Forum
>
General / Nonfiction
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
Ever heard of Analysis Paralysis? Psychologists are often the very people who are the most deranged and only see things from their own narrow point of view. You need logical reasons why someone finds another attractive?
First, "psychological" does not equal "logical". Second, if we are reading and writing on this topic, I presume it's because we are interested in the subject.
Ever heard of Analysis Paralysis?
Has nothing to do with this. Analysis paralysis only matters when someone is trying to make a decision. Nobody is here trying to decide whether he likes muscular women or not.
Psychologists are often the very people who are the most deranged
Well, neither this has anything to do with the topic. I've never seen anyone here advertise any credentials and I myself have denied long time ago having any.
The way people here often confuse instincts and reasoning, by for example attributing to one what can only be attributed to the other, the same way they confuse knowledge itself with people appointed to perform some legal or financial function with that knowledge.
Or to put it short: The relevant people here are interested in psychology, not psychologists.
and only see things from their own narrow point of view.
What might this point of view be, what do you mean by narrow, why is it wrong or bad and how should they think then? Or do you just feel that way? Then why should anyone take your feeling for a fact?
Or why take time to belittle some totally irrelevant people for no reason?
You need logical reasons why someone finds another attractive?
Could you explain your reasons for this question? Because it seems like you're objecting to something nobody else has said or believes in. Nobody here has talked about a need. Though someone, for whom this is a debilitating porn addiction, might want to understand his situation. But it's obvious that we're not doing this for you.
Simple. They’re freaking hot.
Uhm...excuse me. Are you a man? If so, which alluring lady on this planet gave you permission to be attracted to her and her glorious muscles? These women are not here to look strong, to look sexy, to look beautiful for any man, let alone for you or for me.
If she doesn't know you or doesn't feel any attraction to you, you are objectifying her and undermining her strong, independent womanhood by your unauthorized fantasies of making passionate love to her strong, breathtakingly beautiful, muscular body, thereby proving to the world your deep-seated sense of entitlement and your undying hatred and resentment for women. This goes double, if not quintuple, if her physical might surpasses your own.
You pervert.
First, "psychological" does not equal "logical". Second, if we are reading and writing on this topic, I presume it's because we are interested in the subject.
Why do you think that psychology has 'logic' right there in it's name? ;) Maybe it doesn't appear logical at times, but i'd argue that it's aim is to be so as every scientific discipline aspires to be.
I have two new realizations, which necessarily at this point slightly repeat some of the earlier ones.
I think this attraction is a spectrum between healthy, mutual connection between men and musuclar women and a connection based on some kind of power disparity or even outright masochism. There is a difference between a power disparity that simply exists between the participants and a power disparity that is acted out during the encounter or the relationship, such as through worship or emasculation and humiliation or outright sadomasochistic acts. This excludes potentially tender and compassionate acts, such as lift and carry.
I had a fantasy that I met one of the cute and young women on this site and that she liked flexing for me. I kept thinking she does it because she thinks I like it. I tried and tried to remind myself that she's probably stronger than I am and that it's a display of superiority. But it's not if she does it because she thinks I like it and because she wants me to like her.
It's perfectly normal in a healthy relationship that both parties do things to make oneself likable to the other. There may be men who have never experienced this and men for whom this has been extremely rare. There are many whose mothers haven't cared the least bit about their happiness nor had any kind of empathy for them, but who gift things and favors in order to feel powerful.
When an act is intended to express power, its enjoyment is mandatory. I can hardly stress enough how important this is to understand. There are so many times my mother has relentlessly blasted me for rejecting a gift or a favor I thought I wasn't required to accept. Also, these situations can never be discussed afterwards, because that also would take away from the power aspect. You failed to submit to a good thing, and that's unforgivable.
She is not interested in me liking her, but feels strongly entitled to it. So, for some men, the reason for this attraction or fetish is they don't know how to relate to interested women, but only know how to relate to entitled women. The problem with today's dating culture is, partially at least, that women don't know how to be interested but only know how to be entitled.
