Forum
>
General / Nonfiction
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
but you don't know what "MMMMmmmmmm" means ? ...
You're confusing me with another poster. I made no comment on this expression, which speaks for itself.
Keep it simple Dash.... because the K.I.S.S principle still works best for me...
Can you also use this argument against a quantum universe?
Nature picks the Fittest for survival... and a Fit woman fits that profile does she not?
This is evidently not the case. You're misusing the term "fit," conflating appearance with biological utility. Too bad I'm bored of your unwitting "Who's on First?" bit. At least Costello knew he was Costello.
I think all bases have been covered wrt/ the root of this fetish. There is no biological reason. Otherwise almost every man would consider female bodybuilders at least as attractive as any other woman. But since only a minority of men have this, it is therefore logical to think that the cause is psychological.
The men who have the fetish have associated the muscles in their mind with something. For some it is plain sexual pleasure. Some have worked their way up from sporty girls and built up a tolerance to muscle. For others it is the sense of social superiority, which gives rise to envy and sublimated anger and feelings of inferiority, then finally attempts to overcome these masochistically.
The envy is always there. But what draws these men to these superior women is the temptation to be able to overcome it by acting it out somehow.
The flipside of masochism is sadism. Some men feel threatened and repulsed by muscular women for the same reason others feel excited by them. Anger is the more natural, unsublimated reaction to envy and feelings of inferiority. Those who are prone to neither envy nor feeling inferior experience neither anger nor excitement.
To the majority of men the supernormal signal in big muscles in itself does not mean anything. In comparison, most men understand epic boobs because there is a biological meaning to them. At least those who have been breastfed. Earlier when I mentioned generosity I was referring to this, not any supposed moral quality.
Like has already been said by others, there is no biological fitness, either perceived or real in female bodybuilders over an average woman. They often can have kids, but neither the male psyche nor the male biology recognizes them as especially fertile.
Finally, survival of the fittest does not actually take place in nature. In their natural state most animals do not procreate over the limits of their environment and the prey that gets caught is often sick or elderly individuals. Only when the proximity to humans somehow messes up an ecosystem will you see behavior that could be properly called "Darwinian".
Rousseau thought that humans are naturally good and that civilization and rationality are mostly just unavoidable evils. In reality human social behavior could be described as Darwinian in the absence of civilization, but animals on the other hand have an observable Rousseauian natural goodness or natural tendency towards balance in them.
Zarklephaser4, (I assume 1 through 3 were taken. Amazing.) Yes all the bases have been covered, then refuted by you, and then improved and or corrected by you. If you don't mind I'm going to agree with you but then I'm going to critique some of your ideas. In this answer you state you don't think it's biological (nature) you think it's more psychological (nature and nurture). In other words I don't now why. I like that answer. No one knows why. They only know they really like it. You commented about my answer which states 1. You don't think Ted Bundy had sex with his dead victims for weeks. Of course he did! And that bit of knowledge right there lead to the capture of the Green River Killer. This is information from Ann Rice's novel about Ted called "A Stranger Beside Me." Detectives and Criminologist did as much information collection from Bundy as they could while they had the time. You say because the Latin origin of the word science has something to do with finding out the true state of affairs in terms of cause and effect. I buy that. But no where does science ask why. We are understanding the rules of the game better all the time. But not the why. For example no one knows why magnets repel like poles and attract to opposite. THey just know through observation and experimentation that is the way it is. Well let's say you press them they will go into a detailed explanation of Quantum Mechanics, explaining that in certain metals the molecules can line up in such a way where the atoms that make up the molecule have electrons spending more time on one side of the atom than the other. Leading to the effect of what we call a south pole and the other side a north pole. That might satisfy you. But already I've cheated you. Whey does the electron orbit the Proton? Why don't they collide? Why don't Protons attract protons and repel electrons. If we can't answer the question of how the hell a magnet is moving something without touching it, how are you going to answer this question? Just leave it with I don't know but I do find them hot as hell. Wish there was more of them. Everyone has psycho analyzed themselves and may have some ideas. But at age 16 when I first saw one I knew this was something I really like. Now if you want to show us how smart you are maybe you can answer this: How can we land one of these beauties?!
But at age 16 when I first saw one I knew this was something I really like. Now if you want to show us how smart you are maybe you can answer this: How can we land one of these beauties?!
