Forum posts made by coopsruthie

Question is; do you think a porn version of this could become a big thing?



It was only a matter of time before porn was introduced. I'm not that much of a gamer, but I suppose I'd buy it if I had the money to spare.

"Darkness is an odd thing to see. Sometimes, darkness can be scary but not this kind. This was self induced. The sun shone from above onto my neck and head, a spectacular feeling. It just couldn't overpower the feeling of nerves, sexual excitement that I felt. I felt, as I can only put it, like a slut. I'd never felt this way before and i'm not too sure I like it. We shall see. Sure I had done this before but not like this!"

Sometimes, darkness can be scary, but not this kind of self induced darkness. There was the spectacular feeling of the sun shining on my neck and head from above, but it couldn't overpower the feeling of sexual excitement, the nervousness, that I felt. I felt like a slut. It was a feeling I'd never had before, and I wasn't sure that I liked it. I had done this before, but never like this. I'd just have to wait and see.



"Meet me in the Sherwood forest, on the floor, blindfolded. I'll take up your offer." Was a message I received but an hour ago.

How about: An hour ago I received a message, "Meet me in the Sherwood forest, on the floor, blindfolded. I'll take up your offer."

How is that different than fingerprinting? If using a fingerprint database is not considered a random search, why would a DNA database be? As for collecting DNA from those who are not yet convicted, again, if it's ok to do so for fingerprints, why not DNA? Each is a unique signature which identifies you.

As long as the DNA never gets into the hands of American corporations who somehow have the right to patent human DNA, I'm ok with the police collecting it at the same time as finger prints.

That being said, unless you are on a tv series, DNA evidence solves a very limited amount of crimes. Prosecutors are continually frustrated by juries who expect that every case will have some DNA evidence to make it a slam dunk. But it just doesn't happen that way in real life. It works for rape, and maybe some assaults. But not really for much else.

It being OK to use fingerprints of person's is your opinion, and, I suppose most of society and the courts. It isn't my opinion.

I really don't see the big deal.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." U. S. Constitution.

Taking a DNA test on arrest, according to the dissent, is a violation of the constitutional protection against self incrimination, and taking someone's DNA on arrest seems to me to be ignoring due process. You can't have your house searched without a warrant, and your body is at least as important as your house. If there is sufficient cause to take a person's DNA the arresting officers should be able to get a court order.

When a crime is committed, the police aren't allowed to just search houses at random. They can't just round up people and force them to testify against themselves. Requiring sufficient cause for a warrant is important because it stops the government from just randomly seizing people and searching them or their property.

Precedents are important in court cases. The important thing probably isn't the DNA test, it's the precedent this case will set.

illusion of time
a woman in the tree top
listens to the bird

"A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti." Hannibal Lecter.

The first time I saw that movie it made my skin crawl. He looked so evil and malevolent when he said it.
http://upload.lushstories.com/1349085326-hannibal .gif

According to that source, none. But I don't see how that proves anything substantial. So they all got through: big deal. It was the process of scrutiny that is the main issue now. 90 or so groups targeted, versus 3. Even if it was a 2 to 1 ratio, it would be damning and embarrassing. The current situation is just blatant.

With that in mind, outcome is somewhat immaterial. Aside from that If they've met the requirements, then there shouldn't be an issue with the approval. And if they didn't, then there shouldn't be an issue with the rejection. Then again, it is the IRS...so....

What about the 225 applications that were singled out that weren't from conservative political organizations? Do only liberal and conservative groups count? Ninety groups were conservative, two hundred twenty five were not. Not just conservative groups were asked to justify their tax exempt status.

The IRS reviews every 501(c )(4) application. The narrative of the partisan political IRS conspiracy against conservative groups is false. It is something that never happened. The IRS needed a way to manage the huge number of applications it was getting from political organizations after the Citizens United decision.

