LadyX's Forum Posts | Lush Stories

Join the best erotica focused adult social network now

LadyX

Over 90 days ago

Straight Female, 35

0 miles · Dallas

Profile Stories

Forum

19 Jul 2013

Quote by Magical_felix
Anyone that visits california has to go to In and Out. This place has only three things on the menu. Burgers, fries and drinks. You basically just tell them how many patties you want and if you would like cheese, it's that good. They don't have any freezers either. It's the freshest fast food burger you can get. You know how most fast food places... Like, if you taste the burger meat on it's own -it tastes like grey dry culo?- Not In and Out, its juicy and delicious. They also pay their workers a living wage too so you get good service. It's always busy though. Expect to wait in line even at 2 am.

I wonder how much of In-n-Out's rep is bolstered by California mythology though. Not to say that it's actually bad, but maybe we're partially duped into thinking it's good because we've all pre-accepted it as good, respecting it's revered status as a signature California fixture.

They have opened them up here in the Dallas area. I think there are a dozen or so here, I've tried it three times. I won't say my meals were bad, but they didn't blow me away, either. Yes, the meat was decent, and it's better than Wendys and McDonald's of course. But I don't think it holds a candle to a handful of local non-chain burger joints (not hipsterish $15 'gourmet burger' places) I've tried since moving here. Even Five Guys, another burger chain, blows them away.

I realize I'm blaspheming my west coast heritage here, but either we're pre-disposed to like it for emotional reasons, or the In-n-Out company itself has decided to go slack on quality as they expand. The latter is definitely possible, but I have a hard time believing it fully. What's more suicidal to your business model than to stop excelling at the one thing you're in business to sell (besides your own mythology)?

All I know is that it was always a big-time treat to eat there when I was a kid, and even when I was 18 or so. But to have it now, it's aggressively 'meh'.

16 Jul 2013

The Bachelor, no question. That would be so much fun, for all the worst, most ironically motivated reasons.

15 Jul 2013

1 Dog and 1 Husband.

15 Jul 2013

Okay, you talked me into it...

"Jane has a boyfriend, who is a wonderful man and a model citizen. He treats her with only the utmost respect; she is his queen. One problem: Jane's boyfriend has a tiny widdle weenie. For fun, she'll often flick it with her thumb, and she thinks the way it's not even big enough to hang down when it's soft is really cute. But you know, it doesn't really fill her up. What would fill her up, you ask? The giant penis on the black next door neighbor. Oh yes, that would do the trick. The good thing is, the tiny-peckered boyfriend is totally okay with this. So, she gets her pussy wallered out with the giant black cock while the boyfriend watches, masturbating by rubbing his tiny clit-like peenie between his thumb and forefinger while the giant cock guy makes fun of him. The humiliation pushes him over the edge, Jane orgasms like never before, the black guy is obviously signing up for more of this action...and the encores will be detailed in sequels to this fine tale."

You're welcome, by the way. But I bet you could do better. ;) Just remember to submit it as a story and not be naughty by posting it in the forum like I just did. Good luck!

15 Jul 2013

Are you kidding? I'm a different person when I go too long without eating. Pump me full of booze? Yeah, I'd say I change a little.

14 Jul 2013

That's cool.

I can tell you that sexual preference had nothing to do with our son's circumcision, especially since my husband isn't homosexual and was the greater driving force in that decision. I also have never met anybody, nor have I ever heard anyone, who said they wanted their kid circumcised based on their own sexual preference. But if some wacky survey says different, I'll take your word for it.

I'd also say that you can no longer speak toward women's motivation for seeking circumcisions for their offspring, than uncircumcised women can speak for women who receive them.

It takes all kinds in the world, Jack. Frankly, I'm not terribly bothered with the norms of circumcision in other parts of the world. We'll never all feel the same on matters like this, and that's okay. All that matters is that I'm comfortable with our decision. Assuming that women get a say in other parts of the world (which isn't always the case, unfortunately), as long as they're at peace with their decisions as well, I'm not all that concerned.

12 Jul 2013

Quote by Jack47

I have never discussed it in person with any of my friends either. If he is happy with it and does show confidence than it likely will not matter. But there are men that are not happy about it and there are women who will not excepta man if it is one way or the other. There are many different areas of human sexuality that can and have been focused on and studied and discussed here on this forum as well. This is simply another topic that does impact human sexuality so i dont see why we cant have a conversation on it?

I can see where this is going but I really want to stay neutral on this.

I can't speak for those who feel fanatical about either circumcising or not circumcising male infants, nor can I speak on behalf of women who exclusively seek male partners with circumcised penises. I don't come from a place of extreme bias either way.

I have a one-year-old son, he's circumcised. Left to my own devices, I probably would've had him circumcised, but as it happened, his father definitely wanted it as well, so that closed the book on that decision. I don't find anything "barbaric" or dangerous about it, nor do I think it's any sort of stealth power play on the part of females. Anyone who believes that is obviously lingering in the dark corners of conspiracy-land a little too often. It's more common in some parts of the world than others, and is completely unrelated to the practice of "female circumcision". So different, in fact, that it's somewhat of a misnomer to even call them both 'circumcision'.

The "article" you posted was pretty funny though.

10 Jul 2013

For the record, I would only shiv the guys that got too close to you and Doll without the proper invitation.

10 Jul 2013

Quote by paulie1960

Hey there my love, I saw from your profile that you also happen to be a registered nurse, specialized in mental health care. Isn't there anything you can do for Magical_felix??? Or is it a lost cause???

Thanks!!

Paulie

Nurses can't fix crazy. evil4

evil4

10 Jul 2013

occasion5

always happy to have a partner in contemplation, especially if drinks are involved. smile

smile

Much as you've confessed, I'm guilty every day and all day of judging based on physical appearance as well. Sexually (biologically?), we're hard wired for that at the very least, so I'm not so naïve as to suggest that we can have a world without it. I own no high horse, and can claim no moral high ground, especially not when it comes to matters of vanity LOL.

Thanks for your reply.

10 Jul 2013

Paulie, it occurs to me that you might not be down with homicide; and if you are, it's probably best that you say nothing...

But all kidding aside, I do think that the way she views you within her life is probably completely separate from who lives or dies. And based on the evidence, I wouldn't invest any further in hope that you two end up together.

10 Jul 2013

Hope you find what you're looking for, Limoguy. A friendly piece of advice, though: your long list is asking a lot of people. Maybe finding more concise ways to mine for what you're after will yield more responses.

10 Jul 2013

Quote by Barrone
Lushies, if you could go on a cruise with other Lushies, would you?

Is there a word that describes the process of everyone agreeing to do it, then nobody actually doing it? That's the word I'd use here.

10 Jul 2013

This post is not a question. I guess it's more of a musing that I'm putting forth for your consumption. These are things that have probably been said thousands of times, including probably several times somewhere in the history of this very forum. I don't think I have anything terribly original to say about anything, really. But nonetheless, it's something that's been rolling around in my head for a while, slowly tumbling the unintelligible sharp points, and now hopefully honed into something that's coherent.

So, feel free to agree or disagree. I don't claim to be "right" or to claim any sort of authority, it's just the way I see things based on my own experience, and this seems to be a decent place to air it.

**

Why aren't we- not just at Lush, but everywhere in society- more "real" about how physical appearance affects the way we interact? I've come to understand that even discussing how the standards are different for attractive(or, "hot", or "beautiful", or "handsome", or aesthetically pleasing synonym you want to use) people is different based on who's talking about it. If it's somebody who is considered attractive by many, then it's taken as an unnecessary reminder of this double standard; 'scoreboarding' at the expense of everyone else. If it's somebody that's considered less attractive, then it's perceived as whining. Neither constitute any sort of serious discussion of it, though, nor does it negate the objective truth of the matter.

**

Confession: I'm complimented often on my physical appearance. I try not to internalize it, for fear that I'd become some sort of snotty, Regina George disciple, though when I think about it, I know that's not who I am or how I handle things. I don't really even know what it would mean to intentionally 'internalize' a compliment. But to some extent, none of us can help but be affected by other people's reactions to our appearance. Why? Because it's front-and-center all the time, it affects everything, and even dictates some things. So even though (or, especially because) I consciously try to not let compliments "go to my head", I'm always very self-aware.

**

I know what the so-called membership advantages tend to be for attractive people: people pay closer attention to you, they laugh at shit you say that's not funny (and sometimes at things that aren't even jokes, for fear that maybe it was, and thus they figure a laugh is what's appropriate), and in general, you get credit for being more interesting than you really are. People try to ingratiate for no concrete reason (yes, sometimes they want sex, but sometimes you know this isn't the case).

Then there are the negatives: It will be assumed that any gains you have are somehow ill-gotten, unearned, and due solely to your "looks." You can never be recognized for any skill without a qualifier which mentions your appearance. People will lack compassion and empathy toward you, and hold you to a higher standard. Hardships aren't recognized, because attractive people supposedly have no grounds to complain about anything. Some people will decide to hate you for no reason. They'll be inexplicably adversarial, and for a moment you wonder what you might have done, or what they might have heard about you, until you realize that it's really not about anything personal, because you've seen it before. That person is simply projecting a negative experience with some other female onto you, and the crime is 'being attractive'.

Quick example: page 3 of this thread. Look at 1Ball, with his 'many women are shallow parasites' rant. He would be (and almost certainly will be) quick to point out that he didn't make any comment about attractiveness, but that will be dog-whistle debating at it's best. The inference is clear: "the hot, shallow bitches aren't worth your time, so stop chasing them." It's as if attractive people are somehow predisposed to be manipulative, selfish, shallow, and Machiavellian, all the time.

I totally agree about shallow people in general, by the way- and that's regardless of gender. What I'm talking about is a wholesale, albeit sometimes subconscious, judgment of a girl's intentions and personality based on nothing more than appearance.

**

Of course, it doesn't stop with how others treat you, and because one can't help but be affected by it, you can't even think about things without questioning yourself. "Did I actually do something? Am I took quick to assume that I did nothing? Am I acting like a distant ice queen and don't know it? Am I actually undeserving of this thing that I think I've earned? Am I an idiot/bitch/unreasonable person without realizing it, because the subtle social clues, which would normally tip me off to reality, aren't being offered?"

**

Okay...so my thoughts aren't as well-structured as I thought. It's more of a ramble. If we had a 'ramble cage', that's where this would go.

But I guess all of this is to say: Isn't a trend of interaction changing based on appearance every bit is as problematic as- and way more common than- being treated differently based on gender or race? Now, granted, the worst-case scenarios of institutional bigotry and worse don't apply, but that doesn't make it any less wrong in practice. Yet, I wonder if there's any way to deprogram ourselves to the point where it doesn't happen. Is expecting everyone to be treated equally an unreasonable and naive expectation, given that much of what I'm talking about happens involuntarily? I'm thinking this is the case, but I still wonder.

Also, is there anything about human interaction that's not affected by physical appearance?

To state these things feels like one big "captain obvious" venture, but on the other hand, are we so resigned to these double-standards that we're unwilling to even acknowledge and discuss them? All experiences and comments welcome. And if not- thanks for letting me waste your time LOL. Sorry that I can't refund it to you.

9 Jul 2013

Looks like I missed out on group therapy again...

3 Jul 2013

Quote by lafayettemister

So, if she's not hot you're ok with it?

Well, aren't we always more upset when the murdered person was hot? Not that it's any less tragic otherwise; just bein' real witcha.

3 Jul 2013

I've always been a bit fascinated with Shemales. Though they don't turn me on, I can definitely understand how others would be.

For the record, I oppose the practice of brutally murdering hot Shemales in any manner...just so we're clear on that.

2 Jul 2013

Quote by Nikki703

Totally disagree. Miley is far from a meltdown. Miley wants to move from child star to adult. While I do not think she is very talented at acting or singing, she is very popular. She knows how to market herself, much like Madonna, who btw is not very talented either.

I agree with this. As far as I can tell, she's not on the brink of some Lohan-esque breakdown. She's trying to distance herself from her Disney beginnings, and is so far fairly successful in doing so.

As for the twerking...people get very proprietary about what qualifies and what doesn't LOL. The twerking argument that I referenced in an earlier post went on through the entire shift, for whatever reason. Call it what you want, but the girl can move; gotta give her that.

