Log in | Register
this is not a bodybuilding only site. girls with muscle. for me 'with muscle' means that the girls here should not be glamour models but anything above (lol). Fitness figure and bodybuilding models. but because the muscle amount in the title is quite subjective, one should accept it in its wider meaning. the other thing that is not in the title is feminine looks. is it retained? has it been lost? just a bit (worth it) or seemingly lost completely? does it even matter? for me yes for you no. but this cannot be debated upon the title of this site.
Perhaps not express myself clearly. English is not my mother language.
What I try to say is that what is right is a girl without muscles, it certainly has thicker arms and a wider back than abitual, but not shows muscles. It only makes sense inside GWM as a comparison point.
To the right is a girl who does have visible muscles, and as is logical, is best for GWM, whether you like it or not.
This is a worthwhile discussion and THANKFULLY without harsh words directed toward the main debators. DobleAgente (so as not to be trusted with THAT choice of name) very nice job, considering English is not your first language. Though I believe I understand your valid point, I have to agree with q-5. I am impressed with her growth and very appreciative of her staying quite natural, compared to others pictured on this website. But she was SO CUTE before, in my opinion. I don't take anything away from her, we all change. We all get older. NOBODY stays cute forever. She WAS cute and now she's awesome, but I do prefer the younger cuter version. And I know that opinion probably means Zilch! Also I might add that I appreciate the attacks on the model are not too harsh... but still a bit mean. Such as life in muscles, I guess. Cheers!
if the 'without muscles' part is a 'before' pic then i think the pic has every right to be here. and i didn't say that she should've stayed in the fit category instead of bodybuilding. the only thing i miss in the second pic has nothing to do with the muscle amount she gained, hence it has also nothing to do with the title of the site you're always seem to refer to. the title has two main words. one is girls, the other is muscle. you think the latter is more important in this site even though it only covers 50% of the two meaningful words in the site's title. i personally think that both are important at the same time. muscle amount is subjective. men preferring feminine traits on the other hand is a biological thing, it's global. not so subjective. in my opinion fit women who show some muscle development clearly because of the extra work they've made in the gym compared to for example simple yoga and running, where you can't gain visible muscle compared to your 'original' zilch muscle mass :D ... so uh .. being fit from the work in the gym counts as having some muscle for me, and the possibility of gaining some more later so we can start following her progress. And also...it sounds funny if one accepts a non-feminine looking roided beast as a 'GIRL' wich is the 50% of the site's title. (in the meaning of "holy crap she's a beast"). Girl doesn't even mean woman. Girl has a narrower meaning than woman. A girl should either be a girl by her age (teen, younger adult) or her feminine looks whatever her age is ("Hey girl!"). So in the end, roid beasts have the same right to be here (50%) as non muscular but feminine (50%) glamour models. and i didn't say she shouldn't be here because of what i think. Similarly, non-muscular but toned and shapely women are also okay by me to be here. If 50% is good enough, both 'extremities' (lol) have to be accepted.
When speaking of "visible musculature" refers to, for example, that if the girl has bent arm will clearly see a peak of bicep. It is likely that a "girl in a" have a better musculature than yoga girl, but it has to be of sufficient size to be visible.
The "before" does not meet this requirement to moderation.
I do not think the girls part of the title refers to "feminine". When you talk about female body usually you refer to a pear-shaped body and delicate face.
Applying this criterion, no fbb enter into GWM, and yet the "about" justifies this. In fact, a girl enlarge their muscles is something in itself, unfeminine.
I think it is more reasonable understanding of "girl" as "being a woman". It is true that there is a rule of moderation on this, but can not be taken too literally, because no girl that enlarges the upper part of her body has "pear-shaped".
Even accepting this "feminine" both are equal because "before" does not show muscles.
Gillian is VERY feminine. I've also been chatting to her lately on HBC and she is an absolute sweetheart. One of the nicest human beings you could ever hope to engage with. Her muscles are just a really lovely bonus. Unfortunately I had to stop because I was spending way too much money, but a really enjoyable experience. This woman has brains,brawn, beauty, intelligence and the kindest heart. a real total package.
I never said she hadn't worked hard or anything about discipline or food. I simply implied - and didn't even say before directly - that she has used some performance enhancing anabolic steroids as well.
In my personal opinion, regardless of the point made by the commenter above about her being very feminine by nature, her look is not a feminine look. She absolutely has every right to do what she wants with her own body and if that's how she wants to look and live her life, good luck to her and I am not going to judge her.
Admittedly, not the best picture of her, but I love the before and after shots. For a better “after” shot, look up the dozens of pictures of her after she packed on the beef, and you’ll see a beautiful face, deep and thick muscle and unbelievable sex appeal.
If only she were still in the scene...
WOW!!!