Join the best erotica focused adult social network now
Login
SereneProdigy
Over 90 days ago
Male

Forum

Guide: Fluorescent Fucking 101




Are you tired of always fucking your partner in the same old anemic ambiance? Ever feel like your sexual life is lacking in color or originality? What if I told you that a mere $25 could turn your spiritless evening into a sensational kaleidoscopic fuckfest?

This is something that my girlfriend and I indulged into quite a few times in the past 2 years. Considering how fun and easy to replicate it is, I thought I'd share the essentials of this practice for those interested.

You'll basically only need two accessories to fashion your own surreal psychedelic ambiance: fluorescent paint and a blacklight. This is what I use myself:





The set of paint is the Sargent Art 66-5525 6 Count Washable Paint Set, which I periodically buy from Amazon for around $5. (Amazon.ca/Amazon.com). My last order was about 2 months ago, but sadly this item is currently unavailable on both Amazon.ca and Amazon.com. It's most probably only temporarily out of stock though, considering that Sargent Art still carries plenty of other products on Amazon.

Anyway, I like this paint set myself because it's easy to dip your fingers into the small pots. It's totally possible to paint your partner with brushes too, but let's face it, it's so much more erotic and sensual to make this a full tactile experience. The pots are also all stuck together in the common plastic base (ie. you can't detach them individually), which I actually find quite advantageous to prevent accidents. You can simply place the whole set on a nearby nightstand and it will stably stay there for the complete duration of your art project, without you losing track of an individual pot before realizing that it spilled all over your bedsheets. If you can't find this specific set or wish to order your paint in bulk, Sargent Art also sells a bigger set of the exact same 6 colors, though as I said I personally much prefer to use smaller pots which I can dip my fingers into.

This paint is also 100% non-toxic (it's actually recommended for young kids), which means that applying it on your lips or your genitals really won't be an issue. That's right, my girlfriend can happily suck my blue lightsaber with her neon-pink lips without a single worry. It's also ridiculously easy to wash, simply getting into the shower will remove the great majority of it before you can even grab the soap.

As a general advice, I'd say that simply drawing lines/contours is much more viable than trying to cover full body-areas with paint. Opting for the latter can require 4x more paint without really adding all that much in terms of fun or visual wonder. My girlfriend and I usually simply prefer to paint each other with the tips of our fingers, and the aforementioned paint set typically lasts us 3-4 sessions where we both end up looking like utter psychedelic hotties.

I also bought the blacklight on Amazon for around $20 (Amazon.ca/Amazon.com). This is the only one I've ever tried and ordered it fairly randomly, but I'd say that it's pretty much perfect for the intended use described here. The fluorescent paint glows perfectly under it and it's ideal to light a single room; it's neither too dark nor too bright, and allows for a sensual ambiance where you can still perfectly see what you're doing. You could obviously use another blacklight (although I wouldn't really see why considering that this one is quite viable/inexpensive), but make sure to buy a proper UV-A light; there are many lights out there that are still labeled 'blacklights' while being nothing more than conventional lights covered with black opaque bulbs. Just read the specifications attentively while ordering on Amazon (or buying in a store) and you'll be perfectly fine.

I must say that I have a halogen spot right over my bed, so my own setup is quite ideal for some blacklight fun; I just have to temporarily replace my usual light with the blacklight. Maybe arranging your own setup will require a bit more work/creativity, but I'd still recommend to get a direct exposure from the blacklight to really make the paint glow as it should. Just a bit of shadow can completely mask the fluorescent effect, so I highly suspect that direct exposure is the one and only way to go.

Aside from all that, just use your own creativity and you'll certainly have a whole fucking lot of fun. I personally love to draw colorful spirals on my girlfriend's tits, or to stamp vivid handprints on her beautiful ass, or to have her sensually tracing the contour of my abs with her cute little fingers. Once I even covered my index with paint before finger-fucking her tight little ass with it; the paint was barely visible after I was done, but as she stood on all fours while flexing her anal muscles, I was totally in awe before her green flickering asshole. For some reason I also love to color my balls in bright red (I almost always do it); I guess it makes me feel like I have blazing testicles of steel, haha.

