I Hate Feminists

fem·i·nist

noun

1.

a person who supports feminism.

adjective

1.

of, relating to, or supporting feminism.

Okay, I don't really hate feminism. I DO, however, hate two elements of gender discussions that come up repeatedly. 

First, I hate the false dichotomy presented by most when discussing sex and gender issues. Gender issues are rarely framed as actual gender issues (masculinity and femininity behaviors.) Instead, they're framed as biological sex issues (penis or vagina.) 

The fundamental problem with this is biological sex is not a discrete dichotomy. There are a lot of shades of intersexed gray ranging from babies born with ambiguous genitalia, hermaphrodites (someone with both gonads and ovaries), transgender and transsexual folks, and a whole host of genetic variations other than XX or XY. All of these groups, along with others not mentioned, are rarely if ever part of the discussion. The mainstream feminist and masculinist "movements" largely ignore these groups even though they make up 1-2% or more of the population. If we're having a discussion about rights, it has to be all-inclusive. 

Second, I hate the systematic destruction of feminine and masculine behaviors. As it is interpreted by many, the gender equality movement seeks to erase gender-defining characteristics to make us more "equal." While the intentions are noble, this move toward undifferentated gender is destroying our personal freedom to engage in masculine of feminine behaviors.

I have a working theory that many of the problems we face as a society today, from our crazy drive toward materialism to our expanding waistlines, is mostly due to chronic unhappiness in our interpersonal relationships. By forcing women to be more like men and men more like women, we're killing off the edginess of our relationships. We're losing the dynamic that fuels electrochemical passion. 

This move toward undifferentiated gender is understandable because it's easy to associate the paternalistic and misogynistic history of humanity with the expression of masculine and feminine characteristics. After all, the aggressive domination of masculinity surely causes the passive femininity to cower in fear. 

What if this isn't the case, though? What if it is possible to openly play with masculine and feminine behaviors while still remaining sociopolitical equals? We're creating barriers (restricting gender expression) to supposedly allow more freedoms (more sociopolitical equality.) Creating barriers never creates more freedoms, though. Instead of insisting on androgyny, maybe we need to identify the very specific behaviors that cause inequality. Masculinity isn't the problem. Femininity isn't the problem. Specific people engaging in douchey superiority complex-fueled behaviors is the problem. Or specific people that are not willing to demand sociopolitical equality. 

Let's start a new trend. Begin thinking of everyone as equal regardless of gender, sex, or any variation and combination of both. Let's also give them the freedom to express themselves however they see fit as long as they are not infringing on the rights of others. If there are injustices, identify the source of the injustice without overgeneralizations, then act to eliminate the injustice. Fight inequality without destroying freedom.

What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments section. 

###

Why Do Women Hate Nice Guys?

I recently finished reading Dr. Robert Glover's No More Mr. Nice Guy. The book perfectly matched my recent exploration (and Facebook discussions) of the hidden nature of female desire, efficacy of monogamy, alpha versus beta males, and how all of these factors influence our romantic relationships. Specifically, the book detailed the "Nice Guy" phenomenon that has sparked a great deal of debate among my acquaintances. 

In most of my debate/discussions, I've framed this issue as either an alpha/beta male conflict or as a feminization of males. Neither frame is entirely accurate. First, the alpha/beta concept creates a false dichotomy of complex inter- and intrapersonal behaviors, and the concepts are difficult to operationally define. Everybody has their own impression of what constitutes alphas and betas. Second, the "feminization" assumes the males I've discussed are taking on stereotypical female characteristics... which also isn't accurate. Glover's book frames the topic perfectly. For the purposes of this post, I'll refer to "normal guys" and "nice guys." 

So who are these "nice guys?"

