"What’s wrong with females having muscular bodies?"

[Haikoo]

Nothing's wrong with muscular women. Although I do have a problem with female bodybuilders. But that's because I have an issue with bodybuilders in general. Something about them just makes me want to avert my eyes. Not saying they're ugly or anything. I really have no idea why.

I am the same way. It makes me uncomfortable to look at them. For me, I think it is because they look really unhealthy and unnatural. The leathery skin screams skin cancer and it just looks like their muscles are about to burst through and show me their insides .

[notanartmajor]

I am the same way. It makes me uncomfortable to look at them. For me, I think it is because they look really unhealthy and unnatural. The leathery skin screams skin cancer and it just looks like their muscles are about to burst through and show me their insides .

I think it's the hands. The combination of the low bf% and the tan makes the hands all talon-like.

[leadchipmunk]

You guys are going to cause me nightmares now. Giant muscle-bound women (somewhat like she-hulk but less green) screeching like harpies and grabbing me in their muscly talons and flying off with me.

[Woodsrider]

/Napolean Dynamite voice

"Uh, do those muscly girls have talons?"

lol

[Haikoo]

You guys are going to cause me nightmares now. Giant muscle-bound women (somewhat like she-hulk but less green) screeching like harpies and grabbing me in their muscly talons and flying off with me.

This image further brings to my mind the image of giant musclebound harpies. (it was the talons and flying imagery that did it).

*SQUAWCK*

[AuroraNorth]

Nothing's wrong with muscular women. Although I do have a problem with female bodybuilders. But that's because I have an issue with bodybuilders in general. Something about them just makes me want to avert my eyes. Not saying they're ugly or anything. I really have no idea why.

To me, that kind of muscle doesn't look useful. Whereas, I look at someone like Georges St. Pierre and his muscles, while defined, look like someone who uses them. Does that make sense?

Also, I don't like the word toned because it has connotations of a giggly, "Oh, I don't really want to be strong" attitude. At least to me.

[azsf]

I don't like the word toned because it has connotations of a giggly, "Oh, I don't really want to be strong"

^this. when people say they want "to just tone up", they usually mean they want to look cut or muscular while still being lean, but don't want to do the actual work. it's also usually a good way of spotting someone who doesn't know much about weight training.

[Xanthe]

^this. when people say they want "to just tone up", they usually mean they want to look cut or muscular while still being lean, but don't want to do the actual work. it's also usually a good way of spotting someone who doesn't know much about weight training.

Using the word 'toned' doesn't mean you don't know about weight training. I think that people using certain words who obviously know what they're talking about or what they want are often discriminated against because they USE certain words. If you're going to say that doesn't happen you clearly have issues assessing what you're doing right now...

I for example want to be fit, I want to be muscular, but I say toned... Why? Because that is what I was taught, and I'm not going to change saying TONED because some people have an issue with it. It describes what I want to look like to those who aren't completely into this. My sister for example is very fit, but she wants to TONE UP her abs, why? Because saying "I want to MUSCLE UP MY ABS" makes NO SENSE.

Honestly I think the argument is silly. Unless someone obviously doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, take issue with what they are saying... But if someone is working out and says they want to be TONED why would you have an issue with that? It's not your body, it's not your life, and they aren't giving you a bad name by the way they choose to express themselves to the world outside of fitness.

[notanartmajor]

You guys are going to cause me nightmares now. Giant muscle-bound women (somewhat like she-hulk but less green) screeching like harpies and grabbing me in their muscly talons and flying off with me.

Death by snoo-snoo!

[BeckyBuckeye]

Death by snoo-snoo!

Approved.

[azsf]

obviously doesn't know what they are talking about, sure, take issue with what they are saying

if you want to be muscular, but say tone, you can't be surprised when people misunderstand your intentions. as was said on page 3, tone is a by-product of strength training (how ready the muscle is to perform work), but the general understanding of how to get tone is very, very different. this is what i, and others, take issue with. in most cases, people will say tone when they want to build shape without the strength or size. the "i don't want big bulging muscles, i just want to tone" crowd.

definitely agree that people are discriminated against due to the words they use, especially on the internet. i'm not you, so i don't know your goals or how much reading you've done or how long you've been training. i can see what you write though, so that's all i have to respond to.

in short: using "toned" as an adjective doesn't bother me. saying "i just want to tone up" does, because it implies you don't understand how to train for what you want.

[leadchipmunk]

Death by snoo-snoo!

Yes, crushed pelvis is one of the best ways to go! But there is a big difference between amazon (planet) woman and muscle-bound, talon-handed harpies. Just saying...

[progress126]

I am going to create a program called "Auto Tone" (similar to Auto Tune) for men and women everywhere who want to look toned without actually having to workout. I will make millions!

[andygates]

Sounds like the spraypaint sixpack to me! Do I have to shave my belly first?

[VorJoshigan]

So what it sounds like everybody's saying, is that "toned" is no different from "muscular". But for some reason, nobody wants to use the term "muscular", so it's watered down to "toned."

I would say that in my mind "toned" is a notch below "muscular". e.g. based on your avatar, I would probably call you muscular instead of toned.

Another problem is that muscular sounds kind of vague to me. Theoretically somebody could be "muscular" and have a layer of fat over that. For an example of this - have you seen the pics from the last few years of Arnold Schwarzenegger? He's obviously still technically muscular, but I definitely wouldn't call him toned.

Since we're in a female having muscular bodies thread, is this a gender issue? Toned is used about men as much as it is women (based on google searches for "(s)he is toned" at least) though "muscular" seems to be used about 3 times as often for men than it is women.

[ryanmercer]

Not a thing

[VorJoshigan]

From Practical Programming:

The modern fitness industry’s concept of “toning†muscles is specious—it might sound cool, but it lacks any tangible and definable meaning. The term “muscle tone†or tonus describes an electrophysiological phenomenon, a measure of ionic flow across muscle cell membranes. It can be thought of as the muscle’s readiness to do anaerobic work. The more fit the muscle, the more electrophysiological activity it exhibits at rest. Lack of exercise leads to poor tone, aerobic exercise improves tone a little bit, low-intensity weight training improves tone more, and high-intensity training improves tone the fastest. [...]

As a test, go poke the traps or quads of an elite weightlifter at rest, if she’ll let you. They’ll be hard as rock. The same muscles of an elite road cyclist at rest will be firm, but not hard. Then compare the athletes’ muscle tone to that of a sedentary person. The results will he quite enlightening. Most exercise programs that claim to improve muscle tone are actually lower-intensity hypertrophy programs and are only moderately effective for improving muscle tone. If “tone†is the goal, strength is the method.

I think this ignores a fundamental shift in language. Sub-groups have always hated it when their words have been (mis-)appropriated and re-defined, but I think that trying to shove the "toned" genie back into the "tonus" bottle is futile at this point.

I do agree that there isn't a very good consensus of what the meaning of the appropriated "toned" means, and that usage of it in a fitness community like this one could lead to poor communication. It's obviously led to at least a few ladies getting hot under the collar when the word is used in their direction.

[andygates]

It's absolutely a gender labels thing. The stereotype is "muscular=masculine" (they even sound superficially similar, which I swear also explains the emotional negatives of "obese" and "obscene" too). Then it all gets incredibly complicated because dude, if your girl wants to be a guy, do you want to be a girl, hurr durr... and it's all best ignored.

[rtalencar]

To me, that kind of muscle doesn't look useful. Whereas, I look at someone like Georges St. Pierre and his muscles, while defined, look like someone who uses them. Does that make sense?

I disagree with this. To avoid having to repost a bunch of good arguments, I basically disagree for the reasons posted by scotticus here.

It doesn't have to be a bodytype you want (and lets be honest, for most of us it's not a body type we could attain even if we tried), but there's no denying their strength or the hard work and sacrifice that goes into creating such a physique.

[Good Row G]

The title of this thread - what's wrong with women being muscular?

Well, abstractly, absolutely nothing. Expecting or fetishizing weakness in females is ridiculous. But, in the context of sexuality, what's wrong with muscular women is that at a certain point the difference with men's bodies blurs, and to many, that's not hot.

I am a heterosexual woman. I want a partner with a man's body (and the accompanying equipment.) I want Gerald Butler. In a hotel room. Or a field. To myself. For days. Ahhh.

Back on track - strength is great. Function and health are great, and sexy, and to be lauded. But there are limits. How many 14 year old balls of muscle and 5% body fat we call gymnasts are attractive? A few, but plenty aren't.

There are women out there who put on muscle easily. Seems like all my sister and I have to do is look at a gym and our upper bodies gain a pound of muscle. It works for my dad (imagine Burt Reynolds) and my brother too (built like Michael Phelps). For them, the extra muscle looks amazing. For my sis and I, it's pleasing in its way, but:

having bigger arms than my partner is not sexy. I'm not interested in strength I don't need when it makes me less attractive. Function rules. Health rules. Sexiness is a goal too, and we can't pretend that a woman with 15 inch biceps is many people's vision of loveliness. I'll respect the body of a female long distance swimmer for the feats she achieves. And I can see the beauty in the bodies of most athletes. But it's possible for women to get un-sexually attractively muscular and we shouldn't pretend it's not. It's possible for men to be too skinny. (Looking at you and your swollen chest, Timothy Oliphant!)

Talons!

[Lachy]

GRG, taking your example of the gymnasts, would they be sexier if they didn't train as they do? Say they dropped some muscle and added some fat, but were still in the healthy band, would they then be sexy? In general, to me, I don't think so. It's their body type, gymnasts often seem small and underdeveloped, I think it helps to be that way for female gymnasts. I don't see what exercise/diet regime would make them sexy in a conventional way. Discalaimer: this is only my opinion.

It all comes down to body type I think. No sense trying to be something you're not. Just be the best that you can me, and if that's atheltic and strong, embrace it.

