Join the best erotica focused adult social network now
Login
overmykneenow
18 hours ago
Straight Male
0 miles · England

Forum

Off topic I guess but I'm not too sure that wolves actually do pair for life.

Wolves are often held up as examples of natural monogamy but it doesn't really work that way in the wild. A pack isn't full of male and female pairs, there's just one breeding pair at a time: the alpha male and the alpha female. Yes, most of the time this will mean the same pair breed each year but alphas will only occupy that role for three or four breeding seasons at most before getting too old to maintain dominance.

Men will do whatever you let us get away with. Nip negative behaviour in the bud or live with it.
How about a local running club - they usually cater for a wide range of fitness levels. Most people I know who are members of a running club enjoy a very lively social scene through it - I think it has something to do with the endorphins

Maybe this lot... http://v2.dundeeroadrunners.co.uk/
Quote by clum


Probably a bad way to go in a gym in the middle of Dundee...

But yeah, thanks very much for your comment. The sports thing would be a good idea, except that I'm not really into sports. I guess I could always read up on sports but then it becomes too much like work (and more than a little creepy).


Sport is the the go-to conversation for a lot guys - it's an almost universal language through which you can safely spout off opinions on stuff that really doesn't matter at all. I've had conversations with north americans where they no know next to nothing about the sports i'm interested in and my knowledge of their sport is equally vague. All the conversations I've ever had in Italian and Spanish have been about football - I cannot speak these languages much past ordering a beer. I've even discussed football in German - my German vocabulary is limited to about 6 words I've learnt from war films.

You have two SPL clubs in your City - why not go along - you might enjoy it. Dundee are appallingly bad at the moment - such times are always good for talking to the bloke next to you. If you've never been to a football game you should at least go just to say you tried it.
Unfortunately non-verbal communication is pretty much all we have in an online environment, but I don't think it's the route of your problems. You may be able to express yourself better face to face, or at least not get the level of vociferous reactions you get here but that might be down to the fact that the people you talk to in real life are your friends and share your rather limited world view.

You look like you're a big guy, how much of your "non-verbal communication" is actually just physical dominance? Whether it's intentional or subconscious, that won't work here - you'll have to try something else. It's certainly difficult to imagine which exact hand gestures or sarcastic smirk you'd be employing to enhance your statement that "being gay is wrong"

You seem to come across as someone pretty much entrenched in black/white thinking: there doesn't seem to be any middle ground, either someone is with you or against you. You see any opposition as an attack on you rather than on your opinion. It seems to point to what could be a "borderline" personality. Then there's the paranoia.

All in all, it makes debate a little tricky. Of course most of us are aware that opinions aren't facts. Opinions can't be wrong - they can be misguided, horrifically ill-informed but not wrong - they're opinions not facts. Other opinions exist, it doesn't make them wrong.
I hope writing all that out proved cathartic in some way. You say you're in desperate need of advice but I think it's more likely that you're in desperate need of someone to listen to you.

You have to remember where you are. Essentially, Lush is a masturbatory aid. We may try to delude ourselves and each other with discussions about art, politics and creative writing but basically we're a bunch of wankers. This is just to give you an understanding of any advice you get here. You also have to be aware that there's quite a lot of brainwrong going on around here already.

I've already given you some advice on another thread but i'll repeat it here - go to the doctor - I'd also suggest asking him about Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. What issues you have with women could also be amplified by anxiety about leaving the army.

If you're looking for a website to help with your problems, Lush isn't the best place. However this one might be:

http://www.mentalhealth.va.gov/

Good luck
Quote by Dancing_Doll


But the way I see it, before pointing out how even the most unattractive man can land a babe, I would suggest that oldhound *not* go looking for the stereotypically 'attractive' female. I feel like a lot of society is focused on guys being able to circumvent their fate of having everything going wrong for them and yet somehow still coming out on top by getting the affections of a beautiful girl. This is also what happens with a lot of so-called 'nice guys'. They always cry "why won't any female love me?" and then you look at the girls they're going for and they're way out of the guy's league. I know I've gotten into this argument on the forums before about this doesn't play into things, but it does.

Just as oldhound feels totally miserable about who he is and what he has to offer - there are plenty of females that aren't all that self-confident either. Surely these people would have much in common and neither would be looking to 'use' or unfairly play the other. There is love for everyone out there depending on who they are willing to open themselves up to. Yet I'll bet for all the woe-is-me 'I am so hideous that nobody wants me' type guys out there, I could point out viable options in society and they would probably shrug and say "eech - yeah, I'm not attracted to that girl." I've always found it kind of ironic.


I think we see this a lot on similar threads: guys bemoaning "why are women such bitches" when what they really should be asking is "why am I only attracted to bitches?"

It would seem that oldhound's problems lie in a serious case of low self-esteem. Almost every relationship problem that exists is rooted in the fact that at least one party has low self-esteem. Self-esteem has little to do with ego or how introverted or extroverted someone is, or even how submissive or dominant they like to be. Self-esteem is about how comfortable we feel within ourselves.