Glover defines them as dudes that need female validation and will do anything to get it. The will place their significant other on a pedestal and treat them like a princess (or prince; this concept is not exclusive to the breeders.) Nice guys are givers and derive joy from doing things for others. Nice guys are also fixers and will attempt to solve everyone's problems. They will ignore their own needs and put all their time and energy into making their partner happy. Their own emotional well-being is directly tied to their partner's emotional well-being. If the partner in unhappy, they're unhappy. They attempt to get their physical, emotional, and sexual needs met indirectly by hoping their partner will recognize their unmet needs and reciprocate. Nice guys are also passive and will avoid conflict (the the resulting disapproval.) As a result, nice guys will try to find the "right" way to do anything and everything. Nice guys generally prefer the company of females as they have trouble (or negatively judge... like "that guy is a jerk") other males. Nice guys routinely repress their own feelings, instead becoming chameleons and creating a facade of calmness. 

In relationships, nice guys initially seem like the perfect catch. They're polite, responsive, great listeners, and seem to be genuinely caring, open, honest men. As time passes, three things tend to go very, very wrong.

First, the nice guy will repress their needs to the point where their partner will never be able to fulfill all that is expected. Since the nice guy can't voice his needs, his only recourse is to put more effort into being "nicer." Eventually resentment begins to form, and the nice guy either snaps in fitful acts of rage or engages in secretive behaviors that, on some level, meet their needs. 

Second, nice guys smother their partner with affection, attention, gifts... whatever. The novelty of this wears off to the point where the gestures are no longer meaningful. It's not uncommon for nice guys to spend a tremendous amount of time planning and executing grand gestures. The more gestures the nice guy executes, the less response their partner has. The lack of enthusiasm and failure to reciprocate by the partner creates resentment within the nice guy, which creates a vicious cycle of trying harder then failing more.

Finally, nice guys constantly try to build intimacy to the exclusion of passion. As I talked about here, these concepts are mutually-exclusive. Intimacy kills passion. Unfortunately, the nice guy usually craves passion (one of the hopeful outcomes of the attention he showers on his partner), but acts in a way that guarantees passion will die. 

An example of this would be sex. Nice guys are usually pretty talented lovers because they spend a lot of time and energy learning how to please their partner. Let's say they devise a method to assure their partner has an orgasm every time they have sex. The nice guy will use that same script every time. Their routine becomes predictable, thus mechanical. While it feels good, their partner eventually tries to avoid sex because it's completely devoid of passion and no longer fulfilling.

Nice guys also tend to develop an unhealthy view of sex. Since they don't get their desired sexual needs fulfilled by their partner, nice guys tend to engage in addictive sexual behaviors. Glover hypothesized there's a correlation between "niceness" and the darkness of a guy's sexual interests. The more nice guy behaviors they exhibit, the more they hide. Porn addiction, compulsive masturbation, frequenting prostitutes, having affairs, engaging in paraphilias, or even rape are not uncommon. If a significant other discovers the nice guy's sexual secrets, they're almost always completely shocked. 

On the surface, the nice guy is perfect. Kind, considerate, attentive, loyal. They're like a dog... always there to love you. The problem, of course, is that persona is a facade hiding deep insecurity. Below the gilded surface, nice guys are dishonest, secretive, indecisive, manipulative, controlling, and passive-aggressive. They usually have deeply-embedded rage fueled by the resentment of unmet needs, usually have difficulty developing close friendships, and have trouble setting boundaries. In relationships they're doormats; they will allow their significant other to do anything including making all the decisions related to the relationship. The nice guy is incapable of standing up for themselves.

For the partner, this situation creates a terrible trap. Nice guys seem great on the surface, so it's common for women to easily fall in love and make a long-term commitment. When the sparks fade and the reality of being placed on a pedestal develops, it's hard to justify ending the relationship. Friends and family members will only see the grand romantic gestures, which seems like it would be amazing. It would be... if there were any other dynamic to the relationship. Also, the nice guy's unmet needs begin to create a great deal of unspoken tension, which the partner may or may not understand. 

Based on my discussions about the nature of female desire, women that are involved with nice guys would quickly get bored. Nice guys don't understand that distance is what creates passion, and the nice guy cannot handle emotional or physical distance. Pushing their partner away, even if it would result in the hot sex they crave, is an impossibility because they need their partner's validation.

In short, "nice guys" are anything but.

