Forum
>
General / Nonfiction
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
Are you insane?
I won't call Zarkle insane but I strongly disagree with his notion that a longer break would need a push to get back into muscular females. I have no idea if there was an actual event that got me here or if I'm just wired like this. I do know one thing. For as long as I can remember, muscular females took my breath away. They are astonishingly beautiful in different ways. I'm an old man but have always felt like I'm 18, thanks to muscular women. A non-muscular female does nothing for me and I seriously doubt that would ever change.
I won't call Zarkle insane but I strongly disagree with his notion that a longer break would need a push to get back into muscular females.
I did not realize the question was inspired by the quoted paragraph and not my whole message.
What I am saying there has been my personal experience. After going weeks or sometimes even a few months without feeling drawn to any type of physically powerful woman I feel like I would need to get over a threshold. This has not always been the case. Sometimes, especially when I've been frustrated or unsure about something or some pleasant event, trip or holiday has recently ended, I've felt empty and the threshold has been lower or even negligible.
This is maybe because I have made it clear to myself that as persons these women would not find me particularly interesting and I'd probably feel the same about them. I think some of them are cute or nice in general, but I doubt they would give me any of that. But when people agree to a semi-anonymous sexual encounter it tends to bypass lots of other hurdles. So I would need to be motivated to come up with such a fantasy or look at them in that perspective.
It can become a habit to think before you turn on.
I know it may ruin the erection before it has even begun. So you get just a vague nervousness in your nether regions with no place to go.
It may also be possible that instead of Girls With Muscles I see this as Girls With Personalities. The catch is that in normal social media you see a lot more of the personalities of non-muscular women. Things that you might not necessarily like or accept, such as stupid life decisions, stupid fashion statements or stupid politics. The topic of muscles or strength sports or fighting sports narrows down nicely the things you see about them here and lets you fill in the blanks any way you like. A daydream archive that doubles as a porn site.
The definition of insanity is to have delusional goals. Or good goals with delusional ways to achieve them. There may be others, but I'd start with these two.
For me, the aesthetics come first. I like curvy women who aren't fat, and muscular women fulfill that description best -- big and curvy upper/lower body with thick, hard limbs and tight midsections.
I also find it incredibly attractive when someone's better than me at something, so if a woman is stronger than me or or has bigger muscles or more endurance than I do, then that's hot AF to me.
So, my psychological reasons are not complicated. No need for a Freudian analysis here. It's very simple.
I recently realized that people are easily greedy in their fantasies.
For example I once knew a person. If I told her I am going to attempt some project, she would immediately express interest and tell me to aim twice as high or try to do twice as much. This was not because she wanted me to really succeed. If I knew I could easily do twice as much, I would have set out to do that in the first place.
On one hand she wanted to gamble with my intentions. If I succeeded, she would get the glory for being smarter or knowing better or telling me to do so. But on the other hand if I failed then that would be my fault anyway and always only my fault. But it also meant always that whatever I was originally trying to do was never good enough.
Many pictures have comments where someone says that "she's getting there", "she's into a good start" or something like that. And in the picture there's a woman who is in the top 20 % or top 10 % on this site and probably at her peak or the biggest she will ever be. Unless she decides to inject a gallon of Synthol or pop a pharmacy in one go.
So one factor in being attracted to muscular women is the illusion that they are doing it for the guy drooling at the pictures. Or that he has the right to expect more of them or that his desire somehow influences them to do better, more and bigger. Or that he is entitled to see them inject that gallon of Synthol. I'm the great muscle pimp, came here to see how's it going with my harem.
Or the logic might be that since she is already making his fantasies come true, therefore that must be her reason for doing it.
In elementary school some random guy told me a joke. It was about a f***-ant who one day decided to rape an elephant. So he climbed onboard, found the right place and got going. Then some monkeys started pelting the elephant with coconuts. The elephant let out a loud scream in pain, to which the ant responded with "take it, you b****, take it!!!"
Not sure if there's some other joke there too, but the one I see is that the ant is absolutely insignificant compared to the monkeys.
Tl;dr: The fantasy that "I'm doing this for you and only you" and "good, I want more, more moreeee!!!"
Two random thoughts. In case someone comes from an abnormal family, where one or both parents or the only parent are alcoholics, promiscuous, mentally ill, part of some extreme sect or even absent most of the time when needed, normal intimacy might be too difficult to handle for him. Either he didn't learn it at all or learned a very confusing, unpredictable or perhaps shallow version of it.
