Forum
>
General / Nonfiction
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
It’s very often warranted when those comments get made. People report images for really dumb reasons, but a girl not having muscle on girlswithmuscle is legit.
I'm talking more about an athlete or maybe a natural figure competitor. Or even a bodybuilder in the off season. I get the skinny girl that has never worked out a day in her life or even just moved around, that's different. Here's a good example. It's my wife from a few years ago. She's not a bodybuilder but is an athlete and is definitely more muscular than the average woman. A lot of people on this website would say she has no muscles which is just ridiculous when you compare her to the average woman. She's kinda the definition of a "girl with muscle," more so what this site started as...
The site would have died years ago if that were the standard for a "girl with muscle".
Lol yes, I've just had a bunch of photos removed for not being muscular enough. They were getting plenty of positive votes from people, but I guess the mods have a pretty narrow view of what makes for an athletic woman.
To me, the body of the woman posted above is much more of interest to me than a significantly bigger bodybuilder.
Lol yes, I've just had a bunch of photos removed for not being muscular enough. They were getting plenty of positive votes from people, but I guess the mods have a pretty narrow view of what makes for an athletic woman.
As a rule, the less focus there is on her muscles, the more likely it is to be removed. There are thousands of other sites around that display and focus on non-muscular women.
I'm sorry, but in what world is this woman not muscular?
And why have a 'lift and carry' tab if these pictures aren't allowed?
Mods did good.
I'm sorry, but in what world is this woman not muscular?
And why have a 'lift and carry' tab if these pictures aren't allowed?
I think the mods had the right call.
In the first two, the amount of bodyfat makes it unclear if she is actually muscular. In the third, there's not that much skin showing so it's hard to tell how muscular she is. The fourth looks like a regular slim girl. The fifth I think is the only one that has a small chance of passing due to the maybe small amount of development in the quads, but the lake of visible upper body mass isn't helping.
I'm sorry, but in what world is this woman not muscular?
And why have a 'lift and carry' tab if these pictures aren't allowed?
Maybe this is harsh.. but I feel like if the standard was lowered to accept these pictures, the site would be flooded with average/ slightly athletic/barely muscular women.
I was under the impression though that this site was started as more of an “average woman with muscles,” rather than just professional female bodybuilders. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all about mass, veins, roids, etc. but it is called “girls with muscle” not “female bodybuilders.”
My point originally though was meant to say that some of us in here seem to forget that women can have some muscle. It’s not just zero muscle or Colette Guimond. There is an in between. There’s almost a loss of reality by some of us on here
I was under the impression though that this site was started as more of an “average woman with muscles,” rather than just professional female bodybuilders. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all about mass, veins, roids, etc. but it is called “girls with muscle” not “female bodybuilders.”
My point originally though was meant to say that some of us in here seem to forget that women can have some muscle. It’s not just zero muscle or Colette Guimond. There is an in between. There’s almost a loss of reality by some of us on here
I totally get your point. The reality is for every ripped and huge female bodybuilder there are thousands/hundreds of thousands(millions?) of natural fit women with muscle. And these fit women are everywhere, go to the gym/park/beach/ grocery store and you'll see them.
It is my guess though, that most of us visit this site not to experience reality, but to escape it.
I was under the impression though that this site was started as more of an “average woman with muscles,” rather than just professional female bodybuilders. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all about mass, veins, roids, etc. but it is called “girls with muscle” not “female bodybuilders.”
My point originally though was meant to say that some of us in here seem to forget that women can have some muscle. It’s not just zero muscle or Colette Guimond. There is an in between. There’s almost a loss of reality by some of us on here
Your statement seems to imply that because we remove maybe 5-10 images per day (out of 500+ uploads per day) of women displaying little to no visible muscularity, that somehow we've allowed the site to become focused on FBB's only. I'm not sure how you're missing the "in between" area that is still vastly represented on the site.
