Forum
>
General / Nonfiction
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
@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’m more attracted to a beautiful muscular woman than I am to a naked one. A muscular female in tight fitting clothes that highlights her body is sexier than one in the nude, at least to me. It leaves more to the imagination than just watching a pornographic fuckfest. Something like this
Sorry for a late reply,
@zark: ""Without agreeing with or straight away objecting to the existence of such a female part in men, I'd first like to understand what it refers to."" Yes, valid point, I just mean that I can find attraction in not being the powerful and dominant, or at least have some tension or a power struggle.
"""I see undivided attention there. But in the long term women are not attracted to and neither do they respect men who they can control. In women, just like in everyone else, as self-control gets better, an irrational need to control others goes down. But to respect you as a partner they usually need to know you would be able to hold your own."""
I´m not sure if you misread what I wrote. I said that women get very turned on by similar things that guys here who are into muscular women gets turned on by. Hence its not such a bad fantasy, as it is more similar to a "female fantasy" and makes it easier to understand one another. But of course, there has to be a balance etc.
Now we have steered away from the subject a bit. Whats the pysological reason... maybe its just impossible to try to say anythin about this with any sort of certainty. I dont think guys should worry about being attracted to powerful women, as long as the fantasy is not about the destruction of oneself. Do you agree?
I suspect part of it is the muscular female ought to be a confident female. Perhaps also that she can be mamma bear, if you will.
Confident female that you can bring with you to hunt mammoth and wooly rhino, while the other females of the tribe stay at the cave to paint their hands on the wall.
To he honest, I do not remember when my "awakening" had started but I knew that I was attracted to muscle. There is just something about muscle and strength on a woman that makes me feel safe. I know some men and women may find muscle on a woman "disgusting" but I do not feel that way at all. It just feels it makes sense for a woman to build muscle yet still feel sensual and impressive.
I guess it ties back to seeing female muscle in magazines, websites and even television. It just awakened something in me that just wants to feel their strength. IT may intimidate some people but it just makes me even more aroused. There could be something deeper but that is how I see with me.
@zark: what does lesbian relationships have to do with this?
@GLM55: I agree with that. A woman who is muscular to some degree but has kept her femininity is just so fucking hot. And it´s not weird. Again, see what women are attracted to. A guy who can be fun/charming AND has muscles to indicate power (you know what I mean, no need to look like the gym is your life but still can hold your own or how to say) blows them away in general.
But then again, maybe it´s not really that easy either? I was quite small and weak as a kid, up until my late teens, and I think there might be a part of me from that time who is afraid of being sub/weaker than a woman and that spurs the sexual fantazy.
@the_settler Zarklephaser4 has no point and that is his point. He's totally infatuated with himself and his endless bloviating is his way of demonstrating his perceived intellect. He feels he must give a treatise to all the proles who could never understand his unique thoughts. He also thinks he's the gatekeeper of this thread as evidenced by his arrogant scolding of those comments he feels are "off topic". Typical pompous know-it all who probably plagiarizes from the DSM-5-TR. A regular Sigmund FRAUD.
@zark: what does lesbian relationships have to do with this?
@GLM55: I agree with that. A woman who is muscular to some degree but has kept her femininity is just so fucking hot. And it´s not weird. Again, see what women are attracted to. A guy who can be fun/charming AND has muscles to indicate power (you know what I mean, no need to look like the gym is your life but still can hold your own or how to say) blows them away in general.
But then again, maybe it´s not really that easy either? I was quite small and weak as a kid, up until my late teens, and I think there might be a part of me from that time who is afraid of being sub/weaker than a woman and that spurs the sexual fantazy.
I am glad to see that I am not alone. I really like muscular, pretty women.
OK that was a nice little detour about drama and how we might need it at least a little bit in our lives. I do also get bored with people where there never is any drama or tension.
"""The way I see it, no woman is interested in you acting out any female role. To be a tender and caring man is in no way feminine. To be weak and needy is effeminate, and I doubt any woman respects or knows how to appreciate that. Masculinity is not defined by masculine vices, such as anger or violence for their own sake, which would imply that everything less violent is somehow feminine.""" Sure, I agree with that. It doesn´t have anything to do with anything I´ve said AFAIC but sure.
"""It may seem like I don't get what you're saying, while I think you're missing an entire dimension. Finding a "balance" between masculine and feminine is not a solution, because rightly understood they are not opposing forces or mirror images of each other or on a simple continuum. An androgynous individual is not the best of both worlds, but usually the best of neither""" OK, you are completely misunderstanding me. I´m not saying it is desirable to be androgynous. What would that even look like, a young David Bowie type of character or Judie Foster? But instead of having none of fem/masc, have both. That what I wrote in my reply to GLM55. And I still hold that opinion very strong, as it is not just something I´ve made up but also seen examples of thousands of times.
