Alfa
-
Posts
676 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by Alfa
-
-
I think it's a rather bad video.
How can art be objectively measured? He never answers that question, but instead gives us a few examples of what he thinks is good vs. bad art. What are the universal standards? His argument is simply "I like X better than Y". So do I, but that's not a proper argument.
-
I find so many other reasons I can enjoy miserable mucis, other than feelings of happiness or misery, that I can't even answer the question.
-
No one said that anyway. Please try to understand an argument first, I tried to explain it in different ways. But it seems that you're still stuck on one point as though the concern is only that some women can't orgasm from penetration alone. The concern is over a specific attitude, namely your sort of statement "penetration is fundamental". One consequence of it is making sex less good for women as a whole. Now, of the women who do, well, that doesn't change anything other than what we consider is fundamental. Does it make sense to say anymore that penetration is fundamental to anything? Not unless we want to make sex into something only a minority of women are able to attain! That doesn't make sense either.
Yes, he's actually said just that pretty much verbatim. In the post I quoted he just used the word superior instead of dominant.
"The example with penetration is to highlight the metaphysical differences between men and women - it's not an how-to for sex."Not a detailed how-to, no, but a metaphysical difference is a sort of difference that informs what you ought to do or how you behave. But we're talking about those differences, we can't assume them as true when we're analyzing them as ideas!
I may disagree with Rand, but I understand her well. Presumably you're arguing for her position. It's about a specific psychological-sexual difference between men and women that prescribes certain ways to act in sex. Pleasure is a key aspect of sex, while the pleasure we're able to attain is due to the difference of women being submissive by nature and men being dominant by nature. Dominance of the sort where penetration is a fundamental part of sex makes it so whatever principle you come up with goes back to penetration, and the value of sex is in penetration. Rand doesn't mention penetration really, it's primarily a psychological dynamic of hero-worship and being a hero, but she still is putting sex in terms of a man being superior sexually and where the male is in charge of pleasuring both partners.
It's a metaphysical and psychological difference. The example with penetration, is an example made to illustrate that difference.
Yes, that view puts the man in charge. However, that dynamic does not necessarily mean the woman is completely passive and has no responsibility. Like, my boss at work is in charge and responsible for the product my team delivers, but i'm damn well responsible for the work I put in.
The issue I think is we get very few ideas on what makes for pleasure in women, too. And if we looked at what is fundamental to pleasure, we'd probably end up with pretty minor differences. Orgasm is part of it, and I acknowledge some of a difference being there. But psychologically? Doesn't seem to be a lot. Not by nature of being male or female at least. Your own examples don't show a difference that matters, or that any particular view is right. I'm not talking about particular acts, I'm talking about an attitude, which is your terminology.I have quite a lot of ideas on what makes for pleasure in women, thank you very much. And I daresay the differences are quite big. However, my purpose for responding in this thread is not to tell people what they should or should not do. I'm here attacking the OP's view and arguments, which are really bad. The best argument for my position is meeting lots of women, having lots of sex and observing the dynamics between lots of men and women. Here, I can only hope to show some examples to which you can relate and construct some reasoning as to why it is so.
-
I don't think anyone doubted it could cause an orgasm. Rape can and does cause orgasm. I don't know the point of your point.
Rameshkaimal wrote:
"Regarding the contention in multiple posts on this topic that the word dominant in the dominant-submissive view means leading or initiating, it's unclear how the leading or initiating will cause the woman to achieve sexual pleasure in a context where she is unable to have an orgasm from penetration alone."
I provided him with an explanation and a concrete example.
-
So then if orgasms were truly not tied to physical stimulation anyway, why worry about vaginal intercourse when procreation isn't the goal? Below you seem to consider it rather unnecessary too.
The bolded really doesn't sound sexy at all.
I didn't say they were not tied to physical stimulation. Considering how the anatomy works there's clearly a connection there. Physical stimulation is not necessary for an orgasm though. That, however, does not mean it's unnecessary for the highest pleasure.
