Poll
Question:
Of the top five things you look for in a partner - 1 most important, 5 least important of the top 5 - where is the person's weight on the scale?
Option 1: 1
Option 2: 2
Option 3: 3
Option 4: 4
Option 5: 5
Option 6: Not something I pay much attention to
I'm curious what the answers will be in an anonymous (or mostly) poll.
For me, I only notice if my partner is extremely thin or fat. (By this I mean ribs-thin or rolls-fat.) Otherwise, I don't really pay attention. I do prefer my men with a bit of meat on them, but I wouldn't kick a 20 BMI out of my bed. :perv:
No wood with big girls.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2012, 07:09:10 PM
No wood with big girls.
Define "big", please. Carrying a little extra, carrying another person extra, carrying several extra people, etc.
EDIT: As an example, I offer these two women sizes. I will point out that women sizes can go as big as 32+, so the big girl in this pic is half the size of the largest women out there.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvbuffington.edublogs.org%2Ffiles%2F2011%2F03%2Fpolls_fat_vs_thin_704233_5419_31664_poll_xlarge-1lrvrxl.jpeg&hash=9fce22ff00656db1b3d1cb0337bdbc92f9dfcc06)
I shant answer. I'm not sticking my dick into this hornets nest.
There is a point on either side of the scale where it becomes a turn-off. Until you get to that point, though, it doesn't matter much.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 25, 2012, 07:28:05 PM
I shant answer. I'm not sticking my dick into this hornets nest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHyadlNZnDY&feature=related
Quote from: DGuller on May 25, 2012, 07:28:44 PM
There is a point on either side of the scale where it becomes a turn-off. Until you get to that point, though, it doesn't matter much.
That's kind of where I am on this, too.
Quote from: merithyn on May 25, 2012, 07:25:07 PM
Define "big", please. Carrying a little extra, carrying another person extra, carrying several extra people, etc.
Stomach flab of almost any size is tough to take on a chick.
If your size generator has a size 10, let's take a look at that.
L to R
Acceptable
Acceptable
Borderline fatty, probably not. looks like she could blowout into a biggin'
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftchadquarterly.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2Ffat-skinny.jpg&hash=045d105d852ec8ecbc6fac00ffb7d2cb745c147e)
I'm not sure how to answer. What if size is one (of many) factors, but because you like your women with a little extra something?
:unsure:
Quote from: Barrister on May 25, 2012, 07:38:53 PM
I'm not sure how to answer. What if size is one (of many) factors, but because you like your women with a little extra something?
:unsure:
I find "extra something" on women (?) to be an extreme turn-off. :x
I'm out on Before's Large Marge.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 25, 2012, 07:37:28 PM
L to R
Acceptable
Acceptable
Borderline fatty, probably not. looks like she could blowout into a biggin'
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftchadquarterly.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2Ffat-skinny.jpg&hash=045d105d852ec8ecbc6fac00ffb7d2cb745c147e)
Left: Pound her into next week
Middle: Pound her into next year
Right: Hell, bend her over the Liberator and make her squeal
Quote from: Barrister on May 25, 2012, 07:38:53 PM
I'm not sure how to answer. What if size is one (of many) factors, but because you like your women with a little extra something?
:unsure:
Your preference in either direction is unimportant. I was just curious where weight fell in the top 5, if at all.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2012, 07:35:09 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 25, 2012, 07:25:07 PM
Define "big", please. Carrying a little extra, carrying another person extra, carrying several extra people, etc.
Stomach flab of almost any size is tough to take on a chick.
If your size generator has a size 10, let's take a look at that.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mybodygallery.com%2Fthumb.php%3Fheight%3D400%26amp%3Bimage%3D%2Fimg%2F22427%2F3.jpg&hash=5483ef3271b2f5a2e751a05d709de1a024859738)
Oh no. No good.
Quote from: Barrister on May 25, 2012, 07:55:22 PM
Surely you jest.
No, I don't think that would work for me.
Those walls are bland.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 25, 2012, 07:37:28 PM
L to R
Acceptable
Acceptable
Borderline fatty, probably not. looks like she could blowout into a biggin'
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftchadquarterly.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2Ffat-skinny.jpg&hash=045d105d852ec8ecbc6fac00ffb7d2cb745c147e)
1) Needs to spend more time out of concentration camp.
2) Acceptable.
3) Acceptable. You're not in the fat category until cottage cheese makes its appearance.
Quote from: merithyn on May 25, 2012, 07:47:06 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mybodygallery.com%2Fthumb.php%3Fheight%3D400%26amp%3Bimage%3D%2Fimg%2F22427%2F3.jpg&hash=5483ef3271b2f5a2e751a05d709de1a024859738)
Nothing wrong for the age range.
Quote from: DGuller on May 25, 2012, 07:59:32 PM
You're not in the fat category until cottage cheese makes its appearance.
I've known thin girls with cottage cheese thighs. It's not a fat/thin thing. It's a fit/not-fit thing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2012, 07:57:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 25, 2012, 07:55:22 PM
Surely you jest.
No, I don't think that would work for me.
you'd probably go for a younger ten. They holder it better. I'm not sure what the term is, but they look different.
Quote from: merithyn on May 25, 2012, 08:01:42 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 25, 2012, 07:59:32 PM
You're not in the fat category until cottage cheese makes its appearance.
I've known thin girls with cottage cheese thighs. It's not a fat/thin thing. It's a fit/not-fit thing.
My brain/penis doesn't care. For me, it's not about how much insulation you have, but how tidily it covers the structure. I haven't seen a woman with impeccable fit and finish that I considered to be fat.
Weight is a tertiary consideration compared to fidelity, values and temperament. For the subdued, patient and loyal, much can be forgiven.
However, it should be mentioned that I live in Memphis, which permanently skews anyone's views of obesity. What Yi objected to I wouldn't even have begun to imagine as fat. I think it's below the average for the Martin campus.
Here's a website that allows you to put in height/weight/size to find pictures of real women that fit the criteria: http://www.mybodygallery.com/index.html (http://www.mybodygallery.com/index.html)
Might help when looking for sizes/shapes/etc.
And just to point out, I'm talking about long-term, committed relationships here, not "what do I find attractive?" Who I find attractive walking down the street might be entirely different from who I might want to get to know as a person.
That's silly. Weight doesn't factor at all in who you want to be buddies with.
Weight factors in a lot more on initial attraction than long term attraction.
Weight as a number doesn't really matter that much, what matters is body shape. My aesthetics were determined growing up in Europe, so what may be considered "average" in present day America I'd consider unacceptably fat in terms of attraction. Someone who's somewhat outside my ideal range in body shape can still be attractive on other factors: personality, face structure, style and so on; but the further away they are from the range, the bigger the minus to overcome. This is supremely important at the beginning of the relationship, and while it becomes less important as time goes on it still matters.
So weight definitely factors in. How much depends on the the amount of weight and the strength of other factors.
I don't like the poll question, it requires too much thought, most of which is not about the issue at hand. You have to brainstorm everything important about relationships and then classify and rank them? Pass.
Some level of physical attraction is a requirement, and weight is certainly part of that. But I'm pretty flexible on that, I'd say 90-180 lbs is the acceptable range, depending partly on height and physique of course.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 25, 2012, 07:37:28 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftchadquarterly.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2Ffat-skinny.jpg&hash=045d105d852ec8ecbc6fac00ffb7d2cb745c147e)
L- A bit more muscular than I'd prefer, but still hit it in a heartbeat.
M- Goddess
R- Sure, I'm desperate enough.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 25, 2012, 07:37:28 PM
L to R
Acceptable
Acceptable
Borderline fatty, probably not. looks like she could blowout into a biggin'
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftchadquarterly.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2Ffat-skinny.jpg&hash=045d105d852ec8ecbc6fac00ffb7d2cb745c147e)
Because sharing your aesthetic judgement is fun. L to R:
Left: Used to be my ideal, but now I find her a little on the bony side. Perfectly fine.
Middle: Perfectly fine.
Right: Growing up I'd have considered her fat and completely beyond acceptable. Now I think she's chubby but cute enough. Should my wife end up that shape over the years, that's perfectly fine; but had she looked like that when we started dating I might not have tried to get with her at all.
And I don't buy into the whole "He should love me for no matter what I look like" bullshit I see with some married couples I know, either.
You were 110lbs when we dated, lady. That ring on your finger wasn't a zeppelin license.
Quote from: Jacob on May 25, 2012, 09:48:07 PM
Because sharing your aesthetic judgement is fun. L to R:
I'd fuck all three, but I'd forget to call #1 the day after, and #3 and I would probably join a gym, to keep our relationship all frisky and shit.
I'm a legs-and-ass man, and #1 looks like she walked out of Auschwitz over the weekend, and you know she'd look like shit in nylons. Not shapely at all.
Don't get #3 preggers, or you'll see all your household appliances pulled into its orbit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2012, 09:48:48 PM
And I don't buy into the whole "He should love me for no matter what I look like" bullshit I see with some married couples I know, either.
You were 110lbs when we dated, lady. That ring on your finger wasn't a zeppelin license.
:yes:
Is Meri looking for a new husband?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 25, 2012, 09:44:41 PM
I don't like the poll question, it requires too much thought, most of which is not about the issue at hand. You have to brainstorm everything important about relationships and then classify and rank them? Pass.
Beyond that, the actual weight has to be considered in relation to height. A weight that would be attractive on a chick who's 5'10" might well be too heavy for a chick who tops out at 5'.
Quote from: merithyn on May 25, 2012, 07:25:07 PM
EDIT: As an example, I offer these two women sizes. I will point out that women sizes can go as big as 32+, so the big girl in this pic is half the size of the largest women out there.
Truth. The girlfriend's roommate from a few years ago was a size 24. :bleeding:
Me, I'm not paying too much attention to it. The girlfriend's a size 12, but she's got the height and the build to carry it well (she's kinda on the Amazonian side). I've been with both heavier and skinnier girls. Boniness was an issue with the skinniest, though.
Quote from: dps on May 25, 2012, 10:07:10 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 25, 2012, 09:44:41 PM
I don't like the poll question, it requires too much thought, most of which is not about the issue at hand. You have to brainstorm everything important about relationships and then classify and rank them? Pass.
Beyond that, the actual weight has to be considered in relation to height. A weight that would be attractive on a chick who's 5'10" might well be too heavy for a chick who tops out at 5'.
Ya think
That's called height/weight porportionate. Thanks for pointing out the obvious.
My ex averaged between 180-190 lbs, but she was 6' 4"
Current is 5' 10" @ 160
Quote from: Berkut on May 25, 2012, 09:22:09 PM
Weight factors in a lot more on initial attraction than long term attraction.
Depend on the individual...yes. Some people like fattys
Is that faceless pic you Merithyn?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 25, 2012, 10:10:35 PM
The girlfriend's a size 12, but she's got the height and the build to carry it well (she's kinda on the Amazonian side).
Is she bigger than you?
DSB is just a little guy. He is like 5'2
Height is more important to me personally. I'm forgiving of a bit of weight, as I'm not innocent of such things myself. That being said, too much one way or the other is just unappealing to me. Super skinny (a la girl on the left in the picture) is as bad as overly heavy to me. I'm always afraid I'd snap them.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 25, 2012, 09:44:41 PM
I don't like the poll question, it requires too much thought, most of which is not about the issue at hand. You have to brainstorm everything important about relationships and then classify and rank them? Pass.
True. easy poll
Do you like your women..
Hindenburg Size
Super Sized
Chunky
Lean
Dachau Lean
Quote from: Jaron on May 25, 2012, 10:29:49 PM
DSB is just a little guy. He is like 5'2
DSB is a little guy, while Ms. DSB has issues with being tall. It's kinda like Jack Sprat with the X and Y coordinates reversed. :nerd:
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on May 25, 2012, 11:06:55 PM
Super skinny (a la girl on the left in the picture) is as bad as overly heavy to me. I'm always afraid I'd snap them.
You'd be surprised; skinny chicks can fuck like race horses.
I subscribe to the theory that there are two types of fuckchicks: you've got your Tailbacks, and you've got your Fullbacks.
Tailbacks are built for speed and endurance, flexible and can fuck for hours; give them room to run, and they will rip off the yardage for you all night.
Fullbacks can tote the rock to a certain extent, but more importantly, their value is in taking the punishment you dish out--more so than the Tailbacks, who might otherwise tap out.
In short, going back to the 3 chicks pic, #1 is your classic Tailback, #3 is your Fullback bondage fuckslut. #2 is a tweener, but don't expect her to last all night, and she probably couldn't handle the forced ass play and dental gag.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to whack off.
I'm not into fat chicks so as long as they're not fat I'm OK. They can be thin as long as they're not morbidly so.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 25, 2012, 07:58:50 PM
Those walls are bland.
I dunno why, buddy, but this made me laugh. :lmfao: Thanks.
PS WHAT HAVE I WROUGHT
Very important. Fatties don't pass the boner test for me.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 25, 2012, 11:36:29 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 25, 2012, 07:58:50 PM
Those walls are bland.
I dunno why, buddy, but this made me laugh. :lmfao: Thanks.
PS WHAT HAVE I WROUGHT
Well, he's right. I mean, who paints the molding the same color? Where's the trim to accentuate?
Quote from: merithyn on May 25, 2012, 07:25:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2012, 07:09:10 PM
No wood with big girls.
Define "big", please. Carrying a little extra, carrying another person extra, carrying several extra people, etc.
EDIT: As an example, I offer these two women sizes. I will point out that women sizes can go as big as 32+, so the big girl in this pic is half the size of the largest women out there.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvbuffington.edublogs.org%2Ffiles%2F2011%2F03%2Fpolls_fat_vs_thin_704233_5419_31664_poll_xlarge-1lrvrxl.jpeg&hash=9fce22ff00656db1b3d1cb0337bdbc92f9dfcc06)
Anyway, to answer the question, I'd totally fuck either, but would always feel as if I deserved the one on the right.
Also, for Infantry's pic, I actually thought all of them were pretty hot, although of course far left had the best body. Duh. The "Fullback," as Money put it (I got all the BDSM stuff, and he's right to some degree about that, but I don't understand the football reference) is hotter or notter depending on how she carried the extra weight. It's funny how it's not so much fat chicks' rotundity that's a turnoff but rather how the weight is just distributed in gross old sacks of flesh, like combat webbing under the skin. Even so, smaller is still going to better in terms of the feminine aesthetic. And even from a logistical standpoint, forgetting arousal for the time being, it's easier to have sex with a girl who is easily manipulable and has a small ass.
Ideally, every woman on Earth would weigh from between 95 (at 4'9"-5'1") to 130 (at 5'10"+) pounds. Call it mean or unfair or whatever, but if I ever made the jump, I could be at 130 in six months and I eat like Chunk from the Goonies. Shit, I could probably do that with full testosterone. You think I ask anything of anyone I could not do myself? It cannot be that hard for someone without muscle mass to speak of, who is 5'5", to stay around 120-130, and that's with generous indulgence. J'ACCUSE.
But contrary to expectations I voted 2.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2012, 11:42:32 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 25, 2012, 11:36:29 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 25, 2012, 07:58:50 PM
Those walls are bland.
I dunno why, buddy, but this made me laugh. :lmfao: Thanks.
PS WHAT HAVE I WROUGHT
Well, he's right. I mean, who paints the molding the same color? Where's the trim to accentuate?
See, you follow a (disturbing :P )hetero post with this. You just ain't right son :D
Just to follow up, though, because of the differential in market power between thin chicks and fat chicks, your own situation, as opposed to just your fetishes, has to enter the equation.