@ oldhound - it's unlikely that you'll find any help here at the moment. I think it's worth you having a conversation with your doctor about depression: you need to find out whether it's your problems that are making you depressed or that these problems are arising because you're already suffering from long-term depression. Don't be tempted to self-med.
Quote by lustone
As most of you said in the previous posts- "Just be yourself, kind and respectful, introduce yourself and start from there"..... I've tried that, it didnt work. Sometimes, they look at me like I'm insane
Me being the socially impaired person I am just end up raising my cup to my mouth, drink something and walk away


You need to sell yourself and you're just like any other product - get your message right and your target audience right and you will sell.

At the moment you're confusing Attention with Interest - they're two separate steps. Getting attention is easy. Getting interest is much harder and requires work and skill. Effort here will yield rewards.

AIDA - Attention - Interest - Desire - Action

Learn basic marketing and apply it yourself. Granted, it's not very romantic, but you don't have to tell anyone your secret.
Wondering what you're going to write, isn't writing. Your best work will be what comes most naturally to you.

Write it out, revisit, rework, redo, edit or leave it. The beauty of it is that it's yours and you can do what you like with it. Have fun.
You obviously have a clear idea of how you think a relationship should work but you should really be clear in your head whether you want to be with a specific person or whether you're just in love with the idea of being in a relationship.

If a series or relationships end up going the same way, it becomes pretty obvious that the common denominator is you. That doesn't mean that you're doomed to a lifetime of shit relationships but you might need to reassess the type of woman you're attracted to and what your expectations are.

You say that you're needy but what form does this neediness take? Do you need to know where she is all the time? Who she's out with? The number lock on her phone? Or do you just need constant reassurance that she loves you, that you're a good boyfriend and that she won't abandon you. A lot of women won't find these attributes appealing, but others might. Others might just take advantage of what they see as a weakness.

Being a gentleman is more than just being a gentle man.
Quote by DLizze
The last time I checked into it, I found that good writing, just like taking out the garbage contrary to popular belief, is NOT a sex-linked characteristic.


I'd whole-heartedly agree, but I guess it's just that without an avatar to hook people, they're just not going to read something that's potentially good. It seems clear from this initial study that if votes are what someone's after, putting a female avatar up will yield almost three times as many votes as the default red male av, irrespective of it being any good or not. Sad but true.

@ phoenix69: cheers, much obliged.
Most unusual? The inside of the forearm. Sat in a bar, absent mindedly stroking my fingers back and forth over that area while chatting. After a few minutes, she leans across and says "if we're going to stay here, you need to stop doing that."
Parties are generally easier to strike up a conversation with a girl than say, a club. The classic ice-breaker at a party is "So how do you know [party principal]?", which gives her the chance of asking the same question in return. It's a classic because it works so well - you can discover common ground, shared friends you can talk about, interests and work etc

There might also be opportunities for friends to introduce you to people - this is even better because, essentially, your friend is vouching for you.

Of course you can't use these with complete strangers in a club environment but it should help you build up your confidence.

Also remember that some girls can be just as lacking in confidence; don't automatically assume that a stilted conversation is a sign that you're not doing well. There are plenty of other signs that will tell you that.
Only if you're ready for the shit-storm that's to follow.

You have to remember to say at some point: "I told you that bitch was crazy"

Edit: can't find the Chris Rock "how was your day" routine on YouTube. Look out for it
Yeah, unless you are looking for a gay hook up I wouldn't just start up a conversation with a guy in a state of undress. Don't even start by saying how hot the new girl instructor is - it sounds like you're testing sexuality

I'd suggest taking a class at the gym rather than just doing your own set. Spinning classes are good as they can make you feel part of a team without the whole team sport thing. Going every week you'll see the same faces and make friends.
For me the key is in how you describe your female characters. The more you separate your reader from identifying with a character the less engaged they will be. Usually I'll restrict the description of a lead female character to things that won't have much bearing (eg colour of eyes, hair).

"Janey was hot; 5'4, 32E and sweetest of pert asses. Every guy wanted to fuck her" - this is male fantasy porn - any women reading will know plenty enough about girls like her, not many will want to identify with her.

"Janey happily took a moment to admire her own reflection; she loved how her skirt suit made the most her contours." - now this is someone a lot more women can identify with.
Quote by LadyX

The difference here, I suppose, is that you might encounter those among us who would question whether lettering is an art or not. Personally, I think it is. But who among us would say that drawing, especially in the case of figures and portraits, isn't art? Perhaps you, and thus this 'is it really art' tangent. I can't see his creations as something that isn't art.


I guess the question is more accurately put as "What is art to you?". For me personally I would be more inclined to make more of a distinction between an artist (art) and an artisan (craft) - you, of course could see the two things as the same. I'd see a signwriter or a calligrapher as artisans. Sadly, it's often seen that making the distinction somehow relegates or demeans artisans, that they have to step up a level to be an artist.

Quote by sprite
I have to wonder how much of himself he added - a simply shift of the eyes, a hint of an upturned lip, more defined crease to create a sense of weariness - those would be decisions he made to create or change the emotion of the piece.