To my great disappointment however, fresh cum doesn't really glow under UV-A light; it only does when it has properly dried. I guess Jennifer Dark's bukkake scene was a bit misleading (skip at 2:45). Oh well...

Obviously, psychedelic music and party favors are more than welcome additions to help you set a dreamlike atmosphere; my own preferences are My Sleeping Karma and weed, respectively. My girlfriend and I even have a colorful wig which we love to use for such occasions (bought from Map Of Beauty). Highly recommended:





May the brightest rainbow shine over your love and feel free to ask questions!



Part III - Bad Religion (1982)

(Awesome live dueling solos at 0:40, 1:18 and 2:20... Brian Baker on the left channel, Greg Hetson on the right)

The final page is written in the books of history
As man unleashed his deadly bombs and sent troops overseas
To fight a war that can't be won and kills the human race
A show of greed and ignorance, man's quest for dominance

They say when a mistake is made, a lesson has been learned
But this time there's no second chance, the hate engulfs the world
A million lives are lost each day, a city slowly burns
A mother holds her dying child, and no one is concerned



Stranger Than Fiction - Bad Religion (1994)

A febrile shock-ing violent smack
And the children are hoping for a heart attack
Tonight the windows are watching
The streets all conspire
And the lampost can't stop crying

If I could fly high above the world
Would I see a bunch of little dots spell the word stupidity?
Or would I see hungry lover homicides
Loving brother suicides
And olly olly oxen frees, who pick a side and hide

The world is scratching at my door
My morning paper's got the scores
The human interest stories
And the obituary... oh yeah

Cockroach naps, rattling traps
How many devils can you fit upon a match head?
Caringosity killed the Kerouac cat
Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction

In my alley around the corner
There's a wino with feathered shoulders
And a spirit giving head for crack
(He'll never want it back)
There's a little kid and his family
Eating crackers like Thanksgiving
And a pack of wild desperadoes scornful of living

The world is scratching at my door
My morning paper has the scores
The human interest stories
And the obituary... oh yeah

Cradle for a cat, Wolfe looks back
How many angels can you fit upon a match?
I want to know why Hemingway cracked
Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction

Life is the crummiest book I ever read
There isn't a hook, just a lot of cheap shots, pictures to shock
And characters an amateur would never dream up

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction...



Avalon - Bad Religion (2010)

Av·a·lon (ăv′ə-lŏn′)
n.
In Arthurian legend, an island paradise in the western seas to which King Arthur was taken after he was mortally wounded in battle.


As the sun comes creeping up the mountain
And the wind blows over from the sea
Hey, we're brought into this land like tiny particles of sand
Unsure of who we're smarter than, or what we're meant to be

As the grains sift coarsely through the hourglass
And collect like victims in the bowl
The ungodly force of change erodes all sense of earthly gains
While tending to the mundane will terrorize your soul

And it's no!
It's no use thinking that you're wrong
The past is old and gone
It's best to move along
And find your Avalon...

Well, I wish that I could tell you it was easy
Take the paved road right to paradise
But the truth is my friends, the pain and suffering never ends
Make amends with medicine, amnesia, and lies

Oh the grains sift coarsely through the hourglass
And they pound like boulders on the brain
All those things you did for fun, never hurting anyone
Careless shadows in the sun, just empty and lame

And it's no!
It's no use thinking that you're wrong
The past is old and gone
It's best to move along
And find your Avalon...

It's no use thinking that you're wrong
The past is dead and gone
It's best to move along
And find your Avalon...

So now the day races from the twilight
How the fields are enveloped by the shade
And the story that you'll tell, inventory of your well
Crack the shell and find the mortar silted and decayed

And it's no!
It's no use thinking that you're wrong
The past is dead and gone
It's best to move along
And find your Avalon...

It's best to hurry on, and find your Avalon...
Quote by Magical_felix
Saw Tom petty, foo fighters, warren g, saint motel, band of horses, strumbellas, dirty heads, the devil makes three, modest mouse, pell and a few others this past weekend. It was a perfect festival.


