Jump to content

Petricor

Member
  • Content count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

5 Followers

About Petricor

  • Rank
    10+ Posts
  • Birthday 07/17/1995

Profile

  • Location
    Brazil
  • This profile is a...
    real profile.
  • Gender
    Male
  • Orientation
    Gay
  • What are your interests?
    Almost every thing related to muscle.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This could be a repeated topic, I'm not sure, and the question is certainly relative. But... For the experienced guys that are willing to share, how is to date and/or have sex with a bodybuilder, strength athlete or similar? What are the most noticeable differences from sex with an average guy? I don't think any big guy will show around here, but if that's the case what your thoughts? What differences you notice between sex with a regular guy or someone of the similar size and strength?
  2. Petricor

    NA

    I had just two shows, I think it was over two years ago. One w/ Robin Strand and the othe w/ Pavel Cervinka. I think both went okay. (I do miss Robin, he amassed quite a folowing and then gone. Probably got a real good sponsorship from a sports business or something. Dunno) I stopped just because I think that they are very expensive. A good number of guys from flex4cash want more than 50 USD for 30 minutes... and some profiles offer scorting for almost the same. So I can't help but think that people are being overcharged for the shows. (Maybe im just cheap) (Btw the guy in your first post is insanely hot)
  3. Petricor

    More than just for show: huge muscles and strength display

    Well... like they say in Quarks and Coffee there is two kinds of answer, the short and the long. Short: No. There is a lot of empirical and "semi-empirical" evidence that strength and muscle size are not related in a simple proportion. As one could expect, mostly of this evidence is not obtained or tested scientifically... It just happens that, for some reason, people seen to really enjoy to make comparisons between the abilities of athletes thar train to do very different stuff. Like putting a gymnast to armwrestle a bodybuilder. Lots of this kind of stuff in this channel: https://m.youtube.com/channel/UC0ahC64OhIAS11TJX9Ig86A ... A good number of vids are actually quite enjoyable. And even with all the srt8 mojo, they can't avoid being kinda homoerotic since there is a lot of hot athletes showing off what they bodies can (and sometimes can't) do. Long: Like most of the things that we are culturally inclined to put in simple frases, like when Herbert Spencer said the frase "survival of the fittest" after reading (and misunderstanding a lot) of Darwin's work, saying "bigger is stronger" is almost unscientific. (I must say that "survival of the fittest" is a really bad case because it sticked to the cultural memory and today, more than ever, translates poorly the meaning of Darwin's work and the knowledge of the scientific community. Also it helps a lot bigots to propagate their bigotry. I'm sorry for this digression, I just really hate the frase) So, much like you said, the more careful and scientific is your approach of one subject more complex the things tend to get. When someone asks "Does bigger really mean stronger?" he is, actually, raising a huge number of questions. Just a tiny example: What is muscle size? (Is it just muscle mass?... But the muscle needs a lot mor stuff to work properly, like water, glycogen, salts and etcetera. So a dehydrated bodybuilder at his top competition shape may look huge and menacingly vacularized, but his muscles can't work as well as in his of season shape.) And what are we measuring here? Is it strength? Is the strength we talk about a singular indivisible feature? Or is it a great number of characteristics that added allows us to use our bodies to move weight? Maybe it is a even more complex question since we don't have full comprehension (or Model depending on how one understand the study of natural sciences) of how the entangled proteins inside our muscle fibers turn the potential energy of chemical bonds into kinetic energy. I could go on pointing questions around the subject and I am not even able scratch the point of the iceberg, because I'm not a physician or biologist (actually im a chemistry undergrad) so my knowledge about the mechanics of the human body is very, very limited. My point is: it's kinda complicated stuff. What I can really say with more or less (probably on the less side) confidence is that we have a cultural and intuitive knowledge that there is a apparent relation between developed muscles and fisical prowess, it is mostly in form of bias that we probably acquired because it was useful to determine or odds against one opponent and possibly to judge characteristics of potential mates. (well... last this last part is at least supported by the very existence of this community, we here are in many ways attracted to muscle and stuff associated to it)
×