Forum
>
General / Nonfiction
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
can't believe stephanie mcmahon photos got deleted. obvious muscle there, and powerful looking.
You need to work on your ability to believe things, because the photos really got deleted.
Put her name on Google, search for images and in maybe one picture out of ten you get the idea that she has something to do with strength or muscles. But in most of cases, no obvious muscle and not powerful-looking. There are many strongfat babes here, but they usually have pictures where they're lifting heavy weights.
there are a lot of girls posted with no visible muscle though, and this site is called girls with muscle.
Then report them. Or ignore them. Not telling you what to do. But telling you that none of those other pictures make Stephanie any better. Where does this idea even come from that you're entitled to be wrong if it is possible that somewhere somebody is even more wrong? To me it sounds like intentional stupidity and nothing else.
She is probably strong in reality. But she looks strong in only very few of her pictures.
https://www.reddit.com/r/StephanieMcMahon/com... with a 40 like it's nothing. she's strong and alpha
Anyone else roll their eyes and get a little annoyed when someone comments on a picture of maybe a celebrity or an athlete like soccer player or something and says, “she doesn’t have any muscle.”
Obviously it’s not the kind of muscle a professional bodybuilder has, and I’m someone who loves the mass monsters. But having a little definition with a small bicep peak or something is still better than 95% of women in the world. There is a middle ground between completely out of shape and extremely muscular and shredded.
My wife’s a good example. She’s definitely not a bodybuilder but she’s way more muscular than the average woman. Someone who’s into female bodybuilders would say “yeah she’s maybe got some potential.” But the average guy or woman would probably think she’s really muscular when she walks by.
There is peril in calling a page girlswithmuscle as such.
I am grateful that the site exists, and to be part of the community. However, I would call it differently for the simple fact that any girl has muscles and it is difficult to define boundaries. Calling it "competetive female bodybuilding" or something like it would avoid that discusson first hand.
It would then be clear that it caters for fans of a rigid lifestyle that is unmistakably linked to heavy lifting, feeding, diet, stage shows. In all the spectrum from fit girls next door to heavyweight muscle women it is the only sharp boundary that exists. Everything else is in the eye of the beholder.
The other option is to set random boundaries that will always upset either the one or the other side.
Calling it "competetive female bodybuilding" or something like it would avoid that discusson first hand.
Nobody wants to limit this to competitive female bodybuilders and nobody has asked for that.
I think the site has struck a fine balance a long time ago. Someone will inevitably complain no matter what. Either he has found a real problem, which does happen, but rarely. Or he's just trying to create a problem where there was none.
The biggest problem has always been the voluntary stupidity of some users. Either they pretend not to get what they're told. Or they pretend that this is an issue of freedom of speech or freedom of opinion, which it never is in reality. This site is not a country and the users are not its citizens. You are not entitled to any unfailing principle or "sharp boundary" according to which the submissions are judged. Such thing is not possible, but luckily it isn't even necessary.
If someone loses sleep or money or his health deteriorates over a rejected picture, then he's in need of help, but none of that is on the site.
The name, Girls with Muscles, obviously does not reflect the biological fact that every living human body contains muscle tissue. This is like trying to explain this to a child, but the site is about girls who are somehow exceptionally muscular and in a way that is obvious. Metaphysical definition of beauty has three parts, and one of those is clarity.
For those who are curious, the two others are integrity and proportionality, but many muscular women fail these because their muscles are either for show or they are unbalanced persons. Anything that is not obvious, is out of proportion or has no purpose can not be beautiful all the way. But that has never been a requirement for being here.
There are maybe two pictures in total of Stephanie that I have seen that would belong here. It's not enough that the person is known to be strong or muscular. She should be obviously strong or muscular in that particular picture. I don't think the purpose of this site is to celebrate the person as such and there is no entitlement either way.
I understand how it works and I see no problem. Those who either pretend to not understand or seriously do not understand think there is a problem and some of them then proceed to release their OCD here or play devil's advocate or whatever. All it takes to not depend on sharp boundaries is some practical wisdom. Especially because without it no boundary is sharp enough.
This biggest thing I was trying to point out is the people that seem to be in some kind of false reality almost thinking that if a woman isn’t on the Olympia stage for bodybuilding, she has no muscle. I, personally, like the huge look, but can definitely acknowledge that you’ll pretty much never see that type of muscularity in real life. But there is a chance of finding, dating, etc. girls with athlete type muscular physiques.
I was trying to point out that we can’t fall into some made up reality. And I don’t know fantasizing ok this website, that’s great. I mean thinking like what I just pointed out in real life…that a woman isn’t muscular unless she’s the size of Colette guimond or whoever.
But there are some examples of women being posted on here who really have no muscle at all, here's one that was posted yesterday:
This biggest thing I was trying to point out is the people that seem to be in some kind of false reality almost thinking that if a woman isn’t on the Olympia stage for bodybuilding, she has no muscle.
Ah. I understand now that this was the intended topic. Yes, it is plain bad behavior, not even a valid opinion worth expressing. People are free to think "Alina Popa or nothing" but there's no reason to say it aloud.
Then there are situations though when the picture really doesn't belong. Everyone should notice I said picture, not person. And that is a different discussion.
This biggest thing I was trying to point out is the people that seem to be in some kind of false reality almost thinking that if a woman isn’t on the Olympia stage for bodybuilding, she has no muscle. I, personally, like the huge look, but can definitely acknowledge that you’ll pretty much never see that type of muscularity in real life. But there is a chance of finding, dating, etc. girls with athlete type muscular physiques.
I was trying to point out that we can’t fall into some made up reality. And I don’t know fantasizing ok this website, that’s great. I mean thinking like what I just pointed out in real life…that a woman isn’t muscular unless she’s the size of Colette guimond or whoever.
The idealist is someone I can personally identify with, but ultimately it is impractical to believe that we can achieve these ideals across every human being. I just let people be themselves anymore. If certain people think that anything less than a Natalia Trukhina is not enough muscle to be featured here, then that is fine. They are entitled to their opinion. I don't personally agree with it, but I also don't let it ruin my day.
can't believe stephanie mcmahon photos got deleted. obvious muscle there, and powerful looking. there are a lot of girls posted with no visible muscle though, and this site is called girls with muscle.