Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on the man, depends on the woman.

No! NO! NO! Don't you know all men are the same and want exactly the same thing.

Whatever their wife tells?

Anonymous wrote:Depends on the man, depends on the woman.

No! NO! NO! Don't you know all men are the same and want exactly the same thing.

Depends on the man, depends on the woman.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn't seem to be the case anymore, but in the early days of online dating, just as the definition of curvy changed from hourglass figure to fat, for some reason women used "athletic" as a euphemism for small-breasted.

Interesting...I would describe myself as athletic and have small breasts. I think in general and without augmentation, women in good athletic shape that are toned do tend to screw on the smaller breast side since breasts are mainly fatty tissue

Small breasts are great! Don’t assume every single man prefers large ones.

Definition matters more to me. A small but defined pair are amazing and sexy.

A turn off is “pancake” (and yes, I realize age is sometimes a factor in this).

Oh, go jump off a bridge.

No one wants to hear your take on what women's breast "should" look like.

Seems weird to go into a thread about men's preferences on body type and then get offended when a man expresses his preference on body type. If you are going to be triggered, probably best to stay out of this thread.

NP. The not-controllable shape of a woman's breast after breastfeeding is not relevant to a discussion of whether men find athletic women attractive. She can't lift weights with her boobs, dude.

Woman here, and one that doesn't like women objectified, but this is literally a conversation about what guy's find attractive. Women don't find tiny penises attractive either, it sucks but it is what it is.

Really. A lot of women don't really have control over whether they are "athletic" looking. And the guy above was responding to a comment about small breasts in particular because of some comment about athletic women having small breasts.

So coming into a thread like this and getting huffy about a discussion of boob attractiveness is ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn't seem to be the case anymore, but in the early days of online dating, just as the definition of curvy changed from hourglass figure to fat, for some reason women used "athletic" as a euphemism for small-breasted.

Interesting...I would describe myself as athletic and have small breasts. I think in general and without augmentation, women in good athletic shape that are toned do tend to screw on the smaller breast side since breasts are mainly fatty tissue

Small breasts are great! Don’t assume every single man prefers large ones.

Definition matters more to me. A small but defined pair are amazing and sexy.

A turn off is “pancake” (and yes, I realize age is sometimes a factor in this).

Oh, go jump off a bridge.

No one wants to hear your take on what women's breast "should" look like.

Seems weird to go into a thread about men's preferences on body type and then get offended when a man expresses his preference on body type. If you are going to be triggered, probably best to stay out of this thread.

NP. The not-controllable shape of a woman's breast after breastfeeding is not relevant to a discussion of whether men find athletic women attractive. She can't lift weights with her boobs, dude.

Woman here, and one that doesn't like women objectified, but this is literally a conversation about what guy's find attractive. Women don't find tiny penises attractive either, it sucks but it is what it is.

Yes, athletic women are attractive, but they usually aren't better in bed. Women who like to eat are usually better in bed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn't seem to be the case anymore, but in the early days of online dating, just as the definition of curvy changed from hourglass figure to fat, for some reason women used "athletic" as a euphemism for small-breasted.

Interesting...I would describe myself as athletic and have small breasts. I think in general and without augmentation, women in good athletic shape that are toned do tend to screw on the smaller breast side since breasts are mainly fatty tissue

Small breasts are great! Don’t assume every single man prefers large ones.

Definition matters more to me. A small but defined pair are amazing and sexy.

A turn off is “pancake” (and yes, I realize age is sometimes a factor in this).

Oh, go jump off a bridge.

No one wants to hear your take on what women's breast "should" look like.

Seems weird to go into a thread about men's preferences on body type and then get offended when a man expresses his preference on body type. If you are going to be triggered, probably best to stay out of this thread.

NP. The not-controllable shape of a woman's breast after breastfeeding is not relevant to a discussion of whether men find athletic women attractive. She can't lift weights with her boobs, dude.

No she cannot...BUT she can lift weights to target her pecs and other muscles around the boobs that will prevent some of the aforementioned "pancake" look. But I also agree it is rude to comment on boobs when that is not related to athleticism.

Pecs and breast tissue are not the same thing at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn't seem to be the case anymore, but in the early days of online dating, just as the definition of curvy changed from hourglass figure to fat, for some reason women used "athletic" as a euphemism for small-breasted.

Interesting...I would describe myself as athletic and have small breasts. I think in general and without augmentation, women in good athletic shape that are toned do tend to screw on the smaller breast side since breasts are mainly fatty tissue

Small breasts are great! Don’t assume every single man prefers large ones.

Definition matters more to me. A small but defined pair are amazing and sexy.

A turn off is “pancake” (and yes, I realize age is sometimes a factor in this).

Oh, go jump off a bridge.

No one wants to hear your take on what women's breast "should" look like.

Seems weird to go into a thread about men's preferences on body type and then get offended when a man expresses his preference on body type. If you are going to be triggered, probably best to stay out of this thread.

NP. The not-controllable shape of a woman's breast after breastfeeding is not relevant to a discussion of whether men find athletic women attractive. She can't lift weights with her boobs, dude.

