Edited by moderator for inflammatory language.

Aside from canvas prep, you would most likely begin with the underpainting/grisaille. You can underpaint in grayscale, or in color, depending on the tone of your painting. Traditionally, green, would be used, for example. This is called verdaille. You can then build color by value. I am sure there are plenty of videos on underpainting. This is what gives a work depth. For me, it helps to understand what color to lay down. I don’t know of any other resource than to paint until your hands fall off and your eye balls melt. As a professional artist/illustrator, there has been no better teacher than…just doing it. However, there is an oil painter on YouTube I enjoy, Draw Mix Paint. He has excellent guidance for oils, but would apply for acrylics.

Sure, @Rosie_0801. You mean, like this? Your right, I am being so rude:)

deleted by mod

deleted by mod

Oh, I see. A couple pages back someone commented that, essentially, it isn’t disrespectful to show the shape of their breasts through clothing. I retorted that it is, and related some of my own past shortcomings. Which led to comments about Laws of Nature and whether men and women are subject to them, in which I contend that they both are. Anyway, I further stated that our nakedness is our shame, and that it is unnatural for women to dress sexually, and that men are not the only ones under a natural/moral obligation. It is the natural disorder that affects such things as nudity. Your statement, although pithy, is what I was trying to get at, in a nutshell, lol. Shame in nakedness is a reference to that disorder. Nonetheless, shame in nakedness would now be a Law of Nature, as is death…because that was disordered as well. It is kinda stupid simple, but patriarchy, and feminism, and liberation…oh my. FWIW. I wear a bra too, lol. It feels great, but I try to go braless at home. I read years ago that some bras can impede the lymphatic system from doing it’s thing. So who knows🤷🏻‍♀️

I absolutely agree. Nudity is not in and of itself shameful, I think I tried to clarify that in a post to @Wheres Toto. However, in respect to that disorder….hence, my whole argument.

My baby sucks my breast. If he continues to do that it will become shameful (into adulthood). Babies can’t make moral decisions, but adults can. So, no, babies and toddlers aren’t in shame, but if I take my baby grocery shopping, naked, that will be a shame unto me. Whether shame in nudity is innate or not is really a whole other thing, and really an excellent point. Let us assume you are right. Even so, we still can still consider the morality/consequence/effect of a thing. We are taught that murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, lying is wrong, because these immoral actions ultimately lead to negative consequences, perhaps even death. I would contend that it (they) is (are) both innate and taught, but would concede to either one, because either way, there are negative consequences for individuals and society. Here’s looking at you Russia under Bolshevik. To clarify-of course, no one feels shame about nudity in the shower, or on a date night with your husband, or whatever. Feeling shame (distress caused by wrongdoing) from wearing a see through shirt with no bra, is not similar to taking a shower in the nude, or being naked with your husband, or even being born. It is harmful to feel shame because one is overweight or isn’t pretty or has brown skin. This isn’t what I am talking about-

Arbitrary, lol. How? Child sacrifice is just cultural, as well. So just ignore it. Honor killings are just cultural. Cultural practice must be examined, no? Besides, my culture expects that I not wear a burqa. If I did, those “arbitrary expectations” disappear, and I may experience some adversity. Likewise, if I walk around nude, I would likely get arrested, right? So, your point is unclear. I find it interesting (but expected) that no one can really explain why nudity isn’t shameful. It is easy call a thing nonsense, but apparently, not so easy to give answer.

Being sexually assaulted is beside the point. Men who do that are on another tip, and I am not speaking to that anyway. I respectfully disagree that it makes no difference in what a woman wears- I am sure your experience is ubiquitous as well. It doesn’t negate my point.