We can only worry about half of that equation because they ultimately determine whether or not they will allow themselves to be landed, Furthermore, if they are attracted to members of the same sex as they, we are just SOL! ;-(
I only know of two direct references to 'robust' women in philosophical literature, one is found in the works of Schopenhauer and the other in Weininger's book 'Sex and Character'. I think the people here would be especially interested in the latter since Weininger put forth outlines of a theory that attempts to find the general causes of how not just humans but also animals 'choose' their partners. Here's an excerpt from Schopenhauer's book:
Here come in the further relative considerations, resting on the fact that everyone endeavors to eliminate through the other individual his own weaknesses, defects, and deviations from the type, lest they be perpetuated or even grow into complete abnormalities in the child to be produced. The weaker a man is in regard to muscular strength, the more will he look for robust women; and the woman on her part will do just the same. Now, as a lesser degree of muscular strength in the woman is natural and regular, woman will, as a rule, give the preference to stronger men. Further, size is an important consideration. Short men have a decided inclination for tall women, and vice versa; indeed in a short man the preference for tall women will be the more passionate, according as he himself was begotten by a tall father, and has remained short only through the influence of his mother, because he has inherited from the father the vascular system and its energy that is able to supply a large body with blood. On the other hand, if his father and grandfather were short, that inclination will be less decided. At the root of a tall woman’s aversion to tall men is nature’s intention to avoid too tall a race, lest with the strength to be imparted by this woman, the race should prove to be too weak to live long. But if such a woman chooses a tall husband, perhaps for the sake of being more presentable in society, then, as a rule, the offspring will atone for the folly. Further, the consideration as regards complexion is very definite. Blondes prefer absolutely dark persons or brunettes, but only rarely do the latter prefer the former. The reason for this is that fair hair and blue eyes constitute a variation, almost an abnormality, analogous to white mice, or at least to white horses. In no other quarter of the globe, not even in the vicinity of the poles, are they indigenous, but only in Europe; and they have obviously come from Scandinavia.
Arthur Schopenhauer — Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung (Supplement to the Fourth Book, XLIV "The Metaphysics of Sexual Love"
And here's a quote from Weininger:
All human beings have their own specific “taste” as far as the opposite sex is concerned. If, for example, we compare the portraits of the women who are known to have been loved by any famous man in history, we almost always find that there is an almost constant likeness between all of them. In their external appearance this is most marked in their build (in the narrow sense of the figure) or in their face, but, on closer inspection, it extends to the smallest details — ad unguem — down to the fingernails. The same, however, also applies elsewhere. Thus every girl who strongly attracts a man immediately reminds him of all those girls who earlier had a similar effect on him. Further, everybody has numerous acquaintances whose taste in respect of the opposite sex has caused him to exclaim: “It’s beyond me how anybody can fancy her.” Darwin (in The Descent of Man) collected a great number of facts that make it impossible to doubt that among animals also each individual has its own specific taste. It will soon be shown that there are clear analogies to this fact of specific taste even among plants. Almost without exception sexual attraction, like gravitation, is reciprocal. Where there seem to be exceptions to this rule it is almost always possible to demonstrate some more differentiated factors which prevent the pursuit of immediate—almost always reciprocal—liking, or which create a desire if that immediate first impression has not been present. Common sayings, such as “the right person will come along” or “these two are completely unsuited to each other,” also suggest a dim awareness of the fact that in all human beings there are certain qualities that make it appear less than completely fortuitous which individual of the opposite sex is suited to sexual union with them; and that it is not possible for every “man” or “woman” to stand in for every other “man” or “woman” without it making a difference. Everybody also knows from personal experience that certain members of the opposite sex may downright repel him, others leave him cold, others again appeal to him, until finally (perhaps not always) one individual arrives who arouses in him such a desire for union that in comparison he may come to regard the whole world as worthless and non-existent. Which individual is this? What qualities must this individual possess? If—and this is so—every type of man really has as his correlate a corresponding type of woman who has a sexual effect on him, and vice versa, then, at least, a certain law seems to be at work here. What kind of law is that? How can it be formulated? “Opposites attract,” I was told when, already in possession of my own answer, I stubbornly pressed various people to pronounce such a law, assisting their capacity for abstraction with examples. This is also acceptable in a certain sense and for a minority of cases. But it is too general, it runs through the fingers that try to grasp something concrete, and admits no mathematical formulation whatsoever.
What do you guys think?
We can only worry about half of that equation because they ultimately determine whether or not they will allow themselves to be landed, Furthermore, if they are attracted to members of the same sex as they, we are just SOL! ;-(
Quite right.