My Story

This topic is so fascinating because I'm a recovering nice guy. In the book, Glover discusses where and how this persona develops. For me, it was the typical story rooted in childhood family dynamics. I didn't recognize my view of the world and method of operation was abnormal until my mid-thirties. It has taken me five years to work through the issues related to being a nice guy. In the beginning of my "recovery", I was able to break out of nice guy patterns with random people, then acquaintances, then friends and family. My relationship with women, my real Achilles heel, has taken much longer. After five years, I'm finally at a point where I can accurately identify almost all of my maladaptive "nice guy" strategies when interacting with Shelly. 

Before discovering my nice guy persona, I missed out on a few potential relationships, sabotaged my first marriage, and have almost sabotaged my current marriage. Even though intellectually understood what I was doing and why I was doing it, the behaviors are so deeply ingrained in my psyche I couldn't let them go. It has taken A LOT of hard work to break the cycles and extinguish them for good. Glover's book outlines quite a few strategies to break out of the nice guy persona. I've actually used a few of his ideas, but have quite a few of my own. Here are a few things I've done with good success:

• I had to learn to discriminate "jerks" from normal dudes. I saw a lot of completely normal assertive behaviors by other men as "dickish", which is part of the mindset that rationalizes the nice guy persona. It's a very arrogant "I'm better than them" attitude that reinforced my own dishonest manipulations.
• I had to do the opposite of my instincts. Glover references the Seinfeld episode where George does the exact opposite of his instincts and begins succeeding at life. This actually works for the nice guy most of the time.
• I had to understand that I don't need validation from others, especially women. It took a long time to realize the best gift I could give Shelly was the freedom of me not needing her constant validation. 
• I had to take responsibility and begin demanding stuff I need. "I need ___________." was one of the most difficult statements I had to make. The anxiety of actually asking for what I needed was terrifying, but it got a lot easier as soon as I realized it was effective and preferred by others. As it turns out, that's how healthy people operate.
• I had to become a relationship leader and make decisions. I'm a fairly natural leader outside relationships and am very comfortable accepting responsibility and assuming a leadership role. My challenge was bringing that mindset to my relationship. The key was to stop trying to guess what she wanted. I also had to stop worrying about what Shelly thought of the decision.
• I had to destroy the pedestal. She's not perfect, but I dd everything in my power to convince myself she was. She has flaws as all of us do. I had to learn there is a huge difference between acknowledging and accepting those flaws and simply dismissing them.
• I had to learn to create distance. Distance has always scared me because it eliminates those validations I desperately needed. It also sparked a fear of abandonment. I overcame this with the realization that closeness and intimacy kills passion. I started experimenting with intentionally creating distance using the games in the linked post. They work. Really, really well. That feedback was all I needed to get comfortable creating distance.
• I had to learn to self-affirm. I had to learn to be okay with myself flaws and all, which involves affirming my own self-worth. It is a burden I couldn't place on anyone else, especially Shelly. Specifically, this involves not talking about every single accomplishment or event in my life, mostly via social media.
• I had to learn sex wasn't a validation of love. This was a tough thing for me to grasp because I had internalized the "if she loves me, she'll have sex with me" belief. Yes, sex can bring us closer, but thinking of it as a recreational activity and accepting the selfishness of doing it to satisfy my physical needs has dramatically changed my behaviors for the better. I'll probably elaborate on this point in a future post.
• I had to learn to be okay with my sense of competitiveness and aggression. I always made an association with typical "alpha" male behaviors and misogynist jackasses that used and exploited women. Again, this fueled my own inflated sense of righteousness, which I used to rationalize my behaviors. Fully embracing my masculine characteristics and understanding they're complimentary (as opposed to antagonistic or repressive) to Shelly's feminist characteristics has been another incredibly freeing realization.
• I had to learn to be caring and nurturing without expecting reciprocity. This lesson is rather insidious because it's so deeply ingrained from family patters stretching back to my youth. Previously, all helping behavior was done for a reason- to somehow meet my own needs. Once I became comfortable asking to have my needs met, it became easy to give freely with no expectation of reciprocity.
• I had to learn others give without expectation of reciprocity. This is related to the last. Since everything I did was for a hidden reason, I assumed everyone else did the same. They don't. Recognizing that has made me a lot less guarded with others, which has resulted in deeper, more meaningful relationships.
• I had to learn how to set and maintain healthy boundaries by saying "no", then communicate said boundaries. Before, I had boundaries but lacked the assertiveness to prevent people from crossing them. Solving this riddle was as simple as identifying them and uncompromisingly protecting them. When everything else started falling into place, this became easy. It also helped that I learned people like knowing boundaries. Ambiguity is not a desirable characteristic.
• I had to learn to be okay with people being angry or disappointed with me. Before this transformation, I could be talked into pretty much anything because I didn't want to disappoint people. Now? I don't give a fuck. Since my self-worth isn't tied to others' perceptions of me, I have the freedom to make people angry or to disappoint them. 