This may or may not represent your case, but many users seem to put their entire focus into the high score section of the home page. This is only the top ~20 images of the day, out of (again) 500+ uploads each day, and is only representative of what the majority of users seem to want to see. To those users I would urge them to instead browse the "recently uploaded" section (the default Images link).
Helter:
They were getting plenty of positive votes from people
That does not matter. There are many things you can post that don't belong here and still get lots of positive votes. Try puppies.
To me, the body of the woman posted above is much more of interest to me than a significantly bigger bodybuilder.
Nobody's personal feelings matter. Facts matter. Think like Immanuel Kant. You're suggesting rules that apply to the entire site and all its users, not to yourself. Individual feelings are stupid. Majorities are stupid. You need to demonstrate logic and understanding.
There are many idiots who think that "there must be one and only one rule", so if the rule is "visible muscularity" then powerlifters with some bodyfat don't belong here. But I think the rule has been "visible muscle or very exceptional strength" and I think this is fine. A simple lift and carry picture has neither.
nbunited:
I think the picture of your wife could belong here in a situation where none of Helter's five images do.
Helter:
That does not matter. There are many things you can post that don't belong here and still get lots of positive votes. Try puppies.
Nobody's personal feelings matter. Facts matter. Think like Immanuel Kant. You're suggesting rules that apply to the entire site and all its users, not to yourself. Individual feelings are stupid. Majorities are stupid. You need to demonstrate logic and understanding.
There are many idiots who think that "there must be one and only one rule", so if the rule is "visible muscularity" then powerlifters with some bodyfat don't belong here. But I think the rule has been "visible muscle or very exceptional strength" and I think this is fine. A simple lift and carry picture has neither.
nbunited:
I think the picture of your wife could belong here in a situation where none of Helter's five images do.
Chill out on the needless aggression when digging up nine month old posts.
In my opinion, a niche website like this should be tolerant of other people's opinions and tastes. Fair enough if the mods don't agree.
I posted pictures of strong and athletic women which got lots of positive votes from other people who find them attractive. Not everybody finds the huge bodybuilder look attractive.
Chill out on the needless aggression when digging up nine month old posts.
I searched for 'comments' to find another thread but found this also. I don't think the "nine months old" matters, because the issue still existed. You have a funny way of hitching things together. I see you do it more than once. "You should not be aggressive because this post is nine months old." But I should, because it's Monday.
In my opinion, a niche website like this should be tolerant of other people's opinions and tastes. Fair enough if the mods don't agree.
You're confused. People are free to personally feel that this site should include puppies, but it is nonsense to suggest that it in fact should be girlswithmusclespluspuppies dot com. It is one thing to tolerate it or not if people wished to share their innermost secret that they get off on puppies but a different thing to insist that this site should add it as content.
I posted pictures of strong and athletic women which got lots of positive votes from other people who find them attractive. Not everybody finds the huge bodybuilder look attractive.
One dumb mistake is to think that everything is always "something versus something". So now you have "pictures you posted" versus "huge bodybuilders" and falsely insinuate first that this is about a personal preference and then that it's either the pictures you posted or the huge bodybuilders. I have news for you: It is totally possible to reject the pictures you posted without being into "huge bodybuilders".
BTW quoting Immanuel Kant when explaining what you like to jack off to does not make you look intelligent. Also, he focused on individual freedom and liberty - not censorship and dogmatic group think.
As far as I know, I have never explained what I like to jack off to. If Kant is known for one thing only, it's the categorical imperative, and I think it only proves that I was awake in high school. The point remains the same: it makes no sense to ask about thousands of personal preferences because the site only needs to draw one line for everyone.
I see you again pulled the "something versus something" bullshit. The fact of having rules at all has nothing to do with censorship. Any rule on the Internet or social media is necessarily "dogmatic" if you look up the definition. Every site is run by someone and all sites have at least some kind of given rules. I referred to Kant for this one single idea that I seriously thought was not too "dangerous" or too "intelligent" for anyone. I don't give a hoot about the man otherwise. I think he was an idiot and that liberty is, metaphysically speaking, a load of crap.
