Re: Supersize She

In article <WillBrink*NOSPAM*-74574C.09260127062005
@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

As pro female bbers go, she was not that bad looking. Did you see some
of the gals pumping up back stage at the show with her? They were worse.
I agree, it was not how she looks per se, but her mannerisms that made
her so masculine (lets not even talk about the voice!) and the androgens
account for much of that.

Yeah, her voice was a man's voice all the way. Really disturbing. And
she was watching old footage of herself and made the comment "What a
cute little face I had"? Yeah, before it turned into a MAN'S face.
Men's hormones are men's hormones for a reason ladies. I'm not going to
take female hormones so I can grow breasts -- you shouldn't take male
hormones so you can grow muscles.

John Black

In article <[email hidden]>,

John Black said:

In article <WillBrink*NOSPAM*-74574C.09260127062005
@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

As pro female bbers go, she was not that bad looking. Did you see some
of the gals pumping up back stage at the show with her? They were worse.
I agree, it was not how she looks per se, but her mannerisms that made
her so masculine (lets not even talk about the voice!) and the androgens
account for much of that.

Yeah, her voice was a man's voice all the way. Really disturbing. And
she was watching old footage of herself and made the comment "What a
cute little face I had"? Yeah, before it turned into a MAN'S face.
Men's hormones are men's hormones for a reason ladies. I'm not going to
take female hormones so I can grow breasts -- you shouldn't take male
hormones so you can grow muscles.

I don't pass judgement on that. It's their business and life. I (we)
might not find it attractive, but pro body building it not about who you
or I want to f*&^ but about muscle, low fat, etc., and I try to keep
that in mind.

Quoted message said:

John Black

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

In article <[email hidden]>,

John Black said:

In article <WillBrink*NOSPAM*-74574C.09260127062005
@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

As pro female bbers go, she was not that bad looking. Did you see some
of the gals pumping up back stage at the show with her? They were worse.
I agree, it was not how she looks per se, but her mannerisms that made
her so masculine (lets not even talk about the voice!) and the androgens
account for much of that.

Yeah, her voice was a man's voice all the way. Really disturbing. And
she was watching old footage of herself and made the comment "What a
cute little face I had"? Yeah, before it turned into a MAN'S face.
Men's hormones are men's hormones for a reason ladies. I'm not going to
take female hormones so I can grow breasts -- you shouldn't take male
hormones so you can grow muscles.

I don't pass judgement on that. It's their business and life. I (we)
might not find it attractive, but pro body building it not about who you
or I want to f*&^ but about muscle, low fat, etc., and I try to keep
that in mind.

Quoted message said:

John Black

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

WillBrink said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

John Black said:

Yeah, her voice was a man's voice all the way. Really disturbing. And
she was watching old footage of herself and made the comment "What a
cute little face I had"? Yeah, before it turned into a MAN'S face.
Men's hormones are men's hormones for a reason ladies. I'm not going to
take female hormones so I can grow breasts -- you shouldn't take male
hormones so you can grow muscles.

I don't pass judgement on that. It's their business and life. I (we)
might not find it attractive, but pro body building it not about who you
or I want to f*&^ but about muscle, low fat, etc., and I try to keep
that in mind.

I guess that's why they also have the figure and fitness competitions as
an alternative.

Anyone remember when female bodybuilders wanted to look like Rachel
McLish?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Joe Humble said:

WillBrink said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Joe Humble said:

Playing on TLC again at 2am tonight (check your local listings).

It is a "documentary" on a woman's quest to win the Ms. Olympia.
Mercifully there were no strong denials of steroid use which made the
whole show pretty interesting. Many times throughout I was thinking
"this must be a man who had sex reassignment" but they show video of
her when she was younger. It is not only in her face but all her
mannerisms strike me as masculine.

As pro female bbers go, she was not that bad looking. Did you see some
of the gals pumping up back stage at the show with her? They were worse.
I agree, it was not how she looks per se, but her mannerisms that made
her so masculine (lets not even talk about the voice!) and the androgens
account for much of that. There are some female pros I find quite
feminine, and it is how they carry themselves. I thought her "friend"
with the black hair was better at least. I dated a pro for a time and
she was plenty feminine (to me at least) with a fairly normal voice and
feminine mannerisms. The problem was she was nuts, another fairly common
trait of high level female bbers....