The point was not to make it sound sexy. The point was to show a clear example of dominance that can lead to an orgasm without any penetration. Whatever anyone otherwise thinks of such practices is irrelevant and completely beside the point.
-
Then it -doesn't- revolve around penetration. You literally said "mental aspect of sex is by far the most important". I'm not seeing how this works together as a coherent position you're describing. You talk about how sex is revolving around a psychological type of interaction (this part I agree with), then at the same time, say the opposite. I'm not even criticizing the content, it just isn't even a coherent argument. "It's how nature made us" is like saying "It's because A is A." The point here is to determine what about our nature makes it so, or if it really is our nature.
Personally, I suspect all people have a capacity to orgasm by thinking/imagination alone, though that's closer to supporting the idea that penetration is inessential, and that any specific style is inessential. Even if it's not true, the psychological part seems to be considerably more important part than anything. Right attitude and all that.
Just because it revolves around it doesn't make it the most important aspect for pleasure.
Men are bigger, stronger and sex won't happen if the man doesn't get aroused. He has the capacity to take what he wants. The man invades the womans body. I'd say this makes up for considerable differences in psychology regarding sex.
-
1. The partners-in-sex view is based on a specific context, namely, the context of those couples where the woman is unable to have an orgasm from penetration alone. So this view makes sense in that context.
If the context is different, as for example, where the man stimulates the clitoris with the lower pelvic region above the base of his penis, then the man is, by penetration and such stimulation (which, as per Post # 3, is not something most men can do), making possible not only his own orgasm but the woman's too. So there's nothing wrong with a couple in such a (somewhat unique) context, preferring the dominant-submissive view. This does not mean their preference is arbitrary or subjective. On the contrary, it, also, makes sense, given their context.
In other words, it's disastrous to prescribe normative generalizations in sex (one size fits all) because such universals ignore the specific contexts of individual couples (please see Post # 30 about how the G-Spot differs among women). It's what leads to intrinsicism in sex. In this respect, sex is not like philosophy. In philosophy, a generalization such as reason is Man's basic means of survival can be induced from reality by first observing how actual men (and women) use reason to survive and then omitting the individual measurements (or contexts) altogether.
2. Masculinity and femininity, according to Ayn Rand, refer to psychological and sexual differences between men and women that are operative in a romantic-sexual context. In particular, she considered the man to be romantically and sexually superior to the woman. (For more information, please refer to Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A. Incidentally, it also contains a question where Miss Rand keeps the context when answering a question about the morality of an open relationship consisting of one man and two women).
But, in a context where the woman is unable to achieve orgasm through penetration alone and the man and woman are working together to achieve mutual sexual pleasure, it becomes rather difficult (in that specific context) to see the man as sexually superior to the woman.
In other words, the partners-in-sex view has radical implications for Miss Rand's view of masculinity and femininity. Hence the original post contained my initial thoughts on how to properly integrate these concepts with the partners-in-sex view where such a view is applicable.
For the record, I see masculinity and femininity as psycho-sexual aspects one chooses to integrate into one's personal identity. I don't see them as aspects which must be an integral part of one's I or self, regardless of one's context.
3. Regarding the contention in multiple posts on this topic that the word dominant in the dominant-submissive view means leading or initiating, it's unclear how the leading or initiating will cause the woman to achieve sexual pleasure in a context where she is unable to have an orgasm from penetration alone.
If the man is leading or initiating because he initially becomes aroused (his penis becomes and remains erect), his erection is necessary for him to achieve orgasm through vaginal penetration but it is not sufficient in a context where the woman can only achieve orgasm through clitoral stimulation.
Clitoral stimulation can be provided either by the woman or by the man (if she's comfortable with it). So, in this context, they have to mutually decide the best course of action for ensuring her sexual pleasure.
1. No, it does not make sense in that context and it certainly does not make sense as an opposing view to the dominant/submissive one.