Interested women meet interested guys, whereas entitled women can only meet either submissive guys, who they have no interest in, or even more entitled guys. So when it's not two interested people meeting each other, this fetish is about the fantasy that the combination of an entitled woman and a submissive guy could somehow work. That you could really build a relationship on female power-tripping.
The woman I had in mind was Anastasia Hein. She's very attractive without displaying any hint of entitlement or desire to manipulate. Or emasculate or humiliate or twist anyone into a pretzel. Also, going back to the levels of personality development I mentioned earlier, interested people are intentional, which means open to other person's desires and reactions within limits and able to stand failure and rejection, whereas entitled and manipulative people are teleological, with fixed ideas on how others should react, with a marked inability to survive failure or rejection.
My second realization is from a free video by a female dating coach. It says that people need to feel safe and comfortable to be able to know what they feel about another person. She applied this to women during a date, but this is equally true for anyone in any situation. So basically the hookup culture is a science and art on how to get laid without feeling comfortable. And this attraction, to the extent that it is a fetish, is a fantasy about the same.
It's been a while now. There are a few more things I have learned during these two and a half months. The initial idea is stolen from Richard Grannon. It is that narcissistic people, because narcissism is based on trauma, focus on fight and fawn, of the four trauma responses.
Now this may seem like nothing, because of the four trauma responses, those two engage with the threatening individual somehow. Freezing does not, and neither does fleeing. This means that all human relationships with a narcissist are a continuous flipping back and forth between the narcissist fighting you and fawning over you.
I realized that most social behaviors of animals, including cats and dogs, can actually be reduced to these four trauma responses. A social animal, as opposed to a solitary one, is defined by the presence or absence or relative strength of the fawn response. Really the thing that separates humans from animals is the human ability to reason about means and ends. Traumatized and narcissistic people are basically animals when it comes to emotional makeup.
When traumatized by someone, a person might initially freeze. But when the acute danger is gone, he might adopt a fawning attitude to the perpetrator. This is when he can neither fight nor flee and the threat is not severe enough to warrant freezing. So this might lead to the ingrained belief that to have a relationship is to fawn.
This logically leads to three alternatives. One is to desire to fawn over something that is both threatening and sexually attractive at the same time. Another one is to desire to passively exist near or with someone safe and attractive, without having to engage in any of the trauma responses. So she is basically frozen in place with you. Third one is to desire to fawn over something that is non-threatening and actively encourages the fawn response by making it a least feel or appear mutual. For a really extreme example, see Mana Okada (manahello on Instagram).
These are three different trauma responses to your fawning. The fourth missing one is to pine after an unattainable woman, so someone who figuratively or literally flees from you.
I have always been afraid of the question if this fetish is really a veiled desire to bonk one's mother. But now I can safely say that it isn't. The common factor is simply the fawn response, and that's as deep as it goes. The erratic behavior of mothers may traumatize some boys and cause them to learn to deal with all women by fawning.
The fawn response is not sexual in itself. I am not really sure about this, but I think the trauma responses, all four of them, eventually fail to resolve the outer and inner conflict that give rise to them. But sexualizing the trauma reaction may be an attempt to double down on it.
Some Japanese dude explained on Youtube that when a Westerner dates Japanese women, he may encounter four kinds of them in bed. The first one, paradoxically, wants to imagine that you're raping her. She will beg you to stop and then wonder why did you stop. Eventually you will figure out you should just let her beg and keep going.
The second type will lie flat and let you do your thing. These women were also known by the name of some species of fish. The third one will actively engage with you, the fourth is the crazy one that will gladly experiment both with you and on you. Now put these side by side with the four trauma responses. Of course these are universal and not limited to Japanese women.
She wants to flee / freeze / fawn / fight and she thinks you should have sex with her while she flees / freezes / fawns / fights. The key to happy life inside and outside of bed is to moderate these responses. The stereotypically macho toxically masculine man has a fight response towards women, in and out of bed. And rape is simply a sexual doubling down on an unrestricted fight response.
Narcissists also think they're the kindest and most loving people, because in their moral code it is neutral to fight and good to fawn. So every time they fight they're doing nothing wrong and every time they fawn they're being especially nice. This is also learned by the child or the victim of a narcissistic parent. So it's not difficult to reapply it to masochistic fantasies and assume these women would gladly dominate and hurt men without any sense of guilt or wrongdoing.