This is just more subterfuge to keep our minds off the fact that corporations and special interests are buying the American political system. The fact that corporations are considered people and can freely use their money to influence politics is the real scandal. Like Jeffery Toobin said: " " ... the scandal isn't what's illegal - it's what's legal. It's what society chooses not to punish that tells us most about the prevailing ethical standards of the time."

While groups like Karl Rove's and the Koch brothers continue to manipulate public opinion, pour money into right wing causes, and use their wealth to empower themselves and keep the rest of us from making any impact by flooding the airwaves with right wing propaganda that keeps the public uninformed to the point that they will vote against their own interests, the media distracts us with petty crime.

Just another false flag operation.

Ah..well, if their own spokesperson says so, then it must be true. I don't know anything about Evolve America, or any of the 90-odd conservative/libertarian groups that were targed, for that matter. I do agree that anyone that doesn't meet the parameters for a desired tax status shoudn't be approved for it, but the IRS is a grease fire when it comes to credibility either way. A 90-3 ratio of political scrutiny will never look balanced and apolitical, even if 1 of those 3 got their status denied.

I was responding to a previous post that said no liberal groups were targeted. "No," means none. Zero. Liberal groups were targeted. Which conservative group was denied funding?

Secondly, if your position is based on the fact that the Tea Party is a political org. Then please let me know how you feel that no liberal organizations were targeted? Or do you believe that no liberal organization antwhere gets that exemption?



It's a false assumption that no liberal or progressive groups were targeted. Democratic groups received the same letter as the conservative groups.

“It is also important to understand that the group of centralized cases included organizations of all political views,” the IRS said in its statement.

Emerge America, a progressive group had it's tax exempt status denied. Which of the Republican groups have said that their requests were denied?

her eyes on green wave
vultures waiting for the rust
blue feathers, hidden

No. It's enough to compete with one sex for attention without having to contend with the other.

What could be wrong with that?




Here's my recommended read reason. I liked the story. Anytime you find an RR on a story I recommended, turn back here and read that. You too, foxy.

ScottFord: One reason that there is a policy that must be followed in firing people in government service is to prevent people from being dismissed from their jobs over matters of politics. People in appointed positions can be removed easily, those who are career civil servants don't need to be fearful of losing their jobs every time there is a change in administrations. Imagine the problem that would be created by replacing the entire bureaucracy every presidential cycle.

The DOJ raided Gibson guitars looking for illegal woods that are sometimes used in manufacturing guitars. Some tropical woods are not allowed to be imported into the USA. Do you think Gibson should be able to bypass U.S laws and regulations?

To Liz and OWA,

Just after I posted my last remark I realized how rude it was and I changed it to be more polite. Unfortunately WWM had already quoted it and the two of you had already seen the original post. I apologize for my rudeness.

I will say again that a crappy story is a crappy story no matter how good the grammar is. The verifiers do help the writers make the stories more understandable but the verifiers do not make the story better. This is a fine distinction. I know I could rewrite any Shakespeare story and make it more easily understood but I know that wouldn't make it better.

"When a man's verses cannot be understood, nor a man's good wit seconded with the forward child
Understanding, it strikes a man more dead than a great reckoning in a little room. Truly, I would
the gods had made thee poetical." Bill Shakespeare

After reading the replies from OWA and Liz I see the error of my ways and I now realize that none of the people that have posted stories here on Lush could possibly have teached their full potential with out the help of the verifiers.

We need the verifiers badly.

I can see why you don't think we need verifiers. The stories that you see posted online have, in many cases, been returned to the writer for extensive modification. The verifier makes recommendations, and the recommendations are made in order to make the story better. A story that has spaces between the words, proper grammar, and correct spelling is a story that is better than one that is written without regard to proper English usage. Most of the stories we receive aren't perfect. Some of them can be published as they are submitted, but a lot of them need correction.

You don't see the stories in their unfinished form. You have no idea how much work goes into a story that is actually published on Lush. Many, if not all, writers, could benefit from the help of an editor. It might surprise you to learn that most of the writers of fiction on the New York Times best selling list have editors. Most of the people who have drawers full of rejection slips don't. Stories full of technical errors don't get past the first reader.

