What's the psychological reason why a man might be attracted to a woman with muscles?

There are obviously those who wish to have this conversation and those who wish to ruin it.

Uhhhh so anyway I think I'm attracted to muscle woman because I aspire to be as strong and physically fit as them. I grew up weaker than a lot of girls, so that jealousy turned into attraction I suppose.

Idk it's a complicated feeling, everyone has a different reason.

Interesting Zarkle did not contest the observation of pervasive snobbery.

I forgot to allege a pattern of passive-aggressive accusation as well as classic projection.

Here's the framework from a Zarkle point of view-- I call it "The Zarkle Show":

1. I'm being victimized here by behaving in a manner that lacks in self regulation, and think that I deserve automatic agreement without explaining how my ideas lead to anything conclusive related to the topic of this thread;

2. Anyone challenging my words and beliefs is attacking me personally! How can I push them into an inferior position and attack back using semantics or by making an epistemological retort? ==> I hope they take the bait so I can get them into my comfort zone, which a repetition of Step 2 until all challengers acquiesce, which I take as a sign of my superiority.

3. I will make no attempt to identify areas of true epistemological disagreement, because then someone could actually point out I might be wrong, which would expose the artifice of my authority-mimicking tendencies. This supersedes seeking actual truth or consensus, because my sense of superiority is more important. ==> If this starts to happen, go back to step 2.

4. I have general contempt for those who visit this site, because they are addicted fetishists;

5. My contempt for others here, and my desire to mark them as inferiors, means I don't need to listen to what others have to say. Despite this, they should all work to understand me. Everyone else is ruining the conversation! ==> If I am forced to engage in an actual argument, I will withdraw-- by claiming I am above all the hoi polloi-- and look for other areas where I can run this loop and seek a veneer of superiority. It is impossible for all of you to truly understand me!

(return to #1 and repeat)

If you don't believe me, here it is in real life action:

> Zarkle is a chatbot optimized for literature review

By your logic, name a single person here who isn't a chatbot.

That wasn't logic, it was merely an assumption, based on observing your behavior, which is analogous to a a chatbot that uses language modeling to engage in facile proto-realistic conversation but doesn't employ a higher executive function to organize its language models around testable theses (the following being a case in point):

Semantic assumptions? But words are usually assumed to correspond with reality.

Really? This statement is demonstrably and empirically false. My dreams at night are filled with words. Movies scripts are made of words. Again, this circumvents committing to any kind of testable argument.

You're blaming me for speaking. Just like some people here blame me for thinking.

{--Translation="I'm being victimized here by behaving in a manner that lacks in self regulation"}

Zarkle, I'm accusing you of a few specific things, but certainly not "blaming" you for speaking.

Authority-mimicking corrections? I disagreed with someone. And I thought and I still think I am right. So I am guilty of trusting my ideas and conclusions.

{--Translation= "I desperately wish to be viewed as correct and don't think I have any duty to demonstrate why, because I so blindly trust my own thoughts, feelings, and ideas. Anyone challenging these beliefs must be flawed somehow and is attacking me personally! How can I attack back using semantics or by making an epistemological retort?"}

Yes, you are guilty of that. You actually have failed to articulate any defensible conclusion, and your inconclusive ideas follow the same pattern. Thus, "authority-mimicking" because you demand agreement without explaining how your ideas lead to anything conclusive related to the topic of this thread.

False epistemological arguments? I guess we disagree on what can and can not be known. This was always something I readily and willingly pointed out again and again.

{--Translation="I haven't actually argued on an epistemological basis, so I'll chalk it up to fundamental disagreement and try to gloss over this point. At the same time, I'll spin it such that I have continually observed an epistemological tension in the thread, but will take no responsibility for identifying areas of such disgareeement, because then someone could actually point out I might be wrong, which would expose the artifice of my authority-mimicking tendencies."}

We don't disagree on any of that.

Yet, again, you have explained nothing.

The wasteful pity of so many addicted to this site. Not saying it's the site's fault. But saying that it's quite strange to attempt to make me into some special case. Fake thanks for faking care about me. But let's just agree that I am guilty of everything I do, which sounds absolutely redundant, because it is.

