[cpbell0033944]

She’s looking very good!

[Solarian, aka LordDaroth]

Thin and skeletonlike is not ripped.

Please stop posting shit like this, worst is: ‘Keira Knightley ripped’

[cpbell0033944]

Solarian, aka LordDaroth wrote:

Thin and skeletonlike is not ripped.

Please stop posting shit like this, worst is: ‘Keira Knightley ripped’

Sorry, I disagree. She’s lean, yes, and not heavily-muscled, but she’s not skeletal.

[Tonus]

I don’t know that I’d describer her as “ripped” but she definitely doesn’t appear emaciated. I’d describe her as “athletic.” I’d also describe her as “pretty fucking amazing.” She looks great!

[TC2]

Let’s clear some definitions up, because it pisses me off when people get it wrong and I go in expecting more than what I got.

This would be defined as RIPPED:

http://heidivuorela.blogg.se/

This would be defined as BUFF:

http://amg-lite.com/?view=http://www.amgprofiles.com/DianaT/Pics/Diana1104.jpg

This would be defined as MUSCULAR:

http://amg-lite.com/?view=http://www.amgprofiles.com/Lindsay/Pics/Lindsay1201.jpg

This would be defined as HUGE (for mainstream standards anyway):

http://www.female-bodybuilders.org/sissel-lyngvaer/

Hillary Swank would currently be defined as FIT:

So the proper definition is FIT.

[FlakBait]

since we’re defining things….
[/URL]

[luvmuslgirls]

the_collector_2 wrote:

Let’s clear some definitions up, because it pisses me off when people get it wrong and I go in expecting more than what I got.

This would be defined as RIPPED:

http://heidivuorela.blogg.se/

This would be defined as BUFF:

http://amg-lite.com/?view=http://www.amgprofiles.com/DianaT/Pics/Diana1104.jpg

This would be defined as MUSCULAR:

http://amg-lite.com/?view=http://www.amgprofiles.com/Lindsay/Pics/Lindsay1201.jpg

This would be defined as HUGE (for mainstream standards anyway):

http://www.female-bodybuilders.org/sissel-lyngvaer/

Hillary Swank would currently be defined as FIT:

So the proper definition is FIT.

Collector? I agree with you and Solarian. Although I think you stretched your point a little thin and simplistic. For example, the RIPPED and MUSCULAR pics are just that. it could be said they are both in ripped and muscular shape. Meaning low and very low bodyfat. Extreme muscle definition. The HUGE model fits this category also.
Actually, I would have selected a woman such as Julie Bourassa as an example of huge. http://amg-lite.com/?view=http://www.amgprofiles.com/JulieB/Pics/Julie0005.jpg

All in all, Hillary Swank isn’t more than a LITTLE muscle and mostly Hollywood skin and bones. Look at those knobby knees and elbows. In the movie, Million Dollar Baby, she was looking good, but not really ripped.

[TC2]

luvmusgirls,

They were for general terms. Most of the time people around here exaggerate the definitions to the extreme. For instance, Keria Knightly would not be considered BUFF or Ripped, yet some posters would define her as that.

The terms I listed were just to give a better general idea. At least if someone says “Muscular woman on beach” I can expect to see someone with noticeable muscles. Or if I read about a “buff woman” I can expect her to look like she has at least some biceps.

If you want to spend time googling better definitions, be my guest.

[luvmuslgirls]

Yeah, sorry about my over analyzing. I just am that way. But I agree with on what’s been said about when someone posts “muscular women” and it turns out not to be the case. After you been on this site awhile, you get to know the members responsible for misrepresenting , or at least, exaggerating their posts.

[GWHH]

[Author]

Posts