Disenchantedly Yours Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 So all the discussion about women and their bodies (LS's men's favorite subject) and their breast size and seeing some pre-Olympic trials on TV this afternoon got me to thinking about women in the Olympics and body types. In the other thread about breasts there were lots of positive nodds toward women with athletic body types. However, the kind of "athletic body" type described/pictured, seemed to be more of women with more porn-star like bodies then truly athletic women. In the Olympics, the women are very athletic but they usually are more dense muscle (while not manly at all) and of course, smaller breasts since usually true athleticism will change the size of a woman's breasts and I can't remember ever seeing a woman in the Olympics with breast implants. So I was wondering how men felt about women in the Olympics and their body types. Because to me, it seems like while a woman may be attracted to a man that had the disclipine and muscle development to be in the Olympics, men are not nearly as endeared to female Olympic figures with nearly the popularity that women from Playboy garner. Alot of the justificiations men use to talk about why they like a woman with a particular body type comes down to things like "healthy and proportioned". This should actually apply to women in the Olympics. They are A) very healthy B) proportioned with nice muscle tone. So why aren't women in the Olympics seen as more attractive then Playmates? Link to post Share on other sites
ThaWholigan Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 The argument you may hear from some is that they look too masculine. I met a very beautiful athlete who competed at the Olympics once in the Long Jump. She was 6 foot 5, and quite muscular, more so than I. I still thought she was very beautiful. I'll see if I can find a picture of her a little later..... The female bodybuilders in that other thread didn't look overly muscular, which I think is the argument. I still like female athletes though, some of them are very pretty, but I understand that some can look very masculine. There is another athlete over here called Jessica Ennis - again, very beautiful girl. I read an article with her where she talked about not really liking her figure because being an athlete meant looking more masculine. She even mentioned having a better 6 pack than most guys . But to me, she still looks very feminine and doesn't look masculine at all, in fact I love her shape. All in all, some guys are interested in purely "feminine" looking women, as in not too muscular. This is how I interpret that. Me, personally, I'm not necessarily attracted to the muscular look on girls - but then again, I'm not really attracted to Playboy Playmates either!! Link to post Share on other sites
Author Disenchantedly Yours Posted June 23, 2012 Author Share Posted June 23, 2012 Right, I agree that the argument will be that too, that they look too masculine. But do they really look masculine? I googled images of women in the Olympics and I didn't see too many that really looked masculine. Who has defined what is feminine? Playboy? Perhaps that's why there is a lot of unreal expectations. Who says that women in the Olympics can't be both atheltic and feminine. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
ThaWholigan Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Right, I agree that the argument will be that too, that they look too masculine. But do they really look masculine? I googled images of women in the Olympics and I didn't see too many that really looked masculine. Who has defined what is feminine? Playboy? Perhaps that's why there is a lot of unreal expectations. Who says that women in the Olympics can't be both atheltic and feminine. The individual defines what is masculine or feminine to them. How they interpret the expression of those energies will most likely be singular to them. Society will play a part, as will media of course. But I wouldn't put the blame on Playboy, there are various other outlets that dictate to both men and women as to what looks good or not. Perhaps the only influence that is stronger than that is Cultural and Environmental. No matter how many blond, thin white girls with fake boobs saturate the playboy mags that get thrown around, I will still be more attracted to the thick, size 14 black girls I used to see coming home from Uni . 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Radu Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 So all the discussion about women and their bodies (LS's men's favorite subject) and their breast size and seeing some pre-Olympic trials on TV this afternoon got me to thinking about women in the Olympics and body types. In the other thread about breasts there were lots of positive nodds toward women with athletic body types. However, the kind of "athletic body" type described/pictured, seemed to be more of women with more porn-star like bodies then truly athletic women. In the Olympics, the women are very athletic but they usually are more dense muscle (while not manly at all) and of course, smaller breasts since usually true athleticism will change the size of a woman's breasts and I can't remember ever seeing a woman in the Olympics with breast implants. So I was wondering how men felt about women in the Olympics and their body types. Because to me, it seems like while a woman may be attracted to a man that had the disclipine and muscle development to be in the Olympics, men are not nearly as endeared to female Olympic figures with nearly the popularity that women from Playboy garner. Alot of the justificiations men use to talk about why they like a woman with a particular body type comes down to things like "healthy and proportioned". This should actually apply to women in the Olympics. They are A) very healthy B) proportioned with nice muscle tone. So why aren't women in the Olympics seen as more attractive then Playmates? Women who took part in the Olympics and won medals have posed for Playboy in the nude actually. Men and women who prepare for the Olympics are on very strict diets and their time is not really their own. The body for the Olympics is harder to maintain than the body for Playboy shoots. What men find as attractive in women, femininity is usually something that can't be maintained if you want to have a body for the Olympics. I guess overall, less men find that kind of toned body hot and for some the realisation that it is something harder to achieve than the playboy body may also affect this. Link to post Share on other sites