A few remarks based on the previous one. These thoughts again only apply to those who fetishize muscular women. Not those who socialize with them.
There is one reason that can be stated in multiple ways. One is that since your mother bullied and dominated you, you learned that women are like that, so you feel drawn to women who do or who could bully and dominate you. It may also become a quest to find the sweetest and nicest dominatrix and bully. This one day and the strongest and cruelest on the other.
Another way to say this was that a domineering mother usually disregards the child's feelings and reactions. "I don't care if I am hurting you." But when a muscular girl makes you into her physical toy or sex toy, she is constantly aware of your responses and reactions. "Yes, I am hurting you. That's the fun. See how strong I am and how overpowered you are." For all that gloating and giggling you fall in love with her. From a most hated toy person you've become someone's most favorite toy person. You're still a toy person, but oh boy, what an improvement.
The new reason I understood is that when narcissistic mothers dominate or bully their children, they usually base it on a lie. They accuse the child of something untruthfully or belittle the child unfairly. Or make unfair and untruthful comparisons, exaggerate, manipulate, gaslight, split and project. So there is a refreshing truthfulness in it when a muscular girl simply says "I bully you because I am stronger and I enjoy it. You are a scrawny loser and your purpose is to be a toy for a sexy strong female."
And if I am not a scrawny loser, I don't deserve to be bullied. Neither by my mother nor by any physically superior female on the Internet.
Then a whole new dimension to this exploration. I believe that there is such a skill as following orders and doing things according to rules. This is in opposition to being driven by feelings and cravings. An abusive home wrecks a child's ability to do things regularly and consistently. Rules are there so that you can get things done. Also the things you want and need done.
The opposite of understanding rules and agreements as things that help people work together and get things done is to see them only in terms of personal power. Bullies have rules for others, nice people do not. So your logical response is to either become an anarchist, opposed to all rules and regulations, or to wish to become a bully yourself, so now you can abuse others with your rules.
Usually the one who has the power is the one who creates the rules. But some powerless people are known to create lots of rules for themselves and for others, in the vain hope that it would make them powerful. So to be an anarchist or to fetishize rules are irrational polar opposites, neither one of which will give you any of the benefits of having real, good rules that serve a purpose.
To get back to fetishizing muscular females. In an abusive home, nobody's behavior makes sense. Or the behavior of the children is an obvious reaction to irrational parenting. So in this fetish the muscular female's behavior makes sense. "I bully you because I can, I enjoy it and you can't stop me." The other side of the equation is to have the courage to make one's own behavior make sense. Why courage? Because it's difficult to make sense when something abusive and powerful, an authority figure such as a parent, is forcing you not to.
So the core of this fetish and fantasy is that these women act rationally while letting the male victim continue to act irrationally, because acting rationally is to him a big, scary unknown. Or, in a bit political terms, it is changing the oppressor without changing the oppressed.
""I think this attraction is a spectrum between healthy, mutual connection between men and musuclar women and a connection based on some kind of power disparity or even outright masochism. There is a difference between a power disparity that simply exists between the participants and a power disparity that is acted out during the encounter or the relationship, such as through worship or emasculation and humiliation or outright sadomasochistic acts. This excludes potentially tender and compassionate acts, such as lift and carry.""
Exactly. It is up to each of their own to figure out how one can be on the healthy side of that spectrum.
The rest of your posts seems mostly like babble though.
The rest of your posts seems mostly like babble though.
Welcome to the Psychological Reasons Thread.
I have a larger point coming soon, but meanwhile just one small remark. This is something I may have said already earlier in a different form. The gist is that this is a sexual fantasy that enables the maximum passivity for the male participant.
In general, women wish to feel desired and men wish to feel competent. People who do no sports and have not much going in their lives but drool at the pictures here of course feel incompetent and these women are not going to help it. Men may enjoy sex for its own sake if and when it makes them feel competent. At the lowest level a guy may be addicted to porn to escape a feeling of deep inadequacy.
