We forget about natty women who work really hard to get a muscle. They are being further punished with not only sharing the stage with the ones juicing now also the people born with with the male advantage. I say XX chromosome women only, except that rare 6 out of 100k women who are XY born with the female gender. They are ok too. I think a more precise to say if you were born with working or non working Mullerian system you are the only ones allowed here.
As someone who is into both, I discovered my love of each along completely separate paths and at different times in my life. In my mind, the discovery of these kinks happened as unique events.
But perhaps just having a fascination with the clashing of gender norms meant that enjoying one made me inherently sensitive to the other. Having already accepted that I enjoyed masculinization of females, perhaps that made it just as easy to accept my interest in the feminization of males. So I definitely won't deny there is probably some subtle overlap.
there seems to be a lot of overlap, at least to me.
There may be some accidental visual overlap. And if you think femininity and masculinity are two points on a single continuum, then these both seem to meet somewhere. But I don't think there is such a continuum. I think the whole idea is only superficially true.
@[deleted]
in terms that attraction could evolve from muscular to trans women
Masochistic fantasies seemingly "evolve" from simple posing to fondling to wrestling to domination to beatdowns, which may then include different kinds of painful and degrading acts. But actually a fantasy does not "evolve" into another. The amount of shock and thrill the person needs goes up and down.
So when someone gets tired with his current level of thrill, he'll usually be looking for the logical next step. But it should not be too big. It'd usually be too shocking to go from muscle admiration to breaking bones or being choked unconscious.
If someone indulges too much in something, it begins to lose its thrill and shock value. Key part is the person experiencing it. No thing can guarantee the same amount of thrill or shock forever.
But to me there is no actual point. I think men transitioning into women are just men making a mockery of womanhood and femininity. I see it as an emotional act of aggression towards womanhood, which I think is the exact opposite of admiring strength in women.
Or it is based on the idea that women are cuddled and pampered simply for being women, while boys are neglected and forgotten. So if such a neglected boy reinvents himself as a woman, he will instantly turn into something worth loving and caring. Or something he himself may have obsessively wished to be able to care for.
But I do believe someone might see a new degree of shock and thrill in the "female bodybuilder" he's getting turned on by being actually a genetic male. This leads to the question of hidden homosexuality, but it sounds too fun to go into now.
@Bigbub78
There might be but for me it’s a no.
This points to one key factor I'd call commoditization. Things are either real or they're commodities, in the sense that they can be bought or modified or put to new uses. Let's say that in golden showers, piss ceases to be the thing we all learned it is when we were children, and it becomes a commodity.
When a domina chokes a man unconscious, consciousness becomes a commodity. We all learned you may lose consciousness in an accident or when falling asleep, but it's possible to discover you can lose it for fun and games too.
In beatdowns the body and its well-being becomes a commodity. The same way the issue here is the commoditization of gender.
It's worth noting that when something is commoditized, the thing itself, be it piss, consciousness, well-being or gender, doesn't change. What changes is the way a person looks at it. Which may sometimes imply a confusion between what a thing is and how it is viewed. Or a denial that there is a difference, or that any of these things are real in the first place.
To answer the question, no. It is a matter of kind, not of degree, though it's possible to pretend that it's a matter of degree by focusing purely and superficially on appearances.
I see zero connection between being attracted to roid side effects and surgically created tits and vaginas. There is this obvious reason that this site is about muscles, and only a small minority of male to female transitioners are noticeably muscular. Many are scrawny adult men dressing as girls with funny nasal or puberty voices. Very few are bodybuilders. Or competitors in any sports, for that matter.
Finally, it is one thing to be unwittingly fooled by a biological male posing as a female bodybuilder and an altogether different thing to be turned on by the very fact of the person appearing as a woman being a biological male.
Fetishes and perversions and lots of sexual stuff are games of hide-and-seek, where the act of hiding masquerades as an act of revealing. One does not actually "find oneself" as a piss play aficionado, but hides from himself the fact of what urine is and turns it into a matter for imagination. So you lose reality while discovering the thing anew in imagination.
It sounds strange when people don't understand the role of imagination and denial in this, but talk like these were entirely things in reality.
In my opinion there is no correlation between a muscular woman and a trans woman. They have two different aspects. The first has a masculine appearance, the second wants to have a feminine appearance.
You actually gave a rational reason for the exclusion of trans women a few pages back. I don't agree with it, but it's rational.
In effect, you said that people look at the photos on this site to be aroused. And part of their arousal is projection. So if someone is turned on by a muscular trans woman - without knowing she's trans - they might be distressed by this knowledge, as it is now part of their projection. Even if they're never going to meet or be intimate with this person, they no longer feel like they could, and that's a boner killer (my words here).