And because you can't not be classy when you paraphrase Milton, you have to ask yourself if it's better to serve in Heaven, than it is to reign in Hell. The latter is certainly easier--but is it enough?
Say what?
Quote from: HVC on May 26, 2012, 12:16:12 AM
Say what?
Heavier girls are more desperate, generally speaking, and thus are often willing to settle for less/be more accepting/just generally be nicer and more pleasant.
Did you just compare being with a fat girl to hell?
Quote from: Ideologue on May 26, 2012, 12:26:18 AM
Quote from: HVC on May 26, 2012, 12:16:12 AM
Say what?
Heavier girls are more desperate, generally speaking, and thus are often willing to settle for less/be more accepting/just generally be nicer and more pleasant.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Quote from: Jaron on May 26, 2012, 12:30:09 AM
Did you just compare being with a fat girl to hell?
It's a metaphor, BRAH.
Quote from: Barrister on May 26, 2012, 12:34:36 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 26, 2012, 12:26:18 AM
Quote from: HVC on May 26, 2012, 12:16:12 AM
Say what?
Heavier girls are more desperate, generally speaking, and thus are often willing to settle for less/be more accepting/just generally be nicer and more pleasant.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Did you just call your wife both fat and a bitch? :o
This thread is pretty entertaining :)
Thanks Meri :cheers:
Quote from: Barrister on May 26, 2012, 12:34:36 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 26, 2012, 12:26:18 AM
Quote from: HVC on May 26, 2012, 12:16:12 AM
Say what?
Heavier girls are more desperate, generally speaking, and thus are often willing to settle for less/be more accepting/just generally be nicer and more pleasant.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
It's never stopped me before.
Very very important with me.
I go for very ugly long before I go for fat.
By fat I mean fat fat of course.
No problem at all with a girl who is a bit out of shape- perhaps even preferable to a very skinny girl.
Yet fat girls always seem to go for me. :sleep:
Takes all types though. A few weeks ago me and my Japanese friend were drinking with some Japanese girls. One of them we'd never met before and she was super hot. Somehow he was just her type, she was coming onto him like crazy, loving him...but no. He only has eyes for some grossly obese American girl- not even a pretty fat girl, a blob. Chubby chasers are weird.
Quote from: merithyn on May 25, 2012, 07:25:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2012, 07:09:10 PM
No wood with big girls.
Define "big", please. Carrying a little extra, carrying another person extra, carrying several extra people, etc.
EDIT: As an example, I offer these two women sizes. I will point out that women sizes can go as big as 32+, so the big girl in this pic is half the size of the largest women out there.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvbuffington.edublogs.org%2Ffiles%2F2011%2F03%2Fpolls_fat_vs_thin_704233_5419_31664_poll_xlarge-1lrvrxl.jpeg&hash=9fce22ff00656db1b3d1cb0337bdbc92f9dfcc06)
The guy equivalent of the 16 here would be a definite no-no for me. I don't mind if a guy has a bit of a pot belly but is otherwise slim or fit, but I couldn't be with a chub.
On second thought, perhaps I'm more tolerant than I thought. For example I found this picture of men with different levels of body mass and every one would be acceptable:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.health-today.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F08%2Fsx9a.jpg&hash=effdcb86ec288e10f6a38f06cb45338d4d5999f2)
:lol:
I should've thought of that.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2012, 11:24:24 PM
You'd be surprised; skinny chicks can fuck like race horses.
I subscribe to the theory that there are two types of fuckchicks: you've got your Tailbacks, and you've got your Fullbacks.
Tailbacks are built for speed and endurance, flexible and can fuck for hours; give them room to run, and they will rip off the yardage for you all night.
Fullbacks can tote the rock to a certain extent, but more importantly, their value is in taking the punishment you dish out--more so than the Tailbacks, who might otherwise tap out.
In short, going back to the 3 chicks pic, #1 is your classic Tailback, #3 is your Fullback bondage fuckslut. #2 is a tweener, but don't expect her to last all night, and she probably couldn't handle the forced ass play and dental gag.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to whack off.
Hmmm... I've always been a powerback fan over the dainty speedsters. I also think I'd probably aim for the girl on the right out of the 3. Kind of reminds me of a fit but wide hipped girl I've always had a thing for. Total yoga nut too, so you know she'd be up for some madness and be able to pull it off as well. :shifty:
Quote from: merithyn on May 25, 2012, 08:15:58 PM
And just to point out, I'm talking about long-term, committed relationships here, not "what do I find attractive?" Who I find attractive walking down the street might be entirely different from who I might want to get to know as a person.
Doesn't matter - for me, it's very important that I am sexually attracted to the person I am in a relationship with.
Anyway, nice ego boost for Max, that post. :lol:
Skinny chicks are freakier in bed.
Not so good for relationships though. So to answer the question, weight matters, yes.
Anyway, that size 4 is turning me on.
Why do people get fat, anyway? I've never really understood it and wish someone would explain. Seriously, it's an honest question.
("Post-pregnancy" doesn't count. That's an understandable reason, but it's also a subset.)
Quote from: Martinus on May 26, 2012, 01:50:20 AM
On second thought, perhaps I'm more tolerant than I thought. For example I found this picture of men with different levels of body mass and every one would be acceptable:
But... but what about their feet?!
Quote from: Ideologue on May 26, 2012, 01:51:26 AM
:lol:
I should've thought of that.
That being said, I'd go for the guys in the middle, with a slight preference for the one on the right (fourth from the left). I also like if they are slightly hairy (what we call otters), possibly because I'm hairless. :P
Quote from: Zoupa on May 26, 2012, 01:55:50 AM
Skinny chicks are freakier in bed.
Not so good for relationships though. So to answer the question, weight matters, yes.
Tell Beeb for me that I ain't making shit up s'il vous plait.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 26, 2012, 01:56:05 AM
Anyway, that size 4 is turning me on.
Why do people get fat, anyway? I've never really understood it and wish someone would explain. Seriously, it's an honest question.
("Post-pregnancy" doesn't count. That's an understandable reason, but it's also a subset.)
It'll be hilarious if your metabolism starts slacking off with age and you continue the diet and exercise efforts you currently use. I'm pretty sure you'll find out rather quickly how people get fat. :lol:
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on May 26, 2012, 01:56:14 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 26, 2012, 01:50:20 AM
On second thought, perhaps I'm more tolerant than I thought. For example I found this picture of men with different levels of body mass and every one would be acceptable:
But... but what about their feet?!
I'm like these people who insist on buying an expensive box of assorted chocolates, and then just eat the nougat ones - I may end up being interested in the guy's feet mostly, but he must be attractive as a package too. :P
Quote from: Ideologue on May 26, 2012, 01:56:05 AM
Anyway, that size 4 is turning me on.
Why do people get fat, anyway? I've never really understood it and wish someone would explain. Seriously, it's an honest question.
("Post-pregnancy" doesn't count. That's an understandable reason, but it's also a subset.)
How old are you?
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on May 26, 2012, 01:58:18 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 26, 2012, 01:56:05 AM
Anyway, that size 4 is turning me on.
Why do people get fat, anyway? I've never really understood it and wish someone would explain. Seriously, it's an honest question.
("Post-pregnancy" doesn't count. That's an understandable reason, but it's also a subset.)
It'll be hilarious if your metabolism starts slacking off with age and you continue the diet and exercise regime you currently use. I'm pretty sure you'll find out rather quickly how people get fat. :lol:
I exercise more or less daily. I mean, I don't look quite like Martinus' House of Ugly Jeans and Homoeroticism there, and probably never will, but in a few more weeks I'll be well approaching cut. I already think I need to invest in some tighter T-shirts.
Quote from: The Brain on May 26, 2012, 12:43:15 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 26, 2012, 12:34:36 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 26, 2012, 12:26:18 AM
Quote from: HVC on May 26, 2012, 12:16:12 AM
Say what?
Heavier girls are more desperate, generally speaking, and thus are often willing to settle for less/be more accepting/just generally be nicer and more pleasant.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Did you just call your wife both fat and a bitch? :o
:D :D :D
Quote from: Martinus on May 26, 2012, 01:59:02 AM
How old are you?
:lol: Not old enough to realize he's on the entrance ramp to the Diabetic Superhighway, the way he eats shit.
Quote from: Martinus on May 26, 2012, 01:59:02 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 26, 2012, 01:56:05 AM
Anyway, that size 4 is turning me on.
Why do people get fat, anyway? I've never really understood it and wish someone would explain. Seriously, it's an honest question.
("Post-pregnancy" doesn't count. That's an understandable reason, but it's also a subset.)
How old are you?
29. I'll be 30 in
never September.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2012, 02:02:52 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 26, 2012, 01:59:02 AM
How old are you?
:lol: Not old enough to realize he's on the entrance ramp to the Diabetic Superhighway, the way he eats shit.
I've been laying off the candy a little bit. I mean, I ate some cookies today. And some little powdered sugar donuts. But no bags of Snickers at a time in several weeks.
I suspect the rest of you will find out how bad meat is for you before I face the Beta Cell Reaper.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 26, 2012, 02:03:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 26, 2012, 01:59:02 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 26, 2012, 01:56:05 AM
Anyway, that size 4 is turning me on.
Why do people get fat, anyway? I've never really understood it and wish someone would explain. Seriously, it's an honest question.
("Post-pregnancy" doesn't count. That's an understandable reason, but it's also a subset.)
How old are you?
29. I'll be 30 in never September.
Fair enough - so you are past the first metabolism trap of 25. I guess you just eat and exercise right. My problem is that I don't have time for the exercise (at least I managed to get into eating more or less right) - I was a bit freer in March/April so I had like 8 lessons with a personal trainer and abs started to show up but then I got over swamped with work and haven't had time to go more. So I mostly bike and try to do abs at home these days, only. :(
Quote from: Martinus on May 26, 2012, 01:58:37 AM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on May 26, 2012, 01:56:14 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 26, 2012, 01:50:20 AM
On second thought, perhaps I'm more tolerant than I thought. For example I found this picture of men with different levels of body mass and every one would be acceptable:
But... but what about their feet?!
I'm like these people who insist on buying an expensive box of assorted chocolates, and then just eat the nougat ones - I may end up being interested in the guy's feet mostly, but he must be attractive as a package too. :P
Those things suck. Who the fuck thinks it's a good idea to put grape juice inside chocolate? It's abominable.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 26, 2012, 02:04:38 AM
I suspect the rest of you will find out how bad meat is for you before I face the Beta Cell Reaper.
Nah, already did that. Rarely eat red meat anymore.
Don't worry, you'll figure it all out when you turn 40, and everything starts falling out of warranty.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2012, 11:24:24 PM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on May 25, 2012, 11:06:55 PM
Super skinny (a la girl on the left in the picture) is as bad as overly heavy to me. I'm always afraid I'd snap them.
You'd be surprised; skinny chicks can fuck like race horses.
I subscribe to the theory that there are two types of fuckchicks: you've got your Tailbacks, and you've got your Fullbacks.
Tailbacks are built for speed and endurance, flexible and can fuck for hours; give them room to run, and they will rip off the yardage for you all night.
Fullbacks can tote the rock to a certain extent, but more importantly, their value is in taking the punishment you dish out--more so than the Tailbacks, who might otherwise tap out.
In short, going back to the 3 chicks pic, #1 is your classic Tailback, #3 is your Fullback bondage fuckslut. #2 is a tweener, but don't expect her to last all night, and she probably couldn't handle the forced ass play and dental gag.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to whack off.
I just found this post. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on May 26, 2012, 02:07:22 AM
I just found this post. :lol: :lol: :lol:
I suppose my theory can be non-gender specific. YMMV.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2012, 02:06:48 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 26, 2012, 02:04:38 AM
I suspect the rest of you will find out how bad meat is for you before I face the Beta Cell Reaper.
Nah, already did that. Rarely eat red meat anymore.
Don't worry, you'll figure it all out when you turn 40, and everything starts falling out of warranty.
Fuck, I wish my body made it to 40 before the wheels started coming off. Having parts of your body shattered in accidents, wear and tear, and genetics fucked me a long time ago.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on May 26, 2012, 02:09:31 AM
Fuck, I wish my body made it to 40 before the wheels started coming off. Having parts of your body shattered in accidents, wear and tear, and genetics fucked me a long time ago.
Well, you're an isolated case, BA. But at least you've compensated by having higher brain functions than a lot of the other fuckwits around here. :hug:
Quote from: Martinus on May 26, 2012, 02:05:40 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 26, 2012, 02:03:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 26, 2012, 01:59:02 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 26, 2012, 01:56:05 AM
Anyway, that size 4 is turning me on.
Why do people get fat, anyway? I've never really understood it and wish someone would explain. Seriously, it's an honest question.
("Post-pregnancy" doesn't count. That's an understandable reason, but it's also a subset.)
How old are you?
29. I'll be 30 in never September.
Fair enough - so you are past the first metabolism trap of 25. I guess you just eat and exercise right. My problem is that I don't have time for the exercise (at least I managed to get into eating more or less right) - I was a bit freer in March/April so I had like 8 lessons with a personal trainer and abs started to show up but then I got over swamped with work and haven't had time to go more. So I mostly bike and try to do abs at home these days, only. :(
Fwiw, I don't have a lot of time either, these days, so I keep it flexible and just do home exercises, principally/only sit ups, push ups and some free weight stuff. I can do that when I have a minute before bed.
I should run but I don't. Since I smoke, it's awful; but that's the biggest reason I should. I feel like I could probably punch through it after a week or two, like I did when I played soccer, but that was a long, long time ago. And running is a big time sink.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2012, 02:06:48 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 26, 2012, 02:04:38 AM
I suspect the rest of you will find out how bad meat is for you before I face the Beta Cell Reaper.
Nah, already did that. Rarely eat red meat anymore.
Don't worry, you'll figure it all out when you turn 40, and everything starts falling out of warranty.
We'll see.
Besides, I never said I was healthy, I said I looked alright with my shirt off.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 26, 2012, 01:56:05 AM
Why do people get fat, anyway?
Because food tastes good.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 26, 2012, 02:20:06 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 26, 2012, 01:56:05 AM
Why do people get fat, anyway?
Because food tastes good.
Inadequate response.
I suppose I might frame the question in four parts:
1)Do other people not look at themselves in the mirror and see the process as it goes on?
2)If they do recognize that they're gaining weight, why do they not take steps to prevent it.
3)Does the pleasures offered by food outweigh the importance of self-respect and the desire to be more attractive?
4)Does the uncertainty of the sexual enterprise compared to the reliability of our food supply factor into the answers to any of the questions asked above?
I voted 1. It's not the most important, but it is a big part of sexual attraction which I think is kind-of essential,
I also think that weight is a proxy variable for other things. Somebody who is overweight is probably someone who is not looking after themselves. That's a red flag for depression.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2012, 02:06:48 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 26, 2012, 02:04:38 AM
I suspect the rest of you will find out how bad meat is for you before I face the Beta Cell Reaper.
Nah, already did that. Rarely eat red meat anymore.
Don't worry, you'll figure it all out when you turn 40, and everything starts falling out of warranty.
Since 35 Ive slowly change what I eat expecting the big FOUR-Oh metabalism slow down. I retired at 38 and weighed 205. But PT was the counter balance while in the Army.
Since that time, I'm 46 now and weigh 215-220; I still eat red meat probably two-three times a week, but mostly what I eat is fresh shit. The local QFC has an awesome deli. I hardly eat fast food, microwaved carton bullshit, Tater chips (and the like). No soda, no smoke, dont drink anymore. I try to excerse when I'm not plastered with OT (BTW thanks taxpayers for that). The excerse now, of course, is no where near what I was doing in the Army. With the seven year old getting more responsible that opens up a good hour and a half from when I get home to taking her to school. I work Grave Shift. The cardio will pick up. So, I think changing the diet, when I did, "may" have nullified a good portion of the metabo slow down.
