Forum posts made by dancing_doll

Congratulations to all the winners and kudos to those that entered. The competition was tight! Well done!

It's not just hormones - it's definitely a difference in physicality that will give her an advantage over female fighters. There's muscular/skeletal differences and probably also a distinct reach advantage over females of her weight class. If you look at guys like Jon Jones who have massive reach advantages over opponents - you can definitely see how physicality (and how you're born) comes into play. Yes, a lot of it is skill, but your physical make-up can definitely tilt things in your favour. If she's blasting through her competition and getting all these KO's, yeah, I can see why they're questioning things.

Aside from Ronda Rousey, the talent in high-level women's MMA is pretty shallow at the moment. You can look at fighters like Cris Cyborg who have been busted for PEDs and arguably look pretty masculine but this is a result of steroids/hormones - her baseline biology/physicality is still female. I don't know about whether post-op transgender people have to continue hormone therapy over their lifetimes, but if yes - I can't see how they'd even get past the testing requirements for many pro fighting organizations.

I'm not sure how to get around this one for Fallon Fox, but it sounds like an uphill battle. She'll probably need plenty of physical/hormonal assessments to get licensed in certain areas but even if they establish an even playing field, the whole "yeah, but she was born a man" is going to haunt her forever if she becomes successful in the sport.

I don't understand why anyone would want to do this. I can see girls getting into it in the same way kids like to pretend with dolls but I can't see any male thinking this was a cool idea.

Then again - I remember a recent story in Korea about a couple that let their real infant starve to death due to neglect because they were constantly holed up in the cyber-cafe playing a game that simulates having an 'online baby'. Caring for the cyber-baby instead of the real baby - how's that for disturbing. :(

The purpose of hospice care is to help people die. When a person goes into hospice care they go with the understanding that they are not going to recover from whatever disease is killing them. The idea is to keep people as comfortable as possible while they die. Access to pain killers is usually better under hospice care, and is one of the reasons some people enter a hospice in the final stages of their illness instead of going to a hospital for more treatments.


That makes sense in a hospice situation - but this patient wasn't in a hospice environment. My original comment was pertaining to someone who was in an independent or assisted living centre (like this patient) and the requirements of calling 911 if the patient became non-responsive. I assumed it was mandatory to do so (regardless of whether a DNR is in place or not, or whether the facility can provide interim CPR). When naughtynurse said 'no', it surprised me. I can understand not doing so in hospice, but independent/assisted living seems like a whole other scenario. Maybe we're all talking about different things on this one. That was more of a side issue anyway. If the patient and family were aware of the limitations of this particular facility and were fine with the arrangements, I don't really see any breach of conduct in a legal sense.

I have a question - does the Kinsey scale look at purely physical/sexual attraction?

The reason I ask is that I find my interest in the same sex differs on sexual attraction/desire vs. emotional/romantic attraction. If it was strictly physical desire, I'd rate myself as a 2, but when it comes to desire for a romantic relationship I'm pretty much straight. It's that sex vs love differentiation, but maybe Kinsey's scale is based purely on the physical?

It doesn't really matter to me that much. I think guys are just wired differently to want to show their junk as much as possible. It doesn't mean I'll click on the thumbnail though. In fact, 90% of the time I won't.

With that said... To the guys that are tempted to use their dick as their wallpaper - magnified to the point where I can see the hair follicles of your pubes - please don't. It's just nasty.

Wow - old thread!

When it comes to rough/dirty sex, I'm down for almost anything, as the OP well knows. :)


As an aside - consensual rough or 'degrading' sex isn't meant to be literally degrading/demeaning. It's just a form of sexual role-play (not unlike BDSM or other dom/sub play). It shouldn't be a reflection of anything abusive between the two people engaging in it. It tends to get a bad rap by people who don't understand it though.

I think disability is related to how able-bodied a person is. It doesn't matter to me how they got to that point (whether it was by their own hand, a medical issue, an accident, or whatever) - if the end result means that they are impaired/limited/restricted - then they are disabled.

We're talking about a very small percentage of obese people that would qualify for that category. It's not the average 'large person' - we're talking about clinical morbid obesity. I'm sure it's not a 'high-five' moment for them either to be qualified as disabled.

I didn't say that you shut the door and walk away. Here's an example:

I had a pt last week with a fib. She experienced periods of non responsiveness from time to time related to her disease process. We checked on her hourly, making certain she was comfortable, her o2 sats were good, she was turned, heels floated, changed her to an air mattress, preformed oral care, ect. She had a signed DNR in place, and her family was aware of the situation. When she passed it was quiet & peaceful. Death was pronounced by the RN, family was notified, MD was notified, & the funeral home was called.

