• S E X
    L O V E +
    R E L A T I O N S H I P S


    ❤️ Welcome Guest! ❤️


    Posting Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • SLR Moderators: Captain.Heroin | madness00
  • Bluelight HOT THREADS
  • Let's Welcome Our NEW MEMBERS!

Redefining personality to make the sex better

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,421
We don't know where that comes from either ;)

But there is a decent amount of evidence that the inner monologue has to do with a brain network dubbed the Default Mode Network, which much psychedelic neuroscience research has revolved around for the past years, in case anyone was curious

I've always thought that people with overactive inner-monologues/dialogues might be predisposed to the rare, odd adverse effects psychoactive drugs. Especially psychedelics and entactogens, the beneficial effects of which have been linked to ego-death/reduction in DMN activity. Same for the benefits of mindfulness meditation, they seem to be linked to reductions in activity of the DMN and an increase in activity a different network dubbed the Executive Control Network. ADD/ADHD medications, when beneficial, seem to increase the activity of ECN and decrease activity of the DMN as well.
From aforementioned thread,


I wanted to take this quote in particular, as it specifically references relation of self dialogue and "mindfulness" techniques, potentially CBT and other thought/emotion control processes used in contemporary treatments, to actually implicate neural function/firing.

In relation to the "Default mode network" which I had heard in reference to psychedelic use in Prof David Nutts Drug-Science podcasts, switching on/off etc.

I hadn't heard of "Executive control network" but, appears to relate to upregulation of general cognizance - something which was evident for myself when I used noradrenaline boosters like Atomoxetine etc - and which I believe is now continued by use of these cues.

But again highlighting that, these cues "jealous union, love force", are derived specifically in relation to wave-relevance - waves (EM waves) being the basis of neural function, thus their purpose in one sense, is optimization of neural function - enhanced synaptic connection, fractal extrapolation into interpersonal connectivity (i.e. enhanced connectivity on a macro scale enhanced connectivity on an extrapolated/interpersonal scale).

Essentially kind of reversing the process in that,
- psychedelics/drugs implicate neural function thought process relationships, human connectivity etc.
- but also vice-versa in that, thought process implementation, optimization etc neural function
 
Last edited:

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,421
Step 1) "Jealous" - make them mad. When they get mad, they'll want to tear us down, fuck with us.

Step 2) "Union" - allow them to fuck with us to a superficial level of intimacy by presenting with the openness of "union".

Step 3) "Love" - allow them to fuck with us to a deep level of intimacy by presenting with the depth of vulnerability/openness associated with "love".

Step 4) "Force" - they're in the depth of intimacy/closeness/personal-space associated with "love", super up close and personal (I have been receiving these responses socially, spontaneously) fucking with us - so mad they're crazy.
Satisfaction comes by way of "force".
I guess essentially this is where we reciprocate their fucking with us.

If we don't ultimately respond with "force" - there's no satisfaction.
But only do so when they've completely cut-loose in terms of fucking with us, i.e. first three steps have been taken (i.e. basically when they're begging for "force"
If you want to make us have an orgasm then you had best be doing so much foreplay that we are literally begging for it before you even try and fuck us! Learn this lesson!!
).

Essentially what I'm saying here is, the emotional dynamic causes a spontaneous incarnation of the prolonged foreplay this poster alludes to - then when they're begging for it, after "jealous union, love....", then we apply "force".


Then it seems to go back and forth - they're still crazy so fucking with us, then we push back with "force", they push in, we push back, they push in, we push back, in, back, in, back....




Basically what I'm saying is, physically, women have the underdog roll in life.

When they see an opportunity to fuck-with a dude - it excites them like crazy.

Turns them on, sexually.


You know what, I was watching this documentary on Alien technology and, some dude was describing the Anti-Gravity machine.

Anti-gravity goes against the natural order of things, makes the impossible possible.

But it works essentially according to "flow".

It clears the gravity out of the way with anti-gravity, and the space craft flows into the vacuum'esque state created having cleared the gravitational resistance.

That's what we're doing here.

Pulling them in with a clever tweak of emotion.

**
As you can tell, I'm still figuring out exactly how this actually works.

I've derived the only applicable cues for emotion.

I've ordered them correctly.

But in terms of how the mechanism actually works - understanding that - I'm still attempting to attain clarity there.

- Honey trap dynamic
- Getting-them-to/allowing-them-to, fuck with us.
- etc
 
Last edited:

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,421
Lastly for today,

1) external vs 2) internal.