No she cannot...BUT she can lift weights to target her pecs and other muscles around the boobs that will prevent some of the aforementioned "pancake" look. But I also agree it is rude to comment on boobs when that is not related to athleticism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn't seem to be the case anymore, but in the early days of online dating, just as the definition of curvy changed from hourglass figure to fat, for some reason women used "athletic" as a euphemism for small-breasted.

Interesting...I would describe myself as athletic and have small breasts. I think in general and without augmentation, women in good athletic shape that are toned do tend to screw on the smaller breast side since breasts are mainly fatty tissue

Small breasts are great! Don’t assume every single man prefers large ones.

Definition matters more to me. A small but defined pair are amazing and sexy.

A turn off is “pancake” (and yes, I realize age is sometimes a factor in this).

Oh, go jump off a bridge.

No one wants to hear your take on what women's breast "should" look like.

Seems weird to go into a thread about men's preferences on body type and then get offended when a man expresses his preference on body type. If you are going to be triggered, probably best to stay out of this thread.

NP. The not-controllable shape of a woman's breast after breastfeeding is not relevant to a discussion of whether men find athletic women attractive. She can't lift weights with her boobs, dude.

The original comment above was simply to comment on the use of “athletic” in online dating. It was neutral on breast size and didn’t need that idiot to jump on to let us know he approves of smaller breasts, so no surprise he went ahead with a sexist comment later.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn't seem to be the case anymore, but in the early days of online dating, just as the definition of curvy changed from hourglass figure to fat, for some reason women used "athletic" as a euphemism for small-breasted.

Interesting...I would describe myself as athletic and have small breasts. I think in general and without augmentation, women in good athletic shape that are toned do tend to screw on the smaller breast side since breasts are mainly fatty tissue

Small breasts are great! Don’t assume every single man prefers large ones.

Definition matters more to me. A small but defined pair are amazing and sexy.

A turn off is “pancake” (and yes, I realize age is sometimes a factor in this).

Oh, go jump off a bridge.

No one wants to hear your take on what women's breast "should" look like.

Seems weird to go into a thread about men's preferences on body type and then get offended when a man expresses his preference on body type. If you are going to be triggered, probably best to stay out of this thread.

NP. The not-controllable shape of a woman's breast after breastfeeding is not relevant to a discussion of whether men find athletic women attractive. She can't lift weights with her boobs, dude.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn't seem to be the case anymore, but in the early days of online dating, just as the definition of curvy changed from hourglass figure to fat, for some reason women used "athletic" as a euphemism for small-breasted.

Interesting...I would describe myself as athletic and have small breasts. I think in general and without augmentation, women in good athletic shape that are toned do tend to screw on the smaller breast side since breasts are mainly fatty tissue

Small breasts are great! Don’t assume every single man prefers large ones.

Definition matters more to me. A small but defined pair are amazing and sexy.

A turn off is “pancake” (and yes, I realize age is sometimes a factor in this).

Oh, go jump off a bridge.

No one wants to hear your take on what women's breast "should" look like.

Seems weird to go into a thread about men's preferences on body type and then get offended when a man expresses his preference on body type. If you are going to be triggered, probably best to stay out of this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn't seem to be the case anymore, but in the early days of online dating, just as the definition of curvy changed from hourglass figure to fat, for some reason women used "athletic" as a euphemism for small-breasted.

Interesting...I would describe myself as athletic and have small breasts. I think in general and without augmentation, women in good athletic shape that are toned do tend to screw on the smaller breast side since breasts are mainly fatty tissue

Small breasts are great! Don’t assume every single man prefers large ones.

Definition matters more to me. A small but defined pair are amazing and sexy.

A turn off is “pancake” (and yes, I realize age is sometimes a factor in this).

Oh, go jump off a bridge.

No one wants to hear your take on what women's breast "should" look like.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This remind me of a photo I saw in an email from MyFitnessPal. The “after” photo here I think is…too much.

https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/how-brianna-went-from-giving-up-to-giving-it-her-all/

My friend is like this (the after); but you’d never know in her day to day. She looks awesome in “regular” clothes and when she has on dress she has awesome legs.

She has broad shoulders naturally and bulks up really easy. She was a cheerleader and lacrosse player in school.

cheer/lacrosse probably means a slim and muscular- that is attractive. Weight lifters who build mass are not. Death by snu snu is something that my friends still joke about

Most people (men and women) can do reasonable strength training 3-6 days a week and (while looking significantly better) not come anywhere close to approximating the bodybuilder look.

Because they aren't using anabolic steroids.

these comments always crack me up. I've put on about 8lbs since covid (I'm a guy) but before that, people would ask me 'what are you taking' or people would say to mutual friends 'he must be on riods'

But I would always answer honestly: creatine and protein powder. And maybe ibuprofen if I'm stiff or sore.

Hard training 5 days a week, plus clean-eating for YEARS, and its attainable. But people don't believe that for some reason

if you have a ton of mass, popping veins everywhere, and little to no body fat, I tend to think that either you spend all of your time worrying about your body or that you take steroids (maybe both).

You're absolutely right.