But back to the topic. The complaint is not valid when there is a weightlifter or a powerlifter or a known strongwoman in the picture. But it is valid when there's some random strongfat woman, who is not obviously a bodybuilder or strength athlete, holding a guy in her lap. Now the focus of the site may always change, but thus far it's been like this.
I searched for 'comments' to find another thread but found this also. I don't think the "nine months old" matters, because the issue still existed. You have a funny way of hitching things together. I see you do it more than once. "You should not be aggressive because this post is nine months old." But I should, because it's Monday.
You're confused. People are free to personally feel that this site should include puppies, but it is nonsense to suggest that it in fact should be girlswithmusclespluspuppies dot com. It is one thing to tolerate it or not if people wished to share their innermost secret that they get off on puppies but a different thing to insist that this site should add it as content.
One dumb mistake is to think that everything is always "something versus something". So now you have "pictures you posted" versus "huge bodybuilders" and falsely insinuate first that this is about a personal preference and then that it's either the pictures you posted or the huge bodybuilders. I have news for you: It is totally possible to reject the pictures you posted without being into "huge bodybuilders".
As far as I know, I have never explained what I like to jack off to. If Kant is known for one thing only, it's the categorical imperative, and I think it only proves that I was awake in high school. The point remains the same: it makes no sense to ask about thousands of personal preferences because the site only needs to draw one line for everyone.
I see you again pulled the "something versus something" bullshit. The fact of having rules at all has nothing to do with censorship. Any rule on the Internet or social media is necessarily "dogmatic" if you look up the definition. Every site is run by someone and all sites have at least some kind of given rules. I referred to Kant for this one single idea that I seriously thought was not too "dangerous" or too "intelligent" for anyone. I don't give a hoot about the man otherwise. I think he was an idiot and that liberty is, metaphysically speaking, a load of crap.
But back to the topic. The complaint is not valid when there is a weightlifter or a powerlifter or a known strongwoman in the picture. But it is valid when there's some random strongfat woman, who is not obviously a bodybuilder or strength athlete, holding a guy in her lap. Now the focus of the site may always change, but thus far it's been like this.
Wow 😳 😂
ok, let's take a look at the two ref images posted a bit back, before the bump.
i think some of the other mods will agree with me, but when evaluating posts for something like "little or no visible muscle" we are not comparing x image to y image, not comparing maybe a fit college girl with a pro athlete.
in the first image there are two images of the same woman--one of the sticky things about those two references is that we may know from photo history or personal knowledge that they are muscular, or fit. however, there's nothing particularly special about those images. her particular position there, and not a pose, is something most average girls can do by accident and it flashes "forearm meat" if they are squeezing it against their chest or squeezing their arms against their torso. i've made this mistake before IRL when it was in fact just angles, lighting, and this kind of mashing of the muscles. you can see the same thing, at times, with bodybuilders. a woman with a pretty average bicep peak in a double biceps can make a really nice change for her side chest pose and the bicep pops.
for the second set of images (the l+c): the first one she is almost completely covered by clothes, plus the guy. The second one is a waist up shot with no view of her arms, and the third one (probably the best of the three, but not great) features a very lean and honestly skinny girl. seeing that picture reminds me of a time i was abroad and saw what at first glance looked like an incredibly ripped woman. when i took a closer look she was indeed lean, but unhealthily skinny. this might not be the case for that image but all we have is a still frame.
those images are probably best posted in the boards in a l+c thread. i think they would pass muster as a normal post if they were part of a video, because then we could gauge strength. how did he get up there? how long did she hold him? what does she look like apart from him? one frame doesn't tell the whole story, IMO. however, if we had some sleeveless views and they had a bit of muscle they might have remained up. this is why there is the strong fat thread, and many others (like the contest photos one) to act as buckets for things that don't quite match up to the upload guidelines. there could be a photo of hunter henderson removed if she's in baggy sweats and a t-shirt because the image doesn't show enough "visible muscularity". in fact, i've removed posts of known muscular women because it was a poor photo or video that didn't really display everything.
i know some users consider this site (or want this site) to be a complete archive of everything anyone could see, borderline or not, but fact is we still need curation here to a degree. if you like the pic, you can keep it yourself, but there's not really any reason to complain if it's deleted when the posts are borderline to begin with.