But since any normal person craves for at least some kind of intimacy, an inanimate object or a body part might pose less of a challenge. It is difficult to relate with and understand an entire individual. Especially when dealing with something psychological instead of physical. In case it's not threatening then at least it can be burdensome. The problem almost disappears if one considers a pair of shoes, feet, calves, butt, tits or muscles to stand in for a whole person.
That is from the standard explanation for the origins of fetishes and fetishism. Rather strange that I didn't think of it before. This would make fetishes (or if I remember correctly, as psychoanalysts call them, part-object relations) rather than something, a lack of something. Oddities are looked down upon because being normal is difficult, whereas being odd usually comes about without effort.
Another random thought is that it might as well be that people these days develop less complex and less deep personalities. It does not matter if you are capable of intimacy and capable of being a whole person if the other one isn't. People may feel like they are deep and mysterious when in fact they're experiencing the exact opposite, an emptiness and a craving caused by the the lack of depth and mystery.
The thing is, abnormality lives off normality. Most people can't afford to be abnormal. Normality is an endangered species. When it is gone there will not be a paradise of abnormality where everything goes, everything works and everyone is a success in his own way, but an utter chaos where nothing works the way it should.
Tl;dr: Some sanctimonious blather on how it is necessary to also be strong and pretty on the inside. There is a chance I'm now finally done answering the question in the topic.
I think I have figured out a total sum of all human experience related to this question. I must thank Richard Grannon and his or Sam Vaknin's recent "dual mothership model" for this.
The point in all human narcissism or narcissistic behavior is twofold. First part is an attempt to create an existence that resembles a child in its mother's arms or womb. It is a state of total security, carefree existence, innocence and irresponsibility.
The second part is an attempt to act this tendency out in social situations or form differently balanced dyads. Narcissistic people create an atmosphere of carefree innocence, which people can mistake for depth and mystery or competence and confidence. People sometimes feel attracted to this and sometimes the narcissist desires to attract people. This is because the narcissist wants other people to confirm him in his carefree mysterious confidence.
A narcissist does not simply desire to appear entitled and carefree as much as he desires to seduce you to join him and that way confirm him in his chosen way of existing. The deal is that you get to be special and share in the mystery as long as you help him to be special first.
This means...
In some cases that narcissism may be an evil that a single perpetrator does to one or more innocent victims. The victims find the narcissist's feigned innocence and confidence repulsive. This often happens when normal adults have a narcissistic boss or supervisor.
In some cases that two persons come together in a romantic relationship where one is pulled in by the other's narcissism. One of the individuals may be more active and the other more passive but this would not work if the passive person wasn't susceptible enough.
In some cases that a child is raised by a narcissistic parent who wants to solve all problems in life by appealing to some kind of narcissistic delusion. Namely that he is a special parent and therefore only has special children. This may come across either as excessive demands placed on the child or a mentality of victimhood or entitlement pushed on to the child. Or all three.
This means that...
In all cases the relationship constantly fluctuates between two states. When it's calm, there is enough innocence, entitlement and competence to go around for both parties. But when any friction appears, every narcissist will try to get rid of it by pushing responsibility onto the other party. This fluctuation is why people find it very difficult to figure out a relationship based on narcissism.
In workplace situations this often means throwing employees under the bus for something that the boss actually caused. Paradoxically the boss may cause even more problems to drill in the point that he is innocent and that the employee is the problem.
In marriages and romantic relationships this means fights to make the other person responsible for the emotional state of both, so that the aggressor can maintain the cocoon of spontaneity and innocence. And in child-rearing this is basically the parent telling the child to raise himself but even more often blaming the child for failing to raise himself.
Tl;dr: The application to this question and muscular women is that sexual pleasure and physical competence, confidence and superiority are elements that both individually and together can work as a narcissistic confirmation. The appeal of muscles and sexual attractiveness but also sadism and masochism is that they all signify power and invite you to share in it and throw away some amount of consideration of guilt or responsibility.
But I hasten to add:
In other words, the more narcissistic, carefree, powerless, special and chosen but also melted in with the other's personality, less separate and less individual I want to feel, the more extreme muscles, hormonal side effects or sadism I will be after. Or even sexual practices not covered by this site. But also strong seductiveness or self-absorbedness. But if I for any reason want to limit my experience of these things, I will gravitate towards the natural and almost natural and girl next door types. The cute, smiling and presumably friendly with very little to no self-absorption.
I think the Powerpuff Girls fucked me up in the head when I was 2.
