Women and muscle. What is your opinion?
Options
Replies
-
sexy as f**k0
-
I think OP hasn't been around very long to see how these threads go.
A bunch of people in support of muscle will post pics.
Other people will say it's gross.
Body shaming flies in all directions.
*yawn*
same old same old
BORING.0 -
Thumbs up to muscles. They're so useful! I'd hate to try to garden without them and am working pretty hard at the gym to get more.0
-
The term "masculine" is obnoxious, as is the term "feminine", because the traits attached to them are arbitrary. They are defined however the person defining them wants to define them, meaning they are useless for reflecting reality.
Muscles do work. They exist to move the body to which they are attached, and influence the world around which surrounds said body. The requirements for work from the environment do not care about a status of "male" or "female". When you have a flat tire and you need to jack up the car to take the old tire off, the tire jack does not say "Oh, well, you're a female, so I'll make it easier on you, because your muscles aren't designed to do this kind of stuff."
The idea that muscles are "masculine" comes from the idea that women aren't supposed to look intimidating, or that they could make a physical difference in their world. Men with muscles are seen as people who can do things, who can make a physical difference, and it's intimidating. To be considered "feminine" in this society, you need to go towards the opposite end of that spectrum, because so much of the definition of "feminine" relies on outward appearances being softer and less able to do work.
It is a gender assignment that we learn from society, not one that comes from the natural order of the world. Muscles are needed to influence the world around us, because they allow us to do work. It doesn't matter how big or small those muscles are, because they just need to do work. Assigning arbitrary levels of "attractiveness" based on gender expectations in society doesn't serve any purpose, because it just distracts from what muscles REALLY are: Tools to do work, and not a manifestation of "maleness" or "femaleness".0 -
The term "masculine" is obnoxious, as is the term "feminine", because the traits attached to them are arbitrary. They are defined however the person defining them wants to define them, meaning they are useless for reflecting reality.
Muscles do work. They exist to move the body to which they are attached, and influence the world around which surrounds said body. The requirements for work from the environment do not care about a status of "male" or "female". When you have a flat tire and you need to jack up the car to take the old tire off, the tire jack does not say "Oh, well, you're a female, so I'll make it easier on you, because your muscles aren't designed to do this kind of stuff."
The idea that muscles are "masculine" comes from the idea that women aren't supposed to look intimidating, or that they could make a physical difference in their world. Men with muscles are seen as people who can do things, who can make a physical difference, and it's intimidating. To be considered "feminine" in this society, you need to go towards the opposite end of that spectrum, because so much of the definition of "feminine" relies on outward appearances being softer and less able to do work.
It is a gender assignment that we learn from society, not one that comes from the natural order of the world. Muscles are needed to influence the world around us, because they allow us to do work. It doesn't matter how big or small those muscles are, because they just need to do work. Assigning arbitrary levels of "attractiveness" based on gender expectations in society doesn't serve any purpose, because it just distracts from what muscles REALLY are: Tools to do work, and not a manifestation of "maleness" or "femaleness".
/sigh...
Must. Behave...!0 -
Yes0
-
I think muscles look good on everyone.
^^^this0 -
Muscle=athleticsex0
-
Toned is different than muscular in my mind. Toned is fine, you don't jiggle when you wiggle, but muscular is icky to me. I have a friend who got into CrossFit and she's got man shoulders. I don't think that's sexy at all, she looked better before she started going all paelo-cross-fit crazy.0
-
I like this:
Don't like this:
And definitely don't like this:
But that's just me! Everyone has different preferences, I just personally, don't like defined muscles on women. But I think a soft, yet 'toned' looking body of a woman who strength trains is gorgeous. The bottom line is, though, I think women strength training is a good thing .
