Bella Figura
Bluelight Crew
There's a difference between sexual deviancy and straight up violence.
To surmise this - it's like saying the cognitive application (resultant personality) encourages chicks to fuck with us, so we can fuck with them (i.e. it causes spontaneous hook ups).It's like this (I suspect this may be a long post).
Remember Ted Kaczynski? (una-bomber).
He was known for one thing or another, trying to regress technology etc., but did you know he was a cross dresser?
He felt he couldn't relate to women, and in fact contended that, to be able to relate to women as a man, one must become a woman (thus he cross dressed).
"Cognitive" application is basically self instruction, i.e. self dialogue, words we/I tell myself to influence how I think, thus how I behave.
The very first word I implemented 11 years ago, was the word "female".
i.e. become female, so you'll be able to relate to women better.
The idea was, personality wise, to become less of an imposing man bastard, be more docile and passive so women will be able to relate to and connect with you.
And, IT WORKED - I think I implemented the cue "female" for 6 months, and it worked.
But I realized having sex like that, whilst pleasant and intimate, I COULD NOT SATISFY THEM, could not make them orgasm.
The climax was weak as hell for me, and non-existent for them.
Thus the conundrum became a paradox - how to be "savage" enough to satisfy them in bed, whilst being sweet and approachable like a "female", such that they could connect with and relate to you.
The answer is all in "emotion".
Never be overtly physically imposing, but bring them into a position of highly internalized intimacy ("love"), and then when the application of violence happens for their sexual gratification, it happens only in that internalized zone.
Thus it precludes overt physical imposition, whilst still being able to apply the violence for their sexual pleasure.
To "bring them into" "love", we use the polar opposite of "love", and then emotionally guide them in....
i.e. make them crazy with "jealous", then apply "union", and then "love".
i.e. "jealous union, love....."
And the gratification itself once they're in that intimate zone, is "force".
Thus the complete cognitive application = "jealous union, love force".
So as to your question,
What you must understand is that, "jealous union, love...." = making someone crazy ("jealous"), then presenting with vulnerable/approachable states ("union/love"), before culminating with self assertion ("force").
The affect this has on sexual deviants = it's like a fucking lightening rod for them, it draws them like flies onto dog shit.
Women love it.
Sexual deviants get crazy (via "jealous" - which turns them on), then sense the subsequent vulnerability (via "union/love") and think, "jackpot".
It basically elicits their predatory nature - and they don't back off until they've pushed so far into my personal space (like mimicking the obscene act of masturbation on my face, as per this complaint), until they feel "force" - the assertive element, the violence.
i.e. they don't back off until they feel the potential for violence - and that only happens when they've already obscenely crossed the boundaries of my personal space.
And not all women need a violent dimension in their intimate lives to be sexually fulfilled.
There's a difference between internalized or intimate violence (the sexual kind that satisfies chicks in bed), and straight up (explicit) violence (which frightens chicks and scares them off).There's a difference between sexual deviancy and straight up violence.
It's like this (I suspect this may be a long post).
Remember Ted Kaczynski? (una-bomber).
He was known for one thing or another, trying to regress technology etc., but did you know he was a cross dresser?
He felt he couldn't relate to women, and in fact contended that, to be able to relate to women as a man, one must become a woman (thus he cross dressed).
"Cognitive" application is basically self instruction, i.e. self dialogue, words we/I tell myself to influence how I think, thus how I behave.
The very first word I implemented 11 years ago, was the word "female".
i.e. become female, so you'll be able to relate to women better.
The idea was, personality wise, to become less of an imposing man bastard, be more docile and passive so women will be able to relate to and connect with you.
And, IT WORKED - I think I implemented the cue "female" for 6 months, and it worked.
But I realized having sex like that, whilst pleasant and intimate, I COULD NOT SATISFY THEM, could not make them orgasm.
The climax was weak as hell for me, and non-existent for them.
Thus the conundrum became a paradox - how to be "savage" enough to satisfy them in bed, whilst being sweet and approachable like a "female", such that they could connect with and relate to you.
The answer is all in "emotion".
Never be overtly physically imposing, but bring them into a position of highly internalized intimacy ("love"), and then when the application of violence happens for their sexual gratification, it happens only in that internalized zone.
Thus it precludes overt physical imposition, whilst still being able to apply the violence for their sexual pleasure.
To "bring them into" "love", we use the polar opposite of "love", and then emotionally guide them in....
i.e. make them crazy with "jealous", guide them into intimacy with "union", and the intimacy itself is "love".
i.e. "jealous union, love....."
And the gratification itself once they're in that intimate zone, is "force".
Thus the complete cognitive application = "jealous union, love force".
So as to your question,
What you must understand is that, "jealous union, love...." = making someone crazy ("jealous"), then presenting with vulnerable/approachable states ("union/love"), before culminating with self assertion ("force").
The affect this has on sexual deviants = it's like a fucking lightening rod for them, it draws them like flies onto dog shit.
Women love it.
Sexual deviants get crazy (via "jealous" - which turns them on), then sense the subsequent vulnerability (via "union/love") and think, "jackpot".
It basically elicits their predatory nature - and they don't back off until they've pushed so far into my personal space (like mimicking the obscene act of masturbation on my face, as per this complaint), until they feel "force" - the assertive element, the violence.
i.e. they don't back off until they feel the potential for violence - and that only happens when they've already obscenely crossed the boundaries of my personal space.
Well...... it just so happens...... now that you mention it.....I think I understand...you wouldn't happen to have a diagram or schematic you could share to help illustrate this whole jealous union thing?
I say tentatively that, as of a couple hour ago, I may have found a way to implement this.I think it would help a lot if I had a good way to release built up stress and emotions.
This is a good point, and I'm in a unique kind of place currently; my long term hope is that I'll attain this and the problem of potentially psychotic emotional outbursts will become less of a problem.
At least that's my hope, but it's still quite theoretical.
Part of what I'm questioning about this process is, is being sexually attractive to women and being violent, does one basically come hand in hand with the other?
join a fighting style of your choice gym and seriously train.
if you fight seriously as a hobby, the need to prove yourself will seriously diminish.
You should have asked him to back off. If he didn't, you should've ripped his dick off.I was sat down, he pushed his groin area toward my face and began making a masturbating motion with this hand in my face.
If I hadn't shown him I was prepared to engage violently, it felt like he would have actually taken out his penis.
Then once he felt the violent potential, suddenly it was all one big joke and he was backing away.