If you want your story to be published full of technical errors feel free to submit it elsewhere. It's not going to be published that way here.

Yes. Because it's hardly fair that women have to cover themselves up lest they face charges for "indecent exposure" when men can go around topless. In the summer I see topless men absolutely everywhere, and some of them have bigger breasts than most of the women I know! It's ridiculous that breasts are so heavily sexualized when a man's chest isn't.

Here is one of my absolute favorite photographs on the subject, if anyone is interested:


http:// i.imgur.com/t9pjhX0. jpg

(just delete spaces)

I couldn't get your link to work.

Women should be allowed to be topless any where men are. That doesn't mean that they have to, just that they can if the guys can. You're right, the law should be the same for everyone.

There are still people planning terrorist attacks and plotting our destruction, but Osama bin Laden is no longer among them. The world feels like a better place without him to me. What I'd like to know is whether the Bush family and the bin Laden family are still close, and why, if bin Laden and fifteen of the hijackers were Saudi, did the Bush administration insist that it was Iraq's fault.

Today being the 24th, I hope someone can post a follow-up about what the accused girl (and her father) decided.

As others have pointed out, legally, the accused doesn't have a leg to stand on.



The girl turned down the plea deal and asked for a trial.

A Simple question, when you have finished at the loo, do you fold or scrunch the toilet paper?

I usually hide it.

Coming to an internet sex site is like going to a movie. It requires the willing suspension of disbelief if you're going to enjoy yourself. Except in those cases where you actually want to meet someone face to face, what they look like, or what character they portray online is irrelevant. Online, I portray a somewhat attractive twenty seven year old woman with red hair, small breasts, and a semi-polite demeanour who tries to be nice to everyone. In real life I discovered a cure for herpes and kept it to myself, because, fuck the rest of you, at least I don't have herpes, and I plant poison ivy in people's yards. If I tried doing that online I'd just end up with a rash.

as for if it had been a 14 yo boy and a 18 yo girl? they should be treated the same as well - should doesn't mean will be , but they should. period.

I agree. People tend to think differently if it's a boy, as we've seen when the subject of teacher/student sex has come up. A lot of people think that the female teachers should get a free ride because boys, I guess?

it's a sad case, and my heart goes out to her, but it's no different than if it had been an 18 yo guy having sex with a 14 yo girl

I agree that it shouldn't be different. What if it had been a fourteen year old boy and an eighteen year old girl? Do you think that the parents would have prosecuted? A lot of parents would just have let that pass. I think that there is a double standard. We've gone over this debate over the double standard elsewhere though.

Did this relationship go on before the older girl was eighteen? It wouldn't have been a violation of that particular law if the older girl had been seventeen. Was it legal one day, and a crime the next? From what I understand, the state's attorney offered two years house arrest, and probation, with the crime staying on record. Any decision to wipe the record clean would be left up to a judge, and wouldn't be part of the plea bargain. Maybe she's holding out for a guarantee of a clean slate. Surely she's got a lawyer. Surely she'll listen to her lawyer.

I think that there is probably more here than we're hearing. For one thing, both the accused and the state seem awfully interested in talking to the press. It seems to me that the parents of the accused would have had more inclination to stay quiet about it. Maybe the father reacted in a moment of anger because the courts had ruled his daughter could stay in school, as long as she stayed away from the other girl, and the other girl's parents had her kicked out anyway.

Whatever, this is going to change both girls lives. Taking it public didn't help either one of them.

. So enjoy Tumblr while it exists in its current form. Soon it will be bombarded with ads, merged into some half-assed social networking scheme, censored heavily, and eventually die a slow death. And the funny thing is, the demise will be completely unforeseen by its owner/perps when it happens.


This is exactly what I was thinking. Goodbye Tumblr.

