Forum
>
General / Nonfiction
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
> I agree. I don't think there are any specific reasons. Everyone has a different reason or trigger. Mine was feeling the very big and hard bicep of a female relative that made me become attracted to muscles on a female and she was gorgeous to boot.
What are you actually denying when you say that there aren't any specific reasons? What would be a specific reason?
No. Everyone does not have a different reason. There's a lot in common between everyone's reasons.
One thing everyone should especially realize is that the trigger is not the cause. The trigger is the thing that cemented the final connection. You can't trigger something that isn't there. As little as you can light a fuse to an explosive that isn't there.
What if you had felt her breasts? Would you be writing now on girlswithtits instead?
TLDR;
I think one possible explanation concerns honor and respect. But it's a bit more complicated than that.
I have an old relative who used to collect old movies, most filmed in black and white and made from 1920s to 1950s. The usual stories in these, as far as I know, were about different young men who had to win a bride while everyone around them kowtowed to everyone else who was above them in the local pecking order. Every actor spoke in a very formal and artificial manner and everyone was addressed by their title or profession, such as "master", implying the master of the house, or "Mr. pharmacist" or "Mr. doctor" or "Mr. factory owner". Or "young mister" for a random adolescent.
There used to be a time when children were raised to respect their elders and all the significant people in the local community. It also says in the Bible, in Deuteronomy 5:16 that you should honor your father and your mother. But why did I quote from Deuteronomy instead of Exodus? Because the text there adds a rationale, namely that by doing so you may live long and prosper.
I know that it's not uncommon for some abusive and neglecting parents in a fit of anger to demand respect and quote that commandment, but always without the rationale. Falsely implying that some people should be respected purely for the sake of themselves, instead of some recognizable thing they have done that deserves it.
The catch here is that it is logically impossible to honor or respect something that is chaotic, undefined or undergoing change. It is not possible to respect an unhinged parent any more than it's possible to hang a ladder into thin air. There might be some real things you can respect your parents for. Maybe they have earned degrees, made money, built a house or something like that. The problem is when respect is demanded for their individual selves regardless of anything that might help you live long and prosper if you emulated it.
In a predicament like this, if you don't know how to think your way out of it, one possible solution is masochism. While it is impossible to honor and respect an individual for the sake of being an individual, because logically it's the same as cutting nothing in half, it is possible to respect someone's anger and violence, given that there is some intention, structure and logic behind it. Instead of it being just a random outburst that escalated out of nowhere. A parent in a fit of rage does not know what he is doing, but a domina or a mistress who whips, pegs and canes you probably does. So you are really honoring her for being in control of her faculties and not having lost it, which is actually a moral quality.
Another semi-solution is to honor someone for the sake of their body or physical attributes. The upside is that it is logically possible, because tits, butts, calves and muscles are things in reality. As a downside there is no moral quality in being a body or having a body. Honoring someone's body will usually not give you long life or prosperity. It barely gets any better even if you consider the things they can do with their bodies.
So my newest answer to the question of the topic is what I stated as the main upside in these. In other words, because that way you can honor and respect at least something instead of nothing or a contradictory, impossible or a meaningless thing. Even a steaming pile of dung is better than a logical impossibility. Also for mental health.
But to really think your way out of it would mean to honor things that really benefit you and help you live long and prosper. Instead of just adoring things that give you big and easy orgasms. The problem, for me at least, was that I was unable to honor the truly meaningful qualities in people and things as long as I was locked into a death struggle against honoring nonsense. And as long as I was actually told to not honor things that were honorable. Why? Because things that earn you respect are often hard work. It can sometimes make you miserable and some people would rather just forget their misery than use it as a good example.
Tl;dr: Abusive parents insist that you honor their individual existences, which is a logical impossibility. So in order to find at least something tangible to admire and to combat their nonsensical demand you turn to porn or sadomasochism. This struggle makes it too difficult to see things clearly and to honor things that would truly benefit you, such as hard work, personal improvement and financial responsibility.
