Forum
>
Site Discussion
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
I personally don't like tattoos, they detract from the beauty of a muscle female body & look hideous on older people when there skin gets less supple.
Implants, I don't mind them either way being a 'died in the wool' tit man. Having said that, you can't beat a really well developed pair of pecs on an FBB'er!!.
I dislike over-botoxed lips!!.
Edit: I kinda had an epiphany while writing this. For me this topic isn't about tattoos at all. It's about implicitly shaming people.
Real talk: Imagine the comments I'm talking about coming from someone standing behind you, judging you while you try to rub one out at your desk.
"Eww, you like her??? Gross."
Isn't that a fear most muscle fans have had at some point? Fear of ridicule when we realized that we liked women often well outside the mainstream? And now it's coming from people within the same sphere. That's the damn shame.
~~~
Not liking tattoos is fine. But the crusading against tattoos on this site would be comedic if it weren't such a downer. This is both a rant and a plea to understand the people who go out of their way to comment on something they clearly dislike.
It's extremely selfish to yuck on someone else's yums, especially on a fetish site. Not everyone is going to be your cup of tea, and most people see fit to just move on.
For example: I don't prefer heavily surgeried Barbie-types; I don't look at those pics. Further, I know many people love that look. It feels really rude to share how much I don't like it, when clearly someone would be clicking that pic to enjoy/admire it. I imagine most people who dislike tats are the same - they simply look at un-tatted women, and this isn't about them at all.
For reasons I cannot understand, the loudest - and it seems to be just a few, who make up for it with sheer volume - are bound and determined to make sure that everybody knows how much they hate it. Why spread that misery?
It's now getting brought up out of the blue, on tat-free pics. And it's often with a negative spin, rather than a celebration. Again, why??
https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/1716199/
And then she went crazy with the tattoos
https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/1725476/ (emphasis by me):
I too have this photo set from WPW. I have quite a few photo sets and every WPW issue save 3 issues I've hunting for years. Those were the days when bodybuilding was still an art form before the women became canvas's for art. They focused on their physiques not on what they could paint on their physiques.
I understand wanting to have conversations, and to see comments in support of your view - many of us want that validation. But usually these comments boil down to a continued mopefest like, "Totally, man. Isn't it such a bummer? I just can't jerk to this specific woman/image as much as I could have if she hadn't desecrated herself with that INK. Years of work destroyed. What a shame. What depressing times we live in."
To the Lynda Chicado commenter: Bodybuilding is still very much an art form. Bodybuilders today, tatted and not, are ostensibly more focused on their physiques than ever. To say that tattoos have even slightly diminished that seems pretty disingenuous.
To the Anti-Tat people who go out of their way to comment on tatted women's pics: Your preference is 100% valid. I respect it. I even agree that big tats/sleeves hide or conflict with a lot of great muscle shapes I like. But the evangelizing, especially when completely out of context, is my issue. Why is simply disliking it not enough? You had to see the thumbnail and click it. You could simply not enlarge the pic, but instead chose to go into it. Why??
And for the specific examples above, why was it not enough to bring it up only when it's relevant? Why were you determined to be negative about it, no matter the context?
Why not just create a "Post Your Favorite Tat-Free Pic" thread in the forum?
To Chainer and/or the Mods: Can we get a "Tats" tag or something? Maybe that would help.
I think if it's done in a civilized way, it is a legitimate thing to comment on when someone doesn't like a specific aspect of a pic or a feature of a girl - why do all comments have to be admiration and awe so that you can enjoy your preferred pics? You shouldn't care so much for the comments.
As for the tattoos, people feel very strongly about them. The attraction to the muscular female body is very strong, so one will have conflicting emotions when a beautifully sculpted body like Rene Campbell's gets completely covered up by tattoos and might need to express that to discuss a pic of her. Again, this should be done in a civilized manner, not by calling them out as "gross" or other insults. These comments should be flagged and removed.