That’s a really good point, fp909. My initial point was more about something like an athletic woman, maybe a soccer player, flexing her biceps and people saying she doesn’t have any muscle. I hate that. It’s obvious that she has muscle and is much more muscular than the average woman. She’s just not a bodybuilder. I definitely am into the bodybuilder look the most but can acknowledge that a woman is muscular even if she’s not at that level of muscularity. It feels like some people on this site are out of touch with reality (not sure if that’s the right wording for it). And they think that if a woman doesn’t have a bodybuilder type physique, she has no muscle whatsoever.
in the case of something like an athlete--if they have like a well shaped muscle or something like that for sure it stays up, but if it's kind of a college player or they don't have like the typical bicep shape (not a large peak or anything, but something more than a straight line or gentle arc) that probably starddles the line of what is a good photo.
In my opinion, a niche website like this should be tolerant of other people's opinions and tastes.
I had to get back to this, because I've seen this idea phrased in a few different ways here. In its most extreme form it says "this site and its users are all scum anyway, so beggars can't be choosers", as if coming here was always and inevitably both a dirty secret and a character defect. In effect saying that you can't have standards since you have forfeited your right to them already by coming here.
Is this a dirty secret? For some, yes. But that does not necessarily mean lack of standards. A character defect? For some, yes. But not necessarily for everyone. Acceptance and rejection are based on what is being accepted or rejected. Acceptance is not some kind of mojo or charge or energy that everyone with a fetish is undeserving of, especially in the eyes of the mainstream, and therefore, because "we're all beggars" it'd be a betrayal to withhold it from anyone or anything.
Tolerance literally means putting up with some smaller evil to avoid a greater evil. It is not a virtue. It is not an end in itself. It has never been synonymous with disinterest or lack of standards. It's never been about putting up with evils for the sake of those evils.
I think a greater evil would be to fill this site with nonsense. A smaller evil is to reject stuff and hurt some feelings while doing so. People should tolerate grey areas in the way rules are applied, because that's the best way to make things work.
Nowadays it's often seen the complete opposite way. Letting people cause chaos is considered the smaller evil and telling anyone what to think, do or obey, or to reject them in any way, is the greatest evil. There are other sites for other tastes.
For everyone who knows basics of signal processing, there is a difference between precision and accuracy. Precision means how well defined the expectation or appearance of muscularity is. Accuracy means how much an individual evaluation will have random deviation. Of course there will never be perfect precision or accuracy, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't even try.
Another method is to ask if a thousand more pictures like one in question were posted, would it help or hurt the site. A thousand nbunited's wives would help the site. A thousand pictures like Helter's would hurt it. I think I have now brought my fair share of clarity to this. Helter may continue crying and laughing now if he wants to.
There are a couple million photos posted to this site and certainly a lot more if you count deletions over the years. Not all of them are great and need to be uploaded. Especially since most have their own collections so I don’t see why mediocre or worse images getting deleted is that big a deal. It’s not a witch hunt against certain users and the site in general is not meant as a 100% complete archive of every photo or video ever posted. Sometimes you have to prune the plants a bit
I usually find myself agreeing with you, but not in this particular example. That girl has absolutely no muscular development to speak of. She's only a "girl with muscle" insofar as literally every living woman has muscular tissue. She's clearly out of shape and while I wish her well in her fitness journey, she doesn't belong here until she makes more progress.
You're probably right about the second part, though, given how many people here seem to have a dommy mommy fetish LOL.