SereneProdigy's Forum Posts | Lush Stories

Join the best erotica focused adult social network now

SereneProdigy

Over 90 days ago

Male

Profile Stories Ebooks Follows

Forum

12 Jul 2017

I'm currently in the process of relocating to a new apartment, and luckily I'll have a full room dedicated to fitness. At first I didn't ponder much about how I'll be painting/decorating that room (as opposed to the other rooms where guests will spend most of their time into), but as I had to choose a specific color for my workout space I soon realized that the overall ambiance could have a major impact on my mood/energy/motivation whenever I'll be working out.

Which color/ambiance do you favor yourself when you're working out? What would your ideal fitness space look like?

Do you prefer a fierce mood that bolsters your aggressiveness, or a soothing one that counterbalances it? Do you appreciate stylish elements, or prefer a minimalist atmosphere that looks like a workshop and downright screams 'testosterone'?

Which importance/impact does a gym's atmosphere have for you? Does it even matter?

Thanks for sharing!

11 Jul 2017

I'll admit right off that war movies tend to depress me to a significant degree. I actually often have to force myself to watch most of them, even those that are purely fictional/entertaining like Tears of the Sun, Courage Under Fire or Enemy at the Gates. I can handle violence/gore in movies just fine, but I guess that I'm really not cut out for the whole 'militaristic spirit'.

Having said that, Full Metal Jacket would be my choice (it's surprisingly one of my favorite movies ever). It's loaded with Kubrick's usual cleverness and the astute mix of realness and satire fitted my own liking perfectly. It was a sharp criticism without any sort of hypocritical patriotism, which I appreciated quite a lot and which is exactly the spirit that I want to be into whenever I'm watching a war movie.

11 Jul 2017

Excellent idea! I might dig up a few obscure movies that I watched in the past few years and suggest them to people who might have missed them.

When I'll be over with my relocation project and have a bit more time for it, that is...

11 Jul 2017

Quote by DamonX
yeah, this show is definitely one that takes commitment. I've seen every episode 3-6 times and I notice new things every time I watch. I watch pretty much everything and i can honestly say that GOT is the best tv show on right now, and quite possibly the best show in the history of TV.

I also think that if you haven't watched it by now you probably aren't going to enjoy it, because someone is obviously making you watch.

"You haven't seen game of Thrones? Bro, you have to watch!"

You can always just watch it for the violence and the tits, but if you really want to enjoy it, it does take commitment. It is however a show with a definitive beginning and end. So it wont just keep stringing you along forever like Walking Dead. There are 14 episodes left...

If you are worried about it not picking up, just watch a clip of "Battle of the Bastards." Probably the best battle sequence in any movie or TV show.

To be fair, that was me mocking my own usual disinterest in TV series a lot more than me criticizing that show, haha. I'm just terrible at keeping a high level of commitment toward those, plenty of my friends lent me box-sets of different TV series in the past (like Six Feet Under, or Heroes, or Breaking Bad), and I usually get bored after watching 3 episodes. The fact that I watched 2 full seasons of Game of Thrones is actually quite complimentary in my own case, that's pretty much a lifetime record for me.

And no worries, I'm really not watching it for the action sequences (or the titties); I recognized that this show is a lot more about intricate political intrigues after watching the first few episodes. I do enjoy most of it and how it's presented, it's simply that some plotlines literally take an eternity to evolve. The best example of this is Daenerys Targaryen and her whole 'desert journey'; I've been waiting for so long to see her kicking major ass while riding her dragons (preferably naked), but she has yet to interact with any of the other main characters after 2 complete seasons. As I expressed though, that's probably just me being used to watching movies and having everything wrapped up under 2 hours.

By the way, not having watched this series yet (or any other popular one) really doesn't have the same implication where I'm from (I live in Quebec). Over here the provincial government invests considerable funds to bolster our French culture and plenty of quality local TV series are continually being produced (like 19-2, or Unité 9, or Trauma, which all received substantial praise). Most people here know about these highly popular American series, but they're only a slight part of our cultural horizon and they're only being watched by a minority of us (I'd guess around 20-25%). Which frankly doesn't free me from any 'cultural guilt' because I never watch these French series either, haha.

29 Jun 2017

Quote by Dani
• You use the word 'erroneously' far too loosely. It is erroneous to describe my use of brain chemistry imbalances when speaking of schizophrenia as erroneous. When coming up with a treatment/medication management plan for schizophrenia, brain chemistry is paramount. To dismiss brain chemistry when discussing schizophrenia is erroneous. Moving on from just schizophrenia, any effects linked to substance usage (in this case, the main subject is marijuana) and psychosis will almost always involve brain chemistry imbalances, because that's what the substance is negatively affecting that leads to the psychosis.

I've never actually dismissed brain chemistry. Hell, I've been considerably more thorough about it than you were with your simple and ambiguous 'brain chemistry imbalance'. What I've dismissed is you presenting it as the unique cause of schizophrenia and using it left-right-and-center to conveniently support your claims, when how you presented it throughout had very little scientific (or logical) foundation. Your whole argumentation was based on that same exact premise, but that premise was mostly erroneous (there, I said it again). The only proponents of 'brain chemistry imbalance' nowadays are lucrative pharmaceutical companies (or the limited substandard psychiatrists who actually buy into it); the very same people that will tell you that depression is purely physical and can't be triggered by any traumatic experience whatsoever.

And the current treatment for schizophrenia mostly involves brain chemistry because that's one of the rare factors that psychiatrists can influence in practice. Psychiatrists can't get inside the head of schizophrenics to change their thoughts; they can't take them by the hand and monitor every of their daily activities because that's completely unrealistic; they can't force them to have a plentiful social life because schizophrenics have very little motivation for that and they won't. They can, however, control the intensity of their symptoms through chemical means. With that said, that doesn't indicate that brain chemistry is the sole determinant factor involved in schizophrenia, far from it. Plenty of other psychological/environmental factors would have results that are just as beneficial if you could actually act on them.

Chemical medications are an improved, more humane version of pure physical restraint, quite literally. The neurotransmitters of schizophrenics are closely monitored so that they can't possibly get into their usual dysfunctional habits, like screaming at people or having racing thoughts all day long while rocking in the corner of the room. I'd argue that current medications are actually much more of a 'cure' for their immediate surroundings (ie. family) than they are to the patients themselves; schizophrenics hardly ever express feelings of well-being regarding their medication, and the adherence to them is probably the lowest of any medical condition you could find.

Additionally, the majority of their dysfunctional thoughts/beliefs are still very present when medicated, albeit with a much more controlled expression as I previously expressed. Medication 'controls' schizophrenia much more than it actually 'cures' it. The brain chemistry of medicated schizophrenics is much similar to the one of normal people and yet most of the symptoms remain. I'd be curious to read how your 'brain chemistry imbalance' theory explains that, exactly.

