• Bluelight HOT THREADS
  • Let's Welcome Our NEW MEMBERS!

Redefining personality to make the sex better

DeadManWalkin'

Bluelighter
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
1,229
This post has been very interesting. I liked it a lot and saved it for myself.
However i think emotionless sex is the best one. I like it rough.
If you mean that you can feel how she feels by her body, the way she moves or moans and act according to that yeah, but most of the time i just fuck her and choke and if she screams too much i put my hand on her mouth. Maybe slap in face, if she's on top slap her ass. I like when my engaged scraps my back and blood comes out.
I sometimes put a belt around her neck and fuck her from behind.
I had this EX who liked cutting during sex, i cut her like hell. I tried to get my engaged to do it, we tried it but she started crying because of she has had cutting issues herself and it reminded her of that, so we don't do it anymore.
Speaking about sex is OK and having some connection is good and of course more you fuck and know each other the better the sex gets if you don't get bored to each other.
However our sex just goes like "Turn on your back!" I tell her what to do, she says if she wants something but she likes being submissive during sex. Most of my women have liked it like that, i don't know why. They always come to me, it's just something i know from the second i get close. Weird, i think it's just personality types that get together.
 

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,259
"Union" is a presentation of vulnerability, as is "love".

"Jealous" encourages approach.

Thus "jealous union, love..." - is encouragement into the depth of vulnerability;

Only upon which time is "force" applied.

So we can apply "force" for sexual gratification, for self assertion, standing-ones-ground etc, but only after allowing an individual into the depths of intimacy and vulnerability.

That's the flow state.

Wave based, seems to be the law of the universe itself; for optimized and autonomous functionality.

**

Additionally, what is it about "force" in final position?

Why not "energy", why not "control"?
They're physical based?

Unloading.

A physical unloading (and emotional unloading also I guess - "force" having emotional relevance), the purpose I guess is to culminate on the physical application that facilitates unloading.

i.e. making them do what we want them to do to the fullest extent, so we can get full emotional release.

You just gotta have your wicked way with them.

"Force" lends itself to that, that explicit physical expression.

"Control", compromises explicit unloading as it alludes to inhibition of it.

"Energy", again, in no way alludes to physical unloading or directly making them do what we want them to do physically/sexually/emotionally, having your way with someone etc.

.....

Ya'll ever go on Reddit After Dark, "Slutty Confessions" etc?

AW LAWD SAVE ME!!

Let me tell you, day to day chick don't convey just how horny they are.
Chicks are just as horny as men, and in their private moments - which they clearly express on the Reddit after dark forums, that is undeniable.

And how could it not be?

The presence or absence of an organ, does it really dramatically implicate the desire to feel physical contact with another human being?
Intimate physical contact?
To experience the pleasure of sexual climax and release?

Just cause they're females, is there a reduced impetus in that sense?

......

And the main expression is, "pound me daddy", "have your way with me!!".

"Turn me into your little fuckdoll!!".

That's all physical release, unloading - both physically and emotionally and I think sexual climax is the meeting place of both of those.
That's a man doing as he pleases with them - which is clearly on a deep seated level, emphatically what they want.

And the only way to truly express that, is by way of "force".


But too eclipse the potential day to day physical imposition of "force", we precede it with something more emotionally potent, emotionally - more explicit - something to capture their attention more acutely;

"Jealous".

And then just join the two;

"Jealous" into "union", and subsequently "love" into "force - cumulatively facilitating the smooth and fluid (essentially effortless - flow state) application of "force".

Each preceding cue directly facilitating the cue/state directly following it.

And thus - civilized, desired, attractive application of "force" - the unloading, the satisfaction, the gratification - that only "force" can bring;



The high with the low, the low with the high - the cross axis dynamic and thus an overall sense of equilibrium to our personality.
 
Last edited:

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,259
Dayum that last post was intense.

Think I gotta get some emotional release myself just now;


This latest Jamie Walker hits the spot!
 
Last edited:

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,259
"Jealous union, love force".

Each day my understanding grows more and more lucid.

To fight, and to fuck - emotionally they're not super dissimilar.

