[quote]BuckeyeGirl01 wrote:
immaturity ON
Just to prove I can act like all the rest of you guys around here- Just how chiseled is someone who’s 6’2" and only 180 pounds? I’m with Vroom, I think some of you might be a bit intimidated.
immaturity OFF
[/quote]
You tell 'em chica! 
[quote]assenvy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Do you really think she stands there with her arms stuck out like that when she’s standing in line at the bank?
YES
She’s probably like one of those skinny gino’s who walk around with wife beaters and suffer from extended lat syndrome.[/quote]
And Arnold was in competition form all the time, too.
You’re jealous because she has a better back than you do. She probably spends a lot less time bloviating about lifting and more time working on her physique than you do.
I’m sure you’re breaking her heart.
She actually looks like she has a small frame, quite petite with some, but not too much, muscle mass. She only looks slightly freakish because of the unnatural pose.
I’d do her, unless her face looked like Vroom’s.
Ok guys, time for some first hand experience here. Y’all remember Patricia? She could do a lat spread like that too. Well, I’ve met her. A couple times (and yes, her boyfriend Ko was there both times). Class acts, both of them, by the way. Anyway, if you had seen Patricia then, you certainly wouldn’t be saying the same things about her that you’re saying about the subject of the “Powerful Images” lady here. And Patricia did it totally natural.
So in any case, I’m just saying that the picture here doesn’t tell anywhere NEAR the whole story.
I’m impressed.
Yeah I’ll have to wager that this isn’t some giant of a woman. She’s just put her time in the gym to good use. Nothing wrong with that!
[quote]RIT Jared wrote:
What exactly do you guys think is “powerful” anyway? Average looking women with huge knockers?[/quote]
Well, speaking for myself, a “powerful image” of a lat spread would be one from Arnold, Lee Haney or Ronnie Coleman. The one up there just says “Weird” to me. (Is it a chick, a dude, or something in between?..)
Sorry to sound chauvinistic and with all due respects to BuckeyeGirl01 (awesome legs!), but if you’re going to stick up a picture of a chick in a semi-revealing dress, I’m going to judge it by my own standards of aesthetics. So yeah, I guess I would rather see “average looking women with big knockers” – nothing wrong with that.
And like Microslash, I can appreciate the hard work of female bodybuilders, but I’m not going to lie and say that I enjoy looking at something resembling she-males. If that look floats your boat and gets you motivated, hey, more power to you. But it doesn’t float mine, and I’m going to say so.
And no, I am not brainwashed by the waif look. Far from it…
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
I’d do her, unless her face looked like Vroom’s.[/quote]
vroom should feel good about himself…whenever he’s the butt of a joke it’s really funny.
I dont think that looks manly at all. Tiny waist, flowing hair, nice legs… the only thing that has you guys upset is her lats, which are coming out so much because of an unnatural posture. I’m sure if she was relaxed she would look normal.
If you scroll down so you don’t see her shoulder and lat spread (about where her dress stops), and use both your fingers to hide her arms, she’s freaking hot! To me, her waist, ass and legs is as about as good as I could imagine… mmm… um now where were I? Anybody knows who it is? I’d like to see a normal picture of her. I bet 100 cyber money that she’s a hottie.
Heck, a woman doesn’t look like a guy just because she has muscles! Feminine shape and feminine features with some definition is hot.
I guess this is a positive thing, there seems to be a shortage of appreciative men for buff women. Ups the odds that eventually I’ll settle down with one that has some gym gumption.
Anyway, I vote we don’t let beanpoles or male waifs be the judge of female attractiveness.
I think TC said it in a previous Powerful Image thread, but some images are put up for the sole purpose of igniting a discussion.
In the last 3 Powerful Images we’ve seen an incredibly vascular female body builder, an incredibly hot catholic school girl, and an increbibly well developed back from a female body builder.
All three females. None that could be mistaken for the other. In the cases of the bodybuilders - each taking their body to places that very few women have the guts to take their bodies. Some on here like the muscular look, others think it’s freakish and revolting.
Whether you like what they did or not - they’ve pushed the envelope and for that, both should be admired.
As for the school girl - she should be admired in a special, naughty way.
…and this was exactly the kind of crap that drove women like Patricia crazy: this ridiculous idea that her attractiveness was determined by other men’s attitudes about the limits she should apply to her training.
Makes me realize more than ever that there is a necessary distinction to be made between T-Vixens, who exist for the pleasure of T-Men, and T-WOMEN, who reserve the right to train and diet and improve themselves FOR themselves, and not give a rat’s ass about what some guy on a forum thinks she should do.
