My name is Salvatnín and I am the author of Malignant Self-Love, Narcissism Revisited.   Sometimes the behaviors are the same, but the motivation and the psychodynamic background is never the same. So let's start with my favorite, the psychopathic narcissist. Psychopathic narcissism is a constant state of tension, a tug of war between ferocious self-sufficiency and devout personal autonomy. Psychopathic narcissists is a lone wolf, but at the same time he suffers from a prostrate addiction to narcissistic supply. He needs attention, adulation, admiration, or ups and des, he wants to be feared. He is dependent on the people who provide narcissistic supply, the sources. Even the most rabid antisocial and the most grandiose fool end up succumbing to social pressures. They end up pairing up, creating couples. In the case of the psychopathic narcissist, he becomes a member of a diet. He teams up with another person, usually of the opposite sex, to secure any two of the three S's. And the three S's are sex, supply, services. Often the malignant narcissist, that's the early name for the psychopathic narcissist, often the malignant narcissist strikes a compromise with his insignificant other or intimate partner. And this is the compromise. To keep these unfortunate partners in his life, the malignant narcissist turns a blind eye.  He allows them even to have love affairs. The rule is, don't ask, don't tell, very military. This way the malignant narcissist also maintains his leeway to act in any way he sees fit. And he prevents the partner from making demands and from becoming a burden and a nuisance. He says to the partner, just leave me be, leave me alone.  If you want to have a love affair with someone, please do. I need my time. I need my space. I need my creativity. I need to be invested in myself. I don't have energy for you. You do your job.  You supply, give me attention when it's missing. And you provide me, you serve me, you provide me with services. All the rest, go find your way. As long as two of the three S's are forthcoming, the partner is encouraged actually, sometimes pushed actively to outsource her emotional and physical sexual needs. To pair or to team up with others. The psychopathic narcissist is never romantically jealous. The narcissist is the overt classic narcissist, but not the psychopathic narcissist. He does react badly, the malignant narcissist does react badly to cheating that may or that does lead to abandonment. But he reacts badly to rejection and abandonment, not because he's in love, not because he has bonded with his partner, not because, I don't know, he's attached. He reacts badly for practical reasons. Now that he has lost his previous source of supply, he has to groom a new source. And grooming a new source of supply, nurturing and cultivating a new found of the three S's is an onerous and an uncertain task. Losing the source of mental sustenance is losing the source of narcissistic supply. Losing his intimate partner to another man, let's say, is akin to losing your job or to losing your neighborhood trustworthy pusher. But you say, even a psychopathic narcissist is still a human being, well to some extent. Doesn't he feel anything? Isn't he moved by the fact that his partner is out there spending all day with another man and all night with another man? Isn't she devastated that her husband is away on a vacation with another woman? Both men and women are devastated when their intimate partner's significant other or spouse cheats. Men react badly as they keep replaying the lurid visuals of the sex act with another person, another man. Women are heartbroken by the intimacy that is involved even in casual sex. And both men and women mourn the trust lost as a result of cheating. The friendship abandoned in adultery, the betrayal, the callous indifference to the partner's hurt to the inevitable deception, the egregious lies, all that goes with cheating. Cheating is not an isolated incident or process. It affects every corner, nook and cranny of the relationship. Somehow, somewhere along the line, the other man or woman, the third parties, the long-term lover, even the one-night-stand partner, at some point they became the locus and focus of affection, of attention, of gratitude, of loyalty. They become implicitly and very often explicitly rescuers, co-conspirators against the ostensibly loved one. They become the providers of intimacy and sex and all these used to be the exclusive domains of the couple. It's like opening the couple up to and bringing in an invader and occupying army. It's like it's acting like a fifth column or a Trojan horse. Sexual and emotional exclusivity are not about only about sex. They constitute a statement, exclusivity constitutes a statement, regarding the uniqueness and importance of the relationship and regarding one's mate. To share oneself with another, with someone outside the couple, is to inform your partner in no uncertain terms that she or he had lost their privileged position in one's life, that they are now interchangeable, replaceable, substitutable. And add to this the sense of failure and inadequacy and the impotent fury at having so badly misjudged one's partner. Add to this hating yourself for having so thoroughly deceived yourself and having been led astray. Add to this the sense of terror, horror, that you had granted your intimate partner unfettered access to the most vulnerable parts of your life. You gave away the power to reduce your heart to smithereens to break your heart. Put all this together. These are common reactions to cheating. So it's understandable that there is never a real and full recovery from such perfidy, from such treason and betrayal. Some co-dependent couples, of course, survive, but they are still hobbled by the terrible memories. The majority of unions disintegrate under the relentless pressure of the revelations about the true nature of one's partner and his or her specious misconduct. When it comes to relationships, cheating is the equivalent of a first degree murder. There is no statute of limitations. There's no way to undo the ubiquitous renaissance. So how does the psychopathic masses survive all this? How come the cuckold doesn't experience any of this? Well, all the above impacts of cheating assume an existence of a bond, emotions, attachments, functional attachments. It's questionable with the cuckold whether these exist, whether there's true love, whether there's a true couple and a true attachment. And it's definitely, definitely doesn't exist with the psychopathic narcissists. Psychopathic narcissists has a transactional bond with his partner. It's like a business deal.  All the rest, go out, find your own way, get your own satisfaction, leave me alone. It's a deal. It's a deal with very few deal breakers.  Each of these ways has its own explicit or implicit contract.  The contract implies that it says that intimate partners engage in all forms of sex acts as well as flirting and dating only with each other, never with someone outside. Any sexual, any romantic or emotional interaction with someone outside the relationship is considered cheating and a betrayal of the intimate partner. That is the most common form of contract still to this very day. The next step up or down, depending on your point of view about life and sex and couplehood, next step is known as don't ask, don't tell. It's becoming more and more common among long-term couples, couples who have lived together for 20 or 30 years. DAT, don't ask, don't tell. The intimate partner in a DAT relationship turns a blind eye to, ignores, denies the facts about his or her partner's infidelity. He or she implicitly allows his or her partner to date others, to flirt with them and to have all manner of sex acts outside the relationship.  They have to be discreet about their affairs. They have to eliminate all the evidence. They have to continue to love their primary partners and to share a life with them exclusively. Falling in love outside the relationship or setting up a parallel life, second life, is considered not only cheating but a betrayal of the intimate partner. The next type of sexual regulation within relationships is known as open marriage or open relationship. It's exactly the same like DAT, only the partners know about each other's sexual involvement with others and they approve of such escapades. Falling in love outside the relationship or setting up a parallel life are still considered cheating and also a betrayal of the intimate partner. Even in open marriage, in open relationship, you're supposed just to have sex or just to have fun or just to have a certain type of emotions, like affection or gratitude. But you're not supposed to fall in love and you're not supposed to abandon your primary partner with the third party. And then there's of course polyamory, the partners in a couple, both partners are allowed to date, to flirt, to fall in love and to maintain full-fledged relationships.  There is no concept of cheating, no concept of betrayal, although the partners are expected to not neglect and not abandon each other in favor of their other loves. So these are multiple relationships, multiple extant, contemporaneous relationships. Cacaldry has a lot to do with sexual fantasy and in the second half of this video we're going to analyze the psychology of cacaldry and swinging. But before we go there, I would like to discuss the sexual fantasy life of narcissists and psychopaths, because there's a lot of confusion. Narcissists and psychopaths behave exactly in the same way as swingers and cacals. But not all swingers and cacals are narcissists and psychopaths, actually I would say small minority are. Still, it's instructive to have a look at the sexual fantasy life of narcissists and psychopaths.  Fantasies which reflect the fear of intimacy involve the aggressive or violent objectification of a faceless, nameless, anonymous, and sometimes sexless person, often in impersonal, alien or foreign settings. So these fantasies, for example, would involve rape or coercion. These usually coalesce with misogynistic, erotic storylines in which females are humiliated, coerced into hurtful submission and subjected to violation and degradation by one or by many people in gangbanks. Where sadism, masochism, homosexuality, or sexual paraphernalias, such as pedophilia, are present in the fantasies of narcissists and psychopaths, they are injected into the fantasy and collar its composition and progression, but they are not the core of the fantasy. In his fantasies, the narcissists or psychopaths is always in unmitigated control of the environment, of course. The assemblages of bodies and limbs which populate his daydreams, his body included, are minutely choreographed to yield maximum titillation. It's like modern ballet. He is like an exhibitionistic and voyeuristic porn director with an endless supply of well-endowed actors, either culled into compliance or actually craving it. Naturally, the narcissists' fantasies are devoid of any performance anxiety or of the need to reciprocate in the sex act by pleasing his anonymous and robotic partners. Such imaginary invariably leads to acts of self-stimulation, the ultimate manifestations of autoeroticism. Even when the narcissist incorporates his real-life partner in his fantasies, he is bound to treat her as a mere prop, a body to masturbate with, in or on.  This crude and overt denigration serves to render the intimate partner a slut or a whore in the narcissist and psychopath's mind. The kind of woman with whom he can have lustful, emotion-free sex. He reserves love, involvement and intimacy to sexless, Madonna-type, sexually inaccessible or unattainable women such as his mother. The somatic narcissist and psychopath's sexual promiscuity emerges from underlying problems in gender identity. Many of them are clothed by sexuals, cross-dresses and prone to parapherias such as pedophilia, fetishism and sexual sadism or masochism. Some narcissists and psychopaths try to act out their fantasies and get their partners to assume roles, commensurate with their propensities and predilections and proclivities however alkalendish, illegal or extreme.  