So the fantasies of getting these women into bed are a mixture of proving and failing to prove one's competency at the same time. This would suggest that the psychological reason for this attraction is this unresolved dilemma around competency. "I don't want to be able to do anything. I just want to be held in her muscular arms."
On the other side of the equation an average woman does not desire sex for its own sake either. She desires it because to her it is a proof of her desirability. The reason why she wants to be desirable is that it brings her male attention, male protection, male resources and the status that may come with it, not the least among other women. "See what I could attract."
It is obvious that if a loser living in his mom's basement fantasizes of these women, he can bring to the table his horniness. Therefore these women have a chance to feel desirable, no? No, because the resources are not there and the status is not there. No scrawny dude's horniness is going to pay for her Gucci bag or even gym membership. At least not in a one-to-one arrangement. But a hundred guys spending their weekly allowances on her online is a different story.
There is an epidemic of undesirable women saying "you get to have me and serve me, I don't need to bring anything to the table, I am the table". The difference is, they're saying this quite openly, whereas loser guys go to their dark pill circles to say the same. "It's unfair she doesn't want me purely for the sake of me being me. That would be true love. But surprisingly nobody wants to give it these days." Girls don't want to make guys horny just for the sake of it, though sometimes guys may want to be horny just for the sake of it.
So guys say "I just wanna be horny" and girls respond "I want something in return for making you horny". I wonder if this is the only possible final destination for sexual liberation. Guys wanting to be horny for free and girls wanting the biggest possible return for their horny-making potential. And all societal sexual oppression aims at the opposite. The guy needs to have status and money so he earns the right to be horny. Girls are required to provide their end of the deal, to that one guy only, without pricing themselves out of the market.
Here "for free" means not just without money or status but also without competence. A muscular woman who takes over in bed and is purely satisfied with the wimp going crazy over her is the pinnacle of this fantasy. This consequently means that this applies as a fetish mostly to the nice and weak though sometimes simultaneously deeply angry and solipsistic men. It also means this fetish does not appeal to the classic bad boy type who visits hookers in a sleazy motel.
"The gist is that this is a sexual fantasy that enables the maximum passivity for the male participant."
By definition fantasy provides maximum passivity, as it is fantasy - not reality.
The fault in your reasoning is that the people on this site are not monolithic. Your ideas presuppose that everyone is here for the same fantasy/fetish. The real question is, what is the psychological reason that YOU PERSONALLY need to explore the psychological reason for being here? My guess is that you're either working through some issues or you're using this site to write your college thesis.
Also, it's not exactly a news bulletin that women want to be desired and men want to feel competent or that "guys say "I just wanna be horny" and girls respond "I want something in return for making you horny".
We await your "larger point" with bated breath......
Grdlegs: "By definition fantasy provides maximum passivity, as it is fantasy - not reality." No he means that this is a fantasy that involves passitivity, and he (zarklephsaer) is right about that.
"The fault in your reasoning is that the people on this site are not monolithic. Your ideas presuppose that everyone is here for the same fantasy/fetish. " Well come on, people here have similar fantasies. Its about muscular women. What does muscle symbolize? I´m quite sure that guys who are into dominating women or stuff like that dont go to this site. So everyone who is here is because they have some sort of want to look up to and admire women, which of course can vary quite much in intensity or severity perhaps is a better word.
I do think zarklephaser say some smart things sometimes.
the_settler: I know what he meant - just like he knew what I meant when I said this thread could be thought of as analysis paralysis. I still disagree. You're making a broad assumption, just like Zarklephaser4. For instance, a fantasy that involves voyeurism is even more passive than what he suggests. I'm amazed that you somehow seem to know that "people on here have similar fantasies" It must be cool to be all-knowing....I mean what's the point of psychoanalysis if you can just generalize about someone without knowing anything at all about them?
There is an aesthetic aspect to this as well. Others on this thread have mentioned that we are hard wired to look for a healthy woman for child bearing. The laws of attraction don't have to be based purely on psychological reasoning beyond this factor. We look with our eyes and we are pleased or we aren't. There are shapes that we find pleasing. Studies have been done to show that heterosexual men tend to like a certain hourglass shape.