I wanna make it simple and clear from my perspective:
1, Acceptance. A great woman with muscle let you enjoy them but not attack you, which gives me a feeling that I'm into her greatness but not defensive. I think that's the main reason why I accept muscular woman in my heart but not hate them like some people.
2, Outstanding. Max Weber wrote it in 'The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism' that when vocation bound with the pursuit of wealth and became not that sacred, it has the characteristics of sports competition. In short, muscle means success, muscle means winner.
3, Sex and organsm with muscle. Just think about it and I'm gonna keep my mouth shut. (organsm... flex automatically...) It would be much direct after 1 and 2.
zarklephaser4, really intriguing as usual, but I find there is something that doesn't match my case exactly, although I can feel there is some general "spot-on-ness" to it, to be succinct.
About this:
I know that it's not uncommon for some abusive and neglecting parents in a fit of anger to demand respect and quote that commandment, but always without the rationale. Falsely implying that some people should be respected purely for the sake of themselves, instead of some recognizable thing they have done that deserves it.
Well in the case of my parents, they always called the things we, their children, should be grateful for.
The problem is when respect is demanded for their individual selves regardless of anything that might help you live long and prosper if you emulated it.
So in their narrative they provided us with the means to live long and prosper. I got it, I would imagine that my parents premise was just something they made up, so as it is artificial, it is similar to pretend respect just because.
They did shitty thing but also good and caring things, so they deserve respect for some and not so much for others, but eitherway they constructed a full respect toll of sorts, and I guess that might fit into your narrative. But there is some degree to all of it, and they provided some "proof" (also "bad proof" of being abused and son on).
A great woman with muscle let you enjoy them but not attack you
At least in fantasy they let a random guy enjoy them. But whatever they do is not the reason why anyone likes them, because here are many who haven't even met one but still like them.
which gives me a feeling that I'm into her greatness but not defensive.
I always used to wonder what is this greatness exactly. Raw physical power? Performance in bed? Social status in a limited sense? But I think I found at least one candidate for the real reason in my previous message.
People do not automatically worship bodies or sexuality. The tendency to worship metaphysical accidents, such as real or imagined people or objects comes first and then come the actual sensible and tangible things that are targeted for worship. Muscular female bodies still are not the single and sufficient cause why someone would worship them.
I think that's the main reason why I accept muscular woman in my heart but not hate them like some people.
Conscience is one's sentiment based on what one thinks is right or wrong. A conscience can be informed, innocently or culpably misinformed or outright callous. Heart is likewise considered to refer to the combination of someone's knowledge, will and passions. Instead of a fuzzy sentiment of acceptance. In their heart some want to worship them, some want to bonk them and some want to be held or smashed to pieces by them.
I sense we have a language barrier, but hate is a severely misused word these days. To hate is to wish evil upon someone. To dislike some person's choices or to disagree with them is not hate. It is entirely possible to wish that there were no female bodybuilders and still not hate a single one of them. If you think it would be better if all people bought cookies made with palm oil instead of sunflower oil it simply means that you think it would be better for you, them or everyone. It does not mean you hate those who make the other choice. You simply may have reasons to think that their choice is not a good one.
In short, muscle means success, muscle means winner.
In short, both in capitalism and sports, success usually means excess. This is an interesting realization. Female bodybuilders are not a thing but an excess of a thing. Like here: (Jam & Spoons Hands On Yello - You Gotta Say Yes To Another Excess (16:9) HQ).
Sex and organsm with muscle.
This is again not a reason in itself but a consequence of whatever is the reason. I welcome your input because it lets me wonderfully demonstrate that the real question is not how but why. The more difficult one is why orgasms, the easier one is why muscles. But if some people want to think that orgasms are the purpose of life and muscles simply let some have great ones, then fine.
May well be scraping the bottom of my barrel of ideas, but I think I again found something to add to my previous one.
The gist of it was that it is impossible to honor and respect something that is by its very nature volatile and undefined. Virtues are not instinctual but must be taught and modeled. Social honor and reputation likewise. Therefore if someone is not taught to honor anything and some things are impossible to honor, strangely physical power, violence, sensuality and visual beauty remain.
In an immaterial sense a human being is what he knows. But in a material sense he is both a body and psyche. The latter includes what he feels and remembers. A child can hardly adore and respect the physical body of his parent. The word for that would be incest. But a child can learn by mistake to respect the bitter and negative feelings of his parents and end up living for someone's else's suffering that he can't let go of.
But this much I already said earlier.
I shared the background to my new idea in another discussion, namely that a neglected or abused child will interpret the abuse or neglect as a condemnation. Because it's usually undeserved, the child will as a reaction imagine himself as innocent and admirable, a secretly wonderful personality (which is a contradiction in terms, because a person is what you are to others). Or in short, a narcissistic false self.
Being a victim is not a moral achievement and neither do the evil of others nor your suffering necessarily make you any better person. Real work in a situation would, but bitterly enduring it will not.
A false self, by definition, does not exist as a permanent thing, but is created and recreated in every social interaction, through pressure (by threat), manipulation (by tricking the other person to react in a false way) and deception (by giving wrong information).
The way I see it, the false self of a parent forces the child to also become a false self. The problem with being a healthy person is that you are limited to the real meaning of your real interactions with other people. But with a false self you can present yourself as more interesting, capable and deserving. Also to persons you would like to receive sexual favors from.
Or to keep telling yourself that you've been derailed and sidetracked by others (may be true) because otherwise you could have been the president or at least a rich playboy (hardly true) and that at least the current presidents and playboys aren't really that interesting persons (may be true but may also be envy talking).
Some people here talk about their real interactions with real female bodybuilders and athletes. Meanwhile one can be a successful, entitled, self-absorbed seducer who likes muscular women, has a false self and causes the targeted woman to act out a corresponding false self. In real life both possibilities exist.
It is also possible to have a fantasized false self that exists together with a fantasized false self in the muscular woman in a fantasy interaction. By this I am referring to looking at pictures while sitting in front of a computer.
If I fantasized of having a girlfriend experience with Slava Galagan (not necessarily sex but chatting, touching, hugging, fondling, lifting and carrying) then I could imagine that she too would want it because she likes me so much and finds me so charming, amiable and so on. Or I could imagine booking a session and then everything would just click. But the point is that a fantasy me would meet a fantasy her.
Sometimes I wondered why some people can feel the same kind of attraction to children and even animals (or to the Berlin Wall or the Eiffel Tower or some domina with big muscles or martial arts skills). But the answer is the same as in my example with Slava Galagan. They project a complementary false self onto the other person or thing: A self that wants you or enjoys your company or wants to impress you or to gently or roughly overpower you (and only you).
The real Julia DeLo is more interesting to me than most women on this site, because I heard a real interview where she shared real things about her life. But the real Julia DeLo is very uninteresting compared to a fantasy Julia DeLo and all the laughing and touching, tests of strength and rough foreplay you could do with her purely in your mind.
When you know something about the real person, projecting a fantasy version becomes more difficult. Likewise to maintain a projection you must constantly deny almost everything that is real in the other person. And finally if a person you know has projected a false self onto you, it becomes easier to return the favor and use her in your fantasies in turn.
Tl;dr: There are real interactions in real life, fake and manipulative interactions in real life and imagined interactions in front of a computer. The point of the latter two is to get to experience oneself as something good that really doesn't exist. A female body is not exciting or interesting at all, but it's the interaction with her real or imagined personality that creates the excitement in your own real or fake personality. This is the reason. This is why it's sometimes so addictive and hard to quit. But I am already repeating myself, so I think I have finally said everything I can say about this.
But I am already repeating myself, so I think I have finally said everything I can say about this.
Actually not. Here's a thing I got from Richard Grannon. I agree with maybe half of his ideas, but the half I agree with I've found quite enlightening.
When you either deal with people honestly, deal with people deceptively or have a daydream, you set up a contract with a real or an imaginary other. This excludes force and threat of violence but includes everything else in human interactions. The other extreme is to avoid interactions, both real and imagined.
The contract defines two roles to be enacted in the interaction. You either really are something and do something and the other person really is something and does something.