In which case, it's art as long as a he makes changes to it. If he just precisely transposed every minor detail of a photo on to his page then nothing new has been created despite all the effort and skill involved.
They've just had something similar in the UK for January http://www.dryjanuary.org.uk/ Well done to anyone who did it.

I would imagine most of the twitter users of the hashtag #dryjanuary will today be all about hitting the booze in a major way, which probably wasn't the intention of the organisers.

Best of luck, Nicola
Ozymandias

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desart. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Percy Bysshe Shelley
Often I think the futility in the question is more to do with the choice of wording.

Someone will ask a question like "do you really like having your nipples played with?" Which I'm sure is intended as "do you find nipple play more stimulating than would be considered usual?" rather than as it's often read: "do you actually like your nipples played with?" - to which the answer will almost always be "well, duh!"
Quote by sprite


using this argument leaves us open to say that photography isn't an art. the art is in finding the perfect moment, the perfect point of view, to capture what the photographer, or in this case, the artist is seeing and to evoke an emotion in the viewer. personally, it worked for me - the original picture posted here is not only amazing on a purely technical level, but the emotions of the subject shine through as well - it left me with a sense of awe and of inspiration, it left me with wonder and vibrancy. it touched me, not just on a technical level, but on an emotional one. it is pointing out the beauty of this one man and, in doing so, it's point out the beauty inherent in all of us, in humanity.

also, to me, art should be something that makes you thing - that we are having this discussion, about what art is, already proves that he is successful on that level, getting us to thinking about the nature of art, what it is, how it affects us, how we each separately define art vs craft. after a visit to a modern art museum, my wife and i spent the entire car ride home debating whether a simple painting, one shade of purple on a canvas, was truly art, and in the process defined what art meant to us individually - in the end, we reluctantly came to the decision that, although neither of us liked it, it could be called art simply because it made us think and feel (the feelings were along the line of 'that was just plain stupid' lol) but, IF that was the creators intention, then he was successful!. smile


I was lucky enough to catch the Cartier-Breeson exhibition at the MoMA in 2010, which was certainly enough to convince me (if I needed convincing) that photography can be art.

There is beauty in the image as you describe but for me it's a drawing of a photograph, not the drawing of a person. There is a distinct difference.

In the clip in the OP we see a portrait of Mother Teresa. I can be pretty sure that Okafor, who would have been 12 at the time of her death, didn't take that photograph. What warmth, depth and emotion in the image (and hence everything that I think can be called art) was captured in the original picture by the photographer not the person who copied it - even if it was "from memory". The portrait of Elizabeth Taylor is a picture taken before he was even born. If you reproduce something in a style that can't be differentiated from the original are you not just copying, no matter how much effort it takes?

Yes, a lot of people can look at a Klein blue square and think "meh", but you're right that's what art can do.

So what about all the effort and skill? Let's say I write a story, but instead of tapping it into word processing software I decide that I'd rather take a piece of paper and a 2B pencil and meticulously draw each letter in the style of mechanical type. Slavishly giving a tiny rotation to every "e", an almost imperceptible lift to every "t" and a tiny nick out of every "l". After many, many hours, if I possessed the skill required, it would look for all the world that I had used an old fashioned typewriter to write it.

Would my story be any better?
My personal opinion is that photorealism isn't an art form as it's using other media to emulate the mechanical and chemical process of photography.

That doesn't mean that photorealistic technique cannot be used in art. No, I'm not an artist nor an art critic, but I know what I like, and I like the work of Gerhard Richter. These guys are art critics and can explain it a lot better than I can... (look out in particular for his portraits of his daughter, Betty, and his paintings of 9/11)

http://www.lushstories.com/forum/yaf_postst6_Forum-Posting-Guide.aspx
Quote by Admin

Personal disputes

Please do not use these forums for personal disputes, heated debates, flame wars etc. You are expected to treat each other with respect in the forums and take any personal disputes to a private mode of discussion off the forums. If you should find that your discussion is becoming too heated or someone is becoming far too passionate about their argument, please take the discussion to private message or email.
While I can appreciate the huge amount of dedication and skill involved I just can't see the point of photorealism - especially when it's just a copy of a photograph. Whatever he's created was already there before.

For me, it's not art - a craft, maybe - but not art. There's no creativity here, just (immense) skill.
2000lb = a ton??? On whose watch?

2240lb = a ton

And while we're at it, it's 20 fluid ounces to a pint - none of these North American short measures, thank you very much
Quote by Mazza


OMKN, I wasn't trying to impress you, rather I was trying to get across the point to the OP (or indeed anyone thinking of having tattoo work done) that it's worth doing some legwork/research before running into the first studio you find and getting a tattoo done.

I'd personally never have a tattoo like that, but surely you must agree that there is a big difference between them? That's all I was trying to say...



No slight intended, Maz, just using your example to underline my opinion. Often when i get drawn into this kind of discussion, people end up putting up pics of technically intricate designs and saying "surely you must be impressed by this" - and I'm not. Of course I can appreciate the variation in quality but whereas some will look on those and think they go from Terrible to Amazing, in my opinion they go from Laughable to Ho-hum