Forum
>
General / Nonfiction
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
Itâs always a bummer to go straight onto one of these pages and see the arguing. I get that people like to troll and just provoke, and yes itâs sometimes hard not to respond when someone talks sh%t to one of your legitimate comments. If possible try to ignore!!
This is a very interesting topic that has been hijacked and dominated by one user. However, in between some long rambling passages, other users have left valuable insights and comments. Unfortunately one needs to wade through 20+ pages that includes lots of nonsense to access the more thoughtful information.
Hi there! It was about 13 years ago when I first wondered why I liked buff girls. To be specific I get excited by how small and weak they make me feel. Their size, strength, weight and confidence and especially how they grow from puny and weak to massive and strong. In my fantasies I feel weak, out of control and hopeless (I know... I need a shrink, right? XD) I am also a big fan of FMG. I remember searching for some answers on the Internet. I could find hardly any. The question has started bugging me again. I know there is nothing wrong with it so don't go on a tangent about how there is nothing wrong with it. I already know that. With that being said, I am going to say what I think about why I have this kink. I was raised by overbearing parents, in particular my mother. She was extremely violent and aggressive as she indulged in frequent physical, verbal and psychological abuse. Needless to say, it was no fun.i also have a sister, much older than me who would vent and and beat the crap out of me. I can't be sure but I have the suspicion that something must have sipped into my being, in particular in the sexual part of my psyche. What are your thoughts? I have never thought of asking anyone. Thanks.
@the_settler:
It is about a woman seducing a man in a way which makes him uneasy and horny.
I've kept saying there are two groups of men attracted to muscular females. One for psychological reasons, another for social reasons. Of course it's not strictly one or the other, but usually the difference or the operating dynamic is quite clear.
It can also be said that one group is attracted to muscular females out of confidence and security. They really have a social role in gym culture, for example. The other one is out of insecurity. It's these who consider bodybuilders somehow superhuman, call them goddesses and have fantasies of being abused and run over by them.
To simplify things a bit, one group is often plain horny. When they're uneasy, it's for unrelated causes. Just like the dude on that Angela Salvagno video. But with the other group the uneasiness feeds into the horniness. The more uneasy they feel, the hornier they become.
Women are as a rule more insecure than men. Having muscles may sometimes change that, for multiple potential reasons. One is the attention she gets. Another is the new focus in life she may have found. Yet another one is roid side effects. Maybe physical strength plays a part too. Maybe she also enjoys sex more, both because of roids making her horny and because of the new physical strength and stamina.
A little bit of female insecurity is actually attractive to average, healthy men. Average and above average amount of male confidence is also attractive to women, as a rule. They want to first find a man they prefer and only then hear that yes, he approves of her muscles. This is what insecure men often fail to grasp. It's not enough that you like her, no matter how much, if she doesn't like you.
@E3_441672:
In my opinion, I am even more confused as to why some people find muscular women attractive. I don't speak for anyone else, but me.
I think I have enumerated the good reasons and the bad reasons in the past, but I could maybe do it again, if it helps. This in other words means that I will list all that have been mentioned thus far.
Bad reason number one is biology and caveman fantasies. There's nothing in a muscular female body that would signal fertility, because muscular females are actually less fertile than average women. Funny thing also that many, who are here for psychological reasons, are disgusted by heterosexual intercourse or any acts involving either genitalia. So they beat off to fantasies that are by content rather asexual.
Bad reason number two is body shape. Fertility is signaled by hip-to-waist ratio, not by hip-to-shoulder or waist-to-shoulder ratio. Bodybuilding decreases (worsens) the only ratio that matters and increases the ratios that don't matter. Muscles on a female body may be a supernormal signal, but not a sexual one by nature.
Bad reason number three is "because I feel that way". The next step is to ask why does he feel that way, which is also the name of this topic. Neither does any testimony answer the question. There are other threads for testimonies. Most of the people who hate me here either misunderstand or disregard or disagree with the topic. Some do it innocently, but with some it's clearly about some kind of narcissistic self-insertion. "Fuck the topic! My unrelated opinion is more important." Here are a lot of this kind of jerks.
Bad reason number four is what the_settler has been trying to offer. He isn't actually even trying to give a reason, but a justification, or even glorification for being a submissive man. But that is off topic and does not answer the real question, which again was, what made the man submissive in the first place? This topic asks what is the cause, not what is the value, according to some new age gender mumbo jumbo, of being attracted to muscular women. Either some men were randomly destined to become enlightened in this way? Or maybe some confident men made a conscious decision to become more submissive, to gain new sexual opportunities? Or just to conform to said gnostic gender ideology?
