Forum
>
General / Nonfiction
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
How I like muscle girls (428 total votes)
So, when I see the rare female who's stronger than me, it's a huge turn on. But when I learn they're on steroids and other PEDs, I mostly lose interest.
So you're fine with her up until the moment you find out she's taking PED's?
No offense, but that's kind of strange to me. I guess if you're concerned for her health then I could understand it being a valid reason.
EDIT: I was going to vote for "It doesn't matter" but I see that's not an option.
So you're fine with her up until the moment you find out she's taking PED's?
No offense, but that's kind of strange to me. I guess if you're concerned for her health then I could understand it being a valid reason.
EDIT: I was going to vote for "It doesn't matter" but I see that's not an option.
Nah, not the health thing. Everyone's aware of the possible long term side effects. For me, I'm just talking about attractiveness. Yes, I'm sure you're right that most of the girls are in fact taking the stuff. I guess I could modify it to say immediately obvious vs not. When you can take on look and you just immediately know they're roided to the max... huge turn off.
One anecdote for me is, I forget her name (wouldn't say even if I remembered anyway), but there was one girl on herbiceps. She looked feminine and sexy on the thumbnail so I decided to buy and download the video. Played the video and she opened her mouth to start talking, and her voice was deeper than mine! Deleted the video xD So yeah, one can't always tell from just looking.
As far as i know roids don't make you magically grow muscular. and it just makes it so the workouts become more efficient. so fbbs that took a lot of roids .still worked very hard
personally i don't care. and if this is what it takes for women to become super strong .it's fine for me. but sadly too many steroids cause side effects that make her less attractive. but for me only the most extreme cases are unattractive.
i also think it's odd how some women became very strong .despite not having many side effects .while others who are not as strong have the typical side effects.
There is no bodybuilding (male or female) without PEDs, so anyone who values the former also needs to accept the latter. For females in particular, restricting oneself to natural physiques only will lose you about 95% of the content on this site, and the "but she LOOKS natty" angle only works as long as you don't know what unenhanced physiques actually look like. For me, the bottom line is simple: As long as the girl finds no issue with PED usage, I don't have a reason to find any either.
For me I start losing interest when side effects start to become apparent.
There's probably a point where they're taking roids but I have no idea, as side effects aren't yet visible but they are getting a nicer physique as a result. Or, to use MSPaint:
Great use of Paint! 😂
I think that’s exactly where I’d be at. Some noticeable side effects would be fine but at some point there’s a bridge too far where I would draw the line….got me thinking where that line would be 🤔
There is no bodybuilding (male or female) without PEDs, so anyone who values the former also needs to accept the latter. For females in particular, restricting oneself to natural physiques only will lose you about 95% of the content on this site, and the "but she LOOKS natty" angle only works as long as you don't know what unenhanced physiques actually look like. For me, the bottom line is simple: As long as the girl finds no issue with PED usage, I don't have a reason to find any either.
Agreed.
A lot of guys here (especially the ones who don't train themselves) really have no clue as to what is achievable naturally, especially as a woman. Having a preference for muscular women means accepting the fact that the overwhelming majority of physiques that we find visually appealing are not possible unless one is using PEDs. The problem (for lack of a better word) with sites like this is that it results in a kind of confirmation bias amongst the guys who browse it. They see a ubiquitous number of muscular women and think it's becoming more of a norm, or that it represents the results of women starting to get into the weight room. That warped view results in when they see an actual natural woman who lifts 5+ days a week, but think they either don't lift or barely do. Gaining muscle naturally as a woman is very, very difficult, and the results are nowhere near as prominent as it is with a man. And before some idiot chimes in by saying "ugh, more dudes who think women can't build muscle without steroids," note that I never said that women can't build muscle without steroids. They absolutely can, but the results are far less stark than those we are accustomed to seeing on sites like this.
I'm an athlete, and while I don't bodybuild I am around competitors and attend competitions and expos. I recently chatted with a former training partner who switched from CrossFit to bikini competitions and placed just short of winning a pro card at her last competition. Remember, bikini competitors are the smallest competitors at a bodybuilding show, and when we talked about the cycle her coach put her on, it was a LOT of compounds. If your average amateur bikini athlete is using that many compounds, you can only imagine what bigger and more defined competitors are using. Bikini competitors are not just "using a bit of anavar."