d'Arthez Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Who has defined what is feminine? Playboy? Perhaps that's why there is a lot of unreal expectations. A similar argument can be made for masculinity. Why should men be stereotypically masculine? Who defines that? I refuse to go to the gym and waste precious time on getting a six pack. I don't define myself on the basis of some outdated concept of masculinity. This is the 21st century. Likewise, the notion that women have to adhere to a similarly outdated concept of femininity is equally absurd to me. All people have their preferences. These are individual preferences. The trick is to find people with whom you are compatible. Women who desire of me to be some kind of Greek God will be disappointed. Likewise, I have no interest in women who display learned helplessness (which is part of the "feminine ideal" of yore). I don't think either these women or me should shed a tear over that. To get back to your original question: Playmates are supposedly "sexual ideals" personified. This naturally does not apply to athletes, bank employees, teachers, policewomen etc.. Hence they are probably seen as less sexually attractive (at least from the "more than a ONS"-perspective). 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Author Disenchantedly Yours Posted June 23, 2012 Author Share Posted June 23, 2012 Women who took part in the Olympics and won medals have posed for Playboy in the nude actually. For sure, that doesn't mean they are what the magazines usually represents as beauty in women. Men and women who prepare for the Olympics are on very strict diets and their time is not really their own. The body for the Olympics is harder to maintain than the body for Playboy shoots. What men find as attractive in women, femininity is usually something that can't be maintained if you want to have a body for the Olympics. It can't be maintained for what Playboy puts out there either. I guess overall, less men find that kind of toned body hot and for some the realisation that it is something harder to achieve than the playboy body may also affect this Having the Playboy body isn't "easier" to achieve. Please. It's not realistic! Link to post Share on other sites
Feelin Frisky Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Women in the Olympics, more so the Summer games than Winter, are mostly very young--not even legal. Their exercise levels leave them with no extra flesh at all. So most females (save weight lifters, shot-putters, hammer chuckers) have bodies you can bounce a quarter off of and it comes back fitty cent. But buxom they are not. Some are lovely of face however--I find swimmer Natalie Coughlin for instance to be very appealing. Link to post Share on other sites
USMCHokie Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 This thread is useless without pics. Link to post Share on other sites
Radu Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 For sure, that doesn't mean they are what the magazines usually represents as beauty in women. It can't be maintained for what Playboy puts out there either. Having the Playboy body isn't "easier" to achieve. Please. It's not realistic! If i'm gonna counter your claims of women and Playboy, at least have the common decency to not twist your attitude so that you can 'win' this argument no matter what. Have you even picked up one of those magazines ? You have all sorts of body types, anything from athletic to rubenesque, perhaps you should do your homework before you discuss it. As a woman [i suspect you are a woman] i am surprised by your attitude and your lack of knowledge about the female body. The Olympics body is much harder to achieve than the Playboy body. They train for 3+ yrs to get those results. And as for Playboy itself, it stopped being a disgusting magazine a long time ago. Now, it's mostly femjoy; not to mention the fact that the person in charge there IS a woman. Link to post Share on other sites
Feelin Frisky Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 This thread is useless without pics. Doll face Natalie Coughlin video yummy 1 Link to post Share on other sites
123321 Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 (edited) So all the discussion about women and their bodies (LS's men's favorite subject) and their breast size and seeing some pre-Olympic trials on TV this afternoon got me to thinking about women in the Olympics and body types. In the other thread about breasts there were lots of positive nodds toward women with athletic body types. However, the kind of "athletic body" type described/pictured, seemed to be more of women with more porn-star like bodies then truly athletic women. Swimmers often look too thick for me, but a lot of other athletes are attractive, such as tennis players, gymnasts, track and field, and so on. I just don't care for a thick waist at all. EDIT: link to pic of various athlete bodies. Only the 2 on the right are what I would consider sexy, but the 2nd from left is OK. Edited June 24, 2012 by 123321 Link to post Share on other sites
USMCHokie Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Only the 2 on the right are what I would consider sexy, but the 2nd from left is OK. The one 3rd from the left needs to get sexy outfits like the other four have... Link to post Share on other sites
xxoo Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Misty May Treanor and Kerri Walsh get a lot of view time, for reasons other than their impressive beach volleyball skills. Link to post Share on other sites
Els Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Eh, frankly, I take it with a huge grain of salt whenever most men say they like 'athletic' women. In many cases, they're not really thinking of 'very athletic women', but 'slim women'. Which is okay in itself, but I wish they would use the proper term instead of the PC one. It's more honest. Just as how if a woman likes 'tall and buff' men, I wish she would say she likes 'tall and buff' men, period. Not strong or protective or manly men, but 'tall and buff men'. Plenty of strong men are short and don't necessarily have bulging muscles, etc. 3 Link to post Share on other sites