I had a pt once who transferred to our facility. Her paperwork didn't all come appropriately at the time of transfer(happens more then you would think). I had a verbal report that she had a signed DNR in place but no physical yellow sheet. She coded within 8 hrs of her arrival. We were required to start CPR and call 911. In that case she ended up having her leg DRILLED into to start a line. Her chest compressions lasted for 30 minutes as we tried to reach business offices at 7a to get a copy of her DNR. I know from later speaking to the family that they were just as upset that we did the CPR then some others would be if we hadn't.

There are many courses on nursing ethics. It can be quite complex.



The second case you described sounds awful.

I assume each type of facility has their own procedure in place, maybe also related to how much care they are actually able to provide in that setting and what kind of medical personnel is there at the time. An assisted living centre like the one this woman was in really has limited means to treat. It's more 'carers' than registered nurses (compared to a hospice environment).

If there was a DNR I doubt that this would've made the news. I am sure everyone involved are nervously waiting on the report from the coroner's office. That will most likely determine the direction that this goes.

Yeah, but by virtue of the fact that the facility tells patient and family that they will not perform CPR in case of emergency - it's almost like an interim DNR on some level. I have to assume they can't be sued if the policy was explained and forms were signed showing understanding of procedure.

NOT true. (I deal with hospice patients daily)


Really? So if a person is struggling or suffering, there is no requirement to call 911 or offer palliative care? To my understanding - all a DNR is that it alerts paramedics not to perform aggressive chest compressions, intubation or mechanical ventilation in case of an emergency. Other than that, I think everyone would agree that some degree of palliative assistance if the patient is still alive is mandatory. In those cases it's about relieving suffering rather than reviving. At least that's what happened with my family member at the assisted-living centre they were at. Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying. Do places exist where the policy is just to shut the door and wait a few hours and check on them again until they're dead without any medical assistance? That doesn't seem right. :(

Yes I know

So - as per your last quote - calling 911 wasn't indicative of their belief that the woman could be saved if someone got there in the nick of time. All they were doing was calling 911 to say that they had a patient that was non-responsive as per what they were mandated to do. We don't really know the facts. The exact same thing happened to a family member of mine who was a DNR. They called 911 and administered oxygen until paramedics arrived but the passing was pretty quick. If there wasn't a DNR in place in this particular case, then they were (according to the facility) made aware of the rules about manual CPR. If this wasn't explained to the family and patient at the time of her placement in the facility, then a legal case can be made.

Had this been a case where CPR wouldn't have done anything or done more harm than good and it would be more humane to let her pass naturally I'd understand, but if it was the nurse wouldn't have called 911, she knew she could have saved her but she didn't, she knew if someone got their quick they could have saved her and that's the difference, if it would have ruined the persons quality of life and left her unable to enjoy life the nurse should have left the room to read a magazine and let her go quietly. Instead she stood there saying hey, I "can't" so you need to hurry up.


Actually they are mandated to call 911, even in cases where there is a DNR. The care delivered by medics may strictly be palliative (eg. oxygen, morphine etc.) in those cases however, until the person passes.

Satisfied with the treatment her mother received, as in general at that facility? Or specifically in relation to when her mother collapsed? I know CPR rarely works, and it may not be worth it on the elderly. But if she didn't have a DNR, even at her advanced age, that she intended to live as long as possible and wanted life saving attempts to be made.

More may come out on this later. Will be interesting to see.

I assume the question was asked of the woman's daughter by the media and that was her response, so it obviously takes into account the way in which she passed away. I agree the formal DNR wasn't in place, but if the policies of care were provided up front to both the patient and her caregivers, I assume they understood what would happen should manual CPR come into play. It could have been that life-saving measures were to have been up to the discretion of the daughter, but that both had decided it should only be performed by certain medical personnel and not by nurse-caregivers or passerbys.

I'm sure there's much more to this case, but I don't see it as a black and white case. It would be interesting to know if the nurse would have refused to administer CPR if it had been the able-bodied daughter that went into cardiac arrest while at the facility visiting her mother one random day. To me - that would be a much more clearcut case of negligence.

Here are a few excerpts from an interesting article on the subject. Just food for thought...

News Link ]

In another story, CPR was dutifully performed, without regard for whether it might do more harm than good, followed by urgent races to the ER where holes were cut in throats to accommodate tubes, arteries were probed and accessed to provide antibiotics, fluids and perhaps opiates, and ventilators were cranked up to deliver to elderly humans what they no longer were capable of accessing on their own: the breath of life.