If there's a problem it would be prudent to find a suitable way to communicate and solve it. You don't need to introduce some new concept to do that.
The dominant/submissive view is derived from observing men and women, and generalizing from that. It's indeed a very valid generalization. There's nothing disastruous about that, and it's not a "one size fits all". It's an abstraction and there are many ways to concretisize it. Also, there's nothing in there that says penetration alone is the way to sexual bliss.
2. The "partners in sex" view has no implications whatsoever to Miss Rand's view. At least not that you have presented yet.
There's no problem being dominant just because the woman might not climax from penetration alone. You have as many options as your imagination allows.
3. Psychologically the pleasure derived from it comes from the man being his most masculine and the woman her most feminine. It's not about achievieng pleasure from penetration. The example with penetration is to highlight the metaphysical differences between men and women - it's not an how-to for sex.
Let me be very blunt. Slap her in the face and tell her to come. Does that sound submissive or teamworkish, or whatever? Yet, you don't even need an erection to do that. Get the point? There's nothing with being dominant/submissive that implies that one has to climax from penetration alone. If you don't want to play rough you could always be a gentleman and go down on her, but I really don't want to explain how to eat her out and still be in charge.
-
I do know of cases of people who can have orgasms without physical stimulation. Do you believe that everybody has the capacity to do that?
Yes, although I don't know for sure. It may requirie a certain level of intelligence and imagination, depending on the people involved. For example, a friend of mine claims she can have orgasms just thinking dirty thoughts. In such cases it's damn easy.
I first discovered it after hearing some outlandish claims. Later, when I started dating one of my ex girlfriends we texted a lot. I was travelling around for work and there was rarely a good time to meet or talk, so we texted. I started spinning fantasies for/with her. She enjoyed it very much. I've tried with others too, mostly with good results.
Here's what I mean with intelligence and imagination:
One girl enjoyed texting and talking a lot, but never got off on it - not without help. I noticed she didn't add much of her own, so out of curiosity I asked her what she usually fantasizes about. She answered: "Nothing". Apparently, when taking care of business herself she was just done with it quickly and that was it. I don't know if she possesed enough imagination to make it possible. Maybe if I had done it differently it would have worked, or maybe not.
If you're going to spin fantasies like that and make it work you also need some fundamental understanding of each other, and you need to be able to build this bubble of sexual tension. That takes some intelligence. When you're both in that bubble great things can happen, but if it bursts... You'll have to be able to read the other person while keeping things going.
It's possible not everyone has the capacity for it. One thing is for sure though, the mental aspect of sex is by far the most important. Unfortunately it's also the most overlooked.
-
None of this makes sense.
The first statement where? If you mean "sex revovles around penetration does not make male pleasure central", this is exactly what I'm asking you to show me. It's not so simple to me.
Penetrative sex is fundamental, so that's why there are names for other ways to have sex? Pointing out differences doesn't show which one is fundamental, if any.
I didn't say it was bad. I'm just being critical about it in terms of philosophy of sex.
The first statement as in "sex revolves around penetration". That's a simple statement of fact. It's how nature has made us, and what the term sex refers to. Again, pleasure is a question of attitude. As long as the man can get it up the "sex revolving around penetration" can be entierly for the womans pleasure (and, "sex revolving around penetration" does not mean "penetrative sex only").
Allright, you only said that it was a really bad way for females to orgasm. My argument still holds true for that statement. You could as well apply it to your philosophy, if you want to go all "working together for mutual pleasure". I don't share that view, but the same anatomy and mechanics hold true (for the record, my view is taking what I want for mutual pleasure, but I didn't respond to this thread to discuss it).
-
Anecdote and speculation then. You stated something as a fact, but you don't nearly have proof. It's fine to have a hypothesis with this kind of info you're working with, but only as long as you recognize and treat it as such.
"The clit has nerve endings that come from deeper inside the vagina."
