Log in | Register
Forum > General / Nonfiction > Thread

Muscular women, power dynamics and the fawning response

[deleted]
Jun 11, 2021 - permalink

This is a thread about the psychological underpinnings of our attraction to muscular women.

Some of you might know that the human mind has some distinct ways of dealing with people or situations it finds threatening. The four Fs of trauma response, when it comes to interpersonal relationships, are:

  • Fight: attack the threatening person.
  • Flight: escape from the threatening person.
  • Freeze: assume a passive stance towards the threatening person.
  • Fawn: ingratiate oneself with the threatening person.

For our purposes, the fawning response is the most relevant, because it reveals why some of us feel so eager to fall down to our knees and say "yes ma'am" to any strong and muscular woman we come across.

When faced with repeated abuse (physical, emotional or otherwise), some individuals develop a fawning response in an attempt to assuage the abuser's anger and destructive potential. This manifests as a willingness (and even an eagerness) to serve the abuser's needs, to cater to their pleasure and to make oneself useful to their purposes. This behaviour, which seems irrational and self-destructive on the surface, actually makes perfect sense when understood as a defence mechanism. In the simplest terms: if you're nice to your abuser, maybe they won't be so mean to you. If your abuser takes a liking to you, they might reduce the intensity or regularity of their abuse. This helps explain the popular trope of girls who like "bad boys", or men who are "mysterious" and "dangerous". At some level, they feel threatened by this kind of partner, which is why, paradoxically, they feel attracted to them.

And what do muscular women have to do with all this? Well, some of us perceive muscular women as a threat. Naturally, that's not to say that this perception has any basis in reality, but nonetheless it is a real feeling which many men experience. Even if the object of one's fawning is the kindest, most mild-mannered woman on the face of the Earth, her physical presence alone might be enough to trigger this defence mechanism. An imposing physique, with voluminous muscles and serpentine veins, is a readily apparent and undeniable sign that a woman could cause you a lot of pain if she was so inclined. It matters little if she actually wants to harm you, since you can see she has the capacity for it.

A muscular woman is no stranger to the roughness and pain of strenuous physical exercise, which means she's accustomed to using her body to exert force onto the outside world. Taking steroids is another clear sign that a muscular woman will partake in dangerous and even illegal deeds in her search for power. Taking this social profile on account, along with the superiority of their bodies, makes it easy to see why previously traumatized men would be intimidated by them.

So, next time you see a Natalia Trukhina picture riddled with comments like "please my goddess let me be your slave", know that the schmoe who commented it is probably a traumatized person who feels scared by the sheer size of her, and deals with this fear the only way he knows how: by offering to serve and submit.

(disclaimer: I'm one of those pathetic traumatized submissive men)

[deleted]
Oct 25, 2021 - permalink

Awesome piece đź’Ż agreed !

Oct 25, 2021 - permalink

This how religion works

Oct 26, 2021 - permalink

I don't think i am traumatised but i am attracted to women with great power because in my mind this means she is better than a normal woman i love to see and feel that power it makes sense in terms of evolution because that would mean better offspring too.

Oct 27, 2021 - permalink

All of this is saying we judge a book by it's cover without knowing what's inside. AGREED! Trust, love and respect require a personal connection over time.

Oct 27, 2021 - permalink

Speak for yourself mate. Some of us love muscular women without wanting to grovel at their feet and worship them. Matter of fact, I'm rather dominant, even when it comes to muscle women.

Personally I don't know what it is that draws me to them. Part of it is the strength. Another part is the fact that a girl who carries even a little bit of muscle has more structure to her form and hence is made more voluptuous. Another part is that there's something admirable about a woman who can compete nearly on a man's terms in a man's field. Another part is the fantasy of such a superior female physical specimen admiring me, thinking I'm hot shit because of what I bring to the table (not necessarily physical things) makes me feel like Lord God King Chad.

fp909
Oct 27, 2021 - permalink

I think you can try to ingratiate yourself toward someone without finding them threatening, though I wouldn't call it fawning. I guess you could parallel fawning with simping, which I'm guilty of, though for my purposes I'm looking for a goods/services transaction rather than getting the feeling of being submissive.

Actually, I rather like the chase of going after a challenging woman who isn't going to roll over immediately. I ask for topless content a lot, and it is hard to get, for obvious reasons. Part of it was the chase itself, but in the end the videos I revisit time and again are the ones that took work and time to get--the women that kind of just rolled over and gave it to me without any kind of resistance I rarely watch or don't get turned on by.

I don't really find them threatening, and in the one or two instances I've had an experience and asked specifically for something like being carried or held down or whatever, it didn't do it for me. I think what is tied in with their muscularity is the focus and overall physical work they had to do to get there, which is attractive to me.

If I'm honest, I find a corporate climber with a distinct plan of what she wants from her life more intimidating than a bodybuilder.