And your statement "almost always involve brain chemistry imbalances, because that's what the substance is negatively affecting that leads to the psychosis" isn't entirely accurate either. Drugs can have an influence on brain chemistry, but they also alter your perception/cognition/awareness/mood/anxiety, a lot of time through no direct effect on neurotransmitters whatsoever. A lot of the changes in terms of neurotransmitters when consuming a drug are actually solely attributable to how you react/think/behave under its influence. And in the case of cannabis-induced psychoses, who's to say that distorted perceptions, or odd beliefs, or altered mood aren't the direct cause of psychosis? Which expertise do you have exactly to explain schizophrenia or how it's triggered through the distinctive label of 'brain chemistry imbalance'? I'm highly curious, because even experts on the matter don't hold that pretense and are still trying to understand the complex causes of schizophrenia.

Quote by Dani
• You mentioned brain chemistry varies based on circumstances, the example you gave being raised levels of noradrenaline and dopamine if we were locked in a room with tigers. However, once out of that situation, after we've had a while to calm down, our brain chemistry levels would reach a baseline that would be considered normal. Those with abnormal brain chemistry levels have a baseline that's higher or lower than normal in any given circumstance. So to use your example of being locked in a room with tigers, abnormal brain chemistry would mean having those same higher than normal levels of noradrenaline and dopamine in the most benign of circumstances, like say, getting an ice cream cone (unless one has a phobia of ice cream...or cones).

And what do you think the baseline mental state of a schizophenic is? Getting lost in his paranoid delusion? Imagining that aliens are imminently going to kidnap him? Actually hallucinating that he is indeed in a room full of tigers? If anyone was exposed to what a schizophrenic goes through on a daily basis, they'd have the exact same crazy neurotransmitters profile than he does. Brain chemistry abnormalities have always been recognized as a mere clinical observation in schizophrenia; they've never ever been properly established as its unique and unequivocal cause.

Quote by Dani
• Not sure if you caught this or not, but I mentioned that you'd be hard pressed to find research that supports marijuana having post-adolescent (where usage did not take place during adolescence) effects on those lacking pre-existing vulnerabilities to psychosis. You mentioned you found such a study in under 5 minutes. This is the first sentence of the portion of the study you quoted to counter my point: "Cannabis use may increase the risk of psychotic disorders and result in a poor prognosis for those with an established vulnerability to psychosis." The portion you quoted also went on to mention the staggering negative effects of marijuana usage on those who had pre-existing vulnerability to psychosis. That's been my point all along. So, thanks?

That sentence was meant to be read as such:

"Cannabis use may increase the risk of psychotic disorders /// and result in a poor prognosis for those with an established vulnerability to psychosis."

I'm not quite sure if you're playing dumb or if you're legitimately dumb, but the sentence that I actually bothered to underline perfectly proved my point in much less ambiguous terms (for the reading-impaired apparently):

"Results confirm previous suggestions that cannabis use increases the risk of both the incidence of psychosis in psychosis-free persons and a poor prognosis for those with an established vulnerability to psychotic disorder."

And that one sentence was right under your nose all along, directly in what I quoted:

"A 3-year follow-up (1997–1999) is reported of a general population of 4,045 psychosis-free persons and of 59 subjects in the Netherlands with a baseline diagnosis of psychotic disorder."

They mostly evaluated 4,045 perfectly healthy individuals, but also included 59 psychotic subjects to work with a cohort that's as closely representative of the overall population as possible (1% schizophrenics in most countries). Get it?

I'm tempted to mention that there was actually a full study of a few thousand words available right after that paragraph which perfectly illustrated my argument, but considering that you completely misread the very first sentence of it... yeah, nevermind.

Quote by Dani
• In terms of the research you mentioned in regards to THC inducing schizophrenia-like symptoms in otherwise mentally sound individuals, well, yes. In mentally healthy individuals, these effects will be short-lived. In other words, you get high, see sounds and smell colors or whatever else you experience when you're high, but after that high you return to your healthy baseline. This obviously won't be the case in someone who is not mentally sound, but that was never my point. That study could have just been titled: What It's Like to Get High. Experiencing chemically-induced schizophrenia-like symptoms for a few moments is not the same as inducing a permanently schizophrenic-state in individuals who were not otherwise susceptible. I'd be interested to know the number of individuals from that 22-person study that went on to actually develop schizophrenia as a disorder.

The schizophrenia-like symptoms will remain for a few moments if you only smoke cannabis for a few moments per week, for 50% of the time if you smoke half of the time, and always if you're always stoned (which plenty of people I've encountered through my life were).

And although the momentary effects eventually wear off, a lot of the consequences actually do not. The schizophrenia-like thoughts/realizations/idealizations/rationales/mindsets/habits that you establish while under the influence can follow you for a very long time, just like any of your regular ones. Your past experiences all become part of your integral self in one way or another.

Concerning the risks of developing full-fledged schizophrenia, it's exactly like the studies tell it: dose-dependant and frequency-dependant. Casually smoking cannabis once every week doesn't carry much of a risk factor, I'll grant you that much. However, in the case of someone who's stoned half of the time and for which half of his/her daily activities become schizophrenia-like in essence? Considerable risk factor, most definitely.

Quote by Dani
• Overall, your research strongly supports my viewpoints, which I appreciate because I know from experience that splicing research can be tedious. So, again, thanks!

No, it only supports your viewpoint to yourself and only yourself when you're playing dumb.

Quote by Dani
• To be clear, as I don't want the points for which I'm advocating to be lost in a sea of words: Marijuana is not a replacement for any type of treatment when it comes to mental health and health in general. It is particularly dangerous for those whose diagnoses are linked to brain chemistry imbalances. Under the right circumstances, marijuana can be beneficial in alleviating symptoms, so long as the use of marijuana does not clash with any current medication management. It would be irresponsible to broadly say that it's beneficial to mental health diagnoses/psychosis, and it would also be irresponsible to broadly say that it's detrimental to mental health diagnoses/psychosis. We can go back and forth forever (which I admittedly don't mind and actually enjoy), but neither point will ever be completely disproven. And it's never been my goal to prove that marijuana usage does not have negative effects on mental health. Nuance is key. It's a very case-by-case sorta thing.

I never said any of the information you presented was inaccurate, but there are different ways to interpret it, not to mention I agreed with a great majority of it, just not in the ways it seems to have resonated with you. I'm not here to change your perception, just here to state that your perception isn't the only one that exists, and it's certainly not the only perception that's true and backed up by facts. In the most general sense, marijuana affects brain development during adolescence, has temporary mental effects on the mentally sound (you proved that in your previous research), and particularly has long-term effects on those with diagnosed or undiagnosed schizophrenia. Apart from pre-existing conditions that should be managed without the presence of recreational substances, marijuana is most detrimental while the brain is still developing. I could handpick some reputable research and notate passages that support my points just as you have, but I really don't feel like it for reasons that I choose not to mention because I'd look braggy and insecure, and because they aren't really relevant to this discussion. Also, the proof is in the research you, yourself have already provided. If you're content to believe this reputable research doesn't exist or that the research you've provided only paints one picture, it's not really my concern.

These are all your opinions on the matter based on gut-feelings (again, until proven otherwise with proper sources). This is perfectly fine if it's intended to be perceived as such, but I seriously hope that you're not expecting anybody reading this thread to give it any more merit than that.