I've discussed the street scumbags, social authority, social dominance, getting in street fights.
And hooking up with chicks spontaneously for sex.

The high emotions that would potentially cause a street fight are, "jealous", and "force" - the latter as, a forceful demeanor is like saying, "I'm the boss!!", and territorialism gets rattled when it senses that, thus dudes want to challenge you etc.


The centre cues counter balance it however.

"Union" and "love", yeah they're intimacy based, caring, tender etc.

For chicks, you need the outer and inner - i.e. they like a dude that can flare emotion and will step up physically when needed, and they like to get hot and sticky and intimate on the inside also.

It's like on the outside, confrontational, flare emotion, I'm the boss, come at me bro etc - on the inside, tender, intimate, sticky.

**
The inside cues counter balance the outside cues, and we have symmetry, homeostasis, equilibrium.

Point being, to fight and fuck - the cues reflect both;
The final cue reflects the actual physical application of either, so this time in perspective of fighting (i.e. social dominance),

- "Control" doesn't reflect fighting, beating someone down
- "Energy" doesn't reflect fighting, beating someone down
- "Imagine" doesn't reflect fighting, beating someone down
- "Incite" doesn't reflect fighting, beating someone down
- "Force", does.

**

 
Last edited:

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,259
Code breaking.

I read a funny quote in one of the focus forums a couple weeks back.

Dude addicted to opioids, something to the effect of, "I thought of what I was doing as that which doctors and nurses do, playing around with lure lock syringes, bacteriostatic water. My own little laboratory" - describing how he injected opioids.

See, I view what I'm doing, almost like as if what mathematicians do - code breaking.
Solving the puzzles of the universe.

As potentially deluded as that may sound, to me it's like a linguistics code.

Thoughts - emotions - actions; psychology 101.
Flows states vs clutch states.
Cues and triggers (actually it's sports psychology 101).


Point being, I was watching a couple neat mathematics films that explored the lives of great code breakers and mathematicians.

Based on Alan Turing, one depicts a scene,


"Why do people like violence?"

"It feels good - satisfaction".


A stand up comedian (Billy Connolly), did a sketch on violence - "all they need is a good shag".

Point being - I believe it may be the lack of ability to express violence sexually, and therefore lack of satisfaction, that causes humans to attempt to experience the good feeling associated with violence, elsewhere (war, by example?).

A man expressing "force" (aka - violence) on a woman, kind of taboo.
Deemed socially unacceptable (at least directly).
Despite the fact that it is an intrinsic component of sexual gratification/satisfaction - and sexual feeling, period.

The reason being I believe it's so difficult to express is because it must be force that has "Affect" - emotional implication (see Lisa Feldman Barrett lectures/talks etc).

i.e. it's intrinsic force, force applied to neurons - which is not straight forward to apply.

A huge emotional flare, that transitions into huge emotional vulnerability - by way of a passive/benign/accepting/vulnerable physical state; but that does work (i.e. "Jealous" into "love", by way of "union" - "Jealous" into "love" directly is too big of a drop basically, compromises symmetry, thus the passive physical state of "union" in between, imperative for symmetry and flow).

That will cause affect, that simply needs to be capped with "force" (that violence).
But being affect, it's expressed non-violently.

Ironic.


Anyways point being, it feels like a linguistics code waiting to be broken, based on laminar/smooth/flow-state words/cues (i.e wave-relevant cues).



Does what I'm doing meet the conventional interpretation of linguistics?

I have no idea, but the very letter and word structure, the feeling it elicits and therefore neural activity it creates, laminar, smooth - wave like, relative to neural function itself (EM waves by way of ion depolarizations), well it sounds relevant to word/language function, meaning etc.

.



How language came into being in the first place - and from my point of view, actually determining words so effectively in tune with the waves of the universe itself that they could implicate the wave-function of neurons and therefore our very behavior, potentially our very gene and cellular expression by effectively "coding" ourselves?

That's.... bizarre.

But each separate language (derived by separate tribes presumably), well I've already shown that Dutch has its own wave-state based words that function precisely for our purposes.

"Jalours Unie, Hou Macht" - being the Dutch translation, each word having a flow-state laminar smooth/wave nature, despite the last two words being distinctly dissimilar from the English versions, "love force".