Or either one of you wants to fake being something and wants to tempt, bribe, cajole or pressure the other to play along. For example, narcissistic parents are literally fake persons who raise their children to always play along and nothing else.
Or you look at a picture on the Internet. In your mind you make an agreement with the person on lust or admiration, one way or both ways. Instead of dreaming of being her doormat you can also dream of her lusting for you and agree to let her have you as long as you also get something you want.
The catch is that nobody should fool himself into believing that other persons, including female bodybuilders, just are and simply happen and by their very existence either cause you to feel or react certain way or impose their power or sexiness on your mind. This is a symptom of seeing them as a continuation of one's narcissistic parents and having always to fight to disagree even a little.
So instead of choosing to take decisions into his own hands such a person can wish that things would still be imposed on him, if only they were sexy and pleasant.
Tl;dr: The psychological reason for this attraction is that every person wants to make social contracts with other persons. Every person must strike a balance between real, beneficial and available contracts. Fantasies are beneficial and available but not real. Availability is the only strictly necessary element, but you can also agree to detrimental but real contracts. In theory every contract can be refused, but sometimes there will be a cost. The alternative is to pretend that all contracts are made for you and that you are powerless to refuse.
I actually found one more trauma-based theory for this attraction. Or rather I should say this one is based on newfound understanding of healing trauma. I found a therapist specialized in trauma and listened to his lectures for a while.
A normal person feels his passions in his body. A passion literally means that you hear, see or feel something and react to it with desire, enjoyment, sadness or aversion. Passions are called that because in half of them you are passively exposed to something, and the thing causes your reaction.
Then there are so-called active passions, where you energize yourself to react to some thing. This is relevant because every time a normal, non-traumatized person makes a decision, there is a reaction, an activation or a release of tension in his body, a feeling of looking forward and an expectation of putting the decision into action or at least a relief from the former indecision.
Except when, for example, one has to grow up with a narcissist. This is because every time a narcissist hears that you have decided something, he makes it into a competition between his idea and your idea. Or he wants to put his spin on your decision. This means you can never safely think or feel you have understood or decided something. Neither that your feelings or bodily reactions validly follow from your thoughts or decisions.
First this causes a constant tension or stress in the body. You are not settled or satisfied with any understanding or future course of action. And also because when you choose or decide something, you always expect the attack. Or not even the attack itself, because later every decision will activate a memory of being contradicted or frivolously put into question, which in turn will activate a stress reaction or a fight response.
Traumatized persons are able to feel basic bodily sensations, like hot, cold and pain. But sometimes everything more complicated than that is muted or unclear, such as hunger, thirst, exhaustion or the need to go to the bathroom. In a way they can feel these, but don't feel that these sensations are their "own" or that they need to "agree" with them until avoidance becomes painful or dangerous.
In a way a traumatized person gets driven out of his body. And when he tries to access his body, for example through mindfulness or relaxation techniques, he usually comes face to face with an incredible amount of tension and stress. It is easy to take deep breaths and not think about it too much, but if a traumatized person focuses on his body, his breathing will usually become shallow and constrained. This is a common way someone may "fail mindfulness".
The promise a traumatized person sees in muscular women is that with one you would not need to fear your tension and insecurity. Their presence or confidence or your excitement about them would make you feel safe and secure about your body. Or would in a way force you to either just relax or overcome the tension. As if the emotional life in your body was an eternally panicked little animal and a woman with muscles possessed enough force to hold it down or make it stop.
This is why, for a traumatized person, vanilla sex with a female bodybuilder does not seem like enough. There must be some element of being held or forced, not allowed to escape, up to and including real violence or at least a believable threat or demonstration.
It may sound like an attempt at a free lunch, but actually the logic of curing complex trauma parallels a female muscle fantasy. They key ingredient is processing through limited exposure. Alternating between traumatic flashbacks, bodily tension and awareness of them on one hand and something pleasant and secure on the other. There is no forward movement in a pure flashback reaction but neither in total pleasure and oblivion.