I get that. I think this is entirely valid for a p0rn site. I have zero problem with HerBiceps or Awefilms or whoever declining to have trans models. People have the right to be turned on by who they like. It's also okay for a trans site to exclude cis women.
Thing is:
1) This isn't expressly a p0rn site. At least that's not how it's sold. Its supposed to be a huge repository of images. In theory, women should be able to exist here outside of being sexually attractive. They just need to have muscles.
2) As such, you can't have it both ways on the trans ban. If you believe that birth sex is fixed, then trans men are still women, and they belong here. There's plenty of other girls on lots of gear with huge muscles and short hair and no boobs and bulges in their panties. As stated, the only difference between Rheta West and a Trans man is the trans guy's embrace of facial hair.
If you believe that gender can change, then trans men are now verboten (as they're men) and trans women should be allowed. Lots of fit trans girls out there look indistinguishable from the girls already on here. And they work hard for their muscles. You're excluding them and devaluing their accomplishments because it's incompatible with some people's fantasy projection. And that's wrong.
3) Just to clarify - you CAN have it both ways on the trans ban, you'd just be a hypocrite. Which happens every time trans men are mentioned. The same people who want trans women to use the mens room will freak out if a buff and bearded trans man uses the women's room. It messes with the misogynistic narrative, so the solution is to move on with a joke and try to bring the focus back to "men in dresses." You're not alone in this.
I don't even personally find trans people attractive. I'm bisexual and very much into cisgender, clearly binary people. I'm horny and kinky. I like buff women with smooth vaginas and buff guys with big penises. It's just a preference. Doesn't make me a transphobe. I'm not really attracted to black girls or Indian girls or middle eastern girls either. Doesn't make me a racist. We're allowed to have our sexual preferences.
So having trans women on here isn't going to get me aroused. I'll stick with Kristina Mendoza and Chris Bumstead, thank you very much. But I still think that they should be included. I don't mind seeing their photos because I'm a reasonable person who believes that others should be free to be who they want.. and I don't think that female athletes only have value if they're sexually appealing to me.
I notice you chose to ignore everything I said and play another round of catch instead.
This site is not uncanny valley with muscles, neither is this highly disturbed persons with muscles. Every sane adult knows that you must draw the line somewhere. Just check the upload page to see how it's been drawn currently. It's drawn at very slightly uncanny and less than moderately disturbed.
Another game that gets played a lot in this discussion is let's pretend. Most of the time to pretend that you must have one criterion and one criterion only, and it can either be the gender a person identifies in or the gender a person was born in. The problem is, nobody is interested in playing this game, because it only leads to ugly, useless and undesirable conclusions.
The valid answer is the restaurant analogy I already gave a year ago and again a moment ago. You're entitled to get out, but you're not entitled to get in.
Instead of trying to shame people into playing your games you should maybe offer them reasons that would make them want to play. Or find rules that all players can agree on.
Maybe there are people for whom everything is a game of catch or let's pretend. Everything is power and representation. Nothing is real. This is related to the current AI revolution so that computers are purely things that process things, with no ability to represent anything. Humans straddle the line between things and representations. But this carries with it the danger of falling entirely into the other side.
In other words, you may see it so that no argument is or can be based on reality, but all are simply competing games of catch or let's pretend. You like to gloat how the evil transphobes have isolated and marginalized themselves just by being what they are. I don't think that's enough. I think one should give rational reasons for such claims. Like I did here.
Again, the problem here is that this site is described as:
A discussion forum and an archive of images and videos of muscular women, uploaded by users of the site.
Let's take "muscular women" at its broadest definition. They have to strong and muscular. They don't have to be traditionally attractive or hot. There are plenty of women on here with muscles who I don't find attractive in the least. And most guys would agree with me on that. This is okay, as they - of course - still have a place here.
If you believe that gender is permanently assigned at birth, then trans men cannot exist in your world. In your words, they are simply "biological females trying to pass themselves off as men." They are just as much a woman with muscle as any other woman with muscle? Let's abbreviate them TMBB (transman bodybuilders)
FBB & TMBB: Use testosterone & GH
FBB & TMBB: Have little to no functional natural breast tissue (TMBB most likely done via surgery)
FBB & TMBB: Do not menstruate (for on-cycle FBB's)
FBB & TMBB: Often have shorter hair (FBB by necessity, TMBB by choice)
FBB & TMBB: Experience facial hair growth (TMBB more likely to embrace and wear it)
FBB & TMBB: Born with vaginas. Born genetically female.