{--Translation="I turned this into the The Zarkle Show by participating on this site where I pity the user base, but now that my desire for greatness has not been realized, you are picking on me."}

You should like yourself more.

Ideally we could just ban everyone from writing to this who only uses up space to attack or ridicule me without adding anything to the actual topic. I think that would be the perfect solution. There are obviously those who wish to have this conversation and those who wish to ruin it. Those who wish to ruin it think I am guilty of having it and I think they're guilty of attempting to ruin it.

And here we go back to the beginning of the loop: Anyone challenging Zarkle's beliefs must be flawed somehow and is making a personal attack...

{--Translation="No one just automatically accepts my attempts to correct them, even though I have no thesis or overarching conclusion to bring to this conversation! And, since I don't listen to what others have to say and think that I deserve automatic agreement without explaining how my ideas lead to anything conclusive related to the topic of this thread, everyone else is ruining the conversation!"}

--{Bonus translation 1= "I'll project onto everyone else what I am actually doing... "attack or ridicule me without bringing anything to the actual topic"}

--{Bonus translation 2="Those who don't automatically agree with my inconclusive attempts to be authoritative should be banned! Maybe by behaving in this way I can passively accumulate power to bring retribution on those whom I perceive are bringing harm to me."}

But there's nothing anyone can do.

Claiming powerlessness... "nothing anyone can do." But still looping. Very passive aggressive.

{Translatation= "I Zarkle am so superior and correct all the time, changing the way I think and interact is not a possible option here."}

They will keep on squabbling and I will keep on wondering when and how I should respond, if at all.

{Translation="Oh these squabblers-- I will scan for semantic arguments or facile epistemological areas of disagreement to further avoid making an actual argument relevant to the topic of the thread, while harboring passive resentment that no one automatically accepts my attempts to demonstrate psuedo-intellectual authority. Since I am being forced to confront actual arguments at this point, I am preemptively suggesting that I might not be capable of engaging outside of my comfort zone, and therefore might choose to ignore this thread since it is no longer the Zarkle Show as I desire it to be scripted."}

-end-

I read through all of Zarkle's postings and think he's 1) full of himself and 2) full of sh*t.

I am mostly sad for wasting time reading the last few pages of this thread. But I find it amusing that the site apparently has its own home grown Jordan-Peterson-wannabe, spouting endless diatribes with zero cohesion or substance.

People think talking shit is challenging my beliefs.

At the end of the day, as the saying goes, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." I have always been interested in buff women back to when I was a kid and found myself intrigued by American Gladiators. That continued with watching the bodybuilding competitions and fitness shows on ESPN 2, and finding myself attracted to Chyna when she made her debut in the WWF.

For a lot of us, I think that attraction is just innate.

Agree with Gatsby! I find that all body types look better if muscular and fit, whether male or female.

Zarkle: I am not talking shit, I am specifically calling you out on yours, using a well-constructed argument. It is nice to see your attempt to take a more clear and concise position on something, however-- keep trying it. If I could speak for the others (gatsby, superiorgenetics, real_iluvmuscle, damagecontrol), I have seen them present cogent comments and arguments elsewhere on this site, and would suggest to you that they are responding in kind, meaning: they are "talking shit" in response because they see your Zarkle Show as its own kind of shit talking that merely qualifies for shit talking in return.

You were 100 % talking shit.

This has reached a point where it's unbearable. Create your own thread to spread your wisdom ZP, but please stop trying to do it here.

Or maybe just stay here, since I've just canceled my subscription to this thread - hope to find a topic that you have not hijacked yet.

If this, and numerous messages like it with no other content, also from superiorgenetics, real_iluvmuscle, damagecontrol and others are "challenging zarkle's beliefs" then this must be some new kind of "challenging" I've never seen before.

Challenging? No, we're just trying to tell you to shut the f*ck up.

Challenging? No, we're just trying to tell you to shut the f*ck up.

Blunt, to the point, end of story. 😳😜

And I'm trying to tell you the same.

Blunt, to the point, end of story. 😳😜

The story never ends with this guy. It's like arm wrestling with a leper.