I do find the conversation interesting though, but you offer a rather vague defense of Zarklephaser4 when you say "I do think Zarklephaser4 say some smart things sometimes." Elaborate maybe?
Grdlegs: Well I haven't followed this thread enough to know what the two of you have debated. I havent read what he thinks about voyeurism either, I don´t really care.
But don´t you think people here have some sort of similarity in their desires? Go into a pornsite and browse their categories. There are usually tons of them, but I haven´t seen anyone being Muscular women. So this is a bit special, even though it shouldn´t be IMO. Besides, I havent said I know everything about peoples fantasies, obviously I dont.
I agree with you that there is an aesthetics component. I htink at least 80 % of all men would find Vlada Galagan really hot and sexy (some might deny it out of insecurity).
Anyways, I do think zark has good points here and there but I don´t have time to elaborate for you atm. Don´t want him to be scared off by all the negativity, thats all.
@Grdlegs
By definition fantasy provides maximum passivity, as it is fantasy - not reality.
I am there talking about the content of a fantasy. I think this was obvious. A fantasy of raping or murdering someone definitely is not about "maximum passivity" when it comes to content.
The fault in your reasoning is that the people on this site are not monolithic.
The fault in your response is that you're nitpicking something you fail to comprehend and bickering about something I never said.
Your ideas presuppose that everyone is here for the same fantasy/fetish.
Except that they don't. First, I have said again and again that I'm describing multiple different patterns, some of which may apply in some cases and some of which overlap. Second, if you really think you know better, then prove it. Just try to at least say something substantial. Like what alternatives do you think there are?
The real question is…
No it's not. I am not and never was the topic of this conversation. Why do you try to sound like you knew what you're talking about, were turning the tables and taking control of the situation, when none of that is actually happening?
We await your "larger point" with bated breath......
I'll start when you've finished.
Others on this thread have mentioned that we are hard wired to look for a healthy woman for child bearing.
I have already explained why this has no bearing on this fetish. Why won't you address that?
@the_settler
Well I haven't followed this thread enough to know what the two of you have debated.
We haven't debated anything. Grdlegs has now suddenly appeared out of the bush for the second time, thinking he has a great argument, when in fact he has missed half the story and misunderstood the other half.
So this is a bit special, even though it shouldn´t be IMO.
Funny now that you say that. I think the big difference is that the content of most porn sites is based on human procreative biology. You have bare genitals everywhere, doing things together and alone, going in and out, smashing and sloshing, dripping and spewing fluids, being fondled, massaged, mangled and so on.
This is a bit special, because as a fetish this has something to do with threat, force, superiority and inferiority. This is more like the schoolyard stuff before sexual maturity, where you had secret crushes and were afraid of being bullied. Ordinary porn is about abusing things you use to make children. Part of this fetish has more to do with feelings people had when they actually were children. Don't believe me. Just think about all the testimonies posted here.
Of course there is some crossover too. Some men wish to extend their hydraulic prowess to whatever women, so muscles really don't matter. Some have fantasies of humiliating women, and what better chance to show her who's the boss than when she thinks her muscles give her a fighting chance?
And vice versa, some frequent ordinary porn sites to fantasize of what happened to the popular girl who spurned their advances. There she is now, giving it to five men all at once. That's what women are like, ha ha. She had the power then, he has the power now.
I htink at least 80 % of all men would find Vlada Galagan really hot and sexy (some might deny it out of insecurity).
I think her face is still pretty, though I'd probably prefer Anastasia Hein or Julia DeLo to her. I used to find her body impressive, but for some reason I think I have now lost the plot.
@Zarklephaser4
"These thoughts again only apply to those who fetishize muscular women." - If that's not a generalization than what is??
"There is one reason that can be stated in multiple ways." - No generalization here either....
"I have already explained why this has no bearing on this fetish. Why won't you address that?" - Why can't you accept that a fetish for these types can be purely aesthetic? NEWS FLASH: Your ideas are not proven scientific laws, so maybe try to get over yourself.
"No it's not. I am not and never was the topic of this conversation. Why do you try to sound like you knew what you're talking about, were turning the tables and taking control of the situation, when none of that is actually happening?" - Yes it is, because you can speak most intelligently about your own psychological reasoning and not about people you've never met. So you're an authority on the topic but has nothing to do with you? It might be more interesting if you were speaking from you own experience instead of quoting some Psych mag.
"I have always been afraid of the question if this fetish is really a veiled desire to bonk one's mother. But now I can safely say that it isn't. The common factor is simply the fawn response, and that's as deep as it goes. The erratic behavior of mothers may traumatize some boys and cause them to learn to deal with all women by fawning." - You Zarklephaser4 can now safely say....WOW when are you accepting your medal? Another generalization.
Calling me a nitpicker is rich given your constant breakdowns of the posts with which you disagree.
Seems as if you don't like being challenged.
I was going to write a detailed answer to Grdlegs, but in the process I figured out a few things and decided to start again to make a shorter one.
He is writing in the assumption that I am either struggling to confess to myself that I like female muscle, or "working through some issues" or whatever. I have no idea what I were supposed to do in that case or why it's particularly his business.
Things I have already said about my motivation he ignores totally. Of course I don't expect anyone to read anything I have written, but in that case they should not pretend to know. Also, goes without saying that nobody owes anyone any information here.
Or he assumes that I am "writing a college thesis" and see other users as something like guinea pigs. I don't believe this is the way one would do it. Or college education has gone to shit. Don't ask me. But this is related to the next one.
What matters is that by accusing me of "generalizing" he is not referring to any logical or argumentative fallacy, but simply means "talking about others". So he thinks he's gatekeeping this site against me and personalizing and polarizing things accordingly.
I initially just thought he's obnoxiously stupid. But now that I understand where he's coming from and that he's doing this elementary school bully stuff against the nerdy kid, I still do.
@zark: """Funny now that you say that. I think the big difference is that the content of most porn sites is based on human procreative biology. You have bare genitals everywhere, doing things together and alone, going in and out, smashing and sloshing, dripping and spewing fluids, being fondled, massaged, mangled and so on."""
Yeah, maybe it is. I´ve never really enjoyed it tbh, seeing people fucking. There is just no play or fun in it. Close ups and what you describe so well. With a beautiful muscular woman (not the porn stars like Angie Salvagno), you can start fantasizing a story or something. There is no thinking in pornography, only a release. Maybe thats why the big dumb masses like it so much? (The people who watch the latest marvel films and always go to the same place on vacation you know.)
"""This is a bit special, because as a fetish this has something to do with threat, force, superiority and inferiority. This is more like the schoolyard stuff before sexual maturity, where you had secret crushes and were afraid of being bullied. Ordinary porn is about abusing things you use to make children. Part of this fetish has more to do with feelings people had when they actually were children. Don't believe me. Just think about all the testimonies posted here."""
I get you and I would not be surprised if sexual fantasies are partially molded in our childhood. But I think that instead of this being "more like the schoolyard stuff before sexual maturity", it is a being in contact with the female part of you. You know, we all have both to some degree. Few men are like Jocko Willink.
I think a common muscle girl/woman fantasy can be that you´re a bit trapped with her. She playfully, gladly but still with control, wraps her legs around your waist from behind and you have the thrill of feeling the power and what she might come up with. (Maybe traces back to when you were afraid of women as a scrawny teenager.) Now, from my own experience this exact scenario turns women on as fuck. One exapmple: I dated this woman and when we made out in my sofa I held her real tight (but of course not violent) and then rubbed her pussy outside her pants. She touched my body a lot and later she had an orgasm. Not exactly of the ordinary for me, since I usually suck when it comes to intercourse. I think this is related to muscular women, you get my point I hope. Sorry for perhaps oversharing here.
I should probably write something down before I start forgetting things. The first thing I like to focus on is called main character syndrome. This is often attributed to people who are extroverted and hard to get along with, or somewhat both narcissistic and histrionic.
Then there are those who are called deflated or compensatory or secondary narcissists. These are people who think they should be the center of attention, but feel perpetually wronged because they're not. The main character syndrome, from an intellectual standpoint, does not refer to how successful the person is, but to the very idea that he is a person unlike any other, and that to him, existence is his story, and nobody else's.