Maybe language was simply human evolution, tapping into the wave nature of the universe itself, somehow recreating or replicating, perhaps defining them/it - in words and sounds.
 
Last edited:

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,259
In spanish:

"Jealous union, love force".

"Celosa union, amor forzar".

Don't speak spanish - could translate I guess?
Feels like it flows.
Felt like the wave based cues in Spanish.
 

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,259


Physical flow state chart.
Unsure about the "wavelength" theory in perspective of this modified outlay - however, physical cues like "energy/control" still manifest externally/physically - they're in no way relevant to emotionality (these cues don't Affect neurons directly), thus no place in sexual application.

Clearly lower wave amplitude in contrast to emotional flow state.
 
Last edited:

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,259
A more definitive, relatable way to characterize the end goal/purpose, here.

Bring out the crazy in crazy people.

"Jealous union, love force".

And then satisfy it I guess.

I hooked up this thai chick pfff, maybe.... maybe 9 or 10 years ago.

I brought the crazy out, but I couldn't satisfy it.

"I want to feel you", she said, with a degree of frustration, whilst I was doing her doggystyle - brutal honesty I guess.

I couldn't make her feel a damn thing (cue sequence I had, it was still very much in the prototype stages).

**
"Jealous" elicits the crazy.

"Union" to "love" - they're presentations of vulnerability, thus it gives them the scope to impose that crazy on you, to a level of vulnerability (ones own openness) associated with "union" (i.e. being open to others), then to a greater level of vulnerability associated with "love" (i.e. being open to others to a highly intimate degree).

And then simply meet it with "force", which satisfies it.


It would also explain why these social bottom feeder, scumbag fuckfaces seem to be getting so rustled by my presentation recently.

They're used to capitalizing on vulnerability of others.

With me I'm making them crazy, presenting all the vulnerability - but they can't act on it cause "force" is in the definitive/overall state i.e. final position.


The crazy in chicks though, that's the main concern.

I mean, who doesn't want their woman to show her inner cock-fiend in the bedroom?

Bring out the nasty ass firebreathing hore?

Let her act out her filthy desires, then satisfy her like a boss (i.e. "force").


Bring out the crazy in crazy people.

All told it's like a combination of,
1) emotional flare ("jealous")
2) vulnerability (i.e. letting them attack you by way of being open, "union", "love")
3) challenge their territorial nature (via "force"), as a means to culminate by violently physically engaging them (which brings satisfaction).
 
Last edited:

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,259


Again, more clearly outlining the boundaries.

That big ass black line down the center, that's the barrier to getting ones rocks off, to fucking - basically.

I guess it's the reason humanity evolves and attempts to improve and refine itself, and isn't like one big box of hamsters just crawling all over each other in one heinous syrup of non-stop bodily fluid exchange.

But it's also the reason we have incels etc.

Trying to pass that barrier directly and simply applying "force" in an undesired manner, is also inhumane and typically punishable by law, as I guess it's effectively what constitutes rape.

**
Bring out the crazy in crazy people.

That was also the last contention.

Therefore, the two are related.

Transitioning that psychological barrier between genders (and people in general I guess) - and bringing out the crazy.

Accessing the crazy.

Which also seems to correlate with our contention that, via this process, we're touching those hotties deep down, in that most tender/intimate/vulnerable/forbidden sensitive zone.

Making them crazy.

"Pushing their buttons" etc, I guess whatever we may call it.

So to touch them deep down below = making them crazy = circumventing the gender barrier.
 
Last edited:

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,259
A fuck, is violence (I guess we don't acknowledge this but, bending some chick over and penetrating/pounding on her genital region with a stiffened object = violence).

As above, violence is satisfying.

As of course, a fuck is satisfying.

Violence is characterized by "force" (again, not "energy", not "control", not "incite" etc).

"Force" = violence.

In a civilized society, we don't just go about being violent, therefore we create a transition into violence.

And that's essentially what this setup is.

It's a transition into violence.

"Force" is the violence.

What cues facilitate a transition into it? (i.e. a flow into it)

Well, "jealous", that goes without saying, it's intuitive.