And if the answer is yes, the doll would do, the doll would satisfy me as much as a flesh and blood partner, then in all likelihood we are dealing with a narcissist or the psychopath. They don't really care that you are alive, they care that you perform. Yet these glimpses into the thwarted and demented rarely go down well with the significant others of psychopaths and narcissists. The narcissist's self-exposure often elicits reactions of horror, repulsion and estrangement. And so most narcissists don't even bother to share their fantasies with their so-called intimate others, loved ones, nearest and dearest and insignificant others. The cerebral narcissist merely retreats to sexual abstinence, abstinence and celibacy punctuated by compulsive, porn-fueled masturbation. The somatic narcissist compulsively hunts for new feminine prey to sacrifice on the insatiable altar of his former self. And now we come to cuckolds and swingers. Cuckolds and swingers also try to convince their partners to participate in threesomes, in group sex, in gangbanks, to go to sex clubs. They want to observe their partners with other people as well. They convert their partners into kind of porn stars. But the motivation is totally different.  First of all, swingers don't call themselves swingers. They are part of the lifestyle. The lifestyle includes sexual acts performed by more than two participants, whether in the same space or separately. It is colloquially known as swinging, or why for spouse swapping, why for spouse sharing, group sex and where multiple people interact with a single person gangbanging. Swinging can be soft, that is engaging in sexual activity with one's own intimate partner but in the presence of others. It also includes acts of candle-lism. Candle-lism is like watching, having other people watch your partner naked. But most swinging is hard.  Three sums, there are two types, male-male-female and female-female-male, MMF and FFM. Three sums usually involve male-male-female, in the case of cuckolds. And they are the most common configuration for cuckolds. For some people, love and pain are flip sides of the same tortured coin. And so there is pain involved, the cuckold experiences pain, and some of this pain is sometimes outwardly expressed and sometimes with objects. There's a whole paraphernalia of objects which are used in cuckoldry. We'll come to all this. But before we come to the psychology of cuckolds and swingers, I would like to discuss the concept of intimacy. Because the initial instinctive reaction of people when they hear about cuckoldry is how do these people manage intimacy? With so many other people invading the intimate space, the most intimate space, sex, how is intimacy managed? So, intimacy for some people is an agony that leads to lustful ecstasy and to an orgy of self-annihilation. The woman in such couples loves with all her being her quiddity innocence. When she is rebuffed, she turns into an untouchable stone-faced and cruel Madonna mistress, an unspeakable whore. The man prostitutes her. He shares her with other men because his arousal crucially subsists on her humiliation and degradation. And so in these couples, they punish each other via sadistic sex and desire and betrayal in a futile attempt to restore justice and sanity to an escalating spiral of obsession and abandonment anxiety. This is the pathological poem or pathological end of cuckoldry. These are couples who use cuckoldry to torture and punish each other. Their love becomes a dungeon. Their bodies tools of mutual execution. The people involved in such pathological, and I recommend to you to see the movie Paper Moon where such a relationship is described. The people involved in these pathological cuckoldry relationships, they describe these diets, this couplehood, as there's nothing that comes close to them in intensity and color. I felt exuberantly alive and profoundly entombed. Such affairs are exhilarating but not for the faint heart. The psychological background to such unusual pursuits is not clear and has never been studied in depth. And still thousands of online chats between active and wannabe adherents and fans in various forums reveal 10 psychodynamic principles and strands which underline another foundation of cuckoldry. Now let it be clear before I proceed. Most cuckoldry in swinging does not involve any mental health issues. It is the pathological relationship that I described before of couples punishing each other, humility. This is not the typical swinger and not the typical couple. Most of these couples actually in studies show a higher level of satisfaction and happiness with each other. The normal couples. And that goes for couples who exercise BDSM as well. So the background, the reasons for cuckolding are different. Let's review them. The first one is latent and overt bisexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality. Both men and women, but especially women, adopt swinging as a way to sample same sex experiences in a tolerant at times anonymous and permissive environment. In some reasons, the men ends up having homosexual relationship with the third party, with third party male, with the lover or the bull. The woman ends up having sex with the woman in a female-female-male relationship. So it's a way to sample and experience bisexuality and your own homosexuality in an environment where anything goes. And it's totally permissive. No one is judging you. You can do anything you want. The second reason is the aforementioned slut Madonna complex. To be sexually attracted to their spouses, some men need to debase and humiliate them by witnessing their sluttish conduct with others. These men find it difficult to have regular intimate sex with women to whom they are emotionally attached and whose property is beyond doubt. Sex is dirty. Sex is demeaning, such as defiling and debasing. So it should be mechanical. The preserve of voracious and promiscuous partners. And the more voracious and promiscuous the partner is with another man, the more attractive she becomes. And vice versa for Cool Queens. The third reason is voyeurism and exhibitionism. They're both rampant in and satisfied by swinging and cuckolding. Oftentimes, those who partake in the lifestyle document their exploits on video and share photos and saucy verbal descriptions.   And cuckolding often takes place in public spaces, for example in sex clubs. The next reason is vicarious gratification.  So they observe the scene of their partner having sex with another and they must debate, but they very rarely join the scene while it's taking place.  They may also clean up and so on. So they may then get involved, but only after the initial activity is terminated.  They would wait until the sex is over and then aroused by the visuals, aroused by the porn movie they've just witnessed and aroused by the fact by the other men's arousal.  There is an issue called sperm competition, where men compete with each other, whose sperm will fertilize the female.  That's a medical scientific fact. When you watch another man having sex with your partner, there's an increase of 40% in sperm production. These men derive gratification from and are sexually aroused by the evident pleasure experienced by their significant other. Her vocalizations, body language, body fluids, and raptured movements, orgasm and abandon. Masochism is a prime motive for a minority of swingers and couples. They relish in their own agony as they watch their spouse hooking up with others. They experience envy, pain, anxiety, a sense of humiliation, an overpowering feeling of worthlessness and inadequacy, sinfulness, debauchery, depravity, and decadence. They all conspire to thrill the masochist and delight him. There's actually a subgenre of cockledry, where the cockled is humiliated by the woman and her lover. Literally, physically humiliated. Swinging is also a form of legitimized cheating. It spices up the stale sex lives of the players and neutralizes the emotional and financial risks and threats associated with furtive extramarital escapades. Many swingers adopt the lifestyle in order to alleviate boredom, counter-routine, realize sexual fantasies, learn new techniques, feel desirable and attractive once more, and cope with discrepancies in sex drive. They insist, swinging saved my marriage. Some swingers, and especially cockled swingers, use the lifestyle to display or exhibit their partners, casting their partners as desired and desirable trophies, or status symbols, hot wife. My wife is a hot wife. Others present may sexually sample the wife, but they never own the wife. It's a form of restricted access, which causes her suitors much envy and frustrations. I am the one, the cockled says, I am the one who ends up going home with her. The swinger brags this way, swingers brag this way.  In this way they reaffirm their own irresistibility and attractiveness. It's like a choice is made. She has two men and she chooses the swinger. The lifestyle is a roller coaster of serial relationships, mostly with strangers. It is therefore thrilling, risky and exciting, and provokes anxiety, romantic jealousy and guilt for having dragged the partner into the lifestyle or for not having restrained her or him. There is also a recurrent fear of losing the partner, owing to a growing emotional or sexual bond with one of her casual F-bodies or friends with benefits. Swinging results in an adrenaline rush. It's a high and in addictive periods of calm after these self-inflicted psychosexual storms. Actually, the fact is, men push women to participate in thrissons, swinging in group sex, but it is women who then persist and insist to continue. They feel liberated. They feel empowered. They feel they're in control and they make the choices. In the vast majority of cases, the woman decides who would be the third party sexual partner. There's a tiny minority of cases where swingers compel or coerce or threaten each other and force upon them total strangers. Swinging calls for the objectification of sexual partners. Many swingers prefer to remain anonymous in settings like lifestyle retreats or group sex and orgies. These people are reduced to genitalia and erogenous zones and meshed in autoerotic and narcissistic acts of masturbatory gratification with other people's bodies as mere props. Women reported experiencing a new sense of empowerment and mastery, as they can finally dictate the terms and conditions of sexual encounters. They pick and choose partners and they realize either to suppress sexual fantasies. Other practitioners actually prefer to swing only with close friends, using sex as a form of intimacy enhancing recreation and cohesion. So the sex forces them together. It reminds me that for example in ancient Greece and in ancient Macedonia, homosexuality was encouraged among soldiers because it bonded them together. It created unit cohesion. Neudity has a pronounced static damage and when multiple naked bodies intertwine, the combination can amount to or covert a flesh and blood throbbing sculpture at tableau vivant. Many swingers find sex to be the most supreme form of artistic experience and interconnectedness that enhances empathy and communication and provides extreme sensual pleasure. Frankly, swinging and so on is great fun. The ultimate in entertainment, when novelty and familiarity merge to yield a unique journey with each new entrant. But you say, what's the connection between cuckold rain cheating? Isn't when the cuckold witnesses his intimate partner with another, isn't it cheating? Doesn't he feel cheated upon? Is it possible to cheat on a cuckold, a man who gets off on watching his woman make out or copulate with other men? Of course it's possible to cheat on a cuckold. When the cuckold is not informed of his partner's dalliance with another man, or when, having been informed, he withholds his consent, he says no. Anything his partner does amounts to cheating and the emotional reaction is the same. There are even absurd situations where a woman has sex with another man and there's no problem with that. Because it's with consent and the cuckold is there and he's watching, he's aroused and he gets something out of it. And then the next day she kisses that man. No sex, just kissing. And there's an almighty row where the cuckold feels cheated upon. He feels that she betrayed his trust.  He reacts exactly like a normal person would react to cheating. Many cuckolds insist on being present during the sex, actively participating in it, directing the scene, placing strict boundaries on permissible behaviors, what you can and cannot do to my wife, and controlling a lot of what goes on.  A little jealousy is inevitable, but if the act produces seriously negative emotions, then it's cheating. The act has to be negotiated, has to be agreed to well in advance, has to be, the consent has to be detailed, what can and cannot be done. There are cues, there are key words, there are safe words which terminate the process. It is voluntary on both sides. It's not presented as a shocking and humiliated, feta-complete. There's very little in common between cuckoldry and cheating. Cheating involves the heartbreaking and disorientating loss of trust or into deception and betrayal. The cheating party also mourns the intimacy his partner seemed to have found with another person, and none of these happen in well-regulated lifestyle of swinging and cuckoldry. There are many non-cuckoldry, non-swinging relationships where cheating is incorporated into the fabric of the relationship. Some relationships are characterized by a degree of laissez-faire and freedom that border on emotional absenteeism, neglect and abandon. Both members of such couples lead separate lives, they mind their own business, they rarely inquire about the others whereabouts. Don't ask, don't tell, is the ruling regulating principle. And the reason the members of such couples grunt each other such latitude is because one of them is a co-dependent with extreme abandonment anxiety, and the other is a histrionic, a compensatory narcissist, or more rarely a borderline who wants to be dumped by her intimate partner and preemptively abandons it. I discussed this in my recent series about borderline women. And so when such a partner is dumped, she feels good and relieved, even elated for two reasons. First of all, it validates her view of herself as a bad and worthless object, usually the main message of the introjects, the inner voices inside her. This partner has been told in childhood that she is bad, she is corrupt, she is no good. And being dumped by the intimate partner validates that, tells her that it's true. Her inner voice is a sadistic, narcissistic, the mother probably was sadistic, narcissistic. Her role model, her teachers, her peers, I know, but she seeks, her entire life is an attempt to validate and confirm what these voices are saying. And the second reason she feels relief is because being dumped prevents intimacy.  Being dumped puts an end to this trait, so they push the partners to dump them by being avoidant, passive aggressive, plain aggressive and verbally abusive. If, no matter what they do, no matter what they try, their partners keep loving them, they actually feel deeply frustrated.  People with certain personality disorders, mainly borderline, narcissistic, compulsive, obsessive, schizotypal, paranoid, these people have what we call a persecutory object. It is a tormenting, devaluing and sadistic inner voice, introject. It repeatedly and authoritatively informs them that they are bad, worthless, weak, immoral and a disappointment in general. Such an inner critic, a relentless, integrated prosecutor and judge, is of course intolerable. In an attempt to exorcise it, the patient projects it, usually onto an intimate partner, the spouse, mate or lover, then become the outer embodiment or reification of the internal agonising construct. The patient tries to coerce and shoehorn the intimate partner into behaving in a way that upholds his newfound status as an enemy and a threat. This defence mechanism is known as projective identification. If the intimate partner has his own issues, he will comply in his assigned, newly assigned role. He will transform himself into an abuser and this is known as introjective identification. The patient then proceeds to rebel against her externalised persecutory object, her intimate partner. She starts to punish him, she starts to defy him, by behaving, for example, promiscuously, by cheating, being a slut or whore. By envying and sabotaging her partner's career, by possibly aggressively challenging and provoking him, humiliating, rejecting and undermining his well-being, his self-esteem. Compromising his public image, standing in society, penalising him in a myriad other ways, but what matters to our conversation is that sometimes the lifestyle, swinging, threesome, cockledry, they are integrated into this dynamic. The borderline spouse or mate or partner pushes her intimate partner to force her to become a slut. She wants him to coerce her into orgies or threesons or swinging. She pushes his buttons so that he becomes the abuser that she wants him to become. Naturally, such a person then expects some kind of penalty. She understands that she had misbehaved. For example, if she pushed her partner and they ended up having a threesome and her partner is devastated by the threesome. He's not an inbred, he's not a built-in or a natural cacoon, but he was pushed into cockledry or he was pushed into a threesome by his borderline partner. And so he's devastated. And the patient feels that the borderline partner espoused feels that she had misbehaved. And she expects a penalty commensurate with her egregious misbehavior. She becomes paranoid, hyper-vigilant and exceedingly anxious. And these dissonant emotions only augment her perception of the intimate partner as a source of unmitigated sadistic control and judgment. An imminent and omnipresent threat, the fount of ambivalence, love, hate, relationship.  We all seek love, or at least companionship, but some of us dread these things even as they look for them. Even as we look for them, we dread them. And this is called ambivalence. The intimacy of verse members of a dyad will both make sure to travel alone a lot, keep exhaustively, exhaustingly busy.  All these to destroy any possibility for intimacy and any nascent intimacy. Living together creates intimacy and genders intimacy automatically. But most importantly, they abuse and sadistically torment each other and very often cuckoldry and lifestyle swinging are used for these purposes as a weapon. But why the compelling need to hurt the partner? The obvious answer is that abuse and intimacy are mutually exclusive. In an abusive relationship, there is little risk of intimacy and lots of risk of avoidance. But there are two additional reasons. One, people with fear of intimacy have intense and overpowering emotions of shame and guilt.  They force their mates to abuse them. I mentioned before, projective and introjective identification. And the second reason is that abuse legitimizes and justifies cheating. Simply. If you're abused, it's okay for you to cheat. It legitimizes adultery and infidelity and extra marital dalliances. He's abusing me, so he deserves what I'm doing to him. Sex addicts, adrenaline junkies like psychopaths, labile people with emotional dysregulation, borderline and histrionic personality disorder and somatic noses. They're all in need of sexual novelty and call some caucus to regulate and stabilize their sense of self-worth, self-confidence and self-esteem. So these kinds of partners need abuse is an excuse. Of course I'm promiscuous and I'm cheating on my partner all the time with many others. But it is all his fault. He's abusing, rejecting, mistreating and humiliating. She deserves her punishment and I need to feel desired, wanted, loved and careful. Again.  Before I continue, today we increasingly reconceive of borderline personality disorder as a form of secondary psychopathy in females, in women. Women borderline is most probably a female variant of psychopathy, secondary psychopathy. I have a whole video dedicated to this. So what happens when a male narcissist targets borderline or a now tri-female psychopath as his source of secondary narcissistic supply as his so-called intimate partner? He ends up being traumatized by her. But why and how? The psychopath challenges and obliterates the narcissist grandiose self-perceptions and assumptions. She challenges and obliterates his fantasy of being unique, being special to her. The psychopath's promiscuity, risk-seeking reckless behaviors and addictions to novelty and thrills, rendered the narcissist just one of her many sexual conquests. She's an adrenaline junkie. She needs him and she needs many others. Nobody is a member. He's a statistic. She never gets emotionally attached to him. She never misses him. To her, he's just another notch in her belt, a mere casualty of her teasing power plays with men. A roadkill or at best a preferred option that failed. He is soon forgotten as she moves on. She literally raises him within minutes. She cheats on him as she had done to all her previous men. The narcissist believes in his unique ability to detect lying and he takes pride in his intelligence and resistance to being duped. But narcissists are very gullible. The psychopathic female uses the narcissist's thirst for narcissistic supply. She manipulates the narcissist with half-truths and outright lies. She tells the narcissist what he wants to hear. She flatters the narcissist, rewrites her own history to render the narcissist a unique rescuer. She deceives the narcissist repeatedly. She appeals to his grandiosity. She fakes everything, from emotions, through tears, to orgasms. And the narcissist laps it up, locks talk and barrels. He gets taken in. And when he discovers the truth, his grandiosity is shattered beyond reconstruction. And finally, the narcissist holds himself to be irresistible. But the psychopath is not interested in him. She's goal-oriented. She wants his money, his contacts, his protection, his prestige, something. She's a gold digger or social climber. He's a sugar daddy. She slips away to the top. When the narcissist finds out that he had been merely used and abused as an instrument, he is wounded to the quick. And all these narcissistic injuries often evolve into a form of ruminative obsession or stalking as the narcissist tries in vain to integrate the painful experiences into his view of himself, his grandiose view of himself, as godlike, omniscient and desirable. The psychopathic woman bolder lies in most cases. Gives the narcissist a taste of his own medicine.  Enter cacoldry and swinging. The narcissist uses cacoldry, swinging, group sex and other forms of objectifying sex to distance his intimate partner. It's like she is not my intimate partner. I'm merely an observer and specter.  