Not bad, Joel might want to do something like this more often

Wow Joel actually looks really nice with muscles ^^

he looks very manly :3 i wonder how joel would react with a muscle matt hehe

oooo murrific

One word:
BULGE.

First thing that came into my mind too.

great minds think alike i guess

The first thing I saw as well, but am always looking in that area when it comes to him.

hehe it's kinda hard to miss
and he fills it very well

i saw the title and instantly fav'd it as soon as it was up!! he looks amazing like this!

Oh my, now thats how you do muscular and sexy *purrs*

...mmmmmm. <3

Though he was already muscled on the most important place. C:

Murr, sexy Joel :3

YES!

those undies <3

Mmm.. I've a thing for muscly goths.

holy damn thats awesome

Fucking AAAAAAAAAAAAAA, -rushes to Joel's side-

yes he does

Indeed, he DOES actually look good like this. Not overly muscular, either, a la hyper, which just looks silly. He looks rather natural.

YES

You know, fetishes are typically considered to be things that do not fall in the realm of the accepted norm. Scat is a fetish. Footsex is a fetish. Muscles (at least to the degree in this picture) aren't a fetish. They are a preference. Being attracted to skinny guys, or muscled guys, guys with glasses, or guys with red hair, those are all preferences. A guy attracted to other guys is a preference, not a fetish. "Fetish" (the word) has taken it upon itself to hijack values that rightly belong to "Preference". It's just a little annoying.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fetish Definition 3.

Muscles are a part of the body. They can cause an erotic response/fixation with a lot of people. Hence, fetish.

Again, being attracted to guys with red hair is not a fetish. Being attracted to tall people is not a fetish. Being attracted to smart people or dumb people or people who can play the piano are not fetishes. Being attracted to black people, asian people, white people are not fetishes. Being attracted to muscles is also not a fetish unless you are referring to a situation where there are SO many muscles bulging everywhere that it is practically unrealistic in every way. THAT would qualify as something not in the norm. But this picture doesn't fit that description at all.

What exactly makes you think a fetish has to be abnormal to be considered one? A fetish is defined by the level of obsession or fixation with a person, not by how weird or unreal it is. Someone can have a preference for red hair or they can have a fetish for red hair. It's not just one or the other objectively for everybody.

There's no point in calling it a fetish if anything, literally anything, can be one.

Uh, the purpose of defining something as a sexual fetish for someone is to insinuate that the thing is an obsession with the person and causes heightened arousal with them. A person can have a preference for guys with muscles, or they can be so attracted sexually with the idea or sight that it's like an obsession. In some cases it's just something that they really enjoy and get off to the mere thought of, and in others it's required to get off at all.

I dunno what "point" you think doesn't exist anymore just because things that aren't weird can be fetishes.

"According to the ICD-10-GM, version 2005, fetishism is the use of inanimate objects as a stimulus to achieve sexual arousal and satisfaction; in most cases said object is required for sexual gratification. The corresponding ICD code for fetishism is F65.0. The diagnostic criteria for fetishism are as follows:

Unusual sexual fantasies, drives or behavior occur over a time span of at least six months. Sometimes unusual sexual fantasies occur and vanish by themselves; in this case any medical treatment is not necessary."

Well, A, your copy/paste of Wikipedia just kind of counteracted your statement earlier that things like unrealistic muscles and footsex are fetishes (considering these are not "inanimate objects"). B, the exact definition of fetishism among psychologists and physicians is still being debated and is largely irrelevant in this instance anyway since we're not talking about objective psychological diagnoses. C, since the meaning of what is or isn't a fetish is being debated in professional venues, one must look to the specific community's definition of what a fetish is, which includes things like muscles and girlyboys and other non-"weird" things. D, "Muscle" is a fetish filter on FA, and not every furry put under that category is hypermuscled.

I copy/pasted that excerpt because I wanted to focus on the word "unusual", and even though the definition I posted only mentions inanimate objects, it was a definition that conflicted with yours. Of course since your definition was your only fall back, it was natural for me to do it. It's called strategy.

I love how cool you looked for ragging on my copy/pasting minutes after linking me to dictionary.com. And what was with announcing WIKIPEDIA just now? You're implying that either Wikipedia bears no legitimacy, or I was trying to hide my source and you somehow outed me in my super secret fake out, when really, the article was just too long to link. I saved you time, bro.

And we ARE talking about psychological diagnoses. We started the moment you linked me to the definition under the heading "Psychology". Furries. Sigh.

I love how you fell back on "the community decides the meaning of the word" right after linking me the definition to prove me wrong. If that's what you really thought, maybe you should have opened with it instead of waiting until your definition defense didn't hold up anymore.

I know you're a fan of some really weird sexual art on FA, that's cool with me because we all are. But I'm not going to apologize for being right. I don't care if FA lets you filter by Cheeseburgers, I'm not going to agree that urinating donkeys are cheeseburgers.

I'm not going to spam this argument after this reply, but you are MORE then welcome to send me a note to continue it. In fact I invite you to. I have no problem with you personally, but I still think you're dead wrong. I meant to be a smartass with my original comment, but now I feel bad for taking up so much of this page because, it's Immy's space, not mine.

"But I'm not going to apologize for being right."

Wow.

