188.8.131.52.5.3 Playing mechanisms of jealousy
If we want to engineer sexual relationships, not just manipulate existing sexual relationships but design new ones from nothing, then everything related to jealousy is the easiest path. Here we have a set of mechanisms that can be tested, with axioms that work across many cases, and reactions that can reliably be switched on.
We tend to think of jealousy in entirely negative terms. We usually see it as an expression of a lack of self-confidence, of character weakness, or as something that causes considerable emotional pain. Jealousy breeds suspicion, ruins personal lives in Shakespearean tragedy. Jealousy is poison.
All of this is true. All of this is false.
Jealousy is more than this. It’s not entirely negative. The snake is the medical profession’s animal goddess of choice. Most poisons have substantial healing potential. Medical properties are dosage-dependent.
Jealousy can be a great sexual energizer. It can be better than Pfizer’s Blue. It’s a doorway for true love, for desire that is entirely focused on a single person.
Sigmund Freud once mentioned that for a woman to be truly loved there has to be at least some doubt as to her chastity. To not feel entirely sure of possessing a woman is what keeps desire alive. Young men typically don’t appreciate jealousy. Young men also often are a bore. They don’t know themselves, and most of them are lousy lovers. They seldom are emotionally balanced and seldom can walk the tightrope of jealousy.
I have myself, in younger years, often wondered why married couples would join swinger clubs, and especially why husbands should agree to a threesome in which they would have another, younger man, work their wives.
As a matter of fact, these are practical, wise men. They keep their marriages fresh, and their sex lives active. And they are in full control.
While usually, changing partners is the best recipe to keep one’s sexual appetite up, the option of a new girl every week is not available to most men. It is therefore a wise approach to try to get the most out of a partner that is available. If you can’t go wide, go deep.
I know the difference between love and sex. But I am not a romantic. Love is but to be psychologically very much focused on a particular person. There are certain exterior factors that determine the degree of love.
The fewer other options we have, the more we will likely be focused on a person with whom we have a love relationship. The less we possess her, the more likely we are to want her. Love can be engineered, as can jealousy.
While I personally may have a preference for going wide, I have, in some instances, gone deep. I can do so, and have great sex over months on end, if I can cook up the right mix of jealousy.
I am not advocating swinger club memberships for every couple. That’s something for hardened connoisseurs. But I do propagate the positive aspects of jealousy, strange as this may sound.
How to engineer jealousy? If you are in a love relationship, talk, talk, talk. Both of you. Talk about past relationships, and talk about hidden desires. It’s a great therapy to make your relationship deeper. It’s also a sure route to jealousy.
For unless both partners are incorrigible liars, details will emerge which will, silently, hurt.
In praise of unfaithfulness
People in rich North American and European societies often wrongly believe that because Islam is a religion that gives women fewer rights than men, women would be natural associates in anti-Islamic moves.
While the punishment for unfaithfulness may vary from one country to another, and has varied throughout the ages, it has always been considered bad, in the same way as betrayal in other areas of social interaction.
On the other hand, it is nothing new for cultures to be based on erroneous beliefs. That erroneous beliefs are shared throughout all cultures doesn’t make them any more true.
A point in case is the belief in ghosts that has been shared by practically all human cultures without ever having had a foundation in reality.
While everybody, at least in public, subscribes to the view that unfaithfulness is bad and a sad reality, I hold that unfaithfulness is a necessity, and that, because it is a necessity, it is something to be viewed positively. Or, in short, it’s good, not bad.
This is an article, not a book. I cannot discuss psychology as such. This would be too large a topic for an article. What I do want to discuss here are some aspects of sexual psychology, which is the most important part of psychology.
I do find it amazing that even though sexuality is the most central thing in human life, high culture pays so little attention to it.
Governments typically do nothing to support the sexual fulfillment of the citizens over whom they rule. If anything, governments aim to restrict the citizens’ sexual freedom whenever it seems to blossom too colorfully.