And when it comes to sides, while yes, taking more and harsher compounds can result in virilization, more often than not its genetics that cause those changes. Think of Dani Reardon. It's not hard to conclude that she was on a lot of compounds, but it's clear she was genetically blessed because she barely developed any virilization. Meanwhile, I know guys who ran a beginner test cycle and pretty much lost their entire hairline. OP, you can't move the goalpost by claiming that those signs are indicative of being "roided to the max." How well you respond to PEDs, and the negative side effects you get from them, are primarily determined by your genetics.
I never understood why some dudes are so adamant to defend a bodybuilder/athlete's claim that they are natural, as if the knowledge of them using PEDs ruins their fetish. Why does it? Steroids are not some magic bullet. You still have to put a ton of work in, and in fact even more work versus that of a natural athlete, and you still have to have your nutrition and recovery in check. I also know men and women who use but train and eat like shit, and it shows. Part of being into buff women is accepting that the physique that turns you on is more than likely not natural. And if you can't accept that, you better start getting into much, much smaller and less defined women.
That MSPaint chart is terrific (grin). That's pretty much how I feel about it.
This isn't an easy call for me. I'd prefer all-natural gal, but if she's using a tiny touch of Anavar to get good results I wouldn't be terribly bothered. But, when she starts going bald and developing the deep voice it becomes a big no-go for me.
Of course (unless she's a genetic freak) she'll never get the huge, massive, bodybuilding-style muscularity without heavy PED use ... and that's okay with me.
A lot of people here have mentioned the deep voice side effect.
The thing about that is... some of the smaller women you'd never think would have a deep voice, do... and some of the larger women you'd expect to have a deep voice, don't.
I know I've experienced this many times, but I don't recall many specific examples. In the latter category I think I remember Angie Salvagno and Michaela Aycock having unexpectedly feminine voices despite their size. I will say that with Michaela this is from 3-4 years ago so it's possible her voice has deepened since then.
The smaller women (Bikini-level and smaller) don't interest me as much and so the examples (of deeper than expected voices) I've seen aren't as memorable.
This has been very informative, and thanks for the detail there Gatsby. At the end of the day, I think you're right. We shouldn't expect that these girls are all natural. I guess I'm just not at all in to the totally huge she-hulk look. As in, she's 5'5", weighs 220lbs and all muscle. Hard pass! Absent that, zits all of he face, and deep voice (other side effects) are also buzz kills.
So for me, as long as they still look and (even more importantly) SOUND female... I can be into that. I can at least pretend they're natural :D
There is always going to be side effects to PEDs. I think it is a bit hypocritical to when someone finds muscular women attractive, but only if they don't show too many side effects. There is a reason why female bodybuilders don't want guys that are attracted to them(schmoes). It is just a fantasy for a lot of them. These women are training their butts off to achieve an incredible level of athleticism only to be subjected to someone's fantasy. As far as Gatsby28's friend, she should've probably searched for another coach since she shouldn't be in a whole cocktail of drugs. Women really don't need as much drugs to gain muscle except the high level competitors and even still that can vary from athlete to athlete. Personally, I don't mind if she is hairier or has a deeper voice as long as she is comfortable with the trade offs in performance. My two cents.
For me I start losing interest when side effects start to become apparent.
There's probably a point where they're taking roids but I have no idea, as side effects aren't yet visible but they are getting a nicer physique as a result. Or, to use MSPaint:
I couldn't have explained my POV any better than this, well done!
I think it is a bit hypocritical to when someone finds muscular women attractive, but only if they don't show too many side effects.
As far as I know, the word 'hypocritos' originally meant an actor, also one who performed on stage. The word is made of two parts, of which 'hypo' is the opposite of 'hyper' and means 'under', as in both 'less' and 'too little'. And 'critos', which means 'judge' or one who distinguishes or applies some criteria.
A hypocrite is a person who either accidentally or intentionally does not see a difference where he should. A hypocrite is a person who literally judges too little or is not judgmental enough.