I find it hard to believe that they would destroy clothing rather than give it to the homeless. From a purely pragmatic point of view, that's just stupid. Why not donate them to the Salvation Army, or some other charity and write them off their taxes?

On the other hand, this does seem very typical of the hatred that a lot of people seem to have for the poor these days.

There's really no way she could have kept it private. Probably, if she'd tried to keep it private, the tabloid press and the entertainment news channels would have broken the news to even bigger fanfare.

What concerns me is her decision to have it done. I understand it, but it seems to me that someone with all her money could have had all the breast exams she needed. Most women don't have that option. The recommendation for women with the gene is a mammogram once a year and twice yearly breast exams. She could have had as many of either as she wanted.

I have no idea what I'd have done. Probably the same thing she did, but I don't have her options. If I did, it would make a difference in my thinking.

If you did get it when you reach 75 or so, could you not get a penis pump implant? You would still have your testicles, so you could still get it on and chase the old ladies around the nursing home.

What about preventive measures? What all does that entail? Diet, medication?

You could get a penile implant. Why wait though? You might be impotent some day. Go and get one now.

In my current state of paranoia, it just seems like another plot to raise revenue. They're not getting enough fines at .08 so they want to lower it to .05. The USA does have a problem with alcohol. It's that old Puritan thing I suppose. You're not supposed to enjoy yourself. People don't learn to drink properly because their parents don't teach them how. What's so magic about the age of 21? One night you can't drink, then the next you can get alcohol poisoning from chugging a litre of whiskey, completely legally.

There are things to consider before saying it's a good idea. I'd like to see the data that says cutting the limit to .05 would cut traffic fatalities by almost half. What do they base that on? It would certainly raise revenues though. Eventually, of course, no one would be able to go out to eat or drink without having to pay a hefty fine on the way home, and the restaurant and bar business would start to lose customers.

Wasn't the drinking age 18 in a lot of places before the Federal government threatened to cut off road money unless the states raised it to 21? Have lives been saved as a result? Did eighteen year old's just stop drinking? Did some of them use drugs because drugs are easier to get than fake ID's? Did some old geezers find it suddenly more profitable hanging around liquor stores and making buys for the under aged?

It's an ill wind that blows no good, they say.

Figging!!!

I can't believe that there isn't already a figging category. My sole ambition in life is to win an award for best figging story. That and the Nobel prize.

My grandfather had it, one of his son's had it - of course both were diagnosed with it when they were over the age of 75...so perhaps I should circumvent being diagnosed with it and just go ahead and get mine removed & beat cancer to the punch?

I've always thought Angelina was hot, but I've also always thought she was dain bramaged too. Her latest decision has again indicated that her elevator is stuck between floors.

What do you think?


(CNN) -- Actress Angelina Jolie announced in a New York Times op-ed article on Tuesday that she underwent a preventive double mastectomy after learning that she carries a mutation of the BRCA1 gene, which sharply increases her risk of developing breast cancer and ovarian cancer.

"My doctors estimated that I had an 87 percent risk of breast cancer and a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer, although the risk is different in the case of each woman," Jolie wrote. "Once I knew that this was my reality, I decided to be proactive and to minimize the risk as much I could. I made a decision to have a preventive double mastectomy."

From what I understand, all men who live long enough will get prostrate cancer. You need regular prostate exams though. Angelina Jolie could get regular breast exams. I'm not sure preventative surgery is a good idea. There are also complications that come from surgery.

Did Angelina Jolie get her ovaries removed as well? She could probably afford to hire someone to give her daily breast exams and pap smears. She could probably buy a mammogram machine and keep it in her house. If I were her, I think I'd be getting a second opinion.

If I had Brad Pitt in my house he'd be busy examining my breasts now.

If Obama is right of center, then I'm the Dalai Lama.



I agree that conservatives have moved so far right that he seems liberal, but then so does Nixon. His policies are to right of center of the classical European model. So were Clinton's. If we keep changing the meaning of what liberal is, soon Benito Mussolini will be a centrist.