Given all of these data points, can anyone tell me why this Trans Man shouldn't be on the site? It his his pronouns? Is it the beard? Cody is a fairly unisex name. If he shaved the beard and put on a wig, would it be okay then?
And just to help you remember his "biological sex," here's a before and after. It's the same person. Just more muscles, less hair on top, more hair on face, and a very similar PED schedule to what most serious pro female bodybuilders use.
Not to mention you completely avoided again to share your opinion…
Quoting myself, a whole message from January of last year, from this same discussion:
I think that more than one criteria can apply at the same time. If that were illogical then no computer could ever have been built.
One is that identifying as a woman does not make you a woman. Another one is that the surgical and chemical actions someone takes in order to not appear like a woman anymore can and do make her unattractive and undesirable as a woman.
If this is too complicated then no wonder you didn't get anything from my previous message.
Part of another message, later on that same day, from this discussion:
> you are just saying that YOUR perception can make a biological born female that identifies as a man be considered a man
I never said that.
I explained my two-bit logic in full twice already.
But actually I don't believe and never did believe that these two things are even connected (men willing to become women and wanting to be on the site versus women willing to become men and not belonging to the site anymore). They just exist in reality as independent variables.
Most of what you (plural) have been trying to do is to force a certain narrative using loads of ridicule, selective listening and playing dumb. I know it's not in your best interest to follow my arguments to their conclusions, but in all seriousness that says nothing about the actual arguments.
The real test of consistency could be to make this into a People with Muscles. Except that there is a certain element still.
> And I won't speak about the fact that unattractiveness and undesirableness appears not to be a criteria to be featured on the main site.
I see this womanhood stuff like a restaurant. You must respect someone's desire to get out, but you don't necessarily need to respect their desire to get in.
Assuming that people are here to admire the pictures and some are here to get horny, in no particular order. Now there is not one to one relationship between what the picture looks like and what is actually in the picture. But there is a relationship nevertheless.
Nobody likes purely what they see. There is always some interpretation at play. But the interpretation is usually and preferably based on something that exists in reality. People do feel guilt and shame for misleading themselves but also for being misled. And this trans stuff does have a tendency to f*** with people's minds. And I am not sure but I would not be surprised if some trans people and their supporters got a sadistic kick out of it, out of humiliating and confusing people and in effect unloading some of their own shame onto others.
> And the fact that persons that have the some degree of unattractiveness are instead attractive because they "still identify as females"?
Not necessarily according to me, but according to what has already been established among the userbase. Again, it's a matter of degree versus matter of kind. And again, not talking about anyone de facto becoming anything else. Talking about the intention. Some facial hair on a woman that is there unintentionally is clearly different from a genetic female having a full beard by choice.
My approach to this issue is to simply describe what I think. Thus far I've been perfectly consistent. Your approach seems to be to fight everything. The idea that there must be only one criteria to determine the whole issue every way is just arbitrary and I simply have said no to it. So when you think I am "senseless", "illogical", "losing the argument", "clutching at straws" and so on and so on, I think there's nothing more going on than this.
Another wall of text to say nothing. Another "Vladi looks manly"? Purely their opinion. "I dislike transwomen on site, it is ridiculous"? Another opinion (again, the minority on the site based on the poll?) No. Has to be law. Yes, that's hypocrisy. Not to mention you completely avoided again to share your opinion on transmen on the site. Because there the hypocrisy is shown so loudly it is clear to the whole users.
Log in |
Register
We forget about natty women who work really hard to get a muscle. They are being further punished with not only sharing the stage with the ones juicing now also the people born with with the male advantage. I say XX chromosome women only, except that rare 6 out of 100k women who are XY born with the female gender. They are ok too. I think a more precise to say if you were born with working or non working Mullerian system you are the only ones allowed here.
I my opinion, trans are always disappointing in the end, its is just an illusion...
Muscle girls are the real deal.
No. Girls with muscle, not guys pretending to be girls with muscle.
I think it's a very fair question.
As someone who is into both, I discovered my love of each along completely separate paths and at different times in my life. In my mind, the discovery of these kinks happened as unique events.
But perhaps just having a fascination with the clashing of gender norms meant that enjoying one made me inherently sensitive to the other. Having already accepted that I enjoyed masculinization of females, perhaps that made it just as easy to accept my interest in the feminization of males. So I definitely won't deny there is probably some subtle overlap.
@fmvra1s
There may be some accidental visual overlap. And if you think femininity and masculinity are two points on a single continuum, then these both seem to meet somewhere. But I don't think there is such a continuum. I think the whole idea is only superficially true.
