Bulky Female Bodies

But that's just it. If we want people to accept that there is no set definition of feminine then we also have to accept that there is no set definition of masculine either. Some dudes are naturally small and skinny. Sure they could lift for years, take weight gainers, creatine, etc, and make the most of what they could do, but do they HAVE to just to be accepted and attractive? That's just as bad as saying naturally large women need to try to be smaller.

as much as I hate to admit it (because I prefer- like- manly men types) this is totally valid.

I often say being feminine has nothing to do with how you dress or what you put on your body- but your attitude and how you conduct yourself- and I think the same could be said for being "masculine"

I do not have an issue with saying there is such a thing as being feminine or masculine- but I find it's a state of mind- or a code of conduct- not your gender - not your clothes- or your size.

So even a small child can be masculine by just choosing to do a certain thing.

I like people to be genuine- that's more important- genuine and confident- whatever that means- go with it.

I agree. I always bring that up because my husband is not a big man. He's 5'9". He wrestled at 135lbs in high school. He did all those things (weight gainers, lifting for years) and at 40 he's now around 160 regularly. But he's very "masculine" in spite of not being "big". He has a confident, dominant, take charge, accept no bull**** personality. He's physical, strong, fast, competitive. He never avoids conflict or backs down from anyone (no matter the other person's size). He's also very fuzzy.

And for that matter my 3 year old son is also "masculine". He climbs, jumps off things, grunts, tries to talk in a growly man voice, etc. He's just much more physical and tough than his sisters (and trust me, I don't predisposition girls to be extra "girly").

**Although I don't know. Maybe we are still better off not defining it. If we define it as a personality then that leaves out those men who are sensitive, vulnerable, and cuddly and implies men should suppress their feelings, etc, which is also an unfortunate thing in our society.

It's probably a lost in translation sort of thing but that description does your hubby no favors. It's very important to know when to avoid confrontation and to have the confidence to back down when there's good reason to. Your choice of words makes poor hubby seem like a cartoon character 'alpha' male. Lol! It's the balance of the masculine/feminine in all of us that makes us able to function. A guy who never avoids confrontation ends up in hospital or jail , a woman who is too submissive allows herself or her kids to be taken advantage of. So each of us has to have a mix of the 'masculine' and 'feminine' if we want to call it that.

To add to your last paragraph I would say those characteristics can and do exist together with the aformentioned 'masculine' characteristics in most men. It's not an either or and that's why labels and boxes do us all a disservice. A strong, physical, 'macho' guy can come home and be vulnerable with his family and cry over his ill mama and cuddle his spouse and not be an ounce less masculine and a woman can be confident , take charge and take no BS (I don't think dominance is a good trait in anyone) and still extend 'feminine' empathy to her staff, nurture her family, cry at TV shows, be kind and tender hearted.

We're all shades of grey;-)

But that's just it. If we want people to accept that there is no set definition of feminine then we also have to accept that there is no set definition of masculine either. Some dudes are naturally small and skinny. Sure they could lift for years, take weight gainers, creatine, etc, and make the most of what they could do, but do they HAVE to just to be accepted and attractive? That's just as bad as saying naturally large women need to try to be smaller.

as much as I hate to admit it (because I prefer- like- manly men types) this is totally valid.

I often say being feminine has nothing to do with how you dress or what you put on your body- but your attitude and how you conduct yourself- and I think the same could be said for being "masculine"

I do not have an issue with saying there is such a thing as being feminine or masculine- but I find it's a state of mind- or a code of conduct- not your gender - not your clothes- or your size.

So even a small child can be masculine by just choosing to do a certain thing.

I like people to be genuine- that's more important- genuine and confident- whatever that means- go with it.

I agree. I always bring that up because my husband is not a big man. He's 5'9". He wrestled at 135lbs in high school. He did all those things (weight gainers, lifting for years) and at 40 he's now around 160 regularly. But he's very "masculine" in spite of not being "big". He has a confident, dominant, take charge, accept no bull**** personality. He's physical, strong, fast, competitive. He never avoids conflict or backs down from anyone (no matter the other person's size). He's also very fuzzy.

