Increasingly close to getting in street brawls - I'm worried about my future

[Nurse Ratched]

I bet you fuck like a beast, pumpkin.

Those were the good old days. I have aged well and am still up for a little action but alas my choices have become slim as I live in a shit splat small town where they are all rednecks, with confederate flags and rifle racks on their loud pick up trucks. They have scraggly beards, beer guts and eat roadkill.

May have to switch my orientation to get a little action around these parts. On the other hand, the females aren't that much better but I can always lower my standards.

 

[tubgirl.jpg]

they are all rednecks, with confederate flags and rifle racks on their loud pick up trucks. They have scraggly beards, beer guts and eat roadkill.

You sure know how to entice a brother!

 

[JohnBoy2000]

@JohnBoy2000 I'm reading what you're posting, it's really interesting to hear. Keep updating! I'm just a bit slow today regarding answers.

But if it's about strong emotions, and inducing them by manipulation, what about fear? Shame? Pride? Guilt?
Just asking, seeing as these are really strong in most people, and usually easier to induce than, say, jealousy?

Not sure about those - none of those as words resonate with emotional relevance (albeit alluding to or characterizing emotion).

Their alphabetical architecture does not form or produce a wave when spoken = when applied as a cue, they have no AFFECT.

Outside of that I have no idea.

I was initially just about cue application, using words to influence my own behaviour and the responses of others to me.

When revising for emotional relevance in cues, "jealous/love" were the only two pure emotions that resonate (wave property) as such.

.....

Though in the face of powerful chemistry, some people DO feel fear, some feel confrontational, maybe shame they have to confront to conceal their own insecurity, etc.

I would say in that sense they're secondary (not directly sexually relevant) - thus inapplicable as functional self dialogue.

 

[JohnBoy2000]

So currently on:

- "Love jealous, force union".

I took a beating yesterday, so I woke this morning pretty broke up.

A best I can rationalize, "love jealous" = loving someone such to make them jealous.

That is bound to make them fucking nuts.

- The "force union" is being assertive and fucking them (which people love, especially when they're turned on, want to fuck but don't know how to make a move).

I was considering "union force" but it feels like it produces a much weaker chemistry than "force union".

Basically from "jealous/union/love/force" we want to produce a combination that renders the most potent possible chemistry.

 

[JohnBoy2000]

I'm thinking,

Logically the syntax here may be more so, "love" - "jealous force" - "union".

Doesn't make any difference to how we apply it, but "jealous force" = what will fuck them.

We precede it with "love" to give optimal personality "access" = make it applicable.

Then culminate with "union" to avoid imposition.

i.e. open and close with passive states.

"Love, jealous force, union"

Or maybe not, who knows.

 

[n3ophy7e]

Not sure about those - none of those as words resonate with emotional relevance (albeit alluding to or characterizing emotion).

Their alphabetical architecture does not form or produce a wave when spoken = when applied as a cue, they have no AFFECT.

Outside of that I have no idea.

I was initially just about cue application, using words to influence my own behaviour and the responses of others to me.

When revising for emotional relevance in cues, "jealous/love" were the only two pure emotions that resonate (wave property) as such.

How are you measuring this?? Are you intending to be able to apply your theory to all people or just yourself?

 

[Las Veghost grower]

Whoa, crazy thread..but it kinda sound like your trying to break down the psyche to get laid, kinda creepy tbh

 

[JohnBoy2000]

How are you measuring this?? Are you intending to be able to apply your theory to all people or just yourself?

Physics, most specifically quantum mechanics - aka wave behavior.

Simply words with wave relevance = generation of AFFECT (not effect), emotional implication.

i.e. optimal AFFECT = affects everyone, and yes I understand the responses it elicits may vary dramatically from one person to the next.

 

[n3ophy7e]

Physics, most specifically quantum mechanics - aka wave behavior.

Yes but how are you measuring that.
Measuring affect (i.e. a subjective response) is vastly different to measuring changes in waves in physics (i.e. objective).

 

[JohnBoy2000]

Yes but how are you measuring that.
Measuring affect (i.e. a subjective response) is vastly different to measuring changes in waves in physics (i.e. objective).

Not when you understand that human emotion happens in waves, electromagnetic waves (via neural action potentials - i.e. affect on nervous system).

Mostly I guess if you understand "intuition" as being the ability to accurately sense nerve activity (electromagnetism), then I "measure" it by intuitive sense as to affect on other people.

But also just engaging socially and feeling and observing their actual behavioral outcome (which is typically an extension of the initial intuitive feeling).
i.e. do they respond warmly, do they want to engage me, do they exhibit aversion etc.