Yes, it *was* an extremely unpleasant side of myself that needed to be changed. My word choices, for this thread, are made with intent, and are not indiscriminate. You know, self-reflection, introspection, these are necessary to grow and mature, and to slough off the dead weight. We are all bound to accumulate spiritual tumors, best not to let them fatten. You have to be honest with yourself. I mean, it is dangerous to pet the ego. So, if I I do something deplorable, I call it what it is. However, most women under the influence of the Western system just.don’t.get.it. What I am exposing and examining here perhaps goes deeper than simply not wearing a bra or skinny jeans. I am just doing some spiritual math. I have given this a lot of thought. Most women don’t want to look at it, it is easier to cower under “patriarchy, patriarchy”, than to acknowledge what is really going on, and take personal responsibility. So, no, I am not degrading myself. In fact, it is the feminist ideology that I (at times, subconsciously) took to heart in years bygone- that led me to degradation. It is apropos to use one’s own life experiences when giving opinion, agreed, yes?

Is his behavior gross, or a natural reaction to a woman without discretion? Both parties are vile-

Scripture isn’t controversial. Many of you claim Christianity, but when it comes down to it, you will eschew it to be pleasing to other people. It is cowardly. But I guess that is par for the course. Originally, someone said that Christianity was patriarchal, which is funny, so I was compelled to reply.

Nudity is shameful. This is why most people would cringe at the thought of parading their nude bodies around their children. Nudity has it’s place, and it isn’t a public display, that would be shameful. There are differences between male and female bodies. However, the displaying of sexual organs either explicitly or through one’s clothing is lowbrow. I can assure you my skinny jeans showed every nook and cranny, hill and valley, and…..ding ding ding, I knew it. I was well aware of what my body looked like, and so is every woman who leaves her home scantily clad, or braless. You are really trying to say that a man is morally obligated, but that woman is clean? Come now. Clothing is there (for some) to allude to nudity. The authority is YAH. No man or woman makes Law, but Him. Your contention isn’t with me or men, but YAH and His Word-

You should have kept your original sentence, it made your retort somewhat less vapid, while simultaneously indicating a lack in your intellectual prowess.🤪

That is unjust. Are women above the Laws of Nature? Why are men subject to morality, while women are not? Our nakedness is our shame, that is a Law that just is. It is applicable to men and women alike, matriarchy or patriarchy notwithstanding.

Yes, this is true.

Yes, yes, funny idiom, heehee haha. Nonetheless, what is happening spiritually is really dark, and not something I will engage in anymore. So, the live and let live perspective is now obtuse to me. I don’t think women understand fully what they are doing.

It is a respect issue. Women are supposed to have sisterhood, and this isn’t that. I once wore a see through shirt without a bra when I was 19. I thought I was a hippy and free and all that bs. I am sure a made a man connected to a woman turn his head that day. I regret that, sorely. It feels shameful now- Another time a few years ago, I wore skinny jeans to a store. I was putting bags into my car and a man walking with his wife/gf, nearly broke his neck to look at me. My husband saw this and was cross with me, and I deserved it. I still cringe over that, and I really had to consider what I was doing/wearing. Modesty is beautiful and it shows other women (and men) respect. I have learned this through the years, and count it as wisdom gained.

Christianity, per se, is not in the slightest patriarchal. As a Graeco-Roman religion, there are many “gods” that have popped up in Christianity (some are male, like Mithra), due to its pagan origin. For example, the Blessed Virgin is often conflated with Isis and Horus, and both of these are deities most often displayed as an idol, that believers worship, within Christianity. Another example is the celebration of Easter (Ishtar). Christianity, essentially, is a Graeco-Roman perversion of the Scripture, the Hebrew culture/belief system. The Roman Empire conjoined the two (ie Torah joined to paganism) for political purposes, because the spreading of Torah via Yahusha/Jesus fragmented the beliefs of the people, and Rome was losing “control”. So, voila! They mixed the two into their own image, if you will. Even Christianity that “separates” itself through adherence to Protestantism, is still very feminist and deifies the woman (amongst other delineations from Scripture). For example, it negates the Scripture by perpetuating the idea that multiple wives are a sin, or somehow not biblical. The Christian version is that to have multiples wives (not multiple women that a man sleeps with and is not married to), is adultery. Meanwhile, that ain’t what the Scripture says. I use that as an example to show clearly how Christianity and Scripture are opposed, and that one is patriarchal, one is not. The Scripture is patriarchal. Absolutely! I think that most women (and mayhap men) who are in Western society have a Western view of patriarchy (has little to do with Hebrew culture/thought), when the Scriptural/Hebrew/Near Eastern view is much sweeter to women. Women were to be cared for, cradle to grave. Western feminism and Western patriarchy are very cruel to women. Single motherhood, for example, is a cruelty, and a by product of feminism and Western patriarchy, not the Scripture. It is actually Western thought that damages women, not Scripture, which requires provision and love for women.

My husband has a “don’t tread on me” hat sitting on the dashboard of his beloved Land Rover. He is…black. He is ex-military. The phrase pertains to individual freedoms, not racism…or really even nationalism, but a preservation of individual rights and freedoms, not to be encroached upon by government or society.

High School quickly becomes University. Certainly literature to simply enjoy may include a number of titles, and yes Watership Down is a great read for elementary/middle school, I would think, even adults. However, when Naked Lunch (Burroughs) is on the university syllabus….I mean, that is a long bridge to cross, between literature like that, and literature like Watership. So, a balance is good, yes? Besides, many high schoolers have probably already dealt with heavy, deep, or maybe even depressing things in life. Literature opens up communication.

Democracy in America by Alexis de Toqueville: The quintessential US History (text)book. This one requires guidance and adequate knowledge/understanding from the parent to implement, but is a crucial literary work for high school. We even use it in elementary (lightly). NF The Fire Next Time by James Baldwin: Again, I would use this in US History, but *swoon*. This is brilliant. Pair this with Baldwin’s William Buckley debate (‘65), which can be found on YouTube, along with JB interviews, and you have a sumptuous meal for the intellect. NF The Souls of Black Folk by WEB Du Bois: NonFiction Lit-excellent. Middlemarch by George Eliot: Fiction. This is one of my favorite books, and if I had daughters, we would read it in HS (probably before then, but hey). There are lots of topics here: gender, politics, religion, etc. The Castle by Franz Kafka: This one is a bit heavy, and would need parental guidance. Existential. F The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka: My middle schoolers read it, and vibed with it. A classic, and very suitable for HS. F The Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner: This one is certainly a challenge, but excellent to expose HS students to alternative literary styles. F Cousin Bette by Honore de Balzac: A novel about vice and virtue. May be too intense for some kids- F

Ah, yes, duh. Minivans, that is how people haul their cubs to and fro’🤪 Five car seats, lol. That is crazy. Surely I am not the only one that loathes car seats. I hate popping them in and out. Five would have my head spinning:))

I had two babes back to back by the time I was 28. After those babies, I thought I was done. Like, for ten years thought I was done. However, something happened at 35, and I began to absolutely crave a baby, but we decided that two was enough. Apparently not, because we just had a third, a month ago. After he was born, I said I would never give birth again, but that was because the pain was bloody intense, not because I didn’t want another baby. I have already forgotten what it felt like, so yeah, thinking little one needs a sibling (closer to his age, his brothers are 10-12 years older). But the thought of sending four to private school (we homeschool to 6th grade) is cringy. Also, how do you guys fit all your kids in a vehicle?? We can seat 7, but I dunno. It’s cramped with 5 people. And two car seats, forget about it. So anyway- Actually, this last pregnancy (I am 38), was absolutely amazing, and the whole time I kept thinking that I would have to do this again. Honestly, I was filled with regret that I didn’t have more children when I was younger. Now, time is ticking- So, I don’t know when you feel “done”. I did, but now I don’t. Besides, having children this late in the game makes one ponder mortality way too much. I will be almost 60 when my youngest is twenty. Life goes by too fast.