You aren't fooling anyone... everybody knows that you don't give a fuck about those bands and only went there for the free titties.
Quote by georgiagirl23
Just curious, why do men feel so insecure about this subject? A 5-6 inch penis is normal size, but most men say they are eight inches or more. Personally, I've seen two cocks that big, they were nice, but nothing exceptional to me except for a couple of extra inches to stroke. My bf is 6 1/2, thick, with a big set of balls and I think he's really nicely developed. Fills my pussy and ass and makes me orgasm almost every time we make love. He's also 6-3", muscular and handsome, smart and funny. I like those qualities as much as I do his beautiful, thick cock.


Ask yourself how you selected your profile pictures and you'll be pretty damn close to a conclusive answer.


Quote by BethanyFrasier
Why do fishermen exaggerate the size of the fish they've caught? ...Must be a guy thing.


Sure thing, women themselves are absolutely irreproachable when it comes to bullshitting others.
Quote by noll
LOL, had never seen that popup menu before ;)


And I never thought about clicking on my avatar in the top-bar to see what would happen.
Quote by plussizegirl
I went and did that and it says online but it still doesn't show me listed as such. Is it because I'm not a paid member yet?


You most likely have the 'Invisible' option enabled. Your own options will still indicate an 'Online' status (because well, you're online indeed), although only yourself will be able to perceive your status as such (because well, you're invisible to everybody else).

Look at my own settings. I have both the 'Invisible' and 'Online' options enabled, so no one other than myself will know when I'm actually online:





To play around with these settings, you can either go to your overall options and select 'Online Status' (as noll suggested), or you can simply click on the 'Online' button as shown in the picture above. The latter only works when you're on your profile page however, I'm not exactly sure why.

Hope this helped.
Quote by simplyjohn
If you look at that members profile, down the left hand side and after his biography, you will see some statistics. One of those says how many stories he has published.

Always pleased to help new members.


Wow, I'm sure that Magical_felix was most delighted by that information and thoroughly stupefied that his rhetorical question went way over your head.
Quote by Hasabrain2
Her is my own personal story. Many, many years ago I went to a club started chatting up a girl. Asked her to dance. She said no. Chatted some more
and asked again. Same answer. Then I said "I have $10,000 credit limit on my credit card (which was true)." Her face lit up. . now she was interested.

Then I said, "You had your chance" and walked away.


Every single girl I've ever known in my life would majorly laugh her ass off if some kind of insistent beta-male started bragging about his credit limit as an act of desperation. Have you contemplated the (likely) possibility that you may have totally misinterpreted her reaction?

I mean, you bringing up this dubious story to validate your stubborn stance on the matter is actually pretty damn hilarious. So, you're allegedly a wealthy man, and instead of relating your successful marriage(s) or your overall success with girls to corroborate your 'women are a bunch of gold-diggers' thesis, the best argument you can share with us is that vague nightclub-anecdote when a perfect stranger and yourself parted ways after a mere 10 minutes (ie. a complete seduction failure).
Are you fucking serious?
Not properly 'dumped', but my 2nd girlfriend and I concertedly split up soon after she finished her university scholarship. The dynamic of our relationship drastically changed from me earning $16/hour at a warehouse job and her being a broke student living with her parents, to me still not having a proper diploma and her earning $30/hour. Our respective situations/ambitions suddenly weren't all that compatible anymore, so we mutually agreed to let the relationship go after 2-1/2 years.

A vaguely similar scenario occurred with my 3rd girlfriend, although the both of us more or less perceived our relationship as an informal/temporary thing from the start anyway; it was more of a casual 'exclusive fuck-buddy' type of deal which didn't last for much more than a year. I only got a proper diploma and a proper job at around 30-year-old by the way, so my current girlfriend is pretty much the first with whom I have genuine ambitions of settling down seriously.

A guy's job/status most definitely matters for long-term commitment (especially if kids are on the horizon), although from my personal experience I'd say that it has little to no impact for casual flings. Crude/risky/physical jobs or hazy ambitions can even work toward the whole 'bad boy' demeanor. Attributes that make for a 'great provider' or a 'great lover' can be vastly different (and even contradictory)... hence the widespread stereotype of the lawyer's wife cheating with the milkman or plumber.
Quote by georgiagirl23
When you guys jack off, do you prefer porn pics or girls profile and her additional pics on lush?


