Talk:Sthenolagnia

For those interested: http://www.jdm022.com/Gym.html

The photos are obviously photoshopped. Maybe even add this link to the main article as an example? 89.139.45.185 (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion:

The article opener as published, represents the popular "majority opinion". No evidence ever, has been brought to the opinion of sthenolagnia or cratolagnia to be "fetishes". Fetishes are defined as "interests", are in line with choises and development. You can 'take up a fetish', as well as leave it behind. It is about choises. You however cannot take up a personality foundation. Personality foundation is from birth.

At first, any kind of sexuality differing from the 'normal standard' (in the statistical meaning of these words, = the majority section under the Gauss curve, that is), was classified as "disorders". The 19th century psychologists have not brought much knowlegde to understanding human beeings, but merely a faked-scientific façade in justification to the public condemnation of minorities by means of changing the weapons used, from the earlier incontrollable "religious dogma and violent intolerance", to later controllable "mental diseases" classification. In a way, the early psychologists were just claiming patients, thus abusing. A lot of this general abuse is still existant. Still now, sharply negative public opinion is the result.

Both sthenolagnia and cratolagnia are a 'large' minority position (not uncommon), with both female and male. It is, however, highly accepted from male and by female, when it is part of the personality of female, and it is highly unaccepted from female and by male, when it is part of the personality of male.

This context is purely socio-cultural.

Female having the personality are considered 'normal' (highly accepted), and as such, the personality is never even named, and they usually get what they want.

Male having the personality are considered having a 'fetish' or 'disorder' (generally unaccepted), and as such, the personality is classified and named, but denied as a personality and negativated. In line with this, the majority of male having the personality, are hiding it out from personal circles to avoid the common condemnations, sometimes hiding it out from their life at all. It is this self-negation of part of the personality, under a socio-cultural pressure, that is sometimes provoking a mental disorder. It is the same kind of disorder as any, provoked by socio-cultural violence on ones personality. This is the only reference where "criminality" comes in: the socio-cultural crime of allowing a majority suppression of minority positions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.82.111.74 (talk) 10:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

muscle worship is not redundant to this article as some have stated in their edit summaries
Because the latter describes the practice, and also because in the ref for these psycho terms are give parenthetically in the entry on WRESTLING as a sexual practice. See WP:Common name. Etc. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification requested
If somebody has the other source besides the encyclopedia, which only has those brief parenthetical definitions, please clarify if X has sthenolagnia if (s)he is turned on by displaying his/her own muscle to someone else (a kind of exhibitionism), which displaying seems to indicate, or by seeing somebody else's displayed muscles. I'm willing to wager the latter is far more common. You don't see bodybuilders with an erection on the scene at the competitions, although some form arousal is involved, but you do see that at Chippendales-type shows. This is analogous to the difference between sadism and masochism, although some contend there's no difference and call it sadomasochism. Also, these paraphilias are involved in muscle worship, in which participants have a dominant/submissive role often enough (although one could imagine this isn't always the case), so the question appears valid enough, and it also applies to cratolagnia. I guess there's not much about it in the science literature beyond the definitions... Tijfo098 (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved to Wiktionary
There doesn't seem to be anything else that can be said about this beyond a WP:DICTDEF, and even that wasn't cited properly from the source. There are no studies about these proposed concepts. I've moved the definitions to Wiktionary. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)