The first twenty minutes here is Andrew Huberman talking to four idiots about types of fetishes and their possible origin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv07LRtbwnc

I have always been interested in buff women back to when I was a kid and found myself intrigued by American Gladiators. That continued with watching the bodybuilding competitions and fitness shows on ESPN 2, and finding myself attracted to Chyna when she made her debut in the WWF.

For a lot of us, I think that attraction is just innate.

Innate can be an unexpectedly fuzzy word. We know that what physically happens in the womb can have powerful life-long consequences. It's an environmental factor where the individual has no agency.

There was a guy -- it's a famous case but I don't have time to look it up -- who had sex with his underage step-daughter. They found child pornography on his computer. Turn out he had a tumor, and once it was removed, the attraction to children ceased... until years later when his wife found child pornography on his computer. They looked at his brain again... and the tumor had come back. Got rid of that tumor, and he returned to "normal" functioning.

Less dramatic environmental cues can also probably rewire the brain. I'm inclined to think there's a lot of fluidity.

I came into it from a different angle. For me femdom is sort of the dark side of the moon. I don't engage in it in real life. I've only ever had one dominant (and muscular) girlfriend, and even then it wasn't whips and chains or anything like that. But I do like it, more or less secretly. And it always seemed absurd to me to submit to a woman who doesn't at least look like she can beat you up.

I'm not into girls quite as big as some of the other guys on this site are, but once I found out women could have muscles it kicked the fantasies into overdrive. Plus the contrast between a pretty face and muscles is just hot to me. Of course there are the little life experiences that add to what you like, but yeah for me it's basically a femdom thing. Where the femdom attraction came from, I have no idea. That'd be a question for another thread I guess.

Huberman was moderately interesting.

The desire to touch, feel and worship a Woman, physically strongeR than most men. The curiosity of living with a more capable woman with more stamina, who can outperform most men at Gym, Athletics, Gymnastics and anything physical. The thrill about staying around such Superior Woman, n even the opportunities of serving HER. Dreams of getting lifted n carried by their much Stronger Arms, feeling their tighter grip, and their powerful bearhug. FBBs n StrongeR Women are sure jewel to one's lyf. The most extraordinary experience.

Stronger, capable, superior? Aha.

So anyway, did everybody have a good Easter? Played some Smash Bros with the family and girlfriend. Was a good time!

So anyway, did everybody have a good Easter? Played some Smash Bros with the family and girlfriend. Was a good time!

Had a great Easter Gatsby...thank you for asking.

hey @zarklephaser4, i for one enjoy your writings even if i don't feel they always make sense and agree that you've proposed so many origin theories for sexual attraction to muscular women that appear to be in conflict that i don't think you have one clear thesis. but that's fine. sexuality is complicated and none of us has the answer and i appreciate that you at least are open to reflecting on the subject.

in my own personal case, i know there is a "there" there, as someone wrote a few pages ago. my sexual attraction to muscular women, which i realized about myself at the age of 10/11, was inextricably linked with my own desire to be a muscular woman. i wasn't super conscious of that at the time, but in later years, around 19/20 i came to realize this. i flirted with the idea of what it would mean to become a trans woman for a bit, but ultimately thanks to a good therapist, came to believe that not only would that have served no positive purpose, but ultimately would have been a means of avoiding my real issues.

anyhow, both my desire to be a woman and my desire to be a strong woman are definitely linked to my upbringing and my very early life experiences with my mom and dad. i haven't figured it all out yet but the answer is out there.

and let me be clear that i'm not saying that this or something like this is the case for everyone -- we all have our reasons for being here, and i'm sure they vary greatly. but i'm happy to keep this discussion going, and i think anyone who is overly critical and makes personal attacks is just uncomfortable with the idea of really looking at the origins of their sexual feelings.

I was thinking about this again, and at least for me, the virilization present in some of these women, particularly in the face and torso, represents a kind of androgynous ideal. It goes beyond the normal reaction to seeing a fit body, and I have the same types of feelings about some trans women who I find myself attracted to. Maybe I'm projecting an externalized anima, or it's an expression of some variant of bisexuality, but either way, it's a big part of the appeal in my case.

i don't think you have one clear thesis

Yes and no.