Zarklephaser4, crap! You got me. I'm arguing with a 14 year old aren't I? Too many tells. You find things confusing. You believe science asks the question why instead of how. You're not even supposed to be on here. By that I mean typing words. Albeit you need to read some books and get that vocabulary up to par so you aren't so easily spotted. The way you try and convey an idea is superfluous. Or worse yet a menace. And I always have time to talk to another adult. One day you'll learn why. And you'll learn that no on likes a brat. But I blame your parents. So I won't say anything negative to you. Because it's not your fault.
schop, I think tall women like even taller men.
Yeah, I think so too. I think the "opposites attract" meme is sometimes true, but it doesn't give us the whole picture of how people fall in love with each other. Weininger took this idea and formulated a law which goes like this:
It is always a complete Man (M) and a complete Woman (W) who strive to join in sexual union, although they are distributed in different proportions between the two different individuals in every single case.
What this means is that individuals can either be more masculine or more feminine (or equally both!) and that masculine individuals will tend to seek feminine partners (this applies vice versa). So, a man that is approximately 75% masculine and 25% will strive to enter into a union with an individual that 75% feminine and 25% masculine. The masculinity or femininity of a particular individual are express in successive levels of sexual characteristics (primary = anatomical, secondary = physiognomic, tertiary = psychological, quaternary = social). To give a quick example of each category, a primary characteristic could be something like the gametes, secondary may be muscles or boobs, tertiary may be muscular strength or independence of mind and quaternary may be expressed in the way a person comports themselves in society, i.e. stuff like their manners and their profession.
I’m not going to “defend” Zarklephaser and I’m not going to “criticise” walterekurtz, but MY interest here lies in having more of Zarkles superfluous inputs on this subject. So please agree to disagree and try to be polite or move on.
Having read almost every book and study about the psychological reasons on how our mothers affects us sexually, Zarklephasers analysis of those studies makes it more understandable.
From everything I read the bioglogical reasons are almost 0% of why we can develop these fetishes. So therefore I agree with zarklephaser a lot and disagree with “survival of the fittest” and evolution theories. If those were true every single dude out there would prefer a bodybuilder over a “normal” woman and that’s not the case now, is it!?
Yes, at least for me personally the issue of biological versus psychological is quite settled.
Yet there's an entire half of the equation that has remained completely unaddressed. Let's assume someone finds himself attracted to muscular women and starts wondering why. The self gives no answers, because the behavior of the self is the thing that needs to be explained. The easiest starting point is to focus on the object of the attraction. But neither does the object of attraction in itself give any answers. There must be a relationship between the one attracting or the woman and the one attracted or the man. A relationship that is modeled after another, earlier and more fundamental one. This is why I have focused on the mother.
At the core of the idea known as the oedipal complex is the male child's separation from his mother and being attached to his father. The tragic story, after which the concept has been named, is in reality not about a boy desiring to marry his mother but a mother desiring to marry her son. The role of the father is to stop this from happening. This he does by asserting his right to the attention of his wife. Not to his son but to his wife. The son has no power over the mother but the mother has power over the son. We're talking about a six-year-old here.
Now let's suppose a man figures out the connection between his domineering, selfish or withholding mother and his attraction to domineering or confident women in general. It is not as simple as these women being evil and wanting to control or subdue the man and the man simply deciding to say no and living happily forever after. There's lots of pleasure and comfort that comes with being submissive, so it is a tug-of-war between this comfort on one hand and independence and self-assurance on the other. Here is also the reason why masochism has an inbuilt tendency to escalate.
Now that the man has the mother figured out he is free to voluntarily move in and out of the comfort and the submissive position. This at least in theory, because in practice all kinds of frustrations, loneliness and failures make the comfort far more attractive than having to maintain self-sufficiency and independence. But at least he has the chance of being rationally aware of what he is drawn to. Sometimes more, sometimes less, because in this case the closer you get the less you see.
Sometimes this is like going from rock to a hard place. After gaining some freedom of movement in relationship to his mother he will draw closer to his father. This includes becoming more acutely aware of the attitude the father had to women. Earlier the father's attitude may have been quite obvious, but it had no personal significance to the son. Now he is expected to or rather he feels like he should intentionally model his own attitude after his father's. We're men and this is what men do, or something.