xxoo Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Lolo Jones is hot this year: very sexy magazine cover. Eh, frankly, I take it with a huge grain of salt whenever most men say they like 'athletic' women. In many cases, they're not really thinking of 'very athletic women', but 'slim women'. I think the men who specify athletic are talking about something other than just slim. They are appreciating muscled thighs, calves, arms, and midsections, in addition to overall slimness. Link to post Share on other sites
Els Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 I think the men who specify athletic are talking about something other than just slim. They are appreciating muscled thighs, calves, arms, and midsections, in addition to overall slimness. There was a thread here several months ago, where some men were talking about liking athletic-looking women. I asked for pictures of what they thought was athletic-looking, and I think I got Beyonce and some other celebrities, none of whom have noticeable muscles. I definitely agree that there are some men who like muscles, but many of the men here, at least, seem to falsely equate 'athletic' with 'slim', IMO. Link to post Share on other sites
Els Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Swimmers often look too thick for me, but a lot of other athletes are attractive, such as tennis players, gymnasts, track and field, and so on. I just don't care for a thick waist at all. EDIT: link to pic of various athlete bodies. Only the 2 on the right are what I would consider sexy, but the 2nd from left is OK. And this, I think, is a very good case in point. I think 'slim', 'slender', or 'thin' describes the appearance of the two women on the right more so than 'athletic'. That isn't to say that they can't ALSO be athletic (clearly they are, to compete in the Olympics), but if you put them beside a supermodel or actress who just has a rigorous diet and isn't really athletic, you could not tell the difference body-wise. IMO, at least, 'looking athletic' is defined as the two women on the left (not the one in the middle, either). Of course, this definition could be debatable, but the two women on the left are clearly, indisputably athletic-looking and the two women on the right are clearly, indisputably very slim (85 lbs at 5'1" is slightly worrisome unless she's in her teens, in fact, IMO). There could be overlap, but one feature is predominant. My question is, why would people not just quote that feature, if that is what they really want? Link to post Share on other sites
xxoo Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 (edited) My question is, why would people not just quote that feature, if that is what they really want? I still see a difference. I don't think those athletes bodies are comparable to a waif-type supermodel at all. At least not the one all the way to the right.... Maybe they need a better word than just "athletic", but "slim" doesn't cover it either. Edited June 24, 2012 by xxoo Link to post Share on other sites
Els Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 I still see a difference. I don't think those athletes bodies are comparable to a waif-type supermodel at all. At least not the one all the way to the right.... Maybe they need a better word than just "athletic", but "slim" doesn't cover it either. Hrm, I really don't see the difference between the women on the right and, say, Keira Knightley. I'm sure there IS a difference, health-wise and capability-wise, it just isn't evident to the eye IMO. Where would you say the difference lies? Link to post Share on other sites
Radu Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 (edited) Eh, frankly, I take it with a huge grain of salt whenever most men say they like 'athletic' women. In many cases, they're not really thinking of 'very athletic women', but 'slim women'. Which is okay in itself, but I wish they would use the proper term instead of the PC one. It's more honest. Just as how if a woman likes 'tall and buff' men, I wish she would say she likes 'tall and buff' men, period. Not strong or protective or manly men, but 'tall and buff men'. Plenty of strong men are short and don't necessarily have bulging muscles, etc. Link a woman with an athletic body and maybe the guys will tell you if they find her hot. That Keira chick is ok, but that's not an athletic body. Edited June 24, 2012 by Radu Link to post Share on other sites
Els Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Link a woman with an athletic body and maybe the guys will tell you if they find her hot. That Keira chick is ok, but that's not an athletic body. Well, I am indeed basing my opinion on what the guys themselves linked me when I asked, way back when. My opinion of what athletic-looking would be like, would be the two women on the left in 123123's link, as I said. Link to post Share on other sites
ThaWholigan Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 This is a (rather pervy) video of Jessica Ennis. Her six pack really is better than most dudes ...... Jessica Ennis sexy butt - YouTube -------------------------------------------------------------- This is Jade Johnson, the olympian long jumper I met... Jade Johnson 2003 Paris long jump - YouTube http://1.2.3.12/bmi/newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41073000/jpg/_41073676_johnson.jpg http://1.2.3.10/bmi/news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41202000/jpg/_41202597_johnson_getty245.jpg http://1.2.3.11/bmi/www.handbag.com/cm/handbaguk/images/Ji/or_cb141fb112512882921513.jpg Link to post Share on other sites
xxoo Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Hrm, I really don't see the difference between the women on the right and, say, Keira Knightley. I'm sure there IS a difference, health-wise and capability-wise, it just isn't evident to the eye IMO. Where would you say the difference lies? What I see in the athletes are well defined leg muscles, and a stronger, more solid looking midsection. It would also be a tactile difference, in addition to visual. A partner would feel a difference, and some who look for "athletic" probably appreciate that feel of hard beneath the soft. Link to post Share on other sites
Els Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 What I see in the athletes are well defined leg muscles, and a stronger, more solid looking midsection. It would also be a tactile difference, in addition to visual. A partner would feel a difference. Hrm, the tactile bit is a good point. I just can't see the visual difference however much I try, though. In fact, IMO Keira 'looks' more 'athletic' than the second-from-right gymnast. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts