⭐️ Social ⭐️ The mechanics behind having developed musculature and being sexually appealing: (?)

[JohnBoy2000]

So I'm going to give a potentially unorthodox point of view on this but, I can only follow the rationale that becomes apparent to me via what I personally consider "deduction via first principles" - i.e. having applied first principles and constructed (or uncovered) a functional model for physical/sexual gratification up from there.

By conventional societal standards of course it does sound unorthodox, but this is part of a drug forum where "outside the box" thinking (often the functional means, as functionality is often counter-intuitive - and conventional advocates just get stuck in the box/mud) is almost a part of certain drug use at least, and additionally many users having a more adept understanding of neurology and physiology - I'll trust that some kind of sense can be applied to the following contention:

My contention is that,

1) sexual gratification is a function of nerve impulse. The greater integrity and functionality ones nervous system has - the more stimulation they can induce (i.e. our nerves fire potently = it stimulates their nerves more profoundly);
And typically the more attractive they are; both a kind of "animal" attraction, but it tends to reflect in their appearance, demeanor, well being etc., also.

2) Therefore the stronger the nerve impulse we have, the greater stimulation we provide to our partner (for me being a dude, it would be a woman).
Regardless of hookup, casual encounter, LTR etc., the assumption here is we're two organisms with two separate nervous systems, one stimulating the other, regardless of previous history we're basing the potential stimulation on nervous system integrity, exclusively.

3) However, excitatory cell types exist in two forms.

- neural, and
- muscle

Both (and no other, apart from some endocrine cells) flux ions in and out of the cell as a means to propagate action potentials and signal.

i.e. neural/muscle cells are electrical cells, no others.

4) So my contention is that, integrity of the CNS must exist - goes without saying, for attraction.
This encapsulates how we think, behave, interact etc.

BUT, physicality is naturally based on musculature, and to administer stimulation through our musculature (i.e. physical gratification), that musculature must also be developed.

.....

i.e. sexual gratification/attraction will be based on overall electrical integrity of the organism, which is based on BOTH excitatory cellular types - both neural and muscle.

 

[JohnBoy2000]

How I've rationalized this?

Optimal CNS state = optimal neural state = optimal cognitive state.

I personally contend I've determined the optimal, or as close to optimal as possible - cognitive state.

- And subsequent to that, I've returned to working out after 2 year hiatus.

I notice with each passing week a distinct improvement in attractive "vibes" (EM waves propagated from excitatory/electrical cells), as my muscular gradually re-improves (got kind of underweight over the last couple years).

- The coming time period as my physique continues to get back to where it needs to be, shall potentially reveal whether my contention is accurate or no.

 

[Jabberwocky]

1) sexual gratification is a function of nerve impulse. The greater integrity and functionality ones nervous system has - typically the more attractive they are; both kind of "animal" attraction, but it tends to reflect in their appearance, demeanor, well being etc.

what? what does appearance/demeanor/well being have to do with nerve impulses?

are you saying nerve impulse = subconscious biological mating preference?

4) So my contention is that, integrity of the CNS must exist - goes without saying, for attraction.
This encapsulates how we think, behave, interact etc.

BUT, physicality is naturally based on musculature, and to administer stimulation through our musculature (i.e. physical gratification), that musculature must also be developed.

I don't follow you. How does Central Nervous System health and/or activity level relate to musculature and thus physical attraction?

I'd imagine most people have a healthy nervous system... I just don't follow

 

[JohnBoy2000]

Of course the historical thinking behind being "stacked" = that you look sexy, masculine, can "take care of business" etc., things that of course appeal to women.

But on a physiological level I'm beginning to think there's more to it than that.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Of course the historical thinking behind being "stacked" = that you look sexy, masculine, can "take care of business" etc., things that of course appeal to women.

But on a physiological level I'm beginning to think there's more to it than that.

of course there is more to a woman's attraction than the guy being physically built or masculine

there are dozens of factors that go into sexual attraction, many of them are not physical in nature

personality really is more of an attraction than physical beauty

If the hottest woman in the world was hitting on me, except she was a bigot, I would tell her to fuck off (just for example)

 

[JohnBoy2000]

what? what does appearance/demeanor/well being have to do with nerve impulses?

are you saying nerve impulse = subconscious biological mating preference?

Physiology is improved with a higher functioning nervous system.

That includes, self awareness - thus presentation, dress sense, how one carries themselves.
Other physiological processes that are downstream functions of the CNS such as hormone activity (resultant skin quality).