Except for a lucky few – roughly, one in five – these patients will not resume life as before. They will not eat for themselves, drink for themselves, clean themselves, or possibly ever feel another thing except maybe when their dressing is changed or feeding tube suctioned, when they’ll grimace or moan. Maybe the heart will stop and CPR will be performed again. This will go on for days, weeks, maybe months.

But isn’t something wrong with the assumption that performing CPR and rushing a dying elder to the ER is always the good and compassionate act?

In the Journal of the American Medical Association in March 2012, physicians Craig Blinderman of Columbia University Medical Center and Eric Krakauer of Massachusetts General Hospital, with social scientist/bioethicist Mildred Solomon of the Hastings Center, suggested that CPR should no longer be the default option for dying patients:

“Whenever there is a reasonable chance that the benefits of CPR might outweigh its harms, CPR should be the default option. However, in imminently dying patients, a default status of full resuscitation is not justifiable. Not only is CPR in this situation likely to harm patients without compensatory benefit, the default framework likely influences patients and surrogates to request that full resuscitation is attempted even when the physician believes doing so may be inappropriate.”

Investigation may find that CPR would have been appropriate for Lorraine Bayless, and that the nurse was as unfeeling as her recorded voice and the corporation (not to say, the person) that employed her. And yet, with CPR on an 87-year-old, if you don’t crack a rib, you’re not really trying. A nurse knows this.

It’s worth noting that, according to a television reporter, Bayless’ daughter “was satisfied with the care her mother received”. And that Bayless’ daughter is a nurse.

I have mixed feelings on this one.

I heard that the patients and family understand and are made aware of the facilities policies about CPR before being admitted.

It sounds horrible to allow natural death to occur without intervening but this could be for a myriad of reasons such as compounding issues that can occur with advancing age such as brittle bones and frailty. Yes, she could have been on her way to dying and then someone performs manual CPR and breaks her ribs and they pierce her lungs and then she's on the way to the hospital and yay she's alive! But then she gets to spend the next six months suffering in the hospital with other injuries sustained during manual compressions, and healing when you're that old ain't an easy thing.

It's not a totally black and white situation. She may not have had a DNR on her file but may have been ok with forgoing manual CPR because of the host of complications that can occur when doing this with a frail senior citizen.

If she (the patient) understood the no-CPR clause and was ok with it, and her family said they are satisfied with the level of care she received, I don't get why this is getting blown up. It's tragic that she passed away, but she's 87 yrs old. To be honest - at that age, depending on my health and quality of life, I might also prefer that kind of clause. It still allows for resuscitation but only in certain circumstances as a way to try to safeguard against causing potential additional injuries that may affect remaining quality of life.

The same as things said about younger guys/gals too. I find most of them completely stupid and outright offensive in some cases. And to add to what you said, not all older guys ARE financially secure.

Another generality that sits wrong with me, is when bad sex is almost always blamed on a MAN not doing things right. I think we all know that women can be pretty lousy in bed too and many times the problem is THEM and not the guy. Comparability and expectations are HUGE factors in both sex and partnerships/dating. And every issue assigned to one sex, age group, etc. can in most cases apply to every other one. Because we are all individuals and we see the same types of people in both sexes AND all age groups.

Agreed on all counts. Older guys (and gals) do have more likelihood to be more financially secure than their 20 yr counterparts though (statistically), although this is definitely not always the case. There are plenty of broke and unstable people of all ages out there. That's just one area where they can sometimes edge the younger competition. Intelligence, emotional maturity, and sexual skills vary by the individual though. In my experience (and those of friends), I haven't seen any correlation to age (or gender).

I find the whole "older men are more attentive/caring lovers, more respectful, and mature about relationships and sex" to be total BS. Old guys looking for younger girls can be just as douchey and selfish in bed as a young guy. I haven't seen age gaps bring anything more to the table than a girl could get with a guy closer to her own age, other than cash and financial security. I'm not against these pairings, but I would take it on a case by case basis. The generalization that older guys have more to offer as far as sex and emotions go because of their experience, however, is a total fallacy.

http://upload.lushstories.com/1274828838-masked.jpeg

I think a lot boils down to: Guys like to see women naked and women like to read about men naked. LOL

And some of us like to see everyone naked. :)


Yes, I enjoy visual porn. I like written porn as well but it requires more of a time commitment and sometimes you just want a quickie - for that I'll go with visual porn clips or even some sexting/pics that I've saved on my phone if the guy isn't available to play at that moment. I'm pretty picky with written erotica in terms of what will actually get me off. Often it's more of a slow burn.