Also, I think the question "What's wrong with females having muscular bodies?", pertains more to, should atheltic women's bodies be hidden, covered up, and photo-shopped out of existance? If someone is athletic, strong, muscular, so what?

[azsf]

i agree good row g (re: function and health are great and sexy, sometimes muscles can be too much), but beauty is subjective so your "far too muscular" girl might be someone elses perfect. by and large though, i'd say you have the standard viewpoint of most people (too many muscles = unsexy). it's a fine line to walk though, and that's why you end up with doctored photos like the one that started this thread.

"toned" is a notch below "muscular"

VorJoshigan, yup i agree. i don't think there's a problem with describing someone as being "toned" (because that's a thing; like being "cut"). and really, without eating a whole lot and dedicating a lot of time to lifting, not many people will get much bigger than "toned".

[morethanjustamom]

having bigger arms than my partner is not sexy. I'm not interested in strength I don't need when it makes me less attractive. Function rules. Health rules. Sexiness is a goal too, and we can't pretend that a woman with 15 inch biceps is many people's vision of loveliness. I'll respect the body of a female long distance swimmer for the feats she achieves. And I can see the beauty in the bodies of most athletes. But it's possible for women to get un-sexually attractively muscular and we shouldn't pretend it's not. It's possible for men to be too skinny. (Looking at you and your swollen chest, Timothy Oliphant!)

Talons!

I have no desire to have arms bigger than my husband's either, but for me, my size, and my body type, that would be virtually impossible without years of specific eating and training, plus maybe some illegal substances as well, because I am built on a small frame.

For me, to say I want to be muscular doesn't mean I want to train to be a bodybuilder, or take things to extremes. It means that I want to look as good as I can without the help of "enhancers", and it also means that I'm ok with my arms, legs, and torso looking like they actually have muscles, instead of just bones and skin.

I also don't think athlete's muscles should be airbrushed out, even if they're deemed "too masculine" by popular media. I can appreciate the muscular hamstrings of a sprinter, even if they are larger than I would want mine to be, because they do represent dedication, strength, and even beauty.

[rtalencar]

There are plenty of people out there who are 'not sexy'. If they all were, the term would lose it's meaning. That's like saying everyone is beautiful, or everyone is smart. Just because a muscular physique is unattractive to some doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it. Finally because of the beauties of testosterone, it's pretty dang hard for women (in general, there are exceptions but they definitely aren't common) to pack significant muscle anyhow. I'm only 3 inches taller than my fiancee, and all the cycles in the world wouldn't give her more muscle mass than I have right now (and I'm nowhere near as jacked as I am shooting for). The biggest problem that I have is you get women who are incapable of putting on that kind of muscle mass who go to the gym and lift weights; their muscles swell a little bit from the exertion, and then they freak out and quit because of this mentality that muscles are bad or wrong.

[thescrawnycaveman]

But, in the context of sexuality, what's wrong with muscular women is that at a certain point the difference with men's bodies blurs, and to many, that's not hot.

having bigger arms than my partner is not sexy. I'm not interested in strength I don't need when it makes me less attractive. Function rules. Health rules. Sexiness is a goal too, and we can't pretend that a woman with 15 inch biceps is many people's vision of loveliness. I'll respect the body of a female long distance swimmer for the feats she achieves. And I can see the beauty in the bodies of most athletes. But it's possible for women to get un-sexually attractively muscular and we shouldn't pretend it's not. It's possible for men to be too skinny. (Looking at you and your swollen chest, Timothy Oliphant!)

Talons!

I like the direction this goes in. But I'd take it to the extent that for most men, we want a woman smaller than us, we want her arms less muscular, her legs less muscular, etc. So for less in shape guys, like a huge portion of america that is specifically advertised to with such photoshopped photos, seeing a powerful woman is more likely to be intimidating. Thats part of the reason so many guys here find athletic and muscular women attractive. Because we are in shape enough (or getting there) to be confident enough to not be intimidated by it. And I've heard from many women it goes the other way too, they want their man to be bigger (preferably with muscles) than them. I constantly hear from tall women that they have to find men that are taller than them and have never heard of a short woman asking for a guy shorter than her. What I'm getting at here is this; there are certain expectations of each sex that define attractiveness, and when such a large population is in a position that distorts attractiveness away from being healthy (unfit guys desiring weak women in order to feel strong) we will see marketing strategies steer towards that direction as well. I don't think the media makes it attractive, I think they just feed into what their market finds as attractive.

Also, on the issue of being toned; I am a personal trainer at la fitness (I know i know, globo gym. Its a job doing what I like ok?) and I hear the term "toned" A LOT from clients, usually women. What tends to be the case is that the women are not sure how to describe what they want because muscular makes them think body builder, and the only other option is twig. They mean it as inbetween those two options. They want visible muscles, but not muscles that pop out like crazy. Others tend to use it as a means to say "I want to look good without having to work hard" (don't worry, I tell all my clients right off the bat that isn't going to happen). Just thought I'd share some perspective from the front lines.