Quoted message said:

I think the comments about her legs being out of proportion to her
upper body are dead on. She does not have the sugar daddy support
required to be an Olympia freak, yet.

Yes, but her site (she claimed) had 400 members X $25 per month with
aint bad either.

True. I wonder if it matches what the top Olympia females get from
various sources.

Depends.

Quoted message said:

A quick calculation in my head says 120K a year
probably is enough, just barely, for the pharmacy, food, and expert
advice needed.

Depends 2

Quoted message said:

I think that last one is probably pretty important. In those last few
hours you really need someone very good to get those last few ounces
of moisture out of you.

Last few weeks is where most of the manipulation takes place.

Quoted message said:

--
Is this thing on?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Preacher) said:

WillBrink said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

John Black said:

Yeah, her voice was a man's voice all the way. Really disturbing. And
she was watching old footage of herself and made the comment "What a
cute little face I had"? Yeah, before it turned into a MAN'S face.
Men's hormones are men's hormones for a reason ladies. I'm not going to
take female hormones so I can grow breasts -- you shouldn't take male
hormones so you can grow muscles.

I don't pass judgement on that. It's their business and life. I (we)
might not find it attractive, but pro body building it not about who you
or I want to f*&^ but about muscle, low fat, etc., and I try to keep
that in mind.

I guess that's why they also have the figure and fitness competitions as
an alternative.

And most people in America consider them too muscular, so it's all
relative.

Quoted message said:

Anyone remember when female bodybuilders wanted to look like Rachel
McLish?

Mclish would not even win a fitness show now due to too little muscle.
The pro fitness gals are much bigger then you might think.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

WillBrink said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Preacher) said:

WillBrink said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
John Black <[email hidden]> wrote:

> Yeah, her voice was a man's voice all the way. Really disturbing. And
> she was watching old footage of herself and made the comment "What a
> cute little face I had"? Yeah, before it turned into a MAN'S face.
> Men's hormones are men's hormones for a reason ladies. I'm not going to
> take female hormones so I can grow breasts -- you shouldn't take male
> hormones so you can grow muscles.

I don't pass judgement on that. It's their business and life. I (we)
might not find it attractive, but pro body building it not about who you
or I want to f*&^ but about muscle, low fat, etc., and I try to keep
that in mind.

I guess that's why they also have the figure and fitness competitions as
an alternative.

And most people in America consider them too muscular, so it's all
relative.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. But I don't think it's
ALL relative. Those fitness and figure competitors look "the way God
intended" a woman to look - i.e., they're developing their natural
potential. When a woman starts pumping male hormones into her body, she
starts turning herself into a man.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anyone remember when female bodybuilders wanted to look like Rachel
McLish?

Mclish would not even win a fitness show now due to too little muscle.
The pro fitness gals are much bigger then you might think.

I believe it. I was just marveling at how much the sport has changed
over the years.

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Preacher) said:

Quoted message said:

And most people in America consider them too muscular, so it's all
relative.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. But I don't think it's
ALL relative.

I don't agree.

Quoted message said:

Those fitness and figure competitors look "the way God
intended" a woman to look -

You *think* that, though most average Americans in fact don't, thus it's
relative.

Quoted message said:

i.e., they're developing their natural
potential.

There is nothing "natural" about high level fitness/figure babes. Have
never seen one up close at a show?

Quoted message said:

When a woman starts pumping male hormones into her body,

Women and men have both all the time, just in different ratios and
amounts. More important, it's been shown men and women need both to
function: men need some estrogens and women need some androgens. In
truth, there are no male or female hormones per se.

Quoted message said:

she
starts turning herself into a man.

You are comong full circle back to something that has been covered and
has no connection to the actual issues at hand. The issue is irrelevant
from the standpoint of what you or I find attractive or ³masculine.² I
am not personally attracted to most high levels female bbers, but do
find some of them attractive and have dated a few as mentioned and I
would step over the naked body of many of the women the average Joe
finds attractive on TV to get to some of the fitness/figure models out
there as well as a few female bbers. It¹s all relativeŠ

For example, take a look at the free pics at this site. I find some of
the female bbers very attractive, and some not at all:

http://www.shemuscle.com/bodybuilding/index.shtml

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

WillBrink said:

(Preacher) said:

Those fitness and figure competitors look "the way God
intended" a woman to look -

You *think* that, though most average Americans in fact don't, thus it's
relative.