Btw, Amyk225, your body is amazing.0 -
Because you asked though...I'll give out my opinion. I like muscle on women...I also like a thin layer of bodyfat over it to smooth the rough edges the slightest bit. A little more or less of either is more than ok. The muscle itself is rarely the issue though when it comes to people's opinions on muscular women, it's how much bodyfat they carry over it. Google Tianna Ta...or better yet, I'll post some pictures.
During competition:
During the off season:
The muscle underneath is exactly the same (trust me, that woman wouldn't let one ounce slip...it's too hard for women to build it back up!!), the only difference is the fat over the top of it.
Good luck with your goals!
Like this girl...yeah...not very attractive to me. In the first she looks crazy muscular except her obvious fake boobs which just look out of place, and on the bottom she is a bit scrawny (no hips). Beautiful face and hair though. That's just my opinion. We all think different things are attractive.
Here's a better picture. It's just the angle:
She's got plenty decent hips lol.
Dear God, her body is gorgeous.
(I don't like it on season, though)
You make a very good point. I like muscle on women, I think what I don't like it muscle and low body fat.0 -
Because you asked though...I'll give out my opinion. I like muscle on women...I also like a thin layer of bodyfat over it to smooth the rough edges the slightest bit. A little more or less of either is more than ok. The muscle itself is rarely the issue though when it comes to people's opinions on muscular women, it's how much bodyfat they carry over it. Google Tianna Ta...or better yet, I'll post some pictures.
During competition:
I think that's pretty hot. I would LOVE to have a body like that.0 -
I like this:
Yum
Don't like this:
Super Yum!
And definitely don't like this:
Meh.0 -
I like muscles on women. Not only do I think it's hot from a physical standpoint, but the discipline and work ethic it takes to build that muscle is also a turn on. But that certainly does not mean I ONLY find girls with muscles attractive. I have seen women of almost every body type that I thought were very attractive. And of course, how a woman carries herself has a lot to do with it muscles or not. If having muscles means that a woman will feel more self-confident and therefor is more willing to dress sexy and show off a bit, then I am more than all for it!0
-
I like this:
Yum
Don't like this:
Super Yum!
And definitely don't like this:
Meh.
This guy sums it up...although 1 and 2 are pretty equal to my taste. And again...to drive it home, the only real difference in their bodies, is a bit of bodyfat. Lean number 1 out, and she'd look pretty much just like number 2.0 -
the only real difference in their bodies, is a bit of bodyfat. Lean number 1 out, and she'd look pretty much just like number 2.
no way man.0 -
"Toned" has no standard definition. One could have good muscle tone and be fat. Or to a someone else a skinny girl is "toned". To others a little muscle with low body fat is "toned". The terminology of "toned" was to disguise weight lifting to appeal to feminine way of training.
Since females SPEND MORE MONEY than men on personal improvement, "tone", "toning", etc. was marketed this way to fool women into thinking they weren't really lifting weights, when they actually were. Score for the fitness industry on this.
What's now being realized as of late is that an average female doesn't have necessary hormones put on muscle like a man, so lifting with more resistance is becoming the norm.
You'll still hear the "high reps/light weight" analogy (which is false) to "tone", but in reality all that person is doing is working on their muscular endurance.
Semantics, yeah probably to many, but I'd rather refer a squat as a squat, rather than call it up/downs.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
the only real difference in their bodies, is a bit of bodyfat. Lean number 1 out, and she'd look pretty much just like number 2.
no way man.
Dude, you and I both know the second girl put a lot of work into her body...but the differences would be marginal to the average person if they had equal bodyfat. That was my point.0 -
It's about how you feel. Some people don't understand being fit and looking lean. Just like some people are happy being fat and don't care about working out or eating right. You're doing great all that matters is how you see yourself and if your husband likes it.0
-
the only real difference in their bodies, is a bit of bodyfat. Lean number 1 out, and she'd look pretty much just like number 2.
no way man.
Dude, you and I both know the second girl put a lot of work into her body...but the differences would be marginal to the average person if they had equal bodyfat. That was my point.
I accept that.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions