hiddenhound3, you’re talking about me as if I’ve already kicked the bucket.😬 I am very much alive, and I don't plan on going anywhere until I've said my piece—and I'll likely need at least another 30 or 40 years to get through it all, regardless of what happens. My sister actually told me the other day that I wouldn't be in her thoughts for even eight minutes. Honestly, I wouldn't want to be either if it weren't a necessity. Lawrence Bailey77, your fascination with what people think about during sex is quite something; you might as well start a new thread about what you'll be pondering once you finally get banned. It's a bit of a concave-versus-convex situation. I suppose even during sex, whether you want to or not, your mind wanders. Maybe you're wondering if you should toss the towels in the washing machine because they're getting worn out, or thinking about what's coming up in the next season of a show. Or perhaps someone deals with intrusive thoughts—like feeling an urgent need to jump up and rearrange their slippers in the hallway because if the right one isn't positioned just ahead of the left, the ground will literally swallow them whole. I was watching those animals on the highway near Macon, Georgia. Those tiny little creatures seem almost cheerful while they're playing cards, whereas the boar looks tough and aggressive, and the bear seems to be the most melancholy of the bunch. No matter how large those bears are, they always look famished when they stretch out. But you shouldn't underestimate them; they are among the most vicious predators out there, capable of sprinting up to 50 miles/h—definitely a convex presence. Then you take a look at where his anatomy is located, and it's just this tiny little thing, looking like a small piece of penne pasta. Good grief, how does a bear manage to maintain any dignity with that?
Look, rowdywolf1, it’s pretty clear you didn't give the thread a thorough read. You actually ended up agreeing with my point, but you were clearly just looking for an argument, so you went searching for something to nitpick.🤣 When everyone else decided it wasn't worth the energy to explain the context here, you took offense and stormed off the thread—which, let's be honest, felt a bit passive-aggressive. Maybe take a breather and come back once you aren't looking for a fight.
Lawrence Bailey77 said:To simplify things and get back to the core issue—if I may be so bold—I would say that your line of reasoning and the questions you’re posing are essentially the foundation here. If I'm mistaken, then blame me. 😁
I suppose I have already asked you... but why do you assume it is easier? I understand the practical aspects and the psychological mindset, but perhaps, driven by some irrational desire for certain ideals, I feel a need... or maybe I just reduce all of this to something natural, which ultimately means it can only be measured through experience. Hmmm... honestly, I am not even sure where I stand right now.🙄
...........................
I cannot truly see myself as the opposite sex, but I can certainly imagine it. 😁 In fact, that act of imagining is probably the most interesting part of this whole business.👍
And I might also ask the chauvinists and feminists to keep going, provided it isn't asking too much of them.😁
Yes, that is precisely the point, but it seems no one has addressed it yet. The whole thing started because there is this inherent sense of discomfort when you 'allow' someone inside you, which made me wonder how that translates to the male perspective. Simply put, I imagined having a penis, and my impression is that it wouldn't feel awkward at all to move around and just exist with that physical presence. I'm not sure how to rationalize it, but that sensation stemmed directly from the feeling of possessing that specific anatomy. Now, considering how a man might imagine having a vagina—perhaps by simply envisioning an additional opening on the body😳 that both sexes possess—and wondering about the discomfort involved in letting someone in. I'm not entirely sure how to explain this more clearly. 😳
Honestly, you’re the living embodiment of a mathematical paradox; you started out all convex, but as soon as I gave you a little push, you went completely concave.
rowdywolf1 said:Look, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the explanation is actually pretty simple—it’s all about curves. People just lose their minds over anything with curves, regardless of gender. That whole "losing it" thing? It basically short-circuits common sense and lets pure greed take the wheel. Some people are strong enough to keep their heads straight, sure, but most people? Not so much. If someone knows how to weaponize their curves, they can strip anyone of their logic in a heartbeat—and women have absolutely mastered that art. Let’s be real: nobody ever felt an attraction toward something flat and angular. And it’s not like women are attracted to a stack of flat, rectangular hundred-dollar bills—they’re attracted to the things you buy *with* those bills that happen to have curves. Since women generally have more curves than men, they usually end up being the ones stripping men of their sanity—mostly because they know exactly how to satisfy that craving for something soft and rounded once they've got them hooked. At the end of the day, curves are like a drug that both men and women are addicted to, but since women carry more of the supply, they’re the ones walking away with the bigger hit. So, look—there isn't actually this big distinction between concave and convex relative to the floor. It’s really just about how much padding you're dealing with, whether it's leaning inward or outward. But honestly? In most cases, we're looking at convex. There's just way more volume in those outward curves than there is in the concave ones. Makes sense, right? We’re talking about nothing more than drugs delivered via patches here. Honestly, since men don't exactly have the same curves as women, their greed isn't nearly as dialed in—they actually have options. It’s the same reason you see more lesbians than gay guys out there. Women are just inherently greedy and dependent on men, who don't even have to go out of their way to mess with a woman's head just to get them hooked on patches—they’ll do that to themselves, driven by nothing but envy and pure greed. Look, I’m sorry if you’re feeling a little let down because "your" theory just doesn't hold any water. Really.
See, this is exactly what I mean. Registered users jump into these threads just to assert their own convexity. They care more about proving that "my theory is wrong" than actually contributing anything new, yet they end up saying exactly what I am saying, just by framing it as an opposition.😂 So, who is being concave here, and who is being convex? rowdywolf1, please read my point once more and try again to "debunk" my thesis using something that actually contradicts what I have said.🙏 Good grief, what am I even fighting against here?🤣
Lawrence Bailey77 said:shhh 🙂 don't go blowing my cover... once you catch the scent, it's all over for you 😁
God, if I could, I’d probably end up acting just like Mr. Bean... you know, kind of like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bFVPJBKYUc 🤣
😘
And honestly, listen—it is quite rare to find someone in a position of formal authority who doesn't immediately flex that power the moment they feel threatened by someone technically "below" them. They tend to react to their own internal fear by acting aggressively to compensate. It is a completely different matter to deal with a certain kind of quiet, almost naive sort of rebellion, much like what you exhibit. 😘
Lawrence Bailey77 said:It’s a bit of a leap, I suppose—moving from the realm of pure mathematics all the way to the study of animals. One might wonder how such disparate fields could possibly intersect, though I suspect there is a logic to it that I haven't quite grasped yet. Perhaps it's about patterns, or maybe just the sheer unpredictability of life itself. It feels like a long road to travel, going from equations to living, breathing creatures, but then again, nothing in this world is ever truly linear, is it? 😁 Well, I suppose one could say, if one were inclined toward such expressions, that it was a job well done. Or perhaps just adequate. It’s hard to be certain without further context, I guess. Still, credit where credit is due. 👍
The reason I reacted to the discussion about "clothing" as if it were a diversion from the core subject—essentially an attempt to obscure the actual essence of the matter—is because I felt it was necessary. If I may be so bold as to offer a defense for my own primal, animalistic aggression, I suppose that is why I responded the way I did. 😁
To be honest, I don't view you as being aggressively animalistic at all. If anything, I see you as quite timid. In fact, I think your avatar—that image of an average guy who's supposed to be assertive but ends up being a bit soft—captures your vibe perfectly. 😁
Lisa Hernandez3 said:I find these parallel chat intrusions quite fascinating from the perspective of shifting forms—the way people enter and exit a conversation.
Take service industries, for instance. They were essentially designed to "retreat" in response to specific psychological needs and consumer demands; they exist to lure clients in, which means they inherently require a clear, visible, and polished structure.
Most economic and business models are actually built upon patterns derived from basic anthropological truths. Some of these truths have been consciously shaped throughout history to define certain concepts or to mold causality and variables. Over time, they evolved into constructs that we now mistake for being natural, though that’s really just another layer of the power dynamics at play.
Polarity was a particularly prominent theme in popular culture during those decades when there was such an intense, massive push to integrate natural principles into industrial engines—roughly from the introduction of the assembly line in the 1910s through the 1960s. I suppose it served as a way to either legitimize or perhaps process (whether through resistance or acceptance) the changing landscape. You see it in things like Laurel and Hardy—the thin man and the heavy man—or even the contrast of light and shadow, or the whole femme fatale concept in film noir.
Salvador Dalí might have put it this way: "The only difference between a surrealist and me is that I am a true surrealist."
Existence essentially operates through "data points." What we perceive as non-existence—or that which falls outside our measurable reality—is akin to the void between two positions during a quantum leap. It is entirely possible that something exists within that gap, yet because it remains beyond our ability to record or observe, it effectively doesn't exist for us. Consequently, these "polarities" manifest even at the most subtle levels; a transition from one shade to another isn't actually a continuous movement, given that the very travel of light occurs in discrete jumps. What constitutes an absolute truth, and what is merely a mental construct we've manufactured for ourselves? It is worth exploring this distinction more broadly. I would argue that the realities of convexity and concavity are fundamental necessities for our very existence. However, the complex structures and various phantasms built upon those foundations exist only because we possess intelligence. It is this intellect that allows us to take those basic physical certainties—and build entirely new worlds and perceptions of reality both on top of them and far beyond them.
It is an undeniable biological reality that the male anatomy is naturally drawn to the feminine silhouette—specifically the curves of breasts and hips. This isn’t some modern social construct or a psychological trick; it is a fundamental truth that has existed since the dawn of time. Why is this the case? Why does a man experience such an primal, instantaneous surge of passion when faced with those specific feminine contours, and why does a woman feel that same pull toward the lean, muscular definition of a man? On a basic level, we can point to the survival of the species as the mechanism that "programmed" these preferences. But if we look deeper, how does this actually manifest in the animal kingdom? Do animals also possess an inherent, instinctual blueprint regarding shape and form? If they didn't, sexual attraction would be entirely indifferent; a creature wouldn't care which member of its species it mated with, regardless of whether their primary drivers were scent, taste, or sound. Furthermore, how does a living being distinguish between different types of drives? How does a creature know that a particular stimulus is signaling a need for food rather than a need for reproduction? There must be a specific "form"—whether that be a visual shape or even a distinct scent profile—that allows the brain to differentiate between hunger and lust. To me, this suggests that a form of consciousness, perhaps even a rudimentary "fantasy" or mental template of what is desirable, exists within the biological coding of animals, even if they lack our high level of self-reflective thought.
restlessviper5 said:Come on, don't worry. You know this concave-convex archer loves you. 😁just lower the howitzers, lift your feet up 😬everything is going to be just fine. 😛
Just let your guard down. 😬
Good grief, you all have turned this thread into yet another gender-based debate, when we are actually discussing geometric shapes.😎 Let’s take the example of thin versus heavy body types. From what I've observed, thinner individuals seem to find more satisfaction within their own physical presence, whereas heavier individuals might derive more pleasure from how others perceive and interact with their bodies—for instance, during intimacy. In contrast, thinner people tend to focus more on their internal sensations. Don't ask me how I know this; it's simply my intuition.😳 It is quite similar to how, both physically and psychologically, heavier people tend to expand outward toward others, while thinner people tend to retreat inward into themselves. On an almost irrational level, one could say that heavier individuals experience that extra mass as if they are carrying a little sense of comfort or security within them. Consider clothing as another example: behavior shifts significantly whether someone is wearing jeans and sneakers versus a skirt and high heels, even though there are plenty of people who can move just as swiftly in heels as anyone else sprinting to catch a Greyhound bus or chasing down a quarterback. 😁
restlessviper5 said:The problem is, how is anyone supposed to tell the difference between a joke and reality through a screen? You mentioned it yourself—you can't really tell who’s being sincere and who’s just playing a part online. As for how seriously I take your jokes... well, under stress we regress. And frankly, I'm feeling the pressure today because someone really managed to get under my skin. I have zero patience for people trying to control others—it seems like most people have this desperate, almost pathological need to be possessive or pushy. It's a hard no from me. Period. I've always been more of a lone wolf.
And I personally despise it when those "free agents" decide to take aim at me. You truly have no idea what kind of conflict it is to carry such heavy artillery while trying to maintain a pacifist stance. Imagine having ten howitzers, six cannons, twenty machine guns, and three mortars all leveled directly at you. 🤣If my finger happens to twitch even slightly...😳
Oh, how difficult it is to be concave how hard it is to be weak while being convex
Oh Lord, oh Lord, remember all those brilliant promises that You made to me.
And so I journey all alone beneath a closed blue sky, before a darkened sea,
for I need a powerful word for I need an answer, and love, or a holy death.
For it is quiet to be concave for it is quiet to be weak while being convex
Good grief, you can't even enjoy a little bit of fun without someone accusing you of stepping on their toes.
Honestly, there are so many people out there walking around with that kind of attitude. I lost my patience with that mindset a long time ago, and frankly, I don't regret it one bit. It’s not something I feel bad about, nor am I celebrating it—I've just moved past it.
restlessviper5 said:Look, I'll admit it. I'm fixated on this stuff. It's exhausting. I'm frustrated with the state of the world, and frankly, I'm frustrated with myself. I feel like a total wreck. Maybe I really do need to go talk to a professional. Happy now?!
And why on earth would that satisfy me? It's not like I'm Miranda Bailey.
restlessviper5 said:Naturally, when you talk about "how things are," it sounds to me like nothing more than a glorified zoo. If your subconscious is perfectly content living in such a cage, fine—good for you and your subconscious. For me, mine speaks of transcendence. And if you haven't noticed, the world is already pivoting toward transhumanism and post-humanity. The shifts will be massive, and we really ought to adapt to these new conditions. Modification is inevitable if we intend to survive; struggling against it within our little zoo will only lead us straight to the gates of the apocalypse. And frankly, apocalypse is certain if we fail to transcend ourselves. Though, considering the current meager potential of human nature, the most likely sequence is apocalypse followed by transcendence, simply because we are absolute idiots. Something similar was noted by Stephen Hawking: "Humanity will experience a great technological transformation and progress, provided we do not destroy ourselves." Personally, though, I see it differently—apocalypse first, then perhaps a New Beginning, if even a single living creature remains on Earth. I have little faith in human idiocy and fanaticism. Sometimes a fool needs a slap to sober up. God, let us simply move past our differences and focus on our own progress. If we can't manage that, we probably don't deserve to, given how disappointingly we've failed as a species. 🤷
The thing is, you can't actually claim to know what your subconscious is telling you; that’s precisely why it’s called the subconscious. If you were in control of it, you wouldn't be in the position you find yourself in today. Furthermore, because of its nature, there is no way to predict where you will end up—you simply aren't larger than the forces driving you.
All these apocalyptic sermons and moralizing lectures tend to ripple outward; people observe one another's behavior and then amplify those views within their own circles.
Ultimately, what does it truly matter to you whether we face an apocalypse or if social norms shift entirely in the next few centuries?
1. You won't be around to see it. 2. There is absolutely no way to know how human relationships will evolve or how society will function in the long run.
Look, why don't you give me the version of things that ought to be true, while I tell you how things actually are? And the reality is, everything is in a constant state of flux—driven by cycles of conquest, dominance, and eventual resignation. My subconscious is my ultimate authority. Perhaps you’re trying to offer me something that I have no interest in receiving, yet I might find myself taking something else entirely—something you didn't even realize you were offering. Or perhaps you want me to give you something that I simply won't (since I'm apparently being "selfish"), though it's clear you're gaining something from the exchange anyway (only you know exactly what that is). As for that thing someone supposedly "imposed" on you, you chose to take it yourself. Why do you assume "Western capitalism" is the primary culprit here? Besides, what does Western capitalism even mean to a being like you? There has always been a West and an East.
Think of it this way: convexity defines any given goal; without that drive, you wouldn't even be moving forward. Concavity, however, is what allows for interaction. It acts as the immune system, the shock absorber, and the stabilizer. In this entire equation, your consciousness is just as vital as a third leg.
postercicu, I think you might have missed my point regarding vaginal assimilation. In this dynamic, the vagina ultimately holds the upper hand because it possesses the capacity to swallow, process, and then release, whereas the penis can only reach out toward it. Even if we imagine a scenario where both anatomy types had teeth, the vagina would still prevail simply because its "mouth" is larger. That old Freudian theory about the female castration complex was clearly penned by someone lacking the capacity for hyperperception—someone unable to truly imagine themselves inhabiting a body other than their own, or even stepping outside the constraints of body and time altogether. If energy is fluid and constantly shifting, then it stands to reason that I am intimately familiar with what it feels like to "be" masculine. This explains why some women experience the sensation of a penis, just as some men possess the essence of a vagina. Personally, I find people with a blend of concave and convex traits far more compelling—those who aren't strictly confined to "typical" male or female archetypes and instead embrace a balance of both sides. On the other hand, I find those who cling to the extremes quite unappealing. For instance, looking at a user like yivanmukta, who presents himself as purely "convex," I find that approach somewhat off-putting, if not entirely repulsive from a sexual standpoint.
Lisa Hernandez3 said:It isn't quite like that, I suppose. I was actually just letting one of the ladies on the forum know that I'm female—mostly because she had formed an opinion on what I wrote based on the assumption that I was a man. Those kinds of reactions and interpretations really just go to show how much drama seekers love a good polarity. For instance, you see that sort of concave integrity from Dudekov over in Smalltown, USA.
Hehe🙂...offering an apology is just as concave.🙄
Lawrence Allen49 said:I'm with you. That NBA dynamic shows up in MM, FF strict dynamics, and even mixed ones. Without at least one convex person—a leader—the whole community just falls apart.
The convex partner provides the confidence the concave one needs. If you have two concave people—both being submissive, for example—it just doesn't work. It's impossible.