I do agree that a nice fantazy resembles something of a story. Story and drama is quite the same thing, isn´t it? Very much in life resembles stories. Just coming in a room and all of a sudden there is this hot fbb spreading your legs for you, come on lets fuck now, its not really that big of a turn-on with no context.
That's the opposite of what I really wanted to say. My point was that drama is the common factor in addictions and serious disorders of personality.
OK, whatevs. But we should not say that liking girls with muscle is a sign of an addiction or a disorder of personality. That is important to anyone reading this.
I think you're now misunderstanding both me and the concept of androgyny. It has little to nothing to do with looks. The whole point of it is in feelings and behaviors. Reading your reply to GLM55 I gather that if a guy is fun and charming then he's androgynous. Which I think is an interesting viewpoint, but not how androgyny is generally understood among those who came up with the concept.
No! I´ve never said androgyny is just about looks. A young David Bowie is the staple example of androgyny. All I said was that a mixture of qualities are always the best. I do think you can understand what I mean with female qualities, I think everyone else does and you seem to perhaps be a smart guy, I dont know.
Interestingly, some themes keep repeating themselves. I can now say that on this site there are users whose relationship with muscular females is a story, and then are those whose relationship or interest in them is a drama.
That sounds interesting, give us some examples!
Healthiest mates, basically. Big, strong, beautiful women are likelier to produce big, strong, beautiful kids.
I'd turn the question on it's head - men who are attracted to petite, weak women are themselves mentally lacking. Yes I've found a fair few smaller women cute/attractive etc, but AABE a big strong beauty beats her smaller, weaker sister.
I like women and if a particular one just happens to be muscular, all the better.
Here is a psychological question if anyone is interested:
Does attraction have anything to do with logic?
Yes I think so. A good personality adds a lot of beauty, and it's illogical to want to spend time with a psycho hose beast. Conversely, a rotten personality can make a beautiful woman quite ugly.
Jesus, what a thread I started (?) It's amazing to read and learn different perspectives regarding this topic.
Here is a psychological question if anyone is interested:
Does attraction have anything to do with logic?
Yes, and ultimately with enough data one day we'll be able to prove it. What attracts us is the result of a vast combination of combinations of natural and unnatural biochemical processes that lead to an outcome of whether a person is attracted to blondes, not redheads, or to short men, not tall, or prefers a certain type of architecture over another. While it is extremely likely this is all true, proving it is beyond the capacity of current science, as we do not YET have enough data...but if we DID, as well as sufficient processing power to analyze that data and prove the paths and their outcomes (which in my profession I'm confident is available currently), predicting who is attracted to what will be as deterministic as simple mathematics.
You didn't put that particularly concisely or convincingly, but it was largely an enjoyable read.
The ONLY reason we cannot yet determine who is attracted to what with significant precision is because not enough analytics have yet been done to prove patterns of outcome. We will not have this information publicly available (I'll loop back to why I emphasised that) likely for decades, perhaps even centuries, because so few humans have had their just there bare-bones genome mapped, which would be the raw data to begin the analysis, and be possibly, when extended to describe a human from not just the current 1.5gb of markers to TB's or possibly even PB's, thus the greatest ever analytics project in mankind's history. Once we have a sufficiently large bank of data in the public domain for a sufficiently large, connected population, we'd then be able to run analyses, find + display patterns of behaviour for types of dna combinations, one of those behaviours would be attraction. As these analyses increase in number, depth and scope, so will our predictions increase in number, accuracy and scope.
To borrow your "layers" concept, in the Information Age we stand in a transitional period between the persona layer, and processor layer, the former having started the slow, but inevitable path to surrender to the latter, and in about 20 years max will be what vinyl is to the MP3. A lot of our predictions are made by humans with great specialisation in a given field; let's say the CIA / DARPA etc has an entire section of staff dedicated to training seductresses. They rely (arguably) only on anecdotal data to determine what kind of female agent to send a 60yr old married director, vs who they'd send to turn a horny, sex-starved 25yr old geek who just happened to have a passkey to the right datacenter.
With AI driven analytics, with a deep and wide enough gene profile on you, your family, your neighbours, schoolmates/workmates/drinking buddies and the other 500,000 people in your town and their interactions to date, human attraction will eventually...if it isn't already (I wouldn't be surprised if DARPA doesn't have that capacity right now)...be as predictable as who would win an arm-wrestling contest between Sarah Backman and Sarah Schmoe.
Maybe.