Subconscious?
I would say more animal instinct, for sure; where the nerve impulse is strong and that reflects throughout the person.

Strong nerve impulse will also = strong signal discharge = positive, uplifting mood, positive energy etc. = appealing.

I don't follow you. How does Central Nervous System health and/or activity level relate to musculature and thus physical attraction?

I'd imagine most people have a healthy nervous system... I just don't follow

I've found as I vary the state of my nervous system, either with drug use (prescription) or cognitive modifications - my body type has always distinctly modified also.

i.e. protein synthesis and thus muscle development = a function of cell nucleus transmission (what steroids implicate), which = a function of intra-neural cascades (normally, without steroid use) = a function of inter-neural signalling and general nerve activity mediated by..... action-potentials/nerve-impulses.

....

Most people have a healthy nervous system?
Well, it deteriorates with age.
And for most - it's so-and-so, not bad, not wonderful - some people seem to get lucky, some people seem to get fucked-over completely etc.

There's no (current) established meas to reliably improve the state of the nervous system, just somewhat modify/tweak it's signalling in various parts.

 

[JohnBoy2000]

of course there is more to a woman's attraction than the guy being physically built or masculine

there are dozens of factors that go into sexual attraction, many of them are not physical in nature

personality really is more of an attraction than physical beauty

If the hottest woman in the world was hitting on me, except she was a bigot, I would tell her to fuck off (just for example)

This could all be true, I just can't relate to any of it as it's simply not how I see the world or rationalize the behavior of the people in it.

I'm on a different wavelength.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I'm on a different wavelength.

I think so, too.

I am by no means some ladies man or good with women, but relating to them in a dating/sexual situation has never been a mystery to me.

If you can make a woman laugh, that's the key right there. Women are no mystery. Personality always trumps looks, but looks are always the first gateway unfortunately that's just human nature.

 

[dragonix]

I'm on a different wavelength.

What wavelength are we speaking of here? Alpha Macho Prime?

Edyt: back in the day they didn't need science they just called it mojo

 

[JohnBoy2000]

What wavelength are we speaking of here? Alpha Macho Prime?

Edyt: back in the day they didn't need science they just called it mojo

To me?

Common sense.

Saying "I'm on a different wavelength" basically = I don't buy into the conventional societal hypocrisy.

Most women prioritize status, safety and security before they do sexual gratification - simply as a matter of practicality.
Though their sexual desires never leave them.

Most men are terrible in the bedroom, but I see their women swear blind he blows their back out every night.

 

[JohnBoy2000]

Our psychology (cognitive state), transduces through our musculature.

i.e. neural excitatory (activity) state -> determines muscle cell excitatory/activity state.

But.... in terms of electromagnetic transference..... pretty much..... musculature plays such an important role in that.

I mean you never see some dude claiming to be a Sex-God being over/under-weight.

Mens-health cover models are typically pretty stacked.

Again - historically the thinking here is simply aesthetics.
But I believe it goes beyond this;

No doubt.

Electromagnetic conduction via excitatory cells (muscle cells in this case).

 

[JohnBoy2000]

When we hit "love" = setup loses it's momentum.

Thus "love" is always the final application.

Essentially, thereafter the fire-power becomes nullified.

 

[negrogesic]

It's a matter of sexual dimorphism. Humans are a sexually dimorphic species with men and women have physical differences based on sex (although humans actually have a low degree of sexual dimorphism, compared to some species).



Thus, people look for mates that exhibit a good degree of sexual dimorphism as it suggests genetic fitness, virility, fertility etc. Musculature that enhance or exaggerated these differences are beneficial, but only to a degree.

However extreme levels of dimorphism can also be problematic. Excessive muscle can be intimidating to women, as makes one appear dangerous. Some women like this but they are a minority.

To be appealing to the widest base of women you'll want a fair amount of lean muscle. Not much more.

For instance when ive gotten too bulky, like in the first picture, I notice women seem less outgoing to me, less likely to want to engage in conversations, less flirtatious, more guarded. With less muscle, like in the second picture, they seem more at ease, more likely to approach me, etc.




But none of this matters if you seem like dick or aren't nice and warm.

 

[JohnBoy2000]

Certain personalities/character types (aka emotional setups) are capable of "carrying" strong muscle frameworks.

For some character types, heavy muscle frames are almost - un-natural, and that's when I've found combining these two where they don't fit, can elicit aversive responses.

But in my case, via cognitive intervention I'm aiming to optimize my character type (aka emotional framework), muscle development has shown me where I'm going right/wrong in relation to cognitive state (aka emotional framework/personality).

......

 

[JohnBoy2000]

It's a matter of sexual dimorphism. Humans are a sexually dimorphic species with men and women have physical differences based on sex (although humans actually have a low degree of sexual dimorphism, compared to some species).



Thus, people look for mates that exhibit a good degree of sexual dimorphism as it suggests genetic fitness, virility, fertility etc. Musculature that enhance or exaggerated these differences are beneficial, but only to a degree.

However extreme levels of dimorphism can also be problematic. Excessive muscle can be intimidating to women, as makes one appear dangerous. Some women like this but they are a minority.

To be appealing to the widest base of women you'll want a fair amount of lean muscle. Not much more.

For instance when ive gotten too bulky, like in the first picture, I notice women seem less outgoing to me, less likely to want to engage in conversations, less flirtatious, more guarded. With less muscle, like in the second picture, they seem more at ease, more likely to approach me, etc.




But none of this matters if you seem like dick or aren't nice and warm.

Re 2nd part of the post, I've definitely found something similar - I certainly think so at least.

Though re my last post, my contention is it may just have been that excessive musculature may be not been fitting to my character type (undeveloped), at that time?

It's like a sound emotional framework thus sound character type is kind of suitable to "contain" developed musculature.

i.e. without integrity of character, being huge and strong = may seem like dangerous and toxically masculine to some/many women.

PS - I just gotta ask, are you using a stack of some kind in that first pic?

 

[tubgirl.jpg]

Interesting read. Very far out there as always but I see what your getting at.

 

[negrogesic]

PS - I just gotta ask, are you using a stack of some kind in that first pic?

Funny enough no drugs or supplements*, although it looks suspicious, especially the shoulders. I have naturally high testosterone levels, sometimes exceeding the normal physiological cut off points on blood tests (in terms of total testosterone), meaning above the reference range (usually not by much, never more than ~1200ng/dL, but still out bounds). Even now in my 30's i regularly measure in the 900ng/dL range. So I put on muscle fast, and strength even faster because I don't eat much.

Because of my lack of eating, ive always been stronger than I am big (even in the first picture where I am somewhat bulky, I am stronger than I look -- I'm only about 165 pounds there but at the time could do three plates, aka 315 pounds, on the bench press for 5 sets of 5 reps which I think is pretty rare for a natural person that weighs only 165 pounds). Unfortunately my joints and tendons have not appreciated all that heavy lifting, and I think my insufficient food intake made them more suspectible to damage (I partially detached my right tricep from my excessive bench pressing).

*note I was taking alot of tianeptine at the time (at high, recreational doses) but that would only have detrimental effects, although it did increase my stamina in some regards and removed any pain I may have had

 

[JohnBoy2000]

Must activate muscle cells (excitatory) to sufficiently activate neurons (excitatory).

......

This is perhaps just a synonym of what I had contended in the OP.

.....

Basically modification of cognitive application is not rendering full results and I'm trying to determine why.

And historically muscular activation has made a dramatic difference.

I took the last month or so off from lifting and presumably muscle activity/firing has decreased accordingly;

And potentially had a correlative affect on neural innervation.

.....

In any case, we're contending muscle activation or level of "being in shape" affects how others respond to us.

I think that's something we can all relate to.

As of TODAY, interpersonal response = definitively underwhelming.

Therefore time to get back to lifting and reassess for improvement/variation in interpersonal responses/affect in due course.

 

[JohnBoy2000]

There may also be something in relation to exercise, muscle activation and boosting testosterone?

I have been finding it stupidly difficult to "bust a nut" lately..... and yes, with a women.

I eased off lifting weights about three weeks ago or so.

I believe it's also related to cognition but at the moment..... well I guess I'm going to put my theory to the test - get back lifting weights ASAP and see how it effects matters after I get a good pump going.

Living Better | Healthy Lifestyle Tips | Piedmont Healthcare

www.piedmont.org

Weightlifting

“Research has shown that lifting heavier weights is the best form of exercise to boost testosterone,” says Dr. Jadick.
“As muscle mass increases, it will trigger the body to produce more testosterone.”​

 

[Mjäll]

It's simpler.

Males are evolved to be the hard workers and warriors of society. Males need to be exposed to hardship in order to develop properly. Muscularity is a sign of health in this regard. Muscularity is a turn-on for women because it's an important trait in men.