right here, son. 
"When we claim that Dorian looks harder, we are using the word metaphorically and not literally."
no shit you are speaking metaphorically instead of literally. The only purpose for your comment was to insinuate that I actually think you meant Dorian was hard as granite to the touch.
No, of course not. You were accusing me of trying to describe a tactile property visually, and what I meant by claiming that I am using the word metaphorically is that you are making the assumption that it is even possible to describe a tactile perception visually - otherwise you wouldn't even have brought this point up, which you did. Since this is impossible, then obviously the word is used metaphorically, which is exactly my point.
you're missing the point. Dorian's muscles look no more like granite than they do like play dough. To borrow your argument, play dough is soft and smooth and Dorian's muscles look like play dough.
No, Dorian's muscles look like granite, which is the reason I claim they look hard since granite is also hard. Obviously, his muscles don't look hard or soft, but the word was never meant to be taken literally.
shape and aesthetics can be determined using objective criteria. The universal consensus in the bodybuilding community is that guys like Steve Reeves, Bob Paris, Lee Labrada, and Flex Wheeler are aesthetic. When we analyze their physiques, we find the aforementioned possess relatively wide shoulders, a narrow waist, small joints, round muscle bellies, and a harmonious flow between individual muscle groups. Thus we can establish a criteria for assessing shape and aesthetics.
No, we can't quantify aesthetics and it is not objective. Dorian won the Olympia six times without having most of the aforementined characteristics. Nasser was blocky and won the Arnold and placed second at the Olympia. For you to say that shape is objective, you'd first have to decide what it is, and then you'd have to prove that bodybuilder A has more of it than bodybuilder B. For instance, how do you decide that a muscle of a bodybuilder has superior shape than the equivalent muscle of another bodybuilder? Define "superior shape"? What looks better for you may not look better for me, and vice-versa. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. For instance, one could argue that the roundness of a muscle is what dictates it's aesthetics, but then this is just an opinion and there are many instances where squareness in a muscle is more aesthetis than roundness. For instance, Steve Reeve's pecs are considered by many the most aesthetic ever, and it is exactly their square shape that made them look so good.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