Bad reason number five is also not a reason at all, and I am not sure if anyone else except walterekurtz has tried to offer it. This is to say that either things like this can not be known at all. Or that you can only know all or nothing. You're not permitted to know one or a few things. To me it sounds like total nonsense.
Good reason one is the social, not psychological reason. A guy decides to start doing crossfit or any other strength sport or bodybuilding and naturally meets muscular girls and women. He befriends them and spends time with them, just like any people with common interests. To him the women are friends or just people he meets, not a fantasy or an obsession.
Good reason two is that by some chain of events or by some random association a young boy sexualizes his feelings of being ashamed, rejected, weak or inferior. Almost all my long messages have been applications of different concepts of various psychotherapies to this theme. Nothing more, nothing less. Never claimed anything else either.
For me, I find the idea of touching a muscular women thrilling and sensual.
This might be a good reason number three. Let's call it pure sensuality. I hugged a very fit girl as a teenager and found the tautness of her body a bit unsettling. But this, like the social reason, is pretty obvious and not strictly psychological.
@Philanthrope876
(probably because psychoanalysis is pseudoscientific bullshit anyway)
I wonder whose sock puppet you are. I may have already handed your ass to you previously, so it might have seemed ridiculous had you said this all using your real account.
Psychoanalysis is about a few common sense psychological phenomena. It has only two problems. One is the funny sexual terminology chosen by Freud for his concepts. Another is that it's good only at describing problems but not in offering solutions. Every normal person understands the internal struggle between authority, feelings and rationality, also called superego, id and ego. Or in Berne's terms, the internal mental states called parent, child and adult.
One logical and very common reason to object to psychoanalysis or any psychotherapeutic theory is if the person is against gaining insight into his feelings and behavior. Some of them may be antisocial, delusional or exploitative and would be left without justification if he gained this insight.
So instead of talking about "the way this person has internalized authority figures into his thinking and worldview" it's easier to say "this person's superego". The problem with psychoanalysis is that it took over the world so completely that only the parts dropped in the process are now known by its opponents as "psychoanalysis" and then laughed at.
So the logic seems to be that since I have dared to write many long messages on topic that never pretended to be anything more than they are, while calling out off topic and obviously wrong answers, I'm somehow an open target for all kinds of degrading shit-talk. From people who themselves have offered nothing to the topic. But yeah, that's life and this is the Internet.
Psychologists are still debating the scientific validity of Psychology. Yes at best it may help a person gain insight and at its worst it's represented by those who convolute, generalize and come to false conclusions. Zarkle uses more metaphors than William Faulkner, incidentally a writer credited as an actual early contributor to the field, to try and impose his ideas on people he has never met or analyzed. His ideas are mostly derivative and unoriginal. Then he tries to play the victim when he is confronted with his errors. Oh poor me I was attacked after I attacked! LOL!! You know what they say: âA little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thingâ
And who exactly is Zarkle talking about when he claims the people here are afraid of psychoanalysis? Earth to Zarke, you havenât seen anyone here as a patient so how could you make such an ignorant statement? Is that your defense mechanism? You tell people that theyâre afraid of psychoanalysis when they donât agree with your bullshit? Having fun yet? Ever notice how many people who go into psychology fail to see themselves accurately even after all of their training and required therapy? LOL!! Given his musings I believe Zarkle is most likely a narcissist personality type who loves to argue with anyone about anything, armed with some quotes and scraps he picked out of a magazine or youtube video. Reminds me of the time I heard two guitarists argue over what constitutes a âmasterâ guitarist. One guy claimed that there could never be a âmasterâ because no one could ever play everything possible. Absolutely ridiculous and yet the other guy decides to argue against an obviously stupid point until heâs blue in the face. Real mature. Zarkle argues endlessly with a guy who claims a computer can predict human feelings and emotions. Talking about music is like dancing about architecture but itâs saner than listing to the drivel oozing out of Zarkles mouth.
The way I see it, many users here are definitely lacking in masculinity. In this context it means knowing who you are and what your values and goals are. And by values and goals I don't mean anything like "more liberty to consume porn". So naturally it's sour grapes.
Zarkle is completely unscientific. Generalizing that "most people on this site lack masculinityâ is about as scientific or logical as saying that everyone on this site uses a computer, and computers are used by NORAD so therefore everyone on this site works for NOARD. We are not a monolithic/uniform community⌠dumbass. Hey, now I'm being as inane as Zarkle. Obviously there is a wide dynamic range of personalities and reasons for being here. But Zarkle takes a one size fits all approach, sowing confusion and annoyance in many who have participated in this discussion, a discussion that for some reason he thinks he can audit by expelling users with which he disagrees. In reality Zarkle has absolutely no power in here and Iâm quite sure that is a huge thorn in his ass.