Aren't they one and the same?
Quote by seeker4
(...) And I've never heard of anyone charging $1000 around here. That's probably something you'd only see in places like NY and Hollywood where there's people with money to burn. I don't think even the Toronto scene gets that high.


To be fair however, there are plenty of people with money to burn in pretty much every major city around the world. I really wouldn't be surprised to learn that a few high-end escorts charge up to $10,000 for a full night here in Montreal, which make themselves available for wealthy businessman and hockey players. As per my source above, even $1000 is well over the norm, but you still have plenty of people earning salaries that are well over the norm too.

Sex sells, remember.


Edit: Just stumbled across this VIP escort based in Montreal...


Quote by [url=http://www.camillestpier.com/packages
Camille St-Pier[/url]]An affair ..... 400$

Rendez-Vous - 2 hours ..... $800

Rendez-Vous - 3 hours ..... $1,200
A little drink, massage, bubble bath and dessert

A Lunch or Dinner Date - 4 hours ..... $1,500
A great start, fine wine, conversation, 3 courses... starter, main course and dessert back in the hotel room.

Overnight Romance - roughly 10 hours ..... $2,500
Get to know me over and over and over and over ... again!!

A Delightful Day - 24 hours ..... $4,000
Brunch, beach, hiking, explore the city or just hanging in bed with room service.

The 2 night, 1 day - 48 hours ..... $6,000
Quote by seeker4
I'm not really sure what market you are in, but see my comments upthread. $300/hr. gets you a fairly good one around here. It's the $150 and under that you have to watch out for. And I've never heard of anyone charging $1000 around here. That's probably something you'd only see in places like NY and Hollywood where there's people with money to burn. I don't think even the Toronto scene gets that high.


I was a bit surprised by Magical_felix's response too. I've never hired an escort and my awareness of that business is limited to the hearsay of a few friends/colleagues/whatever, but I've always assumed that here in Montreal the customary prices ranged from $50 for a shitty street-blowjob to around $300 for a proper session with a professional escort.

From the web:


Quote by [url=https://redlightcanada.com/how-much-does-a-montreal-escort-cost/
Redlight Canada[/url]]You can expect to pay anything from $50 an hour right up to $200 for a street escort (depending on how many clients they’ve had and what time of day it happens to be).

Costs for independent private escorts vary but you can expect to pay between $200 to $300 an hour. Two hours usually come in at around $500 with couples at $400 an hour.

If it’s a menage-a-trois you’re after, expect to pay around $500.

At the opposite end of the scale, there are ‘luxury companions’ offering a VIP girlfriend experience which may set you back well over $1000 per hour.
I love to pretend that I'm an accomplished politician... although that's mostly a pretext to grab my girlfriend by the pussy.
No, I wouldn't pay a woman for sexual favors of any kind.

That said, what's presented in the OP really isn't new or surprising to me: experienced escorts know all too damn well that many of their clients seek a certain human contact just as much as a sexual one. Plenty of them actually offer a service that's commonly called a 'girlfriend experience', which may or may not involve sexual favors. Essentially, numerous men are willing to pay the usual fee just to converse/eat/cuddle with an escort while fantasizing that she's their girlfriend.

Wikipedia even has an article about it:


Quote by [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girlfriend_experience
Wikipedia[/url]]The girlfriend experience (GFE) is a commercial experience that blurs the boundaries between a financial transaction and a romantic relationship. Within the sex industry, GFE is a common term for a sexual encounter in which both the escort and the client are willing to engage in reciprocal sexual pleasure and some degree of emotional intimacy. The "girlfriend experience" generally involves more personal interaction than a traditional call girl or escort offers; it varies widely from person to person, however. There is a focus on not just having sex, but also having more of a comprehensive experience. Within this particular realm of sex work, prostitutes embody a sense of authenticity in order to make the experience more pleasurable for their customer, as well as to make a more lucrative outcome for themselves. If the sex worker is male, the service is called the boyfriend experience.