1) external waves/states = "speed, movement, energy, control" - the physical sequence, for physical acts, sports etc.
The catch with this is, it causes perfect application, but one must still learn what they're applying and how to apply it.
Example - boxing, still have to learn how to stand, move ones feet, whip punches etc.

2) internal waves/states = "jealous union, love force" - the emotional sequence, for personality, for optimized sex, for nerve/neuron function.
Catch here being, it's taken me 20 weeks almost thus far and necessary synaptic connections and signalling necessary to complete personality augmentation, still not at full effect.
i.e. takes a while for full affect with consistent implementation.


Point being - physical cues manifest external during physical application of something.
They're waves affect external only.
They don't propagate such as to affect nerves or neural signalling in other people.
Their effect is always, EXTERNAL.

Emotional cues manifest internally in us, by way of neural coding - I contend our thoughts are products of the actions of the billions of neurons in our brain, thus we self implement thoughts, we effectively cause the neurons to fire in certain ways, behave in certain ways, connect in certain ways, potentially prune in certain ways.
They can propagate electromagnetically and induce feeling and subsequent emotion in other people, but their affect is always, INTERNAL.

Internal and external cues ultimately bare no relevance to one another.

Simply more self note in that, I had speculated whether "energy/control" may be suitable to replace "force" between the two sequences.

Existing in different realms for entirely different purposes the outlay is, they have absolutely zero interchangeability.
 
Last edited:

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,421
Fractal nature - on a macro scale relative to the neuron itself,

"Jealous union, love...."

We understand these first three cues,



"Jealous" is the positive external charge.
"Union" is the ion gate.
"Love" is the negative internal charge that the external charge depolarizes into.

"Force"....

Well, relative to the neuron, what is "force"?
External behavioral, a "force"ful demeanor etc, sure.
Sexually, it's fucking, etc.

But on a neural level itself, what is "force"?

I contend at this point that, neurally, "force" is essentially the "pumping/pulsing" of the neuron itself.

Neurons pulse by way of depolarization.
Therefore, "force" is the action potential itself.

In a sense, "force" is the entire purpose of the neuron, it's fundamental activity - to fire, to pulse, the electrical bolt it propagates that defines its activity.



Just as on an outward/extrapolated scale, behaviorally, "force" is how as humans, we get things done.
"Jealous union, love..." coming to fruition throughout the length of the neuron.

"Force" is the basis of fucking itself (fractal extrapolation - what happens on a macro scale replicates itself on a larger scale).


Back to on a neural scale, the neuron pulses with action-potentials.



Thus, "force" is the pulsing of the neuron itself - the action potential, just like on an extrapolated scale "force" is essentially the pulsing of,



**
So again (personal clarity here) - "force" is the action potential, the purpose and base of functionality of the neuron itself.
Just as with humans, "force" is the basis of our action and of fucking.

But, it can only come to fruition as a product of the hyperpolarization, to ion gating, to depolarization.
Which activates "force" throughout the length of the neuron and causes it to come alive with the action-potential pulse.

Extrapolated behaviorally, causes our behavior/demeanor of "force" to come alive,



And when chicks see activated and thus effective "force", turns them on cause they know it can give them an orgasm.

And basically we can get shit done.
Leadership qualities etc, I guess.
 
Last edited:

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,421
cont....



As we see on our flow state chart behaviorally, "force" pulses back and forth.

Just like neurally, it's the action potential - the pulsing of the neuron itself.
 

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,421
I have to get into another aspect surrounding the "honey trap" dynamic;

But before I do,


Time stamped, unreleased, special guest mix.

**


Fundamental historical dynamic.

Men are perhaps predisposed to "force", and women are predisposed to establishing a honey-trap state.

The societal dynamic this seems to result in is, men do the work, women stay at home.
They cater to their man, their man is the "breadwinner".

It also results in the phenomenon of some women looking to use their honey-trap state as a means to essentially "subdue" powerful/accomplished men, which gives them a thrill - a sense of elevation, status, validation and empowerment.

....

My point being, with recalibration of this dynamic,



Men maintain their historical "force" state (thus do not lose the actual underwriting aspect of being a man), but additionally incorporate it in a dynamic such that it's concurrently a part of the honey-trap state.

This quite remarkable in one sense as, we're taking that which has left the male demographic prone to the honey-trap state (i.e. their forceful imposition), and using it to CREATE a honey-trap state.

Point being,
1) it takes the best of both male and female - forceful authority and female allure (honey trap), and combines them (essentially for a much enhanced, optimized personality/character, and optimized functional state, greater happiness, less vulnerability, all underwritten by an optimized sex life).
Thus precludes over-reliance of one on the other.

2) Given this, I feel in theory that as the entire framework of society is based on male to female inter-relationships, and therefore based on this historical dynamic - this revised version has the potential to redefine the entire framework of society itself.

**
However, I additionally contend that, this is a state of mind.
It's not subject to biological predisposition.

I see no reason why a woman could not use this as a means to maintain HER pre-existing advantage with the honey-trap state (which is hot/desirable/arousing, and highly sought after - and thus not compromise the underwriting state of her being a woman), additionally incorporating "force" to attain that level of societal competence herself.

i.e. Gender equalization ultimately.
 
Last edited:

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,421
Other consideration is,

Historical male vs female sex drive.

Or how we perceive it.



See, males are hyperpolarized which means, to maintain stability, they need to depolarize constantly.

Women, they're depolarized but, for excitation - they need men.

Due to being hyperpolarized constantly, men can reliably experience a depolarization (nutting) during intercourse.

However, I boffed a triple figure number of women, and reliably enough I need to use fingers on clitoris/g-spot/cervix additionally to make them orgasm (before I had this cue sequence perfected).

If they exhibit reasonable excitation and/or submissiveness, it can be a pleasant enough experience, penetration - but to actually make a woman orgasm via penetration exclusively - well, it's a work in progress.

....

Point being, how can a woman depolarize if she's not hyperpolarized?

Men are already polarized so it's easy to unload.

But if a woman wants pleasure, she's got to hyperpolarize first (and of course the only thing that hyperpolarizes them, is "jealous"'y), and then we've subsequently got to facilitate depolarization for full pleasure administration.

**

I think some chicks get agitated when they can't find a man that can hyperpolarize them.

Overall point is, chicks don't reside in an indefinite state of hyperpolarization thus, they're typically more stable - less prone to violent outbursts etc.

Crime statistics reflect this very emphatically.
 
Last edited:

atara

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
2,633
Location
not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent
What someone wants, as a conscious expectation, and what someone will enjoy, in an actual scenario, may not be the same thing.

But the real tension seems to be something like this: uncomfortable and psychogenic situations are often more interesting to think about, but comfortable and physiologically compatible situations tend to better support the autonomous sexual response. So in one study, the strongest correlate of reduced sexual satisfaction in "(especially younger women)" was, and I quote:

hypertension, that's right, blood pressure, when was the last time you fantasized about having a perfectly healthy blood pressure?
 

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,421
What someone wants, as a conscious expectation, and what someone will enjoy, in an actual scenario, may not be the same thing.

But the real tension seems to be something like this: uncomfortable and psychogenic situations are often more interesting to think about, but comfortable and physiologically compatible situations tend to better support the autonomous sexual response. So in one study, the strongest correlate of reduced sexual satisfaction in "(especially younger women)" was, and I quote:

hypertension, that's right, blood pressure, when was the last time you fantasized about having a perfectly healthy blood pressure?
I suspect something like hypertension would be relative to nervous system well being;

As would the associated behavior and thus diet associated with hypertension.

To me the true underlying denominator of sexual satisfaction is in fact just that, nervous system well being.

I mean I just can't imagine a low-sodium heart-smart diet has DIRECT affects on the sexual satisfaction scale - but improving the thought process that may lend itself to poor quality diet - that might.

**
Hypertension - being increased arterial pressure, contracted smooth muscle, inhibited blood flow, an overworked heart, sympathetic (fight/flight) response?

I'm guessing really but, cardiac depolarizations would almost certainly be a function of emotional response,
i.e. someone subject to a stressful situation has a heart attack.

I say this primarily as emotional well being is the true denominator of sexual satisfaction in my mind, emotional connectivity etc - something like hypertension would be a function of emotional well being, a correlate of sexual satisfaction - unlikely a direct cause of it.
 

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,421


See this depolarization/action-potential;

It propagates with a lovely laminar, symmetrical wave like state.

All components are wave relevant, to form a wave.

"Jealous union, love force" - the further we progress along the sequence the more intimate we become.

With "force" - the action potential, being expressed inside the cell, i.e. the most intimate possible place - for absolute gratification.

"Jealous union", hyperpolarization, occurs outside the cell and in the ion gate.

"Love force", positive charge depolarizes into cell, then the action potential pulses along it.

.....



**
Point is, with increasing intimacy you'd imagine one must be more gentle at its inner most point, but nature has it set up that nuh, when you get right inside, that's where the explosive electricity occurs.

That's sexual gratification.

It does feel analogous to say, dynamiting a building.

Get right inside on it's most critical foundation where you'd imagine you have to be most careful but no, when you're right at that critical intimate point - BOOM - that's where the dynamite gets ignited.
Or perhaps more correct to say, the dynamite gets ignited through there - through that intimacy.

Sexual gratification it's like - taking someone down really, in many respects.

.....

Maybe that's why chicks when they're, "in the mood", they have this really kind "fuck you" attitude about themselves.

They actually WANT a dude that can wield electrical force to basically, dynamite them.
Explode through their most critical, delicate, vulnerable intimate place.
Burn them down.

So they be like,



.....

So it is written.
(in nature, in neural function, in gene code, in the wave/quantum mechanics of the universe itself).
 
Last edited:

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,421
Is it though?
It seems important.

.....

However, chicks also want excitation and gratification/satisfaction.

"Jealous", opening cue, get their attention = excitation/polarization

"Union/love", interior cues = intimacy

"Force", culminating cue = gratification/satisfaction.

.....

Depends on the mood I guess but, the ultimate paradigm seems to suggest that intimacy is ultimately not feasible without excitation leading into it, and violence/gratification following it, overlooking it - protecting it, if you will.

I guess, women in a mans world, they want attraction, then be safe inside that interior/inner intimacy, and be happy and satisfied there, with a man that has that authority, authority to keep them safe and satisfy them, but setup such as not to impose on them unbecomingly or make their life unpleasant.

Safe inside us.....


🎵I'm safe inside you.... the place I run to.... never wanted more, than this....🎵

i.e. intimacy is only feasible within/in-between the presence of high emotion and physical authority/"force".

That sticky inner syrup, the honey trap, chicks wanna get sucked into it - then pumped on (so do dudes but, with chicks that happens by default; we're reverse engineering that process for dudes).

So I guess to say, "intimacy is what all of us are looking for", in a sense - yes.
But that statement may overlook the necessities of making intimacy possible in the first place, the essential co-factors to intimacy.
 
Last edited:

Atelier3

Moderator: DC
Staff member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
2,562
Basically what I'm saying is, physically, women have the underdog roll in life.

When they see an opportunity to fuck-with a dude - it excites them like crazy.

Turns them on, sexually.
OK. I may have found my entry point (without reading all the prior 28 pages. This is a pretty major generalisation and it made me think of several women I have dated who had come out of prior abusive relationships. I would have have been ripe to fuck with had they wanted because I was both a nice guy and at a vulnerable point in my life. However, rather than fuck with me this particular type of woman constantly self-deprecated and put herself down and seemed to be actively looking for someone to put her in her place. If she was not dominated she didn’t know what to do. Nature or learned behaviour I have no idea but in each case these type of women went from me to an asshole who told her what’s what and kept her in line.

BTW: can I ask what you are getting high on to keep this thread revving so long?
 

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,421
BTW: can I ask what you are getting high on to keep this thread revving so long?
Optimized nerve function by way of cue implementation (cues = self implemented thoughts; re thoughts-emotions-actions psychological model).

That's it.

.....

Well, it's not totally set yet but yeah, sustained optimized nerve function is the objective.
I suppose it could be characterized as what, hypomania a little?
But really it's optimized cognizance, optimized interest, optimized nerve firing, optimized personality.
That's what I'm aiming for.

Just an additional point being something the poster quoted at the top of this page mentioned - some personality types (emotional/neurals states) have very a-typical/aversive reactions to certain drugs.

Before beginning and completing this cue sequence, I took all sorts of prescription drugs, and tried most primary recreational drugs - all tolerated, easy.

Now, I can tolerate NO DRUG.
Unless I'm wracked with pain, I can't even tolerate an OTC opioid.

Every drug, especially potent recreational drugs, are entirely aversive to me now.

I suspect it's because, my current neural state by way of thought paradigm (cue implementation) is optimized.
When I introduce something that interferes with that, it detracts from the optimization - and becomes intolerable.