I don't think there is anything hypocritical in having a preference. Quite the opposite. I think you are the one who refuses to see a difference where there in fact is one. I ran into the same problem in the trans discussion. You have one criterion ("muscular women are cool") and you are fine. But once you add another ("you should not have too many or too obvious side effects") you overload and short-circuit so many brains it's both fascinating and depressing.
There is nothing logically impossible or morally unbearable in compromise or ambivalence itself. Passenger planes fly at 0.85 mach not because of some evil hypocrisy but because of a trade-off dictated by laws of physics. "Faster is better" and "slower is better" meet right there at that point.
It is just a fantasy for a lot of them.
So if you prefer a real person then you must prefer real roids too? I think you're confusing an imaginary guy asking for an imaginary thing from an imaginary woman to a real guy asking for an imaginary thing from a real woman. As in a real knight slaying an imaginary schmoe.
Personally, I don't mind if she is hairier or has a deeper voice as long as she is comfortable with the trade offs in performance.
So you're saying that you don't mind if she is hairier or has a deeper voice as long as she thinks it's been worth it? I don't see the point in connecting these two. I don't ask women what I like, except jokingly.
Probably everyone involved would want the muscles without the side effects, so that's not especially generous of anyone.
Nobody is pressuring any real person to become enormously muscular without PEDs. The entitled strawman you're comparing yourself to does not exist. It is not wrong to not know that the thing you wish for does not exist (such as a natural Alina Popa). It is not wrong to be honestly mistaken about something because nobody has ever told you the truth about it. Or even to keep on dreaming after you've been told as long as you're aware that it's just a daydream.
It is totally acceptable to not be sexually attracted to someone.
Most of the time the woman remains a fantasy even after you include the side effects.
Personally, I don't mind if she is hairier or has a deeper voice as long as she is comfortable with the trade offs in performance. My two cents.
Well if you find big hairy women with deep voices attractive, then that's your choice. You're acting as if we're all supposed to accept anything and everything "as long as she's comfortable with herself". You're completely unrealistic.
In fact, I've spoken to many of the muscular, athletic women whom I find attractive, and if the conversation ever got to it, they've themselves talked about their desire to stay feminine. There are many other women who just want to get as big as possible no matter the cost to their femininity. That's their preference too. They'll always have guys like you who'd find them attractive, and nothing wrong with that.
We all have choices.
lol I have no words
I think I have something on that.
I want a girl that’s so juiced up she looks like she might die before she’s 35.
So a potbelly, acne, facial hair, square jaw and so on, but the voice of a teen-age girl.
When done on purpose or sometimes even carelessly it becomes a form of self-mutilation. That's not the same fetish anymore.
Not sure but I'd guess it's motivated by either some kind of hidden anger and a desire to punish. Or by an excited indifference, as in "see how little I care" and "the less I care the more powerful I am".
I also see why the girly voice is important. It represents the woman's "real self" that is suffering in the decaying body.
Then lastbruja said:
Steroids are attractive to me as part of the process. Overcoming biological limitations and so on. I'm ready for almost any side effects.
That's not overcoming biological limitations. It's literally their biology reacting to the PEDs. Otherwise women weighing 600 lbs would also be overcoming biological limitations. You literally overcome biological limitations by driving a car or a bicycle. Or by using a computer to do a complicated calculation.
"I'm ready for any number of persons taking a bullet for me."
Honestly and in reality people who answered "roided" either don't mind some minor side effects because they're still turned on by the big muscles, or they don't mind any side effects because they're turned on by the very freakiness of it, or they are turned on or consoled or comforted by the woman's suffering and self-destruction. There is no generosity or courage or heroic open-mindedness in any of these three.
Curious how many guys think the way I do. I really like girls to be strong and muscular and it's a turn on for me. However, I never get all that excited when the woman is roided to the max. For me, my love for strong females is rooted in the fact that girls are generally thought of to be the weaker sex. So, when I see the rare female who's stronger than me, it's a huge turn on. But when I learn they're on steroids and other PEDs, I mostly lose interest. Anyone else, or it doesn't matter?