By distancing her, he takes away her weapons. She has no power over him. He proves to her and more importantly to himself that he is not attached to her, that there's no bond and therefore she cannot hurt him. Never mind what she does. Actually he preempts her inevitable cheating and ineluctable transition to other partners. He preempts it by introducing these other partners into the relationship. Abinicio from the beginning. It's his way of co-opting, compromising and preempting her weapons in this eternal power play and war that is a relationship between narcissists and psychopaths or narcissists and borderlines. And so lifestyle, swinging, cacoldry in these relationships has a function of estrangement, of alienation, of rendering the partners each other's gratification objects. Let's clear up some misconceptions. If the members of a couple are having sex only with others, it is not an open marriage or an open relationship. It's legitimized cheating. One of our partners is usually co-dependent and gives in to the other's blackmail, allows her to cheat on him. Such a so-called open relationship is about clinging, control in an inter-couple power matrix and power plane. In swinging, if one of the parties is passive and just observes his partner having sex with others, she or he is a co-queen or cacold, not a lifestyle swinger. Swinging requires the full participation and interaction of everyone involved. Spouse swapping is a form of swinging that involves actually cacoldry. If the parties lie and deceive each other about their whereabouts and their activities, they're being unfaithful, end of story, even if they have an open marriage and a relationship. Don't ask, don't tell, means no questions asked, but also no lies told. The problem with cacoldry and swinging is that sometimes it devolves into cheating. Sometimes the intimate partner gets attached to her bull or lover or third party that she had met. It's very rare to jump into bed straight away. You have a few coffees, you have a few dinners and you have a few meals, you eat, you talk, you get intimate. There's intimacy generated. And so there's a risk where there's intimacy, there's a risk of abandonment and loss and rejection. And the problem is that it gets easier with time. First-time transgressions, cheating on your spouse, doing drugs, whatever, involve emotional preparedness, being bored or frustrated, possessing a lower rousal or no boredom threshold, a psychopath, for example. But so you need to be emotionally prepared to cheat. You need to be disinhibited. You need to overcome your guilt and shame, owing to peer pressure, socialization, environment. So you go into a foreign city, you drink alcohol, you change the setting, change the ambience somehow, trying to overcome, trying to disinhibit. Another thing you need in first-time transgressions, so first-time transgression, you need to be emotionally prepared, you need to disinhibit, overcome guilt and shame. You need to lose your impulse control, you need to be impulsive. And you need to make a cognitive choice, go for it or go and get it. This is the first time. The second time is totally different. After the first time, cheating became a habit with practice moves. Habituation often leads to addiction, a form of compulsion. A confluence of physiological and psychological factors conspire to render the newly formed behavior a pattern, the thrill of the illicit or the dangerously risky and reckless, self-destructiveness or masochism. Cheating is often used to achieve self-trashing, self-punishment. Affirmation of oneself as bed and worthy object, as a hole, as a slot. And of course the bodily effects of such actions, they all conspire to habituate cheating. The more one engages in swinging three sons, group sex, orgies, cuckoldry, the more your intimate partner is habituated to being with other men or being with other women. And this habituation is very dangerous, because it easily exits the agreed framework. There are two types of habits, intensive and extensive. Intensive habits like smoking or binging on food or libation. Intensive habits cater to and satisfy a limited array of needs and cravings, predilections and proclivities, pathologies and wishes. They're easier to dispense with. But extensive habits like cheating or antisocial conduct, they're very different to get rid of because they gratify and satisfy the totality of the personality. Its quirks, its idiosyncrasies, its deepest needs. The serial cheater, the serial adulterer brings into play every aspect and dimension of who she or he is. Only a miracle can slow her down. Same goes for the drug addict, pathological gambler, alcoholic, shopaholic, I mean anyholic. These are deep set entrenched behaviors. Finally, we come to the question of cockles, swingers and in the pathological end of the spectrum, psychopathic narcissists. Why all these people need to be in a couple? Why do they need at all to have intimate partners? Why do, for example, narcissists seek intimacy if they find it so stifling and reprehensible? Why do they get married if the marital bond feels more like a prison? Why do they commit love-bomb, love-bomb court propose if all the time they experience themselves as hostages within a growing attachment? Typically they end up ghosting, undermining the intimacy, cheating, deceiving, lying and becoming passive-aggressive or even aggressive outright. But why go through this cycle countless times? It also happens a lot with swingers and couples. People pursue intimacy because it feels wonderful to be unchecked and freed from the demands of an intimate relationship. Breaking up induces in the narcissist and intoxicating an addictive manic euphoria. The narcissist seeks closeness and commitment in order to renege withdrawal and undermine them. When he cheats on his spouse, when he absents himself from her life, when he dumps her, he feels omnipotent, he feels thrilled, he feels elated and liberated. Suddenly, even the sky is not the limit. The narcissist's ideal romantic partner is someone who colludes in this approach avoidance repetition compulsion by embracing him and restoring the full intimacy every time he returns from his forest of destructive or obstructive independence. She herself may engage in the very same behaviors, out of the very same reasons. She may have an all-pervasive dread of true love, companionship and togetherness. These couples are like two magnets, sometimes with the opposite poles, so they attract, sometimes with the same poles, so they reject each other. Relationships between men and women are at an all-time nadir and they begin to border on open hostility and hatred. But people remain married to cheating spouses. That's a fact. Adultery is rarely given as a cause in divorce cases, for example. And they keep bringing children to the world. Children is the ultimate manifestation of intimacy. Majority of swinging couples and majority of couples have children together. That's a fact. How come? If you don't want to go single, it is rational to choose to stay with your current cheating partner. There is a 56% chance that your next partner will also cheat on you and there is a 73% chance that your second marriage will end up in a divorce. Cheating and deception are the new normal. Trust a thing of the distant past. Marriages have become zero-sum wrestling matches, hence, prenups and the bargaining industries of couple therapists, divorce attorneys and mediators. Intimacy is such a primordial and basic need that when deprived of it for prolonged periods of time, they are given to despotants. And they seek substitutes, even in small doses. They can't tolerate aloneness. Many people can tolerate loneliness and even like it, but there are precious few who can tolerate aloneness. Actually, the precious few who can tolerate aloneness, they are considered to be a mental health pathology, schizoate personality disorder. But people can't find real intimacy. They can't. Swinging in the lifestyle of kakoldri imitate real intimacy. They combine total tolerance and openness. Like, I'll give you the gift of another person. I'll give you the gift of another man or another woman. Indeed, many cases of kakoldri and swinging are presented as birthday gifts. I'm giving a birthday gift to my husband. I brought him a beautiful woman. So, combination of openness, tolerance and love on the one hand and extreme intimacy on the other. Because truly there are very few experiences which generate such deep abiding intimacy as watching your intimate partner with another man. That's her. That's her ultimate and total profound intimacy. And she had invited you as a privileged witness. There's nothing more intimate than this. So, instant intimacy, fake intimacy, simulated intimacy and transient intimacy all nowadays preferred to know intimacy at all. And hence the skyrocketing incidence of casual sex and the pervasiveness of dating and cheating apps. Intimacy with anyone who so ever is vastly better, vastly preferable to know intimacy whatsoever. When staffed for intimacy people comb themselves into shared psychosis with others. Abuse substances to doubt their senses and remove inhibitions. They somatize intimacy. They use sex to feel intimate. They reframe intimacy, for example by joining cults or by becoming members of reference groups. In extreme cases of recurrent failures to generate intimacy people resort to self intimacy a solipsistic and schizoid attempt to become their own best friends and companions in lieu of frustrating objects out there. The self intimate glorify aloneness within an ideology of personal autonomy, agency and self sufficiency. They purport to be totally self efficacious. They interpret feeling lonely and the need for significant others as weaknesses of character and they zealously castigate both the forms both as forms of social control. They say that feeling lonely and the need for significant others are weaknesses and they are forms of social control. They are chauvinism, patriarchy, feminism, you have all movements like meek Tao and so on that essentially glorify aloneness or independence from the other sex. Narcissistic self intimates conflate separateness with uniqueness and accomplishment. So they would say I am totally self sufficient. That makes me unique. That is my accomplishment. To some people intimacy is like kryptonite both sought after and feared and the result is an intricate and crazy making dance dubbed approach avoidance repetition compulsion. And another aspect of this ambivalence is what I call the menu scraps dichotomy. Those who truly seek intimacy want the entire menu of interpersonal togetherness from intensive talking to romanticized sex. The intimacy challenge make do and are fully satisfied with scraps. They feel threatened and overwhelmed by the totality of the intimacy menu. They get by on occasional snippets of talk on rare sex and swathes of personal space and time apart. So there are people who regard intimacy as a five course sumptuous French dinner and people who regard intimacy as a fast food hamburger. The two types are utterly incompatible. They make each other profoundly unhappy yet oddly they are inexorably attracted to each other. The two types are utterly incompatible. They make each other profoundly unhappy yet oddly they are inexorably attracted to each other. The menu types, the French dinner types are parental fixes by nature. And the scraps people, the people who regard intimacy as a fast food in and out thing, they crave the unbridled and unconditional intimacy preferred by their antithesis and they dread it. So mixed couples, mixed couples, those who need lots of intimacy in all its forms of intimacy, they invariably end up in a mushroom cloud of agonizing mayhem and unmitigated catastrophe. They may drive each other to insanity and suicide and at the very least subject one another to excruciating pain as the menu person tries to alter and modify the scraps or the fast food person and the fast food person withdraws further and further and resorts to desperate measures such as cheating or reckless behaviors that are irreversible and revered to pristine lawness. It is the fast food person in the couple who would push for disintimacy and one of the major ways to disintimate is swinging or cockledry. Force your partner to watch you with other people. Force your partner to watch you with other people, something gets broken, something irreversible and our immersed in intimacy. Coming back to the issue of kids, I mentioned that everyone in, most people swinging, most wingers and cockles have children. That includes psychopathic narcissists. Why have kids with someone you cannot stand, the opposite sex? Because of the signaling value of having kids. Parentalty is used to send a series of messages to oneself and to one's social milieu as they are. I am a proper man. I am a proper woman. I am not a psychosexual or social deviant. I am not a pervert. I am normal. I conform to the values and mores of my society. And so many closet gays, closet homosexuals, they get married as a cover, kind of. You see, I am married, proof that I had existed. I am not immature, I am not selfish, I am responsible, functional, adult. Kids are used as a currency in transactional marriages, as a way for the men to exert control of the woman and inhibit her behaviors and as a way for the woman to bind the men to her and to her offspring as a form of financial annuity. Last issue is the issue of our visceral reaction to emotionless sex.  They're on the verge of puking. Why this visceral reaction? Why they, because, you see, all animal species practice sex without intimacy or emotions. Human beings are a very advanced animal, but still an animal. I mean, why not human beings? What's the problem? Why this linkage between sex and emotion? Where did it come from? Is it a biological, psychological reality? Physiological reality, or is it an invention? For example, of the Victorian era or the age when we created monogamy in order to secure the paternity, maybe we came up with the invention of monogamy, one man, one woman, to make sure the woman doesn't cheat and have children with others and to make sure that our property and wealth go to the right the successors, heirs and recipients.  Maybe it was invented by men to subjugate women exactly as radical feminists are suggesting.   That's very true. And some of these hormones are also involved in attachment and bonding, oxytocin, others. That's also true. All this is true. But so what? The same hormones are involved in numerous other reactions, for example breastfeeding. So the hormonal evidence is a societal edict. It should not have sex without emotions and a lot more like something that benefits men. These men allow themselves for millennia to have sex without emotions. Prostitutes cater to men, mostly. So why the righteous brew a heart about it? First of all, there's the issue of species. Humans are supposed to be superior to animals. We should never give in to our animal nature. We should transcend it. It is a form of grandiosity. It is a form of religious teaching starting with Genesis. Then there's the issue of conflating and confusing lust and love. Emotional intimacy with physical intimacy.    It involves intimacy, of course. There's no such thing as sex without intimacy.  But it involves a highly restrictive type of intimacy. Being in love is very glorified in Western culture. And so we are in love with infatuation itself. We're addicted to falling in love. Some people fall in love with their sexual partners after one night stand. This complicates matters. It leads to heartbreak that is best avoided altogether. And so that's why we frown upon casual sex because it can lead to a mismatch of expectations and heartbreak.  It's a standard practice now. Hookup culture. Among those born after 1995, it's the primary and sometimes exclusive sexual activity. That's bad news. It's extremely bad news. It may affect their ability to form meaningful intimate relationships. The jury is still out of this one but it stands to reason. It definitely predisposes the members of these generations to regard sex as nothing more significant than any other bodily function and to be more prone to cheating. Cheating is indeed dramatically up among both genders. Reckless sexual behaviors are also linked to substance abuse in such settings. But if having sex is no different to eating food and you allow yourself to have food with men who are not your husband and with women who are not your wife, why not have sex with them?  The very concept of cheating is diluted by casual sex to nothingness. It was meaningless, is the common phrase. The preponderance of emotional sex is a problem, not the act itself. And this is equally true in swinging and in cacoldry. There's no value judgment of swinging in cacoldry. There's only the worry which is not dramatically. There's a book been published I think two years ago. A billion wicked thoughts, stunning, amazing masterpiece. They analyze one billion search terms on Google. Search words, keywords on Google. And they discover that cacoldry is one of the most popular actually search terms in Google. Cacoldry is becoming very normative and very, very widespread anywhere between three to five percent, three to five percent of all couples exercise swinging. There are no statistics about cacoldry and cacoldry and swinging are not coterminous. Very few swingers are actually cacolds and very few who although all cacolds technically swing but very few swingers are cacolds so you have to add it's additive. I would say that about ten percent of couples are in open marriage, open relationship, exercise cacoldry and exercise swinging.  And without meaningful relationships we are all atoms atoms in the wind. We are bereft. We are in a constant state of mourning without the other. We are not self-sufficient animals. We are zone-political as a isotelescope. We are social animals and in the absence of intimacy and the absence of meaningful others, significant others we find no solace. We grieve. We grieve until we die.


Everybody for us here ripping 2022 origins football hobby 16 bucks full case number six random divisions You can always find these results late in sports cards calm There's a Lincoln chat. Thanks for joining everybody best of luck DJ more Jalen hurts Remondres Stevenson 37 of 99 AFC East and for the NFC East Cadarius Tony 1 to 41 of 299 AFC East rookie patch James Cook 43 of 75 AFC North rookie auto Kyle Hamilton on Card non-numbered and NFC north Vilish Jones jr. Orange RPA 50 of 75. Oh, man Tying run is at first Here we go. Come on Segura tg. Hawkinson rookie Kyle Hamilton a FC north The NFC West James Conner 22 of 75 and for the AFC South Niko Collins 94 of 99 AFC West Jersey card Austin Echler 14 of 99 from Colorado Springs NFC East rookie auto Wanda Robinson and NFC West Tyrion Davis Price rookie Jersey Auto Deandre Swift we got Kenny Pickett rookie variation AFC North Trevor Lawrence AFC South 99 of 99 and NFC East AJ Brown 31 of 299 NFC North Jersey Deandre Swift 99 of 99 Billy That's a run Let's go. Oh, here we go. Let's go filly top line up coming up to AFC South rookie auto Hassan Haskins 15 of 25 And AFC North David Bell rookie Jersey Auto green impressly Bring the closer for a potential five out save Dusty wants to win Najiris Kyler Murray got Rams Aaron Donald NFC West 95 of 199 and AFC South Etn 39 of 299 NFC North three color patch Darnell Mooney Edel or no 13 of 49 Darnell Mooney Who's Jimmy Sigs illegal? Who's that? AFC South rookie auto blue Hassan Haskins 5 of 49 and AFC South Alec Pierce rookie Jersey Auto jeans and jeans the girls Jimmy Sigs How do you get that nickname Najee AFC South rookie Damian Pierce NFC North Almond Ross St. Brown 40 of 50 and NFC North Justin Jefferson 26 of 199 a Nike swoosh of trail on Birks. I do not know Daniel truly CD lamb Jersey card 59 of 99 NFC East AFC South rookie auto Trevon Walker I was gonna say what is he like smoking Sigs in the in the locker room like Len Dawson or something after the Super Bowl And NFC North Romeo Dobbs rookie Jersey Auto because I'd be pretty epic just ripping Sigs So he's bad for you guys Unfortunately looks cool Oh Man family friendly smoking bad Gabriel Davis AJ Brown you got AFC East Elijah Moore 15 of 75 Got NFC West George Kittle 171 72 of 199 didn't know what my number is for a second there AFC East patch car Josh Allen 20 of 49 from Fireball California's hours as Fireball Get a George Pickins rookie on car auto AFC North John met you the third rookie Jersey Auto AFC South Brad hasn't been breaking for a while He's working less taking time off. You know There's some IT here and there Yeah, we tried Daniel. Yes, I don't know about the Birks the Birks swoosh. It's still like I don't know Everything's kind of the market still kind of establishing itself at this point origins It starts to establish a little more though with orange and certified coming out recently Carson strong rookie for the NFC East fall by a length slate Erin Rogers NFC North Bucks NFC South Leonard for net 102 of 299 and AFC West Josh Jacobs 120 of 199 AFC North rookie patch David Bell 9 of 49. Yeah, origins is great AFC East rookie signatures type one Thornton 85 out of 99 and then FC South rookie patch auto Desmond Ritter Come on Schwerber Come on Schwerber. Yeah, Tyreek Hill rookie Calvin Austin the third AFC North Got my home's AFC West 43 of 75 and Texans Davis Mills 25 out of 199 AFC East Dan Marino Jersey car number 98 of 99. Maybe we'll go in here for you soon Charlie Mleek Willis AFC South rookie on card auto nice hit AFC South Sweet Willis interior Davis Price rookie Jersey Auto NFC West Still a half case left DK rookie AFC South Alec Pierce NFC West DeAndre Hopkins 97 of 299 NFC South Camara black one-of-one There you go, Charlie Black one-of-one Alvin Camara See told you only happy to the case AFC East rookie patch card Garrett Wilson 131 of 199 NFC West rookie auto Kenneth Walker the third on card a NFC West And redemption go into the NFC East rookie Jersey auto one-dale Robinson NFC East Giants on the one-dale terrible.  Wow Bullet right to him destroyed that ball too That man Cini that is isn't it? Wow, man That was a screamer He hit it hard enough just Directly at the first baseman. I'm his car breaks. They change quick all the time Chris Carson rookie variation Mleek Willis the AFC South NFC was DK 251 of 299 NFC was James Conner 34 of 75 NFC North rookie patch a Hutchinson 47 of 49. So you get you like a ridder or like a like a London Rookie auto Trey McBride NFC West and Aidan Hutchinson 68 of 75 orange RPA NFC North three-color patch Origin is always nice This year no exception at all Again, everybody personals are full tonight group breaks are sold out We only have two more to do after this one. We'll get on to personals one-on-one basketball release in tomorrow NFC North James and Williams rookie NFC West lock it to And NFC North AJ Dillon to 299 rookie jumbo patch NFC South Desmond a Ritter 58 of 99 On the Ritter John Matchy the third rookie auto AFC South and redemption Damian Pierce AFC South rookie jumbo patch auto red to 99 AFC South is so good in this Geez five more And a recap I Want to see one of those huge like dual auto or triple autos. I haven't we haven't seen one yet Tough hits, but pretty sick to pull one Jefferson rookie NFC South Drake London NFC North AJ Dillon 11 of 199 and AFC North Mark Andrews 24 of 299 AFC North again rookie patch card George Pickens 180 of 199 NFC South rookie auto blue Matt Corral 31 of 49 Quarterback hit for the NFC South Redemption AFC North rookie jumbo Jersey auto Kyle Hamilton Ravens AFC North Cook and Carson NFC North Kirk Cousins to 199 AFC East gave Davis to 49 to 299 AFC East rookie jumbo jerseys Breeze Hall 52 of 99 AFC East rookie on-card auto base James Cook AFC South again Hassan Haskins rookie jumbo patch auto. That was like the sweet spot little dribbler Marquise Brown Derek Carr we got James Winston NFC South 98 of 99 and AFC East Two up to 299 AFC East Zach Wilson patch card 22 of 49 I know This is a random divisions break rookie auto for the AFC East Eric Izucanma and NFC South RPA Chris Olavae 3 of 99 Sweet Olavae crushing it now Charlie Very well with an NFC South Actually, we'll make this one. That's a sweet one number to love it at 99 A book let's save the book for the last one save the book Almost saving the book Winston Elliott's NFC South Tom Brady 11 of 50 God AFC South Derek Henry 64 of 99 NFC North Christian Watson 45 of 199 AFC West rookie auto sky more and AFC East a breeze Hall rookie jumbo Jersey auto All right, last one's got a book in it Last one's got a book AFC East the font digs 289 of 299 in NFC West Cooper Cup 26 of 199 NFC West Jersey can't make your 36 of 99 NFC North Vealish Jones Jr. Rookie jumbo patch 46 of 49 book AFC South 1 of 49 Malik Willis Traylon Berks dual patch auto book Eric R with the AFC South What a hit What a hit 1 of 49 Berks and Willis Gorgeous card three colors on each patch on card for both Berks and Willis Calvin Austin the third Ricky Jersey auto AFC North on the back How's it do a lot of right there? Is that the first one I pulled it might be All right, so we'll start the recap with that so I can have Sean pack it away nicely 1 of 49 Berks and Willis Okay, I'll be the first one of the biggest of the break if not the biggest I have to say with with Willis and Berks As they as they sit right now a single first and third looks like again All right, so I'm gonna call out team and and a player here Chasmacormick Bears Vealish Jones Jr. Got cam makers. I'm just gonna call a player actually Christian Watson Zach Wilson Reese Hall George Pickens Desmond Ritter Aidan Hutchinson Garrett Wilson Dan Marino You had a mouthful get that ground ball David Bell and Aaron Rogers on the case hit blank slate Josh Allen CD lamb Darnall Mooney DeAndre Swifts Austin Eckler James Cook Autos now so some patch autos some on-card autos Calvin Austin the third Skymore Breeze Hall Erickie Zucanma Hassan Haskins James Cook AFC North Kyle Hamilton rookie Jersey Auto Redemption Matt Corral to 49 AOC South Redemption Damian Pierce RPA Redton 99 that'll be a sick one John Mets you the third Aidan Hutchinson RPA to 75 Trey McBride Wanda Robinson redemption NFC East Kenneth Walker the third Terry and Davis Price Malik Willis on card Desmond Ritter Tike one Thornton John Mets you the third George Pickens on the on-card Romeo Dobbs Trevon Walker Alec Pierce Hassan Haskins David Bell Hassan Haskins to 25 that time Tyrion Davis Price Wanda Robinson Willis Jones Jr. RPA to 75 Kyle Hamilton and then two Magikars both for the same division NFC South Chris Olavi RPA to 99 and one-of-one Alvin Kamara That is sick black one-of-one pretty much a color match for the Saints, right? Pretty much that's gonna do it. Thanks everybody. We've got the Jersey breakup next


So we have been looking at how this flame stabilization happens and essentially what basically means is you have a linearly increasing velocity profile but you also now have a flame speed that continues to decrease from the value of SL0 and it decreases because of the heat loss to the burner as one of the effects and the other effect is the dilution from the ambient for like let us say we are looking the fuel rich sorry I am sorry fuel lean flame and therefore if you now have a air that is coming in and diluting this it is going to decrease the SL further and you have to keep in mind that as you now get closer to the burner the decrease in the flame speed is going to be more because of the heat loss and less because of the dilution as you go further away from the burner if the flame goes further away from the burner the decrease in the SL is going to be more due to dilution and less due to heat loss right and that that is actually the effect along this direction the other way to look at it is also the radial direction as you now go closer to the as the flame stands closer to the burner the heat loss is more and the mixing field is actually quite narrow between the premix mix reactants and the diluting ambient gas whereas as you go further out you can now actually have the premix mixture going further out into the into the mixing zone and the flame can actually establish itself further and further out and what we are basically looking for is like a leading edge of the flame which is having a slow perpendicular to the flow where the SL has to match the velocity directly and what we are basically looking for is a condition where the SL has to the local SL has to match the local you since the you is also increasing linearly what we should be looking for is a condition where the local SL matches the local you and so the flame stabilization condition is locally we need to have this matching to be satisfied then what we look for is to two occurrences what happens when this condition cannot be satisfied in two ways one if you now progressively keep on decreasing your flow velocity right or progressively keep on increasing the reactivity may be by changing the mixture mixture stoichiometry towards the stoichiometric mixture so that the flame speed keeps increasing for the same flow velocity so in one one case what we are looking for is a relative decrease of flow velocity with respect to the flame speed or relative increase of the flame speed with respect to the flow velocity in which case the flame has a progressive tendency towards establishing itself closer to the burner and ultimately you are going to get to a situation where it cannot be held at the burner room anymore it wants to propagate even further in and that is actually situation corresponding to flashback the second situation is where we now do the opposite we just we now try to progressively increase the velocity relative to the flame speed or progressively decrease the flame speed by maybe going to leaner and leaner mixtures for the same flow velocity and that is going to have a tendency for the flame to actually get established further and further out stabilized get further and further out and at some point it cannot be stabilized anymore and then it starts blowing blowing off right so you have two such limits of flame stabilization two limits of flame stabilization or one is flashback the other one is blow off right so here what is happening is progressively we say progressively for a reason that I will explain soon SL becomes less than UL and here progressively U becomes greater than SL right so let us look at the flashback situation so what we are saying here is let us suppose that you had a you had a velocity contour that is a velocity profile that is going like this with respect to x which is r-r that is the x coordinate that is measured radially inward from the burner rim and what we want to think about is a match between a limit limit match between you so this is you and SL so the SL basically you see what is going on the U increases linearly and the SL for most part of the radius of the burner is nearly constant at SL not and then it drastically decreases within a within a short region and then goes to 0 ultimately when you when you when you're needing when you're reaching the what's called as a flame edge right so we are looking for a match that would that would give rise to a situation when we now have U that is at the most equal to SL now what happens is if you know if you now try to decrease your velocity you are now going to not be able to actually satisfy this match anymore and you're you're you're now going to have a condition where that is supposed to SL and now going to have a condition where the U decreases and that leads to your flashback right on the other hand if you now try to actually have a higher velocity then this is actually the condition for flame stabilization at the rim at the most and any decrease in velocity is now going to actually induce a flashback but if you now try to increase the velocity further it's now going to progressively starting to have a flame stabilization little bit away from the flame effort from the burner right and so increase so decrease in velocity below the value for the U slope to be tendential to SL leads to flashback any increase in velocity on the other hand leads to flame stabilization above the burner rim that means to say at this particular condition the flame is stabilized at the rim and that's the most you can do to prevent flashback then what happens if you keep on increasing the velocity further and further right if you keep on increasing the velocity further and further we have seen what's what is likely to happen there the flame shapes itself in a way to adjust to the increasing velocity situation all right we have found that with a artificially simplified condition that zeta is equal to 0 at r equals capital R you could now say that the flame is going to be a conical shape of any angle depending upon the SL over U ratio so for a fairly wide range of use given a certain SL you can you can actually have a flame that is held pretty much near the rim without worrying about the details of how it is attached to the rim if you have to worry about it then you start seeing that it starts moving a little bit further away the edge of the flame starts moving away from the rim a little bit and progressively so how does it really adjust so if you now think about the situation there so this is your U so and this is like the jet boundary and let us suppose that we now look at three locations where the flame is stabilized progressively so you can say the flame is stabilized here here and here of course when you when you go further and farther the flame gets curved like the way we are talking about but what you talk what what you basically saying is let us look at these three conditions the way the adjustment happens is at a lower location you now have intense heat loss so the flame edge is actually more towards the the center when compared to the other way when you now have less heat loss and further location the flame can be prevalent more closer to the rim when come I mean radially when compared to if it is much closer to the rim axially therefore what happens is for the condition a your SL actually is 0 for quite a while and then increases and then you now have a flame stabilization condition that matches matches this if you now try to increase your velocity to a let us say a higher value the linearly increasing profile would increase this way and the flame now begins to actually so the flame speed now begins to increase in such a way that you now have the match happening over here what this basically means is of course looking at how this curve looks like maybe you should have drawn it with a slightly greater slope than what or lesser slope than what I have done but essentially what this means is when you now increase your velocity the flame is getting pushed up therefore the heat loss is less so what it basically means is if you now think about a situ a distance going a little bit away from the rim right you can see that the flame speed is beginning to rise sooner than the previous case and the reason for that was a decreased heat loss situation all right and then you could still continue to have that happen if you now think about another velocity where we are now increased but then you are really getting pushed to the corner beyond a point as you now get the flames flame speed to increase because of less heat loss you are progressively so this is actually a this is B this is C progressively you are going further and further away and then the other mechanism of the dilution trying to decrease the flame speed is going to come in so the rate of increase of this flame cannot actually happen so soon from the rim and there is a cap on how much it can increase that is the SL knot so beyond this point you cannot really have a further increase in velocity admitted by the flame right and this is a mechanism of destabilization of the flame leading to a blow off condition right so effectively the flame speed because of these two mechanisms of heat loss and dilution they combine together to adjust in order to match the flow speed locally as it is being increased over a fairly wide range but not beyond a point right and that is when you are going to have a blow off so in effect the flame stabilization condition the flame stabilization condition is that you need to have a SL equals SL equals U at G equals 0 minus that is to say just upstream of the flame the notation used previously and if you use now let us say say y is the distance the distance of the flame base above the burner then partial SL over partial U sorry partial y now should be greater than partial U over partial y G equals 0 minus again just upstream right so this is typically the condition that we are looking for when we have an equality so when dou SL over dou y equals dou U over dou y G equals 0 minus this leads to a blow off right what I would like to point out is one thing here blow off is not the same as extinction of the flame let us see what is going on when you are when you are having a blow off when you are having a blow off the SL is actually more quickly rising to its high value closer to the flame base okay so the flame base is shifted over to this point and the SL as we now go from the flame base sorry flame sorry burner room you are now having a more drastic increase in the SL this basically shows that when you are now getting closer to a blow off condition which is corresponding to the curve C the SL is actually pretty high and you are having a fairly intense burning of the flame base at blow off okay so blow off is a situation of intense burning of the flame base at blow off extinction is the opposite of this extinction is where you are progressively starving the flame of reactant mixture right so effectively the reactivity is coming down further and further and since you now have a heat loss situation and the dilution situation that further decreases the SL at the flame base so the flame base is the place where you are going to actually have the biggest hit on the intensity of burning for a for a extinction situation where on the whole the flame is being stopped of reactants and the reactivity is coming down the burning intensity is coming down it is going to actually be the worst at the flame base because of the heat loss and the dilution so burning so should use the right word there so opposite effect least intense flame base during extinction so putting these two together what we can see is there is a role for the velocity gradient to do in this flame stabilization so one way of looking at this is I look at it in both ways one is to actually look at the velocity itself because you have a condition here another way is to actually look at the velocity gradient you can look at it in both ways they give you slightly different pictures but not very different okay so they convey the same idea one you have a limit like this is this percentage fuel and let us suppose that this is d du star over dy where du star over dy corresponds to velocity gradient what at a flashback or blow off and so obviously we are looking at two limits one for flashback and another for for blow off so this is this is the flashback curve right and this is the blow off curve and in between the two you are going to have a stable flame right and see what is happening here the flashback curve is non-monotonic so it is it is increasing and then going back again that means you should now be able to actually look at two points for the same gradient and this is now a different percentage fuel at these two points right that simply means that you could rest you could restabilize the flame from a flashback situation either by going towards this region or that region flashback is all about having a higher flame speed when compared to the flow so if you now are in a below a certain velocity gradient for the flow then if you are now within this stoichiometric range you are going to have a higher flame speed and therefore you are going to flashback so you now enter a unstable region so you now can restabilize by either going in the direction of fuel rich or fuel lean because on both sides the flame flame speed is going to come down right so it is possible for us to restabilize either by going the fuel rich direction or the fuel rate fuel lean direction that is not the case with blow off the blow off does not look like a a non-monotonic curve it does not really curve back right so it is it keeps increasing what that basically means is as you are going richer and richer the flame is going to be relatively indefinitely stable against blow off that means it is not going to blow off it is only the lean flames there are actually susceptible to this why is it the case naturally because of what we pointed out last last time the dilution from the oxidizing ambience if you now have a fuel rich flame and the flame is getting further and further lifted away from the room because of a higher and higher velocity and a higher and higher velocity gradient consequently then you are going to have a mixing coming from the oxidizing ambience which is going to cause a locally towards stoichiometric kind of mixture and therefore the flame the burning is going to be more and more intense and therefore it is not really going to try to blow off you see so what this means is blow off is progressively difficult with the increasing fuel concentration right and because burning intensity burning intensity increases should particularly say at the flame base at the flame base increases there is another way of looking at this of course the question that you have to ask immediately is what if I actually burn this in an inert environment is it okay if I now have like let us say a nitrogen ambience in which I have a reactant mixture that is coming out through the burner right what happens then I am going to allow for a nitrogen to dilute through the sides regardless of whether it is fuel rich or fuel lean should I expect the blow off to actually be happening for fuel rich mixtures as well yes sure enough correct so there is a there is a different way by which we can look at that which is a broader stability map so to speak so here we just look at it in terms of velocity directly instead of velocity gradient the picture does not change significantly at least in a qualitative way so if you now plot fuel concentration on the x axis or the horizontal axis as opposed to the vertical axis the period earlier then let us now say we are somewhere in the stoichiometric somewhere here right that means all this is fuel rich then our flashback curve would be somewhere there right and maybe I should locate this a little bit further out relative to this curve and then you have a blow off curve that keeps going like that that is for an air ambience or an oxidizing ambience but if you had an inert ambience you will have a curve that goes back like this so this is a blow off in inert ambience so it is sort of like reproducing this picture but then I would like to point out one more thing which is very which is beginning to look very interesting for us now and I would imagine you should stop thinking about it right away we are now beginning to look at a space which is significantly fuel rich right so if you are somewhere there what you should be looking at is you are now having like a lot of fuel that is coming in and only a little bit of oxidizer that is coming along with it right in and oxidizing ambience right what if I did not have any oxidizer at all here it is how it is highly fuel rich to the point of being only fuel in an oxidizing ambient what would I get right I am now progressively departing from a premixed flame so it is not a premixed flame anymore it is actually now beginning to look like close to a diffusion flame all right so what was happening all the while when you still had some oxidizer and we really had a premixed fuel rich mixture okay it could be flammable why we are not talking about getting past the flammability limit even right so you could have a fuel rich premixed flame all right but what are the products going to be the products are going to be fuel rich right they are still going to have some fuel that is remaining which would can mix with the air downstream of the flame not just at the base not not only at the base not only through the gap between the base and the burner rim what we have been talking about is this mixing effect that is happening between the flame base and the rim so as to focus on the flame stabilization but on the whole you are going to have a excess fuel that is coming out of the flame which would mix with the ambient and form a diffusion flame envelope that is around around the premixed flame this is typical and so long as you have this diffusion flame envelope it is lot harder to destabilize this flame because the fusion flame is going to actually be there with the fuel and oxidizer or the excess fuel and oxidizer oxidizer mixing all the time and it does not really have to propagate against a make a flowing mixture a flowing reactant mixture therefore the stability seems to be significantly protected for us in the case of fuel rich flames that is that is what is essentially is happening right however there is another interesting thing that begins to happen which is you now have to worry about something called a lifted flame so somewhere somewhere in here you now have another envelope that is coming up in the stability diagram where you now have a lifted flame as opposed to which what we have been talking about so far in this region as well as here is what is called as an attached flame that is to say whatever we have been talking about as a flame standoff here is still corresponding to what is called as an attached flame we are magnifying the region in the vicinity of the burner rim corner particularly and trying to decipher this standoff but this is still an attached flame what we mean by a delifted flame is when now the flame gets significantly lifted away from the burner because now it can get very very reactive as you now have a fuel rich mixture that is coming in and mixing with the ambient the flame can actually get significantly reactive right so it can get stabilized further out away completely away from the rim not even not anywhere near the vicinity of the rim so that is actually a lifted flame and it has its envelope as well and this is actually the blow out of the blow out of the lifted flame this means this is this is an edge where the lifted flame also blows out so that is distinguished between blow off and blow out blow off is a terminology that is used for a attached flame and blow out is for the lifted flame to just go out okay and this curve then becomes basically the lift transition from an attached flame to a lifted flame this curve becomes like a transition that that causes the lifting so it means if you now are fixing your fuel concentration and kept on increasing your velocity you should now lift at this particular point right and interestingly this curve corresponds to what is now called to say drop off or drop back what does that mean if you now have a difference between these two right what that basically tells you is if I now have a burner and I keep on increasing my velocity and I now have the attached flame trying to desperately hold on to the burner by giving way it is called of like elastic thing right so that the flame is trying to actually get pushed a little bit further and further but still attached and then it lifts okay and then it is actually burning there and you are like oops let me just bring bring back the velocity so that it can attach now it won't it would stay lifted until you decrease the velocity significantly lower than the point when you cause this lifting to happen that is what is called as a hysteresis right so what is going to happen now at that velocity is not going to actually cause a drop back right there we need to come down to a much lower velocity for the drop back to happen because now the flame is found a new home where it is got stabilized and it is beginning to get comfortable there it is going to stay there even if the velocity were lower and would allow a attached flame to happen so the question of whether you are going to have a lifted flame or an attached flame now begins to depend on which way are you approaching in your velocity direction for example right if you are now going in the increasing direction of velocity you would stay attached until you until you you went there if you had a lifted flame to start with at a very high velocity and you keep on decreasing you will stay lifted until you get to the drop back limit so this is a region corresponding to both lifted and attached flames so attached or lifted right and so if you want to actually shade this somewhat you see this region is now going to take shadings from both and is a common point for both would like to point out one thing that we have not talked in detail at all or as a matter of fact not not considered when we did the tip right we talked about flame stretch effects which is to take into account the flame curvature and flow divergence effects when we talked about the flame base where the stabilization happens we have not really bothered about that at all okay so considering flame stretch effects on flame stabilization alters the concept somewhat so we could do this we could do this we know how the SL changes with flame curvature and flow divergence as we have seen yesterday and we could take into account a diluting environment and a progressively changing field concentration or reactant concentration effect on SL so you can you can take into account a spatially varying SL because of spatially varying concentrations of reactants and all these things can be taken into account in like a computation right in a in a in a way we want to calculate this and take this into account and that changes things somewhat the other thing that I would like to point out is what we have been primarily talking about is flame stabilization over a burner rim right but in general we could be talking about flame propagation in a duct so for example when you now think about like a flashback it will say okay fine let it flashback and see what happens right so how does the flame propagate further down into the duct so there are some things that I would like to just say about flame propagation through the duct before we get to the next step right now here what we what we have to think about is how is the duct okay so far we have been thinking about like a Bunsen burner where typically we are looking at a Bunsen burner that is vertical and you now have a flame that is stabilized about the rim of the Bunsen burner and then the products go out up right now implicitly in our minds we have been adopting a gravitational field that's acting on these things and therefore there is a effect of buoyancy on these on