How has it been going? So far, so good. Breaking free of the nice guy mindset has been incredibly liberating. I feel a freedom I never knew possible. Every waking moment isn't always muffins wrapped in rainbows, but my day-to-day existence is far more fulfilling. My relationship with Shelly has changed dramatically for the better, which is another post for another day. 

There's a high probability a lot of men reading this are "nice guys." If you're one of these dudes, I would highly recommend you begin taking steps to break free. It will change your life for the better. There's also a high probability a lot of the women reading this are involved in a relationship with a "nice guy." If that's the case, you're probably already at the stage where you've gotten a glimpse behind the curtain. Or maybe you're at the stage where the constant attention and agreeableness has become insufferable. Again, I would encourage them to take the steps to change. 

If you know of anyone that fits this profile, share the post. Too many people suffer through the trials and tribulations of the nice guy syndrome. Knowledge is power. And knowing is half the battle.

Go Joe!

###

Postscript: Since writing this post, I've started the San Diego Man Camp project. Check out the blog here and the Facebook group here (sorry ladies, it's a men-only group.) 

Women are Sluts, Nice Guys Finish Last, and Millennials Will Save the World

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Are We Paleo Sluts or Paleo Cheaters?

I recently finished the book Sex at Dawn: How we mate, why we stray, and what it means for modern relationships by Chris Ryan and Cacilda Jetha. The book offers an alternative view to the common evolutionary psychology explanation of the development of human sexuality. This topic fascinates me because understanding our past helps explain our present, and human sexuality was to be my area of study had I continued down the path of post-graduate research psychologist training. Also, any topic dealing with sex is, by default, automatically intriguing. 

The common explanation works something like this: Our relationship and sex behaviors have developed for the expressed purpose of passing our genes on to the next generation. This includes how we're attracted to each other, how we become couples (pair-bonding), the development of our relationships, and the rationale that explains why it's so hard to maintain those pair-bonds over time (why we're so apt to get divorced or cheat on our significant other.) This entire theory more or less explains the phenomenon of serial monogamy (where we go from one exclusive relationship to another to another.) 

I was first introduced to the various elements of this theory via the study of sociobiology back in my undergrad days. So many elements of the theory make sense. We're chemically attracted (via pheromones) to people that genetically would produce healthy kids. The "honeymoon" phase of relationships serves to drive us to have a lot of sex by giving us boundless energy, obsessive thoughts about our partner, and the ability o ignore the outside world (including other people.) The "post-honeymoon" phase serves to bond us together so well care for the kid we conceived in the previous phase, which is driven by the neurotransmitter oxytocin. Eventually we start looking for other partners, which varies by sex. Men look for fertile women to spread their DNA far and wide; women look for either better resources (rich and powerful) or better genes (studs.) In this model, paternal certainty, or the dad knowing he's actually the dad, is important. 

That's a dramatic oversimplification, but touches on a few of the main points. 

Sex at Dawn fundamentally departs from this idea by rejecting pair-bonding as a means of passing on our DNA. The authors hypothesize our pre-agriculture hunter-gatherer ancestors didn't enter into monogamous relationships. Instead, both sexes were decidedly promiscuous with members of their own "tribe", and occasionally outside the group. The idea is any given woman would have lots o' sex with different males and sperm competition (the internal battle to get to her eggs) ultimately determined paternity. Since none of the dudes really knew if they were the father, the "father role" was diffused among the entire tribe. 

