Recent Comments

I'm not emotionally invested in it enough to keep debating, so I'll leave it at this: I and a few others can't/won't believe that every porn actor/stripper/prostitute is in the business because they were somehow forced into it by 1st, 2nd, or 3rd order effects, just like you can't believe there's no other reason to do it.

Part of Lefty's problem, as stated before, was that he had to design an offense. He couldn't just coach mechanics. Now yes, Logan had some decision making and pocket awareness issues, but he also had a few mechanical issues, specifically with his release and footwork. That's the kind of stuff Lefty didn't necessarily have time to extensively drill Thomas on and that's the kind of stuff that Whitfield worked on, in addition to some other, more cerebral aspects of being a QB. That said, I consider Whitfield 100% a trainer/businessman. However, he can make a whole lot more money if he actually knows what the heck he's doing.

I'm not talking about in depth tutelage (which I doubt Whitfield provides, but I digress...) I'm talking about setting up a Pro-Day. I thought the VT coaches were responsible to set this up, but I have no actual idea. I mean, if VT isn't running the pro-day, then why not have the pro-day at University of San Diego, where Whitfield does his training?

Whitfield sounds like a smart businessman, not a coach. Props to Whitfield for building his brand, but a guy that runs a camp is not a coach to me. He's a trainer. Sure, several great quarterbacks have trained with Whitfield. All them were already good QBs. How much coaching did Logan get in the few weeks he's worked with Whitfield? Loeffler worked with Logan a full year and said he still didn't have enough time to coach him into the QB he could be. Could Whitfield really be that good that he could coach Logan into a superstar in a few weeks? Considering one of Logan's biggest weakness was decision making and pocket awarness, how beneficial is it to have Logan throw the ball in the ocean to increase his strength? Consider me cynical about what Whitfield can truly provide...

Emotionally healthy people just don't do porn.

That's a testable hypothesis, perhaps even rising to the level of a theory (scientific definition, not the casual vernacular). But the moment you find one instance of someone who contradicts that theory, the theory is invalid and the hypothesis is wrong. Show me peer-reviewed evidence (fact sheets from advocacy groups aside), and I'm more inclined to agree. But as a professional scientist (data analysis is my life), I am skeptical. I have to be.

All that aside, I'm really just quibbling over a detail here. I agree with your general premise, don't get me wrong, but I think that any assertion stated in absolute terms is inherently unreliable.

Being that there are probably more than one catholic TKPers on here you might wanna be careful with that one. Just sayin...

Speaking practically, 100% isn't much of a stretch.

Meanwhile, what I'm honestly seeing here is a bunch of guys who don't want to recognize there might be some harm behind what they see as a relatively innocent personal activity.

Alright now I'm gonna have to go ahead and step in here and point out that this is a grossly irrational (as it pertains to this community) generalization and overstatement.

Yes. Even the person who has gone and done studies cannot say that 100% have been forced into it unless she has talked to EVERY SINGLE PERSON. If even ONE person has made a conscious decision to do pornography without previous abuse, the 100 percent stat is no longer true. *Please let it be known that I am not condoning pornography, and please let it be known I understand it is almost always a result of previous abuse, but simply speaking scientifically, 100% cannot be true.

Again, "force" doesn't necessarily mean a pimp with a gun to her head. Often, it's a neglectful or abusive home that convinces someone they aren't worth much or that they can only be loved by allowing their bodies to be exploited. Emotionally healthy people just don't do porn.

Not so in her case. From day one she started at a reputable company. She was not abused in anyway and now, while she is no longer filming she is married, has a child, going through med school, and still selling autographed photo's, toys, and doing a personal chat room. I know not every case is like this, in fact this is probably a rariety but it can be done. I think what helped her was her looks, brains, and families support.
Is there a dark side to this business? Absolutely, but how is being a "slave" in that industry any different from working in another industry to pay the bills? Not everybody has a job they love, they do it to put food on the table and keep a roof over the families head.

Hey Rob can you make a VT coach watchlist and what time those teams are playing?