First of all - be chill. Be funny. Keep it light and fun and make sure to flirt. It's a first date and you're both in your early twenties. There's no need to get overly caught up in old-fashioned chivalry and proprieties.

You pick the restaurant/bar. You both decide on the movie together (ie. "Hey, what have you seen? In the mood for a comedy? Have you seen XYZ that everyone's talking about?"). No need to make it more complicated than it is. To be honest, I'm more in favour of something like drinks/apps at a cool bar and maybe seeing a bit of live music or something (but not sure what your city offers). Dinner + movie is a very lowkey/formal atmosphere for a first date and sometimes a more dynamic vibe helps keep the connection fresh and interesting.

Topics for conversation - it should just flow, unless you're both extremely introverted. If at a total loss for what to say - ask her questions and keep her talking about herself - but not in a creepy fact-finding way. Talk about places you've traveled to or want to travel to, funny things that have happened to you and your friends, school, TV/music/media/current events. Make sure you're both laughing at various points and keeping it lively. If it has an overly sober tone or feels like a job interview, change the pace.

Do not bring up the following: exes and past relationship issues, desire for a committed relationship, five year plan involving fast-tracking to marriage/kids, health ailments, emotionally traumatic experiences, dead pets or relatives, childhood issues resulting in emo sadness, expectations, overly probing into her privacy, her schedule for the next several weeks etc. Basically - just observe the TMI (too much info) rule.

Even if you're seeing her as the future mother of your children - always downplay.

If you don't plan on kissing her at the end of it or hooking up, flirt enough so that she's not seeing you as a boring friend-zone guy. Make sure she knows you like her. Even subtle things like intimate eye contact, body language, little touches - things like that can go a long way.

Do not bring or send flowers at this stage - it comes across as excessive and desperate.

A recent funeral for a family member ended up costing between $15-20K overall (and the headstone was already there, so it just required etching), so yeah, it varies quite a lot. I guess it depends on the wishes of the person and how elaborate they want it to be and whether the funds are there to accomodate.

I would think the most cost-effective thing would be cremation, a small service, and charity donations in lieu of flowers (elaborate flower arrangements can be very expensive).

Happy Birthday! Hope you have a fun one! :)

http://upload.lushstories.com/694807081-candlesbirthday.jpg

Word of advice stemming from the Jodi Arias trial to all guys: Never tell a psycho ex-girlfriend that just spent the night having sex with you that you are going on vacation with another girl.

LOL.. exactly. See this is a good example of why turning an ex into a fuckbuddy isn't the smartest move. Even if they seem totally chill with the arrangement, you have no idea what might bubble into the red zone in their minds if they can't emotionally detach and are still obsessing about it. All Jodi could hear was: "I want to zip-tie you to a tree and fuck your ass, but I'm taking this other virginal wife-material girl to Cancun. We're good, right?" Then cue the music from Psycho.

Obviously it's no excuse for murder. I think I remember reading how psychopaths and sociopaths aren't that uncommon (percentage-wise in society). If you act the way Travis did in that 'ex/fuckbuddy' situation, a normal girl would cry about it to her girlfriends, feel bitter, and delete his number in her phone, finally realizing that this guy will never be serious about her. You pull that kind of thing with a psychopath personality, and they could be reaching for the butcher knife. Scary stuff.

The 2003 movie - Open Water - scared the living shit out of me. I doubt it was mean to be a horror movie - according to IMDB it was a Drama/Thriller.

The scenario was based upon something which indeed happened to a couple...and the fact that it can happen to people ... made it a horror movie to me. I could barely watch it, I was petrified by what I knew the outcome not only MIGHT be...but they would definitely drown, if nothing else.



I absolutely loved this one too. I watched it several times. And you're right - it's that it did happen that makes it even more terrifying. The quieter improv-style acting made it more realistic too. You can totally imagine them as a couple going through all the different phases of hope and despair to the final realization that they were doomed.

I understand but I suppose for the questions you feel the films raise I would be more entertained - or educated if you like without the extreme grottiness. I prefer morality lessons to be presented in a more amusing way for example as in In The Heat Of The Night. And I still don't understand why people are entertained by very realistic horrible things which I find a little disturbing like Kill Bill which after the 3rd or 4th suicidal Japanese sword wielding gangster realistically bit the dust (they could have easily shot her) became nauseatingly boring. There was a movie based on fact about people in a sunk ship's lifeboat the commander of which ditched the wounded, the weak and the useless in order to save the majority but the scenes weren't presented in a way that was totally nauseating they didn't for example show how they managed toilet facilities but the moral question was still understood.