And for that matter my 3 year old son is also "masculine". He climbs, jumps off things, grunts, tries to talk in a growly man voice, etc. He's just much more physical and tough than his sisters (and trust me, I don't predisposition girls to be extra "girly").

**Although I don't know. Maybe we are still better off not defining it. If we define it as a personality then that leaves out those men who are sensitive, vulnerable, and cuddly and implies men should suppress their feelings, etc, which is also an unfortunate thing in our society.

It's probably a lost in translation sort of thing but that description does your hubby no favors. It's very important to know when to avoid confrontation and to have the confidence to back down when there's good reason to. Your choice of words makes poor hubby seem like a cartoon character 'alpha' male. Lol! It's the balance of the masculine/feminine in all of us that makes us able to function. A guy who never avoids confrontation ends up in hospital or jail , a woman who is too submissive allows herself or her kids to be taken advantage of. So each of us has to have a mix of the 'masculine' and 'feminine' if we want to call it that.

To add to your last paragraph I would say those characteristics can and do exist together with the aformentioned 'masculine' characteristics in most men. It's not an either or and that's why labels and boxes do us all a disservice. A strong, physical, 'macho' guy can come home and be vulnerable with his family and cry over his ill mama and cuddle his spouse and not be an ounce less masculine and a woman can be confident , take charge and take no BS (I don't think dominance is a good trait in anyone) and still extend 'feminine' empathy to her staff, nurture her family, cry at TV shows, be kind and tender hearted.

We're all shades of grey;-)

I was avoiding the use of the word "alpha" (because there's some huge douch canoes on the board that claim to be) but it's true, it is a pretty good description of him. He doesn't avoid confrontation, and doesn't back down but he isn't cruel, mean or violent. He doesn't pick fights, and hasn't gotten into any since he was a young man. People tend to respect him and like him, sometimes looking to him for leadership. He very kind and loving and even romantic (he actually likes Valentine's Day which I wish he didn't). He's more the "leader" type of alpha, not the "bully" type which are two different things, and I don't really think the "bully" type is really an "alpha", just some one who wants to be. Maybe "dominant" was the wrong word to us. And I am most definitely NOT submissive. He doesn't control me in anyway.

I applaud you for staying away from that word. As a guy, I feel that the alpha-beta thing we're so obsessed with is absolute nonsense. And, I must say, the description of your husband did not sound anything like the negative (yet unfortunately celebrated by today's society) alpha-bad-boy tool archetype that many claim is a "real man" when it actually is not. Clearly, he is not that, but is something a whole lot better...in fact, he sounds like what I strive to be.

Bump to read later

HTH

I'm not either bulky OR beautifully defined like Camille, but I'm still a lot stronger than I look. I work at the customer service desk at Walmart and I constantly used to hear things like "You can't lift that, wait for one of the guys to do it for you" about used car batteries, 50 lb containers of litter, huge bags of rice or birdseed, 30lb barbells, etc. Of course, this means that I pick it up and walk away with it immediately. My co-workers don't say that to me anymore. Especially after one of them asked if I could lift her--and I did.

So you don't have to get "bulky" or even exceptionally muscular, to be strong.

I used to be afraid of lifting because I "didn't want to look bullky." What changed my mind was shifting the focus away from what my body looks like, and instead seting my goals based on what I wanted my body to DO. Initially, I wanted to be able to do just one pull-up. Achieving that goal taught me how empowering strength can be. After three years of powerlifting and half a year of Olympic weightlifting, some people might think I look "bulky"... But I really don't care what they think, because I take a 100+ lb. barbell from the floor and toss it over my head and they can't.

I think it's a good idea for anyone just getting into fitness to try setting goals this way: what do I want my body to do? It doesn't have to be strength related: your goal could be "running a mile," or something as simple as "walk up a flight of stairs without feeling short of breath." But I've found that the "looking good" part comes very easily if you focus on "what can I do?" rather than "what do I look like?"

Awesome first post! :drinker:

This bears repeating.