Amaz0ns Forum

Don't know where to post this, but I thought here was as good a place as anywhere.  Part of my attraction to muscular women comes from my belief in certain areas of feminist theory; mainly the idea that women should not be scared of mugging, rape etc.  This lead to a love of the concept of a physically strong, confident woman who could defend herself and leave her attacker in a much worse condition than she is.  This, in turn, led to a feeling of sexual attraction to such a woman.  I'd be interested to know if anybody else has experienced the same feelings, or can at least understand what I mean. ::)

Can I get an "AMEN," brother?

I teach karate and self-defense, and one of the things I love best about it is when a woman who was formerly very timid starts to understand that she never has to be completely helpless.  Those FMG/Strength stories you mention are just amped up versions of what I do in reality, and I love it.

Imagine what you could acheive training a woman who was already properly buff! :o

Oh, I do, believe you me!  I've had a couple of students who were moderately athletic- cheerleaders or hockey players, mostly- and it's really a lot of fun to work with them because they already have some body awareness, so it's really just showing them how to use what they've already got.  How to take and maintain space, how to assert their presence, and how to use their bodies to their best advantage instead of trying to match their weakest parts against an attacker's strongest.

The point is that not all men are as strong as each other, yet we don't hear shorter, less muscular guys being told to not venture out after dark, carry a torch (flashlight), etc.  Of course not: they're men, so their testosterone makes them invulnerable, doesn't it?  It's only poor little itty-bitty women that are vulnerable! <End sarcasm>

I'd love to hear the "women are weak and can't defend themselves so they must spend their lives terrified" crowd explain this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eZZWzJCLYA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eZZWzJCLYA)

Go Nikki!  What a woman!  The guy who says she can beat-up 90% of the men in the world is wrong; it's more like 98%!

Heh.  How very true.  I work with a bodybuilder at one of the dojos I train at.  One of the things that surprised the hell out of me the first time we played was not how strong he was, but rather how limber.  He has like three times the arms I have, but it's all fast-twitch muscle and he can move with blinding speed when he sets his mind to it.

The thing is, men are socialized to fight and to think and act aggressively.  Women have to be brought to that way of thinking through training, overcoming generations of social programming in the process.  For most women, it's a struggle.  I actually had a woman tell me once that she didn't want to kiai (yell) during a self-defense because, "I don't want to be mean."  That's the sort of thinking that society has told women is right, and it goes hand-in-hand with the idea that women should be submissive, passive, and weak.

I know I'm preaching to the choir, here, but I hate that crap.

And, yes, go Nikki!

This member of the choir likes be preached-to.  I couldn't agree more with you.  Those who would have all women weak and passive say that, if women become strong and assertive, they lose their femininity.  As far as I'm concerned, other than (possibly) a stone-butch woman in a lesbian butch-femme relationship, or if an FBB overdoes the steroids, it's impossible for any woman to lose even some of her femininity.  To me, assertive, strong, confident "body-aware" women, as you put it, are MORE feminine than the timid, skinny, passive girls because they have enhanced themselves both physically in strength and shapeliness, and in mind.  They have imporoved themselves as women and have ceased to hate their body, to diet in order to shrink it, (which I loathe, urgh! >:() but instead are revelling in their female, muscular curves and the strength, power and sensuality of the bodies.  That's feminine.  That's sexy.  Actually, no, it's not sexy - it's mind-blowingly, trouser-tentingly supersexy. :o 8) ;D
Yikes, I need a cold shower after that! :o ;D

Hmmm, don't know what you think, stmercy, but I reckon it seems that we're the only guys on here who appreciate that side of things - you know, the idea that it's cool for a woman to be powerful and independent (know what i mean? ;D ;))  Looks like all the other folks here just go for the "whoa, she's hot" reaction and don't think any deeper than that. ;D ;) ::) 

I've been pondering this for awhile, now.  I actually decided to let this sit for a day to see if anything came to the surface from this, as I know that a large part of the reason cpbell's post was phrased the way it was was as an attempt to get a reaction beyond pure apathy.

I think what may be happening here is that the question is kind of too broad, and too easily answered by a simple 'yes' or (unlikely on this forum) 'no.'

That said, I'd like to take the question in a slightly different direction.  As cpbell pointed out, it is very difficult for a woman to "lose femininity"- it isn't exactly a limited commodity, after all.  If you are born a woman, you are, by definition, feminine, at least biologically.  The problem comes in with social norms- what women and men are expected to do in order to be perceived as womanly women or manly men.

What I think would be an interesting question is: what limits should a woman- or a man, for that matter, but this is a board about amaz0ns ;D- be allowed and/or expected to go to when defending herself?  Are those limits different if a woman gains physical power? (The argument that, essentially, Might Makes Right- most people I think would answer no, but that is one of the most basic rules society is based on: people who have power make the rules, people who have no power are forced to submit) 

Are there any sorts of extenuating circumstances that might change the equation- make more or less acceptable? 

As an example, I would point out that there used to be a law in MI- I believe it is no longer enforced, but it may still be on the books- that said that if you were attacked you had to back away and state that you "did not want to fight" three times before you were allowed to defend yourself.  There was, however, an exception, called the 'Castle Rule,' which basically said that if you were a) protecting your immediate family (spouse or children), b) at your home, or c) at your place of business, you did not have to give warning in the event of an attack.

Wonderful response there from everybody. (http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/konfus/c010.gif)  (http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/boese/a020.gif)

Now, let me first say this:  I do not like gratuitous violence, whether the perpetrator be male or female.  It's part of the reason why I love the Sylph stories so much (yes, stmercy, I am a bit of a crawler, aren't I?) (http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/frech/c030.gif)  HOWEVER, I am a dreadful hypocrite, so here's the bit where I go back and modify that statement.  I loathe bullies and those who use physical size, strength or the threat of abuse to make themselves feel powerful.  This emotion is at its strongest when it comes to males sexually assaulting females.  This utter hatred of the scumbags that prey on women was one of the motivations for me to start this thread in the first place.  Given that, if for example, a buff woman (FBB, strongwoman competitor, whatever) came-across a woman being raped in an alleyway by some low-life piece of dog s***, I would hope, nay expect, that she would, after stopping the assault, give the scumbag the biggest beating he will ever have had.  My disability is one of fragile bones.  I therefore normally hate the thought of human bones breaking - I've experienced it enough times first-hand.  However, in this hypothetical case, I would hope that our strong woman would break as many bones in the bastard's body as she could, save his neck or back. (http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/teufel/a030.gif)   

Similarly, I don't support the "might is right" argument - it's part of the reason why I've quarrelled with Lingster over the US Republican administration.  I do not appreciate people throwing their weight around, and, if our hypothetical strong woman were to pick fights and do damage to people, then I'd hate her too.  It's just that, to me, rape and associated crimes are so dreadful, so horrific and evil that I can, in my own mind, justify extreme force as a response.  If it's just a general assault, or a burglary, then I support the right to defend oneself, family and property, but no more (no chasing the burglar out into the street and shooting them in the back).

That's all I have to say. <cries> (http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/traurig/e050.gif)

Sorry that I didn't join in right away on this chat, cpbell and stmercy.  I was builidng up to my 900th post, and didn't want to disrupt the count right away.

I'm reading you guys loud and clear on that one.  And I believe in letting a woman be capable to protect herself or her loved ones.

I think one of the reasons that we continue to portray "soft and helpless" as feminine is that we like being around someone who is gentle, sweet, kind, and the type that won't ram a tent peg through our skulls. Someone who represents the moral of Aesop's fable of the Sun and the Wind:  warm persuasion is more powerful than bluster and force.  Women have the edge in personality there.

Regrettably, we've equated gentleness with weakness.  We think that a person who doesn't push and smack to get what he or she wants... can't.   And thus, society has pretty much told women, don't be mean, nasty, or violent.  It's wrong.

Of course it is in day-to-day life.  But in a mugging, being a nice person usually isn't enough. :-(

I remember WAY, way way back when I was in grad school, and I'd just had my head clubbed at an attempted robbery for five stitches worth.  I remember cluing in a student mom that the Rush Limbaugh show was coming to TV, and she wanted to tune in.  And we were together for the first ep.  And we chatted about my mugging.  She griped about how student housing wouldn't permit us to have firearms in storage.

That took me back.  :o A sweet, classic, church-going MOM, endorsing packing heat? 

She nodded, and said she considered it sinful not to do whatever it took to protect the family and home the good Lord gave her.

Hmm.  If I had a time machine, I would've probably suggested she take some exercise and self defense classes instead.  Pistols can be stolen or picked up by kids.  Your biceps or training can't.

Thanks Jimmy, that post was worth waiting for! (http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/frech/c010.gif)
I agree 100% about the idea that the caring, kind, nurturing ideal that we all like about the classical female personality got misinterpreted as meaning that she should not show aggression or violence, even in self-defence, because it's not feminine. (http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/konfus/a050.gif)   I appreciate the kind, gentle nature of many women as much as any guy, and I certainly wouldn't want an overly aggressive, nasty woman as a girlfriend any more than I'd want to be mates/buddies/whatever with a guy like that, either.  Where (for me) that stops, however, is in terms of mental toughness (one can be sweet and kind but have a "survivior" streak of mental strength, IMO) and when it comes to defending oneself or those that we love.  Look at nature:  a lioness carries her cubs in her mouth without barely ruffling their fur, but, if a potential predator of those cubs comes along, she defends them as only a big cat can.

My self-defense instructors would agree with you- according to them, when a victim draws a weapon in self-defense it is more likely that their attacker will take the weapon- be it a gun, a knife, or what-have-you- and turn it on them.  This is a statistic that I'm a bit uncomfortable with; I can't seem to find reference to it in any source that I would call reliable, but it seems plausible enough if you assume two things; 1) the defender is not especially well-trained in the use of their weapon and 2) the attacker is more aggressive by virtue of the situation, and thus more likely to act effectively when presented with a weapon.

In any case, training can make the difference between a decision or an action that could protect you and one that could result in your never being seen again.


I think we all know how I feel about this one..


I think it was Collette Dowland who asserted that the division of men and women into so-called traditional roles of hunter/fighter and nurturer/caregiver was a relatively recent phenomenon- i.e., only since the invention of agriculture or something like that. ;D  Anyway, what she was suggesting was that in pre-agricultural societies, women engaged in activities such as tribal battles, hunting, etc. just as much as the men and, conversely, men often were given duties of caregiving and nurturing.  The only times women were excluded from these activities were when they were heavily pregnant.  Food for thought.

Might that be Colette Dowling in "The Frailty Myth", a book I keep meaning to order from the oh-so-appropriately-named amazon.co.uk, but have, as yet not got around to doing?  I know in the reviews I've read, it says that her central argument is that the whole concept of female frailty is an Industrial Revolution construction; before that, in farming and, as stmercy says, hunter-gatherer groups, women were expected to do physical work and not laze around being dainty as they were in polite Victorian society (brilliant engineers, the Victorians - Bazalgette with London sewers, Brunel with railways, ships and bridges etc., but bloody awful at gender politics). 

BTW, I sent stmercy a link to an article from which my Amaz0ns signature is taken, and he suggested I post it in this thread.  It's very good, and it's at http://www.untaming.com/archive1.html (ftp://http://www.untaming.com/archive1.html)

That's the one.  I'm terrible with names, sadly- one of my two failings, the other being that I'm not good at humility. ;D ;)

You don't seem to be too bad at humility when I compliment you on your Sylph stories.  So, have you got the book?  What's it like?

Sadly, I don't have the book anymore- it moved to D.C. with my ex-  I could probably get ahold of it if I asked her, as we're still on good terms.  She got it as part of a project for a sociology class she was taking and I picked it up and read it because I read pretty much anything that isn't actively trying to escape me (nailing it down doesn't help- just means it can't run as far!)

It is an interesting read.  I recall not agreeing with everything she wrote, but she raised a number of good points, particularly in regards to the myths that we accept and perpetuate regarding the supposed genetic weakness of women.

Thanks for the review.  Sounds well worth buying. 8)

I understand they said the same thing about suffragettes.  And many of the ones saying it were themselves women