these gases where the lighter gases would actually go up and the and the denser gases would stay down and the lighter gases are made lighter because of a higher temperature mainly for the products when compared to the colder gases being the reactants and therefore denser and so long as you now have a flame that is demarcating denser gases being down here and the lighter gases being above that is where they belong so nothing nothing is difficult or different right so what we would like to think about is a horizontal duct for example and you now may fill this with a reactant mixture that is supposed methane methane and methane air right keep it open on both sides for your safety you don't want to have transition to detonation here right so you now ignite from one end and now allow for the flame to propagate all right of course there are lots of nice interesting studies about flame propagations and tubes that are progressively of smaller dimensions and then you will find how the flame convolutes and so on right and you see that the gas gases behind have to flow away from the flame for a deflagration and then they begin to actually have a velocity profile as the flame propagates and all those things okay so but that is because of no slip boundary condition all this is pretty interesting so now talk about flame propagation in a duct rather than being stabilized on the other rim of a rim outside a duct that is vertical so far what we have been imagining is like having a burner and then having a flame that is stabilized above it but implicitly in our minds we have a gravitational field that is acting on this and you see what is going on you have a gravitational field that is acting downwards and you now have a flame reactants are coming up here and products are going up there and this gravitational field is now going to actually impose a buoyancy effect in which the lighter gases are going to go upwards and the denser gases are going to stay downwards and lighter gases are made lighter because of a higher temperature which is mainly for the products and denser gases are actually for the cold reactants and in a flame that we have that is stabilized the cold reactants are below and the hot products are above and then you have a fairly stationary flame but that is not necessarily the case all the time so the way to actually think about this to begin with is start looking at flame propagation in a duct which is horizontal so we now consider a duct which is horizontal and fix it up and fill it up with a reactant mixture let us say methane and air and you now ignite it at a 1n and keep the ducts to ends open so that you do not get into transition to detonation and those kinds of issues then you expect a flame propagation to happen right and there are lots of nice studies about how this flame propagation happens in this tube and for progressively smaller tubes how the flame actually curves because the float curves the flow attains a velocity profile because of the no slip boundary condition and this is actually the flow that is moving away from the flame and so on those are all nice studies that we will not really get into the question that we are asking now is if I ignite at this end you have a flame propagation from left to right if I ignited it from the other end would the would the scenario be different except that the flame propagation is going to be from right to left in a gravitational field that is acting only one way we do not expect a change on the other hand if you now consider a vertical duct and you are filled up with a methane air mixture and you now ignite it at the top and you now have a flame propagation that is happening downward from the top you see you have a cold reactant mixture at the bottom and the hot products are going to be at the top and they are going to go they are going to flow up right convectively they are they are flowing up the buoyancy driving is also going to make them flow up right and then you now have a propagation that happens further down and you get a certain flame speed but what happens when you now have the same vertical duct and you take the same mixture that is in it but ignite it from the bottom you now begin to have a flame that is actually beginning to propagate upward the reactants are cold and they are above and the products are hot and buoyancy is actually trying to drive them to go up against the deflagration expecting deflagration causing an expansion that is making it flow down right so if you now look at its momentum balance the product gas is now going to have a tendency to flow through the flame upwards and contaminate or dilute the reactant gases and therefore you are now going sorry yeah that is right therefore the flame speed that you are going to get is different on top of this we will also have to factor in the fate of the thermal diffusive instability that is like perturbation to a planar flame and how much heat that is going to get conducted versus how much reactant gases are going to get diffused right versus now product diffusion as well and so on on the one hand and also the hydrodynamic instability of what is the fate of a flame a flame that is perturbed from a planar condition with hot gases on one side and cold gases on the other side with the density jump across this you now have an instability because of that all these things eventually lead to the formation of things like cellular flames that means you do not really no longer have a flat flame at all the flame gets highly wrinkled and then you get into what is called a cellular instability these are things that are not going to be covered at all but I wanted to point out a very interesting phenomenon here where you just have to take a duct and then hold it horizontally and ignited at either end or hold it vertically and ignited it where either end you are going to get significantly different results point out something about the flammability limits is again like a informative thing rather than an analytical thing. So we had this kind of a curve right big right at the beginning to look at the dependence of SL on physical and chemical parameters and what we found was the flame speed actually increases and decreases about a point of 5 equal to 1 the equivalence ratio one slightly picking towards fuel rich side and in fact this is actually something that could be obtained by doing measurements on a Bunsen burner at the shoulder of the flame to look at what its angle is with respect to the incoming flow or you could actually look at a glass tube apparatus measured setup like this and then ignited at this end and then see what happens or you could also have a spherically propagating flame there are many apparatus that are used for measuring flame speed and each of the each of them has its own uncertainties because of additional effects that are not considered typically in the flame speed x from for example in a spherical flame you have a flame curvature effect that is coming into picture that is altering the flame the flame speed measurement and so on. Now what we are talking about here in the context of flammability limits is something that we found the other day that is we have the flame speed decrease on either side and from the maximum and then stop that means this does not really go to 0 you do not have any flame at all propagating on either side here and this is what is called as a fuel lean limit and the this is what is called as a fuel rich limit and at these limits you have a significant role for chemical kinetics coming in what is the effect of chemical what are the set of reactions that are happening and you are now starving the system of one set of reactants right or one reactant to start with and then corresponding set of radicals that are there okay so the chemistry can significantly pay a role play a role over here and for this reason the the fuel the the flammability limits or somewhat empirical I mean the knowledge on flammability limits is quite empirical even to this day you have to significantly work on the theory to be able to explain this correctly there are some theories which do a good job like for example a heat loss theory where you now basically say that there is lot of heat loss to the surroundings when you are now looking at these limits and so on and keep in mind what I meant by heat loss yesterday which is heat loss to non participating reactants right so you could have that situation but we are not going to get into all those details I am just going to factually state that you have these limits and what does it depend on see effectively the controls that we have in any any experiment or the temperature and pressure the pressure is kept constant and we are talking about reactant temperatures how do we actually change these with the reactant temperatures the effect of temperature is lot more straightforward you typically have a increase in the envelope of the flammability when you now increase your initial temperature Ti and the flammability limits expand linearly expand linearly with initial temperature with initial temperature and this linear so that means you can think about like a coefficient in the sense what is the rate at which the fuel lean limit expands as you increase the temperature and how does the fuel rich limit expand as you increase increase the temperature per unit degree for example right so what you will find is the slope if you now try to actually look at how the slope of the limit change is with temperature you will find that the coefficient or the slope for this relationship is higher for the fuel rich limit that means the fuel rich limit changes most deeply with with with increase in temperature right so that is to say basically you know that this gap should be quite less when compared to that gap although this picture does not reflect that significantly okay and keep in mind when we say expand we expect the fuel lean limit to decrease in the field rich limit to increase in Phi the corresponding Phi should actually decrease for lean and increase for rich okay so if you if you are asked to do some kind of calculations given what is this linear dependence you should factor in that lean is going to decrease and which is going to increase to the pressure dependence so pressure dependence is more significant than the temperature dependence usually you find a dependence that sort of looks like this if you now have a P versus let us say Phi you have a relatively weaker dependence relatively weaker for the rich for the lean limit I am sorry still it is sort of linear okay so over a range of pressures it is weakly linear and then almost remains constant over a smaller range if you think about it and then flattens out beyond it says at a certain low pressure beyond which you just have no flammability at all but then it is more sensitive at the rich limit so this is the rich limit and this is the lean limit if you now look at how this works this is actually controlled by like a second-order mechanism at low pressure and this is controlled by a first-order mechanism at high pressure high pressure or low pressure could be six subs substantially on either side of atmospheric right so we are no looking at tens of bars over here this is sub atmospheric pressure over here okay and one more thing I would like to point out in these kinds of things is the duct diameter plays a role plays a role in determining the flammability limits typically for small ducts so if you now look at small ducts as you know as now as this diameter actually decreases then you have you get into two problems one you could actually extinguish rapidly or or at a or within the limit of what was actually deduced with the higher diameter or harder to ignite as you now go to smaller and smaller diameters may not be even be able to ignite the mixture right and this is typically true at lower and lower pressures so you now have a fairly good sensitivity of the flammability limits to that diameter at lower pressure essentially because of the difficulty to ignite or even if you ignite you could have an extinction happen within a within a narrow range of equivalence ratios or giving a fairly narrow range of flammability limits correspondingly and I would like to point out that this this leads to something called quenching which we will discuss next.