2 Jul 2013

Quote by slipperywhenwet2012
She wasn't twerking...

This was the subject of fierce debate one night at my workplace. Though the two sides will never reconcile, it depends upon how narrowly one defines the 'twerk'. Clearly, you adhere to the strictly-defined camp.

2 Jul 2013

I was entertained. That's a great video, really. Though I'm pretty salty that she got gold grill before I did.

2 Jul 2013

So last night, my husband and I went to the movies and it was his turn to select the movie: White House Down. I know what you're thinking: "you knew this would be a dumbass movie, right?"

Yes, yes I did. Maybe I was just unprepared for just how bad it would be. And really, just because something is known to be dumb doesn't mean it deserves to be spared from public flogging.

**

I don't pretend to have a really wide understanding of movies. I think I basically know what a good movie looks like, and there are tons of good ones I haven't seen. But I've sure seen a lot of bad ones, and White House Down takes elements from several of them.

By the way: if you don't like spoilers, a) save your spoiler-outrage for something that matters. That said, b) quit reading.

From a cliché standpoint, this movie damn hear has it all:

Transparent copy of the real-life president? check.

Blaxploitation of said character, making him extra edgy and attitudinal when the chips are down? check.

Cheap macho-president "get off my plane" moment? check.

Divorced dad trying to make it up to his resentful child with a 'he should know better than to expect this to make up for it" gesture? check.

"Wrong place/wrong time" character stuck in the unique position of being unable to escape but also, through special-ops training, able to both vanquish the 'bad guys' and rescue the hostages? check.

Seemingly worthless detail that later becomes pivotal in the an 'unlikely' way (oh, she twirls flags at school...and now she's using that skill to keep a plane from firing a missile on innocent people! wow!!)? check.

Turns out this Emmerich guy that directed the movie also directed Independence Day and a few other national/world disaster flicks, so I think it's safe to say he's got a real affinity for blowing up the capitol and other landmarks. And while that's a creepy pattern to begin with, it just seems a bit insensitive in this day and age. Not to suggest he shouldn't be allowed to do it, but I don't see the entertainment value at this point.

The President (Jamie Foxx) is kind of unintentionally hilarious, head-swerving "look who just shed the bookishness and became street!" antics aside. I mean, they even have him rediscovering how much we loves wearing Air Jordans, for fuck's sake. It's like the screenwriters have no better than a fourth grade understanding of geopolitics, and in the process, have simultaneously written an insulting and fantasy-laden picture of movie-Obama, complete with a secret nicotine addiction and Lincoln-worship fetish. Also, at one point he addresses a group with "have you ever heard of the military-industrial complex?" No, fake-Obama, I haven't. Why don't you school us on this mind-bending concept.

The secret service people are hilarious, too. They're so self-satisfied to be wrapping themselves in the American flag every day that one of them actually utters the line "do we have the best job in the world, or what?". Another agent, played by Maggie Gyllenhall, responds to an inquiry about how she's managing to function so well on no sleep. Her answer? "Caffeine and Patriotism, sir." Good lord. This bullshit makes Independence Day look like Arlington Road.

As for Channing Tatum, he sort of looks like he knows he's starring in a steaming pile of dog shit, reminding himself that the checks are in fact clearing as they land in his account. Plus, his role steals blatantly from John McClain in Die Hard, right down to the wife beater and the lost shoe. Speaking of Die Hard, the 'bad guys' are right out of the same mold, hell-bent on access to the nuclear bomb....and gosh! I sure hope John McClain...I mean...whoever the fuck Channing Tatum plays...can swoop in at the last moment and gun the guy down in a blizzard of machine gun fire! I mean, but surely he won't, right? That would be entirely too improbable!

And now I'm gonna leave you hanging. Does the divorced dad make it up to his daughter by saving her life & stuff? Does the president discover his inner gangsta and fire a missile launcher out the window of the presidential limo? Will a terminally ill 65 year old man survive a brutal beating, an aortal stabbing, and being crushed against a wall by an SUV? Do the bad guys lose and the good guys win? Do we smoke the evildoers out of their caves and bring them to justice?

You'll just have to find out for yourself. But please, unless you love to waste money, wait until it's on Netflix.

**

I'm encouraged by the fact that this heap of excrement is tanking at the box office; at least that tells me that while total crap does succeed, it's not a requirement for success, and not a guarantee of it, either. If it were more tongue in cheek, that would be one thing. But clearly, they're after the middle-America beer and NASCAR crowd, and if they veer too much toward the winking "Team America" approach, they'll lose them wholesale. Therefore- we get to see the US Capitol blown up, followed by cliché, jingoistic speeches, again.

Two middle fingers up for White House Down.

27 Jun 2013

Diarrhea. Kills the mood immediately.

14 Jun 2013

13 Jun 2013

13 Jun 2013

13 Jun 2013

Quote by Regmister
I need to know if a girl likes you if you ejaculate when you masturbate thinking about her?

Absolutely yes. No question.

12 Jun 2013

Quote by sprite

so, you're saying that being a gentleman is all about how good your aim is? i can work with that. a true gentleman only sticks it in my ass when i ask him to, not because he's too drunk to find my pussy.

Okay, that, and a really nice velvet dinner jacket. I'd say that makes a gentleman. Perhaps a cigarette holder and a vintage Aston Martin as well. Can't hurt.

12 Jun 2013

Quote by sprite
any guy who comes home drunk on a friday night and doesn't beat the living shit out of me because i refuse to have anal sex with him qualifies as a true gentleman in my book.

buzzkill!!

The getting beat up part, of course. Your post was just a matter of keeping it real. Though I'd say a slightly higher threshold is needed for one to be considered a 'true' gentleman. Say, perhaps, not shooting his load into my hair. I fucking hate that, especially when I ask him not to. No self-respecting descendant of hidalgo is unable to at least get it all on my face, if not in my gaping mouth.

12 Jun 2013

Quote by naughtyannie
Schubert especially was only just getting going before dying of syphilis (apparently).

well at least he got some tail while he was around.

12 Jun 2013

Quote by yourmisterdark

Well said, sprite. The concept of the gentleman descends from the orders of knights and the various explications and iterations of courtly love (aka romance) down through the esquiries of Beau Brummel's time. You will find, however, as with all human social behavior dichotomies, such as the famous "Southern Gentlemen" who none the less for manners and decorum still beat women and had sex with slaves while professing a code of honor. And it is in both grooming and honor that we find many of the ideals of modern gentility.
A gentleman is indeed one who knows and behaves within the practices of social etiquette -- which means he is comfortable and able to "fit in" in any social milieu from high to low. He will wear the best and most fashionable clothing, though there is such a thing as "shabby gentiiy" like the Russian noble exiles in France and the bohemian artistes of Paris, who, though poor, retained a semblance of rough grooming and romantic notions. While a gentleman is not always gentle, he is duty and honor bound to defend the defenseless, women, children, the less fortunate from abuse He will also defend his ideals of ethical practice and chastise the lazy and "shiftless", the willfully ignorant, the pretender, and the shallow. He is, by nature or schooling, cultured and sophisticated, not narrow-minded and prejudicial. If he is judgmental, it is by taste, not blind following or antiquated code. While he may not himself practice The Arts, he appreciates them in others. A gentleman is aware of his surroundings and other people, yet some feel he holds himself aloof from imitating the baser behaviors and instead aspires, at least, to the highest ideals of human civilization and social manners. He will be respectful and polite in all situations, but push his buttons too hard and he will easily kick your ass to hell and back, for a gentleman is usually also well-schooled in the more martial arts without being either pugnacious nor a bully. In fact, see above, bullies and cowards are often the target for his anger in relation to his code of honor and defense of the defenseless.

A gentleman is supremely confidant because of his self-built knowledge and experience, his self-control, and his respect for himself and others who deserve or earn his respect. As sprite says much of a gentleman's outward expression is window dressing, but it's based on a good sense of design and social fashion. He is the opposite of the brute, "white trash", mob-thinker. He is the descendant of the Spanish hidalgo, the courtier, the officer and a gentleman, the English squire. And people know him when they see him and know him as "a gentleman."

I wonder if this guy is also a descendent of the Spanish hidalgo, though he seems vaguely French, really.