I was in elementary school when that show was airing. It was Ms. Bellum for me. She wasn't as physically strong as the main characters obviously, but her tall stature and calm, almost motherly presence/attitude (to say nothing of that sexy voice) definitely had a long term effect on me.
The only time I remember her getting physical with anyone was the fight with Sedusa.
I think I have figured out what is normality. There is a person I know and I've been wondering what it would be like if she seriously hit the weights or became good in some martial art and wanted to show off. I've not been interested in her otherwise.
Then there is another one who is a bit shady and insecure. And angry at times. She is thin and I know she is fit because she does some sports. She is otherwise uninteresting but for some reason I have wondered what it would be like if she wanted to use sex as a form of power and control to compensate for her insecurity.
But what if either one of these simply wanted to make some man feel good? With no strings attached and without any hint of control or manipulation. I think this is the base level or basic ideal of casual sex. Let's assume for the sake of an argument that casual sexual pleasure is a worthwhile goal with no serious downsides. Then there are only two problems:
The first one is if the woman does not want to make any man happy. That is, without engaging in some kind of exchange, manipulation or power play. But in case the man has no money, luxury or fame to offer, he can offer his shock and awe at her body. At least in fantasy. So the fantasy, the psychological reason that drives this fetish is the idea that a female bodybuilder would accept the worship and admiration as his side of the bargain. Her earnest desire is to blow your mind with her power and superiority, so you offer your mind to her. Simple as that. You get to be with her because you enable her self-love. Otherwise, no pay no play.
"How did you land such a muscular girlfriend?"
"Easily. I was the only one who had ever appreciated her muscles. Now she is all mine."
The second one is if the man simply can not accept that any normal and sane female on this planet would want to make him happy. Of course there may be undesirable women who would but do not count. So there must be some force or some stratagem to overcome this disbelief and self-loathing, which is often caused by upbringing. The easiest one is when a desirable woman would want to take control and impose herself onto him.
Tl;dr: The psychological reason might be an inability to experience and enjoy simple intimacy that is not driven by power exchange. Unfettered simple intimacy or casual sex is the moral equivalent of cocaine addiction. Still there's something more in an exchange of friendliness than in an exchange of power. Or to put it another way: powerful women often provide more craving than contentment. Those men who are unable to experience real contentment with a woman must get by with craving. It's like drinking sweet water versus salt water.
But in case you are capable of contentment and don't need any power play then muscles may bring you some extra without being something without which any relationship wouldn't be possible.
zarklephaser4: What are you even talking about? No one is interested in narcissist parents. You sound just as deranged and off topic as Slavoj Zizek.
What are you even talking about? No one is interested in narcissist parents. You sound just as deranged and off topic as Slavoj Zizek.
Thanks. But I fundamentally disagree with Zizek. After watching his Pervert's Guides I realized that his worldview is basically the same as what Tolkien is promoting in his Lord of the Rings. Which incidentally is the same as Wagner's in his ring operas. In other words the end of metaphysics, which leaves the human psyche and collective responsible for everything.
The human mind can not come up with any new meaning that it hasn't already borrowed from somewhere. If it borrows from culture or great books, then these also have borrowed it from somewhere. So either what motivates any human person is clearly in reality, for example a steamy relationship with an actual female bodybuilder, or a misappropriation of something that exists in reality, such as a real female bodybuilder and an imagined steamy relationship. Or a perversion, where for example violence or degradation are seen as their opposite when turned into pleasure. Every evil is motivated by some partial good, as in being degraded may sometimes seem and feel better than being left totally alone.
Narcissism can be defined as getting pleasure out of rejecting responsibility that properly shouldn't be rejected. Narcissistic parents are simply a source for this pattern of rejecting reality and responsibility for pleasure. The pattern is seductive, as in "I need you to confirm me in my irresponsibility", and contagious, because confirming someone in his irresponsibility is itself an irresponsible act, even when forced, and this is why it's relevant here.
This is what I am talking about. This is how narcissistic parents fit in. If this explains the motivation of at least some people and is a technically correct response to the topic, then I see no problem.
No one is interested in narcissist parents.
I had an inkling that it might come to this, but I had no idea how. But now I do.
The idea is that admiring muscular women is actually a narcissistic or borderline symptom.