I could say how subjective the meaning of "unusual" is in this context, but apparently this has just become about outmatching me in some sort of metaphorical dick contest. Alright, if you wanna perpetrate that your definition of fetish is the absolute correct one and anyone else's is wrong, especially the actual, degree-holding psychologist's, whatever, you do that, sport.

lawl, the e-dick some people have. I love when people take facts from Wikipedia, or general internet, then act like it's irrefutable fact, despite, there is a reason wiki's are not allowed in school work. Since literally ANYONE can go there, get an account, and change it to say whatever they want. I could go on the site right now, write that rabbits display usual high homosexual tendencies, and even when castrated, they have such a high sex drive they will continue to try to have sex, more so with other males. And though it would probably be removed, the few hours to days it may be up, there is a chance some one would save/copy the data, and hold it as 'the truth' and probably use it one some argument somewhere sometime. XD

Fun fact: The bunny thing? That was a real observation I had when I was 16, working at a pet shop, and watched one rabbit, neutered, hump another male rabbit more than the female in the cage, and the occurrence happened so often, that the other male formed a bald spot on it's back. =D

(Replying to that last part, sorry about the flabbergasted and sppechlessly short post)

Frickin' sweet.

honestly?
does it really matter that much to you?
it doesn't make the picture any worse just because immel called muscles a fetish (which i agree with QD on this one)


THIS IS THE INTERNETS. ARGUMENTS ARE POINTLESS BECAUSE YOU ALWAYS LOSE.
okay, lesson learned

Au contraire, they're no pointless you learn from the "arguments/debates" and mistakes made. :3

but i mean, arguments on the internet just keep going on, no one ever wins and the only thing you can really learn is that it was a mistake to even start the arguement in the first place

You still learned something important though. ;D

eheh you're right

At the risk of making this comment chain even longer ... you do realize you're having an argument with someone who has an actual degree in Psychology, right?

which one has the psychology degree? x3

QuetzaDrake. He's talked about it in his journal a few times.

I will admit that being muscular actually fits joel very well. somehow you need to work this into a ballerina mafia comic x3

Well, that right arm and head are drawn very well, everything nice and in proportion (the tricep is a little weirdly angular, especially considering that it wouldn't be flexed in that position.) The chest seems okay, from what I can see of it, but a lot of the elements are almost literally disjointed. The arm doesn't really flow to the chest and I don't get much of a sense of perspective from it (is the fist clenched in the air or against his chest?) if you were to cut off everything below the arm and make it a bust shot, everything would be in proportion except maybe the forearm, but below that the waist seems weirdly off for some reason, and his thigh looks smaller than his shoulder. Also this might be muscle-amputee fetishism what with his lack of a left appendage.

Don't take this the wrong way, but maybe you should draw muscular people more often just to break out of your bodytype comfort zone. Draw muscular girls, even, just so you know I have no vested interest and am being sincere when I say that.

I'll probably draw them more often, since it looks like people like them. I know there are problems with this, but that's what happens when you quickly draw something you almost never draw.

rawr, me likes ^^

"Now this is more like it, Immel! I'll try not to eat too much of your spirit the next time I get hungry."

SCHWING!!!

Kinda disgusting seeing a lot of comments about how they're fapping over him.

I'm not surprised by the stereotype of such though.

Anyway, well drawn, but his left arm seems a little oddly placed based on the shoulder angling.

Why is it disgusting?

I mean in the way that while this is in "General Content Advisory," I passed by comments that are what would be inappropriate in public and this submission with its following comments are open for everyone to see. To me, I see comments as what one person would say as if they were in person. I understand that you draw porn otherwise, but wouldn't it put you off that while on a general picture you would display, you have people you hardly know almost seem like they're hitting on the metaphysical subject where in this case it's Joel?

I can see your point, but - and maybe I am just used to it by now - these comments don't seem that bad to me. Nothing super explicit. You want some wildly explicit comments, go spend some time on SoFurry. Animals, I tell you.

I don't like super dirty comments either, but this is labeled as being from the Wheel of Fetishes. It's not pornographic, but it is meant to arouse people who are into this sort of thing.

Heh, I hadn't thought of that site. So this is more of the "lite" version of responses. XD

Personally, I wouldn't be used to such comments yet, but overall, it does in the end make sense being the WoF. Some comments just took me by surprise.

I'm also curious on how this is disgusting? Joel is looking very classy and strong~ This might be my favorite wheel of fetish picture (unless I've missed a risk of pregnancy picture somewhere).

My favorite part is that it's just muscular, and not hyper

Note: I said "comments."

I have no problem with the content drawn otherwise. My full response was otherwise replied to Immy.

my friends where over when i looked at this and all we could say is.
oh.
my.
god.
Joel looks hot like this

buuuulge :o

looks good. I didn't notice the bulge til I scrolled down..and then I frowned lol. I guess I don't like men in speedos

Muscles suits him.

Joel does look better with a bit of meat rather than being just skin and bones.

meaty, anorexic, i don't care he's delicious either way

woof!!

i like how you didnt over-do it like most people who draw muscles.

wowwwww Joel look great but still love when he vas a chubby bad wolf :3

I want to see a Picture of Muscular Matt now, to complete the pair

I have decided this is now canon.

*seconds*

Honestly, way more appropriate than the femmy look he adopted in the comic, imo.

I;m not normally into the muscular scene, but this is sexy, because it is Realistic, and not over the top. ow excuse me as I drool a little....

AAAHHHHH. WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS TO ME??!

That looks strangely... right.

how is this any different than what it should be like?

woah!
I wonder if he can bench me :3

So ... which way to the beach?

Lol - No longer the 'emo skeleton boyfriend' that Matt got annoyed about
I always liked him either way, although this is kinda how I always pictured him anyhow...

if i was in love with Joel before....now i'm completely gone XD he is so fucking damn sexy

I.....feel like his eye is in the wrong place.....

He finally ate a damn sammich!

Now this is a fettish I can get into!

Love those green eyes 8D

*jaw drops on the floor*

Mmmm, Delicious... <3

Joel looks awesome like this.

*stares, blushing* Woah....he's so sexy...