**
I'm sure different chicks are going to respond differently and yes, I've come across the type that only seems to respond to an abusive nature in one sense.

I haven't yet experimented extensively enough to understand every variety of personality type (their emotional state), how they'll respond to my current personality (my current emotional state - being a function of "jealous union, love force").

But I'd imagine responses would break anything conventional as, as far as I know, no one has taken and documented an approach to emotionality as is outlayed in this thread.
 
Last edited:

ions

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
179
Location
PA
The game is ever evolving. I went to multiple jails for allegedly sarging this one girl. Never closed.
 

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,421
Following with more logic:

- See, physical cue applications - "speed, movement, energy, control" - they're being applied to ourselves, but they affect our outward physical performance, in the exercise/sports capacity.
They do not affect what we become, i.e. they do not affect our neural function - despite being directed at ourselves.

- Emotional cues - "jealous union, love force" - these are directed outwards, at others (and by others I mean, "chicks").
They implicate our own neural function, and define our personality, despite not being directed at ourselves, but at others.

.....

Point being, we essentially become, what we try to make others feel (and thus feel ourselves - I suppose a kind of "mirroring", what you give is what you get, type of situation).

I was observing a variety of cultures and, I mean from where I'm standing, it's too obvious to ignore.
We become and function and lead our lives, according to how we think (and subsequently how we feel).

But being locked into a personality, perhaps by way of the culture we were raised in, or any number of variables - contention is - changing how we think has proven so terribly difficult.
I mean, how is it even done?

How does one break out of locked-in thought patterns?
Go full Joe Rogan and thus the LSD, DMT, Ketamine route?

And LAWD KNOWS, even if we do commit to personal growth/change and thus thought process modification - what do we change our thoughts to?

.....

What we become, what defines us - is how we aim to make other people feel towards and about us (which predicates how appealing the opposite gender finds us).

That seems to be the logic.

So it's so terribly counter intuitive the entire process of deducing what we should optimally attempt to make other people feel? (especially for someone such as myself and the background I come from, God fearing etc - sexuality was the last thing I was ever encouraged to consider).
And realistically, what we even CAN make them feel - because we can only operate according to waves - i.e. only waves affect feelings, and there's only a certain number of wave relevant definitions known to humanity.

But in any case point being, we become what we consciously attempt to make others feel toward us, which dictates how we think.
So what we become, is a function of how we think, which is a function of what we endeavour to make others feel toward us.
That seems to be the situation.

**
- Actually reminds me of something Lisa Feldman Barrett says, "we regulate each others nervous systems".

i.e. we couldn't know what to become without interaction with others to get that perspective.

And based on that perspective, we understand the feelings we need to induce in them to yield optimal response - which dictates our own personal optimal state.
Thus - optimizing their response to us, optimizes our own nervous system function.

i.e. we regulate each others nervous systems.
 
Last edited:

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,421
So, it would seem that focus here - "redefinition of personality to improve sex", is actual a specific focus on neural function.

Specific focus on neural function.

The self dialogue, thought process - all cues are based on waves, which is the basis of neural function.

8 wave based cues, four act on the surface - our physical waves.
4 act at a depth such to cause sensation/emotion - these implicate neural function.

When neural function is optimized, we can effectively transmit electricity.

The electricity stimulates the nerves of our partner and, when stimulation is focused on their erogenous zones, has the potential to cause orgasm.

**
Neural/nerves = based on waves.

Cues = wave based.


Therefore - optimize nerve function by way of optimized cue application.

= enhanced attraction, sensation, personality, functionality, quality of life, and the driving factor behind all those thing - enhanced sex-life.


PS - wave = laminar/smooth state, that fluctuates and propagates through a medium.

When it really comes down to the defining properties, it's all quantum mechanics.
 

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,421
Closing thoughts for tonight:

- All our personality cues (cues to help us get laid and be Casanova's in the bedroom), are relevant to pleasureable interaction and contact.

"Jealous" - seems counterintuitive but chicks love dudes that can drive them wild
"Union" - pleasant physical contact
"Love" - deep sense of intimacy
"Force" - pleasurable gratification, can be applied spontaneously through this setup (I like to use the massage analogy, ever get a massage from a woman with weak ass hands and no "force"? Terribly unsatisfying)

"Energy" - too physical and outward/active for pleasurable-contact/intimacy.
"Control" - no pleasurable-contact/intimacy here, certainly no gratification/satisfaction.