Not sure but if I assume that the father despised both the mother and the son, the son will feel attracted to but at the same time quite burdened by all kinds of damsels in distress. He wants to rescue his mother in all the world's suffering but pretty women and win their love for himself. But suppose the father also had a submissive attitude to women. I am not thinking of bland nice guys here, because bland nice guys often have bland and nice wives with whom they have many bland and nice children. I'm thinking of bitter, conflicted and passive-aggresive, groveling and backbiting men who feel drawn to capriciousness and self-absorbedness in women.
After round one becomes round two. After round two becomes independence. More on some mechanics later.
Zarkle - interesting points. But don't you feel psychology is a subset of biology? I've always liked Richard Dawkins book "The Selfish Gene." He takes you through a thought experiment that says picture your body like a big robot. It's being driven by your genes. They send these impulses to the brain not so much in a survival of the fittest framework, but certainly as a form of natural selection. For some unknown reason to all of mankind, your genes believe you mating with a muscular woman would be a great idea. Like I said in my original post - think of the poor guy whose genes are sending impulses to rape murder, pedophilia, etc. How could anyone argue events shaping your psychology could drive you to such behaviors. It's an unknown mix of both nature and nurture.
You've hit me a couple times with "because you don't know doesn't mean someone doesn't know." And I've been trying to politely explain - Nobody on Earth knows. Nobody. This question borders on a difficulty level that equals "What is the meaning of life." Well the world in which we have seen and observed does not owe us any explanation. There may be no meaning. But most biologists will state from what we know today is that the meaning of life is to pass YOUR genes on. How could homosexuality aid this? Not that there is anything wrong with sexual preference but that would certainly ensure you do not accomplish your gene's plan for your life so that they may live on.
One twist on the Oedipus complex, which Dr. Freud pointed out some 100 years ago is in fact a boys desire to marry his mother. I'm quoting here. The father therefore is experienced as an enemy. And so begins the complex of the nursery: The son against the father, for the love of the mother. The mother, who will be the future ideal for all things of beauty, bliss, and truth. In rare cases the opposite can happen. The bad or absent mother is the enemy and the son sticks up for the father. Or as Freud has stated it. This is the way from Oedipus to Hamlet. All psycho sexual disfunction writes Dr. Freud should be regarded as Oedipus or Hamlet. But I think you should stick with what Freud was onto. Because I know of no better way to truly understand yourself than the field Freud and his followers pioneered, and that is the science of reading dreams and dream symbolism. Without it being the final word on the subject it can certainly serve as an approach. Freud wasn't after sexual preferences or fetishes as this was mankind's biggest problem to him. And the ultimate cause of our inability to mature into the future and act like rational beings. He was trying to porter people through the first act of their lives. Compared with all of this our little question seems pitiful. I'll end the same way I started. We like them. We don't know why we like them (and no one knows why) all we know is we find them absolutely irresistible.
But your tone does not make it true.
Thinking is like gravity. It's free. It does not need to be owed.
I never asked you what I should do. You do not win any points by being condescending...
...neither with me nor the rest of the forum.
Dude you are as thick as a brick. Look at your comments. You're trying to catch me on technicalities!? Duh - gravity is free it isn't owed. What is the matter with you? Seriously what is the matter with you? If I say the universe owes you no explanation you state that maybe someone has a contract with the universe. Dear lord. This the last time I'm going to set you straight. NOBODY KNOWS!! And I realize you're getting ready to counter with well someone may be having God over tonight and uh.... Or maybe this special sole who knows is just shy and doesn't want to accept his Nobel Prize and Million Dollars. I'll let my very first post stand which has been characterized as "the best answer on here." And let's not forget you attacked facts from that answer. You're just a jackass.
I tend to be of the why ask why, drink bud dry school of thought. And I hope this is not off topic. But do ya'll feel that the flexing and the tough talk is really something only sexy when a woman does it? I'm not sure what happened to our organization but I think girls would laugh their asses off at us if we flexed and oiled our selves and ripped a shirt off. You'd look like a jag. But a girl does it and it's like wow where did she come up with that. It's hot! Not sure if this helps or hurts the present discussion but it's in the category of observations.
The problem is that you're abusing language in your misapplication; "fittest" does not literally mean "strong," just as "strong" does not necessarily mean "healthy." A poorly educated, low IQ, over-weight woman might produce more offspring than a gorgeous, physically fit, emphatically childless Ph.D whose IQ is three-plus standard deviations from the mean. In biological terms, the former is more fit than the latter.