Forum
>
General / Nonfiction
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
The ONLY reason we cannot yet determine who is attracted to what with significant precision is because not enough analytics have yet been done to prove patterns of outcome.
I think you missed my point about chaos. This thing is like predicting weather. I hope you know the difference between precision and accuracy. When it comes to chaos, it does not matter how precise you are, because after enough steps, you will not be accurate anymore. Any initial conditions will lead to the whole spectrum of all possible outcomes, which I referred to as the envelope, after enough time passes.
You don't need to "prove" anything. You will have a certain distribution of outcomes from certain initial conditions, if this is what you're referring to by patterns, and this may also be what chaos theory calls the basin of attraction.
As these analyses increase in number, depth and scope, so will our predictions increase in number, accuracy and scope.
What you're suggesting about the predictive power of an individual's genome is plain silly. This is like saying that the make, model and vehicle identification number of a car are the sole cause of the owner visiting certain places, and that known with good enough precision, can be used to predict those places.
Predictions do not create information. Predictions attempt to extract information that is already there in some form. Conversely, you can not extract something that doesn't exist.
With AI driven analytics, with a deep and wide enough gene profile on you
This is like saying that if I trained myself to punch hard enough, I could punch through solid rock. Ignoring the fact that at some point I would just break my fist or my arm. All your predictions are based on what you don't know, not on what you do know.
To get back on topic, attraction to female muscle is best understood not in terms of direct cause and effect, but in terms of envelope. Nobody is always, without fail and totally attracted to something he's known to be attracted to. Whatever a person is attracted to, he may experience the attraction or craving depending on his state of mind and his circumstances, in some form or another, strongly or weakly, or not at all.
For example, at the moment I am unable to feel any attraction or craving towards any woman on this site. Tomorrow may be different. As much as I have no idea what will happen tomorrow, neither do I know how strongly or to whom I will be attracted if I decide to visit this site, what time of day it will be and what event, if any, will trigger it.
Let's say we take a thousand members of this site and expose them to some extreme sadomasochistic practice they've never seen before. Some will feel repulsed and remain that way. Some will be initially shocked and then, shortly afterwards, feel strangely fascinated by it and seek it out. Some will immediately feel both fascinated and grossed out. And finally some will instantly know they like it.
There is no way to predict the event of exposure, unless you intend to kidnap them and force them to watch. There is also very little accuracy in predicting their reactions, because part of it will depend on what have they been exposed to previously. I get why someone might be a masochist and wish to be dominated by a muscular girl, or a girl who knows martial arts. But candles, ropes, clamps, high heels, electric shocks, nipple torture and ballbusting I don't understand. I just know people do those things too.
It works like the escalator in a fun house. You go back and forth and every step depends on some immediate previous step. But there is no way to clearly say when the previous step has been taken, until the next one suddenly happens.
an entire section of staff dedicated to training seductresses.
Like Critical Drinker often likes to say, stuff like this happens in movies because the plot needs it to happen. It is quite sad if the victory of machines over men or CIA over Joe Average depends on the latter sinking to their lowest possible level. I have no doubt it is happening. You only need to look around. But that is no evidence of how wonderful and incredible computers and three-letter agencies are becoming. I'd say the exact opposite. They're going to shit with everyone and everything else.
Anyone who says they know or believes insight will be discovered definitely doesn't know and is delusional or a liar. Anyone says they don't know is on to something and at least being honest. Your trying to answer a question that cannot be answered with words, symbols, or numbers. The world does not come at us only in lines of print. It comes at us in every direction, using electric impulses, hormones, chemicals, light waves, and vibrations. Some questions cannot be answered because the question is in fact the answer. And if you don't understand what I mean by that look at one of these girls again. It is fun to discuss though, but your only 2 more why's away from why is there something instead of nothing?
I think you missed my point about chaos. This thing is like predicting weather. I hope you know the difference between precision and accuracy. When it comes to chaos, it does not matter how precise you are, because after enough steps, you will not be accurate anymore. Any initial conditions will lead to the whole spectrum of all possible outcomes, which I referred to as the envelope, after enough time passes.
You don't need to "prove" anything. You will have a certain distribution of outcomes from certain initial conditions, if this is what you're referring to by patterns, and this may also be what chaos theory calls the basin of attraction.
What you're suggesting about the predictive power of an individual's genome is plain silly. This is like saying that the make, model and vehicle identification number of a car are the sole cause of the owner visiting certain places, and that known with good enough precision, can be used to predict those places.
Predictions do not create information. Predictions attempt to extract information that is already there in some form. Conversely, you can not extract something that doesn't exist.
This is like saying that if I trained myself to punch hard enough, I could punch through solid rock. Ignoring the fact that at some point I would just break my fist or my arm. All your predictions are based on what you don't know, not on what you do know.
To get back on topic, attraction to female muscle is best understood not in terms of direct cause and effect, but in terms of envelope. Nobody is always, without fail and totally attracted to something he's known to be attracted to. Whatever a person is attracted to, he may experience the attraction or craving depending on his state of mind and his circumstances, in some form or another, strongly or weakly, or not at all.
For example, at the moment I am unable to feel any attraction or craving towards any woman on this site. Tomorrow may be different. As much as I have no idea what will happen tomorrow, neither do I know how strongly or to whom I will be attracted if I decide to visit this site, what time of day it will be and what event, if any, will trigger it.
Let's say we take a thousand members of this site and expose them to some extreme sadomasochistic practice they've never seen before. Some will feel repulsed and remain that way. Some will be initially shocked and then, shortly afterwards, feel strangely fascinated by it and seek it out. Some will immediately feel both fascinated and grossed out. And finally some will instantly know they like it.
There is no way to predict the event of exposure, unless you intend to kidnap them and force them to watch. There is also very little accuracy in predicting their reactions, because part of it will depend on what have they been exposed to previously. I get why someone might be a masochist and wish to be dominated by a muscular girl, or a girl who knows martial arts. But candles, ropes, clamps, high heels, electric shocks, nipple torture and ballbusting I don't understand. I just know people do those things too.
It works like the escalator in a fun house. You go back and forth and every step depends on some immediate previous step. But there is no way to clearly say when the previous step has been taken, until the next one suddenly happens.
Like Critical Drinker often likes to say, stuff like this happens in movies because the plot needs it to happen. It is quite sad if the victory of machines over men or CIA over Joe Average depends on the latter sinking to their lowest possible level. I have no doubt it is happening. You only need to look around. But that is no evidence of how wonderful and incredible computers and three-letter agencies are becoming. I'd say the exact opposite. They're going to shit with everyone and everything else.
I didn't say you ONLY needed the genome and all it's connections mapped, to determine a given targets attractiveness to the subject. You'd still - for a while, until the tech catches up - need an equally deep database of the environmental variables to which the subject was exposed over the last 30 seconds, 30 days, 30 years etc.
However, with enough biodata about a given human, we'll know how much exposure and what kind of exposure, if any (suffices), is needed to bring him around to enjoying a Domme's spiked heel in the cleft between his balls.
Again...if this tech hasn't already been developed.
Predictions do not create information. Predictions attempt to extract information that is already there in some form
Nope. Predictions ARE information, albeit speculative, and predictions attempt nothing; they are the result of analytics, i.e. attempts to extract conclusions from existing data.
Perhaps a general insecurity and desire for protection that evolves with the introduction of sexuality. Probably some issues around association's with mothering in early life, often unconscious. In a nutshell!
I consider this a surprisingly fine summary. It is true, but it is also just an example of a general pattern. The actual goal is to become a rational being and subject one's impulses to rational considerations. Or in other words, the goal is to use your sexuality, not let your sexuality use you. It's neither easy nor impossible. The purpose of good parenting is not to provide the children with lots of toys or good feelings and profound experiences. The point is to give them understanding they can utilize independently.
People have lost sight of this because in media and entertainment, a happy American family is one that consumes together. So the purpose of good parenting in Western thought is to form children into good consumers. Not only do people consume food, drink, houses, vehicles, electronics and experiences, the ultimate consumable seems to be sexuality, both one's own and that of others.
If you really want to understand get yourself into long-term therapy. It could takes years to unpick, or maybe not.
Like I said a few messages back, this thing happens in two layers, one that is rational and one that operates on associations. The latter has a life of its own, but can in principle be totally subjected to the former. One could maybe talk about the difference between software and data. When one learns a new rational insight into the workings of his mind, he can be said to alter (improve) the software part. When one is exposed to new kind of porn, just like a new instance of parental misbehavior in childhood, he is flooded with data he must deal with according to the abilities of his current software.
So a child might learn that the people he thinks love him, which is the understanding, actually want to hurt and dominate him, which is data. So he concludes that when I'm loved I feel like I'm put down and humiliated. When he later goes looking for love, he will crave to be dominated. And if some woman actually likes him, he will conclude that the situation is totally unfamiliar and therefore unsafe.
The problem with most long-term therapies is that they have no clue about this difference. So the patient, to continue with my simile, ends up trying to solve a software problem through new data. It's like thinking that the fattest person knows about food more than anyone else and learns even more by eating. Or, in other words, no amount of pleasure is going to solve anything when a person's interpretation of both pleasure and pain is dictated by pain he went through once. It's not enough to change the experience. The interpretation needs to be changed.
Everyone will be slightly different, with some general underlying themes no doubt.
The key is to understand the difference. The core insight is that there is no insight in the raw experience. The understanding comes separately. It is made of concepts that exist before and independent from any words that can be used to refer to them. But words can be used to share and deliver them.
Either a person is the things he has to deal with. Or a person is the way he deals with things. To improve on what you need to deal with usually requires improving on the way you deal with it.
The problem with most modern sexual politics is what I would call, stealing the words of A. N. Whitehead, a fallacy of misplaced concreteness. People mistakenly think that, for example, homosexuality is a thing, an essence or a way of being, when in fact it's a set of acquired behaviors. The biggest underlying theme is that sexual expression is acquired or learned. If a person understands and accepts this, he can accept the difficulty of modifying his behavior.
Your trying to answer a question that cannot be answered with words, symbols, or numbers.
The question in the topic can literally be answered with words, because it specifies "a man" and qualifies itself with "might". So the reason does not need to be conclusive or exact. It only needs to be possible or probable. But I am perfectly sure this was not what you were driving at with your new age mumbo jumbo.
Two bullshit answers keep being offered again and again in this discussion. One is that "it's biological". The other one is that "it's impossible to know".
Anyone who says they know or believes insight will be discovered definitely doesn't know and is delusional or a liar.
Anyone who says insights have not been discovered already is a perpetual fart explosion nobody can turn off because of the toxic fumes. You really think that kind of clownish wordplay curses will deter or convince anyone?
One of the biggest insights is that most of recreational psychosexuality is based on nothing posing as something. The sexual act is used to enhance or confirm or conclude a psychological drama that by itself has nothing to do with sexuality. This is why it can be said that homosexuality probably does not exist, while homosexual acts unquestionably do.
The world does not come at us only in lines of print. It comes at us in every direction, using electric impulses, hormones, chemicals, light waves, and vibrations.
So you're denying that words can be used to refer to particular impulses, hormones, chemicals, light waves and vibrations? You're denying that words can be used to distinguish between types and instances of those? That's some really really really heavy bullshit. Sheer idiocy posing as aggressive intellectual challenge.
Some questions cannot be answered because the question is in fact the answer.
You failed to provide an example.
And if you don't understand what I mean by that look at one of these girls again.
Looking at something is an act, not a question.
It is fun to discuss though, but your only 2 more why's away from why is there something instead of nothing?
I fail to see how this is relevant. Do you ever go grocery shopping so that you can eat something, or just for the sake of it? Are you here too only two steps away from asking yourself why is there something instead of nothing? Are you starving now because you're not allowed to make the connection between an act and its purpose?
Your whole message amounts to a denial that anything can be known or any relevant question asked, but due to its tone and minor verbal acrobatics someone might mistakenly think that something profound was said.
However, with enough biodata about a given human, we'll know how much exposure and what kind of exposure, if any (suffices), is needed to bring him around to enjoying a Domme's spiked heel in the cleft between his balls.
With enough training I'll be able to punch my bare fist through twelve inches of solid steel. It's basically doable. Only the orders of magnitude fail me. My muscles and bones are only maybe a hundred to a thousand times too weak.
What you're saying fails because of the very nature of what you're trying to do. If I could overcome the problem of orders of magnitude, I'd be able to punch through solid steel. Not so with your fantasy.
Predictions ARE information, albeit speculative, and predictions attempt nothing; they are the result of analytics, i.e. attempts to extract conclusions from existing data.
Speculative information. Here's some information for you. I am possibly the secret emperor of China. Do you feel informed now?
Predictions attempt to predict. How high were you when you wrote what you did?
Predictions are attempted information. Let's go with that and have more fun next time.
Anyone can predict the weather with perfect accuracy if he is allowed to post an unlimited amount of predictions. Even better if he can bill someone for each one of them. I hope you at least have a clue what's the dictionary definition of prediction.
With enough training I'll be able to punch my bare fist through twelve inches of solid steel. It's basically doable. Only the orders of magnitude fail me. My muscles and bones are only maybe a hundred to a thousand times too weak.
What you're saying fails because of the very nature of what you're trying to do. If I could overcome the problem of orders of magnitude, I'd be able to punch through solid steel. Not so with your fantasy.
You, sir, are quite the Luddite pessimist. To achieve the above outcome, the reasonable man understands that what is required is not training, but genetic manipulation of a level we possibly haven't yet achieved.
Speculative information. Here's some information for you. I am possibly the secret emperor of China. Do you feel informed now?
The thirst for knowledge is at the heart of every good Analytics professional. I'll probably never feel sated with information, and that's probably a good thing.
Predictions attempt to predict. How high were you when you wrote what you did?
Well I've had a few beers tonight, but I'm virtuous enough nonetheless to apologize for getting something wrong; I said that predictions attempt nothing. They DO; they attempt to foretell the future.
Predictions are attempted information. Let's go with that and have more fun next time.
I'm enjoying this exchange. Predictions constitute information that, in the words above, attempts to foretell the future.
Anyone can predict the weather with perfect accuracy if he is allowed to post an unlimited amount of predictions. Even better if he can bill someone for each one of them. I hope you at least have a clue what's the dictionary definition of prediction.
Excepting possibly the citizens of North Korea/China etc, everyone is allowed to post an unlimited number of predictions about the weather.
I must say, I find your lack of vision and imagination in particular, and your pessimism in general, rather disappointing. I have to wonder what in your upbringing and environs led to this defiance of the march of technology. I fully intend to profit from it, I suggest you adjust attitude and thus profit too.
Excepting possibly the citizens of North Korea/China etc, everyone is allowed to post an unlimited number of predictions about the weather.
You missed the point entirely. It was not the permission to create predictions. It was the utility of said predictions. If you predict every possibility, you have in the end predicted nothing.
If I predict that you possess every kink in the world, by your account I am absolutely right because whatever kinks you have are necessarily included in my predictions. I hope you see the problem.
I must say, I find your lack of vision and imagination in particular, and your pessimism in general, rather disappointing.
Ah, now I get it. All these muscle fantasies here are not delusions. They're visions. I envision myself dating Anastasia Hein while trying to ignore the laughter coming from every direction.
Imagination literally means the ability to create mental pictures. Why should a person create mental pictures of nonsense? It's got nothing to do with ability. Computers with divine powers just aren't my porn.
I know enough about computer science, machine learning and deep learning to have no need for simple sentiments such as optimism or pessimism. I also never thought that I should satisfy you in any way, and I still don't.
I have to wonder what in your upbringing and environs led to this defiance of the march of technology.
I heroically defy all the hot air coming my way from your direction. This I have learned all on my own.
I've been writing dozens of messages here, on topic, about what I know and have studied. You're trying to derail the discussion with empty fantasies of knowing things that by their very nature are not knowable and often wouldn't even be worth knowing.
So I gather this is your personal fantasy of being able to insert yourself into the brains of porn users. I get a gamma male secret king vibe from this. I must confess the knowledge you would have in your fantasy is more than the knowledge I have in reality. But unfortunately this does not mean there's anything I should learn from you. Last time I checked I still existed outside the fantasy.
I have already explained, quite recently, what is knowable by the very nature of the thing under consideration. Sexual attraction is like hobbies. You need three things to pick a new one. You must be somehow exposed to it. You must have a general need for it. And you must have the will or the ability for that particular hobby or kink.
Exposure is dictated by circumstances. Many kinks were throughout history available only for the rich, the famous and the powerful. Need is dictated by defects and deficiencies, such as being often tired, bored, sad or lonely. And will or ability is dictated by one's previous responses to his needs and deficiencies. Need and ability drive each other.
The part of what you're saying that isn't bullshit is in all likelihood already documented in a book called A Billion Wicked Thoughts by Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam. The best way to profit from it is to set up a better PornHub, as in do not depend on payment processors who can limit what you publish.
That would be the closest you could get to predicting, documenting or causing an individual's sexual preferences. Some statistical phenomena are well understood already without machine learning. Like I said, no technology is able to extract information that isn't there. You will only end up making random, false or irrelevant claims while thinking you've built a digital crystal ball.
If you predict every possibility, you have in the end predicted nothing.
Doh.
If I predict that you possess every kink in the world, by your account I am absolutely right because whatever kinks you have are necessarily included in my predictions. I hope you see the problem.
I'm starting to see yours.
Ah, now I get it. All these muscle fantasies here are not delusions. They're visions. I envision myself dating Anastasia Hein while trying to ignore the laughter coming from every direction.
I look forward to you (if she's your thing) dating a VR version of her with none of her flaws.
Imagination literally means the ability to create mental pictures. Why should a person create mental pictures of nonsense? It's got nothing to do with ability. Computers with divine powers just aren't my porn.
There I think lies your issue. For all your intelligence, you still lack the vision to consider a system capable of producing simulacra and/or predicting outcomes with high accuracy from complex, large and disparately formatted data as less than divine, and just as the likely result of the progress we have made over the last half century in computing, in particular the last quarter century.
I know enough about computer science, machine learning and deep learning to have no need for simple sentiments such as optimism or pessimism.
I'd very much like to see some evidence of that alleged knowledge.
I also never thought that I should satisfy you in any way, and I still don't.
Nor should you; outside of a certain hope of a mild feeling of mutual brotherhood from this cosa nostra, which I now imagine in my case you don't reciprocate, I expect nothing from you.
I heroically defy all the hot air coming my way from your direction. This I have learned all on my own.
I find that defiant spirit admirable, even though woefully misdirected.
I've been writing dozens of messages here, on topic, about what I know and have studied. You're trying to derail the discussion with empty fantasies of knowing things that by their very nature are not knowable and often wouldn't even be worth knowing.
Learn concision. You wouldn't waste so much time all round.
So I gather this is your personal fantasy of being able to insert yourself into the brains of porn users. I get a gamma male secret king vibe from this. I must confess the knowledge you would have in your fantasy is more than the knowledge I have in reality. But unfortunately this does not mean there's anything I should learn from you. Last time I checked I still existed outside the fantasy.
The above is a perfect example of why concision would benefit you. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE eloquence and I don't do soundbite conversation, but the above paragraph is almost as irrelevant as "mazvhaorhr;o rrrim fafohake rr55rh".
I have already explained, quite recently, what is knowable by the very nature of the thing under consideration. Sexual attraction is like hobbies. You need three things to pick a new one. You must be somehow exposed to it. You must have a general need for it. And you must have the will or the ability for that particular hobby or kink.
Exposure is dictated by circumstances. Many kinks were throughout history available only for the rich, the famous and the powerful. Need is dictated by defects and deficiencies, such as being often tired, bored, sad or lonely. And will or ability is dictated by one's previous responses to his needs and deficiencies. Need and ability drive each other.
The part of what you're saying that isn't bullshit is in all likelihood already documented in a book called A Billion Wicked Thoughts by Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam. The best way to profit from it is to set up a better PornHub, as in do not depend on payment processors who can limit what you publish.
To MAKE a profit, potentially. Personally I prefer to be consumer than producer for the most part, but there exist areas, ie FM fiction and anaytics of other topics that impassion me, where I am also a producer/author.
That would be the closest you could get to predicting, documenting or causing an individual's sexual preferences. Some statistical phenomena are well understood already without machine learning. Like I said, no technology is able to extract information that isn't there. You will only end up making random, false or irrelevant claims while thinking you've built a digital crystal ball.
Yeahhh...no. :)
I look forward to you (if she's your thing) dating a VR version
I look forward to you dating an inflatable doll. See how much more practical I am.
you still lack the vision to consider a system
The ability to consider something is unrelated to seeing it as either feasible or ultimately desirable.
The fact that I can picture something in my mind, like in a cartoon or a movie script, does neither make nor prove it possible.
Repeating the word "progress" like some mantra does not mean you know a thing. This is no less silly than going around asking people to admire your penis (a far saner request because at least it probably exists).
I'd very much like to see some evidence of that alleged knowledge.
I'd very much like you to just stop derailing the discussion by trying to make things personal out of some dumb envy, spite or one-upmanship. You have offered zero evidence for your fantasy, whereas I have already explained why it's nonsense. Which you have then totally ignored.
I have offered all the substance here. You have offered antics trying to get under my skin. I'm done with the substance. Only thing left to see is if you're done with the antics.
I look forward to you dating an inflatable doll. See how much more practical I am.
The ability to consider something is unrelated to seeing it as either feasible or ultimately desirable.
The fact that I can picture something in my mind, like in a cartoon or a movie script, does neither make nor prove it possible.
Repeating the word "progress" like some mantra does not mean you know a thing. This is no less silly than going around asking people to admire your penis (a far saner request because at least it probably exists).
I'd very much like you to just stop derailing the discussion by trying to make things personal out of some dumb envy, spite or one-upmanship. You have offered zero evidence for your fantasy, whereas I have already explained why it's nonsense. Which you have then totally ignored.
I have offered all the substance here. You have offered antics trying to get under my skin. I'm done with the substance. Only thing left to see is if you're done with the antics.
I'll say this; I've revealed my profession, and though I don't know yours, I am virtually certain you're no lawyer.
"envy, spite or one-upmanship"..."trying to get under my skin"
My God dear fellow, HOW you misread me. And that's me being polite, a part of me thinks "...malign me". There's a lot of ongoing sport I could make from that, honestly Zelensky would be jealous of me for the amount of ammo you gift me, but yeah, back on topic. Long overdue. Grand reset, if you're willing? :)
Earlier I said a woman with muscles is more attractive because strength and size are associated with health/fertility, and that the healthy male mind seeks out such characteristics (among others). I also remember saying a man attracted to smaller, weaker women would be thus likelier to himself be mentally weaker.
You rather quickly dismissed that idea as having been debunked frequently here. Says you...I'm fairly new here so I have not seen these alleged refutations.
And that, quite simply, is where we are on this topic. :)
Gonna throw in my own armchair psychology with the context that I'm more into the muscles than feats of strength, but combining the two is also good for me. The ideas that it could stem from fetishizing that which you don't have personally makes the most sense, since I first realized I was into muscle girls from a Megaupload ad around age 12 and only began properly exercising recently. As added context, despite seeing acts of strength on their own as more cute/funny than sexy, I also do like the sense of having a woman strong enough to protect me from a romantic angle, though I never want to be actually weak myself. Due to that, I lean towards the possibility there may be different psychological reasons for the same preference and that may affect how they overlap or conflict with other turn-ons/turn-offs. Maybe we'll have a better answer with time.
The question in the topic can literally be answered with words, because it specifies "a man" and qualifies itself with "might". So the reason does not need to be conclusive or exact. It only needs to be possible or probable. But I am perfectly sure this was not what you were driving at with your new age mumbo jumbo.
Two bullshit answers keep being offered again and again in this discussion. One is that "it's biological". The other one is that "it's impossible to know".
Anyone who says insights have not been discovered already is a perpetual fart explosion nobody can turn off because of the toxic fumes. You really think that kind of clownish wordplay curses will deter or convince anyone?
One of the biggest insights is that most of recreational psychosexuality is based on nothing posing as something. The sexual act is used to enhance or confirm or conclude a psychological drama that by itself has nothing to do with sexuality. This is why it can be said that homosexuality probably does not exist, while homosexual acts unquestionably do.
So you're denying that words can be used to refer to particular impulses, hormones, chemicals, light waves and vibrations? You're denying that words can be used to distinguish between types and instances of those? That's some really really really heavy bullshit. Sheer idiocy posing as aggressive intellectual challenge.
You failed to provide an example.
Looking at something is an act, not a question.
I fail to see how this is relevant. Do you ever go grocery shopping so that you can eat something, or just for the sake of it? Are you here too only two steps away from asking yourself why is there something instead of nothing? Are you starving now because you're not allowed to make the connection between an act and its purpose?
Your whole message amounts to a denial that anything can be known or any relevant question asked, but due to its tone and minor verbal acrobatics someone might mistakenly think that something profound was said.
You nail it here with the statement "I fail." It can't be said any better ZarkleNarkle. You fail. And a wordy failure you are. Listen geek. A scientist never asks "Why" We gave up on "why" long ago. Well most of us have. Those that have matured past 4 or 5. You do realize that we have no idea what a magnet is don't you? But you're going to tackle this question? All I'm saying is You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Let's apply a child's "why's" to your simpleton way of thinking. You go to the grocery store because you are hungry right. Why are you hungry? Because my body has burned through it's calories and needs more. Why? Because if it does not get calories it cannot perform certain functions to maintain life. Why? Well um because there is no free launch we need energy or we cease to exist! Why? Well. . . .Because that's just how it fucking is! Why? Because. . ., let me grab this for you: You don't fucking know you simpleton! Only where everyone else can admit it. You think that you and a Thesaurus can solve it. Good luck with that. One does not know why one is propelled in a certain direction. They know the rules of the game but not why the rules are what they are. Is this making any sense to you. Like in the magnet - we know like poles repel, and unlike attract, well, why is it not the opposite? And the answer is: How the fuck are we supposed to know. Knowing what we do is good enough to get us to the moon, to split the atom, and create so many things to enhance our lives. But trying to mislead people into thinking you know shit from shinola when you don't isn't a good look for you.
OK guys, can you try to not go so wildly off topic?
@zark:
Common wisdom these days is that "toxic masculinity" means "too much masculinity", so it needs to be diluted with a dose of "femininity", whereas I believe it means "too little masculinity". That false idea would lead one to believe that every man is a balance between a pussy and a bully
Forget about all of this. It is not helpful to say that some qualities are masculine, some feminine. What I should have said is that this fetish, if we should call it that - I´m not sure, is to sex what bilinguality is to language. What I meant is that this (or at least the healthy part of this, I read in another thread that many guys here gets turned on by violence) is a bit odd because it means (at least for me) finding pleasure in being both dominant and submissive. Forget male vs female! Its both being on top and being under. And this, I think, is a valuable skill. Obviously very few women wants an utter simp for a man. But a man who can understand the submissive part, will outshine the dude who doesn´t. It is like everything in life, you need a balance.
Many guys though, are very uncomfortable with not always being the dominant. And a lot of women lack the ability to be sexy, calmly dominant. If these two sides would improve, the world would be a better place.
As an example, we can look at the video here from some american tv-show. The guy gets intimidated by Angela at first and is insecure but was also being turned on by it, I think its quite clear. If he could have stayed in that it would have been really interesting. But no, he took the easy way out and went dominant in order for him to perform. After all, he was bigger. And the video lost all interest, at least for me, in that moment. Before he started with his stupid, robotic fucking in and out there was a tension and it was interesting. Sex as usually depicted is most often too focused on producing. Fuck, in and out!
What I should have said is that this fetish, if we should call it that - I´m not sure, is to sex what bilinguality is to language.
I think it's more probably the opposite. This fetish is what talking to yourself is to language. The way I see it is the way a psychoanalyst named Sheldon Bach sees it. Fetishes, sadomasochism and such are not an example of being able to handle both roles, but an example of being able to handle neither and remaining in an undifferentiated state between them. Between male and female, homosexual and heterosexual, child and adult.
And this, I think, is a valuable skill.
I don't believe it's a skill at all. Or why would anyone call having a variety of kinks a skill.
It is like everything in life, you need a balance.
Balance is not a thing in reality, so there is no way you can literally need it. Balance does not exist on its own. It's always something between arbitrarily chosen things. When your house is on fire, do you prefer to put it out or do you prefer a balance between fire and water?
The word that really applies here is moderation. You want the right amount of whatever thing that best serves your goal. You can add the required amount of both salt and sugar without drawing any comparison between them. You want to put the fire out without doing water damage everywhere.
Balance is like causality that exists between events. It's an abstraction that only means anything when referring to two particulars. It's absurd to say you wish there was "more causality" or that you want to "add causality" to something. The same with balance. You always balance between two known quantities. These two matter individually, and only in some cases their relative quantities matter too.
If someone wished there was more balance between accused rapists and their victims, it does not mean both get to state an equal amount of facts. It can only mean that there either are parts in either party's story that have not been given due consideration, or there are not. So, fuck balance. Only thing it does is it obfuscates the actual issue at hand.
Having said that, you're saying a person needs to have both dominant and submissive qualities. A person needs to be able to both lead and to follow, to take orders as well as give orders. Now a person who needed to dominate every encounter purely for the sake of dominating it, be it with spouse, family, friends, salespeople or law enforcement, would be quite a psycho. Therefore it is obvious that to be a healthy, sane, functioning adult you need to know how to submit to rules, regulations and people in positions of authority.
The way I see it, many users here are definitely lacking in masculinity. In this context it means knowing who you are and what your values and goals are. And by values and goals I don't mean anything like "more liberty to consume porn". So naturally it's sour grapes.
The point is not that those ignorant average guys don't know how to bottom. It's that too many young men today have no idea how to top. Either without becoming a caricature, or at all.
But a man who can understand the submissive part, will outshine the dude who doesn´t.
I actually have no idea what you mean by understanding the submissive part. If you mean a man who wants a woman to take charge in bed then that most of the time doesn't go down well. This either sounds like an ideology that is supposedly better than known reality, that men ought to be soft and women ought to be hard. Or this sounds like advertising for something nobody wants. Soft and submissive men are far too common to be special or valuable. And women aren't attracted to them too much anyway.
Unless placed next to an imaginary jerk who bullies and punches his way through everything, to supposedly demonstrate the value of softness in men. Though I'm not sure even that would work.
There is a chance I'm missing something. Or maybe not.
Many guys though, are very uncomfortable with not always being the dominant.
Here again I get the idea that you're a soft guy trying to excuse the softness by pointing towards an imaginary insecure jerk. Everyone is moderately uncomfortable in new situations or when they're not sure what to do. It's part of life.
And a lot of women lack the ability to be sexy, calmly dominant.
They lack the ability to be the fantasy of a man they don't want and don't need.
The guy gets intimidated by Angela at first and is insecure but was also being turned on by it, I think its quite clear.
I think you're projecting your personal fantasy into the video. What you think is insecurity is a pretty normal reaction to undressing in the company of a stranger, in front of a camera. And men tend to be turned on by bare female skin.
And the video lost all interest, at least for me, in that moment.
Normal human sexuality isn't that convoluted. Femdom mixed wrestling and beatdowns on the other hand are, and also do their best to maintain the tension. But that's far from normal. The point of looking at a woman toying with a man while the man gets more afraid by the minute is to tailspin your head further away from reality.
So, in worst cases, the psychological reason for this fetish is a twisted self-love. It turns its own vices into virtues and other people's virtues into vices. Then it creates a fantasy where a woman is attracted (or at least should be attracted) to those fake virtues. The catch is that those are feminine vices, such as vanity, instead of masculine vices, such as cruelty.
All that virtuous effeminacy. Lost forever. Like tears in the rain.
It's simple, we have good taste.
Agreed!
@zark:
Can you try and not be such a nit picking besserwisser just for once? Give people som slack regarding nuances of words etc. Are you like this IRL too?
Of course I mean a balance with being sub/dominant, how can this be such a complicated discussion all of a sudden. It is attractive to be a guy who can take the lead but don´t always have to decide or dominate. The latter can be impressive to women at first but they are gonna get tired of that.
Even this simple sentence: "It is like everything in life, you need a balance." No of course not, in zarklephasers universe this is absolutely wrong.
The way I see it, many users here are definitely lacking in masculinity. In this context it means knowing who you are and what your values and goals are.
How can you know that? I mean, a lot of young men and women don´t know exactly who they are, maybe you are some Jordan Peterson fanboy and think you have it all sorted out for you... but it has in all ages been like this that young people struggle with this.
I think you're projecting your personal fantasy into the video. What you think is insecurity is a pretty normal reaction to undressing in the company of a stranger, in front of a camera. And men tend to be turned on by bare female skin.
Of course it is my interpretation of it. I can not be certain, but he made some signs indicating this IMO.
Normal human sexuality isn't that convoluted. Femdom mixed wrestling and beatdowns on the other hand are, and also do their best to maintain the tension. But that's far from normal. The point of looking at a woman toying with a man while the man gets more afraid by the minute is to tailspin your head further away from reality.
This. You are putting words in my mouth. This has nothing to do with femdom mixed wrestling and beatdowns and a man getting more afraid. Are you high!? It is about a woman seducing a man in a way which makes him uneasy and horny.
And please tell us what normal human sexuality is and why being turned on by fit, muscular, confident women is not normal. Just this, forget everything else we have talked about if you´d like.
Anyone else reading this, please leave your comments. Are you getting something out of this discussion?
Honestly, I just like women with some meat on their bones (and in great shape!) A strong, fit, muscular woman really hits that caveman part of my brain just right.
It is attractive to be a guy who can take the lead but don´t always have to decide or dominate.
I keep wondering how is anything you have said related to the topic. The question is, "what is the psychological reason why some men are attracted to muscular women?" Your answer is that "it's good not to be a jerk."
There are two possibilities. Either you have said nothing meaningful or interesting and could as well have said "I guess it's Wednesday" and added that "so maybe that's why some people like muscular women". Or you have said that being attracted to muscular women is an example of the philosophy of not being a jerk.
In reality most people are not attracted to muscular women. In reality most people are not jerks. Liking muscular women is not a guarantee against being a jerk. Not liking muscular women is not a guarantee for being a jerk.
It is about a woman seducing a man in a way which makes him uneasy and horny.
I am still wondering what is your problem with what happens on the video. Only thing I could think of was that the man should have remained uneasy. The only way he could have remained uneasy would have been if this had been a competitive femdom video. He would have needed to be smaller and weaker though.
You are putting words in my mouth.
Exactly the opposite. I'm doing all I can to make sense of what you're saying.
And please tell us what normal human sexuality is and why being turned on by fit, muscular, confident women is not normal.
Why? I never said that. Neither are you talking about "being turned on by fit, muscular, confident women."
You're talking about being a submissive man. But again that is tangential to liking muscular women.
Are you getting something out of this discussion?
If you think the purpose of a discussion is to entertain random passersby, then please go do it elsewhere.
Anyone else reading this, please leave your comments. Are you getting something out of this discussion?
No, sadly. Yourself and a few others are unfortunately having to learn the hard way what some other people have discussed occasionally in the past: Zarkle is, at best, a troll. The best response is to ignore them, because there will never be anything of any value gleaned from their inane, pretentious ranting. At worst, they are mentally ill. To me it reads like some degree of unmedicated bipolar or schizoaffective disorder. The grandiloquence, the nonsense monologues, the completely unwarranted aggression and besserwisserischness (good word choice settler 😂) all point at some kind of severely disordered thinking. Or, maybe they're just a troll. Either way, the best response is none, because they delight in dancing these insane, bad faith nonsense-jigs around everything anyone says. Liking muscular women doesn't require a PhD in psychoanalysis to decipher (probably because psychoanalysis is pseudoscientific bullshit anyway). I'm sure this topic of conversation could be productive, but not by paying attention to the constant novel length, non-sequitur interjections.
For me, hands down, the brain just sees a beautiful woman (I am fully straight after all) with what it imagines to be man-like hormones and this man-like horniness in bed. Maybe a bit of insecurity sprinkled in here and there, but since I channel that in the gym, that's not a big factor for me personally.
In my opinion, I am even more confused as to why some people find muscular women attractive. I don't speak for anyone else, but me.
For me, I find the idea of touching a muscular women thrilling and sensual. I don't know how I'd react if I really did touch a buff woman, and yet the mystery of it arouses me even more.
Perhaps a general insecurity and desire for protection that evolves with the introduction of sexuality. Probably some issues around association's with mothering in early life, often unconscious. In a nutshell! 🤔👍😄 If you really want to understand get yourself into long-term therapy. It could takes years to unpick, or maybe not. Everyone will be slightly different, with some general underlying themes no doubt. 👍