They will be products of how they "feel", i.e. emotion I induce in them, via electromagnetic waves - a function of cognitive application (self dialogue implementation).

 

[n3ophy7e]

Not when you understand that human emotion happens in waves, electromagnetic waves (via neural action potentials - i.e. affect on nervous system).

Mostly I guess if you understand "intuition" as being the ability to accurately sense nerve activity (electromagnetism), then I "measure" it by intuitive sense as to affect on other people.

But also just engaging socially and feeling and observing their actual behavioral outcome (which is typically an extension of the initial intuitive feeling).
i.e. do they respond warmly, do they want to engage me, do they exhibit aversion etc.

They will be products of how they "feel", i.e. emotion I induce in them, via electromagnetic waves - a function of cognitive application (self dialogue implementation).

Is your end goal to attract mates?

Also, feelings/emotions are chemical, not electromagnetic.

 

[JohnBoy2000]

Is your end goal to attract mates?

Also, feelings/emotions are chemical, not electromagnetic.

My end goal is to be able to cause spontaneous arousal as a man, in women.

The same way women have conventionally done in men.

Far out.

I call it, "bridging the true gender gap".

Chemical = transmitter release, like dopamine, serotonin etc., downstream hormone release.

These are all a function (themselves a downstream product) of electromagnetic impulses of nerves.
i.e. chemicals are only released with the the electromagnetic pulses are good.

And also chemicals cause internal pleasure, but do not cause nerve stimulas in a partner when our nerve endings meet their nerve endings.

That's electromagnetism.

So to get a chemical response in a partner, the electrical integrity of our nervous system must have good potency, to stimulate chemical discharge and thus pleasure in them.

 

[n3ophy7e]

My end goal is to be able to cause spontaneous arousal as a man, in women.

The same way women have conventionally done in men.

What makes you think this doesn't already happen??
Women do get spontaneously aroused by certain men. It's precisely the same as when a man gets spontaneously aroused by a certain woman that he finds attractive.
Do you mean that you want to personally be able to illicit this response in a woman who wouldn't otherwise be attracted to you?

 

[JohnBoy2000]

What makes you think this doesn't already happen??
Women do get spontaneously aroused by certain men. It's precisely the same as when a man gets spontaneously aroused by a certain woman that he finds attractive.
Do you mean that you want to personally be able to illicit this response in a woman who wouldn't otherwise be attracted to you?

How many women do you know that would pay a man, any man, to fuck him?

As in, a legit gigolo?

Every wonder why male to female prostitution isn't big business?

Additionally, how many women do you know that can experience orgasm from vaginal penetration exclusively?

i.e. that can reliably orgasm from a man penetrating her?

Conversely, most dudes struggle to last 2 minutes to orgasm subsequent to penetration.

 

[n3ophy7e]

How many women do you know that would pay a man, any man, to fuck him?

As in, a legit gigolo?

Every wonder why male to female prostitution isn't big business?

That is something different though. That's not about attraction.

 

[n3ophy7e]

Sorry I'm not trying to nit-pick or argue, I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from and what your intentions are.

 

[JohnBoy2000]

That is something different though. That's not about attraction.

Well you and I have profoundly different ideas of what attraction is or is not.

I'm concerned with sexual, electrical, chemical.

Anything else is just a hoax to me.

PS - I added another part to that post, go back and check it out.

 

[JohnBoy2000]

Sorry I'm not trying to nit-pick or argue, I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from and what your intentions are.

At a fundamental biological level my intention is to induce high nerve sensitization such that when I fuck (no direct clitoral stimulation), she feels everything, and I can bring her to orgasm via penetration exclusively, rather easily.

Extrapolating this to a social level, roles becomes dramatically different.
Male conventional breadwinner status versus female conventionally tending to sexual needs etc., should become obsolete.

 

[n3ophy7e]

Additionally, how many women do you know that can experience orgasm from vaginal penetration exclusively?

i.e. that can reliably orgasm from a man penetrating her?

That also has nothing to do with attraction though, that is an anatomical thing. Most women need to have direct clitoral stimulation to orgasm. It's a mechanical, structural/anatomical issue.

Conversely, most dudes struggle to last 2 minutes to orgasm subsequent to penetration.

This is just not true....

 

[n3ophy7e]

Male conventional breadwinner status versus female conventionally tending to sexual needs etc., should become obsolete.

I think you're coming at it from an irrelevant angle though, to be honest.
Challenging gender roles doesn't really have anything to do with orgasms.