If you also visit different sex-camming websites, many models who are performing in public-chat announce a fee for c2c (ie. cam-to-cam). For around $10-20, the model will take a peek at your own cam and watch you jerking off to her. I highly doubt that most models will actually bother to watch your cam for more than around 2 seconds, but whatever, it's still an extremely popular fantasy for plenty of guys, haha.

I even once saw a cam-girl who was organizing a raffle to win a -date with her, which she clearly specified to be non-sexual. The price for each ticket was around $10, and within 30 minutes of being in her chat-room I witnessed a guy buying nearly 50 tickets for $500. That's $500 just to have a slight chance of having a non-sexual cyber-date with that specific model (maybe a 25% chance). So yeah, I can totally imagine the proposition featured in the OP being a viable one: plenty of men have these kinds of exhibitionist fantasies, and the price is fairly adequate within that market for a one-on-one experience.

Crazy, yes... inconceivable, no.


PS: Before anyone asks, I only tipped a model once when visiting those sex-camming websites. The girl was performing an unbelievably hot pole-dancing show in public-chat, and absolutely no one was tipping her. I felt very bad for her and went out of my way to buy $10 worth of tokens, which I tipped her all at once, haha.
Quote by DamonX
I agree completely with your take on the Hobbit movies, although I still watched them with anticipation. There was far too much extraneous "action movie" stuff added in that I felt detracted from the subtle fairly tale feeling of the Novel.

i do think that most people that read a book, and then witness that book being turned into a popular movie... will inherently display a notable sense of intellectual superiority when conversing with someone that has only watched the movie. Just discuss Game of Thrones with someone that has read the books.....


I don't think I would have been bothered all that much if additional action sequences were simply added; or if they included extra bits of humor or vaguely modernized a few themes to satisfy a broader audience (which they actually did with The Lord of the Rings). I get that, sometimes what was written 75 years ago could be pretty fucking tedious to watch on screen if it was 100% faithful to the book (the lengthy/exhaustive traveling sequences notably, which are rather prominent in Tolkien's work).

As I expressed in my previous post however, they easily could have covered the entire material of The Hobbit in a 2-hours movie. To me, The Lord of the Rings trilogy was pretty much bang-on regarding the pace/content of the books: a few minor things were altered, but it neither felt inflated nor rushed. With The Hobbit, they didn't simply allow themselves 10-20% of freedom to accomplish the book-to-movie transition; opting for a trilogy meant that they literally had to come up with 6 hours of extra content from the get-go.

Add a bit of mayonnaise to a hamburger and you still have a hamburger; throw it in the blender and then bake the remains for an hour, and you get a different recipe entirely. That's how The Hobbit felt to me, the additional content was such that it seemed completely disconnected from the book. It's not that I had a resentful urge to boycott the movies, I genuinely became indifferent to them after watching the first installment. And in a way, I could hardly blame the producers for anything: they had all the proper staff/resources conveniently at their disposal after The Lord of the Rings, and that new trilogy effortlessly grossed 3 billions at the box office. Why in hell would anyone expect them to spit on such an opportunity?

Concerning the main discussion, I get the gist of what you're saying, no worries. However, I feel like we're mostly comparing 'readers vs non-readers' as opposed to strictly 'literature vs cinema'. I think that most people will agree that cinema can be a form of art that's just as demanding, inspiring or astonishing as literature can be. With that said, picking up a book and investing a significant amount of time/energy in it is definitely more praiseworthy than just browsing Netflix while sitting on your ass. Readers still need to perform plenty of cerebral efforts to appreciate an author's words (ie. painting pictures/concepts in their minds, as you fluently expressed yourself in the OP); movies practically do all of the work for you. So in a way, the 'intellectual superiority' that you mention isn't all that groundless (and that's coming from someone who admitted to not reading works of fiction all that often, haha).

