[24 / 5 / ?]
Quoted By: >>34732405 >>34732447 >>34732468 >>34732470 >>34732499 >>34732517 >>34732543 >>34732561 >>34732580 >>34732635 >>34732648 >>34732957
Let me make a case for why ottermode is considered ideal by the majority of society, especially qts, and why it has nothing to do with insecurities.
When you look at "high performance" male bodies, they are 90% of the time unaesthetic by our standards from lack of visible muscle tone either due to high bodyfat, not being on androgenic steroids which reduce water retention or they simply aren't interested in hypertrophy oriented training and their primary training doesn't facilitate too many visible gains either.
Basically we have this highly functional, war ready, by all means (except aesthetics wise) MANLY male body that is often not all that aesthetic according to these modern gym standards.
That's what made me think, who are we fooling (as hobbyist bodybuilders etc) on a primal level that we are even more fit, more masculine, potent and so on? What look do we embody as gymyrats when top athletes have nowhere near our muscle mass and shred? A "natty limit" 5 year lifter is comparatively speaking a demigod, unreal almost. Not to mention juicers. Shouldn't anyone who lifts be considered as such by society? I'm sure if you would ask some tribal qts, you are. Our modern society on the other hand "knows" that it's all just fluff, you just go into a gym and leave as Arnold. It's not a look that screams masculinity at all anymore. It used to be that way in the 70s because it was new and hyped, people actually believed you were that masculine demigod.
This is why ottermode is considered perfect by the majority of qts. It's not because they don't think they can do better, it's because otter is actually that realistic perfect warrior look. Low bodyfat therefore highly andro, potent whatever, muscle mass in the athletic range. It's a mirage just as much as bodybuilding is of course because you don't actually have to be this soldier/athlete at all, but you look like the perfect version of it.
When you look at "high performance" male bodies, they are 90% of the time unaesthetic by our standards from lack of visible muscle tone either due to high bodyfat, not being on androgenic steroids which reduce water retention or they simply aren't interested in hypertrophy oriented training and their primary training doesn't facilitate too many visible gains either.
Basically we have this highly functional, war ready, by all means (except aesthetics wise) MANLY male body that is often not all that aesthetic according to these modern gym standards.
That's what made me think, who are we fooling (as hobbyist bodybuilders etc) on a primal level that we are even more fit, more masculine, potent and so on? What look do we embody as gymyrats when top athletes have nowhere near our muscle mass and shred? A "natty limit" 5 year lifter is comparatively speaking a demigod, unreal almost. Not to mention juicers. Shouldn't anyone who lifts be considered as such by society? I'm sure if you would ask some tribal qts, you are. Our modern society on the other hand "knows" that it's all just fluff, you just go into a gym and leave as Arnold. It's not a look that screams masculinity at all anymore. It used to be that way in the 70s because it was new and hyped, people actually believed you were that masculine demigod.
This is why ottermode is considered perfect by the majority of qts. It's not because they don't think they can do better, it's because otter is actually that realistic perfect warrior look. Low bodyfat therefore highly andro, potent whatever, muscle mass in the athletic range. It's a mirage just as much as bodybuilding is of course because you don't actually have to be this soldier/athlete at all, but you look like the perfect version of it.
