Forum
>
Image Themes
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
Forums are like that mate, mods are by nature vindictive
I’m not sure which part of my answer was vindictive.
There are lots of muscular women who are police officers, in the military, work at physically demanding jobs, etc. who would and should be welcome here. I am not just interested in posed pictures and luxurious surroundings. Real life is interesting.
Here's an example. https://www.instagram.com/military_muscle_blo... This girl is huge, but I'm not just interested in girls who are huge, but athletic and fit women of all shapes, sizes, and occupations.
There are lots of muscular women who are police officers, in the military
Police and military earn decent wages and therefore don't fit the theme of this thread. The topic title was changed and is now misleading. As described in the first post, this thread is intended exclusively for low wage workers such as the Five Guys Burgers employee pictured above.
work at physically demanding jobs, etc. who would and should be welcome here.
Providing the physically demanding job in question pays low wages, post pics please.
Regarding the discussion here: I am absolutely with you, that pictures uploaded to this site have changed over the time. I prefer natural pictures over this new kind of social media self-expression any time.
It is just that the title has an unfortunate wording, since wealth or fame is actually not correlated to this social media phenomenom.
I have been working at the gym for decades, people training have always been a pretty good cut through our society. Regardless of class, income or age - lifting is for everybody. It is even possible with minimal or makeshift equipment.
The major factors of success are dedication and priority. (We are not talking about the professional bodybuilders here) I could observe woman working full-time hitting the gym weekdays every early morning at 6:00 or the ones staying late at night, because of their family.
From all these woman only a few are photographed during training or on occasions showing their muslces, weather by themselfs or companions. It is essential to understand that only a fraction of those pictures make it to this site.
Most reasonable individiduals have no intention of sharing their pictures to the public - their photos are intended for private use like sharing with family and friends. Some track their training progess with pictures of which again only a few post their pictures to fitness tracking sites.
Sarah de Herdt - one of those natural old school pictures
Those documentary pictures have become the minority over the last decade, since when a new social media trend rose. There is a new beauty standard which is considered desirable among certain group of mostly younger females. I call it the bling bling catalogue fake barbie style.
Recognition charachteristics are: (Any of these or combinations, but not limeted to)
Jade Cargill - is there a single picture of her that looks natural?
Since the intention of these pictures is to be posted on social media to gather confirmation from others and fame on the internet, these are the majority of pictures that reach us here.
From my experience idividuals that are wealthy or famous have no need to show it off. So it is mostly people how pretend or want to be this way.
Especially in this forum I have the feeling that some members do not realize that the pictures on this site do not represent the actual group of muscular females out there and have a distorted image of reality.
Here are some natural pictures from my archives:
Regarding the discussion here: I am absolutely with you, that pictures uploaded to this site have changed over the time. I prefer natural pictures over this new kind of social media self-expression any time.
It is just that the title has an unfortunate wording, since wealth or fame is actually not correlated to this social media phenomenom.
I have been working at the gym for decades, people training have always been a pretty good cut through our society. Regardless of class, income or age - lifting is for everybody. It is even possible with minimal or makeshift equipment.
The major factors of success are dedication and priority. (We are not talking about the professional bodybuilders here) I could observe woman working full-time hitting the gym weekdays every early morning at 6:00 or the ones staying late at night, because of their family.
From all these woman only a few are photographed during training or on occasions showing their muslces, weather by themselfs or companions. It is essential to understand that only a fraction of those pictures make it to this site.
Most reasonable individiduals have no intention of sharing their pictures to the public - their photos are intended for private use like sharing with family and friends. Some track their training progess with pictures of which again only a few post their pictures to fitness tracking sites.
Sarah de Herdt - one of those natural old school pictures
Those documentary pictures have become the minority over the last decade, since when a new social media trend rose. There is a new beauty standard which is considered desirable among certain group of mostly younger females. I call it the bling bling catalogue fake barbie style.
Recognition charachteristics are: (Any of these or combinations, but not limeted to)
- The individual presenting herself in luxurious or luxurious appealing environments
- Heavy use of photo filters smoothening the skin, changing face symmetry, adding fake makeup
- Heavy use of actual makeup
- Staged everyday situations like the pictures are snapshots taken on the fly
- Use of ring lights or other semi-professional lighting
- Dressed like in a clothing catalogue
- Artificial overall look
Jade Cargill - is there a single picture of her that looks natural?
Since the intention of these pictures is to be posted on social media to gather confirmation from others and fame on the internet, these are the majority of pictures that reach us here.
From my experience idividuals that are wealthy or famous have no need to show it off. So it is mostly people how pretend or want to be this way.
Especially in this forum I have the feeling that some members do not realize that the pictures on this site do not represent the actual group of muscular females out there and have a distorted image of reality.
Your point about distorted reality might be the best. Sometimes I wonder about the kind of exposure some members have to muscular women, whether professional competitors, or that woman who keeps showing up in front of you in the same checkout line in Walmart every few weeks. In this thread alone, ideas expressed about how much time and dedication is required to achieve the physiques seen on this site are quite overblown.
I also agree with you that the title of the thread IS terrible and completely misleading. It was hijacked and given a completely different title by a former mod.
Were the women you posted supposed to fit the theme of having a lower socioeconomic status (best phrasing I've seen used)? I viewed their galleries and they are clearly not working minimum wage or slightly above type jobs...
While I definitely like Syleena Adams, minimum wage workers don't own homes with fancy $1,000 stainless steel gas ranges.
Or have stacked double ovens like Anna Tkachenko.
Corinne Meehan's gallery didn't have such clear cut pics. This one is definitely a living space too large to fit the socioeconomic profile, and her watch and wedding ring have too much bling.
Sarah De Herdt appears to have the most modest living space, but it still looks too expensive for the socioeconomic profile.
Jade Cargill is a very successful professional wrestler in the WWE. According to (unreliable sources) in Google search results, her net worth is between $2 million to $4 million dollars. She absolutely doesn't fit the socioeconomic profile.
Meanwhile, every picture in the gallery of Ruth Bergenson are an inexpensive set of home weights with a bench. A quick Google said she was a homemaker... I assume that means housewife. From the pictures, likely of humble (on topic) means.
While I definitely like Syleena Adams, minimum wage workers don't own homes with fancy $1,000 stainless steel gas ranges.
.
You don’t know from the picture if she actually owns any of this or not. Could be a rental. Could be a friends house.
In general, somebody who is using or touching expensive things could be in extreme debt, while somebody living more modestly could be very wealthy.
Such pictures are exactly that: a superficial snapshot.
Don’t let the pictures fool you into simplistic and superficial analysis.
Meanwhile, every picture in the gallery of Ruth Bergenson are an inexpensive set of home weights with a bench. A quick Google said she was a homemaker... I assume that means housewife. From the pictures, likely of humble (on topic) means.
This is even more deceptive, since you are referring to pictures literally from a different century. There was not even a mass market for well-designed gym equipment at this time. Not every woman had the luxury to stay at home, and since she was not working in a traditional woman’s job, that indicates her family had at least enough resources for her to remain a homemaker and pursue her bodybuilding hobby.
If anything has remained constant over the decades, it’s that household resources enable the pursuit of hobbies. In this case, the hobby of focus is fitness/bodybuilding.
"phenoms":
You waited 7 months to bump this thread over a change that was made... 7 months ago? This thread is very close to being locked because right now it's become another discussion altogether (i.e. off-topic).
If you would like this thread to remain open then please continue posting relevant content (as you originally outlined).