Besides, that kind of snobbery really isn't exclusive to literature. People are always eager to use the slightest triviality to express their apparent superiority: I have more style than thou, I know more about wines than thou, I have a better saw-bench than thou. We're essentially analyzing the basic tenets of human nature, haha.
I wax my own self on a regular basis and I only have positive things to say about the process: the results are quite long-lasting and it doesn't even hurt all that much, and that's coming from someone who can be quite clumsy.

'Don't fix what's not broken' is the rationale I'd tend to follow, though I'd be curious to experience the differences. From the little I know of sugaring however, it seems to be a much more delicate procedure than waxing... and not something I'd be comfortable performing myself... and thus probably not something that I'd really stick to.
The Hobbit movies were significantly more extensive/ambitious/grandiose than the book actually was. And ironically, this is the one book adaptation that I'm most inclined to despise and to accuse of what's described in the OP (ie. perverting a literary work for commercial purposes).

To put things into perspective, the original The Hobbit book contained 95,000 words, while The Lord of the Rings contained 450,000 words. The latter was nearly 5 times the magnitude of the former, and yet Peter Jackson managed to produce two trilogies of equal length out of each. And whereas The Lord of the Rings trilogy was admirably congruent with what's featured in the books (ie. no major omissions/additions), The Hobbit felt like the producers simply magnified one of Tolkien's lesser novels to recreate the commercial success that The Lord of the Rings movies previously had.

For those not familiar with Tolkien's work, The Hobbit book essentially was a children's tale narrated in an innovative/eloquent way, while The Lord of the Rings (published 17 years later) took the exact same fantasy world and elevated it to something that's quite a bit more mature and elaborate. That pretty much summarizes Tolkien's legacy actually: taking a genre that was traditionally intended for kids (ie. fantasy) and giving it epic proportions to captivate adult readers.

I truly wish that they'd have respected that contrast/evolution with the movies, but instead they used the material of The Hobbit to present a monumental cinematic saga, which the book really wasn't (and never aspired to be). Plenty of superfluous characters/storylines were added, the original ones were completely aggrandized/denatured, the overall trilogy felt unnecessarily long and tedious. As someone who enthusiastically read Tolkien in his youth, I just couldn't get any sense of familiarity; and consequently, I developed virtually no interest whatsoever in the movies. The Hobbit should have been a lighthearted 2-hours movie, in my honest opinion. Proof that more isn't always better.

Regarding the overall discussion, I believe that two scenarios can occur: on one hand we have immensely illustrious literary works that are adapted into movies (eg. The Great Gatsby, Anna Karenina, etc.), on the other we have movie producers who use unknown/average books as source material (eg. Million Dollar Baby, Full Metal Jacket, etc.). As was expressed in the OP, it'd be pretty damn hard to ever equate the greatness of the former through cinema, especially since the particular literary style of the author is totally lost in the process. However (and I don't have any specific example to present), I'm confident that plenty of mediocre books also inspired exceptional movies. The film industry doesn't receive much credit for that though, because... well practically no one ever bothers to read those obscure books, right?

And I'd tend to disagree that the majority of adaptations are disparaged anyway. Even the movies mentioned in the OP received quite a lot more praise than otherwise, and you could add plenty of other successful titles to the list (eg. Forrest Gump, Silence of the Lambs, Misery, Scarface, etc.). Really, I think that the line "the book is so much better" is mostly intended as "the movie doesn't exactly capture everything that the book was about" in a lot of cases. Which is fair enough. And which mostly gives literature its own merit/respect, more than it truly denigrates the art of cinema.

About the whole 'literature vs cinema' debate, call me an illiterate moron but I actually much prefer movies to contemplate works of fiction. I read plenty of French classics in my youth (eg. Balzac, Dumas, Maupassant, Hugo, Camus), but nowadays the majority of what I read is mostly factual/historical/encyclopedic stuff. Movies allow me to plunge into a vivid story and then reach a certain interrogation/realization/whatever in under 2 hours; books hardly provide me anything additional but are considerably more time-consuming. Some people love to lose themselves in detailed descriptions or stylistic literary efforts, and that's great, but I rarely have the patience for that myself. So yeah, I'm part of the crowd of simpletons who often has to wait for movie adaptions to appreciate certain literary works. Sue me, haha.