Again, its a dramatic oversimplification, but it's a quick and dirty summary. 

The study of any sort of evolutionary topic is fraught with the same perils mostly based on the idea that we're taking limited fossil data and recorded history (when available) and extrapolating it to present day observations. Evolutionary researchers usually discuss their ideas with a high degree of certainty, but the entire field is empirically shaky. For me, that's part of what makes it so fun. Specific to this topic, both theories answer the same question in different ways- why are we so damn slutty?

Most members of our species really like to have sex. It's an incredibly powerful drive. In our particular American culture, most of us champion the idea of monogamy. As I discussed in this post, we're pretty bad at monogamy. We tend to have multiple partners before settling down with that special someone, we have a ridiculously high divorce rate, both men and women have extra-marital affairs with frightening regularity, and we'd be much more likely to cheat if we could be assured we'd get away with it. Again, we suck at monogamy. Hell, one in four couples don't even put up a pretense of monogamy and actively engage in consensual, ethical nonmonogamy. 

The typical evolutionary psychology explanation ha to do with our drive to maximize getting our genes into the next generation. Women are slutty because they are always looking to "upgrade" to a better genetic match while still maintaining a relationship with a man that provides for the family. Men are slutty because they take a "shotgun" approach... fuck as many fertile women as possible to spread their genes far and wide. This model assumes we chronically engage in extramarital affairs. Paleo cheaters. 

The Sex at Dawn theory postulates our sluttiness is a function of our pre-agriculture behaviors. Women want a lot of cock to encourage sperm competition, which serves as the "selecting the best genes" purpose. Men... well, their sluttiness is simply obliging the women. This model assumes we... well, just really love sex. Paleo sluts.

Both theories are interesting because they have supporting evidence and can at least partially explain most of our present-day behaviors. Both theories also have significant holes best exemplified by the differences between them. 

I know quite a few of my regular readers are familiar with one or both theories. What do you think? Which one seems to more accurately capture our present-day behaviors? Leave a comment!

###

The Paradox of Intimacy and Passion

"Where there's nothing left to hide, there's nothing left to seek."
-Esther Perel, Mating in Captivity

I'm a big fan of relationship books that go against the grain. Esther Perel's book Mating in Captivity is one such book. A relationship therapist, Perel tackles a slew of topics the affect long-term couples. Most themes revolve around the plight of maintaining long-term relationships in our modern society.

One such theme has to do with the idea of keeping the fire alive after years of being together with the same person. In my post "What's the Deal with Monogamy", I discussed the difficulty of being with the same person emotionally, physically and sexually for the duration of the relationship. That discussion included options. One option was to "spice up" the relationship. This option was desirable because it maintained the relationship and was the most socially-acceptable option on the list.

Perel tackles this particular topic by framing the "spice" as a dichotomy between intimacy and passion. Passion rules the beginning of our relationships. There's mystery. Excitement. A cocktail of excitatory chemicals flowing through our brains. It's a wonderful, intoxicating chaos.

Eventually that excitement begins to wane. We get to know the other person. Secrets are revealed. Thoughts and feelings are disclosed. We begin to feel more secure with the relationship. The white hot passion fades to a warm connectedness. We intuitively replace the chaos with predictability.

The problem, of course, is that passion and intimacy are mutually-exclusive. They cannot exist in the same place at the same time. Unfortunately, far to many couples assume the decrease of passion over time is inevitable and irreversible. They don't consider that passion can be stoked at any time with the right tools. Or they may accept that passion can be stoked, but try silly gimmicks they read in women's magazines. You know, like wearing new lingerie or having sex with the lights on. These tricks may produce a temporary novelty effect, but they wear off quickly. 

These couples don't really understand what causes passion or how it's related to intimacy. Par of the problem is the common misconception that intimacy causes passion. You know, share your secrets while cuddling on the couch, then hot claw-your-back sex will follow.

That's not how it works, though.