Other way around.
"The same nerves connect to the g-spot."
The g-spot actually is still not settled upon. This may relate to the fact that the extent of clitoral tissue/nerves varies among people (dissections have shown some of this, http://books.google.com/books?id=kqcYyk7zlHYC&pg=PA32&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false ). Some people may have enough nerves in that section of the vagina to produce orgasm while others don't.
Enough "anecdote" to be statistically significant. I'm also well aware of the anatomy. Individual differences make for differences in approach. Considering orgasms can be had without any physical stimulation makes it hard to argue inabilities because of low sensitivity. Many circumcised women can even have orgasms.
-
It's like telling your boss at work he should lead. That could mean anything from gentle directions to Gunnery Sergeant Hartman. It's not a prescription but a broad concept that can be applied in many different ways.
No, the fact that sex revovles around penetration does not make male pleasure central - not even if it is the best way for males to orgasm. The first is a statement of simple fact. Penis meets vagina is the fundamental form of sex, that's what the reproductive organs have evolved to do, and that's why we have different termonology for other forms of sex (like anal-, oral- or hanging upside down from the roof-sex). Who's pleasure is central is a question of attitude, not facts of fornication.
Speaking of facts, around 50% can orgasm through penetration alone, and 30% do it regularly (according to the Hite Report, 1976, and Journal of Sexual Medicine, 3, 56-68). 19% needed clit stimulation, and 29% reported never having orgasms.
Irregardless of orgasms I also daresay that heterosexual women in general like the D. That's sort of part of what being a heterosexual woman means. So, how about you stop talking about penetrative sex being really bad? It's not. It may or may not be enough, but it's certainly for mutual benefit.
I haven't tried to place blame anywhere. I'm objecting to the clit-centric view of female orgasms. That's just false, even though playing nice with the little man in the canoe is a good idea. I'm also saying there's a lack of understanding from both men and women. While we're at it, here's a brief anatomy lesson:
The clit has nerve endings that come from deeper inside the vagina. The same nerves connect to the g-spot. They also connect to the anterior fornix, which is the a-spot (some also say the posterior fornix, which i'm inclined to believe). When a woman gets aroused the vagina swells and the uterus tilts, making the anterior- and posterior fornix easier to stimulate. That swelling also causes pressure when a penis is inserted.
So, these parts can be stimulated either directly or indirectly through pressure. It doesn't take a genuis to figure that if it's done properly it will lead to an orgasm. The tricky part is that women have different preferences and you can't exactly see what you're doing - in that way men are certainly more obvious to figure out.
Since it's the same nerves being stimulated you can't say penetration is a bad way for women to orgasm, while the clit is the way to go. The clit is easier because it's very sensitive and on the outside of the body - makes it easier to reach and stimulate. Just because it's easier and more obvious doesn't make it better, especially not considering there are different qualities of orgasms.
-
Is that your whole argument? It doesn't even address post number #10 where I am substantiating my claims. I'm basically asking how physical differences mean men ought to be initiators by their nature.
The majority are not like that in any country. (Aside from the fact that no kind of feminism teaches that, but that's a different topic). So, no, it's not strange. Let's stay away from the norms part, though. Whether the norms are objective or not depends on whether your position on dominance is true.
That whole post is based on faulty claims and your arguments are bad. Orgasms are not the main focal point in submissive/dominant sex. Taking the view that men are or ought to be dominant and women submissive is not a prescription on how to have sex, nor the main focal point.
As I said in my previous post, it's a difference in metaphysics and psychology. Men ought to be initiators because in most cases both are happier for it.
Um, every major political party here has a feminist agenda and every major media outlet drives their propaganda. Just about anyone would call themselves feminist, and the feminist party has won a lot of ground (despite, or thanks to, ideas like special taxes for men). These ideas are deeply rooted in society. So yes, I daresay that the majority implicitly regards men as doormats and women as rulers.