BTW best weight loss program ever was Ranger School. Started at 210 and finnished at 173 after 76 days. I was cut like a motherfucker but couldnt lift a fucking pillow. :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2012, 02:46:48 AM
I voted 1. It's not the most important, but it is a big part of sexual attraction which I think is kind-of essential,
Is sexual attraction really so utterly vital? It can't be dispensed with, if she was intensely appealing otherwise?
Or is that a woman's chief value?
How do you reconcile this essential nature with aging and what it does to female attractiveness? Do you count on your desire to fade, or will you always seek younger women?
I don't mean to attack you, I promise. I'm genuinely curious, because I don't understand very well.
Quote from: DGuller on May 26, 2012, 02:57:03 AM
I also think that weight is a proxy variable for other things. Somebody who is overweight is probably someone who is not looking after themselves. That's a red flag for depression.
I dont go that far. I once met a cheerful intelligent chubby guy who had a lot of common interests with me and apparently was really into me. But one look at him naked and though I hated myself for being so shallow I had to break up. I know there are people out there who are wired differently, but for me looks/attraction are very important.
Now, I am not saying they need to be super hot and fit - I once dated a handsome guy who had a bit of love-handles and all, but I found him attractive so that was fine. However if I'm not attracted - and as Sheilbh said, weight plays a big role - I can't do it.
Quote from: Lettow77 on May 26, 2012, 03:37:17 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2012, 02:46:48 AM
I voted 1. It's not the most important, but it is a big part of sexual attraction which I think is kind-of essential,
Is sexual attraction really so utterly vital? It can't be dispensed with, if she was intensely appealing otherwise?
Or is that a woman's chief value?
How do you reconcile this essential nature with aging and what it does to female attractiveness? Do you count on your desire to fade, or will you always seek younger women?
I don't mean to attack you, I promise. I'm genuinely curious, because I don't understand very well.
You know Sheilbh is gay, right?
:rolleyes: Yeah right. And owns a castle.
I just realized one reason why it is easier to be straight - if you are a guy, you can (at least in theory) be a fat slob and still insist on dating a hot slim chick because you have such different expectations of a relationship than a woman has.
With two guys, you need to be at least in the attractiveness range of a type of guy you are into, as you both are looking for, roughly, the same thing.
Or you need to have loads of cash. :shifty:
QuoteYou know Sheilbh is gay, right?
This place has always been thick with The Gays. I don't keep a running track- unless you stand out by being a pedophile, polish or black, it's hard to be be bothered to remember who's part of languish's gay cabal.
I don't really guess that invalidates my questions, though. sexual desire is sexual desire, isn't it? Substitute "she" for "he." I suppose the notion that sexuality is a woman's only redeeming feature is cast away, as it would be hard for a man who lusts after other men to feel men's only worth was the opportunities they provided for sexual gratification. (I think?)
(Does this mean that women may have no value whatsoever to Shielbh? I've heard the sentiment from some homosexuals before.)
I was really seeking to understand how sexuality can be such a consuming aspect of a relationship's importance- the genders don't come into it, I guess, especially not if the party I am addressing is a man and thus I have some baseline by which I can presume to relate. Feel free to answer this yourself if you would.
Lettow, to answer your question, I think with men, it is possible to keep physical attraction going on despite age - of course there are gay guys who are into young guys only but in general a man who is, say, 55, can keep fit and be attractive much easier than a woman of 55 since we perceive different aspects of male and female beauty. There are many male movie stars and celebrities who are for example athletic and look good despite their age - but for women, even the slim ones, we look at stuff like aging of their skin (compare muscular Brad Pitt with freaky Madonna).
Quote from: Lettow77 on May 26, 2012, 03:37:17 AM
Is sexual attraction really so utterly vital? It can't be dispensed with, if she was intensely appealing otherwise?
Or is that a woman's chief value?
First of all what the Brain said.
Secondly, yeah, I think it is that vital. I think you need sexual attraction to someone to make it worth having a go - in all sorts of ways. Obviously what we find sexually attractive varies but for me weight is a part of it. I think as long as what I'm looking for is a sexual relationship then that's always going to be my view. Like Marty I've been with a guy who was more overweight than I normally go for, but he was really charismatic. So I'm not some sort of bastard who gets the callipers out on the first date (that's a third date kind of thing), but sex matters and for me weight matters in that.
QuoteHow do you reconcile this essential nature with aging and what it does to female attractiveness? Do you count on your desire to fade, or will you always seek younger women?
I don't know. I don't find age as unattractive. I hope to be a silver fox and with one :P
Quote from: Martinus on May 26, 2012, 03:51:39 AM
Lettow, to answer your question, I think with men, it is possible to keep physical attraction going on despite age - of course there are gay guys who are into young guys only but in general a man who is, say, 55, can keep fit and be attractive much easier than a woman of 55 since we perceive different aspects of male and female beauty. There are many male movie stars and celebrities who are for example athletic and look good despite their age - but for women, even the slim ones, we look at stuff like aging of their skin (compare muscular Brad Pitt with freaky Madonna).
I disagree. I think this is a social thing that's changing. Just look at Helen Mirren :mmm:
If you think its a social thing, it certainly isn't changing in Japan any time soon.
Would it be impossible for you to enjoy someone else's company so much that sexual contact between the two of you was exclusively for their sake? Suppose you didn't enjoy it, but they did. Would their happiness not suffice, if you cared about them enough?
Sexuality in a relationship is another aspect of closeness, isn't it? If there was someone you felt the overriding desire to be close to, surely even sexual revulsion could be suppressed in the name of furthering your bond with that person.
Couldn't you lie back and think of san francisco?
Quote from: Lettow77 on May 26, 2012, 04:07:15 AMWould it be impossible for you to enjoy someone else's company so much that sexual contact between the two of you was exclusively for their sake? Suppose you didn't enjoy it, but they did. Would their happiness not suffice, if you cared about them enough?
I don't think so I mean this is the sort of thing that leads to divorce. I don't think aspects of a relationship should be exclusively for their sake or for yours. So, in my view and I may be wrong, mutual attraction matters.
QuoteSexuality in a relationship is another aspect of closeness, isn't it? If there was someone you felt the overriding desire to be close to, surely even sexual revulsion could be suppressed in the name of furthering your bond with that person.
No. Sexuality is sex. Just because I sleep with someone doesn't mean I want to know about the time they lost their childhood puppy or whatever - and vice versa. Emotional closeness and being simpatico with one another are essential, without them you've a one night stand. But, in my view, so's sex. Without that you've a friendship.
Also I think the gays may be stricter on weight because there's no upside to bigger guys. Bigger girls often have bigger boobs or better arses. Bigger men often have bigger boobs too...
Friendship doesn't really cover it though, and friendship isn't really enough.
I appreciate your answers, but we don't understand each other.
Quote from: Lettow77 on May 26, 2012, 03:46:54 AM
This place has always been thick with The Gays.
:huh: What does that matter?
Quotelanguish's gay cabal
:huh:
It doesn't matter at all. Did I not make that clear enough? I mean, it's no business to me how gay shielbh is or isn't. I hadn't bothered to take note of it before. I knew that there were plenty on languish, but unless they make it their personality (see: martinus) someone's homosexuality isn't really of enough note for me to keep it as a fixed idea about their character. I'm more likely to remember where they are from, for example.
Isn't indifferent and unconsidering acceptance the sort of equality homosexuals seek?
As for the gay cabal- perhaps you remember the gay mafia? It was a languish thing, long ago. A signature picture and everything.
Quote from: Lettow77 on May 26, 2012, 04:23:26 AM
It doesn't matter at all. Did I not make that clear enough? I mean, it's no business to me how gay shielbh is or isn't. I hadn't bothered to take note of it before. I knew that there were plenty on languish, but unless they make it their personality (see: martinus) someone's homosexuality isn't really of enough note for me to keep it as a fixed idea about their character. I'm more likely to remember where they are from, for example.
Isn't indifferent and unconsidering acceptance the sort of equality homosexuals seek?
As for the gay cabal- perhaps you remember the gay mafia? It was a languish thing, long ago. A signature picture and everything.
Cabal is kind of a gay substitute for Mafia dont you think?
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2012, 04:13:19 AM
Also I think the gays may be stricter on weight because there's no upside to bigger guys.
Bigger guys have bigger muscles, assuming similar levels of activity.
I thought it was gay mafia and lawyer's cabal. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 26, 2012, 04:28:40 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 26, 2012, 04:13:19 AM
Also I think the gays may be stricter on weight because there's no upside to bigger guys.
Bigger guys have bigger muscles, assuming similar levels of activity.
I thought it was gay mafia and lawyer's cabal. :hmm:
That would make more sense.
Well, there are definitely chubby-chasers out there (a friend of a friend is 120 kilos and in his 40s, and there are young twinks apparently lining up to be fucked by him) and bears have their own thing but neither Sheilbh nor myself are into that - I don't know about you heteros but among gays, this is more like a fetish - like being into peed on or fisted or something - there are many people who like it but if you are not into it, you are not into it.
Mafia is such an unpleasant word, though. It calls Sicilians to mind.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2012, 09:48:48 PM
And I don't buy into the whole "He should love me for no matter what I look like" bullshit I see with some married couples I know, either.
You were 110lbs when we dated, lady. That ring on your finger wasn't a zeppelin license.
Yeah but this works for men too - I've seen a lot of guys go all "daddy" few years into marriage, bald patch, pot belly and man boobs and shit.
Quote from: Lettow77 on May 26, 2012, 04:17:04 AM
Friendship doesn't really cover it though, and friendship isn't really enough.
I appreciate your answers, but we don't understand each other.
Don't do friendship down. I'm very Montaignan on friendship, minus the enormous sexism.
I might agree with you on the greatness of friendship, but that's not how society works, exactly. Friends are secondary to long-term sexual partners- the family is the closest unit of society. Once you are married, who is supposed to be closer to you than your wife? And there is little commonality with a single man.
A man is expected to pursue such a relationship, or live alone if he can't. Friends who live together, share the same house and act as a single unite of communal welfare their entire lives- that is so much an oddity as to be almost nonexistent.
Whereas, if this friend was your lover, they are bound to you by a more tangible cord- it is nothing strange for lovers to live together and bind their destinies. Considering that, aren't sexual acts a small price to pay? People have sold their body and gotten much less in return.
Lettow, in a young guy like you, fantasies about a relationship with a girl you are not sexually attracted to but have a deep emotional bond with usually mean one thing. :console:
Quote from: Martinus on May 26, 2012, 04:43:58 AM
Lettow, in a young guy like you, fantasies about a relationship with a girl you are not sexually attracted to but have a deep emotional bond with usually mean one thing. :console:
:o
Lettuce you may be, in fact, Teh Gay
How does that conclusion spring from that statement? I didn't really get it in the first place.
But no, there is no woman I have a deep emotional bond with, and no living person at all I fantasize about. However, even without the sexual aspect, I still view relationships as a positive and desirable thing. I think submitting to sexuality is worth it, but find it strange that people who purport to have active, healthy sex drives don't seem to think so at all- is this because to them sexuality has always been a gratifying and pleasant experience, and they never considered it as something exclusively in the service of someone else? But sexuality has all sorts of non-reciprocal acts, so I can't imagine that's the case.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 26, 2012, 03:02:59 AM
No soda, no smoke, dont drink anymore.
Hell, I dropped 20lbs just doing
that. Sodas are sooo fucking bad for you.
Laying off the fast food is the best bet of all--hell, I decided to treat myself to Five Guys a few weeks ago when I was feeling down--fuck me, I felt like crap for about 18 hours, and I could feel my BP going through the roof. It was like eating a sodium claymore.
Quote from: Martinus on May 26, 2012, 04:43:58 AM
Lettow, in a young guy like you, fantasies about a relationship with a girl you are not sexually attracted to but have a deep emotional bond with usually mean one thing. :console:
He's a Jedi and she's his twin sister? :hmm:
Oh, strike that, there was definitely chemistry there. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2012, 05:09:13 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 26, 2012, 03:02:59 AM
No soda, no smoke, dont drink anymore.
Hell, I dropped 20lbs just doing that. Sodas are sooo fucking bad for you.
Laying off the fast food is the best bet of all--hell, I decided to treat myself to Five Guys a few weeks ago when I was feeling down--fuck me, I felt like crap for about 18 hours, and I could feel my BP going through the roof. It was like eating a sodium claymore.
Funny the effect when you purge your system for awhile, then eat that (crap) again. :yes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATYJx3x0nyo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2diPZOtty0&feature=related
I actually refused to watch that movie. :lol: I just didn't want to know, man.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2012, 06:04:23 AM
I actually refused to watch that movie. :lol: I just didn't want to know, man.
It is funny as hell. Laughed my ass off.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 25, 2012, 11:24:24 PM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on May 25, 2012, 11:06:55 PM
Super skinny (a la girl on the left in the picture) is as bad as overly heavy to me. I'm always afraid I'd snap them.
You'd be surprised; skinny chicks can fuck like race horses.
I subscribe to the theory that there are two types of fuckchicks: you've got your Tailbacks, and you've got your Fullbacks.
Tailbacks are built for speed and endurance, flexible and can fuck for hours; give them room to run, and they will rip off the yardage for you all night.
Fullbacks can tote the rock to a certain extent, but more importantly, their value is in taking the punishment you dish out--more so than the Tailbacks, who might otherwise tap out.
In short, going back to the 3 chicks pic, #1 is your classic Tailback, #3 is your Fullback bondage fuckslut. #2 is a tweener, but don't expect her to last all night, and she probably couldn't handle the forced ass play and dental gag.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to whack off.
This post made me wet.
Quote from: Lettow77 on May 26, 2012, 04:53:40 AM
How does that conclusion spring from that statement? I didn't really get it in the first place.
But no, there is no woman I have a deep emotional bond with, and no living person at all I fantasize about. However, even without the sexual aspect, I still view relationships as a positive and desirable thing. I think submitting to sexuality is worth it, but find it strange that people who purport to have active, healthy sex drives don't seem to think so at all- is this because to them sexuality has always been a gratifying and pleasant experience, and they never considered it as something exclusively in the service of someone else? But sexuality has all sorts of non-reciprocal acts, so I can't imagine that's the case.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWeksXqWfbs
Quote from: 11B4V on May 25, 2012, 07:37:28 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftchadquarterly.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2Ffat-skinny.jpg&hash=045d105d852ec8ecbc6fac00ffb7d2cb745c147e)
:yucky: :worthy: :perv:
Quote from: Ideologue on May 26, 2012, 01:56:05 AM
Why do people get fat, anyway?
You do realize that metabolism is a factor, right? For some of us, we're fighting more than just calorie intake and exercise. I started walking between 5-9 miles every day at 3mph and limiting my calorie intake to 1200/day two months ago. I haven't lost a single pound.
Part of that is because I've given birth to five babies, and each pregnancy drops a woman's metabolism. Another part is because I'm firmly ensconced in menopause, which also drops a woman's metabolism. It's evolutionary: lower metabolism means less requirement for food, which means easier to keep even when we get old. The same happens for men as they get older, but it takes longer to happen.
For me to lose the extra 30-40 pounds that I carry, I'd have to drop my calorie intake to around 800-900 calories/day while maintaining my walking schedule, or up my exercise to adding another hour or more to my cardio. I already walk 1.5 - 2 hours every day. The reason I stick to walking is because I have joint issues and exercise-induced asthma. Once the pools open, I'll start swimming a couple of times a week, too.
It's not so much a choice, Ide, as life and body circumstances.
Quote from: Martinus on May 26, 2012, 03:46:07 AM
I just realized one reason why it is easier to be straight - if you are a guy, you can (at least in theory) be a fat slob and still insist on dating a hot slim chick because you have such different expectations of a relationship than a woman has.
With two guys, you need to be at least in the attractiveness range of a type of guy you are into, as you both are looking for, roughly, the same thing.
Or you need to have loads of cash. :shifty:
Yes. I've wondered about that, actually. All of these men saying that a woman should be fit... how many would pass the Marti/Sheilbh test? :P
Quote from: merithyn on May 26, 2012, 08:43:31 AM
Part of that is because I've given birth to five babies,
Christ, lady.
QuoteIt's not so much a choice, Ide, as life and body circumstances.
Ide's one of those ultra-skinny kids that could eat anything, and still be rail thin. We all knew one kid like that.
I would hope never to pass any test of those two homos.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2012, 08:50:06 AM
Ide's one of those ultra-skinny kids that could eat anything, and still be rail thin. We all knew one kid like that.
That was me till college and football, and then even less so once i stopped playing :lol:
Quote from: merithyn on May 26, 2012, 08:49:00 AM
Yes. I've wondered about that, actually. All of these men saying that a woman should be fit... how many would pass the Marti/Sheilbh test? :P
I always felt it should be an equitable exchange: after all, she's not going to let you spooge on her face if she's not attracted to you naked. If you're a fat slob, she's going to leave you for a coworker.
Of course, since I don't date nor do I want to, so I really haven't given a rat fuck in years.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2012, 08:50:06 AM
Christ, lady.
SeewhatI'msayin',here???? :contract:
QuoteIde's one of those ultra-skinny kids that could eat anything, and still be rail thin. We all knew one kid like that.
I just keep hoping that at 32 or 33 he'll balloon and we'll get to dig this thread up. :P
Quote from: merithyn on May 26, 2012, 08:59:05 AM
I just keep hoping that at 32 or 33 he'll balloon and we'll get to dig this thread up. :P
Nah; those skinny kids stay skinny everywhere else, but just develop a beer gut, looks like they're carrying low and in front at the end of their 2nd trimester.
Quote from: merithyn on May 26, 2012, 08:59:05 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2012, 08:50:06 AM
Christ, lady.
SeewhatI'msayin',here???? :contract:
Yeah, but...goddamn. Did you breastfeed? Inquiring minds want to know.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2012, 09:11:55 AM
Yeah, but...goddamn. Did you breastfeed? Inquiring minds want to know.
Baby A: No
Baby B: No
Baby C: Until he was 4 months
Baby D: Never took a breath, much less a bite
Baby E: Until she was 9 months
The Girls are still fairly firm at 42, which makes me thankful, especially since I'm more-or-less Cal-approved.
I bet they look like pencil erasers, too. :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:
Quote from: merithyn on May 26, 2012, 08:49:00 AM
Yes. I've wondered about that, actually. All of these men saying that a woman should be fit... how many would pass the Marti/Sheilbh test? :P
The funny thing is that I would. Barely. :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2012, 09:28:15 AM
I bet they look like pencil erasers, too. :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:
That's a question for Max. :sleep:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2012, 08:50:06 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 26, 2012, 08:43:31 AM
Part of that is because I've given birth to five babies,
Christ, lady.
QuoteIt's not so much a choice, Ide, as life and body circumstances.
Ide's one of those ultra-skinny kids that could eat anything, and still be rail thin. We all knew one kid like that.
While metabolism/genetics does play a role, I think there is this tendency recently to blame it every time someone is fat, whereas I'd say that in 19 cases out of 20, fat people are fat because they are slobs or have mental issues, like depression. Sure, it's more of a struggle for some people than others, and in some areas/social strata it is difficult to find something that is not full of saturated fats or fructose corn syrup, but 19 people out of 20 who are fat could actually not be fat if they exercised and ate right.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 26, 2012, 09:30:04 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 26, 2012, 08:49:00 AM
Yes. I've wondered about that, actually. All of these men saying that a woman should be fit... how many would pass the Marti/Sheilbh test? :P
The funny thing is that I would. Barely. :P
I'm more on the bear model. :ph34r:
Quote from: Martinus on May 26, 2012, 09:44:56 AM
whereas I'd say that in 19 cases out of 20, fat people are fat because they are slobs or have mental issues, like depression....
but 19 people out of 20 who are fat could actually not be fat if they exercised and ate right.
:lol: You're such a typical fag.
Quote from: merithyn on May 26, 2012, 08:59:05 AMI just keep hoping that at 32 or 33 he'll balloon and we'll get to dig this thread up. :P
Metabolism does change, that's true but I don't get why people in their 30s or 40s expect that they can continue eating like they were in their 20s (and blame metabolism when they get fat) whereas it's pretty clear that as you get older you need to adjust your habits on pretty much everything (e.g. if you kept partying for two days straight, with no sleep, and showed up to work wasted on the next morning, you wouldn't blame your metabolism for not letting you do something you could do when you were 21).
Quote from: merithyn on May 26, 2012, 08:43:31 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 26, 2012, 01:56:05 AM
Why do people get fat, anyway?
You do realize that metabolism is a factor, right? For some of us, we're fighting more than just calorie intake and exercise. I started walking between 5-9 miles every day at 3mph and limiting my calorie intake to 1200/day two months ago. I haven't lost a single pound.
Part of that is because I've given birth to five babies, and each pregnancy drops a woman's metabolism. Another part is because I'm firmly ensconced in menopause, which also drops a woman's metabolism. It's evolutionary: lower metabolism means less requirement for food, which means easier to keep even when we get old. The same happens for men as they get older, but it takes longer to happen.
For me to lose the extra 30-40 pounds that I carry, I'd have to drop my calorie intake to around 800-900 calories/day while maintaining my walking schedule, or up my exercise to adding another hour or more to my cardio. I already walk 1.5 - 2 hours every day. The reason I stick to walking is because I have joint issues and exercise-induced asthma. Once the pools open, I'll start swimming a couple of times a week, too.
It's not so much a choice, Ide, as life and body circumstances.
Sent you a PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 26, 2012, 09:44:56 AM
While metabolism/genetics does play a role, I think there is this tendency recently to blame it every time someone is fat, whereas I'd say that in 19 cases out of 20, fat people are fat because they are slobs or have mental issues, like depression. Sure, it's more of a struggle for some people than others, and in some areas/social strata it is difficult to find something that is not full of saturated fats or fructose corn syrup, but 19 people out of 20 who are fat could actually not be fat if they exercised and ate right.
See, that's where I have the issue. You can't know that. It works for you, but it may not for everyone. Hell, people process food so differently that there's just no way to know what the situation is. When I see a really big person (as in 100+ pounds overweight), then, sure, I'm willing to go with diet and lack of exercise is an issue. However, when I see someone who's a few pounds overweight, I don't make that assumption. Stress, metabolism, hormones, etc., all factor into those extra pounds.
And I consider the size 16 as someone who could lose a few pounds but who isn't a really big person. :P
Quote from: 11B4V on May 26, 2012, 10:39:43 AM
Sent you a PM
Thanks! :w00t:
No link, though. :P
Quote from: merithyn on May 26, 2012, 11:28:59 AM
See, that's where I have the issue. You can't know that. It works for you, but it may not for everyone.
No, but it's the norm. There's a reason why people in America are bigger than in Europe, and it's not genetics.
In your case, the issue might be that you aren't able to exercise much. My experience fasting says that when I only reduce food intake my body will try to adjust by eating muscle rather than just fat. It's pretty much impossible to lose my belly even if I stop eating altogether for a couple weeks. Yet my muscles will be fucked by then.
Quote from: Martinus on May 26, 2012, 04:35:12 AM
Well, there are definitely chubby-chasers out there (a friend of a friend is 120 kilos and in his 40s, and there are young twinks apparently lining up to be fucked by him) and bears have their own thing but neither Sheilbh nor myself are into that - I don't know about you heteros but among gays, this is more like a fetish - like being into peed on or fisted or something - there are many people who like it but if you are not into it, you are not into it.
Did you just equate being attracted to heavier people to being into watersports?
Quote from: Barrister on May 26, 2012, 12:25:28 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 26, 2012, 04:35:12 AM
Well, there are definitely chubby-chasers out there (a friend of a friend is 120 kilos and in his 40s, and there are young twinks apparently lining up to be fucked by him) and bears have their own thing but neither Sheilbh nor myself are into that - I don't know about you heteros but among gays, this is more like a fetish - like being into peed on or fisted or something - there are many people who like it but if you are not into it, you are not into it.
Did you just equate being attracted to heavier people to being into watersports?
Yes. I'm not into either (well, maybe watersports a bit) but I don't judge people who are into it if it's their thing.
Your reactions in this thread - for someone so normally judgmental and square - are amusing, btw.
I'm one of those always-stick-thin kids. I watch my food intake to keep the belly away. Excercise (biking, tennis, random acts of racially motivated violence) keeps it down.
Weight for me is an integral part of attractiveness. I'm not averse to a slightly weightier woman as long as it works with her frame. I'm not into really skinny women.
Quote from: Martinus on May 26, 2012, 09:44:56 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2012, 08:50:06 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 26, 2012, 08:43:31 AM
Part of that is because I've given birth to five babies,
Christ, lady.
QuoteIt's not so much a choice, Ide, as life and body circumstances.
Ide's one of those ultra-skinny kids that could eat anything, and still be rail thin. We all knew one kid like that.
While metabolism/genetics does play a role, I think there is this tendency recently to blame it every time someone is fat, whereas I'd say that in 19 cases out of 20, fat people are fat because they are slobs or have mental issues, like depression. Sure, it's more of a struggle for some people than others, and in some areas/social strata it is difficult to find something that is not full of saturated fats or fructose corn syrup, but 19 people out of 20 who are fat could actually not be fat if they exercised and ate right.
*sigh*
Quote from: merithyn on May 26, 2012, 11:28:59 AMIt works for you, but it may not for everyone.
Actually it's a struggle for me - that's what I mean. I don't have the best metabolism, so I have to watch what I eat a lot and when I let myself go for a week or so, I immediately gain 5-10 pounds. So I refuse to agree that everyone who is fat is struggling as hard (or harder) as I do but their genetics somehow keeps them away from getting slimmer.
Besides as Iormlund points out it can't be that Europeans are so genetically superior to Americans when it comes to keeping from becoming obese.
Quote from: Martinus on May 26, 2012, 12:33:34 PM
Besides as Iormlund points out it can't be that Europeans are so genetically superior to Americans when it comes to keeping from becoming obese.
Not all of Europe is so superiorly svelte: http://cooltickling.com/2011/top-10-worlds-fattest-countries/ (http://cooltickling.com/2011/top-10-worlds-fattest-countries/)
And I don't disagree that it's an effort that many don't or can't put forward. What I was saying is that it's not as easy as Ide tried to make it sound for the majority of people. Doing a few sit-ups and push-ups at home, and then eating a bag of candy bars doesn't usually cut it for the average anyone, no matter what country they're from. :P
Americans have traditionally enjoyed a culture of bounty and we celebrate just about every possible occasion by gorging ourselves to sleep -
We have birthday dinners, Easter dinners, Memorial day potlucks, Fourth of July bbqs, Thanksgiving feasts, Christmas is not truly a holiday - it is a month of snacking and gorging on chocolates wrapped in green, red and blue foil and we top it all off with New Years Eve - a night of heavy drinking, heavy eating, and if we're lucky some light fornication.
And yet, one might very well argue that there is great sense in packing as much life as possible into the 75 years we've been promised by science. Afterall, there is no purpose in leaving the glass half empty.
Quote from: merithyn on May 25, 2012, 07:25:07 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 25, 2012, 07:09:10 PM
No wood with big girls.
Define "big", please. Carrying a little extra, carrying another person extra, carrying several extra people, etc.
EDIT: As an example, I offer these two women sizes. I will point out that women sizes can go as big as 32+, so the big girl in this pic is half the size of the largest women out there.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fvbuffington.edublogs.org%2Ffiles%2F2011%2F03%2Fpolls_fat_vs_thin_704233_5419_31664_poll_xlarge-1lrvrxl.jpeg&hash=9fce22ff00656db1b3d1cb0337bdbc92f9dfcc06)
Size 4 is too skinny, she looks like a 12 year old girl. Size 16 is a little too big for my tastes.
Quote from: merithyn on May 26, 2012, 01:04:32 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 26, 2012, 12:33:34 PM
Besides as Iormlund points out it can't be that Europeans are so genetically superior to Americans when it comes to keeping from becoming obese.
Not all of Europe is so superiorly svelte: http://cooltickling.com/2011/top-10-worlds-fattest-countries/ (http://cooltickling.com/2011/top-10-worlds-fattest-countries/)
And I don't disagree that it's an effort that many don't or can't put forward. What I was saying is that it's not as easy as Ide tried to make it sound for the majority of people. Doing a few sit-ups and push-ups at home, and then eating a bag of candy bars doesn't usually cut it for the average anyone, no matter what country they're from. :P
Well, have you tried it? :P
In seriousness, I didn't say losing a significant amount of weight wasn't hard--I expect it is. What I didn't understand was how people fail to maintain their weight, i.e., "How did they get to be 100 pounds overweight in the first place?"
I also, I might add, specifically named pregnancy as a excuse. :hug:
Quote from: Ideologue on May 26, 2012, 02:05:16 PM
Well, have you tried it? :P
Quote"How did they get to be 100 pounds overweight in the first place?"
They tried your diet plan. :contract:
QuoteI also, I might add, specifically named pregnancy as a excuse. :hug:
:lol:
Not sure that counts anymore since my youngest is 13, but thanks for the pass, anyway. :hug:
No, I'm overweight because I didn't pay attention when I should have, and now it's a lot harder to lose than it would have been when it started. I limit my calories and exercise quite a bit, but apparently not enough since the weight is still very much on me.
I've forever said that I'm a hobbit. Maybe what I should be saying is that I'm a weeble-wobble instead. :D
Europe is second in obesity to America and are catching up rapidly. Of statistical interest is countries like the UK are catching up mighty fast while southern European countries like Italy are still quite thin overall.
Anyway, to answer Ide people get fat because as they notice it happening they just don't care enough to fight it, simple as that. As I've mentioned in the past I've always been an extremely serious weight lifter, and because of this I've always had a huge amount of muscle mass. I'm 5'10" and usually run 215-220, and measured by calipers (if you're a serious weight lifter calipers are required since BMI doesn't account for heavy muscle mass individuals) my BF % is usually around 10%, when I go into a cut I can and have many times gone under 5% (at those levels you'll start to look like the guys in the picture Marti posted--but it's difficult to sustain that level for very long because cutting will destroy muscle mass over time making you smaller.)
With my level of muscle mass my maintenance calories are around 3200 daily, if I eat less than that I start to lose weight. People who are overweight don't need to even try to adopt my diet and lifting plan (in fact they almost certainly would be unable to), but I think that if you're sedentary and have been overweight a long time you need to focus more on building muscle mass for 5-6 months then start worrying about losing fat. Muscle demands energy, fat storage is "cheap" energy wise. The old calorie burn formulas typically include a multiplier for lean mass, because those guidelines only really apply to your lean body weight. Fat passively burns almost no calories, muscle burns calories just by being there, and if you keep lifting weights and eating protein while cutting you can actually get into a state where your muscle is breaking down the fat stored in your adipose tissue to satisfy its energy needs without cannibalizing too much muscle. (You always lose some muscle on a cut, but done properly you can get 80-90% of weight loss from fat loss.)
Quote from: Barrister on May 26, 2012, 12:25:28 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 26, 2012, 04:35:12 AM
Well, there are definitely chubby-chasers out there (a friend of a friend is 120 kilos and in his 40s, and there are young twinks apparently lining up to be fucked by him) and bears have their own thing but neither Sheilbh nor myself are into that - I don't know about you heteros but among gays, this is more like a fetish - like being into peed on or fisted or something - there are many people who like it but if you are not into it, you are not into it.
Did you just equate being attracted to heavier people to being into watersports?
And there's nothing wrong with either. You know, no judgement here.
Needless to say I agree with Marti's points on metabolisms and stuff.
Yeah, I don't think people can get crazy with metabolism arguments. It's a physically impossibility for it to be "impossible" to lose weight. It's not impossible for it to be harder for one person than another, for a panoply of reasons. But I think a lot of overweight, sedentary people have very low weight maintenance requirements, which means they must cut to very low caloric intakes to see weight loss. The real answer to get out of that is to:
1. Weight train, consume protein and calories at maintenance level.
2. Don't excessively perform cardio exercise, do no more than 20-30 minutes a day. (Lots of things I've read indicate excessive cardio has a negative relationship with muscle building.)
3. Over time start trying a cutting diet. By biological absolute fact, if you've built muscle mass your resting caloric burn will have increased and thus it should be easier to reduce overall body weight.
My BMR is ~1500 calories by most calculators, not taking into account the amount of walking I do. I have very muscular legs and arms, but my core is weak as hell. (Eight abdominal surgeries and four pregnancies will do that to a girl. ;) ) So the muscle mass is there, and the calories are cut, but....
That's a huge part of why I feel like there are other factors involved. Stress is known to make weight loss difficult. Hormones are a massive factor, too, for women, while they seem to have the opposite affect on men. There just seems to be a whole lot more to weight loss and maintaining a "healthy" weight than just calories in/calories out. Otherwise, why would it be so much harder as you age? Or easier for one person than another, even in the same family?
If you manage to store energy with a zero or negative net energy intake you are special.
Quote from: merithyn on May 26, 2012, 05:01:50 PM
My BMR is ~1500 calories by most calculators, not taking into account the amount of walking I do. I have very muscular legs and arms, but my core is weak as hell. (Eight abdominal surgeries and four pregnancies will do that to a girl. ;) ) So the muscle mass is there, and the calories are cut, but....
That's a huge part of why I feel like there are other factors involved. Stress is known to make weight loss difficult. Hormones are a massive factor, too, for women, while they seem to have the opposite affect on men. There just seems to be a whole lot more to weight loss and maintaining a "healthy" weight than just calories in/calories out. Otherwise, why would it be so much harder as you age? Or easier for one person than another, even in the same family?
Laziness.
Quote from: Martinus on May 26, 2012, 04:39:12 AM
Yeah but this works for men too - I've seen a lot of guys go all "daddy" few years into marriage, bald patch, pot belly and man boobs and shit.
Their wives shouldn't let themselves be taken for granted like that.
Quote from: merithyn on May 26, 2012, 05:01:50 PM
My BMR is ~1500 calories by most calculators, not taking into account the amount of walking I do. I have very muscular legs and arms, but my core is weak as hell. (Eight abdominal surgeries and four pregnancies will do that to a girl. ;) ) So the muscle mass is there, and the calories are cut, but....
That's a huge part of why I feel like there are other factors involved. Stress is known to make weight loss difficult. Hormones are a massive factor, too, for women, while they seem to have the opposite affect on men. There just seems to be a whole lot more to weight loss and maintaining a "healthy" weight than just calories in/calories out. Otherwise, why would it be so much harder as you age? Or easier for one person than another, even in the same family?
You're doing more than walking right?
Quote from: 11B4V on May 26, 2012, 07:41:46 PM
You're doing more than walking right?
Nope, not at the moment. I mean, I occasionally do some leg lifts and crunches, but beyond that, no.
Quote from: merithyn on May 26, 2012, 09:15:06 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 26, 2012, 07:41:46 PM
You're doing more than walking right?
Nope, not at the moment. I mean, I occasionally do some leg lifts and crunches, but beyond that, no.
My 2cents
That a'int going to cut it. I would say your routine/cal intake is a big "factor" as to why you cant lose anything.
I would look at a more total body workout.
Dump the 1200 cal BS and tailor your cal intake to your body's needs. Go talk to a good PT in your area. You might be surprised you will require more. Your body needs fuel, the right fuel.
Look at what your eating and when your eating it.
I voted 3. It's not that big a deal, though the chick should weigh less then I do and not be totally gross. A little extra weight is desirable in a woman. Especially around the the chest. Also it's nice for a gal to have some soft spots on her.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 26, 2012, 09:43:39 PM
Quote from: merithyn on May 26, 2012, 09:15:06 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 26, 2012, 07:41:46 PM
You're doing more than walking right?
Nope, not at the moment. I mean, I occasionally do some leg lifts and crunches, but beyond that, no.
My 2cents
That a'int going to cut it. I would say your routine/cal intake is a big "factor" as to why you cant lose anything.
I would look at a more total body workout.
Dump the 1200 cal BS and tailor your cal intake to your body's needs. Go talk to a good PT in your area. You might be surprised you will require more. Your body needs fuel, the right fuel.
Look at what your eating and when your eating it.
I.e., is it candy? If it's not candy, why is it not candy?
The mistake people make with candy is that they eat it as "desserts" or "snacks" instead of meals. As a meal by itself, candy doesn't seem to digest well and I've actually lost weight after a insulin-resistance-building binge.
Indeed, I believe there may be more science to my method than even I suspect. :hmm:
Btw, this thread's totally making me hungry. :(
Unsure what your trying to get at Ide?
When I look at a potential partner, I look at the beauty her soul and the wholesomeness of her character; Her body is but a vessel for what is really important.
Quote from: Jaron on May 26, 2012, 10:17:56 PM
When I look at a potential partner, I look at the beauty her soul and the wholesomeness of her character; Her body is but a vessel for what is really important.
Semen, right?
Quote from: Ideologue on May 26, 2012, 10:20:16 PM
Quote from: Jaron on May 26, 2012, 10:17:56 PM
When I look at a potential partner, I look at the beauty her soul and the wholesomeness of her character; Her body is but a vessel for what is really important.
Semen, right?
LOL. Gotta high five you there. :P
On the subject of fatness my time for excuses are over with the coming of the warm weather (long since...) and my impending old age. Really need to get in shape. So I wonder; do gyms work?
I mean...does the equipment therein really make for so much more efficient exercise than just going for a long walk/bike ride/whatever?
I am thinking of joining one but don't know if I could get the motivation to go....and its pricey...
Well, as B4 said before (yuk yuk), increased muscle mass = increased metabolism. So if you go to the gym and do some weight training, it should help. If you go and walk on the treadmill, it won't be any better than walking outside.
Met a friend's sister again yesterday. She's about my height (6'2/185cm), but weighs about 310 lbs/140 kg. In other words, she's rather huge. Her boyfriend is about 5'4/165 , stocky and weighs probably 85 kg/190 lbs. They make for an interesting couple.
Generally, it appears to me that guys (on the whole) are more likely to like a woman with extra padding than vice versa.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 26, 2012, 09:43:39 PM
My 2cents
That a'int going to cut it. I would say your routine/cal intake is a big "factor" as to why you cant lose anything.
I would look at a more total body workout.
Dump the 1200 cal BS and tailor your cal intake to your body's needs. Go talk to a good PT in your area. You might be surprised you will require more. Your body needs fuel, the right fuel.
Look at what your eating and when your eating it.
The 1200 calories is based on my basal rate minus some percentage rate. (I forget what it is, but it's supposed to have me losing weight at 2 pounds per week.) It's not a random calorie mark. Remember, I'm a) female, b) short, and c) old. I don't need nearly as many calories as the typical guy.
What I eat is a problem, though. I have a very carb-heavy diet. Not so much sweets - I'm pretty good at limiting that - but breads, pastas, pita chips, etc. I don't care much for vegetables as a snack, and while I'll eat them with my meals, they often get forgotten when we're planning meals. I love fruit - but that's more carbs. Better carbs, but still carbs.
As for hiring a PT. :huh: Have you not been paying attention? We're broke until Max gets a job. I can't even swing a gym membership until that happens, so I'm doing what I can where I can for the moment. By most accounts, the amount and intensity of walking I do should help me drop weight. Once I can afford a gym membership it will get easier, I'm sure. For now, I'll winging it. :D
Hey, at least I'm not gaining weight! And Max doesn't seem to mind (at least he says he doesn't, and I've never known him to lie about anything), so it's more of a health thing for me. Since I don't have cottage cheese thighs or ass, and I can manage a half-marathon in 3h 20m, I'm not too worried. For an old woman with a shitload of kids, I figure I'm doing okay.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 27, 2012, 12:27:23 AM
If you go and walk on the treadmill, it won't be any better than walking outside.
This isn't entirely true. On a treadmill, you can control how fast you go, how hard the inclines are, etc. When you walk outside, you get what you get. You're not forced to walk faster because the ground is making you, and if you live in flatlands (like I do), inclines will never happen. There are distinct advantages to walking on a treadmill.
I'm of two minds on walking outside vs. treadmill. If you walk outside, there is the advantage that depending on the type of route you take, you're forced to complete the exercise. If you plan to walk a mile and you walk a half mile away from your house, you're pretty much guaranteed to actually walk a mile that day--because unless you call someone to come pick you up, you have to walk back. That's one of the advantages.
Another advantage, at least to me, is walking outside is more "fun" than walking on a treadmill staring at the wall. However the more often you walk a given path the less fun I find it.
The advantage of the treadmill is if you set a speed you're forced to go that speed, outside you can get very leisurely. The biggest and final advantage, and why I run on a treadmill and not outside, is you can watch TV while doing it. I hate cardio and think it's very boring, so anything that occupies my mind while I'm doing it is good.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 27, 2012, 10:31:35 AM
The advantage of the treadmill is if you set a speed you're forced to go that speed, outside you can get very leisurely. The biggest and final advantage, and why I run on a treadmill and not outside, is you can watch TV while doing it. I hate cardio and think it's very boring, so anything that occupies my mind while I'm doing it is good.
Otto hits it on the head. That's why I always had my rowing machine in the living room, so I could pull it in front of the TV.
Walking outside is fine and dandy, but the trees and the birdies don't make it any less fucking boring.
And your chances of being windshielded by a Dazzling Urbanite in her uninsured C-Class when she hops the curb fucking with her Bluetooth are substantially reduced on a treadmill.
Quote
The 1200 calories is based on my basal rate minus some percentage rate. (I forget what it is, but it's supposed to have me losing weight at 2 pounds per week.) It's not a random calorie mark.
That cal level will go up when you do go to a better
total body routine. BTW that (1200) is the min generic recommended cal level for women. Engage and work the whole body.
Quote
Remember, I'm a) female, b) short, and c) old. I don't need nearly as many calories as the typical guy.
Internet girl ;). Look at some of the fitness/nutrition forums. There are people similar to you, that are or have gone what your going through.
Quote
What I eat is a problem, though. I have a very carb-heavy diet. Not so much sweets - I'm pretty good at limiting that - but breads, pastas, pita chips, etc. I don't care much for vegetables as a snack, and while I'll eat them with my meals, they often get forgotten when we're planning meals. I love fruit - but that's more carbs. Better carbs, but still carbs.
You have identified the problem. All you have to do is fix it.
What
kind of Carbs are you eating should be the question to ask yourself.
http://www.everydayhealth.com/diet-nutrition/101/nutrition-basics/good-carbs-bad-carbs.aspx
Quote
As for hiring a PT. :huh: Have you not been paying attention? We're broke until Max gets a job. I can't even swing a gym membership until that happens, so I'm doing what I can where I can for the moment.
Understandable for sure. Use the best asset since sliced bread.. :) the internet. Read, research wash rinse and repeat. Dont get sucked into fad dieting plans.
Quote
By most accounts, the amount and intensity of walking I do should help me drop weight.
But it's not, because you are not seeing results. It's not a
total body type workout. i.e. Cardio/Strength Circuit Training, elliptical, etc.
Quote
Once I can afford a gym membership it will get easier, I'm sure. For now, I'll winging it. :D
It will, but there are still things you can do without fancy machines or gyms for a good
total body workout. Look into resistance bands or kettle bells for example too. Dont laugh, but it's summertime so cruz the garage sales.
Quote
Hey, at least I'm not gaining weight! And Max doesn't seem to mind (at least he says he doesn't, and I've never known him to lie about anything), so it's more of a health thing for me. Since I don't have cottage cheese thighs or ass, and I can manage a half-marathon in 3h 20m, I'm not too worried. For an old woman with a shitload of kids, I figure I'm doing okay.
You bettcha. You have the mental battle won IMO. You got the desire, but unless you start seeing results, you may get frustrated.
Key point;
You are excersing but not losing weight=intensity not high enough and/or fuel problem (food, caloric intake out of wack).
Please dont take my direct answers wrong. I like to get to the point and not get wordy. This is a very interesting conversation. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 27, 2012, 12:27:23 AM
If you go and walk on the treadmill, it won't be any better than walking outside.
Horse shit
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 27, 2012, 10:31:35 AM
I hate cardio and think it's very boring, so anything that occupies my mind while I'm doing it is good.
:D 20 years of running my ass off in the Army. Bores the living snot outta me to run.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 27, 2012, 10:36:13 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 27, 2012, 10:31:35 AM
The advantage of the treadmill is if you set a speed you're forced to go that speed, outside you can get very leisurely. The biggest and final advantage, and why I run on a treadmill and not outside, is you can watch TV while doing it. I hate cardio and think it's very boring, so anything that occupies my mind while I'm doing it is good.
That's why I always had my rowing machine in the living room, so I could pull it in front of the TV.
Engages a large portion of your body.
When I left the Army one of the things that I struggled with initially was eating. I've never really "let myself go" but there's been a few times in my life I've been carrying around some excess weight. One time was in High School, even though I was an athlete and was very active, I also spent a lot of time with my grandparents who basically poured sugar and grease down my throat constantly. That was fixed by joining the military.
The other time was when I first left the Army, at that point I had been a serious lifter for a long time. I was never interested in being some bodybuilding freak, but I think for someone who just lived a "normal life" and did weight lifting I was near the top of the shape you could be in in terms of muscle development. (Meaning people who were more advanced than me had adopted the "bodybuilding lifestyle." I've heard from friends that it's changing now, but at least when I was in the Army nutrition wasn't a big thing. I remember literally loading up on hamburger, biscuits and gravy etc every day in mess. Looking back I don't know what they were thinking, but the food was very unhealthy. But I was so active and also lifted weights so much in my free time, I was fine. But then once I left the service, all of a sudden I have no idea how to eat properly and my overall activity level went down immensely. Basically I just kept lifting weights but most cardio stopped, fat quickly accumulated.
Since then I basically had to learn how to eat properly, which at the number of calories I consume is essential to prevent problems.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 27, 2012, 11:05:45 AM
When I left the Army one of the things that I struggled with initially was eating. I've never really "let myself go" but there's been a few times in my life I've been carrying around some excess weight. One time was in High School, even though I was an athlete and was very active, I also spent a lot of time with my grandparents who basically poured sugar and grease down my throat constantly. That was fixed by joining the military.
The other time was when I first left the Army, at that point I had been a serious lifter for a long time. I was never interested in being some bodybuilding freak, but I think for someone who just lived a "normal life" and did weight lifting I was near the top of the shape you could be in in terms of muscle development. (Meaning people who were more advanced than me had adopted the "bodybuilding lifestyle." I've heard from friends that it's changing now, but at least when I was in the Army nutrition wasn't a big thing. I remember literally loading up on hamburger, biscuits and gravy etc every day in mess. Looking back I don't know what they were thinking, but the food was very unhealthy. But I was so active and also lifted weights so much in my free time, I was fine. But then once I left the service, all of a sudden I have no idea how to eat properly and my overall activity level went down immensely. Basically I just kept lifting weights but most cardio stopped, fat quickly accumulated.
Since then I basically had to learn how to eat properly, which at the number of calories I consume is essential to prevent problems.
Ha, true true.
Chow hall food. Got to love it. Disgustingly unhealthy.
God I remember, "You cant have two starches!" Thanks for the nutrition tip burger flipper. :lol:
Fruit are carbs?! :o
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 27, 2012, 11:16:22 AM
Fruit are carbs?! :o
Fructose is a sugar so yes. And one quickly transformed into glucose at that.
Quote from: Tyr on May 27, 2012, 12:08:10 AM
On the subject of fatness my time for excuses are over with the coming of the warm weather (long since...) and my impending old age. Really need to get in shape. So I wonder; do gyms work?
I mean...does the equipment therein really make for so much more efficient exercise than just going for a long walk/bike ride/whatever?
I am thinking of joining one but don't know if I could get the motivation to go....and its pricey...
Yes, but if you want to lose fat eating below your caloric maintenance is all you need, about 400-500 calories under your maintenance would mean losing about one pound a week.
Weight training when "cutting" is for minimizing muscle loss as much as possible, so I would integrate a full body workout routine as well.
Quote from: Cecil on May 27, 2012, 12:17:54 PM
Fructose is a sugar so yes. And one quickly transformed into glucose at that.
Amazing. I thought carbs were bread, potatoes, pasta, rice and that sort of thing :mellow: :ph34r:
Foods are always broken down in carbohydrates, protein and fat.
Fruits and vegetables are probably the best carbs you can have though.
Yeah, there are several levels of carbs, e.g.
- glucose (simplest) - e.g. contained in honey
- fructose (simple but more complex than glucose) - contained in fruit
- starch (complex) - contained in potatoes, wheat etc.
As a rule of thumb, the simple ones give you a quick sugar rush (that's why if you want to lose weight, it is not recommended to eat e.g. an apple before sleep) but do not stay long in your body - the complex ones burn for a long time - so that's where your body does not need to burn fat and stores it away.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 27, 2012, 12:35:11 PMAmazing. I thought carbs were bread, potatoes, pasta, rice and that sort of thing :mellow: :ph34r:
As Zoups says, there are three macronutrient groups. Generally if a food isn't animal flesh (protein) or animal fat then it has a high likelihood of being a carb. Of course to complicate it a bit many plants have some fat or protein in them, although generally not much. A few types of plants are high fat/protein.
Anyways, everybody that wants to get in shape should listen to Otto.
He gave me a detailed workout and food plan about 6 years ago that kicked ass, even though he probably doesn't remember. :hug:
Interesting. I know beans are high in protein and nuts are fatty but are they both still carby?
My understanding of food was from my mum, which was basically that it was all either starch or roughage, that's all anyone needed to know :lol:
Quote from: Zoupa on May 27, 2012, 12:58:56 PM
Anyways, everybody that wants to get in shape should listen to Otto.
He gave me a detailed workout and food plan about 6 years ago that kicked ass, even though he probably doesn't remember. :hug:
Wow, I totally do not remember. I've given out a workout and food plan to a bunch of people over the years though so I guess not too surprised.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 27, 2012, 01:03:10 PM
Interesting. I know beans are high in protein and nuts are fatty but are they both still carby?
My understanding of food was from my mum, which was basically that it was all either starch or roughage, that's all anyone needed to know :lol:
Generally beans are high in protein for plants, but still have most of their calories from carbs. Nuts are the freaks of the plant world, as they have more of their calories from fat than from carb.
Just as a quick example, a single serving of garbanzo beans (chick peas), has 1g of fat, 18g of carb, and 6g of protein. That means about 8.5% of its calories are from fat, 68.5% are from carbs and a little under 23% are from protein.
Another quick example, a single serving of almonds has 15g of fat, 5g of carb, and 6g of protein. So 75% of its calories come from fat, about 11.5% from carbs, and about 13.5% from protein.
If those weird percentages throw you, it's because different macronutrient groups have different calories/gram. 1 gram of fat has 9 calories, 1 gram of carb or protein has 4 calories.
Alcohol is not technically in the three macronutrients (although most forms that alcohol comes in come with some carbs too), the literal aclohol in a beer or a liquor has 7 calories per gram.
Something that also throws some people with American food labeling. Say you take the grams of fat, protein, and carb in a serving of something and do the quick math to see how many calories per macronutrient group that food has. Sometimes when you add those totals up, it doesn't equal the total number of calories on the label for that serving. This is generally because manufacturers are allowed to "round" and that can throw things off a little bit. So if something has 25.5g of protein, they don't have to show that, they can just report it in whole numbers. Anything under 0.5g they don't have to show at all.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 27, 2012, 11:16:22 AM
Fruit are carbs?! :o
Yeah, there is such a thing as too much fruit. Natural sugars = bad.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 27, 2012, 11:02:14 AM
That's why I always had my rowing machine in the living room, so I could pull it in front of the TV.
Engages a large portion of your body.[/quote]
Outrigger sculling model, too. Even better.
I I could manage to get my ass to buy another one, I would. Bitch to flick your ashes, though.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 27, 2012, 01:35:54 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 27, 2012, 11:16:22 AM
Fruit are carbs?! :o
Yeah, there is such a thing as too much fruit. Natural sugars = bad.
Though too much fruit tends to have more immediate sideeffects.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 27, 2012, 01:37:47 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 27, 2012, 11:02:14 AM
Engages a large portion of your body.
Outrigger sculling model, too. Even better.
I I could manage to get my ass to buy another one, I would. Bitch to flick your ashes, though.
I'm really hoping that we end up relocating somewhere close to a lake or reservoir. I rowed in college and absolutely loved it. I'd love to get a one-man scull and do that for exercise. :wub:
Biggest downside is that I bulk up VERY easily. I mean, my calves are larger than my 18-year-old son's without an ounce of excess flesh. Rowing has a tendency to make my traps, triceps, and biceps HUGE. :ph34r:
Quote from: merithyn on May 27, 2012, 04:10:34 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 27, 2012, 01:37:47 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 27, 2012, 11:02:14 AM
Engages a large portion of your body.
Outrigger sculling model, too. Even better.
I I could manage to get my ass to buy another one, I would. Bitch to flick your ashes, though.
I'm really hoping that we end up relocating somewhere close to a lake or reservoir. I rowed in college and absolutely loved it. I'd love to get a one-man scull and do that for exercise. :wub:
Biggest downside is that I bulk up VERY easily. I mean, my calves are larger than my 18-year-old son's without an ounce of excess flesh. Rowing has a tendency to make my traps, triceps, and biceps HUGE. :ph34r:
Pics?
Quote from: Zoupa on May 27, 2012, 12:58:56 PM
Anyways, everybody that wants to get in shape should listen to Otto.
He gave me a detailed workout and food plan about 6 years ago that kicked ass, even though he probably doesn't remember. :hug:
How fucking rude.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 27, 2012, 07:39:08 PM
How fucking rude.
I appreciate the advice you've given me, 11B4V. :hug:
And the advice I've gotten from everyone else. :)
One other point, don't underestimate the need for the right amount of protein if you're exercising more, it'll also help you recover and repair any damage done.
On the subject of which make sure you also get enough ascorbic acid as well.
I personally find it difficult to keep my weight up and I'm considering cutting back on the amount of exercise I do. And not being very keen on meat, means I do struggle to get enough protein at times.
To actually address the thread topic, I think distribution of fat is important. I have very little tolerance (read none) for female belly fat. Fortunately a lot of women gain fat in other areas before starting to accumulate belly fat, but some don't, sucks to be them.
Now, I've been married a long time now, but before then I had the standard system in which I had two different standards. Girl to take home from the bar and bang once and never see again? Virtually no standards, fat, skinny, young, old, etc. To go out with, be seen at a restaurant with, etc? I'd prefer a non-fat woman. For any long term relationship involving fucking without me being drunk, I also need a woman I'm attracted to, so there is that.
Quote from: merithyn on May 27, 2012, 07:52:35 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 27, 2012, 07:39:08 PM
How fucking rude.
I appreciate the advice you've given me, 11B4V. :hug:
And the advice I've gotten from everyone else. :)
:)
Quote from: mongers on May 27, 2012, 07:57:53 PM
I do struggle to get enough protein at times.
Have two hard-boiled eggs a day. Case closed.
Quote from: merithyn on May 25, 2012, 07:06:58 PM
I'm curious what the answers will be in an anonymous (or mostly) poll.
For me, I only notice if my partner is extremely thin or fat. (By this I mean ribs-thin or rolls-fat.) Otherwise, I don't really pay attention. I do prefer my men with a bit of meat on them, but I wouldn't kick a 20 BMI out of my bed. :perv:
What?
Weight is THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE EVAH!!!!!1111
After age, of course.
I don't do chubsters. One of us needs a concave belly or we'd never meet in the middle! Men with fat thighs especially repel me.
I think every man replying to this thread should post their waist size to offer context to their answers :shifty:
Quote from: Brazen on May 28, 2012, 07:39:20 AM
I think every man replying to this thread should post their waist size to offer context to their answers :shifty:
The question was what you find attractive, not what you deserve.
Quote from: Brazen on May 28, 2012, 07:39:20 AM
I don't do chubsters. One of us needs a concave belly or we'd never meet in the middle! Men with fat thighs especially repel me.
I think every man replying to this thread should post their waist size to offer context to their answers :shifty:
34.
OHH!
Quote from: Brazen on May 28, 2012, 07:39:20 AM
I think every man replying to this thread should post their waist size to offer context to their answers :shifty:
Still less than my age. So there.
33
Except for Dickies where it's 36.
The way the question is posed makes it very difficult to answer, since unless you are a "no fatties" or a "there's more to love" type person, weight probably factors into overall physical attractiveness -- which means it's not the numerical weight alone that counts but, as others have said, distribution, presentation, etc., in conjunction with all the other things that provoke feelings of sexual-romantic desire.
FWIW, I haven't given much thought to the weight factor in my own relationships. In retrospect, they've ranged from pretty heavy to rail thin. :mellow: Context is everything, I guess.
EDIT: A loose 32 (even in Dickies). :showoff:
Quote from: Jaron on May 28, 2012, 07:53:03 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 28, 2012, 07:49:03 AM
33
Except for Dickies where it's 36.
Show off.
I was above 34 a couple of months ago & then I lost weight.
I don't know what happened.
It might be a tumor.
Cancer?
It's possible.
Quote from: Brazen on May 28, 2012, 07:39:20 AM
I don't do chubsters. One of us needs a concave belly or we'd never meet in the middle! Men with fat thighs especially repel me.
I think every man replying to this thread should post their waist size to offer context to their answers :shifty:
and women also.
35
32-34
No one must ever get laid. It seems the majority of people find "overweight" people unattractive, yet the obesity rates in the US keeps growing.
Either something's going to have to give, or we, as a population, are doomed. :(
Quote from: merithyn on May 28, 2012, 12:58:31 PM
No one must ever get laid. It seems the majority of people find "overweight" people unattractive, yet the obesity rates in the US keeps growing.
Either something's going to have to give, or we, as a population, are doomed. :(
I think alcohol and abstinence-induced-lower-standards can bridge the gap.
Quote from: merithyn on May 28, 2012, 12:58:31 PM
No one must ever get laid.
After a random sampling poll I just conducted, 1 out of 1 respondents surveyed stated that no, they don't ever get laid.
I'm 32/33. Could squeeze into 31.
Quote from: Brazen on May 28, 2012, 07:39:20 AM
I don't do chubsters. One of us needs a concave belly or we'd never meet in the middle! Men with fat thighs especially repel me.
I think every man replying to this thread should post their waist size to offer context to their answers :shifty:
Somewhere in the neighborhood of 29-31 inches. I generally buy 32s but they're usually a little loose. I tried on a 30 the other day with no problem except the pants were ultra-gay.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 28, 2012, 08:51:47 AM
and women also.
39.5" :Embarrass:
If I measure where a man does, it's more. :ph34r:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 27, 2012, 01:35:54 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 27, 2012, 11:16:22 AM
Fruit are carbs?! :o
Yeah, there is such a thing as too much fruit. Natural sugars = bad.
For a diabetic, they're taught that one apple has the same effect on your blood sugars as one chocolate chip cookie. Although I guess it's more filling.
And not nearly as good. Go for the gusto, fatties.
Quote from: Fate on May 28, 2012, 02:23:27 PM
For a diabetic, they're taught that one apple has the same effect on your blood sugars as one chocolate chip cookie. Although I guess it's more filling.
What size cookie are we talking about? A Chips Ahoy, something bigger like Pepperidge Farms soft bakes, or one of those mambo ones from the mall?
Quote from: Fate on May 28, 2012, 02:23:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 27, 2012, 01:35:54 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 27, 2012, 11:16:22 AM
Fruit are carbs?! :o
Yeah, there is such a thing as too much fruit. Natural sugars = bad.
For a diabetic, they're taught that one apple has the same effect on your blood sugars as one chocolate chip cookie. Although I guess it's more filling.
:o Unbelievable.
32, but I'm out of shape right now <_<
Quote from: merithyn on May 28, 2012, 12:58:31 PM
No one must ever get laid. It seems the majority of people find "overweight" people unattractive, yet the obesity rates in the US keeps growing.
Either something's going to have to give, or we, as a population, are doomed. :(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-a64OwOYqU
My body type is such, that while my official waist size (per Air Force standards) is 36, my pant size is usually a 40/42.
And Brazen would be repulsed by my thighs. :( :P
33" waist, now let's hear your other measurements as that determines whether you guys are fail effete bitch-men or actual men.
Chest: 51"
Bicep: 20"
Thigh: 29"
Calves: 19"
Neck: 20"
You left off penis size from your list. Why is that?
Quote from: Jacob on May 28, 2012, 04:31:27 PM
You left off penis size from your list. Why is that?
I'm married with a kid, my penis size hasn't mattered since the 90s. :lmfao:
Point conceded :lol:
As seen on SA:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F6LgJo.jpg&hash=ed43e26599c64c461f2c8bbbd199a09632e3db84)
Set phasers on studly.
How do you think that discussion on who got to sit in the captain's chair went? :D
I went from 336 lbs to 210-220 (depending on if I am biking) a few years back. The key was simple, eat less than I burned, and make sure that I dumped most of the simple carbs and processed and starchy carbs. No Atkins, nothing that wild, just sensible. In a way it was along the lines of the hunter-gatherer idea, but with less hippy.
As it is, I am healthier and better off. The key is still burning X/day and taking in (X-1)/day at least.
I am not fat, but I am getting a bigger belly than I want.
I haven't been on a scale in a long time, and I am a bit afraid to now. I have been around 200 lbs (at 5'10") for most of my life, but didn't ever carry much fat, nor was I overly muscular. I still wear size 34x32 pants and they are a touch loose but they sit down below my belly, which is starting to get bigger than I would like. If I had a desk job I would probably weight over three bills by now but I am on my feet and active all day and I must walk a couple of miles a day at work at my new job.
I could eat better, but I do pretty well. My main downfall is the beer and that is a totally different discussion.
Quote from: Fate on May 28, 2012, 02:23:27 PM
For a diabetic, they're taught that one apple has the same effect on your blood sugars as one chocolate chip cookie. Although I guess it's more filling.
My diabetic son said, "That's a broad, and probably incorrect, statement." He was taught that the apple is more quickly absorbed since it doesn't have fat in it like the chocolate chip cookie. So, to counter low blood sugar, one should eat an apple rather than a cookie. They are absorbed differently because the cookie has far more in it than simply sugar (fat, flour, egg, etc.) whereas the apple has, well, apple.
There is a big difference between fruit and fruit juices versus candy and cookies. They are not equal even if they have the same number of carb grams.
Quote from: merithyn on May 28, 2012, 08:25:14 PM
Quote from: Fate on May 28, 2012, 02:23:27 PM
For a diabetic, they're taught that one apple has the same effect on your blood sugars as one chocolate chip cookie. Although I guess it's more filling.
My diabetic son said, "That's a broad, and probably incorrect, statement." He was taught that the apple is more quickly absorbed since it doesn't have fat in it like the chocolate chip cookie. So, to counter low blood sugar, one should eat an apple rather than a cookie. They are absorbed differently because the cookie has far more in it than simply sugar (fat, flour, egg, etc.) whereas the apple has, well, apple.
There is a big difference between fruit and fruit juices versus candy and cookies. They are not equal even if they have the same number of carb grams.
I presume your son is a well controlled type I diabetic? Okay, hypoglycemia with him is probably more of a concern so I kind of get his perspective. That comment was more directed to the average type II diabetic (or a poorly controlled type I), who is dealing with a different sort of problem.
The apple is worse, based on the data from http://nutritiondata.self.com. Their generic apple has about 13 grams of sugar in it and their generic chocolate chip cookie has 8 grams of sugar in it. There are also fats in that cookie, but what we're really worried about with your average diabetic is hyperglycemia. A persistently high blood sugar level is what kills your eyes, kidneys, and nerves over time. The average person does not know that eating 3 apples will shoot your blood sugar up as high as 3 cookies (or higher, based on that website) probably because they've been raised since birth like you and everyone else to believe apples are "healthy." We could only hope that most type II diabetics were battling hypoglycemia rather than hyperglycemia. That might even balance the federal budget.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 28, 2012, 02:45:09 PM
Quote from: Fate on May 28, 2012, 02:23:27 PM
For a diabetic, they're taught that one apple has the same effect on your blood sugars as one chocolate chip cookie. Although I guess it's more filling.
What size cookie are we talking about? A Chips Ahoy, something bigger like Pepperidge Farms soft bakes, or one of those mambo ones from the mall?
Chips Ahoy sized is 7 grams of sugar per cookie based on Nabisco's data. So roughly two and a half of them per Granny Smith apple (which is 17 grams of sugar).
Chips Ahoy is pretty decent for an assembly line cookie.
Plus they have a nautical sounding name.
Arrgh.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 28, 2012, 06:22:52 PM
As seen on SA:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F6LgJo.jpg&hash=ed43e26599c64c461f2c8bbbd199a09632e3db84)
Set phasers on studly.
Captain Jaron?
Ensign fatmai.
Quote from: sbr on May 28, 2012, 07:03:21 PMMy main downfall is the beer and that is a totally different discussion.
I lost a lot of weight last year primarily by cutting beer. I started drinking the ultra-ultra-light stuff (switching between the Bud one and the Miller one, and then deciding the Beck's 64 was the "best"), and then mostly cut it out. Then I went to Knoxville last summer and gained it all back by getting plastered on beer every night and eating those Crystal sliders while I staggered around. :Embarrass: But then I lost it again by pretty much cutting beer/wine and only having straight whiskey if I felt like I needed a drink. (In addition to dieting, of course.) Beer is just too easy to drink.
Set course to the buffet. Warp factor 7.
Katmai would be wearing a red shirt.
One of these days, I'm gonna cross the line and get my hubcaps stolen.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 28, 2012, 09:29:17 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 28, 2012, 06:22:52 PM
As seen on SA:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F6LgJo.jpg&hash=ed43e26599c64c461f2c8bbbd199a09632e3db84)
Set phasers on studly.
Captain Jaron?
Motherfucker!
Quote from: Jaron on May 28, 2012, 10:19:04 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 28, 2012, 09:29:17 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 28, 2012, 06:22:52 PM
As seen on SA:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F6LgJo.jpg&hash=ed43e26599c64c461f2c8bbbd199a09632e3db84)
Set phasers on studly.
Captain Jaron?
Motherfucker!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gravitybong.net%2Ffiles%2Fpublic%2F1279049210_99_FT41967_george_takei_lols.gif&hash=85c5c0defbf11dc9cf8533923d3504228c32aeb5)
Seeing what Languish gentlemen said about their waist size, I think I'm pretty decent considering my age (and probably in the borderline acceptable range for a gay guy).
So my boyfriend should shut up. I can't wait for his metabolism to change in late 20s so he grows fat. :P
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 28, 2012, 04:33:08 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 28, 2012, 04:31:27 PM
You left off penis size from your list. Why is that?
I'm married with a kid, my penis size hasn't mattered since the 90s. :lmfao:
I could see how a small penise size could be an asset if you were married *to* a kid, but don't follow your logic otherwise.
Saucy this evening...eh :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on May 29, 2012, 03:24:23 AM
I can't wait for his metabolism to change in late 20s so he grows fat. :P
No willpower to dump him now, is that it?
Quote from: Martinus on May 29, 2012, 03:25:55 AM
I could see how a small penise size could be an asset if you were married *to* a kid, but don't follow your logic otherwise.
I've no problem with gay marriage because when it comes down to it all marriage is no-sex marriage anyway.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 28, 2012, 04:01:57 PM
33" waist, now let's hear your other measurements as that determines whether you guys are fail effete bitch-men or actual men.
Chest: 51"
Bicep: 20"
Thigh: 29"
Calves: 19"
Neck: 20"
You shaped like a cinderblock ..eh. Just yanking your chain. ;)
Chest: 47"
Bicep: 17": Ive got orangutans arms. That and I'm only the second generation standing upright. Biggest problem area I have is trying to get size on the upper arm.
Thigh: 25"
Calves: 16"
Neck: 18.5"
GOD FUCKING DAMN YOU GUYS!! :ultra: :ultra: :ultra:
The last two days I've upped my calorie intake PER YOUR FUCKING ADVICE and now I've GAINED a pound! Before, I may not have been losing weight, but goddamn it, at least I was maintaining!
I dislike you all. And by that I mean those who told me I wasn't eating enough. :mad: <_<
FWIW, I never recommended that. I'm all about chicks starving themselves.
Keep your calories at 1,800 a day max light in animal products and heavy in vegetables, drink tons of water, aerobic exercise for 30 minutes every day, and you'll be fine.
It's just more food in your gut because you're eating a bit more than you're used to Meri, it takes a week or two to see results form upping calories but it work. If diets worked in two days no-one would be overweight!
Don't know what you were recommended, but Google a BMR calculator and a TDEE calculator and eat somewhere between the two. My problem was portion control, I could easily eat twice a recommended portion and record it as one without realising. Plus calorie burn from exercise is far less than you think.
I eat around 1600 on rest days and as much as 2200 on workout days.
Quote from: merithyn on May 29, 2012, 07:13:52 AM
GOD FUCKING DAMN YOU GUYS!! :ultra: :ultra: :ultra:
The last two days I've upped my calorie intake PER YOUR FUCKING ADVICE and now I've GAINED a pound! Before, I may not have been losing weight, but goddamn it, at least I was maintaining!
I dislike you all. And by that I mean those who told me I wasn't eating enough. :mad: <_<
Increase your workout intensity. What are you eating? It's not just a matter of any calories.
You could just have to take a dump.
So who IS shagging all the fatties then? Even at my chubbiest I never had a relationship with anyone with a waist size over 32.
Maybe it's because we all have internet standards so we have to choose Luddites with nothing to judge us against :lol:
The girl-I'm-currently-sort-of-doing-something-with-but-isn't-my-girlfriend-or-something says she tends to go for chubby guys. Her best friend (only a moderatey chubby girl)'s boyfriend is downright sumoesque.
I know several chubby chasing guys too.
Quote from: Tyr on May 29, 2012, 07:57:21 AM
The girl-I'm-currently-sort-of-doing-something-with-but-isn't-my-girlfriend-or-something says she tends to go for chubby guys. Her best friend (only a moderatey chubby girl)'s boyfriend is downright sumoesque.
Yeah, I've met and talked with plenty of women with killer bodies that like their men with "meat on their bones". Go fig.
Maybe we've always had a certain attractive size ingrained from our formative years. Certainly people I've been with when I've changed size up and down have made subtle complaints about both ends of the scale, and most people seem to go for a similar shape again and again.
Current girlfriend likes me better at 220 than when I was 190. Who am I to argue? Another round of burgers, please.
I'm always suspicious when people state their "physical preferences". Everyone lusts after sexy people and aims for the apex, but people seldom sleep or go out with one.
First physical and sexual attraction is not something we can decide on a rational level, it's purely emotional, sensual, and hormonal. Second, people tend to delude themselves overestimate their own attractiveness (ex: girls thinking they're "hawt" when in fact they are either plain or have fat capping over their overly tight jeans), and third it also depends on various factors at the moment of the first meeting (like mood, time of the day/night, ovulation, general horniness, going for a one-night stand rather than meeting a life partner, etc.).
In the end, I agree with Dan Savage than someday, people have to "settle for" as much as "settle down". People who are excessively picky about their potential partners usually end up in a basement playing video games (for males) and living with lots of cats (for females). And nothing stops anyone from changing partners in the middle of the road if he/she finds better.
My current girlfriend is chubby, but she has a sexy face (kinda like Kristi Jo in VH1's Rock of Love), she is smart, she's ambitious, she's works out on her body with me, and most important she takes care of me. In the end, her being chubby doesn't fuss me.
Quote from: merithyn on May 29, 2012, 07:13:52 AM
GOD FUCKING DAMN YOU GUYS!! :ultra: :ultra: :ultra:
The last two days I've upped my calorie intake PER YOUR FUCKING ADVICE and now I've GAINED a pound! Before, I may not have been losing weight, but goddamn it, at least I was maintaining!
I dislike you all. And by that I mean those who told me I wasn't eating enough. :mad: <_<
Why would you take advice from us? What are you thinking? :P
The difference between men and women is men will puff out their bellies and rub them proudly, declaring, "It's all paid for!"
Quote from: Brazen on May 29, 2012, 08:28:00 AM
Maybe we've always had a certain attractive size ingrained from our formative years.
Yeah, it's called The "I-liked-it-fucking-it-at-18-and-I-see-no-reason-why-I-can't-keep-wanting-to-fuck-what-I-liked-at-18-now-that-I'm-42" Syndrome.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 29, 2012, 09:20:24 AM
Yeah, it's called The "I-liked-it-fucking-it-at-18-and-I-see-no-reason-why-I-can't-keep-wanting-to-fuck-what-I-liked-at-18-now-that-I'm-42" Syndrome.
Yeah, but now we have to ask whether it's worth compromising our standards for intelligence/conversation/sanity/wealth/political leanings/attention span/personal hygiene etc. for.
"You can pose with me for a Facebook photo but you can't meet my friends. Or, in fact, anyone who knows me. Ever."
Quote from: Brazen on May 29, 2012, 09:22:57 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 29, 2012, 09:20:24 AM
Yeah, it's called The "I-liked-it-fucking-it-at-18-and-I-see-no-reason-why-I-can't-keep-wanting-to-fuck-what-I-liked-at-18-now-that-I'm-42" Syndrome.
Yeah, but now we have to ask whether it's worth compromising our standards for intelligence/conversation/sanity/wealth/political leanings/attention span/personal hygiene etc.
You've got a point. As much as I want to fuck an 18 year old body, I don't think I could tolerate having to explain how to use my rotary phone.
But if she lets me beat her with it, it's win-win.
Quote from: Brazen on May 29, 2012, 09:19:36 AM
The difference between men and women is men will puff out their bellies and rub them proudly, declaring, "It's all paid for!"
Nah at least over here the media has gotten to us. Men spend tons of time in the gym trying to keep at least in decent shape.
Besides being fat over here is what happens when you don't notice, nothing to be proud of :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 29, 2012, 09:24:27 AM
You've got a point. As much as I want to fuck an 18 year old body, I don't think I could tolerate having to explain how to use my rotary phone.
But if she lets me beat her with it, it's win-win.
I look forward to science making us all look 22 forever. And science had better hurry up.
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2012, 09:29:16 AM
Nah at least over here the media has gotten to us. Men spend tons of time in the gym trying to keep at least in decent shape.
Besides being fat over here is what happens when you don't notice, nothing to be proud of :P
Yeah, the recent emphasis on men staying in reasonable shape is quite similar to the pop-culture pressure men received through the '80s regarding "two-minute men", "5 minute sex", etc., from comedians, TV and magazine covers. Makes you change your outlook, if only out of fear from being mocked.
Quote from: merithyn on May 29, 2012, 07:13:52 AM
GOD FUCKING DAMN YOU GUYS!! :ultra: :ultra: :ultra:
The last two days I've upped my calorie intake PER YOUR FUCKING ADVICE and now I've GAINED a pound! Before, I may not have been losing weight, but goddamn it, at least I was maintaining!
I dislike you all. And by that I mean those who told me I wasn't eating enough. :mad: <_<
Meri, you have to keep at it. It is a slight upward swing but your body will regulate soon.
So, basically, I'm the only one here who will admit to having had sex with chubby women. Keep the sharp knees coming, boys. :P
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 29, 2012, 09:45:59 AM
So, basically, I'm the only one here who will admit to having had sex with chubby women. Keep the sharp knees coming, boys. :P
I've been messing around with a chubby recently. Didn't you read my 50 "Shades of Gray" thread about Operation Chubbie Subbie a few pages back?
Pros: She's incredibly submissive and wants to explore being dominated, and gives fantastic fucking head.
Cons: I really don't want to be seen in public with her.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 29, 2012, 09:48:35 AM
Cons: I really don't want to be seen in public with her.
My wife is a big gal (and is a really big gal right now, what with being 9 months pregnant). We've been married six years, and were dating for two years before that.
In those eight years, not one single time has anyone ever said anything to me about her weight.
Quote from: Barrister on May 29, 2012, 09:58:37 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 29, 2012, 09:48:35 AM
Cons: I really don't want to be seen in public with her.
My wife is a big gal (and is a really big gal right now, what with being 9 months pregnant). We've been married six years, and were dating for two years before that.
In those eight years, not one single time has anyone ever said anything to me about her weight.
Quite frankly, I really don't give a shit what people think about you, BB. :P
Quote from: Barrister on May 29, 2012, 09:58:37 AM
My wife is a big gal (and is a really big gal right now, what with being 9 months pregnant). We've been married six years, and were dating for two years before that.
In those eight years, not one single time has anyone ever said anything to me about her weight.
My situation is almost exactly the same.
It is kinda eerie how similar our lives are...except for you having a far better job than me and living in frozen wastelands.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 29, 2012, 10:00:56 AM
Quite frankly, I really don't give a shit what people think about you, BB. :P
Besides you are in Baltimore. The vast majority of the male population would be jealous.
Quote from: Barrister on May 29, 2012, 09:58:37 AM
My wife is a big gal (and is a really big gal right now, what with being 9 months pregnant). We've been married six years, and were dating for two years before that.
In those eight years, not one single time has anyone ever said anything to me about her weight.