Unless one admires them purely for the physical sensations they can provide. During my last year in junior high I got to have a friendly hug with a girl who had done sports all her life and I still remember how it felt. But if there is some symbolic value, some idea of superiority or masochism, then this will be relevant:
Every normal baby enters the sixth month of life with a split into internalized "bad mother" and an external "good mother". Melanie Klein has these the opposite way, but I think this is the correct one. The mission of the child, during next eighteen months, is to integrate these two representations into a self that is both good and bad and a mother that is both good and bad.
This will separate, in the child's thinking, good and bad from "self" and "not self" and allow them to be seen independently.
When this integration fails but the child keeps on trying, you get a borderline. When this integration fails but the child will pretend to have succeeded, you get a narcissist. The child will seek out all kinds of presumed good objects and then fake having integrated them, fake owning them or fake having made them part of his personality. In other words, the most pathological cases do not admire muscular women. They pretend to have made the muscular women a part of themselves.
The idea of masochism is to hold on to the internalized good object at all costs, even by letting it persecute the bad self and through this persecution maintain that they belong together. That the worthless self and the worthy things it wishes to assimilate must be seen to belong together and a masochism is a last-ditch effort.
Like I have already said, a substantial portion of the admirers here do not want to meet or have sex with female bodybuilders. They want to mentally become one with them, using their power and confidence as a mother substitute.
So there is a spinning wheel of fortune, with four sectors, labeled "good because self", "bad because self", "good because not self" and "bad because not self". The solution is to consistently believe that deeds and behaviors are good or bad no matter who does them.
A little news flash for context: Narcissistic Youth Sexlessness: Porn and Relationships in a Dying World is a lecture by Sam Vaknin, who is a strange Israeli-born professor of psychology. I agree with about half the things he says. But he has an entire playlist on contemporary sexuality too.
Some of the highlights from this lecture are that according to studies (done on American college students as far as I know), only 31 % of men can orgasm during casual sex. And 11 % of women. In a long-term relationship, 84 % of men can reach orgasm.
After the sexual revolution ran its course, people are having less and less sex and feel less and less satisfied when they do. The reason why Tinder and such are so popular is not because they enable people to hook up. They are popular exactly because they enable people to play the sexual marketplace like a video game and never meet anyone. Not meeting anyone is not a failure but is in fact the very reason people keep using the apps. They're not dating apps, but substitute-for-dating apps.
The reason why people are drawn to casual sex is the narcissistic dynamic I described in my previous message. In other words, not only does it let you feel good, but for a passing moment it lets you imagine you are better and more desirable than you really are. But it begins to fail when you overplay your hand and expect too much of it. But on the other hand people are less and less motivated to have non-narcissistic and non-self-aggrandizing sex anymore, so it's fake or bust.
This creates inhibitions. And one statistic said that 80 % of today's college students don't even try to have sex without being drunk first to lower the inhibitions.
One relevant and interesting thing Vaknin says is that being an alpha male has nothing to do with muscles or physical strength, but life accomplishments. You run a successful ranch or a corporation you've built from the ground up, you are an alpha male. These are people who are capable of calming down a roomful of people and settling disputes without using any tricks, threats or force. But for some strange reason, Vaknin observes, all the MRA and MGTOW talk about is getting muscles so they can become losers with muscles.
The average guys get laid more than the alpha males (the real ones, not the losers with muscles), but this is because females have gone crazy and insist on dominating relationships. This makes muscles on women kind of superfluous, because they mostly want to dominate everyday emotional and social encounters, which has very little to do with sex or violence.
The big hoax is that everyone else is doing it or everyone else has it good. This is why people who do get laid keep on trying and trying. And people who don't get laid think that if only they could get laid they would become a real person and finally start getting life.
The muscular women, for those who do not habitually date one, are not a fantasy only because they can never realistically get one. They are a fantasy because even if they got one or even all of them, there's very little chance of them getting anything out of it. So for the great majority, doing it here manually is the best it is ever going to be. Not because muscular women are so unavailable. But because of the abnormal psyches of these men and because of the social and emotional realities of hookups.
Also, male versions of rape fantasies work for the same reason as the female versions: because they are fantasies. It is far harder to internalize the other into your own personality as a "good object" in the middle of real violence. When she is hurting you only in your imagination, her power and enjoyment becomes your imagined "good self". Not so in reality.
Finally, I think transgenderism is the ultimate, irrevocable attempt at internalizing a narcissistic false self. This is why it is, was and is doomed always to be a never-ending struggle.
A little news flash for context: Narcissistic Youth Sexlessness: Porn and Relationships in a Dying World is a lecture by Sam Vaknin, who is a strange Israeli-born professor of psychology. I agree with about half the things he says. But he has an entire playlist on contemporary sexuality too.