But the point was that big muscles does not equal juicing. Extreme vascularity, small forearms (in comparison to the rest of the body), out of proportion muscle groups, etc, are the indicators.

But people see big strong athletic people with low body fat and tend to assume roids. They are wrong.

The women in that "after" picture deserves the benefit of the doubt. No reason to think she's taking gear

Agree. I'm the PP from the comment Sure with hard work you can obtain that look. But everyone should do strength training and not let the fear of looking "too bulky" dissuade them from doing so. In my experience, just about everyone worried about that could never achieve it anyway.

Oh, for sure. It reminds me of something I heard that went like "for women, not lifting weights out of a fear of looking like a bodybuilder is like is not driving out of fear of turning into a NASCAR driver"

It just won't happen without LOTS of other changes. And given how valuable strenght training is as we age, its a important that everyone does it

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This remind me of a photo I saw in an email from MyFitnessPal. The “after” photo here I think is…too much.

https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/how-brianna-went-from-giving-up-to-giving-it-her-all/

My friend is like this (the after); but you’d never know in her day to day. She looks awesome in “regular” clothes and when she has on dress she has awesome legs.

She has broad shoulders naturally and bulks up really easy. She was a cheerleader and lacrosse player in school.

cheer/lacrosse probably means a slim and muscular- that is attractive. Weight lifters who build mass are not. Death by snu snu is something that my friends still joke about

Most people (men and women) can do reasonable strength training 3-6 days a week and (while looking significantly better) not come anywhere close to approximating the bodybuilder look.

Because they aren't using anabolic steroids.

these comments always crack me up. I've put on about 8lbs since covid (I'm a guy) but before that, people would ask me 'what are you taking' or people would say to mutual friends 'he must be on riods'

But I would always answer honestly: creatine and protein powder. And maybe ibuprofen if I'm stiff or sore.

Hard training 5 days a week, plus clean-eating for YEARS, and its attainable. But people don't believe that for some reason

if you have a ton of mass, popping veins everywhere, and little to no body fat, I tend to think that either you spend all of your time worrying about your body or that you take steroids (maybe both).

You're absolutely right.

But the point was that big muscles does not equal juicing. Extreme vascularity, small forearms (in comparison to the rest of the body), out of proportion muscle groups, etc, are the indicators.

But people see big strong athletic people with low body fat and tend to assume roids. They are wrong.

The women in that "after" picture deserves the benefit of the doubt. No reason to think she's taking gear

Maybe this is different for men, but people who don't lift have a tendency to overestimate the level of muscle/leanness that is naturally attainable by women. When there was a video game character based on a particular elite CrossFit competitor, there was a lot of commentary about how the character was based on a real woman's body so this was natural/obtainable/realistic, without noting that she's certainly juicing. I don't think it's as clear-cut with the above picture, but there are a number of reasons to think she's on something. Women can get strong and have visible muscle mass, but you are going to hit limits in terms of size and leanness much faster than men are, and particularly if your livelihood is based on maintaining a certain difficult-to-achieve look year-round, it is more likely that you're using than if you're just some guy (or gal) who is doing it as a hobby. At any rate, if you're a woman trying to decide whether to get more athletic, someone at the very tails of that look (whether it's through juicing or, sure, maybe she just eats a lot of chicken breasts and rice) should not impact that choice because you aren't going to accidentally wind up looking like that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This remind me of a photo I saw in an email from MyFitnessPal. The “after” photo here I think is…too much.

https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/how-brianna-went-from-giving-up-to-giving-it-her-all/

My friend is like this (the after); but you’d never know in her day to day. She looks awesome in “regular” clothes and when she has on dress she has awesome legs.

She has broad shoulders naturally and bulks up really easy. She was a cheerleader and lacrosse player in school.

cheer/lacrosse probably means a slim and muscular- that is attractive. Weight lifters who build mass are not. Death by snu snu is something that my friends still joke about

Most people (men and women) can do reasonable strength training 3-6 days a week and (while looking significantly better) not come anywhere close to approximating the bodybuilder look.

Because they aren't using anabolic steroids.

these comments always crack me up. I've put on about 8lbs since covid (I'm a guy) but before that, people would ask me 'what are you taking' or people would say to mutual friends 'he must be on riods'

But I would always answer honestly: creatine and protein powder. And maybe ibuprofen if I'm stiff or sore.

Hard training 5 days a week, plus clean-eating for YEARS, and its attainable. But people don't believe that for some reason

if you have a ton of mass, popping veins everywhere, and little to no body fat, I tend to think that either you spend all of your time worrying about your body or that you take steroids (maybe both).

You're absolutely right.

But the point was that big muscles does not equal juicing. Extreme vascularity, small forearms (in comparison to the rest of the body), out of proportion muscle groups, etc, are the indicators.

But people see big strong athletic people with low body fat and tend to assume roids. They are wrong.

The women in that "after" picture deserves the benefit of the doubt. No reason to think she's taking gear

Agree. I'm the PP from the comment Sure with hard work you can obtain that look. But everyone should do strength training and not let the fear of looking "too bulky" dissuade them from doing so. In my experience, just about everyone worried about that could never achieve it anyway.