Powerful Images - 1/24

Off Topic
41

[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.[/quote]

Hey, I never said anything about her having an erection; I don’t even want to think about something like that.

I too know what I’m looking at, and “manly” IS one of the adjectives that comes to my mind. If that’s taken as an insult, then an apology is due. If I knew the woman, I certainly wouldn’t call her that to her face.

But since this is an anonymous picture posted on a public site, then it’s open to being criticized for aesthetics. You and I disagree about feminine beauty; that’s fine.

And to what others have already alluded to, I will acknowledge that how a picture is presented (pose, lighting, etc.) can make all the difference in whether or not a woman looks attractive.

I’ve seen pictures of Timea Majarova where she looks hot in one and downright scary in another – the differences being her level of contest prep at the time and the pose she’s striking.

So yeah, if this chick turned around and retracted those wings, she might actually look hot. (Well with that hair, maybe not…)

42

IMO manly is the wrong word. It is definately an insult to call a woman manly.

A woman isn’t manly because she has developed muscles. It simply isn’t that common in our culture – so you reject it and react strongly to it because it isn’t what you are used to.

There are features which when present would make it appropriate to term a woman as manly. Maybe stick with phrases like overdeveloped or too muscular or too vascular if those are the real issues?

Anyhow, the Internet, magazine racks and TV stations are filled with waify ditsy large breasted women. Let’s hope we continue to find something different here from time to time. Although, I don’t mind seeing costumed bimbos trying to figure out whether or not they are still contained by their skimpy little outfits.

ProfX, can you remind me what this site is supposed to be for again? Is it all about guys getting lean to be underwear models and the promotion of women as always dieting playthings?

Wasn’t there something about bodybuilding in there somewhere?

Kudo’s to the women who fly in the face of societies obvious quick judgement and condemnation.

43

[quote]vroom wrote:
IMO manly is the wrong word. It is definately an insult to call a woman manly.

A woman isn’t manly because she has developed muscles. It simply isn’t that common in our culture – so you reject it and react strongly to it because it isn’t what you are used to.

There are features which when present would make it appropriate to term a woman as manly. Maybe stick with phrases like overdeveloped or too muscular or too vascular if those are the real issues?

Anyhow, the Internet, magazine racks and TV stations are filled with waify ditsy large breasted women. Let’s hope we continue to find something different here from time to time. Although, I don’t mind seeing costumed bimbos trying to figure out whether or not they are still contained by their skimpy little outfits.

ProfX, can you remind me what this site is supposed to be for again? Is it all about guys getting lean to be underwear models and the promotion of women as always dieting playthings?

Wasn’t there something about bodybuilding in there somewhere?

Kudo’s to the women who fly in the face of societies obvious quick judgement and condemnation.[/quote]

Vroom, if you enjoy working with shades of gray in defining feminine visual appeal, more power to you. I myself prefer to define it in unambiguous black and white tones. Again, we disagree, which is fine.

As for “manly,” maybe I need to clarify. I am only commenting on the “look” in the picture. Now, does that make her a “man?” Of course not; I don’t know her. She could be the sweetest, most feminine-behaving woman on the planet. But that doesn’t change the way that picture is presented and the reaction that it elicits in me, which is adequately described by “manly.”

No offense, but to me, your suggested PC words of “overdeveloped, too muscular, and too vascular” don’t do much to change my view; they all simply distill down to the same overall effect – “manly.”

But again, my opinion of the look does not discount my respect for the amount of hard work and dedication that woman has obviously put in.

Finally, I'm well-aware of the original "Testosterone.net" credo, even before it was "T-mag" or "T-Nation." I know a lot of folks who no longer frequent the site because they thought it left its hardcore roots long ago. But the site's growing popularity to the "middle-of-the-road" crowd is the main reason why it's become a financially-viable venture for Tim and the team (my assumption). So don't be so quick to dismiss all the johnny-come-latelys who have different goals and aesthetics than you. Hardcore you may deem yourself to be, but if it weren't for the underwear-model-wanna-be's, many of us would not be enjoying Grow!, Surge or all of the other great products Biotest puts out. Recognize the hand that feeds you!
44

[quote]vroom wrote:

Anyway, I vote we don’t let beanpoles or male waifs be the judge of female attractiveness.[/quote]

i second.

45

lol @ shades of gray. I’m not trying to convince anyone to be attracted to a body type.

It has nothing to do with gray, sometimes it is about picking the right word or description – maybe being accurate and recognizing a knee-jerk reaction.

No wonder women are so afraid of working out.

46

[quote]vroom wrote:
No wonder women are so afraid of working out.[/quote]

EXCELLENT POINT!!!

Yeah - I yelled. So sue me.

47

mmm mmm…

48

[quote]rainjack wrote:
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.

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.

[/quote]

I spend most of my time masturbating not working out.

So my forearms own her back.

49

[quote]BuckeyeGirl01 wrote:
assenvy wrote:
Women should be smooth, men should be chiseled.