Actually, "the way God intended" women to look involves saggy [censored] and
a uterine bulge. Beyond that, it's a matter of aesthetics, and thus, a
matter of taste.

In article <[email hidden]>,

JMW said:

WillBrink said:

(Preacher) said:

Those fitness and figure competitors look "the way God
intended" a woman to look -

You *think* that, though most average Americans in fact don't, thus it's
relative.

Actually, "the way God intended" women to look involves saggy [censored] and
a uterine bulge. Beyond that, it's a matter of aesthetics, and thus, a
matter of taste.

You mean like this:

http://users.easystreet.com/chad/Venus.html

That form was worshiped for centuries... ;-)
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack Nicholson

WillBrink said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Preacher) said:

Quoted message said:

And most people in America consider them too muscular, so it's all
relative.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. But I don't think it's
ALL relative.

I don't agree.

Quoted message said:

Those fitness and figure competitors look "the way God
intended" a woman to look -

You *think* that, though most average Americans in fact don't, thus it's
relative.

Whether most average Americans agree with me is not a measure of whether
or not something is relative. However...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

i.e., they're developing their natural
potential.

There is nothing "natural" about high level fitness/figure babes. Have
never seen one up close at a show?

Quoted message said:

When a woman starts pumping male hormones into her body,

Women and men have both all the time, just in different ratios and
amounts. More important, it's been shown men and women need both to
function: men need some estrogens and women need some androgens. In
truth, there are no male or female hormones per se.

....you've got me on both of these points. No, I haven't ever seen a
fitness or figure babe upclose at a show - or really anywhere else. Too
close a look, and my wife would probably see to it that I didn't see
ANYTHING upclose!

And you are correct about the hormones. I might argue that those ratios
were intended to be within certain limits, but you rightly point out
that those exist mainly as averages, not absolutes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

she starts turning herself into a man.

You are comong full circle back to something that has been covered and
has no connection to the actual issues at hand. The issue is irrelevant
from the standpoint of what you or I find attractive or "masculine." I
am not personally attracted to most high levels female bbers, but do
find some of them attractive and have dated a few as mentioned and I
would step over the naked body of many of the women the average Joe
finds attractive on TV to get to some of the fitness/figure models out
there as well as a few female bbers. It's all relative...

For example, take a look at the free pics at this site. I find some of
the female bbers very attractive, and some not at all:

http://www.shemuscle.com/bodybuilding/index.shtml

My issue was not what I consider attractive, but whether the
masculinizing effects of male hormones are unnatural. By definition, I
think that's true. The same could be said of the steroid monsters on the
male side of body building.

FWIW, I do find some female bodybuilders attractive, but not
surprisingly, they end up being on the more feminine end of the scale.
Like any of them really care anyway.

WillBrink said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Preacher) said:

Quoted message said:

And most people in America consider them too muscular, so it's all
relative.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. But I don't think it's
ALL relative.

I don't agree.

Quoted message said:

Those fitness and figure competitors look "the way God
intended" a woman to look -

You *think* that, though most average Americans in fact don't, thus it's
relative.

Whether most average Americans agree with me is not a measure of whether
or not something is relative. However...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

i.e., they're developing their natural
potential.

There is nothing "natural" about high level fitness/figure babes. Have
never seen one up close at a show?

Quoted message said:

When a woman starts pumping male hormones into her body,

Women and men have both all the time, just in different ratios and
amounts. More important, it's been shown men and women need both to
function: men need some estrogens and women need some androgens. In
truth, there are no male or female hormones per se.

....you've got me on both of these points. No, I haven't ever seen a
fitness or figure babe upclose at a show - or really anywhere else. Too
close a look, and my wife would probably see to it that I didn't see
ANYTHING upclose!

And you are correct about the hormones. I might argue that those ratios
were intended to be within certain limits, but you rightly point out
that those exist mainly as averages, not absolutes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

she starts turning herself into a man.

You are comong full circle back to something that has been covered and
has no connection to the actual issues at hand. The issue is irrelevant
from the standpoint of what you or I find attractive or "masculine." I
am not personally attracted to most high levels female bbers, but do
find some of them attractive and have dated a few as mentioned and I
would step over the naked body of many of the women the average Joe
finds attractive on TV to get to some of the fitness/figure models out
there as well as a few female bbers. It's all relative...

For example, take a look at the free pics at this site. I find some of
the female bbers very attractive, and some not at all:

http://www.shemuscle.com/bodybuilding/index.shtml

My issue was not what I consider attractive, but whether the
masculinizing effects of male hormones are unnatural. By definition, I
think that's true. The same could be said of the steroid monsters on the
male side of body building.

FWIW, I do find some female bodybuilders attractive, but not
surprisingly, they end up being on the more feminine end of the scale.
Like any of them really care anyway.

In article <[email hidden]>,

JMW said:

WillBrink said:

(Preacher) said:

Those fitness and figure competitors look "the way God
intended" a woman to look -

You *think* that, though most average Americans in fact don't, thus it's
relative.

Actually, "the way God intended"

Really how nature intended, but that's another fight for another day...

Quoted message said:

women to look involves saggy [censored] and
a uterine bulge. Beyond that, it's a matter of aesthetics, and thus, a
matter of taste.

And taste is relative.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Preacher) said:

WillBrink said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Preacher) said:

> And most people in America consider them too muscular, so it's all
> relative.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. But I don't think it's
ALL relative.

I don't agree.

Quoted message said:

Those fitness and figure competitors look "the way God
intended" a woman to look -

You *think* that, though most average Americans in fact don't, thus it's
relative.

Whether most average Americans agree with me is not a measure of whether
or not something is relative. However...

Not sure I follow you there.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

i.e., they're developing their natural
potential.

There is nothing "natural" about high level fitness/figure babes. Have
never seen one up close at a show?

Quoted message said:

When a woman starts pumping male hormones into her body,

Women and men have both all the time, just in different ratios and
amounts. More important, it's been shown men and women need both to
function: men need some estrogens and women need some androgens. In
truth, there are no male or female hormones per se.

...you've got me on both of these points. No, I haven't ever seen a
fitness or figure babe upclose at a show - or really anywhere else.

They are far harder then they should be and carry more muscle than
early 80s female bbers. Do the math :-)

Quoted message said:

Too
close a look, and my wife would probably see to it that I didn't see
ANYTHING upclose!

Ouch.

Quoted message said:

And you are correct about the hormones. I might argue that those ratios
were intended to be within certain limits,

Intended by whom?

Quoted message said:

but you rightly point out
that those exist mainly as averages, not absolutes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

she starts turning herself into a man.

You are comong full circle back to something that has been covered and
has no connection to the actual issues at hand. The issue is irrelevant
from the standpoint of what you or I find attractive or "masculine." I
am not personally attracted to most high levels female bbers, but do
find some of them attractive and have dated a few as mentioned and I
would step over the naked body of many of the women the average Joe
finds attractive on TV to get to some of the fitness/figure models out
there as well as a few female bbers. It's all relative...

For example, take a look at the free pics at this site. I find some of
the female bbers very attractive, and some not at all:

http://www.shemuscle.com/bodybuilding/index.shtml

My issue was not what I consider attractive, but whether the
masculinizing effects of male hormones are unnatural.

It's a term without meaning. We do many "unnatural" things every single
day, and Uranium is "natural" but you don't want to eat the stuff. It is
not the normal state for most women to carry large amounts of muscle and
low BF, but that's the requirement for the sport they are in (such as it
is...) and appears to be what they want, which may come with some long
term negative effects and some easy to see short term side effects.

Quoted message said:

By definition, I
think that's true. The same could be said of the steroid monsters on the
male side of body building.

Exactly.

Quoted message said:

FWIW, I do find some female bodybuilders attractive, but not
surprisingly, they end up being on the more feminine end of the scale.

Same goes for me.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

(Preacher) said:

WillBrink said:

[email hidden] (Preacher) wrote:
> > And most people in America consider them too muscular, so it's all
> > relative.
> Different strokes for different folks, I guess. But I don't think
> it's
> ALL relative.
I don't agree.
> Those fitness and figure competitors look "the way God
> intended" a woman to look -
You *think* that, though most average Americans in fact don't, thus
it's
relative.

Whether most average Americans agree with me is not a measure of whether
or not something is relative. However...

Not sure I follow you there.

Indeed. Seems sort of oxymoronic. If average Americans don't necessarily
agree, then isn't it relative by definition?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> i.e., they're developing their natural
> potential.
There is nothing "natural" about high level fitness/figure babes. Have
never seen one up close at a show?
> When a woman starts pumping male hormones into her body,
Women and men have both all the time, just in different ratios and
amounts. More important, it's been shown men and women need both to
function: men need some estrogens and women need some androgens. In
truth, there are no male or female hormones per se.

...you've got me on both of these points. No, I haven't ever seen a
fitness or figure babe upclose at a show - or really anywhere else.

Quoted message said:

They are far harder then they should be

"Should be"? Relative, isn't it?

Quoted message said:

and carry more muscle than
early 80s female bbers. Do the math :-)

Quoted message said:

Too
close a look, and my wife would probably see to it that I didn't see
ANYTHING upclose!

Ouch.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And you are correct about the hormones. I might argue that those ratios
were intended to be within certain limits,

Intended by whom?

God. Evolution. Pick one. (Yes, I know your pick.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

but you rightly point out
that those exist mainly as averages, not absolutes.

Quoted message said:

> she starts turning herself into a man.
You are comong full circle back to something that has been covered and
has no connection to the actual issues at hand. The issue is irrelevant
from the standpoint of what you or I find attractive or "masculine."

Very true. It is a competition with rules and standards. The rules and
standards produce very different looking winners in the Ms Olympia, Ms
Fitness USA, Miss America, Miss Nude Teenage International, and Ms Stripper
of the Year.

None of which is related to the evolutionarily developed male human
aesthetics. Within a given society, what men consider attractive in women is
the result of millions of years of natural selection. While there are always
outliers, studies always seem to find some generally accepted parameters of
attractiveness.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am not personally attracted to most high levels female bbers, but do
find some of them attractive and have dated a few as mentioned and I
would step over the naked body of many of the women the average Joe
finds attractive on TV to get to some of the fitness/figure models out
there as well as a few female bbers. It's all relative...

You really should not be having sex with relatives.

David

David Cohen said:

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

(Preacher) said:

WillBrink <[email hidden]> wrote:
> [email hidden] (Preacher) wrote:
> > > And most people in America consider them too muscular, so it's all
> > > relative.
> > Different strokes for different folks, I guess. But I don't think
> > it's
> > ALL relative.
> I don't agree.
> > Those fitness and figure competitors look "the way God
> > intended" a woman to look -
> You *think* that, though most average Americans in fact don't, thus
> it's
> relative.
Whether most average Americans agree with me is not a measure of whether
or not something is relative. However...

Not sure I follow you there.

Indeed. Seems sort of oxymoronic. If average Americans don't necessarily
agree, then isn't it relative by definition?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > i.e., they're developing their natural
> > potential.
> There is nothing "natural" about high level fitness/figure babes. Have
> never seen one up close at a show?
> > When a woman starts pumping male hormones into her body,
> Women and men have both all the time, just in different ratios and
> amounts. More important, it's been shown men and women need both to
> function: men need some estrogens and women need some androgens. In
> truth, there are no male or female hormones per se.
...you've got me on both of these points. No, I haven't ever seen a
fitness or figure babe upclose at a show - or really anywhere else.

Quoted message said:

They are far harder then they should be

"Should be"? Relative, isn't it?

Quoted message said:

and carry more muscle than
early 80s female bbers. Do the math :-)

Quoted message said:

Too
close a look, and my wife would probably see to it that I didn't see
ANYTHING upclose!

Ouch.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And you are correct about the hormones. I might argue that those ratios
were intended to be within certain limits,

Intended by whom?