Tl;dr: Most Youtube therapists get it wrong. Instead of a hurt inner child there is a distrustful and panicked stupid animal inside traumatized persons. The fantasy is that a female bodybuilder would be strong and confident enough to take hold of and calm down that stupid animal. This will not work, because in terms of therapy, the muscular female is indeed called a resource, but a resource must still be employed in the real work of bringing things into awareness and then letting go of them.
due to society once being matriarchal...
Except that there has never been such a society. At least not anything that would deserve to be called a society. It's a fantasy of having something that is by definition ordered, without anyone or anything ordering it.
modern man subconsciously wishes for a firm, but loving, hand to guide him through life.
Strange. Why couldn't men do it? Because of an assumption that there is some instinct in women that is by nature firm and loving. An instinct that is even able to guide men through life.
But more often in women there is an instinct of conniving and contriving vanity. Why so? Because men ruin them and don't let their good instincts shine? Or because the whole idea of being guided by instinct is nonsense?
women need to be their property and not their superior
Let's pretend that these are the only possibilites. Now do women feel attracted to or repulsed by inferior men? I'd submit it's the latter. Therefore for there to be stable relationships at all, the woman usually must be the man's social inferior.
If you had said inferior instead of property it would have immediately made sense and you wouldn't even had had an argument.
Are you trying to say that male instinct and male biology are the problem? And to fix all the ills of society we should switch to female instinct and female biology?
So instead of grabbing a cock, listening to it and letting it guide us to a prosperous future we should declare it a failure and grab a pussy instead?
Maybe Rousseau did not know that his happy savages come in two genders? Maybe most people have no clue that modern ideas of man's natural happiness were popularized by a monied philanderer?
modern man subconsciously wishes...
Subconscious means two and only two things, and that is things you desire but do not understand why, and things you have experienced but have been unable to make sense of.
So technically this is right. A man who has been traumatized by his mother does not understand what has happened and why but will do all kinds of silly things driven by the confusion this has put him into. Such as wank to pictures and videos of muscular women or mixed wrestling or violent femdom.
Similarly if a girl is raped or abandoned by her father then that is what her subconscious will mainly be about. Usually a mess of envy, self-hatred, anger, desire and longing. Does not sound like a source of deep and profound wisdom that you should listen to, allow to guide you, guide someone else or an entire society.
Though some days I think the last one is exactly what is happening.
Toxic masculinity has fucked up this process...
Toxic masculinity is like sexism and racism. People feel they know what it means and are able to give some outrageous examples and descriptions, but I've never seen a real definition that would allow me to know once and for all what is and what isn't.
made men convince themselves...
Do I look to you like I'm ruling the world?
On the other hand, matriarchal societies are never built or created. Ordered societies collapse into some kind of a chaotic, natural state. Some have decided to call the situation pre-collapse "patriarchal" and post-collapse "matriarchal".
Psychological reasons? I have no idea. But once you've thrown a fit, athletic and somewhat muscular woman around your bed, you can never go back. (I've had mine for over 45 years and she's still a muscle-chick.)
I think the Powerpuff Girls fucked me up in the head when I was 2. My mom told me I used to watch them all the time as a toddler. I remember thinking our principal from kindergarden had nice arms and I was like 4. I also remember asking my grandpa around the same age if a woman could beat a man. When we were in kindergarden we were forced to sleep at noon and I even remember the first day I started making up weird scenarios in my head instead of sleeping. So yeah, I think I was born this way.
...Toxic masculinity...
Oh, god, please. There is no such thing. It's a made-up term designed to disparage boys and men and paint them as problems that need to be fixed and/or criminalized.
It's the equivalent of when women used to be diagnosed as "hysterical".
Toxic masculinity...
When something like this is mentioned, people usually have an idea what it refers to. The problem is that with "toxic masculinity" as well as "sexism" and "racism" there is often going on a game of motte (castle) and bailey (courtyard).
The bailey refers to a weaker form of the concept, such as "all masculinity is toxic" or that "there is hidden racism everywhere" or "all white people embody racism". The motte refers to a stronger form, such as "there are avowed rapists who seriously believe women deserve all the violence they get" or "my friend once got beaten up simply because he was black, or at least the assailants told him so".
