Forum
>
General / Nonfiction
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
Yes, it absolutely was historically flattering, and it's a shame it fell out of vogue. We simply can't call every attractive woman pretty. There's different types of attractiveness. Obviously, most fbbs fall under "handsome" now instead of pretty. Jordynne Grace for one!
i honestly hate comments along the lines of "get bigger" or "keep going"
it contributes to probably the worst part of the sport, pushing the edge, which leads to many going OVER it (where their edge is) and dropping completely. wish we'd just leave it to "you look great" and move along
Whenever there is a "natty or not" debate, there are guys here who will practically die on the hill that their favorite athlete/model/influencer is natty because, if not, it "ruins" their fetish.
I don't understand why? Saying that someone is on PEDs doesn't really take away from their achievements or from their appearance and strength. PEDs aren't some magic bullet where you inject some compounds and suddenly you're a ripped mass monster. You still have to put a lot of work, and in many cases even more work (due to the increased capacity and recovery that PEDs provide), than a natty competitor. To me, hearing that it ruins a fetish or your attraction sounds downright silly.
If I wanted to engage in extreme speculation, I would say that maybe one reason for that reaction is that there is hope amongst some guys that they can get a romantic partner into lifting, but to talk them into doing drugs to get the physiques that they are attracted to is a a much more unlikely prospect.
There was a thread on here some months back that asked which girls people thought were genuinely natty. It was almost comical how deluded some people were with the initial picks, it basically boiled down to any girl they liked who they judged to still have a feminine face or voice. The likes of Dianna Blanchard and Vladislava Galagan. If anyone thinks they are natural they probably think 75% of the girls on the site are natural.
Most people think a steroid abuser looks like a harsh-faced Iris Kyle, so that tracks.
Whenever there is a "natty or not" debate, there are guys here who will practically die on the hill that their favorite athlete/model/influencer is natty because, if not, it "ruins" their fetish.
I don't understand why? Saying that someone is on PEDs doesn't really take away from their achievements or from their appearance and strength.
Yeah, but "SHE'S NOT NATURAL!!" guys with their gesticular pontifications are fucking weirdos, too. Like, who gets so invested in someone else's fantasies that they NEED for their conclusion to be the only one accepted?
> Another potentially unpopular opinion I have is this: I don’t have an issue viewing a woman as “handsome”. To me, handsome is appropriate for more masculine-leaning, virilized women
Handsome has always been an acceptable adjective for women. As for the difference between handsome and pretty, I suspect handsome could mean good looking but not girly? It's one of those things that you know it when you see it.
That’s what I was getting at. I just can’t resist a Handsome Devil, regardless of their sex 🥰
To me there are three categories of women. One is natties, another is the usual ones who take stuff, and the final one is those with noticeable virilization. The third one is easy to avoid if you're not into them, and it's a matter of taste anyway. But between the first and second group there is the usual inability to tell them apart.
I think individual women are entitled to their own choices, so I have no right to pick one and insist on her being natty. But in case I wanted to admire someone who is the most muscular a natty can be, no matter who she is, it'd be the very definition of a wild goose chase.
It would be so much easier if we could simply list ten guaranteed natties and ten who are obviously not. Instead of criticizing someone's life choices it could as easily be framed as people disliking endless guessing.
Also, PEDs are a form of cheating in the sense that, like cheat codes in games, they change the rules. Not only that, but they make the former rules undesirable and irrelevant. There's no going back, even if you wanted to. It's like you found, won or stole a million dollars. After a while it becomes impossible to know how life would have been without it.
If a girl is on here, there is a big probability she is not natty. I've met girls with muscles that are buff, but not jacked. Difference being is that the ones that are buff, but not jacked are typically buff for a girl which means they are still small in comparison to the typical guy. Girls that I've met from this site are typically as big as your average guy. In other words, natty girls won't be on here because they don't look as impressive or are not looking for exposure.
Also, cheating....? They have to put in the hard work to get the results as other people have said. Cheating on what? If you mean in bodybuilding well everyone is doing it,so that stance is null. No one except for people who are determined to have a natural girl care whether a woman chooses to push her body to the next level by taking PEDS.
Also, cheating....? They have to put in the hard work to get the results as other people have said. Cheating on what? If you mean in bodybuilding well everyone is doing it,so that stance is null.
You may argue this is semantics, but if the rules say particular substances are banned, yet you still use them to compete in a sport, that is cheating. Doesn't matter if you still had to work hard or if everyone else is doing it. That just means you had to work hard while cheating, and everyone else is cheating, too.
You may argue this is semantics, but if the rules say particular substances are banned, yet you still use them to compete in a sport, that is cheating. Doesn't matter if you still had to work hard or if everyone else is doing it. That just means you had to work hard while cheating, and everyone else is cheating, too.
So if everyone is "cheating" then is it really cheating....
I wrote an entire paragraph explaining what I mean by cheating. But I see you did not read it. When I use a word and then explain what I mean by it, I use it only in that limited sense. It's always nice if people respond to what the other person means and is saying, instead of what he doesn't mean and isn't saying.
I have seen that thing about roids and hard work said maybe a dozen times. It's nothing new. So I decided to say something I've never seen anyone else say before. But that went over your head, so you assumed without any evidence that I am under some common misconception and decided to respond accordingly. All I can say is, please, from now on read before responding.
Just because you approached the topic of cheating in from a different perspective doesn't change outcome. I read what you said and addressed it accordingly. Next time before you get offended, please learn to take criticism for your views when they are challenged. Have a nice day.
So if everyone is "cheating" then is it really cheating....
Imagine an alien comes to visit the Earth and talks to guy who likes sports
Alien: Wow, that human looks bigger and stronger than usual.
Guy: Oh yeah, he's on steroids.
Alien: What is that?
Guy: These are performance enhancing drugs that make humans stronger and more powerful. When we compete with each other in physical sports, they give us an edge and make the results more spectacular. They're technically not allowed but incredibly widespread, so most sports organizations turn a blind eye and most elite athletes use them one way or another, as they're truly necessary to reach the highest levels of performance. But professional sports writ large simply pretends like this isn't happening, and when athletes are "caught," they are considered to be super-rare outliers.
Alien: I see, and there's so much evidence to back this up. LOL, there can't be people who actually believe that most athletes are drug free right?
Guy: There are. More than you would ever imagine. I know, it's so crazy rite?!?!
But I did not "approach" any "topic of cheating". I simply used the word 'cheating' in an entirely different sense, which I then explained.
..........I'll let you reread what you just wrote.......
For anyone else who might find this hard to follow. I said, and the only thing I said, is that roids are like using cheat codes in a computer game, in the sense that you can't undo using them. T
Yeah your comparison to computer games doesn't help your case. Cheat codes in computer games can be patched. In other words, it can be fixed. Happens all the time. Similar to PEDs. PEDS won't help you if you don't have the framework to excel in a sport. No amount of steroids will help me substantially against Lebron James if I'm shorter than him. Saying PEDs is like cheat codes comes across as dismissive to the athletes that were born to excel in that sport.
This is not the first or the second time I say something that flies completely over someone's head, so they get some strange inferiority complex and then retaliate by gatekeeping.
It seems hypocritical to accuse others of "gatekeeping" when stating the use of PEDs is a form of cheating by comparing it to a cheat codes in a computer game....
i had to look but the use with women is a bit more historical and less flattering these days. more likely descbing typically masculine features--sharper or wider jaws, or maybe an attitude or presence. not like "petite" or "dainty" which would be a bit of the opposite back then.
i haven't ever seen it used except in literature, though i suspect its use is supposed to be flattering. but in the US it has long fallen out of vogue