And presenting our respective points of view as equally valid is insulting at best. I've offered plenty of rigorous sources throughout this thread, you haven't posted a single one even when asked what to specifically look for (while claiming the most obscure and absurd reasons). You've repeatedly questioned my references with the highest of conceit, but conveniently perceived things as 'irrelevant to this discussion' whenever I vaguely got on the offensive myself. I've granted you the benefit of the doubt and bothered to clarify plenty of my arguments, while you deliberately ignored words and interpreted sentences however it best fitted your crumbling logic. Your idea of a 'scientific argument' is pulling theories out of your ass and adorning them with fancy expressions, while hoping to fool the few credulous plebs among us. Pretty much like your forum-signature tells it, oddly enough.

I can assure you that any accountable psychiatrist who deals with unstable schizophrenics and their distressed families on a daily basis is going to hold opinions on the matter that resemble mine quite a lot more than yours. Don't assume that anybody is granting you any sort of scientific credibility when you don't even have enough integrity to back up your fabricated theories or interpret sentences properly.

Quote by Dani
Yikes! Not sure why you got so personal here. Up until now I just saw this as a healthy/fun debate.

That wasn't actually personal; I'm really not interested in interacting with you on a personal level, trust me on that. I did admittedly allow myself a moment of condescension at the end of my long-winded post, mostly for the reasons instigated above. I would have behaved in the exact same way toward anyone who'd interacted with me like you did.

I'm done with this unprofitable discussion. You've repeatedly twisted logic and distorted what I've presented, to the point where I'm massively questioning your original intents when you first approached me.

29 Jun 2017

Quote by Dani
Yes. I know. There are many mental diagnoses that can't be rendered until one reaches adulthood. Shizophrenia is one of many types of psychoses that is linked to a chemical imbalance in the brain. Any type of psychosis linked to a chemical imbalance in the brain could be exacerbated by the use of marijuana or any other substance (alcohol, barbiturates, amphetamines, etc.). It's not a cause-effect relationship. Substances can induce psychosis in those who are already vulnerable to psychosis, usually by way of agitating a pre-existing brain chemistry imbalance.

I'm not sure if you're properly accusing me of ever promoting a direct cause-effect between cannabis and schizophrenia, but I most definitely never did. Not even the studies that I presented ever suggested anything resembling that, quite the contrary: they all identify cannabis as a 'risk factor' among plenty of others without an exception. One of my previous quotes even started with: "Although a small fraction of teens that use cannabis develop schizoaffective disorders (...)".

And you repeatedly use the expression 'brain chemistry imbalance' as an explanation of schizophrenia throughout your post: this is both a broad and erroneous statement. Schizophrenia is by definition a biopsychosocial disorder: it finds its causes in biological, psychological and environmental factors, in equal measure and through a chaotic interaction between each one of those spheres (which hasn't even been properly established yet by the psychiatric community). Yes, a certain chemistry imbalance is observed in schizophrenic patients, but so are plenty of other concurrent factors. And yes, every mental condition obviously has its source in the brain (or how it functions), but that really isn't a telling statement: it's like saying that car accidents are caused by cars.

Both you and I would actually have a much distorted 'brain chemistry balance' if we'd be locked in a room full of tigers: both our noradrenaline and dopamine levels would be abnormally high (much higher than most schizophrenics on an average day, actually). So proclaiming that a schizophrenic in the thick of a hallucinogenic crisis demonstrates crazy high levels of dopamine really doesn't reveal much about the roots of schizophrenia. And presenting 'brain chemistry imbalance' as a synonym to schizophrenia is also plain wrong; every single one of us faces periodic 'brain chemistry imbalances' through our traumatic/happy/tense/frightening/psychedelic life experiences.

Saying that schizophrenia is solely caused by faulty dopaminergic levels (which is the main neurotransmitter involved with schizophrenia) can actually be refuted extremely easily. Plenty of perfectly healthy people can function on high dopaminergic levels daily, while never ever facing mental issues whatsoever; plenty aren't even at risk of developing schizophrenia because they meet very few of the numerous other contributing factors.

Additionally, two people showing an almost identical brain structure/chemistry can face extremely different psychological outcomes. Identical twins are a notable example: you can rightly suspect that both would have an almost-identical brain when they reach adulthood, which was developed under almost-identical environmental circumstances. And yet, the likelihood of developing schizophrenia if you have a schizophrenic identical twin is at a relatively low 40%. Why? Because you really can't establish a direct link between how a brain processes neurotransmitters and schizophrenia, and because countless of other minor factors are to be accounted for (including cannabis use). For the record, structural brain differences are only observable in less than 50% of schizophrenics, and those tend to be surprisingly minor. The brain of a schizophrenic is actually much more 'normal' than you're implying in your post. It's very possible for a perfectly healthy brain to hold completely distorted and fucked-up beliefs, you know.

You base the crux of your argument on the fact that to be affected by any sort of risk factor, one must have an awfully messed up brain to begin with, with an awfully messed up brain chemistry. That couldn't be more far off from the truth, as I barely started to demonstrate. If it was that simple, any potential case of schizophrenia could easily be screened (and likely prevented) at 16-year-old. The medical community doesn't bother scanning the brain of teenagers like they scan the breasts of mid-aged women because that would be entirely irrelevant and fruitless.

You say: "Any type of psychosis linked to a chemical imbalance in the brain could be exacerbated by the use of marijuana or any other substance (alcohol, barbiturates, amphetamines, etc.)". 'Exacerbated' is a pretty convenient euphemism to support your theory here; it highly suggests that marijuana couldn't actually contribute to triggering a psychosis, and that it would merely affect the severity of said psychosis.

Here's how Schizophrenia.com presents it:

Observe where 'Abuse of DA drugs' is placed on the causal diagram (DA stands for dopamine for the record, which cannabis most evidently has an influence on). It isn't under 'Early causes', to support that it only affects brain development like you did before; it isn't after 'Psychosis', to support that it merely affects its magnitude like you're doing now. It's right before 'Psychosis', because it's identified as an undeniable trigger by the psychiatric community. Also take note that they only bothered to illustrate two sources of triggers, one of which being substance abuse.

And here's a study which observed the overall effects of THC (ie. the main psychoactive agent of cannabis) in perfectly healthy individuals:

Quote by ]Recent advances in the understanding of brain cannabinoid receptor function have renewed interest in the association between cannabinoid compounds and psychosis. In a 3-day, double-blind, randomized, and counterbalanced study, the behavioral, cognitive, and endocrine effects of 0, 2.5, and 5 mg intravenous delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta-9-THC) were characterized in 22 healthy individuals, who had been exposed to cannabis but had never been diagnosed with a cannabis abuse disorder. Prospective safety data at 1, 3, and 6 months poststudy was also collected. Delta-9-THC (1) produced schizophrenia-like positive and negative symptoms; (2) altered perception; (3) increased anxiety; (4) produced euphoria; (5) disrupted immediate and delayed word recall, sparing recognition recall; (6) impaired performance on tests of distractibility, verbal fluency, and working memory (7) did not impair orientation; (8) increased plasma cortisol. These data indicate that Delta-9-THC produces a broad range of transient symptoms, behaviors, and cognitive deficits in healthy individuals that resemble some aspects of endogenous psychoses. These data warrant further study of whether brain cannabinoid receptor function contributes to the pathophysiology of psychotic disorders.

In short, they established that THC produces schizophrenia-like features in pretty much any individual: the symptoms induced by TCH share a striking resemblance with the symptoms of schizophrenia. It's almost as if cannabis is the drug of choice whenever someone wants to see the world through the eyes of a schizophrenic for a few hours (which plenty of people do, myself included). Read the middle of the study, the resemblances are even striking in terms of neurochemicals. And here we are arguing about whether or not such a drug can have an impact on the onset of schizophrenia. Is this even serious?

Quote by Dani
True enough. But what will be left out in cannabis-induced psychoses is the similar effects of other substances when it comes to inducing psychoses. With the exception of complications linked to brain chemistry imbalances, marijuana is one of the only (if not the only, but I don't like speaking in absolutes because there are usually exceptions) substances that is shown to have positive effects with prolonged usage.

Your first point is completely futile: drinking gasoline is much more harmful to health than drinking energy drinks, but that doesn't diminish the potential hazards of energy drinks at all. Not in the slightest. Primarily warning people about energy drinks is actually much more sound than otherwise, because that's the one substance that they're most likely to drink.

And cannabis is a substance that is shown to have positive effects with prolonged usage? For who and according to what? I've shown plenty of scientific material in this thread so far, care to provide us with a study that unequivocally demonstrates the net benefits/harms that cannabis can have on the global population? Please don't cite distinct medicinal breakthroughs; I'm interested in the whole picture, complete with how it affects the overall mental health of a population.

Plenty of detoxification centers are available in my city; all of them have a specific program for cannabis addiction, which hundreds of people frequent and which millions are invested into by the government yearly. Two of my closest friends went through a cure, many more if I'm counting my extended social life. Neither of them was affected by any of your dearest 'brain chemistry imbalance', for the record.

One such guy measured 6'2" and I've seen him crying more than once because of how cannabis negatively affected his life and because of how hard for him it was to stop (or even lessen) his consumption; he was actually an ex-addict to freebase (which is stronger than crack), if you're questioning his overall tolerance to drugs. The other suffered from [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atypical_depression]atypical depression and almost magically improved his life condition after his cure: he lost 50 pounds, found a job and girlfriend, and I couldn't find him anywhere because he was too busy roller-blading across the city with a radiant smile across his face.

These cases are only the obvious cannabis-oriented scenarios that I've encountered through my life. Plenty of my other friends went through severe bouts of psychoses, although the link with cannabis cannot be established as clearly. One of them hit the most populated street of my city and screamed about the sexual abuse inflicted by his father during his childhood; that is, before cops were called on the scene and he was escorted to the nearest mental institute. This is all anecdotal evidence of course, but if you were to ask me if cannabis played a role in these outbursts? Hell-to-the-fucking-yes. I've frequented plenty of weird people susceptible to psychological issues in my 20s, mind you, but I highly doubt that most of these psychological misfortunes would have been as severe without any implication of cannabis whatsoever.

Did I have fun experiences with marijuana? Well yes, fuck yes actually. The longest post in the history of Lush was me relating my drug experiences, remember? However, I've witnessed enough about cannabis to know full well that it isn't rainbows-and-sunshine for everybody. The fact that a few highly privileged people only have a tremendously fun time while smoking a weekly joint with their buddies doesn't change a fact to all the many possible drawbacks of cannabis (which are numerous in the psychiatric literature).

Quote by Dani
Varying psychoses not being age/disorder-specific is independent of the fact that marijuana-induced psychosis is strongly linked to marijuana usage in adolescence, because marijuana can permanently alter brain chemistry while the brain is still in development. You'd be hard pressed to find research that supports marijuana-induced psychosis that doesn't involve an imbalance of brain chemistry that isn't already there, or in other words, a chemical imbalance caused by marijuana usage that began post-adolescence. Having imbalanced brain chemistry and introducing substances increases susceptibility to psychosis, which isn't the same as saying that brain chemistry imbalance + substance usage = psychosis.

I actually found one such research in under 5 minutes: it was one of the first few listed in the study that I presented in my previous post. 4,045 psychosis-free (ie. perfectly healthy) persons aged between 18–64 years were evaluated over a period of 3 years:

Quote by [url=https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/aje/kwf043
American Journal of Epidemiology[/url]]Cannabis use may increase the risk of psychotic disorders and result in a poor prognosis for those with an established vulnerability to psychosis. A 3-year follow-up (1997–1999) is reported of a general population of 4,045 psychosis-free persons and of 59 subjects in the Netherlands with a baseline diagnosis of psychotic disorder. Substance use was assessed at baseline, 1-year follow-up, and 3-year follow-up. Baseline cannabis use predicted the presence at follow-up of any level of psychotic symptoms (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 2.76, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.18, 6.47), as well as a severe level of psychotic symptoms (OR = 24.17, 95% CI: 5.44, 107.46), and clinician assessment of the need for care for psychotic symptoms (OR = 12.01, 95% CI: 2.24, 64.34). The effect of baseline cannabis use was stronger than the effect at 1-year and 3-year follow-up, and more than 50% of the psychosis diagnoses could be attributed to cannabis use. On the additive scale, the effect of cannabis use was much stronger in those with a baseline diagnosis of psychotic disorder (risk difference, 54.7%) than in those without (risk difference, 2.2%; p for interaction = 0.001). Results confirm previous suggestions that cannabis use increases the risk of both the incidence of psychosis in psychosis-free persons and a poor prognosis for those with an established vulnerability to psychotic disorder.

Quote by Dani
Yes, and all research studies conclude with a 'Discussion' section where they discuss the shortcomings of their research (in this case, the systematic review of others' research) and how future studies could improve upon these shortfalls. If age isn't mentioned elsewhere in this systematic review, I would hope that the Discussion section of this review would emphasize the importance of age-specific research when it comes to cannabis use, because with the exception of preexisting brain chemistry imbalances, the negative effects of marijuana are largely age-specific(not including varying levels of THC across strands of marijuana as well as other substances with which your blunt or your bowl can be laced). I would also hope it mentions the importance of understanding brain chemistry imbalances when it comes to linking marijuana to psychosis.

Already fully addressed above. What I just quoted is only 1 out of the 35 comprehensive studies that were evaluated in my previously cited systematic review. The totality probably represents 100,000 people of all ages, ethnicities, standings and medical backgrounds; which is most certainly why they didn't bother to mention any specific demographic in the abstract. And plenty other of these systematic reviews exist and they all point in the exact same direction.

Besides, I highly doubt that these researchers need your feedback on methodology or incorrect understanding of 'brain chemistry imbalances', especially when the majority of it is based on convenient and elaborate gut-feelings. You can always provide one credible source that states that 'the negative effects of marijuana are largely age-specific' if you want me to perceive your opinions otherwise.

28 Jun 2017

Quote by Dani
What a lot of those sources won't tell you is that links to marijuana and any medical/mental conditions down the line are related to adolescent use of marijuana.

Marijuana use risk factors during adolescence (which is a crucial time for brain development) are virtually non-existent once one reaches adulthood (or when the brain is fully developed, for the most part).

So check the ages of the participants of those studies.