This is all very sad. Sexual fulfillment is much more important than economic development, or good roads, or health insurance.
Sexual fulfillment is the one and only reason why it can be worth to be alive. Only in sexual fulfillment can we honestly forget the senselessness of our human existence.
Life as such is such a terribly senseless event. In a way, we are but like mice in a treadmill.
Laboratory assistants do not care much whether mice in a treadmill live or die. Actually, they know that it would be best for these mice to be dead rather than alive. Nothing worth living, which they could expect as treadmill mice.
I hold the same view on most of my fellow humans, and, actually, of myself. I am not grateful to my parents for having put me into this world. It wasn’t done as a favor to me, but, at best, an accident, or, rather, an event planned for what they considered a requisite for their own happiness.
I hold that it would be better not to be alive. I couldn’t care less if I were dead tomorrow (but I wish for a comfortable death, please; best would be to die while asleep). The dead are fine. They know no pain.
Don’t get me wrong. I wouldn’t mind to be dead. But I wouldn’t want to enter consciously into a situation that would leave me dead within a short while. This is the paradox of the human mind. We can consciously conclude that it is not worth to be alive, that we were nothing before our birth, and that we will be nothing after our death; we can consciously arrive at the conclusion that the human potential for suffering is so much greater than the human potential for joy, and that indeed, it would be better not to be alive.
And still, most of us, including me, are not capable to just end our lives by swallowing the right dosage of barbiturates, or jumping from a high building, or firing a gun through the brain.
Which shows the limitations of our rationality. That we recognize that we should just commit suicide does not mean that we would be capable to just do it. We are not built to commit suicide. It has been ruled out by genetic makeup.
Fact is that nature has not equipped us with our brains, intellect, and rationality in order to enable us for self-cognition. In Darwinian context, it is clear that our brains, intellect, and rationality evolved for us to be better equipped for the fight for survival. It is for this simple reason that even though we recognize that it would be better to be dead than alive, it is so difficult for us to just say goodbye and step into our graves. Unless we suffer from a mental illness, or find ourselves in an entirely hopeless situation.
So, were do we go from here? Let’s go to bed and have some sex.
Because we were nothing before our birth, and are nothing after our death, there is so little individual sense in all our striving. Philosophy is a waste of time, and so are careers. Culture and entertainment are dull and worthless.
If anything, then only the short moments of orgasm, and the time we spend being engulfed in sexual desire, are what makes this life bearable, or worthwhile to be lived.
I thoroughly miss national policies, in my native Germany and any other country of the world, which would address the above-mentioned concerns.
And science, too, has the wrong priorities. What the heck do I care about space exploration? Come up with some better explanations, and some workable solutions, in the realm of human sexuality, the one topic that reigns supreme.
While mankind is inundated in a steady oversupply of food, most of us are kept on a strict sexual diet, which is guarded over by the police, priests, and politicians. Damn it.
Sexual satisfaction does not really need to be in short supply. And even the theories are wrong by which a general sexualization of society will lead to general boredom with anything sexual.
Not a general sexualization is what potentially leads to boredom, but the sexual structures that are preserved through every sexual revolution.
The idea, for example, that sexual unions based on faithfulness are the pattern to be desired.
There are many other aspects that are of relevance. But, as I said, this is an article, not a book. So I want to stay focused on just this one aspect: faithfulness.
Boredom is a common feature of sexual unions as they progress in time. Many couples accept this as a natural development. They stay in such unions based on boredom because of a previous pledge or commitment, a sense of responsibility, the economic comfort such an existing union provides, or simply for the lack of better opportunities.
Over time, the boredom-oppressed sexual impulse results in a permanent mental deformation, erectile dysfunction, disorgasmia, depression, obesity, heart disease, and premature death.
But it wouldn’t have to be that way.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not against lasting sexual unions. I myself have always had the best sex in relationships that have been going on for some time … provided they were not exclusive.