Some of the highlights from this lecture are that according to studies (done on American college students as far as I know), only 31 % of men can orgasm during casual sex. And 11 % of women. In a long-term relationship, 84 % of men can reach orgasm.
After the sexual revolution ran its course, people are having less and less sex and feel less and less satisfied when they do. The reason why Tinder and such are so popular is not because they enable people to hook up. They are popular exactly because they enable people to play the sexual marketplace like a video game and never meet anyone. Not meeting anyone is not a failure but is in fact the very reason people keep using the apps. They're not dating apps, but substitute-for-dating apps.
The reason why people are drawn to casual sex is the narcissistic dynamic I described in my previous message. In other words, not only does it let you feel good, but for a passing moment it lets you imagine you are better and more desirable than you really are. But it begins to fail when you overplay your hand and expect too much of it. But on the other hand people are less and less motivated to have non-narcissistic and non-self-aggrandizing sex anymore, so it's fake or bust.
This creates inhibitions. And one statistic said that 80 % of today's college students don't even try to have sex without being drunk first to lower the inhibitions.
One relevant and interesting thing Vaknin says is that being an alpha male has nothing to do with muscles or physical strength, but life accomplishments. You run a successful ranch or a corporation you've built from the ground up, you are an alpha male. These are people who are capable of calming down a roomful of people and settling disputes without using any tricks, threats or force. But for some strange reason, Vaknin observes, all the MRA and MGTOW talk about is getting muscles so they can become losers with muscles.
The average guys get laid more than the alpha males (the real ones, not the losers with muscles), but this is because females have gone crazy and insist on dominating relationships. This makes muscles on women kind of superfluous, because they mostly want to dominate everyday emotional and social encounters, which has very little to do with sex or violence.
The big hoax is that everyone else is doing it or everyone else has it good. This is why people who do get laid keep on trying and trying. And people who don't get laid think that if only they could get laid they would become a real person and finally start getting life.
The muscular women, for those who do not habitually date one, are not a fantasy only because they can never realistically get one. They are a fantasy because even if they got one or even all of them, there's very little chance of them getting anything out of it. So for the great majority, doing it here manually is the best it is ever going to be. Not because muscular women are so unavailable. But because of the abnormal psyches of these men and because of the social and emotional realities of hookups.
Also, male versions of rape fantasies work for the same reason as the female versions: because they are fantasies. It is far harder to internalize the other into your own personality as a "good object" in the middle of real violence. When she is hurting you only in your imagination, her power and enjoyment becomes your imagined "good self". Not so in reality.
Finally, I think transgenderism is the ultimate, irrevocable attempt at internalizing a narcissistic false self. This is why it is, was and is doomed always to be a never-ending struggle.
Can you explain the last line regarding transgenderism!! I didn't understand it
I absolutely LOVE watching all these responses with no Psychological training whatsoever!
I absolutely LOVE watching all these responses with no Psychological training whatsoever!
The funny thing is if he had spent his time learning instead of writing these idiotic diatribes, he might actually be close to getting his certifications to be a real psychologist.
If he had done that, he'd realize that Sam Vaknin is a fraud and a bigot who isn't taken seriously by anybody with an IQ warmer than room temperature.
Can you explain the last line regarding transgenderism!! I didn't understand it
I am not sure if I can explain it. But I can rephrase the idea. The way it goes, every child is born empty and helpless. During the first two years a child usually integrates into his personality the idea that he is somewhat limited but somewhat capable. But with a neglecting, absent or self-absorbed mother, even if due to no fault of her own the child fails to internalize the idea that there is also good in him.
This leads to an instinctive, lifelong attempt to internalize whatever the child thinks is impeccable and can belong solely to himself. So he internalizes, for example, modified mental representations of cool, capable or adorable individuals. This keeps going because of the early internalized experience that the self is bad, lost, dead and beyond recovery. So my idea is that in transgenderism a person does not attempt to internalize some relationship or some skill or idea, such as "I am the private pilot here" or "I am the one who knows the king personally" but the idealized desirable aspects of the entire opposite gender. A victimless Silence of the Lambs, so to speak.
The funny thing is if he had spent his time learning instead of writing these idiotic diatribes, he might actually be close to getting his certifications to be a real psychologist.
What I am writing is by neither definition idiotic. I doubt anyone would say that I'm revealing an exceptionally low intelligence. But neither that what I am saying is only a private matter. To the contrary, if I am at all right, what I am saying applies universally.