Outliers, considerations but without wave relevance:
- "Incite" - aversive, penetrative, opposite of pleasurable contact.
- "Imagine/see" - no contact of any kind, pleasurable or otherwise, NA.

Point being - personality sequence is about sex, we want to optimize the pleasurable contact.

Waves relevance bases their primary selection, but simply reinforcing preclusion of physical cues and outliers as possibilities in our emotional/personality setup.

It all comes down to 4 emotionally and wave relevant states;

"Jealous union, love force" - ordered to form a smooth laminar wave.

Waves within a wave.

......

Isn't it beautiful?
 
Last edited:

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,421
Concept clarity:


The mind works over a concept, then it takes a break and sleeps, and then when one awakes, matters just seem more clear.

.....

I awake many mornings and first thing is, I have to get that clarity on paper (or .doc file) whilst it's still fresh in my mind.

**
1) when we fuck a chick, for it to be any good - she needs to feel violated.
I'm not an advocate of being explicit for no reason, so when I'm explicit just now - it's for good reason;

I see chicks mounting me, and when they guide my hog into their minge, lower their bodies onto muh rod and it penetrates up inside them - I can see their eyes roll back and body convulse like,

"oh my God this is really happening. I'm actually having this dudes meat-stick violate me in the holiest of holy's - this is so wrong, but feels so damn good".

And that is the only time the sex really works for them.

Now that doesn't happen every time. That's the problem I'm trying to solve.
I'm trying to implement that kind of a response, sustainably, reliably.

**
2) The means to fuck a chick real good, is "force".
The mindset is, we're having our way with them. We're big ass men, they're comparatively weak and vulnerable women, when we implement "force" we overpower them and fuck the hell out of them.

For chicks to "give into" force however (and thus feel violated by it) and for all this to happen in civilized day to day terms, that's another matter.

And a personality that attempts to implement "force" very outwardly, are a HUGE pain to be around (mostly other dudes), and invariably society and other people will try and break them down, to change that mindset - which is understandable but, when you don't know what you're doing, can suck.

That is to say, most chicks won't just "give into" force too easily and let some random dude fuck the hell out of them.

**
3) The means to apply "force" such to cause that "violating me" feeling, is apply it in such a way as they want it.

That's it.

Apply "Force" in such a way as they want it - they're potentially begging for it.

But apply "force" in such a way as they want it.

That is it.

That is the secret.
 
Last edited:

JohnBoy2000

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
1,421
"Force" is the means of physical gratification - makes that impact.

Without it, never gonna induce that gratified response.

To say "apply force in such a way as they want it", it's like saying - "use the ice to cook those steaks".
Or, "can you chill the ice-cream over night by leaving it in the 120 degree oven?"

It's an oxymoron.

"Force" is an outward, impositional state.

How in LAWD's name, can we apply it, or embody a personality that implements "force", which is impositional on others - but in such a way as it causes no imposition, and not only causes no imposition, but actually draws them into it, i.e. they want it?

Imposition is by definition, aversive.
By definition, the opposite of what anyone wants.

.....



1) Physical axis - we precede the state of "force" with a physical state which is more subdued and thus attain a state of physical familiarity previous to all out imposition of "force".
That state being "union", previous to "force".

2) Emotional axis - stimulate a strong emotional potency, then allow it to discharge forward into a state of emotional intimacy/vulnerability - through our aforementioned subdued physical state.

Emotional and physical axis intertwined (where "union" is placed between "jealous" and "love", in accordance with its potency which is exactly between the two), thus everything arranged symmetrically;

That is, the emotional flare of "jealous", discharging into the emotional intimacy/vulnerability of "love", through the subdued intimate physical state of "union".

**
Cumulatively, this creates a powerful forward flow dynamic, which in terms of momentum, overcomes our outward momentum of "force".

i.e. the momentum of their inward flow by way of the emotional states they pass through,
overcomes the momentum of our outward flow of "force",

(in fact in some respects I feel they actually validate our application of "force", thus they in fact activate it to begin with - they activate/encourage what they'd normally find aversive).

So after "jealous union, love.....", they're basically BEGGING for the satisfaction of "force" we're going to apply.

BEGGING for it.

They NEED it.

....

And thus we can apply "force" in such a way as they want it.
Such a way as it's highly desired.
And therefore such a way as it can reliably induce pleasure;

i.e. such a way as we can reliably violate them with "force".
 
Last edited:
Top