I like a bit of gore or shock value sometimes. It goes with the horror genre, otherwise it's more just a suspense/thriller (which I also enjoy but have different expectations from). Was 'In the Heat of The Night' considered a horror film? I haven't seen it. I don't consider Kill Bill a horror, but it's one of my fave movies of all time. When I think of 'horror' I think of 'horrible things' so I expect to see stuff that makes me cringe. I don't get nauseated by it though - I actually enjoy the zombie segments in Walking Dead for example. To me, the key is that it needs to have a balance with the rest of the storyline/action - not just nonstop blood. If a film can push the envelope in certain scenes but still have compelling themes beyond "try not to get killed" then I think it can make for a successful horror film. Cheesey and/or campy gore like Piranha 3D and the flicks where a series of one-dimensional characters gets sliced and diced by a random bad guy don't really interest me. A little bit of gore and shock value combined with a complex plot line and interesting characters makes for a solid film for this genre. It's similar to my favourite formula for erotica writing actually, except I substitute the hot explicit sex for the gore. :)

There are two different things you can try - reducing and concealing.

Reducing - you'll need to buy a pigmentation fading cream with an ingredient like hydroquinone in it and use it religiously (while avoiding the sun at the same time). You can google a cosmetic fading cream according to your price range (they vary quite a lot in $). You can also consider treatments like microdermabrasion to reduce the visibility of the scars by removing the top few layers of skin and promote faster healing and skin repair.

Concealing - there are some great pro make-up products that are designed for maximum coverage concealing (stuff like CoverFX or Dermablend) that are designed to cover things like scars, port-wine stains etc. as well as for stage make-up. There are also make-up products to cover tattoos which should be able to seamlessly blend into your natural skin-tone and cover up those scars as well. Make sure to check for something that's waterproof if you live in a warm climate (eg. sweat-proof) or plan to be in the water.

At one point, I had a lot of deep bruises that I needed to cover and went with Dermablend (http://www.dermablend.com) and it worked like a charm. It's great to have on hand for stuff like that and I still end up using it on occasion.

For example Cabin Fever in my opinion was only nauseating and not frightening as was Hostel.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. They do have some shock-gore. I think what I appreciate about these films though is what they say about the human condition. It's not just about a bunch of good looking people getting tortured or dying grim deaths, it's about the morality behind their actions and the connections between them.

Like in Cabin Fever - we'd like to think we'd help a stranger in need or especially a close friend, but as the virus sets in - you start to re-evaluate your morality (self-preservation at any cost or altruistically sticking together no matter what). It's an interesting concept and so you can start to imagine yourself in that situation (conceptually speaking). Does self-preservation outweigh all other relationships and to what degree? I thought it was a cool little flick. Gory, yes. But the premise was very thoughtful. It wasn't simply a bunch of hot teens being stalked and killed off by a miscellaneous monster. And it wasn't just the virus transforming the characters - it was slowly transforming their moral compass as well.

Hostel similarly plays off several interesting ideas as well that make it more than just a gore-flick. Where do loyalties lie, what does money (in cases of poverty and semi-lawlessness) make you do if you don't know what the end-product looks like. Is there such evil depravity inside the minds of seemingly banal/successful people.

That's why I like Eli Roth's films. There's some gore - but there's always bigger statements about the human condition and looking at the dark side in all of us and what conditions can elicit it. It's rare that a horror film can really make me think and it seems like he sets out to do that with his films even more so than delivering a temporary scare or a stomach-turning cinematic moment.

The sticky at the top of this forum section covers it all. No underage references in posts, please.

http://www.lushstories.com/forum/yaf_postst24108_How-old-were-you-when-underage-referencing-posts.aspx

I haven't followed this trial too closely, but I've just googled some of her images. Most are of her in court, with a few others I've seen. Funny how her out of court pics show a pretty attractive woman. While her court pics show her wearing frumpy clothing and school marm eyeglasses. Trying desperately to downplay her attractiveness so she'll seem less sexual.

LOL... I love the slow progression in her looks that her attorneys have orchestrated in time for her trial.
Nothing like going with the mousey brown hair, tragic bangs and kiddie side barrette and the fake glasses. A far cry from the original Jodi.


http://upload.lushstories.com/1110770955-JodiChanges.jpg