You think I want to become a real parroter of ideas of people who I know don't know better and some of them have even said as much.
If he had done that, he'd realize that Sam Vaknin is a fraud...
I've been aware of Vaknin for maybe ten years and initially found it ridiculous how he mythologizes narcissism. He seemed to make narcissists into some all-powerful calculating superhuman machines, so people who wanted to have an absolute victim mentality liked to quote him. "When the narcissist points his cold empathy at you, you're gone. His gaze almost freezes you to death, he makes you his supply and then robotically discards you." Though he seems quite theatrical and thus easily misquotable by impressionable minds.
Then a week ago I ran into an interview he did with Richard Grannon where he explained the relationship between anxiety, depression and narcissism. And mourning. It made sense. I already knew 80 % of it but what he said connected a few more dots for me. Especially the idea that anxiety precedes depression. I did not know to connect these two. They're not always connected and not always through mourning.
At the same time he explained the counter-Kleinian theory of individuation and narcissism. The one I have now explained here. I knew the Kleinian version and some variations beginning from the time I studied Kohut's self-psychology, but had not given much thought to it lately. Because, thinking for a second, Kohut is also probably Kleinian. Also, Vaknin basically contradicts his earlier thinking that has the (I think wrong) Kleinian idea of "good self versus bad mother" all over it.
This I know because I then listened to his lecture on intuition. Three things. He makes a mess of it. I disagree with it, but I could explain his position better than he did on that video. But a majority of those who use this site agree with his position (self is born essentially complete but then needs to go and actualize itself for example through sexuality) against my position (that self is born empty and then goes to acquire meaningful and meaningless and harmful things from the outside), whether they are smart enough to have a clue or not.
...and a bigot who isn't taken seriously by anybody with an IQ warmer than room temperature.
Well. You have here the silly idea that you "take seriously" an entire person, all at once. As if Vaknin was supposed to become just another narcissistically acquired self-object. As in "kiss my ass. I follow Vaknin." Or that the point is to "take seriously" any person at all.
It's always what you know (and can explain in your own words), not who you learned it from, except when it comes to gratitude and proper attribution.
In your world "certain ideas = bigot" and "certain other ideas = not a bigot". The word is really supposed to mean "unthinking inflexibility" instead of "agreeing with ideas a modern, liberated, woke person finds offensive". I wonder what these ideas might be. Maybe those on the video I linked previously? That certain sexual acts are essentially sadistic or degrading, though a minority may for known reasons fail to experience them as such?
Who's the authority? Vaknin? No. Thousands of college students reporting their experiences? Maybe. But in the end those acts are either unique expressions of an unfathomably mysterious self. In which case no logic and no survey can tell you anything. Or a damaged psychological entity acting out its damage. In which case logic will reveal that this is essentially the case, though surveys may point it into the right direction.
Hope I am not the only person here who does not take Vaknin seriously, because "offended = takes seriously", ergo the only person with an IQ above room temperature. Though you are free to still believe I don't filter or examine anything I come across, especially if your unique self-expression requires that. Vaknin, right or wrong, gives his reasons for believing the way he does. Just like I try to do. I think this is the opposite of bigoted. A person can also be a bigot on behalf of woke ideas and sexual insanity and I submit that the majority of actual bigots today are of this type.
I doubt anyone would say that I'm revealing an exceptionally low intelligence.
I'm saying that. You have exceptionally low intelligence - you write a lot of words, but they're vacuous and meandering. You're incapable of making any meaningful statements succinctly because you have no understanding of the things you bloviate about. You obsess over semantics and minutiae (and bore your readers to death in the process) because that's all you have. No original thoughts, no actual insight, just nonsense you've appropriated from the Jordan Peterson tier "academics" you seem to love so much.
Sam Vaknin has been caught lying about his research too many times to count. He misappropriates concepts dating to the 1920s/30s and claims they're his original thoughts (eg, the concept of narcissistic supply). He doesn't follow basic tenets of science and contradicts himself constantly. His statements about gender identity are based on discredited theories and amount to little more than his latest attempt to apply his misunderstanding of narcissism to an issue that will get him television interviews. He doesn't even have a legitimate Ph.D., it's from a diploma mill. You've been played. You would have realized this if you weren't an idiot.
Simple: muscular women look damn awesome naked and most ain’t afraid to show off. And for those of us who’ve managed to bed a hardbody Amazon, there is no going back to ‘normal’ afterward. It ruins you—in the best way possible.
Are you insane?