Consider tattoos an art form, a body modification or body decoration. When put in that perspective, everyone has their own opinion as to what it does to the appearance of the person. Are we going to deny someone from not appreciating a Dali or a Van Gogh? Just like muscle is not to everyone’s taste, nor is body art.
Most people aren’t looking to body shame, but to voice their opinion about what jars them. Do they need to voice it, not necessarily, but none of us a free from someone forming an opinion about ourselves or our appearance.
Myself I prefer the blank canvas that wraps a fit or muscular woman. If the canvas is to be painted, then I prefer minimalism or the hidden surprise. At the same time, while I am not generally a fan, there are some art pieces I can appreciate.
In the end just like our choice of clothing or jewellery, some will please some people and upset others. Whatever happens, denying an opinion isn’t cool, but nor is being mean.
I learned the term "epidermal lesion" from this site.
I did have a sarcastic post once that was deleted. Regarding the smokin' hot babe Libby Powell, I said something like, "I thought she was a work of art -- until I saw the tattoo on her foot."
I by default dont like tattoos. I think they look really ugly for the most part, and when girls have them I usually find them sexy despite their tattoos, not because of them. I do find that sometimes, tattoos actually are sexy and can compliment a womans beauty. I think Natasha Augheys and Bakhars tats are horrible, they just look like blobs of ink. I do think Janaina Pinherios are sexy though. Cant really explain why though.
Tattoos didn't bother me when it was becoming a fad. Now people go overboard with them besides being crappy tattoos.
this is guaranteed to be the best GWM message i'll read for at least the rest of this month!
the entries below are just a couple i've made on previous occasions addressing the same topic. they don't explain why people go out of their way to vocalise their displeasure to the point of vitriolism, and i can only speculate over the reasons although it's my impression that the biggest contributing factor relates to the way this site is perceived as a platform for self-gratification. on that basis, many people who visit this place do so with the assumption that it is only meant to serve whatever specific ideal they have for what represents a musclegirl, and as a result they tend to treat models who don't conform into that mold as an affront to that ideal. it's a very self-centred mentality that completely disregards the fact that most of these women ultimately do what they choose to do for their own reasons, whether or not said reasons happen to coincide with or incorporate our standards as would-be admirers and supporters.
[..] ill-tempered piddling criticisms over what featured models do with their bodies, or how they choose to govern their lifestyles can only serve to add to the list of reasons many of them may quote in their request to have images removed from the site. when an entire thread gets locked because EVERYONE commenting on it couldn't accept the idea that their 'favourite FBB' doesn't base her hairstyle or choice to get tats according to our personal whims, that kind of attitude only suggests a lot more about the emotional puerility of the commentators than it does about whichever perceived slight they're knee-jerking over.
other notable mentions include people who go out of their way to whinge about tattoos/implants/bodytypes/lifestyles they disapprove of. expressing a dislike once or twice is fine, but there is no need to develop that into a trend when there's enough variety available that allows anyone who visits the site to focus on what they personally wish to see.
more recently there have been one or two users with a habit of yarning wild tabloid-esque conspiracies over models whose choice of appearance they don't approve of - but this imo has been a long-standing issue. i remember Joey2Chairs as a particularly obnoxious past example who amongst other forms of commentary tended to target and disparage models with a natural bodyshape he didn't approve of ("error 101: no hips found!" was something of a catchphrase of his), which i always thought was absurd. with or without muscular development, how the fuck is anyone able to alter their foundational body structure, least of all for your appeasement? thankfully, it appears that most of his screed has since been concealed from sight.
I know a few people (I'm sure we all do) that just get tattoos like they're picking up a loaf of bread. (I actually knew a guy that had a half-body tat of his fiance (also 90% ink and gauges and split tongue) and when they broke he basically black-canvased it so he could start over I guess with his new gf. head to toe ink.
i've mentioned this before but one of my fave examples is Mandy Squires--who has bomb arms and delts but one of them is sleeved, the other is not. It's impossible to see the shapes in her arms with that thing and IMO it messes up the balance of her physique a bit because of it. i know you can use make up to cover some of it up, but in a sport where your judged on symmetry and image it can be an obstacle.
so, personally, when i see someone that has a great physique and they randomly get some huge random tat on their lat for some reason my response is: ????
Generally it won't make them "less attractive" to me. I still think Natasha Aughey is a smokeshow even if her Tattoos are kinda 50/50 bad or good. McKayla Adam has amazing arms and delts but is getting sleeves basically and that sucks, but she's still hot. I was pretty bummed by Mandy's chest tats but still bought topless stuff rom her until the implants.
There was a time in my life where I would have not gone out with a woman that had a tat or two--now I think i've relaxed that a bit. But I would still probably say no if they looked like they just climbed out of a vat of ink.
For me, and I'm sure plenty others on GVM feel the same, it's just an attraction thing. I don't mind a little patch here and there. It's the body part covering kind that I find pretty repulsive. Muscle or no muscle. I feel that way about all women.
agreed if the 'here and there' is not on top of a well developed muscle.
I think a tattoo or a couple is ok but where did this whole mark up your body worse than an inmate in San Quentin come in? These women want to stand out and be seen, hence the bodybuilding and this makes people look more. Problem I see is that while it looks good now in their 20's, what the hell will it look like when they hit 50 or 60. Ask the girls from the 90's with their tramp stamps. Its a fad, its cool today but my favorite train wrecks are the ones 40+ who suddenly get the ink thinking they are young and edgy.....
Again....It's their body but I just think it steals away from the beauty they have created. I am in the no ink camp and draw towards the women who have none or a couple and not across their whole body.
Fire away.....
What really matters is authenticity. I hate tattoos, but I love the fact that some women ink themselves. Does that make sense?
A person's body is an expression of their history, their circumstances, and their personality. For bodybuilders - people who put great thought over deliberately building their bodies - there's an even stronger element of intentionality. Who they are on the outside will match who they are on the inside. I, for one, celebrate the diversity of minds and bodies among FBBs, and see no reason to impose a sort of "bodybuilding monoculture". Not every FBB wants to compete, not every FBB cares much about aesthetics, not every FBB has bodybuilding as the sole priority in their lives.
A woman's attractiveness is not measured solely by her body - in some cases, not even predominantly by her physical appearance. A body without an interesting personality is just a mass of flesh. For me, knowing what makes the woman tick, her psique and the way she behaves in social relationships, now that's proper interesting. This is what will set a BB apart from the hordes of muscly women on this site.
Look at women like Shereen Fons or Stephanie Tomlinson. You might argue the tats aren't pretty, but they're perfectly in line with who these women are - a sadistic man-hating domme and an anti-social nerd, respectively.
Personally, I don't mind tattoos in certain places eg. upper back shoulder.
What is distracting especially for competitors in all forms of physique - bikini, figure, fitness, wellness, bb - is that having tattoos covering huge portions of their bodies judges just cannot see their physiques properly. Or can they? Just how can judges judge the competitors if they cannot see the physique under all that drawings?
Rudz Bedzir for example has tattoos covering her lower arms, but not on her upper arms, abs, legs, etc. She has the hindsight not to go all out.
In general I don't like tattoos, except when I do.
I have what is undoubtedly a weird take on this. For me, though, in the context of bodybuilding, male or female, the issue for me is that they are like camouflage. One of the principal purpose of camouflage is to break up the outlines of an object. A bodybuilder who has tats on their biceps or abdomen or legs is blurring the lines of their definition. This seems to be a poor choice for someone working to build and define muscles.
In general I don't like tattoos, except when I do.
I have what is undoubtedly a weird take on this. For me, though, in the context of bodybuilding, male or female, the issue for me is that they are like camouflage. One of the principal purpose of camouflage is to break up the outlines of an object. A bodybuilder who has tats on their biceps or abdomen or legs is blurring the lines of their definition. This seems to be a poor choice for someone working to build and define muscles.
You hit that perfectly, and I touched on it.