-
And who actually hold the male orgasm as a primary? Considering 99.9% of articles, books and conversations take the male orgasm as granted, and focuses on female orgasm, it's just a straw man without any basis in reality.
No, that's not male-centric pleasure. It's a metaphysical and psychological difference between men and women. Talking about pleasure is changing the context, even more so is talking about technicalities of sex.
However, sex does indeed revolve around penetration. Usually to the enjoyment of both men and women. But, that's not a recipe on how to have sex nor does it say anything about who's pleasure is central.
It's a ridiculous statement to begin with. However, it's only male-centric in regards to who does all the work. It does not imply what really makes it sex at all.
Again, it's a bad conclusion drawn from faulty premises. You and the OP are arguing straw-men loosely based on a view of sex that some objectivists hold.
-
These days, this is the type of thing you need to brag about rather than keep hidden. I think if you tell the story the way you did above, with pride, it's all positive (unless there's something important you left out).
Even if it was not for breast cancer and you weren't married to her, what exactly do you think a voter would find objectionable?
I completely agree.
You just need to own that story. Be proud and refuse to take any shit for it.
In my book you deserve a high-five and a "good job, sir!".
-
What is your basis for this statement?
A lot of women.
See, here's the problem. There are lots of different places to stimulate physically, while mental stimulation is also exceptionally important. Meanwhile, different women have different preferences. Sadly though, experimentation is not as common as one might think (seriously, I know several women who didn't discover how good sex can be until they were 45). So, unless Moses has already been there and shown here where to buy the beer, well... I understand why it's a common belief that vaginal orgasms has to do with ability. Especially when it's just accepted that this is the way it's supposed to be.
-
Alfa, I just didn't spell it out all the way. Perhaps the OP is too focused, but I was talking about the quoted book (which I've read). Besides, my reasoning is that dominant/submissive has its origin in a dumb penetrator/penetrated dichotomy, which in turn relies on making male pleasure more important than female pleasure. Why? Because most women don't "get off" by penetration alone. If the dominant/submissive doesn't originate in a penetrator/penetrated dichotomy, well, make your case. I clearly stated my criticism of three points. Respond to those rather than saying one sentence is "utter nonsense".
Baseless social norms are largely why women are more sexually submissive. It's not a constant of human history. You know as well as I do that norms become so part of society that they're taken for granted. Especially norms of behavior! Myth means that the norm exists but has no objective basis.
It has nothing to do with who's pleasure is more important. Physical differences make men the initiators or agressors. Men can take what they want. That's not a prescription on how to have sex, aside from the man taking a dominant role. And your sentence was utter nonsense. Still is. It's a completely false claim.
Where's the proof?
No, I don't know that norms become so part of society that they're taken for granted. Even if I accepted that, which I don't, for the sake of argument, sexuality has very little to do with norms. Those norms are just superficial things laid on top of base desires.
I've grown up and live in one of the most feminist countries on Earth; where women are taught to be butch and men taught to be submissive. Dominant men and male sexuality is frowned upon. Still, while women happily regurgitate feminist propaganda they rarely choose the feminist men. Strange how they don't follow the norm, no?
-
Gender roles are a myth as far as I'm seeing.
Why then are most women sexually submissive and attracted to dominant males?
-
I think the dominant-submissive view the OP characterized is what leads to making orgasm the main focal point.
That's utter nonsense. There's nothing in having dominant/submissive roles that makes orgasms the main focal point. The original post however is almost entierly focused on one single aspect of physical stimulation and female orgasms, so who's really making it a focal point?
(Caveat: Orgasms ARE important, but sex is not a race to the finish line)
-
Both claims are false.
Vaginal orgasm are certainly more complicated for most women, but it's not a matter of ability but rather finding out how to achieve it.
In addition to the clit there are also the g-spot, a- and u-spot. And just to make things a little more fun the a-spot can also be stimulated by... well, taking the back road. My point being, mainly focusing on the clit is an oversimplification.
If sex feels like a duty there are bigger problems than a lack of clitoral stimulation. It's quite possible to climax without any physical stimulation at all, so there's more to it than putting the clit on a piedestal.
I dislike the glancing over the mans pleasure - like it's a given and it's all about pleasing the woman. It's not obvious how to please a man either, not if he has experience and some standards. Naturally both need to be sxually satisfied for it to work long term.
Well...
1. Not true.
2. True, such as it is stated. However, the penis can stimulate other important parts (and there's nothing to stop you from putting your hands to good use
).3. What is "traditional intercourse"? Sounds very dreary and Victorian... If it means only using the penis then, well... that's like thinking you only need a kitchen knife to cook dinner.
Sure, you need two (or more) to tango, but in general i'd suggest the man taking the lead to actually achieve mutual pleasure.
Who's view is that?
1. That's true.
2. Where does that premise come from?
3. Having dominant/submissive roles does not mean the dominant part is responsible alone. It means the man leads, but it does not mean the woman is completely passive.
Sure, but what are those aspects exactly? And how does this connect to the rest of your post?
-
If you truly haven't found anyone who you are interested in sexually, there's not much to do except to shake your fists at the universe, perhaps change your strategy for how you meet people, and then hope for the best until you happen to meet "The One." But as Eiuol suggested, there have probably been plenty of people who have attracted you on at least a couple levels. Why wouldn't you have sex with those girls?
If you want sex, then you should have sex. That's pretty simple. Try it out and have fun. Let yourself be OK with trying a different attitude and approach than you've given up until now. It's easy to construct rationalistic ideas about sex without any actual experience. With some experience, however, you can begin to validate or invalidate the things about sex which you've concluded so far.
I think you have a very good attitude towards this issue.
You have to find your likes and dislikes through experience. Values are found by experienceing life and not by some rationalistic process where you can sit, detached from the world, and just figure things out. Essentialy, you have to try things out and take risks. Not like some mindless idiot who bangs his head against a wall just to see if it hurts, but choosing what seems like the best course of action to achieve certain values. You will undoubtedly make mistakes, but those mistakes can be very important too.
I'd like to make a few personal anecdotes, to hopefully show you what I mean.
I've always been a romantic. My first conception of love was Cyrano de'Bergerac when I was around ten years old. I think Ayn Rand did a very good job of illustrating the ideals that I hold so very dearly.
I would not sacrifice that "ideal" for anything in this world. There is nothing that would ever make me settle or think "good enough". Sadly, because I don't think I will ever get what I want.
That may seem very idealistic, but it's all because I know. I have made mistakes, hade sex with the wrong girls and had my heart broken. Lots of mistakes. Certainly no regrets, but mistakes none the less.
When I was 21 and still a Virgin, I concluded that I just needed to experience sex. I was very introverted and did not get any attention from women. Still, I decided enough was enough. Some experiences you just don't want live without, and I figured as long as I managed the risks I would be reasonably safe.
I got lucky. More than ten years later I still think I got lucky. She had stunning looks and was very sweet and intelligent. I liked her. Not much more, but I liked her.
What I learned from that experience was that sex is not such a big deal. I don't mean to treat it cheaply, it's just that when you let go of all that baggage leading up to it, it just seems so simple. I was thinking what the hell all the fuss was about, while seeing the great potential it held.
That's the kind of experience you can't have sitting in front of your computer and just thinking about it. You can imagine all kinds of things and still have no idea. Wether it's good or bad you have to experience it before you at least have a clue. I'm not saying it's just so extra special and Amazing. The first time rarely is. But, unless you're really stupid about it, it's a valuable experience.
I have also experienced sex with women i've been in love with. It's a whole different dimension to sex. If you, for some reason, think that sex with someone you love is the best thing in the world.... well, you're right. It is. Nothing could compare.