God. Evolution. Pick one. (Yes, I know your pick.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

but you rightly point out
that those exist mainly as averages, not absolutes.
> > she starts turning herself into a man.
> You are comong full circle back to something that has been covered and
> has no connection to the actual issues at hand. The issue is irrelevant
> from the standpoint of what you or I find attractive or "masculine."

Very true. It is a competition with rules and standards. The rules and
standards produce very different looking winners in the Ms Olympia, Ms
Fitness USA, Miss America, Miss Nude Teenage International, and Ms Stripper
of the Year.

None of which is related to the evolutionarily developed male human
aesthetics. Within a given society, what men consider attractive in women is
the result of millions of years of natural selection. While there are always
outliers, studies always seem to find some generally accepted parameters of
attractiveness.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I am not personally attracted to most high levels female bbers, but do
> find some of them attractive and have dated a few as mentioned and I
> would step over the naked body of many of the women the average Joe
> finds attractive on TV to get to some of the fitness/figure models out
> there as well as a few female bbers. It's all relative...

You really should not be having sex with relatives.

You are going to fry his 'brain' with that kind of response Cohen!!
;o)

In article <[email hidden]>,

David Cohen said:

"WillBrink" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

(Preacher) said:

WillBrink <[email hidden]> wrote:
> [email hidden] (Preacher) wrote:
> > > And most people in America consider them too muscular, so it's all
> > > relative.
> > Different strokes for different folks, I guess. But I don't think
> > it's
> > ALL relative.
> I don't agree.
> > Those fitness and figure competitors look "the way God
> > intended" a woman to look -
> You *think* that, though most average Americans in fact don't, thus
> it's
> relative.
Whether most average Americans agree with me is not a measure of whether
or not something is relative. However...

Not sure I follow you there.

Indeed. Seems sort of oxymoronic. If average Americans don't necessarily
agree, then isn't it relative by definition?

Suppose so.

Quoted message said:

"Should be"? Relative, isn't it?

Damn literal Hebrew descended SOBŠ.

Quoted message said:

Miss Nude Teenage International, and Ms Stripper
of the Year.

URL!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I am not personally attracted to most high levels female bbers, but do
> find some of them attractive and have dated a few as mentioned and I
> would step over the naked body of many of the women the average Joe
> finds attractive on TV to get to some of the fitness/figure models out
> there as well as a few female bbers. It's all relative...

You really should not be having sex with relatives.

What is it they say in Alabama, ³Incest is best²?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

WillBrink said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

JMW said:

WillBrink said:

[email hidden] (Preacher) wrote:
>
> Those fitness and figure competitors look "the way God
> intended" a woman to look -

You *think* that, though most average Americans in fact don't, thus it's
relative.

Actually, "the way God intended"

Really how nature intended, but that's another fight for another day...

A fight I didn't mean to start, which is why I put the phrase in quotes
(in an attempt to reference a common saying vs. making a theological
claim).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

women to look involves saggy [censored] and
a uterine bulge. Beyond that, it's a matter of aesthetics, and thus, a
matter of taste.

And taste is relative.

Hey, if some guy (or an entire culture or generation) idealizes saggy
[censored] and a uterine bulge, more power to him.

In article <WillBrink*NOSPAM*-FB27E6.17580727062005
@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

John Black said:

In article <WillBrink*NOSPAM*-74574C.09260127062005
@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

As pro female bbers go, she was not that bad looking. Did you see some
of the gals pumping up back stage at the show with her? They were worse.
I agree, it was not how she looks per se, but her mannerisms that made
her so masculine (lets not even talk about the voice!) and the androgens
account for much of that.

Yeah, her voice was a man's voice all the way. Really disturbing. And
she was watching old footage of herself and made the comment "What a
cute little face I had"? Yeah, before it turned into a MAN'S face.
Men's hormones are men's hormones for a reason ladies. I'm not going to
take female hormones so I can grow breasts -- you shouldn't take male
hormones so you can grow muscles.

I don't pass judgement on that. It's their business and life. I (we)
might not find it attractive, but pro body building it not about who you
or I want to f*&^ but about muscle, low fat, etc., and I try to keep
that in mind.

Good point. However... I'm all for women and men getting as fit and
developing as much muscle as they can. But with women, I draw the line
when they sound like Barry White and have a five o'clock shadow. :-)

John Black