There are four cardinal virtues, namely temperance, fortitude, justice and prudence. The first one refers to being able to resist pleasure (of any kind, bodily or emotional) at will. Fortitude refers to being willing to suffer for what one considers right or valuable. Justice refers to giving others what you owe them. (Instead of getting what you think you're owed.) And prudence is a set of factors in making good decisions (learn from others, remember past experience, observe the situation correctly, stop to think, act decisively, be aware of external circumstances, be aware of potential ways to fail, understand your goal or expected outcome).
In a perfect leftist utopian world no temperance would be necessary, because all bodily and emotional pleasures would only do you good. No fortitude would be necessary because nobody would need to suffer. Or stand for anything, except pleasure and ease. No justice would be necessary because everyone would have everything already and nobody would owe anybody anything, including respect or consideration. And there wouldn't be any need for smart decisions because everything and everybody would be taken care of anyway (no need to listen, learn, observe, think, act, consider circumstances, be aware of dangers or have worthwhile goals).
In a perfect world of the realist everyone would be virtuous. The realist and the utopian agree the problem is that people are halfway virtuous. One thinks that vices make people toxic, the other thinks that virtues make people toxic.
Outside the game (of motte and bailey), 99 % of accusations of toxic masculinity, sexism or racism are either meaningless but true or meaningful but false.
Racism or sexism either mean that an individual is primarily determined by his genetic makeup or biological gender. Or that an individual is solely determined by the same. Or that you can reasonably expect, on average, particular kind of attitude or behavior or skills from a member of a certain group, class, religion, gender, nation or subculture before observing a particular individual more closely. Sometimes you must base your decisions and the society must base its decisions on averages and expectations.
And it should always be kept in mind that what is, what has caused it, what should be and what can be are four different things, and not a single one of these determines any other. Except that what is has a big influence on what can be.
So the game gets you from "women and men are different on average" to "women deserve all the rape they get" and how dare you agree with the former unless you also agree with the latter.
(Added later:)
The biggest contrast, which I missed there for some reason, is going from "having good but limited information on someone based on the person's membership in some subsets of the population" to "wishing to hurt, harm or destroy such a person or applauding such harm based solely on the person's membership in some subsets of the population". So you do the former, someone yells "sexism" or "racism" and what he means by it is the latter, because first is the bailey (relevant but not serious) definition and the second is the motte (serious but irrelevant) definition.
Psychological reasons? I have no idea. But once you've thrown a fit, athletic and somewhat muscular woman around your bed, you can never go back. (I've had mine for over 45 years and she's still a muscle-chick.)
You lucky bastard
One relevant thing to ponder, I think, is what makes a person. As far as I know, the word literally means a mask or a public face. It is what you are to others, as opposed to what you are to yourself.
The first meaningful aspect in possessing personhood or being a person is continuity. It means that whatever you said or did a moment ago you still consider your own words and deeds a moment later. The second meaningful aspect that builds on the first one is awareness of what your words or deeds mean to some other person. Or at least the awareness that your words and deeds do have a meaning to others.
Personhood is not only what you are in a given moment. But neither is it a sum total of what you have been throughout your life. I think it is the meaningful things you are capable of being right now in any potential encounter.
The opposite of being a real person is making yourself up as you go. A real person may learn new things and change his mind while being aware of the change. A false self or a fake person will usually deny that he has ever known less or been less right than he is now.
A fake person will usually also make up what others are in a given situation. Such as that they must be envious, they must be angry, they must be weak or needy or driven by this or that malicious or uncontrollable need or emotion. So therefore he must be their target or victim or threatened or misunderstood by them.
Or that he never misunderstands things, except that this time the misunderstanding was completely expected because of a certain circumstance. Or that he would never say or do stupid things and the stupid thing he was about to say or do would have been very wise and commendable in some other situation or at least there was undeniably an impeccable motive hidden somewhere. In a different world I would not have been mistaken, you see?