That’s why a woman (who claims to be "oppressed" by this) who relies entirely on someone else's dominance... I don't know how she expects to handle a convex submissive. Heh.😁
So, what exactly am I trying to tell you all here:
konkavno:
Lisa Hernandez3 said:Social structures, objectifying practices—or even just things that stem from our biological reality—all define the environment where we go about defining ourselves subjectively. Most of the time, we define ourselves in response to those visible forms or established frameworks. That feeling of not being subordinate is also a reaction to certain forms that are unavoidable within a specific cultural circle, even as biological beings. Take something like *Rosemary's Baby* or *Blue* from the *Three Colors* trilogy; they have these recognizable motifs that speak to something universal—we have symbols, contexts, paradigms. So, there isn't really a "should"—in *Blue*, a male (subjugated) ego complicates all those points to such a bizarre degree that any kind of dictate or sense of obligation becomes a completely irrelevant viewpoint. My own little female ego is also a bit of a complicating factor, I suppose, but in this context, it's irrelevant.
It appears you've only provided a single word, "konveksno," which translates to "convex." Since there is no context or full message attached to this term, I don't have any specific thoughts or details to expand upon just yet. If you were looking for a discussion on geometry, optics, or perhaps a specific mathematical concept, please feel free to provide the full context! I am more than happy to dive into a detailed and structured breakdown once I know exactly what topic we are exploring.
Lawrence Bailey77 said:On the contrary, my own slight masculine ego—if one can even call it that, given how much smaller it actually is—insists that it is quite relevant... much like that certain stubborn streak in men that compels one to keep digging and refusing to let things end so easily, no matter how much it might hurt.😁
...and since I was banned, I've lost my rhythm entirely.👎
Honestly, there are moments when I feel completely caught between two worlds, almost like I’m navigating life with a dual identity that doesn't quite fit one mold or the other.😳
Donna Baker5, I have to say, I think you completely missed my point. This isn't actually about a feeling of being undermined; rather, it’s about the conscious awareness of how physical form can dictate behavior. In this context, we are looking at an abstract observation regarding substance versus shape. To put it plainly—and assuming you possess standard female anatomy—is physical penetration even possible for you? Now, to be fair and inclusive, considering biological variations like enlarged clitorises or intersex conditions, there is a slim statistical chance that it could be. Otherwise, one would essentially need a prosthetic device to simulate the presence of an element capable of penetration. As I requested when I first opened this discussion, let's keep this space free from feminist or chauvinist debates. I am not examining the relationship between men and women; I am strictly analyzing the relationship between a human being and physical form, and how those two interact to influence behavior.
You can't truly integrate anything if there isn't any friction or opposition to work with. What exactly are you supposed to integrate if everything is just "feminine" or asexual? I actually started a separate thread once to discuss how sexuality is partially driven by physical form—it’s more than just what happens in your head. You can only engage in certain acts if the physical mechanics allow for it. If the equipment isn't there, you have to find other ways to satisfy that urge, like self-pleasure. I am the type of person who gets bored with people and things very quickly. Some might label me as superficial, claiming I haven't "dug deep enough" into someone's personality, but honestly, I think I dig far too deep. There is only one thing I never tire of, and a very small handful of people who don't exhaust me—but for that to happen, there has to be a sense of "mastery," an infinite loop of mutual discovery, a bit of life's necessary friction, or a specific kind of "resistance." To me, asexuality—viewed as an abstract principle where nothing is ever challenged and there is no mutual resistance—is quite frankly mind-numbingly boring. I realize this is a trendy topic right now, and perhaps in many cases it is, but I suspect it's often a byproduct of how we've incorrectly approached gender equality. Furthermore, I don't believe the "concave" or feminine principle can extend the same kind of forgiveness to men that it applies to itself. A woman is much more likely to forgive a man for an action he actually committed than for an action he failed to take. She might even find it easier to forgive a man who commits an assault than one who simply stands by and does nothing.
You really enjoy being on top, don't you?😬 Rebecca Scott3, would you believe that while I was drafting my opening post yesterday, I actually wondered if anyone would pick up on this concept of "inversion"? It’s a much more sophisticated way of looking at things—instead of simply surrendering your integrity, you essentially assimilate the opposition. After all, they’re operating on your home turf, right? It’s similar to what happens in the film *Mediterraneo*, where a group of clumsy soldiers tries to conquer a Greek island. The symbolism of that island is quite frankly vaginal; the men from the island are taken away, leaving behind only women, children, and the elderly. Ultimately, that feminine population swallows the invaders whole; some of them never even bother trying to return to their homeland again. When it comes to our forum members, if I were to place anyone into this category of "vaginal assimilation," I suppose I'd have to pick Slizim and Natch. There is a legendary moment in *Once Upon a Time in the West* where Claudia Cardinale tells an outlaw: "You and your people can go ahead and kill each other off now; I'll just wash myself off tomorrow and won't even remember your faces." He falls for her instantly and replies, "You remind me of someone: my mother. There hasn't been a bigger whore or a greater lady in the entire Wild West." 😬
🤣