Normal human sexuality isn't that convoluted. Femdom mixed wrestling and beatdowns on the other hand are, and also do their best to maintain the tension. But that's far from normal. The point of looking at a woman toying with a man while the man gets more afraid by the minute is to tailspin your head further away from reality. So, in worst cases, the psychological reason for this fetish is a twisted self-love. It turns its own vices into virtues and other people's virtues into vices. Then it creates a fantasy where a woman is attracted (or at least should be attracted) to those fake virtues. The catch is that those are feminine vices, such as vanity, instead of masculine vices, such as cruelty. All that virtuous effeminacy. Lost forever. Like tears in the rain.
Arguments about the nature or reason for having sado masochistic fantasies is not even relevant to the original question of whatâs the psychological reason a man might be attracted to a woman with muscle as a woman need not be muscular in order to dominate. No that is rather an analysis of why someone would have a specific fetish. But Zarkle loves to chase rabbits down unscientific holes in order to make assumptions and predictions, which like a broken clock, could be true twice a day. âŚâŚAll that time on his clock lost like tears in the rainâŚ..
A very long time ago I began wondering why my attraction to female muscle did not seem like the sexuality of an adult man. I did not want babies with them. I did not want penetrative sex with them. I did not fantasize of a long-term relationship with them, neither of being seen with them or befriending them. I did not want them to make or see me orgasm. I just wanted them to thrill me as much as they could.
I also thought that I was fooling myself and that I secretly wanted to bonk them anyway. Or that at least nobody would believe me because it might have sounded so pure, innocent and fake. Yes, I am a man, but believe me or not, I don't always think of sex. Just wanted them to hold me, thrill me, kiss me and kill me, in no particular order. Or do something between posing, cuddling and dominating, depending on which day it was.
I can honestly say Iâve never even conceived of the idea of being held in muscular arms, so obviously we come at the topic from completely different points of view. Mine being heterosexual and I presume homosexual in Zarkleâs case. He probably came to all of his conclusions about such fetishes as a result of his own psychoanalysis. Just goes to show that there are numerous reasons why people are attracted to this site and its contents.
Zarkle continues to argue against nature by claiming he has debunked the idea of men being attracted to healthy women, which is ludicrous. The shape of a woman, only accentuated by those in fitness, is a totally natural thing to be attracted to, again if you are heterosexual. I can understand why he is so confused, coming from the opposite point of view IMO.
So donât cry Zarkle when you get your bullshit thrown back in your face because yes, THIS IS THE INTERNET & YOU DO NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY HERE.
Greetings to all, I have made myself a GWM account especially for this post, I found it interesting, with really good information.
From what I perceive in me as something that I consider attractive in powerful women, is that they can feel a kind of liberation, it's strange, it's as if more possibilities open up for them. I also find it attractive that a woman is happy because she lost weight when she was in an unhealthy situation in that respect.
I am ignorant, but I think I am a hyper-empathetic being.
Greetings.
Psychologists are still debating the scientific validity of Psychology.
This is like saying that economists are still debating the scientific validity of economics. There is no debate. It's all study of human behavior, just like sociology. It's like saying that someone is "debating the scientific validity of traffic laws". It's not because the scientific validity of something is debatable. It's because the whole concept of scientific validity is ambiguous.
The entire debate, if there is one, probably exists because some people think "scientific validity" can only be understood in the sense it applies to physics or chemistry, ignoring the element of human behavior or wishing to reduce human behavior to physics and chemistry. It then depends on one's definition of science, which either concerns physical phenomena, like often in the English-speaking world, or all knowledge, such as the German word Wissenschaft.
impose his ideas
By force. Through the Internet.
I'll try to respond to every meaningful point you have raised, though for the most part your message is just an elaborate "fuck you" that actually addresses nothing I have said or done.
Generalizing that "most people on this site lack masculinityâ is about as scientific or logical as
Is about as scientific and logical as going out and observing bugs, plants or birds. Majority of the interaction on this site is in the category of "boing", "my goddess", "she probably could punch me into the wall", "because I feel like it", "her eyes and smile tell me she has a wonderful personality" and such. At the same time a minority discusses the actual details of lifting iron or meeting women in real life.
In reality Zarkle has absolutely no power in here
I've always been the first person to say this.
Arguments about the nature or reason for having sado masochistic fantasies is not even relevant to the original question
It is relevant to what I was responding to at the time.
as a woman need not be muscular in order to dominate.
This is irrelevant to what I was saying, and to the original question. Nothing I have ever said has contained or implied the claim that a woman needs to be muscular in order to dominate. My argument is the reverse of that, namely that muscles indicate strength and therefore hint at an ability to dominate. Everyone can see how obviously true this is.
so obviously we come at the topic from completely different points of view.
So you're saying that everyone who's into lift and carry is homosexual?
Ignoring the fact that I was quoting a song and have never been into lift and carry. Though I would not object to it, depending on who the woman is.
Zarkle continues to argue against nature by claiming he has debunked the idea of men being attracted to healthy women, which is ludicrous.
Yeah. It would have been ludicrous if I had ever said anything like that. If people really want to know what I said they can either ask me or just go and read it.
The shape of a woman, only accentuated by those in fitness
But that is an interesting point. Or maybe even a bad answer number six. As if there was no difference between a curve and a curve. People sometimes say that men who like muscular women must be gay. Now you're saying men who are not attracted to muscular women must be gay? Because how else could you object to curves?
Are you seriously arguing from an ambiguity between the curves of some beach volley girl and say, Alina Popa?
So donât cry
I think your bullshit was absolutely original. It was a long time ago I learned to laugh at tantrums like yours, so don't worry about me. And it still seems to me I do have a monopoly on knowing this stuff.
I don't know about you, but I'm not offended by being called a traumatized narcissist, it's not the information that's the problem, it's how you use it.
But that is an interesting point. Or maybe even a bad answer number six. As if there was no difference between a curve and a curve. People sometimes say that men who like muscular women must be gay. Now you're saying men who are not attracted to muscular women must be gay? Because how else could you object to curves?
I'm not saying that at all....and you know it. YOU said you are not interested in sex or relationships but you espouse IMO homoerotic fantasy. So, it's no big surprise that you look at a woman's curves like they're some mathematical algorithm. If you were aroused you'd get it.
If you had the knowledge you proclaim to have then you wouldn't be siting by your computer waiting like a baited mouse to answer every post that comes your way. With all that "knowledge" you apparently have, you apparently have no life...SAD. ):
Let me give you your own advice and "take it elsewhere".
@zark: It is quite funny now that you are accusing ME of being too much off topic and out of line in this thread. You´ve been wildly off topic a lot of times.
And perhaps I haven´t answered the exact question "what is the psychologial reason" but of course there is no one reason for this. There could be a 1000 reasons and it is nice if everyone can give some input here and we can discuss things together to find out if there are any common ones and NOT do our very best to just shoot everyone else down on whatever we can possibly find.
I have tried to focus on how to have this inclination/fetish/whatever and still be a good loving person. I think that is also an interesting topic. But I haven´t written much about it. (Since every thing gets scrutinized and criticized)
I mean, are you even into some sort of more or less muscular women yourself? You have no favorites or subscriptions of any.
I've kept saying there are two groups of men attracted to muscular females. One for psychological reasons, another for social reasons. Of course it's not strictly one or the other, but usually the difference or the operating dynamic is quite clear.
It can also be said that one group is attracted to muscular females out of confidence and security. They really have a social role in gym culture, for example. The other one is out of insecurity. It's these who consider bodybuilders somehow superhuman, call them goddesses and have fantasies of being abused and run over by them.
Ok, so that´s it? The psychological reason is all just about insecurity? Everyone has insecurites though?
I have thought of another thing recently: I think a reason could be something like laziness or egotism or unwillningness to give love instead of just receiving. Worshiping is a passive thing. You don´t need to give anything to the women, you just take.
I've blocked Zarkle about a year ago, not seeing any of his comments - but since you refer to him it seems that he's still very active. Only person I've ever blocked on GWM: he is just a troll, discussion with him leads nowhere.
I've always been loathe to cave to groupthink, but even I have to concede the raw number of his detractors PLUS the utter lack of voices in his favour, following of course my own voluminous yet fruitless exchange with him, is starting to sway me towards blocking him. I suspect he may have already blocked me, which makes this post moot.
For now, I'll remain true to my free-thinking principles; a man is usually capable of seeing his flaws, repenting and repairing his bridges. I won't destroy his to me, for the moment.
@Grdlegs
So, it's no big surprise that you look at a woman's curves like they're some mathematical algorithm.
I understand. Now math majors are gay too. This is probably why they're considered so boring. They wish to keep secret their orgies where they ram each other round the clock for two days straight with the help of speed and Viagra.