I am a man. It’s easy for me to be unfaithful, to steal an opportunity, to secretly have sex with a girl other than my principal partner.
I need that, too. But it’s not what I mean.
For me to have some sideline sex is a minor affair. I enjoy it, but it lacks that all-engulfing capacity. When I’m done, I am relaxed for a while, but the whole thing is short on relevance.
My own being unfaithfulness is not what I mean. What is much more important is the right amount of unfaithfulness on the part of my woman.
Strange? Let me explain.
Our whole sexual function is based on being balanced between two poles, both biologically and psychologically.
Biologically, the poles are the parasympathetic and sympathetic nervous systems.
For erections to occur, the parasympathetic nervous system has to be in the driver’s seat. But orgasms are a major sympathetic event.
Psychologically, we all strive to be winners. But desires flower better in an atmosphere of being, or feeling like, a loser. Ironically, the emotional attraction in gambling is in feeling, and enjoying, loosing, not winning.
The sensation of gambling, this nervousness accompanied by an urge to urinate, is felt only when we lose, or at least feel the immanent danger of losing. Of course, we happily accept it, too, when we win. After all, it enables us to experience losing, and the threat of losing, in another round.
Gamblers are thrill-seekers; they are not out to seek financial gain. They gamble for the same reason for which others engage in motorcycle racing on public roads, and again others jump from bungee towers.
The thrill is present only when we risk a loss; if we cheat in gambling, and are virtually assured of winning, we are calm, and bored. Sorry, no thrill.
For the same reason, my own unfaithfulness often lacks in exciting me.
On the contrary, the unfaithfulness of my women has a great potential to excite me. It makes me jealous, causes me to feel threatened, triggers feelings of inferiority… hey, am I a loser?
Our women are all wrongly educated, and the government, our educational institutions, the guardians of our, and their, culture are at fault… and of course the priests and all those other ideologues who are blind for human life as it is and build castles in the air (no foundation whatsoever in reality).
I like women with strong sexual desires, women (admittedly young women) who would initiate a relationship on their own. I have few sympathies for girls or young women who believe that it is a proper female attitude to have no sexual desires or show no sexual desires.
Funny, but this does not mean that I prefer women or girls who are overly confident of themselves. There has to be an element of insecurity for emotions to be strong.
Virgins who preserve their virginity until they are officially married, are a bore. Such women typically believe they give a man something for which he should be thankful forever: the feeling of being there for him only.
They may give him this feeling alright. But he won’t be thankful forever. Actually, a relationship that starts with a girl surrendering her virginity in the night after a couple was officially married will likely lead to boredom. The man will soon believe that he promised too much.
For a captivating sexual relationship, both partners should have had previous sexual relationships, and these previous relationships should be a topic of communication between them.
It’s the easiest way to introduce a sense of potential defeat, a sense of threat, and a measure of provocation, which can be such a great source of sexual energy.
Because being engulfed in sexual enjoyment is the only escape from the senselessness of human existence, and because sexual enjoyment is only possible on a certain level of sexual tension, and because past and present unfaithfulness of one’s long-term sexual partner is such a great source of sexual tension, I basically have a positive attitude towards the unfaithfulness of a woman with whom I have a steady sexual relationship.
Unfortunately, I haven’t been educated to have this attitude. Our Western sexual culture, and, for that matter, the cultures of all four corners of the earth, train us to view the unfaithfulness of a permanent sexual partner as something that causes us to suffer, not as a potential source of sexual pleasure.
The problem is one of a lack of sexual literacy. People just have so little knowledge about the mechanisms by which their emotions, including their sexual ones, function.
The human emotional apparatus works in a dialectical manner, through provoking forces. And not only the emotional apparatus but the physiological as well.
Take, for example, the endocrine system. Practically every endocrine expression is regulated by its counterforce. The surest way to inhibit the body’s synthesis of testosterone is to supply exogenous testosterone. The technical term is “negative feedback”.