That “Homemade Ass” thread, for instance, shows a woman who is attractive–I certainly can’t argue that–but who could have achieved that look with a treadmill and Dr. Phil’s diet plan. No definition; just curves. Playful in the sack, fine, but there are thousands like her. Want a plaything? Fine. No argument there. (Sorry, ChuckJ, if I’m offending you or her, but I don’t think you meant her to be a paragon of the T-Nation lifestyle, anyway.) This talk about her being a mascot? She’s got nothing to do with what this site is about, unless they changed their mission statement to include something about masturbation over images on the Internet.
But put up a pick of a woman who obviously pays her dues in the gym and at the dinner plate, and do we hear “Great lat spread!” or “I wish my wife had that low BF.” or “What great proportions.”?? The majority of posters seem to think that she must be judged by whether they think she doesn’t have enough BF!
I don’t know why this is so. I’m not going to accuse anyone of being intimidated because a woman has bigger muscles or more definition. I’m not going to say it’s some deep-seated desire to keep women non-threatening. I don’t know the root cause. But I’m willing to let a T-Woman live a lifestyle that leads to bigger numbers than me in the weight room (Patricia, Ericka; How ya doin?) without accusing her of being less than a woman.
Some of you are retarded. The girl in that pic is pretty small. Her arms are no bigger than the average 16-20 year old dude running around the gym in a tank top weighing all of 130lbs thinking he’s turning all of the girls on with his six-pack. I am sure I could easily grab her, pick her up by the waist, walk around the house while screwing her, and set her down gently without destroying my back. The only thing really developed on her is her back and shoulders from what you can tell in that picture. No, she doesn’t walk around in that pose at all times just like I don’t generally walk around the clinic in a perpetual “most muscular” pose…even though I am sure the women-folk would cream for it. If you all think she is “HUGE”, I can only guess that most of you are just trying to get as big as Brad Pitt as a life goal. Good luck with that.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
In the last 3 Powerful Images we’ve seen an incredibly vascular female body builder, an incredibly hot catholic school girl, and an increbibly well developed back from a female body builder.
[/quote]
Let me just go out on a limb here and say that the girl in the plaid skirt and thigh highs was probably neither catholic nor a school girl.
This cracks me up. Maybe I spend too much time around women who can rep 300+ on their squats, 200+ on their benches and are chasing a 400 pull all at less than 150#'s body weight.
I find a v-shape on a woman very attractive. I much more prefer a healthy, (read not freaky) muscular body to a skinny, starving myself to look like my favorite Hollywood numbnut, physique.
You guys need to gain some weight and push your lifts to a point where when a strong woman walks in the gym it doesn’t ruin your day.
I think she looks great although I must admit at first I thought she was a plastic doll, I guess the shine did that, her ass looks great, probably as hard as my head too!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Some of you are retarded. The girl in that pic is pretty small. … If you all think she is “HUGE”, I can only guess that most of you are just trying to get as big as Brad Pitt as a life goal. Good luck with that.[/quote]
No, it’s retarded to say you’re attracted to a look just because others around you (in this thread anyway) say you should be. The woman that’s in the picture is not huge, but she’s not my idea of attractive either. Maybe it’s the combination of the big hair, wide shoulders, small waist and extreme pose that’s off, I don’t know, but it is too weird-looking. Granted, she does have a great butt and legs.
And what’s this bullshit about equating what you find attractive in a woman to your own physique? Maria Shriver looks like a waif, so does that make Arnold a beanpole? Geez…
Vroom, you hit the nail on the head: just be glad there are guys like us who have different tastes in women than you.
I for one am not the least bit intimidated by the woman in the picture. Yes, her upper body is quite muscular - more muscular than my sexual preferences, but then again, I wasn’t aware that the “Powerful Images” section was about T&A, and if it were, she would definitely pass the “A” part. What confuses me is that I didn’t see anyone make mention of her HAIR. She’s got some freakishly developed hair.
That’s all,
DB
That woman is sexy!
BTW: I am neither huge nor chiseled.
[quote]TeeVee69 wrote:
No, it’s retarded to say you’re attracted to a look just because others around you (in this thread anyway) say you should be. .[/quote]
This isn’t even about attraction but the issue of people insulting her for the way she looks (ie. if she gets an erection bigger than yours, you have some real problems that extend well beyond this board). Personally, I wouldn’t go out of my way to get her phone number based on her look. That is not what I am looking for if the issue is only looks. Still, however, I know what I am looking at and it isn’t “manly” or any other words that have been tossed at that picture as adjectives. That is the difference. I actually like the look of a few fitness models. I like Sharon Bruneau (sp?) and Rachel McLish. they all had that feminine thing down along with the muscularity. Now, they I would go out of my way to talk to. That doesn’t mean I think this woman is “ugly”, however.