One step down from this is to believe everyone else is like that too. Everyone thinks he should get the spotlight, so we can either live by fighting each other or live as if everyone had the spotlight at the same time. We're all main characters and we're all super important. Everyone should learn to respect both himself and everyone else as the main characters they are and we all are.
Problem is that this "let's agree all to be main characters" is not a real solution, but depends on everyone being a passive audience to some mutually agreed-upon figureheads, or designated main characters. So the next logical alternative is to give up one's main character aspirations and become the worshiper of someone else. Problem with narcissistic parents is they force their kids into being followers instead of individuals.
This makes them not only prone to falling for cults and extremists, but also different forms of faux independence and faux self-determination, such as addictions and criminal and antisocial behavior. This all depends on circumstances, temperament and level of intelligence of the individual. In their mental makeup it is not permissible to have real plans and aspirations, but it is permissible to be drawn to or driven by something.
This idea basically says that when a person gets too tired of trying to be the main character in his life, he wishes that a dominant female character would become a main character for him. Real maturity consists of not being the main character and not expecting anyone else be one either.
In other words, being the main character and worshiping someone else, be it a cult leader, a national leader, a domineering friend, a spouse or a muscle fantasy as another main character are on the same level of maturity or immaturity. Mentally healthy adults live in a world where people with limits make limited choices from among limited options available to them and nobody goes around charming the pants off others.
This then leads to my second idea.
Schizophrenia literally means a state where the mind is split or separated somehow. But this is not a horizontal split, as in multiple individuals in one body, but a vertical split, as in intellect not connected to emotions. In different types of schizophrenia the emotions are either dead, strange or running wild. In a normal individual, emotions correspond to the way he understands his current situation and experiences.
But say for example a child has incredibly controlling and unstable parents who stop him from being independent, forbid all expressions of negative emotion, pressure him to playact various emotions that serve their purposes and feel entitled to manipulate all his goals and desires. This creates a strain that can sometimes disconnect a child's feelings from his understanding of what is happening, what he is doing or what he wants or prefers in a given situation.
This sometimes leads to said child constructing a social world of elaborate stereotypes and delusions, where for example hostile people are cartoonishly evil and nice or pretty people are just plain angelic. It is known that this delusional social world feels very lively and enchanting, while the real world, with its real people, may feel extremely dead, cold and desolate in comparison. Some patients even describe it as feeling sharp, angular, cold and metallic. They know what the world looks like and what it is made of. They recognize all the physical materials. It's just that the world feels extremely alien and hostile to life at the same time.
It is this difference that makes even mild forms of the disease difficult to cure. It is not enough to push medications to hopefully kill the delusions, because the patient will nevertheless put all his energy into maintaining them. The key is to motivate the patient to face the real world and see meaning in his actions in it, which may initially feel excruciatingly pointless and unrewarding.
This then leads to my third idea.
To a schizophrenic, the real world of real people, events and choices is known to appear lifeless and mechanical. The schizophrenic is not only suffering from his paranoia and delusions, but uses them to make the world feel livable and meaningful. This leads to the idea of there being a general spectrum between "feeling dead" and "feeling alive".
Even when there is no disconnect and therefore no schizophrenia, growing up with abusive parents or in an unsafe environment, extreme poverty or no friends, may cause a person to feel dead inside. One obvious way to make oneself feel alive for a moment is sexual excitement.
To summarize these all three, this fetish can be a symptom of living in a world of main characters. So when one gets tired of trying to be a main character, he picks a woman here and worships her as the main character of his life, in a form of psychological self-deprecation, even masochism, letting her fulfill his aspirations for him. This fetish can also be, in extremely rare cases, about using these women as material for delusions. People like this usually give them very naive and childish admiration, as if they were some kind of anime waifus with incredible physical strength. Finally this can also be a form of simple porn addiction, but in this case it can be understood as alleviating a feeling of inner deadness, instead of passing anxiety, or as a simple voluntary quest for momentary pleasure.
Ever heard of Analysis Paralysis? Psychologists are often the very people who are the most deranged and only see things from their own narrow point of view. You need logical reasons why someone finds another attractive?