“Negative feedback” is ever present in regulating our daily function. Food stops the desire for food. The surest method to rid somebody of his or her chocolate graving is to let this person eat nothing else but chocolate for a prolonged period of time. If you let that person have other food in between, the craving will persist.
This is accepted psycho-logics. But how about the following:
The surest way to do away with a man’s desire for a particular woman, is to let him just have this women for a prolonged period of time. Which is where the parallelism between chocolate and women ends.
For the surest way to preserve a man’s desire for a particular woman is not for the man to sleep with other woman every now and then, but to have the woman be engaged with another man.
That wakes him up.
But for tapping into the great pool of sexual energy one can derive from one’s partner’s unfaithfulness, it is necessary that this unfaithfulness happens on the basis of trust.
To build trust, unfaithfulness should be extensively discussed before it is implemented. To start with, each one will have to verbally admit sexual fantasies that go beyond one’s established partner. Such fantasies should be related in detail. And be sure that they shake and provoke the listening partner at least as profoundly as they do the one who’s original fantasies they are.
In some cases, especially of younger people, just to discuss each other’s intended unfaithfulness may already be as much as each can stomach.
But to really experience a new dimension of all-engulfing sexual desire, one will have to do it: see one’s permanent partner in excited sexual play with another person, or even join in.
This will be a better cure for sexual boredom (and all its expressions, such as erectile dysfunction, vaginal dryness, anorgasmia, etc.) than any dosage of Viagra.
Only now, when positively jealous, will you discover that you love her. You will be greatly focused on her. You will be able to discuss her feelings for hours on end… her feelings for you, and for him (the other man).
If she is honest and admits to the pleasure it has been to be with the other man, while also assuring you that she has no intention to separate from you, you will find yourself suspended between feeling inferior and feeling proud of your virility. For you will desire her more than you thought of being capable, and you will display great virility, indeed.
You may feel an urge to run away. After all, you have been “betrayed” with another man. Many relationships actually do end on such a note. This is sad, and it happens because of a lack of psychological education.
Occasional open unfaithfulness is such a great, effective measure against “negative feedback” that I regard it as a necessity in building a relationship of genuine love that can last for years, not the kind of pretended love we find in most marriages, which is nothing but boring routine.
I want to live my life in a perpetual state of an all-engulfing sexual desire, with daily peaks of utmost sexual satisfaction. And I want to end life with a comfortable death. All else in life is of subordinate importance.
I live in the awareness that for me personally, there was nothing before my birth, and there is nothing after my death. I feel pity with those toiling along in life, either for personal progress, or the future of their children, or the independence of their nations. I couldn’t care less.
Sometimes I feel envy with those who are already dead. They no longer can suffer. Fact is that our potential for suffering is so much greater than our potential for joy.
I talk of real suffering; the kind that causes physiological pain, or the kind of psychological pain that is caused by incarceration. I explicitly do not include all forms of love pain, which largely depend on attitude and cognition, and actually are a great enrichment if properly understood.
Yes, dying can be one of the most terrible experiences in life; it can be very painful to burn to death, or to be tortured to a slow death by the police, or during a surgical operation for which one is not properly sedated. Some of us are buried alive, and wake up in a coffin that has been put underground.
Indeed, we have all reason to be afraid of dying. We have no reason to be afraid of being dead. Being dead is nothing.
It is the insight that there is nothing in it for me after I have ceased my individual life, and that there is nothing in it for my children and grandchildren after they have ceased their individual lives, which has focused me on the most important aspect of one’s life, which is sexual desire and satisfaction.
And as a logical consequence, I do everything I can to reach a state of heightened sexual desire, including those peaks of sexual satisfaction, while at the same time avoiding the real risk to have a run-in with a police that enforces the laws of a government, which is based on anti-sexual ethics.
I am no longer in my early 20s. There are some biological limitations to me experiencing a state of an all-engulfing sexual desire as well as daily peaks of real sexual satisfaction. These limitations are the result of a nature which has created men not in order to be happy, but in order just to be a stepping stone in the improvement of the human species, and for they are rather useless after having fathered a few offspring during thei peak years between 20 and 30.
I am rebelling against nature, with all means to which I have access. One weapon in the arsenal with which I have experience, is sexual enhancement by pharmacological means and traditional supplements such as tongkat ali (see www.tongkatali.org).
There are many more drugs than just Viagra by which we can modulate ourselves in order to get closer to what we aim at, which is all-engulfing sexual desire and daily peaks of real sexual satisfaction. I have written many articles on the pharmacological modification of our sexual potential.
But we are designed to react not just on chemical impulses; we are designed to strongly react on sensual input. It comes, therefore, to no surprise that purely sensual, non-pharmacological factors can exert a more profound influence.
The sensual input, for example, that results from the awareness that one’s sexual partner is or has been enjoying sexual intercourse with somebody else.
We react profoundly upon hearing about, or seeing, this kind of event: erected body hair in the nape of the neck and down the spine, increased heart beat, emotional stress, aggressiveness, and a strong desire to sexually possess the person who has been sexually unfaithful.
All of that without a pill. A great pool of sexual energy, provided we are capable of managing it.
This can be learned. If only there were people or institutions dedicated to teaching it.
Your wife… Cleopatra
Let’s assume you are in a happy relationship. There aren’t real problems. You don’t argue. You have intercourse about twice or thrice a week.
An ideal constellation where she will take on a secret lover. Sure, she loves you. Or, in fact, she may just think that, well, you’re an OK guy.
You yourself wouldn’t let pass unused an opportunity to have a relationship on the side.
You yourself may think that your sideline business is of no major importance, is no threat to the steady relationship you’re in.
But when you know of her lover, you’re really hurt. Your heart screams: how could she do this to you? How could she, on Sunday morning, spend two or three hours in your embrace, have two climaxes, tell you how much she loves you, and then, while you are out buying some groceries, call her other man and tell him that she misses him?
Fact is: she can. Just as you can.
I remember a nightmare I once had about Queen Cleopatra. I imagined that eating human males’ penises, cut into small pieces, pulled onto a skewer, and barbecued over charcoal, was one of her favorites. So, about every second day, the chef and his aides would round up two or three young palace servants, and castrate them, just for the sake of preparing a meal for the queen.
Fuck it. Why couldn’t she eat some wholesome vegetables? Just for the pleasure of eating a juicy piece of meat, a pleasure that last a few minutes and is not a major one after all, she ruins the life of a palace servant, even if he survives.
Your wife, she’d be a Cleopatra if she’d have an opportunity, and it would be risk-free. Just as you would be Nero.
That comfortable little love relationship you’re in is an illusion. The illusion in it is “love”. In reality, you’re just a length of territory for her. She’ll add other properties if she can get them for a bargain.
Every male sexual act
Other than masturbation
Un-aided by pornography
No, not AIDS
AIDS will be de-engineered
But because every male sexual act
Invades the turf of others
Whatever you name it
This girl, this woman
belongs to me they claim
My sister, our daughter, my wife
Everybody has a stake on the turf
Families, legislatures, the police and courts
Religions and ideologies
And the media
Selling real-life drama
Your options are only:
Permitted or prohibited trespassing
Or be far, far away
From anybody else
Some conflicts are biologically programmed, so that the human species achieves a competitive edge over other form of life. Most of these programs are in the realm of sexuality.
Each of us, whether male or female, has a pre-programmed preference to be loved by more than one partner of the opposite sex, while each of us also wants that our lovers love us exclusively, or at least consider us better than other loved persons. We can simplify the issue by stating: men want to possess more women than one, and women want to possess more men than one.
The form in which the possessive interest expresses itself may vary between males and females. The male possessive impulse in the current, and traditional sexual order, is more directed towards activities that potentially sire more offspring, and the female possessive impulse towards having more male backup options.
But these preferences are mere logical expressions of the modes of production. They result from the fact that for females, sexual conduct has, historically, always been more of a risk than for males, as pregnancies bring obligations for years, and have a great negative impact on the sexual market value of females.
But once the risk of pregnancies is eliminated, and the faster decline in the sexual market value of women is arrested and resolved, the pattern of possessive behavior of females changes dramatically.
What remains is that, in all sexual standard situations, heterosexual males and heterosexual females are opponents because they have opposing interests.
So, am I, in that I, apparently, in many articles express the interests of men, anti-women? Of course not. Women are the only true content of my life (not my work, not my wealth).
I love women. And yet, I am keenly aware that my interests and the interests of each woman I love are opposed to each other. A woman always wants that I love her exclusively, while other men also love her; she may swear lifelong loyalty to me, but when I am out of site, entice other men to have a sexual interest in her, and enjoy it when they do.
This pattern of infidelity, actually, is much more common among women than among men. This is why even married women spend much more time beautifying themselves when they go out, rather than when they just stay at home and are seen by no other men except their husbands.
I am a man, and a writer. Much of my writing reflects my interests as a man. What’s more: most of my income as a writer, I generate by giving advice to men.
So, do you think I regard other men as my friends, while women are my opponents? You are wrong. Nothing would suit me better than if 90 percent of all other men would just drop dead. There would be much less competition for all the women of this world. If women are my opponents, then men are my enemies.
So why, for all reason, does a good part of my work address men?
Fact is that I do not write for men. I write for myself. My writing is nothing but my honest own reflection on me and my own position in the world. I am totally untalented to write lies.
This is because I only write when I have gained what I believe is some new insight on how I and the world around me functions, and what I should do to be competitive. The reason why my some of my work appeals more to men than to women is that, even though men are my natural enemies, their pattern of thought is much closer to my own pattern of thought.
That doesn’t mean that I would not understand women. Actually, some of my female readers have expressed that I understand women better than most women do. As if all of the above would not be complex enough, men, not women, even though they (the men) essentially are my enemies, they (again: the men) are in a better position to represent many of my political interests (such as opposing anti-male gender legislation).
And when I do touch male discrimination, other men, even though they are my enemies, see their interests covered in my writing.
In spite of all this, I cannot fraternize with other males in order to oppose females. It would put me in the entirely wrong camp. And I would be a fool if I were to sacrify myself, becoming a hero of male interests. It would put me at a disadvantage at every front that counts for me.
Fewer women would consider me a worthwhile choice. Other men could easily gain a competitive edge by professing not to be as “anti-female” as I.
Other men would also profit from in whatever way I were to strengthen their position towards females. What fool would I be, doing the dirty political work for other men. And I am sure that other men feel as I do. And for this reason, there will never be a male gender movement on the scale of the feminist, or Feminazi movement.
The psychology of better sex
I admit that my articles are based primarily on own experience and self-observation, not on clinical trials or formal scientific research. However, I do believe that both my experience and my self-observation are representative for many men, and the feedback I am getting is largely affirmative.
Most sex therapists have got it wrong. They ‘ve got it wrong because they usually are trained psychologists. Trained psychologists are focused on solving problems; if they are sex therapists, they are focused on solving relationship problems and tensions in relationships.
But I, and many men and women, know that sex is best in or after conflict situations. This is most obvious when we are jealous. Jealousy can make us obsessed with sexual imaginations (gratefully so), we enjoy enormous stamina, and the psychological pain we feel from being jealous can transform itself into the best orgasms ever.
But jealousy is not the only dramaturgic element that can enhance our sense of sexual pleasure. Sex is also enhanced when we break up a steady relationship, and the next day are together again. Sex is enhanced after fierce family arguments. It’s enhanced when we have been deeply offended by the girlfriend or wife.