The problem is, you don't actually KNOW it. You may think you do, but you don't. You haven't experienced it. I'm sure you can imagine some things. You can construct this whole idea in you head of how it is, perhaps even imagine everything in great detail, and base that on what others have told you. That's not the reality of it. If you have experienced sex as the physical expression of your soul, then you understand.
That does not mean that anything lesser than "the physical expression of your soul" is bad. It simply means that it's a lesser value. Those lesser values can get you closer though.
It's especially true for men. Normally, women have it a lot easier to get sex (love is a different matter). For a man, being the one who can pick and choose is important. It means not being limited to the scarce one who shows some interest. It means having oppurtunity and options. It means having much greater chances of finding someone who matches your values.
Speaking of values, how do you know what you value if you have no experience?
In my later years I have met quite a lot of women. It seems like I just go about my own business and run across someone. When it comes to sex i'm not too picky. If I like her and I find her attractive, we're probably going to have sex. I'm more picky these days than I used to be. It's mostly because I feel i'm getting old too fast and I don't want waste any time on things that don't lead anywhere.
However, the experiences i've had have been very valuable. I know a lot more about what I want than I did ten years ago. I've had my share of mistakes that tell me what to avoid. I've also had my share of good experiences to tell me what I really value.
Just to give you an example. I did not know how much I valued intellecutal discourse until I met a very good friend and collegue. She may not be what i'm looking for romantically, but I could truly never love someone lesser. She's fun, challenging and we bring the best out of each other. She's like a sister to me. Thanks to her, i've learned how important these things are to me.
Still, life is too short to spend with longing and unfullfilled desires. Life is fragile and precious. If you're unlucky you may be run over by a buss tomorrow (I certainly hope that's not the case). Is your life exciting and fullfulling today, or would you have wasted your days if tomorrow never comes? Have you had the excitement and adventure you crave, or would you find yourself lacking? Would you rather have had sex with plenty of women, than die tomorrow a virgin?
At 21 I hope you feel immortal. When you get older there's another sense of urgency. Not like desperation, but a realisation that we're only immortal for a limited time and there's so much of life to experience.
Don't waste that. Go out and chase girls. Have fun. get laid and find someone to keep.
-
My problem isn't that I don't talk to people or I'm antisocial and I don't know how to get to know people, it's that I'm one of the more popular people in my class and it seems very empty. I have a lot of friends that I talk about sports with or just do nothing with, but I don't enjoy having to spend 7 hours a day with them. My problem is that I'm stuck at school learning things I already know with people that aren't exactly intellectually stimulating. There are definitely those who are enjoyable to be around and great people, but I don't get to see them often with school and preparations for the exchange. I'm asking about what you guys do at work or school when the people you are around 30-40 hours a week don't provide you with anything but small talk. I can't really quit school (I turned 16 last week), but I can't imagine spending another year there. Knowing I and a few others are light-years ahead of the rest of the class but still having to sit through useless lectures all day isn't a good feeling.
I'll also take a look at the book, but it doesn't seem like it fits my situation.
I'll do my best to try to describe what I have done.
First and foremost, your carreer is the most important thing in the world. Be ruthless about it. If you already know what's being taught at school you should haul your ass to the library and get at least 20 books on your favorite subjects. Even better, check out the course litterature for college courses you're planning to take.
Make it a point to alway venture into the unknown. Always learn something new and always take on problems you don't know how to solve.
When you set high standards for yourself and always strive for excellence, people will notice. Some will not like it. They'll feel threatened and see you as being arrogant. The good ones will be attracted to your drive and passion, and even if they don't understand you they'll support you.
Also, you can sell yourself on more than just a personality level. For example, I love to banter, argue, tease and flirt. I do it all the time. People love me for it. It's fun. But, if that's all you have to offer you just become an empty shell.