Passion thrives in a void. Passion is fueled by the unknown. Secrets. Mystery. Its the exact opposite of intimacy. The gimmicks in women's magazines produce a little bit of short-lived passion because the newness is temporarily mysterious, but it's important to understand why it works. Let's say your wife buys a new negligee from Fredrick's of Hollywood and wears it to bed. Yes, it may be visually stimulating, but the real passion-building effect derives from the fact that this new behavior adds a tinge of mystery. You don't know your wife quite as well as you thought you did, and that's a huge turn-on.

Get it?

Now that we know how passion works, we can set up situations where we can intentionally manipulate the passion/ intimacy paradigm. This will create dynamic movement between the closeness and safety of intimacy and the heart-racing exhilaration of passion. All of the games I'll discuss in the next section effectively build passion over a short period of time which should result in erotic sex, then intimacy will naturally build in the wake. Lather, rinse, repeat. 

While the goal is building passionate sex, it's usually best not to think of these as "sex games." Think of them as erotic adventures that are designed to build excitement. Us Americans have a tendency to regard sex as a mechanical act. Penises in vaginas, etc. Sex is only partly physical, however. Stimulating the genitals, no matter how good one's technique happens to be, pales in comparison to stimulating the mind. Think of these as erotic games, and the goal is to stimulate the minds of ourselves and our partners. 

The Games

Intermittent Intimacy Fasting

Length of time: 24-48 hours

The goal of this exercise is for both partners to completely withdraw from each other while still in close proximity. No talking. No notes. No texting. No emails. No gestures. No touching. Eye contact the only communication allowed. Try to limit incidental contact as much as possible, so don't plop down on the couch together to watch TV. Sleep in a different room. 

The lack of communication and touching, while still in the presence of your significant other (SO), will automatically begin building desire because it creates physical and psychological distance. Remember, distance is the fuel that feeds passion. 

Start by planning this game backwards. Find a date and time you will be together and have some degree of privacy. It's best to assume you'll be having sex, though that's not necessarily the goal. Once the end is set, determine the start time. For the first attempt, start with about 24 hours. If you're really busy, 48 hours may be needed. Explain the game to your SO. Both agree to follow the rules. Only emergency contact is allowed. To make the game more fun, one or both can do some flirting or teasing, like getting dressed in font of the other, shooting them a seductive glance, etc.

Silent Treatment

Length of time: 24-48 hours

This game is a variation of the previous game, but subtly changes an important dynamic. Us humans love to talk as a means of building intimacy. Some have argued this is actually one of the reasons so many relationships fail- we're obsessed with over-sharing. Great for building intimacy; terrible for building passion. This game prohibits verbal or written communication, but allows for physical contact. The rules and setup are exactly the same as the previous game, only you're now encouraged to touch. It's okay to watch TV together. It's okay to sleep in the same bed. However, you cannot talk.

This game works on two levels. First, the lack of talking severely inhibits the building of intimacy. We're not accustomed to using nonverbal communication as a primary means of communicating, so we're not very good at it. If we're not building closeness, we're building distance. This activity builds distance via mystery. We have to learn to read our partner. 

The second way this game works is attention to the physical. The game forces us to pay attention to our partner's subtle movements and behaviors. That attention will heighten our senses which fuels the sensual tension between us. 

Fascist Sex

Length of time: Varies... however long it takes for a quickie.

There's a reason Fifty Shades of Grey was such a popular book. Our society likes to democratize sex. We have a tendency to seek opinions of our SO, negotiate, debate, concede. We ask for permission. We say please and thank you. We want to make sure everyone's happy. We distribute the power in the bedroom. Everyone gets their orgasms. Yay equality!

Unfortunately, this results in pretty bland sex. Part of the problem is the negotiating process builds intimacy, which kills passion. Another part of the problem is our secret desires. Everyone I've ever met that has been willing to discuss sex, both male and female, admits to wanting to play both the sexual aggressor and sexual "victim." They wish they could just pounce on their mate, use them for their own pleasure, then roll over and go to sleep. hey also wish their SO would pounce on them, use them, then roll over and fall asleep. 

Admittedly, I'm a little shocked this fantasy is incredibly popular. I'm equally shocked so few people disclose it to their SO. Almost all of us want it, yet none of us will actually discuss it. Its shame, really.