All of these conflict situations miraculously have the power to make us sexually more focused on the person with whom we have a steady love relationship.
Some couples argue all the time, even about totally irrelevant matters. Many people, even psychologists, often do not understand why such couples stay together.
Of course, there are practical reasons. It may be difficult for either to find a replacement partner. Breaking up can bring economic hardship. Separate living space may be hard to find.
But there often is another element. It can be so gratifying, emotionally, to make peace after having argued. Sex can be fantastic in such a situation. Unconsciously, couples who argue every day may initiate arguments not because of a specific subject matter but because the quiet after the storm is so rewarding. It is a situation not unlike the one gambling addicts are seeking. Gambling addicts, unconsciously, are in the game to lose, not to win, because, as masochists, they enjoy the extreme thrill of being defeated.
I am a practical man, an engineering mind. I pursue insight and knowledge not for the sake of consciousness but beyond that, for the sake of applying it. And the above insight can indeed be used to improve one’s sexual experience and satisfaction.
The funny thing is that we can trick our unconscious mind in a way, we ourselves would be hard to trick. Hypnotists make extensive use of this fact. And as autosuggestion everybody can apply this knowledge to one’s own benefit.
You can look into the mirror and come to the objective conclusion that you are below average looking. This could be a good reason to be depressed.
However, if you mentally repeat hundreds of times: “I am a good looking man, I am a good looking man, I am a good looking man, ?. then you will, yes, you will become more self-confident. You can become a winner, even if you have the face of a loser, just because your unconscious mind is convinced that you are a winner. This conviction has been imprinted in your unconscious mind by consciously repeating hundreds of times that, yes, you are a good-looking winner. Somehow, auto-suggestive sentences can bypass our rational mind, and shape our unconscious view of the world and ourselves.
I have only recently learned about an Indian movement in laugh therapy. Laughter is reputed to be the best medicine, even in the rational-minded West. Now, one of the slogans of this Indian movement is: Fake it, fake it, until you make it.
This slogan summarized the idea and observation that the positive effect laughter exerts on health can be provoked by just pretending to laugh when there really isn’t anything funny.
One can also reap it the benefits of such an approach if one’s purpose is better sex.
Obviously, in a life partnership (even a temporary one), arguments can be costly and destructive to the practical challenges of every-day life. We want to prosper, and if the husband smashes the TV set every week, and the wife tears his and her clothes in anger, prosperity will be hard to achieve.
But if the arguments are faked, just as the laughter in that Indian movement, real losses can be avoided. In an ideal setting, the unconscious mind is tricked into believing that there is conflict, while the conscious mind is aware that it’s all just play.
For example, you can sell her, in a jokingly voice, that of all men in the world, you are the one who ended up with the most brainless wife. You can scold her over small shortcomings, and threaten her with a trashing. Now, even if she holds a doctorate in philosophy, and even if she knows that this is all just drama, and in spite of the fact that you never beat her, such conflict talk will still have an effect on her unconscious mind.
Likewise, if she tells you that your member is below average in size, and that she fantasizes about a man with a real big penis, your conscious mind may be aware that this is just pep talk, and that in reality, your member is above average in size. But your unconscious mind will still react as if what you heard were seriously correct.
It’s a dream world.
Those among us who are just straight may find the subjugation scenes played by pronounced sadists or masochists outright ridiculous. Those who are into SM may use children’s dungeon toys, and just dream themselves sexually into the darkest Middle Ages. Surprisingly, for the sexual enhancement effect they are after, it works just fine.
While playing SM scenes may not be everybody’s cup of coffee, the auto-suggestive pro-sexual effect of dramaturgic elements can nevertheless be applied by about everybody who cares.
Pretending conflict can actually become a personal style of communication. It’s suitable for extroverted characters. Masters of pretended conflict can even come across as exceptionally charming men, especially when they can mix degrading and non-serious flattering comments in one sentence.