I will say that none of this negates the fact that most recreational drug use begins in adolescence, so this sort of awareness of the long-term effects of recreational drug use is extremely important. But doing the whole 'drugs are bad' thing and listing their effects without any nuance is also irresponsible.

The words adolescents/teens are actually clearly mentioned 5 times within my abbreviated quotes. The first few words even are: "Cannabis use in adolescence (...)". The studies really didn't attempt to conceal anything and I was fully aware of the methodology used before sharing them.

Schizophrenia has an average onset age of 20-year-old; this isn't a current tendency, it's part of the particularities of the disorder ever since schizophrenia was first established as schizophrenia. Whenever researchers are attempting to discover the causes, they logically don't have much choice but to make observations prior to the onset age. And since the average onset age is in the very early adulthood in the specific case of schizophrenia, they logically don't have much choice but to scrutinize the late teenage years to gather causal data.

The reason why studies interested into cannabis-induced psychoses mostly target the adolescence of schizophrenics isn't because that particular demographic conveniently supports their claims; it's because that's where the crux of the information is. The majority of people experiencing psychoses happen to suffer from schizophrenia, and the majority of their pre-psychotic phases happen to be in their late teens.

That said, psychoses really aren't age-specific (ie. early adulthood) or disorder-specific (ie. schizophrenia). A 50-year-old man who doesn't have any pre-existing condition can most certainly experience an episodic psychosis which won't actually result in any permanent condition. A bipolar woman in her mid-30s can most certainly experience a sudden psychosis too. Each triggered by plenty of contributing genetic/environmental factors, obviously. And studies show fairly categorically that cannabis increases the likelihood of psychoses in people that are risk in pretty much any demographic.

This is the 5th research presented in my previous post (a systematic review of 35 studies to be precise). Sadly only the abstract is available, but abstracts are usually quite representative of what a specific research is about. No specific age-period or condition is mentioned at all. It simply expresses an "increased risk of any psychotic outcome in individuals who had ever used cannabis" in the most general terms:

Quote by [url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17662880
PubMed[/url]]FINDINGS: There was an increased risk of any psychotic outcome in individuals who had ever used cannabis (pooled adjusted odds ratio=1.41, 95% CI 1.20-1.65). Findings were consistent with a dose-response effect, with greater risk in people who used cannabis most frequently (2.09, 1.54-2.84). Results of analyses restricted to studies of more clinically relevant psychotic disorders were similar. Depression, suicidal thoughts, and anxiety outcomes were examined separately. Findings for these outcomes were less consistent, and fewer attempts were made to address non-causal explanations, than for psychosis. A substantial confounding effect was present for both psychotic and affective outcomes.

28 Jun 2017

Quote by VanGogh
As we all know, google can find the opposite to one's hopeful search. Google, although amazing, does not have definitive and absolute answers.

Here's a well respected (I guess? dontknow ) site/mag that says that Cannabis may not be such a fucking no-no for those with schizophrenia. But, fuck, what do I know? Apparently, fuck all.

Psychology Today

To date, all of the positive evidence supporting the use of medical marijuana in humans has come from studies of the entire plant or experimental investigations of THC. A recent study published in the Journal of Neuroscience (4 May 2016, 36(18): 5160-5169) has shown CBD has significant therapeutic efficacy for the treatment of schizophrenia. These scientists have also identified where CBD likely acts in the brains of schizophrenics, the nucleus accumbens (the brain’s primary pleasure center), and how it is able to produce effects similar to standard antipsychotic medications.

This discovery stands in stark contrast to previous claims that marijuana induces psychosis. Overall, today’s scientists are being more open-minded about the benefits of marijuana and are trying to bring less bias to their investigations. One recent study asked whether marijuana use was associated with an earlier age of onset for the first episode of schizophrenia. The researchers concluded that there was no significant relationship between the onset of illness and marijuana use that could not be accounted for by other demographic and clinical variables. Meaning, once again it is important to take notice of all of the other variables that contribute to developing psychosis.

That's all I got.

On a personal note, with my ordeal with PMR, when "standard RA meds" did nothing but make me sicker and in considerable more pain, I thank god I found a lovely lady that bakes bud 2bite brownies for a few us that have to live a life with considerable pain. I can't smoke bud because I get a terrible cough and it doesn't produce the same relief from my intense muscle fatigue and pain.

On that note, I'm off for a cuppa and a half of a bud brownie.

Van

This is so erroneous that I don't even know where to begin...

Let's first address how you presented your whole rhetoric. Google isn't my source of information, research institutes hosting rigorous studies are. Click on the links I provided in my quote, they all lead directly to said research institutes without an exception. No vulgarized article merely citing random studies, no dubious pro or anti-cannabis website, no rubbish aimed at entertaining the masses: just the sheer researches themselves. How I gained access to such sources is utterly irrelevant.

And yes, you can find almost anything on the internet, but that doesn't make anything a reliable scientific source. 4/5 of the links I presented actually are systemic reviews, which each encompassed/examined around 50 independent studies (look at the bottom of my links, they're all cited explicitly, some with clickable links). That's over 200 studies that were closely examined by 4 unrelated teams of highly qualified researchers, and they all reached the exact same conclusions.

By comparison your own source is Psychology Today, which absolutely no psychologist/psychiatrist will ever read to form an opinion about anything: it's a popular magazine aimed at the masses. It's about as relevant to psychiatrists as the Reader's Digest is to doctors, quite literally. It's not that Psychology Today is utter nonsense per se, it's simply that they really don't hold any obligations to show the same scientific rigor as proper scientific journals do. It's mostly inconsequential entertainment, the kind of stuff that you read while waiting at the hair-salon, and the content is treated/supervised as such; the majority of what you can find in Psychology Today isn't even peer-reviewed before publication. The rigor of each article is pretty much left at the discretion of each individual columnist (you'll see in a short while how very little rigor some of these articles can have).

Only two studies are ever referred to in your article: one is properly identified yet no link is made available (because it blatantly contradicts what the author is trying to convey, more on that later), the other is simply mentioned as 'one recent study' (such scientific transparency!). The only external link contained in that article is at the bottom of it: it's a direct Amazon link prompting you to buy the author's book (which isn't related to cannabis or schizophrenia in any way, shape or form).

And who's the author exactly? Gary L. Wenk, recently hired by the Ohio Medical Marijuana Control Program (look for his name at the very bottom of the page). That guy currently receives a salary to make sure that the aforementioned program is correctly implemented and well received by the general public. That isn't a bad thing in and of itself, far from it, but one seriously has to question his motivations whenever he's writing about the effects that cannabis can have on schizophrenia. To me, he seems immensely more interested in selling the benefits of cannabis (or his book), than to uncover an effective treatment to treat/prevent schizophrenia. Think about it for a second: that article is addressed to the general public, he really isn't sharing any scientific findings with his peers here.

Finally moving on to the crux of your argument. Marijuana can be composed of more than 100 cannabinoids, the two most notable ones being THC and CBD (ie. tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol). THC is the main psychoactive constituent; the one that's most desired by recreative users and the one that's negatively linked to schizophrenia. CBD isn't psychoactive at all and has actually been shown to block the effect of THC in the nervous system; the one brought to attention in the article. Oddly enough, THC and CBD practically have opposite effects on the nervous system. In short, CBD counteracts the high that THC provides: the more CBD content in your weed, the less stoned you'll be.

