[ SECRET POST #3721 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3721 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 28 secrets from Secret Submission Post #531.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: A possibly odd question:

[skeletal_history]

Although I am a literal sack of potatoes right now, there was a time when I regularly lifted heavy weights at the gym for about 18 months (after an earlier of lifetime of unathletic potato-dom).

I found pictures (testimonials, etc.) of masculine bodies more motivating than female bodies, too, and I think for me it was because (although I am a cis woman) there seemed to be something more...obtainable?... in looking at male fitness goals, because it takes less relative effort for, say, a male body to get a visible six-pack than a female body. This is hard to articulate, but I think it was because I can never look like a muscular man, but I could look like a muscular woman if I [insert imagined lifestyle of tortures here], but [insert learned helplessness, low self-esteem, fear of success here].

Pictures of fit (or "fit") women have a lot of gendered baggage layered on top of them, whereas pictures of fit men are (generalizing here) usually just like, "Look at my muscles! Look how strong I am! Fuck yeah!" Women in these pictures have to be sexy first, then thin, then pretty and artfully styled but looking glowy and effortless, then muscular but not too muscular, then still "feminine" and graceful. I don't find that motivating, to put it mildly.

Re: A possibly odd question:

[(Anonymous)]

have you ever seen the women's activewear magazine Title Nine? They have fit af models of all ages and they're photographed looking cool and doing rugged stuff, not sexy and artful. It's pretty awesome and I think it's because they're a women-owned and run company.

same anon

[(Anonymous)]

It's a CATALOG not a magazine argh argh. Why did I say magazine.

Re: A possibly odd question:

[skeletal_history]

No, I haven't, but that sounds great!

Re: A possibly odd question:

[randomdrops]

I hadn't heard of the Title Nine catalogue, so thank you! Seems like a pretty great company, and I'm always happy to add to my "places to buy sports/activewear" lists.

Re: A possibly odd question:

[(Anonymous)]

Women in these pictures have to be sexy first, then thin, then pretty and artfully styled but looking glowy and effortless, then muscular but not too muscular, then still "feminine" and graceful.

Not OP, but I definitely agree with this.

It's not that I don't want to be sexy and thin and pretty and stylish and glowy and also fit. But I think those images are usually more discouraging than motivating because, as you basically said, they're just not really attainable. Like, okay, to be frank I got lucky looks-wise and ended up fairly pretty and naturally thin. But that still doesn't make most women's fitspo attainable. Women's fitspo is basically just the internet saying to you, "Don't you wish you looked like a Victoria's Secret model?"