If you were aroused you'd get it.
Where and how am I supposed to post proof of what I'm aroused by? You want a picture of my erection next to a laptop with this site open?
If you had the knowledge you proclaim...
Sometimes I respond within an hour, sometimes within a week. I'm always too fast or too slow for someone. I just do it when I feel like it.
@the_settler
You´ve been wildly off topic a lot of times.
When actually? Like I said, most of my repetitive and verbose messages are about applying some concept of psychotherapy to the issue. I still don't understand why it is a problem. Maybe people perceive them as more authoritarian than they really are. Or ignore or misunderstand the qualifiers I almost always start with.
You have no favorites or subscriptions of any.
I prefer to use the search. I see no point in storing a list of my former moods that may or may not come again. But my recurring favorites are the ones I've already mentioned, such as Anastasia Hein and Lea Kannowsky. Then maybe a dozen others. I don't search for Julia DeLo that much, but I like mentioning her because the interview by Ryan made her feel like a real person.
I have tried to focus on how to have this inclination/fetish/whatever and still be a good loving person.
It depends on what you mean by love. Being easy to get along with? Giving her money? Doing the dishes? Giving her pleasure? Exchanging vows and raising kids together?
(Since every thing gets scrutinized and criticized)
If you ever fail to offer anything substantial, you can always blame me. I have written everything I've wanted to, so unfortunately I can't relate to that.
At least when I disagree I do my best to spell out my reasons. Clearly not everyone does that.
Ok, so that´s it? The psychological reason is all just about insecurity? Everyone has insecurites though?
This fetish is a fantasy, not a biological drive. Fantasies are stories created by the mind to resolve or at least alleviate anxieties. The mind creates the fantasies according to the character of the person and out of the material he is exposed to. Many others have offered this explanation too from their personal experience.
The strength of the anxiety correlates with the power of the fantasy. This is just a mirror image of fantasies of endlessly conquering or abusing women. Oddly, men who have been abused by women tend to worship women, but men who have been abused by men tend to feel safe and not guilty abusing women. Being abused by a woman teaches a man that he is weak, but being abused by a man teaches a man to take it out on the weak.
I have thought of another thing recently:
Be careful or you'll end up the next prophet. As long as I'm here you will look good in comparison, but after everyone is assured I'm gone they will start telling you to STFU.
You don´t need to give anything to the women, you just take.
In a way you're describing all porn, including all wank material that isn't strictly porn.
@E3_441672
I swear this topic was about us explaining why dudes like buff chicks.
If you want to criticize someone or something you need to be more clear.
@dongonzor
he is just a troll, discussion with him leads nowhere.
I'm by definition the exact opposite of a troll. I don't care about the feelings of others. Neither as evidence for what they're saying nor after I have disagreed with them. It's always good to be polite, but not at the expense of the subject matter.
@Jazz29
Does there have to be some profound reason?
No. This has been acknowledged here maybe a hundred times. But this topic is about the profound reasons. It's like sexual abuse. Some do it for plain mechanical sexual gratification, some do it for power, some do it to fulfill some elaborate fantasy.
People who ask this question sometimes come off as worried that there might be a profound reason in their case. This is why I don't recommend asking this same question too often.
@JaybeeInGWM
I've always been loathe to cave to groupthink, but even I have to concede...
The only time ever I've seen someone be this ceremonious on an Internet forum and so enamored with his totally fabricated and flamboyantly emotional interpretations of the situation was when the said person was openly gay.
Still the only thing he said in his "voluminous exchange" was a power fantasy of being able to computationally predict fetishes. I said that's nonsense. I explained why it's nonsense. He ignored it. Then he said nothing. Or maybe he threatened me with starting this "poor zarkle and high and mighty me" wank. And then he did.
@dongonzor
I've blocked Zarkle about a year ago
It's definitely drama queen behavior to advertise it.
@HiHat
How do you block a person on this site? Please share instructions!
Click your username at the top of the page to open a menu, select "Account settings", go to the subpage called "Block users", type "zarklephaser4", click "Block user" and your troubles are gone.
Very little material for disagreement to be found in the above - sadly. I think my biggest disappointment was as a noob here, after decades of discussing this cosa nostra with almost nobody, I was looking forward to precisely the length and depth of discourse about it he seemed to offer, but which almost immediately turned argumentative.
I'll put on my Therapist hat for a second...I have to wonder if he himself was lied to overtly and covertly to the point where he wants his bs called out. A reassurance that humans fundamentally can still reject mistruth, however seductively packaged.