Here's a short excerpt from the one-and-only study that's properly cited in that article. The author didn't bother to include a link, but I managed to find it myself in a mere 30 seconds (I guess I already have more scientific integrity than he has):

Quote by ]The phytochemical complexity of marijuana is revealed by both clinical and preclinical evidence demonstrating that THC and CBD can produce opposing effects on both mesolimbic neuronal function, and neuropsychiatric phenomena. However, little is currently known about how CBD modulates the mesolimbic system, particularly in the context of DAergic function. Whereas THC is primarily associated with propsychotic effects (D’Souza et al., 2004;Kuepper et al., 2010;Tan et al., 2014), CBD has been shown to counteract the psychotomimetic properties of THC and significantly improve psychosis symptoms in schizophrenia patients (Leweke et al., 2012;Englund et al., 2013).

Oops. Did you read that correctly? The one study that this article is based upon actually states black-on-white that THC is susceptible to induce psychotic episodes in people at risk (ie. propsychotic), supported by 3 different studies. Sure, CBD has recently been shown to have a completely opposite effect (ie. antipsychotic), but the net propsychotic/antipsychotic potential of marijuana is still largely dependent upon the THC/CBD ratio. And here's the one fact that the author of this article completely failed to address: the enormous majority of cannabis strains have a much higher content of THC than CBD.

If your cannabis even remotely gets you high, it's already hinting at higher THC than CBD, and it's significantly more propsychotic than antipsychotic. Remember, CBD inhibits the psychotropic effects of THC, so for years drug dealers have been striving to provide weed with an insanely high content of THC and a minimal content of CBD. A lot of recently seized street-marijuana even fails to show trace amounts of CBD. Even the medicinal strain that Dancing_Doll presented in an earlier post has a crazy ratio of 100-to-1 (20% against 0.2%).

The feeble logic that this article is trying to impose on the public is: CBD is showing promising benefits toward schizophrenia, CBD occurs naturally in cannabis, therefore cannabis products are mostly beneficial for schizophrenia. This is irresponsible at best. The author knowingly manipulated his words/statements to support that logic. The most obvious proof is that this is exactly what you yourself read into that article (and I'm sure plenty of others did).

His line "This discovery stands in stark contrast to previous claims that marijuana induces psychosis" is particularly alarming. He's essentially suggesting that the newly discovered effects of CBD completely undermine the vast scientific literature showing a link between cannabis and schizophrenia. No one ever concluded that but his own utterly biased self; not even the sole study that he based his article upon. THC itself is still considered a propsychotic by the enormous majority of mental health experts, with good reason. He knew all too damn well every single fact that I'm presenting myself, but never dared to mention a single fucking word about it or to offer some sort of sensible nuance in an unambiguous manner.

He strongly implies that toking marijuana could potentially be a viable way to administer CBD in schizophrenic patients; the reality is that if CBD is ever made into a proper treatment for schizophrenia, it will most likely be a highly refined medication that looks nothing like a bud of pot (most probably to be taken orally as any other antipsychotic to strictly control dosage). At that point, the treatment will virtually have absolutely nothing to do with cannabis in the popular/traditional sense; it will just be about swallowing a boring medication like any other. To the point where even bothering to include said treatment into the 'marijuana' spectrum is highly disputable.

Oh, and I mistakenly mentioned that Psychology Today isn't peer-reviewed previously. My bad, a fellow columnist/psychiatrist was actually kind enough to leave a comment on that article:

Quote by [url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/experts/david-rettew-md
David Rettew MD]I find this post to be quite misleading.

A study that demonstrates cannabidiol might be useful in treating psychosis is in no way a "stark contrast" to the ever increasing numbers of studies linking overall cannabis use to schizophrenia.

What this post cleverly does not discuss is that the evidence shows that it is likely THC content that is linked to psychosis, based on several studies. Over time, the THC content of cannabis has been increasing while the cannabidiol concentration has been falling. It looks quite possible at this point that THC and cannabidiol exert different effects on the brain. Smoking the whole plant, especially the newer strains with higher THC content, means that someone is sabotaging any positive effects of cannabidiol by inhaling THC.

Sorry if this fact is inconvenient to people but people need to know the risks, just like knowing the risks of drinking alcohol. Nobody claims that cannabis is the driving force behind schizophrenia but these kinds of attempts to whitewash and cherry pick the medical literature do not help people make informed adult choices.

26 Jun 2017

I practically never ever watch TV series, but my girlfriend recently borrowed the first few seasons of this from one of her friends and has been rewatching it with me (on the basis that I enjoyed The Lord of the Rings and would therefore potentially enjoy this fantasy setting). I guess it's been our it's-raining-outside-and-we-might-as-well-cuddle-while-watching-this activity in the past few months.

We just finished Season 2 last week. My review: interesting characters/plotlines... but daaaamn does it take a whole fucking lot of time before any interesting events unfold (which is the main reason why I usually avoid these TV shows). I actually much preferred the first season, though I suspect that this is partly because I'm already growing a bit weary of it all. Yes, even with all those fabulous medieval titties. On a favorable note (and despite the massive eye-rolling reaction of my girlfriend), this series prompted me to download a hot porn-scene featuring Peta Jensen as the Queen of Dragons. I'm not sure how many more seasons I'll manage to watch, but I guess this TV show already had a few positive repercussions in my life, haha.

Seriously though, the bluish-guy featured in DamonX's post just appeared at the very end of Season 2. Will I really have to go through all of seasons 3-4-5-6 before finally witnessing whatever will happen with him?

Fuck. confused1

confused1

26 Jun 2017

Damn, seems like I'm a bit late to the party. Does our resident scarlet-marvel still have a few killer solos in store? confused1

confused1

Happy Birthday Liz! x

26 Jun 2017

Quote by DamonX
Holy fook. I thought my posts were long...

Quote by MostPreciousLittle
Longest post on lush?

This chapter was part of my ongoing Lush autobiography project. Coming up next, moving to a new apartment in about a week.

It will either be featured in 'BDSM Lifestyle' or 'Relationship Advice', depending on my girlfriend's cooperativeness. icon_biggrin

icon_biggrin

26 Jun 2017

Quote by trinket
Marijuana has been linked to schizophrenia and it is a fact that it can worsen symptoms.

Quote by DamonX
Are you serious? What century do you think you are living in?

Quote by Buz
I have never heard of marijuana being linked to schizophrenia.

Quote by VanGogh
holy shit!

With all due respect, trinket (which I rarely if ever associate with) didn't advocate that cannabis is the primary cause of psychotic disorders or the root of all evil in this world; she merely mentioned a 'link' between marijuana and schizophrenia. And a myriad of recently published scientific papers actually support her claim.

From a mere 15-minutes stroll over the world-wide-web:

Quote by Numerous scientific papers
Cannabis use in adolescence leads to a two-to-threefold increase in relative risk for schizophrenia or schizophreniform disorder in adulthood. The earlier the age of onset of cannabis use, the greater the risk for psychotic outcomes.

Cannabis does not appear to represent a sufficient or a necessary cause for the development of psychosis but forms part of a causal constellation.