@[deleted]
Masochistic fantasies seemingly "evolve" from simple posing to fondling to wrestling to domination to beatdowns, which may then include different kinds of painful and degrading acts. But actually a fantasy does not "evolve" into another. The amount of shock and thrill the person needs goes up and down.
So when someone gets tired with his current level of thrill, he'll usually be looking for the logical next step. But it should not be too big. It'd usually be too shocking to go from muscle admiration to breaking bones or being choked unconscious.
If someone indulges too much in something, it begins to lose its thrill and shock value. Key part is the person experiencing it. No thing can guarantee the same amount of thrill or shock forever.
But to me there is no actual point. I think men transitioning into women are just men making a mockery of womanhood and femininity. I see it as an emotional act of aggression towards womanhood, which I think is the exact opposite of admiring strength in women.
Or it is based on the idea that women are cuddled and pampered simply for being women, while boys are neglected and forgotten. So if such a neglected boy reinvents himself as a woman, he will instantly turn into something worth loving and caring. Or something he himself may have obsessively wished to be able to care for.
But I do believe someone might see a new degree of shock and thrill in the "female bodybuilder" he's getting turned on by being actually a genetic male. This leads to the question of hidden homosexuality, but it sounds too fun to go into now.
@Bigbub78
This points to one key factor I'd call commoditization. Things are either real or they're commodities, in the sense that they can be bought or modified or put to new uses. Let's say that in golden showers, piss ceases to be the thing we all learned it is when we were children, and it becomes a commodity.
When a domina chokes a man unconscious, consciousness becomes a commodity. We all learned you may lose consciousness in an accident or when falling asleep, but it's possible to discover you can lose it for fun and games too.
In beatdowns the body and its well-being becomes a commodity. The same way the issue here is the commoditization of gender.
It's worth noting that when something is commoditized, the thing itself, be it piss, consciousness, well-being or gender, doesn't change. What changes is the way a person looks at it. Which may sometimes imply a confusion between what a thing is and how it is viewed. Or a denial that there is a difference, or that any of these things are real in the first place.
To answer the question, no. It is a matter of kind, not of degree, though it's possible to pretend that it's a matter of degree by focusing purely and superficially on appearances.
I see zero connection between being attracted to roid side effects and surgically created tits and vaginas. There is this obvious reason that this site is about muscles, and only a small minority of male to female transitioners are noticeably muscular. Many are scrawny adult men dressing as girls with funny nasal or puberty voices. Very few are bodybuilders. Or competitors in any sports, for that matter.
Finally, it is one thing to be unwittingly fooled by a biological male posing as a female bodybuilder and an altogether different thing to be turned on by the very fact of the person appearing as a woman being a biological male.
Fetishes and perversions and lots of sexual stuff are games of hide-and-seek, where the act of hiding masquerades as an act of revealing. One does not actually "find oneself" as a piss play aficionado, but hides from himself the fact of what urine is and turns it into a matter for imagination. So you lose reality while discovering the thing anew in imagination.
It sounds strange when people don't understand the role of imagination and denial in this, but talk like these were entirely things in reality.
In my opinion there is no correlation between a muscular woman and a trans woman. They have two different aspects. The first has a masculine appearance, the second wants to have a feminine appearance.
I don’t think the majority of the site has even seen the poll
Sorry, but the poll up on there tells another story
No
the simple answer is "no". Most of the site's users wouldn't wanna see that.
Daaaaaamn!!she is a beast
Yes https://www.erome.com/a/ms9NuoI1
Daaaaaamn!! Is she a transwoman??
https://www.instagram.com/p/C3fszk8OAfo/?igsh...
Absolutley the bodies are amazing and then that bulge is just an extra treat
You actually gave a rational reason for the exclusion of trans women a few pages back. I don't agree with it, but it's rational.
In effect, you said that people look at the photos on this site to be aroused. And part of their arousal is projection. So if someone is turned on by a muscular trans woman - without knowing she's trans - they might be distressed by this knowledge, as it is now part of their projection. Even if they're never going to meet or be intimate with this person, they no longer feel like they could, and that's a boner killer (my words here).
I get that. I think this is entirely valid for a p0rn site. I have zero problem with HerBiceps or Awefilms or whoever declining to have trans models. People have the right to be turned on by who they like. It's also okay for a trans site to exclude cis women.
Thing is:
1) This isn't expressly a p0rn site. At least that's not how it's sold. Its supposed to be a huge repository of images. In theory, women should be able to exist here outside of being sexually attractive. They just need to have muscles.
