Rusalka, I don’t think anyone here is a staunch proponent of wimpy, bony arms, but there is a lot of gray area between the extremes of He-Man and Olive Oyl. There’s a “strong reaction” against bulky, vein-popping, boa constrictor-like muscles, not ALL muscles. Moderation is the key. Just like someone can be too skinny or too fat, someone can also be too muscular.
Very muscular arms on a woman don’t look feminine to a lot of people. Just like thin hairless legs or prominent hips on a man don’t look very masculine to a most people. There’s really no “why” to it. It just is.
I have seen some female bodybuilders with rough skin, rough voices, and look a mess. I can not say that for all of them.
I do not remember how I got this site. I never heard of this lady, her name is Julie Santana, she is a powerlifter who is totally hot to me. I like red heads with freckles. Plus, she looks sturdy.
But I didn’t ask if it looked “feminine”. I’m not asking you if you are sexually attracted to women with muscles. Why does a question about general “attractiveness” always devolve into questions about sex? Why does a woman have to look “feminine” (whatever that is) to be an attractive looking human being?
It sounds as though you are talking about Tonya Harding.:eek:
The women I mentioned are fit, but not thick and bulky. They are well proportioned, not over-muscled in any one place. They are well-toned, but it is still obvious that they are women.
The pic of Capriati I mentioned looked as though Mark McGwire’s arms had been grafted onto her body. By the same token, a woman with Emmitt Smith legs, regardless of her upper body, does not appeal to me.
Perhaps you could phrase your OP a little differently. Now I’m not sure what you are getting at. I read the same thing into your OP that Road Rash did.
As a heterosexual female, my idea of attractiveness in a man correlates with how well their physical traits match up to my idea of masculinity. My idea of attractiveness in a female also follows the same trend. A man with a nice set of breasts does not turn me on. Although the breasts may be quite lovely, juxtaposed with manly features the overall effect is yucky to me. A woman toting the same breasts, however, will look fine because those features meld well her other feminine features.
Put a pair of masculine* looking arms on a female frame, and the effect is the same as the man sporting Pamela Anderson breasts. The muscles themselves may look nice, but not when they are placed in a bikini, because the eye reads them as being manly, not feminine. And bikinis are usually associated with femininity.
Do we agree that certain features are feminine and masculine? Everyone may have their own ideas of what these things are, but most if not everyone uses the concept of gender characteristics to base what they find attractive. If they didn’t, we’d all be bisexual, I’d think.
*You may not find very muscular arms as being masculine, but I do. Everyone has their own idea of what is masculine or not, but the fact that we have an idea is not to be dismissed.
If a girl looks like she could pick me up by my neck and throw me out the window, then NO WAY. I do NOT like woman with huge muscles…its just a waste…now a woman with CURVES…mmmm
im male
“you with the face” does that mean that you think extremely flat chested women (and there are plenty of them out there) are “yucky” and “unfeminine”?
There are lots of women who do hard physical labor who have big arms. There aren’t lots of men out there who naturally have the feminine features you describe.
So what if he does find them yucky and unfeminine? (Not that I know if he would or wouldn’t.) As long as he isn’t running up to them, pointing, and ridiculing them, I don’t think it really matters to anyone what he is and isn’t attracted to. I think he has a valid reason not to like overly muscled-out women, and to be honest, it really isn’t necessary that he justify his preferences to anyone else.
Besides, most of the really flat-chested women I’ve seen were also of waiflike proportions, and I know plenty of men who would call them “yucky” and “unfeminine.” Most men want girl with hips and boobs, not androgynous little sticks, I’d wager. Nor girlfriends that look as if they could crack their skulls open. And I’ve seen my share of long-haired, effeminate men, boobs or not. I didn’t find them attractive. I think most people (like myself) are somewhere in the middle.
I’m trying to find out people’s opinions and why they think a certain way, so yes, I have a right to ask questions of people who offer their opinions; this is a discussion board, is it not?
No, it doesn’t matter to me personally what any individual thinks, I’m just interested in the inconsistencies and the reasons behind the opinions.
“Yucky” wouldn’t be the right word, but “odd-looking” is not too far off the mark. I’m a straight female, though. Ask a dude this question. Would you be surprised to find a man turned off by a woman (even if the rest of her was stereotypically feminine and beautiful ) who had a little boy’s chest? Would you badger him if he found her figure somewhat lacking? Would you think something was wrong with his idea of attractiveness?
Actually, there are a lot of guys with breasts bigger than mine. Haven’t you ever seen chubby guys who look like they could comfortably wear B cups? That is a feature which is no more unnatural (if not less so) than hypertrophied biceps. I’m fairly confident that women who acquire muscles doing manual labor do not bulk up to Ms. Olympia proportions (which is what I’m calling “yucky”). I could see them taking on Linda Hamilton arms, though, and I think those are attractive.
I don’t mean to pry, Rusalka, but are you a bodybuilder? You seem to take these opinions personally, as if we are criticizing your body instead of extremely muscular bodies in general. I should hope anything that I’ve said here didn’t hurt your feelings (or anyone else’s), but if I have, please know that it wasn’t intentional.
No, I’m not a bodybuilder, nor do I look like one. I just wonder why I think muscular arms and upper body are admirable and look cool on women (in a Xena kick-ass kind of way) and other people find them absolutely yucky; I guess I’m in the minority. It sounds like people have different definitions of muscular, which adds to the confusion. Also, the word “feminine” is not very descriptive to me.
It bugs me when people say they like “athletic” but they don’t really mean it.
I think body builders of either gender look, uh, gross is the best word for it. I’m of course talking about professional or wanna-be professional body builders, the kind that target each muscle group individually so they get the maximum definition and start to take on the appearence of comic book characters. It’s stupid and unattractive on both men and women, IMO.
What turns me off about the body builder look is that it’s very unnatural. Normal usage, even normal (free) weight training, won’t do that to your muscles. You can only reach those grotesque levels of definition by using very targetted weight machines that isolate each muscle group and allow you to apply stresses to it that it otherwise would never experience. This allows you to build up muscle groups in very strange ways, take the woman from the Ms Olympia link Yeticus Rex posted on the first page. Those legs are not made from (or for) walking, or anything else at all related to what legs normally do. They are not attractive nor are they useful. Muscle looks good on women (or men) when it looks as though it was it was built in a natural way, by using the muscles for what they are there for. For example, legs that have been built up running or cycling look really good - long lean muscles that slide gracefully under the skin when the owner moves. Legs that have been built up doing leg presses and extensions on a weight machine look bulky and awkward and out of place. I guess it’s a case of form following function.
As for as the comments about what the athletic is…
When I think of someone who looks athletic I’m not just thinking of not fat, I’m thinking someone who looks like they enjoy a variety of physical activies. Think of someone who cycles, runs, rollerblades etc… frequently as a hobby, that’s more what I think of when I say athletic build. I’m awful with celebrity and athlete names so I don’t even know who to google for to show links. Join your local cycling club, you’ll see plenty of women that meet this description And yes I like the athletic look described above.
I don’t really like how the above paragraphs in this post read but I can’t think of a better way to explain my opinion on the matter. It’s too visceral a feeling to easily put into words. Come to think of that’s probably why there has been so much confusion in this whole thread, everyone is trying to put “gut feelings” into words and not always with success. The semantic confusions aren’t helping matters either.
Another thing you have to consider is that she’s flexing every muscle in her body. If you saw her in ordinary clothes in a relaxed state, she would undoubtedly look athletic and strong, but probably not grossly overdeveloped.
Though there are women who go to extremes. Just google on Bev Francis to get an idea.
And yes I like the athletic look described above.