A minority of individuals experience harmful outcome consequent to their use of cannabis. However, this minority is significant both from a clinical point of view and at a population level. It is estimated that about 8% of schizophrenia could be prevented by elimination of cannabis use in the population. Source

*****

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis represent strong scientific evidence for an association between substance use, particularly the use of cannabis, and an earlier age at onset of psychotic illnesses. The association between the extent of cannabis use in the substance-using group and the effect size as well as the weaker association between earlier age at onset and alcohol use support the hypothesis that cannabis use is a causal factor in psychotic disorders. The finding raises the important questions of whether cannabis and other substances can trigger psychosis by direct neurotoxic effects, by alterations in dopamine activity, or by other changes in neurotransmission and the extent to which any adverse effects on the brain are reversible. These results confirm the need for further neurobiological research to find the mechanisms by which cannabis use triggers or brings forward psychotic illness.

The results of this study provide strong evidence that reducing cannabis use could delay or even prevent some cases of psychosis. Reducing the use of cannabis could be one of the few ways of altering the outcome of the illness because earlier onset of schizophrenia is associated with a worse prognosis and because other factors associated with age at onset, such as family history and sex, cannot be changed. Building on several decades of research, this finding is an important breakthrough in our understanding of the relationship between cannabis use and psychosis. It raises the question of whether those substance users would still have gone on to develop psychosis a few years later. Source

*****

Although a small fraction of teens that use cannabis develop schizoaffective disorders, a number of epidemiological studies repeatedly demonstrate elevated risk to develop these psychiatric disorders in association with early-life cannabis use. Longitudinal studies assessing the relationship between early-life cannabis exposure and schizotypal personality disorder demonstrated that early adolescent use increases adulthood symptomatology. Moreover, the presence and severity of schizophrenic endophenotypes, such as psychotic symptoms and prepulse inhibition, were predicted by adolescent cannabis use. Source

*****

Early use of cannabis did appear to increase the risk of psychosis. For psychotic symptoms, a dose-related effect of cannabis use was seen, with vulnerable groups including individuals who used cannabis during adolescence, those who had previously experienced psychotic symptoms, and those at high genetic risk of developing schizophrenia. In conclusion, the available evidence supports the hypothesis that cannabis is an independent risk factor, both for psychosis and the development of psychotic symptoms. Addressing cannabis use, particularly in vulnerable populations, is likely to have beneficial effects on psychiatric morbidity. Source

*****

The evidence is consistent with the view that cannabis increases risk of psychotic outcomes independently of confounding and transient intoxication effects, although evidence for affective outcomes is less strong. The uncertainty about whether cannabis causes psychosis is unlikely to be resolved by further longitudinal studies such as those reviewed here. However, we conclude that there is now sufficient evidence to warn young people that using cannabis could increase their risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life.Ht0VKKKRnXI6

And before anyone is tempted to dismiss all those findings as scientific falsification and/or conservative lobbying, please be advised that countless of similar reports have been published by completely unrelated health/scientific organizations all around the globe in recent years. In short, you might end up looking just as silly as an old corporate shark who's dismissing global warming as some kind of economically-motivated fallacy.

I'm really not the type to demonize cannabis (or drugs in general), but to me presenting it as some sort of jolly substance that's completely harmless is just as ill-informed and dishonest. Omega-3 reportedly improve memory, chamomile is anecdotally relaxing, even lavender can supposedly alleviate depression through aromatherapy; these are all substances that hardly have any direct tangible effect on consciousness. Cannabis is considered a 'light' drug in the realm of drugs, but a substance that can alter one's cognition/perception in such a manifest and pervasive way is far from being a 'light substance' in the grand scheme of things, at all. And that's especially true when said substance is readily accessible and any broke recluse can effortlessly spend the majority of his days in such an altered state (and I'm talking from first-hand observations here). And therefore, it's certainly not a substance to be taken lightly either when it comes to mental health or psychiatric disorders.

(He says while duplicitously passing the joint around.)

12 Jun 2017

Quote by Magical_felix
Just protecting your right to gay out without being attacked for it, bud.

Good little kitty.

12 Jun 2017

Quote by Dilettante
Lol of course, why didn't I think of that... Anyway I'm pleased to say, we're getting the paint to try!

Very cool, which paint set will you be ordering? I'm asking because the one I suggested in my guide currently seems to be unavailable on pretty much every instance of Amazon (ie. Canada, US, UK). I've spotted this set of bigger bottles on Amazon UK, but be aware that this is described as 'acrylic' paint rather than 'washable' paint; it might be quite a bit harder to wash than the paint that I use myself.

In any case, you're more than welcome to review your own purchases/experiences here!

12 Jun 2017

This is definitely one of the shittiest movie I've seen in a long time:

12 Jun 2017

I recognize people here every goddamn day...

Just last week I recognized Zuzana Kourilova, Fanny Modin, Bella Tanner, Chloe Boucher, Rita Granberry, and I think I even bumped into Mrs. Emilianna.

No big deal, you get used to it after a while.

12 Jun 2017

On average, cats spend 65-75% of the day sleeping (16-18 hours). Moreover, nearly 50% of their awake time is spent grooming (3-4 hours).

Contrarily to popular belief, cats are some of the most productive creatures on Earth and manage to accomplish all of their daily vital tasks in roughly 4 hours (ie. begging for food, scratching the sofa, contemplating birds through the window, meowing at spiders, complaining about their litter-boxes, etc.).

The life of a cat is much more strenuous than most people assume. Not talking

Not talking

12 Jun 2017

I've practically never stolen anything, but...

I used to compulsively steal plastic fruits between the ages of 8-10. You read that right, the kind of shitty-looking fruits that department/furniture stores use to embellish their displays. I figured that it wasn't as bad as stealing items that were properly for sale, plus it quickly became a fun/addictive habit that my older sister mischievously challenged me to do. My mother only became aware of it near the end of my kleptomaniac career and actually found it way hilarious, haha.

12 Jun 2017

NOOOOOOO!

12 Jun 2017

Quote by Dilettante
I really like the handprints in the second pic. Wonder how you would achieve that - by slathering on a ton of paint, then *BIG SMACK* ? Might pitch this to the S/O as a messy photog sesh, thanks!

Nah, the technique that you described would just make an enormous mess (though that can be interesting too, haha). This is simply a case of 'inverse stenciling', where one paints the outer contour of a certain shape (rather than painting the interior of a stencil). Cavemen were using the exact same technique 10,000 years ago:

9 Jun 2017

9 Jun 2017

Quote by Magical_felix
Don't be homophobic. If he would have linked rate my pussy or something you would not have made this comment. So SP gays off sometimes. Leave him be. Think of a smarter way to attack him if that's your goal.

Seems like my feigned gayness is actually paying off as intended... you're totally behaving like my compliant little bitch. thumbright

thumbright

8 Jun 2017

Please merge with rate-my-cock, please merge with rate-my-cock, please merge with rate-my-cock...

8 Jun 2017

In the ass.

8 Jun 2017

Quote by sprite
Stop wearing jeans. problem solved. i know, i'm amazing, right?

You didn't just advise a horny newcomer to parade around without his pants?

Sprite... isjda

isjda

8 Jun 2017

My practical and efficient disposition would advise you to avoid extraneous words and simply use stripped-down sentences regarding whatever it is you wish to express.

There, I'm feeling generous:

"I have a big cock and it's hard."

7 Jun 2017

Quote by BethanyFrasier
Magical Felix attacks you.

Quote by Verbal
When, after several attacks, you no longer notice or care when MF attacks you, THEN you are a veteran.

I guess I became a veteran within a week of being here then. Think

Think

7 Jun 2017

Quote by noll
Remember Derek (anyone knows what happened to him?)

If you're referring to Dpw, I don't believe he left for any particular reason; he most likely just slowly deserted out of boredom (which is understandable). We used to exchange occasional PMs and he never mentioned anything specific about it.

Anyway, you know you're a Lush veteran when...

- More than 90% of everything you've ever written in English happens to be observable on this website

- You were there to celebrate Sprite's 10,000th post (it actually happened in one of my threads back in 2013)

- You remember having a vibrant conversation with DirtyMartini (aww, I can be sensitive too, ya know)

- You've encountered at least 3 men who look exactly like Nick Auger, and 3 women who look exactly like Tiffany Taylor. Bonus points if you've spotted someone who's [s]dumb[/s] gullible enough to have two of them as their visible Friends (which I did myself).

- You've seen a video of me ejaculating an enormous amount of cum all over myself (which, believe it or not, was publicly available during my first 2 weeks here). In my defense, I thought that these things were a lot more common here than they turned out to be, haha.

- Sexual conversations have become so natural for you that ardently discussing about anal-toys with one of your female friends is perfectly adequate and mundane, but then you feel a little invasive for asking where the hell she's from (happened to me for real, haha).

- While revisiting other forums that you used to participate into (bodybuilding.com in my case), you instinctively become enraged whenever someone posts pictures of kids, but then shamelessly post pictures of naked women all over the goddamn place yourself (again, happened to me for real, haha).

6 Jun 2017

Quote by SereneProdigy
As I mentioned in my review, my only complaint with this product was that it was way too fucking big. Luckily, Pipedream recently released a series of penis extensions in various sizes (6 in total). Essentially, you have the regular series (which adds +33% girth) or the mega series (which adds +66% girth); each are available in 3 different lengths, +1, +2, or +3 inches.

I threw my Tommy Gunn Penis Extension away a short while ago, but I might order the smallest version for my girlfriend (+33% girth, +1 inch). That will result in a big cock of around 7 inches, which will likely be quite a bit more acceptable than my previous extension. My girlfriend has a slight big-cock fantasy, so that might prove to be fun; the only big cock that we currently have at hand is my giganormous squirting dildo.

Available for around $20 on Amazon: Pipedream Products Fantasy Perfect X-Tensions

Note: You can scroll the 'Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought' for the other sizes.

I actually bought the smallest version of this penis extension (+33% girth, +1 inch) quite a while back. I don't even see the girl mentioned in my review anymore and threw the Tommy Gunn Extension away, but my current girlfriend was still curious to witness/experience my Mr. Big Cock alter-ego, haha:

The size is actually much more moderate than the one of my previously reviewed Tommy Gunn extension. My own dick is 6.0 x 4.8, the Tommy Gunn sleeve was 8.5 x 6.5, this new sleeve is probably around 7.0 x 5.5. That's pretty much the perfect size that my girlfriend has in mind when she wallows into her 'big cock' fantasies.

Sadly however, the quality isn't as good as the one of the Tommy Gunn extension: the color is too pale and doesn't match my own skin tone at all (even though I'm considerably pale myself), it has a bit of a weird/unnatural shape when my cock is inserted into it, the material is much too rigid (it's actually a hassle to get my dick into it and it tends to hurt when I'm wearing it for a prolonged period of time). It's still usable if you want to experiment with penis extensions, but I genuinely miss the quality of my previous one: I wish I could combine the quality of the former and the size of the latter.

Anyway, it was mostly intended as an occasional fun/quirky accessory to use with my girlfriend, so it's really not that big of a deal and doesn't impact our sexual relationship in the slightest. We still use it sporadically when we actually think about it (I'd say around 2-3 times per year as it is), but I must admit that I much prefer to see my girlfriend riding our enormous squirting-dildo to see her playing with a big fat cock.

Observing this petite innocent-looking girl accommodating and having so much fun with that colossal dick is just such a dreamy sight. Embarassed

Embarassed

6 Jun 2017

Review: CalExotics L'Amour Desire Vibrator

This is a toy that I've bought a while ago to keep at my place, so that my girlfriend would have a regular vibrator at hand when she comes to my apartment without the need to carry her own expensive toys every time. The complete name is CalExotics L'Amour Desire: CalExotics is the brand (short for California Exotic Novelties), L'Amour is the line, Desire is the specific model.

It's usually available for $20-30 on Amazon, though I bought it on sale myself for even lower than that at my favorite online sex-shop (pinkcherry.ca). I had spotted this toy many times before online and also noticed the numerous positive reviews, but both my girlfriend and myself were still tremendously shocked at how this relatively inexpensive vibrator could be of such great quality.

Here are the complete specifications:

Length: 8.5"
Insertable Length: 6.5"
Girth: 4.75" at largest point
Width: 2.5" at largest point
Materials: Silicone
7 powerful functions of vibration, pulsation, and escalation
Battery: 2 x AA Batteries
Special Features: Waterproof, Multi-Function, Temperature Sensitive, Hypoallergenic, Phthalate Free
Color: Purple

And here's what it looks like in my own hand to gauge its size (I'm an average-sized man with average-sized hands, for the record):

As you can see, it's inherently a pretty standard vibrator: just a cock-shaped toy of moderate (yet appreciable) size. The insertable portion is 6.5 x 4.75 inches, which would still be considered 'average' by most dick-standards. Does it have any special feature worth mentioning, you might ask? Well no, not in the slightest actually. However, it neither has any flaws whatsoever and would pretty much score a 10/10 on every of its attributes (ie. material, power, noise, battery usage, function, versatility, etc.).

In short, if you're looking for a simple yet extremely reliable/versatile vibrator, I'd dare say that this is a perfect purchase for you. It can be used in practically every way imaginable: as a regular internal vibrator, as a clit massager, you can even turn it off entirely and simply use it as a conventional dildo for some nice in-and-out fucking motion. This is especially interesting if you're traveling and can only carry a limited baggage of sex-toys, or for young girls on a budget who'd love to experiment with many different techniques/sensations before investing into a more expensive niche-toy suitable to their own personal preferences (eg. clit-massager, g-spot stimulator, high-quality silicone dildo, etc.).

Really, there isn't much more to tell about this toy other than to reaffirm how surprisingly outstanding it is for the price: it's made of soft high-quality silicone, the power is more than impressive, it's virtually silent, the 7 modes of vibrations are creative and varied, it has a nice give to it while still being pleasurably firm, it feels extremely strong and robust. By holding it in our hands or playing around with it, both my girlfriend and myself agreed that it could easily pass for a $80-100 vibrator. If you don't trust me on that, simply buy it yourself and report your findings here: I'd be pretty damn surprised if you could find any major flaw to this toy.

Hope you enjoyed and feel free to ask questions!