"Control/energy" facilitate a transition into violence?
Physical states? Hell no!! No relevance here.

"Imagine" facilitates a transition into violence?
lolwut? Hell no.

"Incite" facilitates a transition into violence?
Well, it has no wave relevance, therefore no emotional relevance - and violence is ultimately all emotion so, despite the allusion, "incite" - in fact no, cannot facilitate that transition.


"Union/love" - vulnerability, potential weakness - observing weakness can make a bitch crazy - the jackals see the opening with these, makes them approach to exploit.
So yeah, they facilitate approach to violence.

Emotion - creates the transition into violence.

Thus,
"Jealous" - an emotional flare to make them crazy.
"Union, love " - presentation of openness (thus vulnerability), giving them all the scope to express that emotional flare (i.e. flow forward into us).
"Force" - culmination, the engagement in physical violence.

The perfect symmetrical transition (flow state) into violence.
 
Last edited:

madness00

Sr. Moderator: NMI, MH, CD, SLR
Staff member
Joined
Aug 8, 2018
Messages
11,051
Location
New England
Sex is "rough", but is that a crucial part of the model?

Is this the daddy dynamic?
 

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,259
Sex is "rough", but is that a crucial part of the model?

Is this the daddy dynamic?
"Rough"....

Pffff, is violence rough?

The word "rough" suggests to me a kind of non-laminar, non-fluid state.

Think of it like; compare prize boxers.
Some slobber knocker puncher, versus a smooth clean boxer like Floyd Mayweather.

I mean, what Mayweather is doing is still boxing, still violence - but his style is so clean, so smooth, the dynamic so laminar that technically, I don't think I could think of it as being "rough".

He's still trying KO his opponent, so definitely violence.

The cue "force" due to its long wavelength transpires on a deeper more intimate level thus, it's not like we're manhandling some chick and roughing her up or roughhousing with her etc.

By example - see I'm in the real culminating stages here (at least it seems - 15 weeks on a single cue sequence without modification), but years ago I had the cue "force" as part of a sequence and nailed this hottie.

Or rather, she nailed me.
I basically laid there and she bopped and I watched her eyes roll back - it was awesome, knowing I was delivering that depth of pleasure to such an intimate zone and basically, hitting "the spot", that sweet spot with her.
Point being, I was implementing the cue "force" (albeit as part of a different, less sustainable setup), but I was totally placid, definitely not "being her daddy", not being rough in fact, not even really being active, just laying there - she was doing all the work etc.

**
Crucial part of he model however, "force"?

Consider it like resonance - to implement feeling, that's absolutely what they have to feel yes, without doubt or question, but it transpires psychologically, from one neuron to the next, implicates their function, thus their wave propagation and that's what gets them off - not the explicit physical state of being "rough".

Thus, the means by which they're feeling doesn't follow the conventional interpretation as you seem to see it, like being explicitly "rough" or "being her daddy" in the physical sense.
"Force", but as a matter of neural/nervous system feeling, thus EM wave propagation and subsequent resonance.


Probably doesn't make sense but, I'd imagine I'll get back to nailing hotties shortly enough and I'll get some better explanations then.
 

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,259
"Stuck";

"Clutch state".

"Flow state" - flowing.

"Stuck" is a term used in psychology I think for a clutch state or, state compromised of optimization/productivity.

Flow-state obviously being the opposite.

I guess a point of consequence.

**

Sensitivity.

That's also a base to gauge cue application accuracy also.

Based on feeling.

"Energy" and "control", our physical cues - they don't reflect sensitivity etc.

As with "incite", as with "imagine" etc.

"Jealous union, love force", optimize sensitivity.

I'm not gonna say it's "mind reading" but, sense what a gal is feeling by way of sensitivity, I think when they know you can sense that, they almost feel naked in front of you as all their sordid and depraved desires, impetus's and secrets are now laid bare - and, when that's the case, it's basically game-set-match.

Applying "energy" or "control" as a cue, I don't feel would contribute to heightened sensitivity in an interpersonal/emotion based situation.
Certainly not an ability to sense another's thoughts.
 
Last edited:

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,259
"Jealous union, love force" - 15 weeks of application and feeling good, feeling in the flow, but something feels still..... some understanding that needs to click into place.

Could it be the sensitivity via bonding of this sequence, the outcome is, to sense their thoughts (via neural activity) - thus know exactly how to respond and address a situation with chicks?


Scene from Imitation Game:


"Messages that anyone can see, but no one knows what they mean..... unless you have the key"

Sometimes chicks are like this.
They have deep and dark (often highly promiscuous, power driven and obscene in some cases) desires, but seeing that, well, they keep it covert.

Sensing that however, via waves - through sensitivity.

When they know you see it, see their genuine thoughts and desires sometimes I get the feeling that, it's like they feel.... naked?
Exposed - and that makes them horny as hell, basically DTF.


Could that be like, the "result" of this sequence flow state application?

The missing part?
The missing understanding?

Sensitivity it yields, is critical to its functionality.

And responding/acting accurately according to the responses could be where the game is in the clutch.

I guess I'll find out tomorrow.

Who knows?

Edit: I believe it's more so a case that, via cue application, "Jealous union, love force", we actually induce e-motions, feelings, thoughts (via reverse engineering thoughts-emotions-action, TEA, psychological paradigm). We induce them, and based on response, can more actively infer the basis of response of others - i.e. what they "really mean", re youtube clip.

That is to say, we're not reading their mind, we're simply affecting their behavior/emotions/thoughts, and based on behavioral nuances etc, can infer their potential feelings/thoughts etc.

The concept of sensitivity during this process is still imperative however.


**
- "Imagine" - bears no relevance to interpersonality (actually an escape from it), thus applied as a cue, will yield no interpersonal sensitivity (perhaps explain why, whilst using it before for me, it did yield good energy, but extremely poor cognizance).
- "Incite" - they don't contribute to potential sensitivity.
- "Energy, control" - same, being physical cues they're directed to outward and don't pick up on subtle inward signals.

"Jealous, love" - they're highly sensitive feelings/emotions in and of themselves, thus will yield high sensitivity to others.

"Union", highly sensitive personal state, will be receptive to feelings.

"Force", applied by way of feeling itself, thus receptive to feelings, sensitive to them.
 
Last edited:

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,259
A little experimentation today - first time in a long time (several months).

AW LAWD SAVE ME!!

"Touching the nerve", pretty emphatically in some cases.

Did I mention I went into a make up store previously?

Well, dropped in again today, see what's up.

AW LAWD SAVE ME!!

Some of them chicks looked like they straight up wanted to cut my throat open.

I had to get one of the dudes to help cause all the chicks were so edgy.

....

Kind of no mans land currently in one sense cause, whilst I'm hitting that nerve, I'm seemingly not hitting just hard enough cause, I was kind of leering at chicks in the street etc and with so many I could feel they were RIGHT on the edge, right on the edge.

So close.

But just not tipping them over completely just yet.

So close.....

**
And lastly (and perhaps most revealingly/bizarrely), there's this older'ish type of woman I'd attended historically for..... pedicures (fuck it).

She used to be so sweet to me.

I went into her today, I could tell she was kind of rattled or something but, much more short tempered.

Eventually she gave it, "you used to be nice..... but now.... not nice...." (she's chinese), and showed me fuckin' door - lol.
Like, REAL mad.

What I'm inferring is, yeah - touching the nerve I guess - some people apparently have low tolerance for it but, it's just kind of funny cause in the past, she'd be SO damn sweet to me at different times.

Maybe that was just a fabrication and underneath she's a miserable wretch and this sequence just elicited her true colors, who knows?

One things for sure though.

I won't be seeing her again.
 
Last edited:

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,259


Contention at this point is that, "jealous" is what everything else is based on.

"Jealous" is the viscosity, the intimacy, the stickiness of physical liaison and attraction, gratification - it's everything.

Therefore, everything subsequent to it is merely a function of it.

In a sense they're not independent states - just like "jealous" is an emotional state, all subsequent cues are emotional states, thus function of the overarching emotional state in "jealous".

Those subsequent states are necessary for extrapolation of "jealous", for its application, ensure it's felt and has affect as it needs to.

But the take away being, the entire purpose here, is "jealous" - it is the stickiness, the viscosity, the intimacy, the bonding, the force, the satisfaction, the gratification etc.


An emotional state, that is extrapolated and felt, by way of subsequent emotionals states.

Thus, direct actions like "incite" bear no relevance to its application, physical/non-emotional states like "energy/control" bear no relevance to its application.

"Jealous" itself is the viscosity, the stickiness, we just bring them deeper inside into it, into that nasty little world and ensure it's felt completely.
 
Last edited:

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,259


The entire purpose of this, is the application of "jealous" to maximum affect.
i.e. simply ensuring they're feeling that optimally.


"Jealous union, love force";


This analogy also occurred to me,



Think of "force" as the detonator.

If we just applied "jealous force" - then the explosion would happen at the top of the blast hole, yielding little to no real effect on the material we're blasting.

To ensure maximal outcome, we get deep down below,

The further down we go, the more sensitive it gets;

So that's "jealous", then into the depth of intimacy via "union", then really really really the further depth of intimacy subsequently via "love" - the equivalent of being deep into the blasting hole - then we apply "force" for detonation.

So when that detonation transpires, "jealous" acting at the depth of sensitivity - i.e. the highest emotional flare acting in the most sensitive possible emotional zone, via an emotional detonator as powerful as "force",


Pfffff - the result can be one thing only,

i.e.
 
Last edited:

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,259
Fractal extrapolation,

What transpires on a small scale is replicated on a large scale.

Mandelbrot set reflects this;

I guess Atom vs Solar System also.

The way we think explicitly - in its optimized form, is it simply a larger version of how neurons fire?



Ion-gates depolarizing.

To activate nerves of some hottie we're plowing, our thoughts seem to basically reflect this model.

Positive charge gated to critical-mass, depolarizes into negative charge - creating electricity (i.e. ion exchange).

Then to simply ensure this is felt, culminate with "force" which is a consolidation of physicality.
If we're forceful with chicks what's up?
That's the epitome of physicality so, whatever we are, they're feeling if we're forceful with them.

And "force" being in final position means that that is the ultimate application, the overall sense we have about ourselves.

Which theoretically means we're electrocuting the fuck out of them every chance we get.


I don't know where "force" fits in on the nerve/neuron model, but behaviorally - it's simply essential so that we can effectively apply that electricity.

**

Edit: "Force" is a behavioral state, which requires power.

The electricity of the cell depolarization, that effectively powers "force".

So it's not that "force" fits in on the nerve/neuron model; it's that the nerve/neuron model, powers "force", activates it - so that when we apply it it's, yeah I guess - activated.


Perhaps a way of saying this, "force" that's forced, doesn't appeal to chicks.
Basically won't satisfy them.


"Force" that's activated and runs naturally via electricity - that appeals to them.
That will satisfy them.
 
Last edited:

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,259
Perhaps this is a badly drawn diagram but, I was struggling to understand exactly how the entire setup, the electrification of "force" kind of, affected our presentation such to implicate the hotties.

......



Of course the electrical cell is more accurately represented by a neuron/nerve cell/ion channel flux, as outlined in the previous post but electricity, the principle is essential the same.

So, here - we see the "force" - that affects us, our disposition.

Being forceful.

Such that,

=


Where's previously I had thought "force" applies directly to the chick, but now I feel it affects our presentation/personality, with the resultant potential to yield this situation.

i.e. electrification of "force" via our emotional circuit, that makes us a boss.
"Force" activates by way of electricity and electrical "force" transpires effortlessly.
i.e. non-forced "force" = boss.

And a boss gives women screaming orgasms.


Makes much better sense.

**

Additionally - sensitivity - sensitivity to feelings etc, that doesn't happen with plain ol', non-affective "force".
But it DOES happen with electrified force.

So we encapsulate being a social boss, alpha daddy etc, with the tender loving care (i.e. sensitivity) of a female.

By way of - electrified force.

And of course, electrified force touches them deep inside, that intimate forbidden zone (as it has the sensitivity to do so) - where of course non-electrified, non-affective force does not.
 
Last edited:
Top