Anyway, the game is simple. In the mood? Force yourself on your SO. Don't ask. Don't negotiate. Just fuck.

This game does come with a serious caveat- you have to discuss this well ahead of time, make sure your partner agrees, and decide on a safe word that will immediately end the advances. 

Forbidden Fruit

Length of time: Varies.

Many fields of study touch on the idea that humans want what they cannot have. Economists have the law of supply and demand. Social psychologists have the scarcity principle. Seductresses and pickup artists play hard-to-get. The idea is desire to possess something increases as it becomes more difficult to acquire. This principle can be used to build passion in relationships in creative ways using a simple method- make something unobtainable. 

That "something" can be major (like we cannot have sex for five days), or very focused (you cannot touch my left nipple for a week.) It doesn't really matter what is forbidden as long as it is between us and our SO. To start the game, explicitly tell your SO what is forbidden. You can give them a length of time. Better yet, leave it open-ended... it helps build the anticipation via mystery. During the time period, remind them of the forbidden behavior several times per day. The more teasing you do, the more effective it becomes. The forbidden behavior will cause obsessive thoughts about the behavior, which will fuel their desire for that behavior. Drag it out as long as necessary.

This game is so powerful, it can even be used to build desire for things your SO may not want. The BSDM community uses this quite a bit. Let's say you really want your SO to perform oral on you, but they always refuse. Begging, pleading, and negotiating never work, and it's a bit pathetic. Try prohibiting it. Explicitly tell them they cannot perform oral on you. At first, they will probably laugh in relief. Persist. Remind them they cannot, under any circumstance, perform oral on you. Repeat this several times per day. Eventually they will begin to question their own hesitancy, which leads to curiosity. Curiosity will spark a desire to do the prohibited behavior. Once sparked, it's easy to drive them crazy. The longer you hold out, the more value they will attach to the behavior. It's a MUCH more effective (and fun) way to negotiate bedroom activities.

The Three Day Seduction

Length of time: Ummmm... three days

Perel discusses the myth of spontaneous sex in her book. To summarize, we think we want sex that's not planned. We want the type of sex that causes us to drop everything and succumb to our desires. It sounds good, but it misses an important point- "spontaneous" sex happens because we give in to our desires. We don't just randomly jump each others' bones. There's a build-up. And that build-up can be deliberate.

Set a time and date for the sexy time. Work backward three days, which will be the start date. You can tell your SO about it or not; both options change the dynamics a little bit. During this time frame, you're going to do everything in your power to seduce your mate. If you've been together for awhile, you should know what turns them on. If not, check out Robert Greene's The Art of Seduction. It's an excellent book that should be required reading for anyone that has at least a passing interest in sex. A quick primer- seduction is all about pushing and pulling. Show interest, then back off. Compliment, then tease. Kiss, then leave the room. 

Do this for three days. Tell them what you want to do to their body. Tell them how turned on you're getting thinking about you. Maybe even text them a picture or two. 

The key is to build for the three days without relenting. Don't give in! The whole point of scheduling is to build anticipation for the time arriving; to make the wait agonizingly erotic.

All of these games work based on the same principle- they build mystery. Mystery is the building block of passion. Like Perel's quote at the beginning states, "Where there's nothing left to hide, there's nothing left to seek." Your relationship is a big game of hide and seek. We have a tendency to always seek and never hide. We build intimacy and kill passion. These games allow us to figuratively hide no matter how long we've been together.

Graduate Level Passion-Building

These games offer potentially year or replay value by altering the variables a little bit. However, even the most creative lovers begin to run out of ideas. If that happens, simply begin combining the games. How about a three day seduction with no talking allowed? Or how about ordering your SO not to orgasm for four days while you have indulgent fascist sex each day? 

If you really run out of ideas, just make up your own games. Once you understand how passion is really developed versus how we're led to believe it develops, it's pretty easy to come up with new ways to spark it. Passion is 99% mental and olny 1% physical. Our brain is a lot more effective erogenous zone than our genitals. Learn to master it and you'll never complain about a lack of passion again.

###