Sometimes people need to invent themselves out of whole cloth (that is, they expect you to believe they really are whatever they can barely make themselves appear to be) because they really have no clue who they are or what they should do or be. Maybe I am this, maybe I am that, please help me, I don't know. The attitude is that a horrible failure and exposure awaits sooner or later. Either the person feels he is the only one faking it. Or that everyone is but he's the only one in danger of collapsing.
Sometimes some people seem to think that that kind of behavior is expected in some social circles. For example some club where everyone pretends to be something else than he really is. The only rules are to not change your story too abruptly and to never get caught. The attitude is: I may be fake, but so is everyone else.
And sometimes some people furiously reinvent themselves and everyone around them multiple times a minute because they seem to utterly lack the concept of getting caught or being effectively contradicted or not managing everyone's perceptions.
The two steps I know to becoming a real person are to first be as truthful as one can and then be willing to patiently suffer as much anxiety and disappointment as reasonably possible. Neither one of those will do it alone. The idea is to accept suffering. Not to seek it but neither to avoid it at all costs, because truthfulness is often the first casualty in avoidance.
My next installment.
When growing up, most children notice what brings joy or happiness to their parents, but especially their mother. In a good family environment it's normal things. You need to try your best and have good intentions and you'll be fine.
A traumatized mother who feels depleted and empty will only feel positively about her children when the children are popular or successful or are doing something the mother told them to do. Either it matters to her, on an emotional level, on her terms, or it's nothing. Or she makes it to be about herself or it's nothing.
So you have a haughty, superior, powerful and demanding figure and your only way forward and your only way to feel good about yourself is to make her happy. This is because the only reason you are given to feel happy is her emotional state. Even though she may say something different or superficially encourage you to find your own way or tell you to feel happy for trying, her behavior always comes back to that. Her excitement or lack of it is everything and it matters not how she puts it into words.
First problem is that a child will copy this attitude. If it does not excite you, then it's not worth bothering with. If it does not make you feel constantly happy, successful and loved, it's not worth bothering with. This upbringing made you feel good for winning, bad for trying, so if you can't win then you won't even try.
Second problem is that not only alcohol and drugs but also sex and sexuality offer a short circuit around this. They let you feel good about consuming. No need to win, no need to even try. It excites, therefore it's worth bothering with.
Except that rather than being only about this short circuit, some female bodybuilders give some of their admirers the confident mom through their body. I probably already found this theory some time ago that the attraction is about a joyful mom versus joyless mom. But what really defines it is the idea or assumption that emotions matter more than anything else.
In a child's development there's a clear difference between seeing actions and things in terms of bodies and emotional reactions and seeing them in terms of socially agreed upon roles and meanings. In some unhealthy environments children fail to make this transition. Or only take it halfway and keep longing for a return to an existence where every good thing brings bodily pleasure.
This has also something to do with how everyone seems to admire confidence and despise insecurity. People desire and admire confidence because on emotional level it's contagious. And they despise and belittle insecurity for the same reason. The easiest way to feel secure in face of insecurity is to attack it.
Intellectual confidence takes attention away from the emotions and the body. That makes the body feel dead, which is unpleasant and alarming compared to an experience of constant visceral confidence or security. That is, if you're a person who is very much focused on emotions and bodily confidence and suddenly someone asks you to consider something unrelated, that may make you feel positively empty.
You could assume tween gymnast girls to be all about their body, given that it is probably utterly superior to the bodies of average boys their age. In reality it's only one thing among many, especially if the girl is from a sane family, goes to school and has siblings, pets and friends. They may spend a few moments a year in admiring, showing off or joking about their body, but if they then share it on their personal Youtube channel, it may easily look like that's all they are and all they do.
If everything was about bodily pleasure and confidence, then it would all be interchangeable and every schmoe could sleep with a different female bodybuilder every night because both would feel pleasure anyway. The woman, who has an overabundance of confidence, could gift some to the schmoe. Or the admiration the schmoe has for the woman would even add to her confidence. The obstacle to this is neither greed, vanity nor selfishness on their part but the simple fact that people actually are social beings in addition to bodily beings. This is also why the admiration of a nobody doesn't add to the confidence of a somebody.