Sep 26, 2022 - permalink

This is the first time I see this discussion. I agree with the take of the OP but only found the same ideas later on my own.

bonaciti:

Speak for yourself mate. Some of us love muscular women without wanting to grovel at their feet and worship them.

This is why I have included maybe three, maybe five times a disclaimer in my messages that the reasons may vary. But instead of simply dismissing what the other person has said it would be interesting to hear alternative theories. Simply stating what one likes does not tell anything about why he likes it.

Though it is often true that not everyone attracted to muscular women is traumatized, it does still sound a bit like denial. Not denial of being traumatized but a denial of there being a reason that can be known.

Every meaning, every idea, every experience, every interpretation for every person has always initially come from the outside. To say otherwise is to attribute godlike qualities to the individual.

fp909:

If I'm honest, I find a corporate climber with a distinct plan of what she wants from her life more intimidating than a bodybuilder.

This is because the point is the combination of being attracted and intimidated. Bare skin and the female figure are attractive while they can also be intimidating, while an ambitious woman can be intimidating without being attractive at all.

original poster:

At some level, they feel threatened by this kind of partner, which is why, paradoxically, they feel attracted to them.

So if one gets pleasure out of the solution, he will again and again seek out the problem. Becoming in effect addicted to the problem.

Sep 27, 2022 - permalink

If you're traumatized, then talk to a therapist. They can actually help you overcome that. Turning your trauma into a fetish may help you cope, but it's ultimately tethering you to that trauma and can affect you negatively in ways that you may not realize until it's too late to do anything about it. You don't want to turn into an utter clown like zarklephaser4.

fp909
Sep 27, 2022 - permalink

i will tell you from experience of talking to a therapist about my love for muscular women (and specifically why i've spent so much money/effort/time on this), it was extremely difficult to really put things into words. personally, i don't think there's an underlying reason behind it, it's just a look i like, and i felt a little uncomfortable I guess looking for a "reason" why.

Sep 27, 2022 - permalink

Speaking of trauma i have never been seriously abused. but i have developed a inferiority complex. because i just am terrible at sports and work and many other things.

if i do something i always assume i Will fail at it even when I'm doing a good job.

so i think this caused me to become submissve and attracted to strong women.

Sep 27, 2022 - permalink

I would echo what @yotv said. I was never bullied and have no trauma- my childhood was in fact more comfortable and privileged than most. However, I was pretty weak, not good at sports etc. I think I also developed some sort of an inferiority complex.

[deleted]
Sep 27, 2022 - permalink
Deleted by [deleted]
Sep 27, 2022 - permalink

If you're traumatized, then talk to a therapist. They can actually help you overcome that.

A small minority of therapists are aware of trauma even being a thing. An even smaller minority have any idea what to do about it. The great majority of them will simply ask the patient to act as if the problem did not exist.

Trauma usually manifests as unwitting self-sabotage and isolation. So an average therapist usually asks the patient to stop isolating and sabotaging himself. Which is not possible if the patient is not aware of why he is doing it, usually out of desperate need to protect himself from something or navigate around some issue.

Turning your trauma into a fetish may help you cope, but it's ultimately tethering you to that trauma and can affect you negatively in ways that you may not realize until it's too late to do anything about it.

The trauma turns into a fetish quite on its own. I doubt anyone has ever made a decision to knowingly feel drawn to something that combines the humiliation, fear or sense of inferiority with sensual pleasure derived from someone's confidence and physical ability. You generally go in unknowingly but must get out knowingly. That's what the therapist is supposed to help you with but very few can.

There's no sense of authority, guaranteed method or animal magnetism any medical professional can use to seduce or command the patient into health. Nobody's title, degree, position or white coat is going to cure anyone. Trauma is a form of very sticky and persistent false learning that can only be cured by true learning, fortified with practice.

If you ever met a therapist who is trained to deal with trauma, he would probably recognize a lot of stuff I've been writing here.

You don't want to turn into an utter clown like zarklephaser4.

An utter clown for saying exactly what you're saying, but knowing and saying it better and in more detail.

Sep 27, 2022 - permalink

Whoa.

A small minority of therapists are aware of trauma even being a thing. An even smaller minority have any idea what to do about it. The great majority of them will simply ask the patient to act as if the problem did not exist.

I am not a therapist, either by education, license, or otherwise. But I have never heard this before. In fact, “walk-around info” DIRECTS us to speak with a therapist when we want to deal with our various traumas, however defined.

Are you saying Western society has a completely wrong understanding?

Sep 27, 2022 - permalink

Whoa.

I am not a therapist, either by education, license, or otherwise. But I have never heard this before. In fact, “walk-around info” DIRECTS us to speak with a therapist when we want to deal with our various traumas, however defined.

Are you saying Western society has a completely wrong understanding?