2) As such, you can't have it both ways on the trans ban. If you believe that birth sex is fixed, then trans men are still women, and they belong here. There's plenty of other girls on lots of gear with huge muscles and short hair and no boobs and bulges in their panties. As stated, the only difference between Rheta West and a Trans man is the trans guy's embrace of facial hair.
If you believe that gender can change, then trans men are now verboten (as they're men) and trans women should be allowed. Lots of fit trans girls out there look indistinguishable from the girls already on here. And they work hard for their muscles. You're excluding them and devaluing their accomplishments because it's incompatible with some people's fantasy projection. And that's wrong.
3) Just to clarify - you CAN have it both ways on the trans ban, you'd just be a hypocrite. Which happens every time trans men are mentioned. The same people who want trans women to use the mens room will freak out if a buff and bearded trans man uses the women's room. It messes with the misogynistic narrative, so the solution is to move on with a joke and try to bring the focus back to "men in dresses." You're not alone in this.
I don't even personally find trans people attractive. I'm bisexual and very much into cisgender, clearly binary people. I'm horny and kinky. I like buff women with smooth vaginas and buff guys with big penises. It's just a preference. Doesn't make me a transphobe. I'm not really attracted to black girls or Indian girls or middle eastern girls either. Doesn't make me a racist. We're allowed to have our sexual preferences.
So having trans women on here isn't going to get me aroused. I'll stick with Kristina Mendoza and Chris Bumstead, thank you very much. But I still think that they should be included. I don't mind seeing their photos because I'm a reasonable person who believes that others should be free to be who they want.. and I don't think that female athletes only have value if they're sexually appealing to me.
I notice you chose to ignore everything I said and play another round of catch instead.
This site is not uncanny valley with muscles, neither is this highly disturbed persons with muscles. Every sane adult knows that you must draw the line somewhere. Just check the upload page to see how it's been drawn currently. It's drawn at very slightly uncanny and less than moderately disturbed.
Another game that gets played a lot in this discussion is let's pretend. Most of the time to pretend that you must have one criterion and one criterion only, and it can either be the gender a person identifies in or the gender a person was born in. The problem is, nobody is interested in playing this game, because it only leads to ugly, useless and undesirable conclusions.
The valid answer is the restaurant analogy I already gave a year ago and again a moment ago. You're entitled to get out, but you're not entitled to get in.
Instead of trying to shame people into playing your games you should maybe offer them reasons that would make them want to play. Or find rules that all players can agree on.
Maybe there are people for whom everything is a game of catch or let's pretend. Everything is power and representation. Nothing is real. This is related to the current AI revolution so that computers are purely things that process things, with no ability to represent anything. Humans straddle the line between things and representations. But this carries with it the danger of falling entirely into the other side.
In other words, you may see it so that no argument is or can be based on reality, but all are simply competing games of catch or let's pretend. You like to gloat how the evil transphobes have isolated and marginalized themselves just by being what they are. I don't think that's enough. I think one should give rational reasons for such claims. Like I did here.
Again, the problem here is that this site is described as:
A discussion forum and an archive of images and videos of muscular women, uploaded by users of the site.
Let's take "muscular women" at its broadest definition. They have to strong and muscular. They don't have to be traditionally attractive or hot. There are plenty of women on here with muscles who I don't find attractive in the least. And most guys would agree with me on that. This is okay, as they - of course - still have a place here.
If you believe that gender is permanently assigned at birth, then trans men cannot exist in your world. In your words, they are simply "biological females trying to pass themselves off as men." They are just as much a woman with muscle as any other woman with muscle? Let's abbreviate them TMBB (transman bodybuilders)
Given all of these data points, can anyone tell me why this Trans Man shouldn't be on the site? It his his pronouns? Is it the beard? Cody is a fairly unisex name. If he shaved the beard and put on a wig, would it be okay then?
https://www.menshealth.com/fitness/a43882661/...
And just to help you remember his "biological sex," here's a before and after. It's the same person. Just more muscles, less hair on top, more hair on face, and a very similar PED schedule to what most serious pro female bodybuilders use.
Quoting myself, a whole message from January of last year, from this same discussion:
Part of another message, later on that same day, from this discussion:
Another wall of text to say nothing. Another "Vladi looks manly"? Purely their opinion. "I dislike transwomen on site, it is ridiculous"? Another opinion (again, the minority on the site based on the poll?) No. Has to be law. Yes, that's hypocrisy. Not to mention you completely avoided again to share your opinion on transmen on the site. Because there the hypocrisy is shown so loudly it is clear to the whole users.