The social reality is more challenging, interesting and rewarding than the purely bodily reality. But still some seem to have the idea that people exist as social beings simply to succeed as bodily beings. This is like saying that everyone builds houses because they like the foundations and the rest of the house is simply an excuse to have the foundation.
Tl;dr: Being rejected as a social being by their parents will make some men fantasize of a world of purely bodily beings.
An addition to the previous one.
For some strange reason I understand things with more clarity if I think of preteen gymnasts instead of adult female bodybuilders.
One thing a person, a random girl or woman can focus on is to overwhelm somebody else with pleasure, fear, desire or envy. Another is self-improvement. A third one is social improvement. Think of a gymnast or a cheerleader as a member of her team. But a fourth one is what I would call virtue. But this needs some explaining.
Very few muscular women like torturing men with the idea of their physical superiority. Preteen gymnasts versus boys in school even less if at all. I think there are either boys or men they don't care about and then those they really like and wish that they would like them too.
Why are men attracted to muscular women? I think the aspect of self-improvement in its pure form is not it. The social aspect maybe. Being fit is a form of being popular and of course every male (who goes to a high school in the US) craves for popular girls no matter his own status. Or what?
The fourth reason is kind of a missing invisible elephant in the room. Often an average person is interested in meeting at least someone who is patient and trustworthy and who they share goals with.
I think among the most interesting questions here would be what other characteristics a woman ought to have if she would have an average body with average fitness and musculature (referring to Botticelli's Venus for example). I think the inability to answer this questions is one answer to the question in the topic.
Tl;dr: So it would be that because they, muscular women, like all that has to do with bodily and physical pleasure, take one's mind away from questions that are too difficult or depressing regarding personal conduct and character. Coincidentally, bodybuilding and the fitness culture don't exactly attract the most stable and level-headed personalities. Sometimes yes, but hit-or-miss on average and an obsession with one's body is definitely far from a guarantee of virtue.
A bit of a summary of this discussion.
There are those who simply asked for a reason. I assume, expecting something like "we are a special breed of human, joined together by our admiration of and sexual attraction to muscular and physically powerful women". Or some kind of variety of conversion stories. The Spider-Man was bitten by a radioactive spider (or something) and guys here were bitten by a female muscle bug in various situations and that sealed their fate.
I think it is a sticky slope, as opposed to a slippery slope. The moment you think you have converted, to certain degree or form of this fetish, is when you notice where you have slowly slid into in the meantime. Until that moment you might say to yourself that tattoos, too many veins, too big implants, martial artists, masculine facial hair or femdom are not yet your thing.
I think that it is possible to travel the slope backwards too. Or whichever way anyone thinks is the way forward. I am trying to say that human psychology is malleable, but slowly and with great effort. Sometimes emotional needs, including trauma and loneliness, but also sexual craving can provide the required momentum. This is why, once you get going along the slope, any fetish seems like the default direction. Sometimes the only possible direction.
But I have noticed that if you take a short pause from this, the moment you are ready to come back and catch a glimpse of some muscular female body, the horniness can be overwhelming. But if you take a longer break, you will get an opposite effect and will need some kind of push to rekindle the thing or flip you back into it.
Either there is some mystical you or essential self that contains the fetish, which you then cover and uncover, discover, forget and rediscover as life goes on. Or there is no other you than the one that is in a particular place on the slope. There is no you to discover or hide from anywhere else along the slope, but only the you here and now who either goes there or doesn't.
At some point I could switch to a site called Girls Who Like Their Muscles dot com and be like "yeah, good for them". It is common to think that the average person would "judge" or "condemn" or "be disgusted with" or "look down on" this all. Sometimes this is because he can relate to a similar craving for something else in himself and finds the connection disturbing. It is a different thing to be mostly unconcerned and just not see the point anymore.
Tl;dr: How did the average person come to this? Step by step. So how does one get away in case he wants to? The same way he came. This is not a bonanza you can suddenly discover, but neither an evil you can be permanently rescued from once and for all. Nobody can be just yanked into or out of it. There's a long-lasting force involved no matter which way you're going.
I like my woman w/ curves and many FBBs meet those requirements; it’s that simple