obviously wanted to fuck her real bad. I realize she still could have and should have stopped it before it got out of hand but she didnt. The jury was smart enough to know his dick was raging good and hard and he wanted to fuck her real bad. Putting the age issue aside he wanted was the aggresser at first. I gurantee you if she was a big fat 300 pound woman he wouldnt have been flirting with her. Naw man if I was on that jury and heard all this evidence theres no way I would have found her guilty either.

See, this is where you and I differ. Think about, if a grown man in a similar set of circumstances had unlawful sex with a 14 year old girl, he'd be doing hard time in jail and have to be in solitary confinement so the other inmates wouldn't kill him. This bitch gets house arrest? See, I find that incredibly fucked up and just another way that in a double standard like this, women get the upper hand. If I was on the jury, I'd have still thrown the fucking book at her.

happy stud · 09-18-2006, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Überschwanz

Actually I don't believe it even went to trial stud. The kid's mother begged the prosecutors to let LaFave take the plea deal and the judge reluctantly agreed. She got off easy because of the kid's mom.

Naw man there were 2 trials. The trial your talking about is the kids cousin. It was his mother that didnt want her son to have to testify. In the first trial she got 10 years house arrest. They showed the ankle bracelet she has to wear.

Überschwanz · 09-18-2006, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by happy stud

Naw man there were 2 trials. The trial your talking about is the kids cousin. It was his mother that didnt want her son to have to testify. In the first trial she got 10 years house arrest. They showed the ankle bracelet she has to wear.

Oh. Well her life is still going to be fucked up anyway. Honestly, she isn't really that beautiful. She has a Jennifer Lopez ass.

happy stud · 09-18-2006, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10

. If I was on the jury, I'd have still thrown the fucking book at her.

Well Id have fucked her on the book. Sex is just a double standard that many people in this country have. Most people just dont give a shit about males getting pussy irregardless if hes underage and the damn girl is over age.

10 · 09-18-2006, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by happy stud

Well Id have fucked her on the book. Sex is just a double standard that many people in this country have. Most people just dont give a shit about males getting pussy irregardless if hes underage and the damn girl is over age.

I guess I just have a "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" mindset. Having been through divorce and seeing how much the state and laws favor the woman blah blah blah, I guess I sort of love it when a woman get's fucked in court. Makes me smile.........

happy stud · 09-18-2006, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10

I guess I just have a "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" mindset. Having been through divorce and seeing how much the state and laws favor the woman blah blah blah, I guess I sort of love it when a woman get's fucked in court. Makes me smile.........

Yea but like you said earlier sex is a damn double standard. If a guy has fucked about 100 women in his life people say hes a player. If a woman says shes fucked a 100 men people say shes a whore. In divorces all things being equal the damn woman gets the kids 95% of the time. So the damn list can go on and on with these kinds of inconsistant damn things.

kal · 09-18-2006, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonPop

Brother Marty, I agree with every word you have written here.
You have summed up this discussion in a an unrefutable way.

"The fact of the matter is this: Unbelievers have more to lose if there is a God. Believers have nothing to lose if there is not a God."

I don't want to seem like the ashole bringing religion up again, but this was too tempting. You make it sound like what Marty said cannot be refuted. I believe Christians have much more too lose. Hear me out: There are well over 2,000 so called gods out there. Source. What if it turns out like someone said, and there is a god, just not the Christian one. Maybe Thor or Mithras or something. How do you think he will take to the fact that Christians were worshipping a false god? And atheists have a clean slate as they don't adulate a single diety.

Quote:

Because, we here at Betterman are a strong and diverse Family and things like this get discussed in a family.

You're absolutely correct Jonpop.

Marty5379 · 09-18-2006, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kal

.... Hear me out: There are well over 2,000 so called gods out there....

Yeah, tonight when I was banging my wife, she cried out, "Oh my god!!!" Instead of humping harder, I asked, "Which god?"

Now if I could get an "Oh my god" during our head board banging for every god, then I'd have something to talk about. Right now I'm just getting her to talk to one of the 2,000 when she cums.

kal · 09-18-2006, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marty5379

Yeah, tonight when I was banging my wife, she cried out, "Oh my god!!!" Instead of humping harder, I asked, "Which god?"

Seriuosly?

That sounds like something I would say.

Quote:

Now if I could get an "Oh my god" during our head board banging for every god, then I'd have something to talk about. Right now I'm just getting her to talk to one of the 2,000 when she cums.

Give it time, she'll come around

jennifer · 09-18-2006, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kal

I don't want to seem like the ashole bringing religion up again, but this was too tempting. You make it sound like what Marty said cannot be refuted. I believe Christians have much more too lose. Hear me out: There are well over 2,000 so called gods out there. Source. What if it turns out like someone said, and there is a god, just not the Christian one. Maybe Thor or Mithras or something. How do you think he will take to the fact that Christians were worshipping a false god? And atheists have a clean slate as they don't adulate a single diety.

You're absolutely correct Jonpop.

Kal, you are more than welcome to state your opinion that you do not believe in God. However, you are not welcome to "challenge" those of us who do, in fact, believe in God. There is no proof for people like you. Believing in God requires a great deal of faith. Either one has it or one does not. I know many people who have major issues with organized religions, but they still believe in God. This thread is designed to give people an opportunity to express themselves and that's it. You may think that YOU are intellectually more superior than those who do believe in God because we cannot offer you the proof you are looking for that will illustrate beyond any doubt that God exists and/or that we are worshipping the "right" God since there are 2,000 or so that you claim. However, if you want to be "intellectual", you need to go someplace else because this is not the forum to do that.

kal · 09-18-2006, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jennifer

Kal, you are more than welcome to state your opinion that you do not believe in God. However, you are not welcome to "challenge" those of us who do, in fact, believe in God. There is no proof for people like you. Believing in God requires a great deal of faith. Either one has it or one does not. I know many people who have major issues with organized religions, but they still believe in God. This thread is designed to give people an opportunity to express themselves and that's it. You may think that YOU are intellectually more superior than those who do believe in God because we cannot offer you the proof you are looking for that will illustrate beyond any doubt that God exists and/or that we are worshipping the "right" God since there are 2,000 or so that you claim. However, if you want to be "intellectual", you need to go someplace else because this is not the forum to do that.

I understand what you are saying, it's just that Jonpop made it seem like what Marty said was the end all, final irrefutable thing. I have no intention of discussing this topic any further, but that tidbit was a little too tempting. I understand there's no proof, but you have to understand, the burden of proof is always on the believer, not the doubter. If I told you I had Superman's powers, you would want to see me do something unique to his ability, right? Like fly or lift a car or something. Or would you just believe me? Or if I told everyone I was abducted by UFOs, you would want proof, right? Hey, we are all the same here, it's just that I believe in 1 less God than you guys.

JonPop · 09-18-2006, 03:06 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonPop
Brother Marty, I agree with every word you have written here.
You have summed up this discussion in a an unrefutable way.

"The fact of the matter is this: Unbelievers have more to lose if there is a God. Believers have nothing to lose if there is not a God."

Kal, did you even understand this VERY profound statement that Marty wrote before you went off on your rant? Please take a minute or a month, whichever it takes you to process this and really try and understand the meaning of what was written.

want8 · 09-18-2006, 03:33 PM

I say let's put this to rest and get back to PE! I have a fucking contest to win!

kal · 09-18-2006, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by want8

I say let's put this to rest and get back to PE! I have a fucking contest to win!

Good idea. Religion definetly is a VERY TOUCHY subject. Before anyone gets banned, we should quit this discussion.