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand zarklephaser4's posts. The humor is very subtle, and without a solid grasp of Lacanian psychoanalysis most of the points will go over a typical reader's head.

Oct 03, 2022 - permalink

In fact, “walk-around info” DIRECTS us to speak with a therapist when we want to deal with our various traumas, however defined.

The key here is "however defined". Practically all psychoanalytic literature and therapy manuals I have read entirely omit all consideration of trauma as a cause or as a generic mechanism driving various disorders and symptoms. Sometimes it is implied but rarely if ever defined or directly drawn attention to.

Then there are some books that specifically focus on trauma in its more severe and obvious forms, such as when it is caused by torture, imprisonment or war.

My caution against ordinary licensed psychologists or therapists is based on what I've heard and read from therapists who actually specialize in trauma.

Trauma could be defined as something that a person experienced that changed him for the worse, usually suffering but half agreeing with and half not understanding the consequences. In other words, simply going through suffering, anxiety or a period of sadness is not trauma.

Are you saying Western society has a completely wrong understanding?

This is a separate issue, but actually yes. Any traumatized person actually forms a kind of metaphysical dyad with the people who traumatize him. That is, the person views himself and most if not all his relationships in terms of this dyad and the traumatic events or deeds.

It is not possible to cure trauma by trying to fix the dyad, by for example trying to make a traumatized child or young adult see his victimizers somehow differently. It might happen as a consequence of something else, but it's a fruitless starting point. Besides, when all damaging influences are removed from the relationship, there's usually very little left.

But neither is it possible to cure trauma by trying to help the person, here considered in isolation, to see himself differently. This is where most of Western and modern thought goes astray, because it assumes that a person is or can be the sole source and origin of his health and sanity. Trauma does cause an unhealthy relationship with the self, but self can not be cured in isolation.

Can also be said that trauma causes the self to be empty and without substance. This is in direct contradiction to the Cartesian or Gnostic idea of self that can create meaning out of nothing or dream up its own purpose and reality.

A healthy self and also cure from trauma is defined in terms of relationships with neutral and non-traumatizing others. Most sufferers attempt to extend the trauma dyad, either a repetition of it or a reaction to it, into new relationships. There's usually a delusion concerning others (that they are very malicious or fascinatingly powerful or pitiable and despicable) and a delusion concerning self (that the self is an agent of vengeance or immensely interesting or saintly and misunderstood, a fugitive or a haunted treasure).

For a cure it is necessary to recognize that the damaged and traumatized self has got its substance from the unhealthy dyad. Ergo that there will not be a cure from within. Then to recognize the particular unhealthy elements and influences. Then to learn, through understanding, while struggling against the unhealthy influences, what healthy relationships are made of.

Modern psychology and modern understanding of man has problems with all three ingredients. It tends to reject the idea that some actions can be objectively harmful, hurtful, false or evil. Rather than just a matter of interpretation, in which case they could be rightly denied or ignored or re-imagined.

Then, like I already said, it tends to think that all cures come from within. And that a healthy individual can be defined purely in self-referential terms. A person struggling to understand who or what he is but also what he is not is told to be assertive and express himself. As if the void of space could not only pass gas but sense the smell too.

Then finally it tends to reject the idea that sanity and health require effort and that setbacks and obstacles are to be expected. This would of course not be the case if sanity was only a matter of self-referential self-expression.

fp909
Oct 03, 2022 - permalink

Your note about the dyad def strikes a chord.

I was talking to a friend about the at-the-time woes I was having in regards to the close friend I have talked about a lot on here. I had once been really into her and that got exacerbated when she packed on a bunch of muscle and allowed me to see it. I’m hesitant to call that “trauma” but it definitely caused a quite dramatic shift in how I viewed her and our friendship.

By this point (the conversation) I had already done a lot of work to alleviate the issues I’d been having but my friend (rightly) pointed out that even if I was having a completely separate issue I would often frame it through the lens as if I was having that issue with my close friend. And when talking about that friend specifically I was clearly fixated on how she might think about/react to something.

Honestly it took a lot of work to get out of that way of thinking, and I’m not out of the woods yet, not completely. Though I have been putting more effort in.

I know a lot of you aren’t religious but at church recently we have been talking about some stuff that has fallen in line with this, specifically “focus>formation>future”

Reality is that much of who I am has been influenced and/or defined by being a schmoe (and being a schmoe on social media). It has created a portion of me that I’m not exactly proud of because of my current situation—one thing being that I was at one point putting more energy into that than into my career. This is one of the reasons I stepped down as a mod.

Again, hesitant to use the word trauma, but in the midst of this experience was my fling with one of the HBC models that really did a number on me. It had nothing to do with her at all, and was instead my willingness to engage and my reactions afterward. In some ways I’m not totally recovered from that either.

« first < prev Page 1 of 1 next > last »