I've done all that at my job. I started at the bottom, just to get a foot in. I saw the opportunity with taking on tasks that were so far above my pay grade it wasn't even funny. Proved to my boss that I could handle it. Got promoted, and learned that I absolutley love solving legal problems and that i'm exceptionally good at it. Read everything I could find in the library, started taking courses at the University. Got promoted again. And, thanks to my employer got admitted to law school. Now I even have some senior lawyers asking for my input at work...
There are some who have found that offensive and think that i'm an arrogant prick, which is funny considering i'm a very friendly person. I've made a lot of friends though. Most of them don't really get what drives me, but they're good.
With such people I just try to have as much fun as possible. Banter, argue, tease and flirt. We can go out and party like rock stars or take a road trip through Europe. They're not intellectuals though, even if we can have some more interesting conversations.
Aside from just having fun I always share my passion for different things. I can talk art, movies, litterature or whatnot. Or share my excitement over some legal matter, which usually just makes people smile and shake their heads.
That way I also met one of my best friends. She came in as a new recruit to our team, and she immediatley proved herself to be very intelligent and driven. We're fighting like siblings over the most difficult cases we can get our hands on, arguing over legal matters or having more philosophical discussions We share the same profound excitement over what we do. Friends like that are hard to come by, but they're worth more than everyone else combined.
You will find that most people are not like you. It can be an empty and lonely feeling at times. Do the best of the situation. They may not be able to provide you with what you desire the most, but that should not stop you from having fun. Try to direct the conversations towards things you like.Or the interactions towards how you want them to be. Also try to take some interest in others, see what's beneath the surface. Promote the good you see in them.
- Ilya Startsev and Repairman
-
2
-
Focus on the good in people and shared values.
Some of them may be good to have as drinking buddies, or for talking sports. Others may offer a more interesting intellectual exchange. If you're lucky you'll find a few that are exceptionally good within their chosen field (those people are worth their weight in gold almost no matter what).
Next, you should lead by example and promote your values (note, promoting your values does not mean showing Atlas down their throats). Ask yourself how you like to interact with people and what kind of social environment you like to be in. Show that to the people around you and guide them towards that. Show them whats important to you, what makes you tick, your passion and enthusiasm for whatever excites you.
Those who share something in common with you will gravitate towards you
-
I can't speak from experience here, so somebody else would need to confirm this, but I think I've heard that they feel different and, I guess, not as pleasant?
There's a huge difference depending on the implants, how they're placed and the surgeon.
In my opinion more women and surgeons should pay closer attention to aesthetics, so that they understand that breasts don't just lay there on top of the chest. Furthermore, round hard balls don't just look bad - they don't feel very good either.
However, in contrast to women wanting to look like pornstars there are also the kind of breasts that just look and feel great. It would be almost impossible to tell them apart from natural breats if you don't notice the scars or ask her.
Or, like my current romantic interest told me: "A lot of guys say they dislike implants. Funny how they can't seem to stop playing with them...".
I think it's great that we have seen such advancements in plastic surgery. Not just because I love boobs, but because it allows people to a much further extent choose the way they look. I certainly don't agree with all the choices people make, but it's great that there actually is a choice.
-
I really like JASKN's advice. There are a few things I like to add to it though.
Regarding 'Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain', use that as a guide to help you develop your eye. The "science" is junk and there are other methods that will help you just as well. What it does though, is help you see things differently. That is really valuable and something that will always help you later on.
And in regards to train your eye I recommend Charles Barques drawing plates. Google them. They're meant to be copied as exactly as possible, and they really help. Aside from that I like to reommend Glen Vilppus drawing classes. They're available on video, which I think is great. Vilppu used to draw animations for Disney and his classes are oustanding.
Also check out (good, mind you) speed drawing videos on youtube. That's also something you'll find usefull when developing your eye.
When choosing what to draw, focus on what you think is fun and rewawrding. That's what keeps you motivated and what is important to YOU.
Why is Modern Art so Bad?
in Aesthetics
Posted
I think it's kitsch. His style looks copied from Maxfield Parrish, but he lacks Parrish's technical proficiency.