[quote]Mr. Clean & Jerk wrote:
Holy crap, some of you nay-sayers out in cyber-space will come up with anything to complain about. WAAAAH! I don’t WANNA look at hot chicks! WTF? If it wasn’t for women who looked like this, I wouldn’t even lift. I’d just call it quits and run head-first into traffic. Go out with style (and a huge mess to piss off the paramedics.) If you don’t like this gal, maybe this is more up your alley.
[quote]heim wrote:
Maybe someday on a rainy day, but i think this site is looking for more of the body building type woman, strong calfs, capable of DL like 200 lbs. Maybe you could submit them to health magazine or something.[/quote]
This is the most rediculous thing I’ve ever read. If you don’t think her image is powerfull in some sense of the word you need to get a check up to make sure you balls are still attached.
She may not look powerfull in the weight lifting sense, but who gives a shit. And please don’t speak for the rest of us on what “this site is looking for” when you’ve only been around a few months. Thanks
[quote]Mr. Clean & Jerk wrote:
Holy crap, some of you nay-sayers out in cyber-space will come up with anything to complain about. WAAAAH! I don’t WANNA look at hot chicks! WTF? If it wasn’t for women who looked like this, I wouldn’t even lift. I’d just call it quits and run head-first into traffic. Go out with style (and a huge mess to piss off the paramedics.) If you don’t like this gal, maybe this is more up your alley.
Problem is that a 120lb body doesn’t make a huge mess that would piss off paramedics, they would just be annoyed. But, hey I guess that could be motivation for them to lift/eat something, ha ha.
She looks great!! Definitely worthy of powerful image status. I think the people saying shes not powerful are looking at the word powerful in too narrow a way.
Powerful doesnt necessarily mean being a to deadlift 6 plates a side(hell a girl who could do that would probably be butt ugly in most peoples eyes anyway).
This girl is powerful in the sense that shes really fucking hot and every guys gona be after her in a club. If she has a personality and some intelligence too she might very well be extremely powerful.
Geez guys, everyone of you would be standing line to hit that. The problem may not be the girl for the Powerful Images, it maybe the photography. Better lighting and angle would do wonders.
[quote]numberonebg wrote:
Nice work, just more proof to the fact that heavy weight training will not cause females to “bulk up.” [/quote]
Heavy weight training WILL cause females to “bulk up” – if not to the same extent as males, at least to a significant degree.
This woman is not training with anything NEAR “heavy weight”. 75 lb. deadlifts? Come on. Just think how much shit you would giving “her” if “she” was a guy lifting those poundages. You wouldn’t be saying “heavy weights won’t bulk you up”, you’d be saying, “no wonder you haven’t bulked up, you’re lifting weights that I could move with my schlong!”
Muscle physiology is exactly the same for both sexes; females simply start out with less and require more work to put on a given amount than males (in most cases, not all). That said, all else is equal. If they lift heavy, they WILL “bulk up” – have you not seen dedicated female powerlifters and bodybuilders? They would take those “you won’t bulk up” comments as an insult, just like any man would – including yourself!
I know it’s nice to have gratuitous double standards and live in a fantasy realm where the exact same action taken by two individuals can have radically different implications for each of them, but I would implore you to occasionally step down and open your eyes to reality.
Heavy weight training causes most people to bulk up. Enough said, no need to elaborate further.
What color is the sky in the world you live in? Two people, one is rich and gets busted REPEATEDLY for DUI, she spends 3 days in jail. YOU do the same thing? We never see you again. You’re gone. Incarcerated for 20 years.
Same exact action - two different individuals, RADCIALLY DIFFERENT IMPLICATIONS>
You haven’t refuted anything that I wrote, try again.
The “actions” I was referring to were scientific cause-and-effect scenarios, such as muscle hypertrophy in response to a given stimulus. My statement was entirely valid in the context that it was written. Your counter-point takes it out of that context, and is therefore an invalid refutation.
Here’s why: The process of criminal sentencing (the example you used to illustrate how the same action can have radically different implications for different individuals) is NOT based on any physical laws. If you release an item while holding it above the ground, it will fall - this is a physical law. If you are caught driving drunk, you may be taken to jail and recieve a sentence, or the apprehending officer may know your dad and give you a free pass, or you may shoot him on the spot and become a fugitive from the law. Point being, there are no pre-determined consequences for taking that action. Same thing with being sentenced in a courtroom. Different courtroom, different defendant, different jury, different sentence. The legal system would not exist without being applied subjectively by humans. The physical laws governing gravity, and - for instance - biochemistry, would, on the other hand.
It is only through the imprecision of language that you were able to construct such a phony “counter-argument” in the first place. I don’t blame you for getting mixed up. Natural languages are notoriously unscientific, and it takes much work and training to be able to think logically in English (no kidding!).
