[quote]Jillybop wrote:
Now I’m really feeling the love! Thank you, Christopher, that’s very nice of you. As I sit here in my sweats with my hair in a messy ponytail and baby drool on my shoulder, I feel very undeserving of your praise
It’s funny, all I said was that the thread “irritates” me. I didn’t launch into a crusade/tirade because there are valid points on all sides and personal taste is just that, personal.
It’s just a little frustrating to know that if the image was of a male bb, the conversation would be so different and if someone made the equivalent comment (“he’s not really filling that thong out like he should”), they would be torn apart.
[/quote]
I don’t know. I personally would care less about those kind of comments. I agree that some of these posts nit-picking these women, some of whom are gorgeous, are ridiculous and some of these guys tools. But some things…I don’t know. It’s just my own perspective I guess. Some of the bodies just don’t look like womens bodies to me. I appreciate and respect the dedication it takes to look like and in some sense can understand these women’s goals. But for the life of me, I’ll never get how anyone can find it attractive
[quote]sic 10-52 wrote:
Natural Nate wrote:
Now as far as the double standard goes, uh . . . men and women are different. Just because I want to be 260 pounds of muscle doesn’t mean I’m attracted to women that are. I really don’t understand why this is so hard to grasp.
I do grasp that. I don’t think you have to be attracted to her. I think what pisses me off is when some of you guys (notice I didn’t say all, Massif), rather than looking at her physique and recognizing her hard work, only look at her in terms of her hittableness.[/quote]
I think there are levels and levels. I can look at a girl that’s impressively muscular, perhaps past my tastes, and appreciate the hard work without being too distracted by ‘lack of hittableness’. But past a certain point the only thing you can think of is, ‘That’s wrong’ at first glance and feel a sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach
[quote]monkey_space wrote:
One more thing. “Sexy women get big reactions”. Well, I think Jilly is sexy, and I am sure many members here agree. And her progress pictures have received “big reactions”. So according to your words she must be sexy!
But more so than sexy she is respected.
Christopher
[/quote]
Never said she wasn’t. You are one emotional dude.
[quote]Bodyguard wrote:
Bodyguard wrote:
I’m still in awe that so many men are fixated on breasts. They cringe at the thought of an obese woman but yet they are obsessed with two wads of fat that are hanging from a womans chest. Not that the right breasts on the right woman can’t and are pretty.
Two wads of fat! The fuck is wrong with you man. It hurts me to see another guy who only thinks of boobs as wads of fat with milk ducts. it is biologically set in stone that men are extremely attracted to tits.
Breast Obsession non sensical and juvenile.
The point I was making which during your breast obsession you failed to grasp is that obsessing over a womans breasst is like a woman obsessing over a mans mustache it is in essence just hair just like the reality of the situation is breasts are fatty tissue with some milk ducts thrown in for good measure.
There is a big difference between a stache and boobs. That is a stupid comparison.
Nothing you say can change that fact anymore than anything anyone says can change the fact a mustache is just hair.
I also stated clearly breasts can be pretty sure enough I just happen to be a person who finds more to a woman than just her breasts.
Attacking someones analogies or opinions now that Non sensical and juvenile.
[quote]Atomic Dog wrote:
Man, who would have guessed my beautiful little Russki girl would have elicited so much controversy?
[/quote]
Who knew? She is one pretty lady. BTW, you guys should really consider the satellite radio thing.
[quote]DrewZ wrote:
Anyway, I had no idea some people (excluding you Jilly) could be so sensitive about totally benign shit. And yeah, I’m a bit of an asshole, but I gotta say, Jilly is the only one who seems to be able to handle a little ball busting. Ironic huh? No wonder she’s popular.[/quote]
Oh Jesus Christ, is it high school all over again?
[quote]DrewZ wrote:
Anyway, I had no idea some people (excluding you Jilly) could be so sensitive about totally benign shit. And yeah, I’m a bit of an asshole, but I gotta say, Jilly is the only one who seems to be able to handle a little ball busting. Ironic huh? No wonder she’s popular.
[/quote]
[quote]sic 10-52 wrote:
Oh Jesus Christ, is it high school all over again?
[/quote]
This has nothing to do with the subject at hand, and nothing to do with any members here, BUT… it happens to remind me of something a guy said just the other day about a female at our workplace. She spends ALOT of time chatting when she could be working. The guy says to me, “She’s not lazy, she’s POPULAR.” It just struck me as funny.
[quote]Atomic Dog wrote:
Man, who would have guessed my beautiful little Russki girl would have elicited so much controversy?
[/quote]
Yes I am. I was offended at the remarks you made about a member of our community, and I reacted out of the emotions I felt. Pointing that out does not negate what you did.
Christopher
[quote]DrewZ wrote:
monkey_space wrote:
One more thing. “Sexy women get big reactions”. Well, I think Jilly is sexy, and I am sure many members here agree. And her progress pictures have received “big reactions”. So according to your words she must be sexy!
But more so than sexy she is respected.
Christopher
Never said she wasn’t. You are one emotional dude.[/quote]
Man i just burst out laughing when i looked at that pic, that is wrong in so many ways. Sorry for my shortsighted view, but that picture should be posted as a warning to others to stay far far away from certain chemical combinations
[quote]legend wrote:
Man i just burst out laughing when i looked at that pic, that is wrong in so many ways. Sorry for my shortsighted view, but that picture should be posted as a warning to others to stay far far away from certain chemical combinations
I don’t know about that. I don’t really know the genetc potential of women who set their mind to it, not knowing anyone who looks like that or wants to in real life. But the lack of androgenization of her face suggests that her steroid use was low compared to women of similar or greater muscularity and faces like Brett Farve.
[quote]legend wrote:
Man i just burst out laughing when i looked at that pic, that is wrong in so many ways. Sorry for my shortsighted view, but that picture should be posted as a warning to others to stay far far away from certain chemical combinations
Oh, this one. Not the powerful image. Yeah-she’s pretty masculine. On the other hand, I’ve seen women who can’t be more than a buck ten with faces like that. Sometimes it just the hand God deals you.