Any questions?

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]

look at when this profile was created. YEARS AND YEARS AGO. You think i sit around updating it. With a few Mag 10 cycles i’m hitting 205lbs.

No need to turn immaturity off, if you can’t joke about life, then what’s the point of living it.

50

[quote]Professor X wrote:
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]

I don’t think she is that big. She just has a disprportionately large head of hair. Cover up her head with your hand and she doesn’t look too huge.

51

[quote]vroom wrote:
lol @ shades of gray. I’m not trying to convince anyone to be attracted to a body type.

It has nothing to do with gray, sometimes it is about picking the right word or description – maybe being accurate and recognizing a knee-jerk reaction.

No wonder women are so afraid of working out.[/quote]

And yet you’re pretty quick to call people “pussies” for voicing an opinion contrary to yours. Yeah, check out what you wrote in your first post on this thread. LOL indeed.

Women shouldn’t be afraid to work out. Just look at the photos of Mrs. Beast (Christiane Lamy). She is smoking hot. And she very much looks like a woman. Maybe you can’t tell, but I think there’s a world of difference between her pictures and what we’ve been talking about.

52

don’t get me wrong, i don’t think she’s huge, just don’t like it when chicks are ripped.

over and out.

53

Judging from your name - I gotta wonder if you dig chicks at all. Ass-Envy?

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

54

TeeVee,

I’m not known for being shy with my characterization of fellow posters. I know exactly what I said and I’ll say it again if it will make a difference.

Heh, to paraphrase Rainjack, you can’t swing a dead cat in here without hitting a stereotype!

Besides, I wasn’t calling you a pussy for disagreeing with me, I was calling you a pussy because you reject the look on the pic without even knowing anything about what she looks like from the front or when not posing – and her ass and legs are really hot… hehehe.

If you had started out saying “I don’t like chiseled women”… or “I don’t like women with wide backs” or some crap instead of a generic “manly” when it doesn’t appear to apply, I probably wouldn’t have been involved in this thread at all.

Okay, to be clear, I don’t think you are a pussy because you disagree. I think you are a pussy for entirely different reasons. Disagree all you like. Happier?

55

[quote]vroom wrote:
TeeVee,

I’m not known for being shy with my characterization of fellow posters. I know exactly what I said and I’ll say it again if it will make a difference.

Heh, to paraphrase Rainjack, you can’t swing a dead cat in here without hitting a stereotype!

Besides, I wasn’t calling you a pussy for disagreeing with me, I was calling you a pussy because you reject the look on the pic without even knowing anything about what she looks like from the front or when not posing – and her ass and legs are really hot… hehehe.

If you had started out saying “I don’t like chiseled women”… or “I don’t like women with wide backs” or some crap instead of a generic “manly” when it doesn’t appear to apply, I probably wouldn’t have been involved in this thread at all.

Okay, to be clear, I don’t think you are a pussy because you disagree. I think you are a pussy for entirely different reasons. Disagree all you like. Happier?
[/quote]

Hehehe, Mr. Vroom. You know, I wasn’t going to say anything more on this thread since a new image is up, but damn dude, you sure can fling the bullshit around, can’t you?

Look over the first post I wrote (and MicroSlash’s) and tell me where I said ‘manly’ prompting your ‘pussy’ call? I didn’t use the term ‘manly’ until you guys brought it up.

But thanks for that last message. I think you’ve proved yourself to be the prick that your posts have indicated.

56

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Judging from your name - I gotta wonder if you dig chicks at all. Ass-Envy?

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. [/quote]

No i’m prefectly content with my sexuality. I am straight. That nickname was created because I love brazilian booty.

Those girls have some nice asses.

But it’s all opinion based so arguing is just pointless.

57

TeeVee, I don’t intend to be extremely disagreable, but some fighting and friction in the forums is fun. If I’ve crossed the line, sorry, but hey, if you don’t take it personally (I’m not) it’s pretty entertaining really.

Anyway, back to fighting, I think the phrase “creature feature” is just as strong a negative statement as the later follow-up of manly. I obviously didn’t go back and look at the first post to notice that manly was used later.

Substitute “creature feature” for manly in my comment and it probably can still stand…

Anyway, you are right, who really cares, just thought I’d get something conciliatory out there before you begin chasing me around the forums and misquoting me with a vengeance… :wink:

58

I didn’t find it even remotely sexy. Maybe I’m in the minority here but she is far too masculin for me.

59

Okay all, to prove my point, here’s a picture of Patricia. Now note that she’s not in contest shape in this photo, but rest assured, if she were to strike a similar pose as the lady in the “Powerful Images” photo, you’d be seeing the same type of mass. Now given all that, do you think you’d be saying the same things about that lady if she were posed like this?

I’m just sayin’.

And by posting this, I am by no means disrespecting Patricia in any way. She is a high-class lady. Beautiful, yes, and strong.