:yes: In over 8 years of being together, the only comments about my girlfriend's weight have come directly from my girlfriend. She's got a little bit of a belly and doesn't realize that she's so tall that people don't really notice it. If she were the weight she says she wants to be, she'd make Ide look chunky.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 29, 2012, 08:04:05 AM
Yeah, I've met and talked with plenty of women with killer bodies that like their men with "meat on their bones". Go fig.
:yes:
I find Max much sexier now that he's gained some weight. When I met him, he looked a lot like I imagine Ide does. Now he looks like a man. Before he looked like a boy.
I have a 29 waist. Gained some weight after my kneeinjury that kept me from running for 5 months. Getting back at it now though. 16,5 km on Sunday and aiming for 18 today. :)
Always had legs like logs though. Family trait which makes getting a good pair of jeans a challenge with my somewhat thin waist.
Quote from: merithyn on May 29, 2012, 07:13:52 AM
GOD FUCKING DAMN YOU GUYS!! :ultra: :ultra: :ultra:
The last two days I've upped my calorie intake PER YOUR FUCKING ADVICE and now I've GAINED a pound! Before, I may not have been losing weight, but goddamn it, at least I was maintaining!
I dislike you all. And by that I mean those who told me I wasn't eating enough. :mad: <_<
I never told you to do that. I told you to eat candy. I bet you didn't eat candy. THE BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS.
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2012, 10:02:20 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 29, 2012, 10:00:56 AM
Quite frankly, I really don't give a shit what people think about you, BB. :P
Besides you are in Baltimore. The vast majority of the male population would be jealous.
This is true: she's blonde, busty, and a black man's cream dream. :lol:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 29, 2012, 09:45:59 AM
So, basically, I'm the only one here who will admit to having had sex with chubby women. Keep the sharp knees coming, boys. :P
I honestly never have. It makes a big difference that my peak fucking years were in the 80's and 90's, before the recent explosion in obesity.
One interesting trend I've noticed is that TV commercials are using more large sized girls.
When I was at my fattest the bloke I was seeing changed jobs because he was getting teased over my weight. Then he never introduced me to any more friends or colleagues :hmm: :lol:
Quote from: Brazen on May 29, 2012, 10:38:52 AM
When I was at my fattest the bloke I was seeing changed jobs because he was getting teased over my weight. Then he never introduced me to any more friends or colleagues :hmm: :lol:
Wow. That surprises me, generally nobody talks crap about another guy's girlfriend. There are not too many ways these days to get fights started when everybody is sober but that is a surefire one.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 29, 2012, 09:45:59 AM
So, basically, I'm the only one here who will admit to having had sex with chubby women.
I didn't say that either. I just said it wasn't fair and I deserved better.
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2012, 10:41:58 AM
Quote from: Brazen on May 29, 2012, 10:38:52 AM
When I was at my fattest the bloke I was seeing changed jobs because he was getting teased over my weight. Then he never introduced me to any more friends or colleagues :hmm: :lol:
Wow. That surprises me, generally nobody talks crap about another guy's girlfriend. There are not too many ways these days to get fights started when everybody is sober but that is a surefire one.
Yeah - very surprised as well. Talking smack about someone's girlfriend / wife is just Not Done (at least once you're not in high school).
Quote from: Ideologue on May 29, 2012, 10:48:42 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 29, 2012, 09:45:59 AM
So, basically, I'm the only one here who will admit to having had sex with chubby women.
I didn't say that either. I just said it wasn't fair and I deserved better.
:lol: Amen, bro.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 29, 2012, 09:45:59 AM
So, basically, I'm the only one here who will admit to having had sex with chubby women. Keep the sharp knees coming, boys. :P
I'll admit too. Skinny chicks don't have enough boobs.
Plus, I had a kid 1 year ago, of course my girlfriend is fat.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 29, 2012, 10:57:46 AM
Plus, I had a kid 1 year ago, of course my girlfriend is fat.
Fat or heavier than when you met her?
I have real issues with those words are used. "Fat" and "obese" are over-used, imo and I blame the damn BMI. Having a few extra pounds =/= fat, and obese is more than 30 or 40 pounds overweight. Hell, according to most charts I should weigh 120 pounds. If I weighed that, I'd look emaciated!
Yes, people need to lose weight, but the terms applied are... annoying at best and completely wrong at worst.
MOM SAYS IM JUST STOCKY
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 29, 2012, 10:55:21 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 29, 2012, 10:48:42 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 29, 2012, 09:45:59 AM
So, basically, I'm the only one here who will admit to having had sex with chubby women.
I didn't say that either. I just said it wasn't fair and I deserved better.
:lol: Amen, bro.
Enter 1985, 19 yo, Charlie Co. 509th ABN, and the
annual Easter Pig contest. I and my fellow brethren were shameless, shameless I tell you. There was a money pool. :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2012, 10:41:58 AM
Quote from: Brazen on May 29, 2012, 10:38:52 AM
When I was at my fattest the bloke I was seeing changed jobs because he was getting teased over my weight. Then he never introduced me to any more friends or colleagues :hmm: :lol:
Wow. That surprises me, generally nobody talks crap about another guy's girlfriend. There are not too many ways these days to get fights started when everybody is sober but that is a surefire one.
One may tease about such things if it was an alcohol-induced one-night stand, sure, but never a formal girlfriend.
As for my waist, I have no way of knowing. But I'm maybe 5 kg overweight. Noticeable, but not enough for anything to hang. This will hopefully change from next week. If the dilation is successful I'll be finally be able to eat veggies again, after 5 long years.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 29, 2012, 11:10:32 AM
Enter 1985, 19 yo, Charlie Co. 509th ABN, and the annual Easter Pig contest. I and my fellow brethren were shameless, shameless I tell you. There was a money pool. :lol:
There was cash on the line. There's no dishonor in that.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 29, 2012, 11:10:32 AM
Enter 1985, 19 yo, Charlie Co. 509th ABN, and the annual Easter Pig contest. I and my fellow brethren were shameless, shameless I tell you. There was a money pool. :lol:
Is that where the guy with the ugliest/fattest date wins?
I saw that in a River Phoenix Vietnam movie. :)
Quote from: merithyn on May 29, 2012, 11:08:09 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 29, 2012, 10:57:46 AM
Plus, I had a kid 1 year ago, of course my girlfriend is fat.
Fat or heavier than when you met her?
I have real issues with those words are used. "Fat" and "obese" are over-used, imo and I blame the damn BMI. Having a few extra pounds =/= fat, and obese is more than 30 or 40 pounds overweight. Hell, according to most charts I should weigh 120 pounds. If I weighed that, I'd look emaciated!
Yes, people need to lose weight, but the terms applied are... annoying at best and completely wrong at worst.
I don't know but she's heavier now then before she was pregnant.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 29, 2012, 11:12:31 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 29, 2012, 11:10:32 AM
Enter 1985, 19 yo, Charlie Co. 509th ABN, and the annual Easter Pig contest. I and my fellow brethren were shameless, shameless I tell you. There was a money pool. :lol:
There was cash on the line. There's no dishonor in that.
Another time and another unit I was pulling Staff Duty (a 24hr duty). At about 0200 I walked over to my company area to talk to the Charge of Quarters. Standing around the desk were two heavy drops. Half drunk of course. As I'm standing there BS'ing, I see a doughnut tumble down the stairs attached to some fishing line. Laughing was coming from the second floor landing. I knew who it was, guys from my team. They started jigging the doughnut. The fat chicks went up the stairs, I laughed my ass off and didnt see them come down until the next morning.
I'm going to hell. :lmfao:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.whicdn.com%2Fimages%2F3240015%2F4266380541_c1f6a970ed_z_thumb.jpg&hash=3255b4daf1db55b70931e0505f5747274b68b076)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 29, 2012, 11:12:45 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 29, 2012, 11:10:32 AM
Enter 1985, 19 yo, Charlie Co. 509th ABN, and the annual Easter Pig contest. I and my fellow brethren were shameless, shameless I tell you. There was a money pool. :lol:
Is that where the guy with the ugliest/fattest date wins?
I saw that in a River Phoenix Vietnam movie. :)
It was all about size. Unfamiliar with that movie.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 29, 2012, 11:11:14 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 29, 2012, 11:09:16 AM
MOM SAYS IM JUST STOCKY
It's called big boned-ed.
But I am. :(
When I was a size 8, I still weighed 145 pounds, and I was probably a bit too thin for my frame. My mother weighs the same as me, and is two sizes bigger. I can't help it. It's how I was made. :weep:
The plus side is that I have big boobs and a big butt! :w00t:
Quote from: 11B4V on May 29, 2012, 11:19:26 AM
I'm going to hell. :lmfao:
Yes, yes you are. :mad:
:P
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2012, 10:41:58 AM
Wow. That surprises me, generally nobody talks crap about another guy's girlfriend. There are not too many ways these days to get fights started when everybody is sober but that is a surefire one.
Jaron might disagree.
Quote from: merithyn on May 29, 2012, 11:08:09 AM
I have real issues with those words are used. "Fat" and "obese" are over-used, imo and I blame the damn BMI.
Wow. Still mad at the BMI after all this time? I still remember our epic BMI battle.
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2012, 11:37:10 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 29, 2012, 11:08:09 AM
I have real issues with those words are used. "Fat" and "obese" are over-used, imo and I blame the damn BMI.
Wow. Still mad at the BMI after all this time? I still remember our epic BMI battle.
:lmfao:
On the train on the way back from downtown Chicago! And yes, I still am. At least people are finally -
finally - starting to get how awful that thing is for gauging anything but huge amounts of data. It's absolutely worthless for individuals.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 29, 2012, 10:57:46 AM
Skinny chicks don't have enough boobs.
Boobs are cheap.
Fake boobs are awful.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 29, 2012, 11:44:41 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 29, 2012, 10:57:46 AM
Skinny chicks don't have enough boobs.
Boobs are cheap.
That doesn't have any meaning when you are 18 & trying to fuck as many chick as possible.
Lipo is also cheap.
Quote from: merithyn on May 29, 2012, 11:39:52 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 29, 2012, 11:37:10 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 29, 2012, 11:08:09 AM
I have real issues with those words are used. "Fat" and "obese" are over-used, imo and I blame the damn BMI.
Wow. Still mad at the BMI after all this time? I still remember our epic BMI battle.
:lmfao:
On the train on the way back from downtown Chicago! And yes, I still am. At least people are finally - finally - starting to get how awful that thing is for gauging anything but huge amounts of data. It's absolutely worthless for individuals.
Measures that are valid for the group cannot be absolutely worthless for individuals of said group. It's possible that they may be nearly worthless, but they can't be absolutely worthless.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 29, 2012, 11:48:10 AM
Fake boobs are awful.
Like ketchup packets ready to burst.
Quote from: merithyn on May 29, 2012, 11:27:29 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 29, 2012, 11:19:26 AM
I'm going to hell. :lmfao:
Yes, yes you are. :mad:
:P
:D My facebook profile pic (taken in 1985) is the BV from that time.
Quote from: merithyn on May 26, 2012, 08:49:00 AM
All of these men saying that a woman should be fit... how many would pass the Marti/Sheilbh test? :P
Easy to answer that: I would fail that test.
I'm attracted to slim&pretty women, but I'm fat. Heck, I have trouble walking when there's a gentle slope, or any kind of physical effort. I doubt I'll be losing weight anytime soon. I just have to forget about the über cute 20 something.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 26, 2012, 08:50:06 AM
We all knew one kid like that.
I used to be one. But I suppose I had too many accidents and too many health problems.
Quote from: Martinus on May 26, 2012, 12:33:34 PM
Actually it's a struggle for me - that's what I mean. I don't have the best metabolism, so I have to watch what I eat a lot and when I let myself go for a week or so, I immediately gain 5-10 pounds. So I refuse to agree that everyone who is fat is struggling as hard (or harder) as I do but their genetics somehow keeps them away from getting slimmer.
Besides as Iormlund points out it can't be that Europeans are so genetically superior to Americans when it comes to keeping from becoming obese.
It's not just a question of metabolism.
Someone working a desk job 8hrs a day and training 2-2.5hrs a day vs someone of the same age working physically (farmer, construction worker, lumberjack, etc) 8-10hrs a day is just not the same. Figure that there can be the equivalent of 6hrs or sustained gym work there for someone not doing desk job.
Quote from: merithyn on May 29, 2012, 10:20:00 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 29, 2012, 08:04:05 AM
Yeah, I've met and talked with plenty of women with killer bodies that like their men with "meat on their bones". Go fig.
:yes:
I find Max much sexier now that he's gained some weight. When I met him, he looked a lot like I imagine Ide does. Now he looks like a man. Before he looked like a boy.
Hey, I just noticed this. <_<
Ide's little boy body.
Quote from: Jaron on May 29, 2012, 10:31:55 PM
Ide's little boy body.
I figured that was Beeb, Ide is too weathered by all the tobacco.
Wrong.
Though I will certainly concede that Beeb looks like he's fifteen.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 29, 2012, 10:40:51 PM
Wrong.
Though I will certainly concede that Beeb looks like he's fifteen.
Well he's Canadian. In general, aside from the lumberjacks, a Canadian man is like an average American man if you take away about 50% of his masculinity, on average. So the average Canadian man is only 50% more masculine than you, Ide.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 29, 2012, 10:57:05 PM
Well he's Canadian. In general, aside from the lumberjacks, a Canadian man is like an average American man if you take away about 50% of his masculinity, on average. So the average Canadian man is only 50% more masculine than you, Ide.
So you're saying Ide is 1/3 of a man? :nerd:
So even garbon is more of a man!
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 29, 2012, 11:13:50 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 29, 2012, 10:57:05 PM
Well he's Canadian. In general, aside from the lumberjacks, a Canadian man is like an average American man if you take away about 50% of his masculinity, on average. So the average Canadian man is only 50% more masculine than you, Ide.
So you're saying Ide is 1/3 of a man? :nerd:
I'm simply Bowiesque.
are you announcing you are bi?
Quote from: Ideologue on May 29, 2012, 11:17:16 PM
I'm simply Bowiesque.
So that cock in your mouth is Jaggeresque?
Quote from: katmai on May 29, 2012, 10:34:35 PM
Quote from: Jaron on May 29, 2012, 10:31:55 PM
Ide's little boy body.
I figured that was Beeb, Ide is too weathered by all the tobacco.
My babyface has been caught up by my grey hair. :(
Dye it. Shave it. or Embrace it.
Quote from: Barrister on May 29, 2012, 11:43:21 PM
My babyface has been caught up by my grey hair. :(
When I don't shave for a few days, I have all these greys, Fu-Manchu biker-style on my chin. :(
I wish I could grow it. :(
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 29, 2012, 10:57:05 PM
Well he's Canadian. In general, aside from the lumberjacks, a Canadian man is like an average American man if you take away about 50% of his masculinity, on average. So the average Canadian man is only 50% more masculine than you, Ide.
You keep using this word "man". I do not think it means what you think it means. :hmm:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 29, 2012, 11:57:05 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 29, 2012, 11:43:21 PM
My babyface has been caught up by my grey hair. :(
When I don't shave for a few days, I have all these greys, Fu-Manchu biker-style on my chin. :(
I wish I could grow it. :(
The only sign of ageing I've managed to dodge so far is grey hair - none of the fair-haired women on my mum's side of the family have any.
Men's grey belly pubes amuse me :lol:
Quote from: Brazen on May 30, 2012, 03:47:11 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 29, 2012, 11:57:05 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 29, 2012, 11:43:21 PM
My babyface has been caught up by my grey hair. :(
When I don't shave for a few days, I have all these greys, Fu-Manchu biker-style on my chin. :(
I wish I could grow it. :(
The only sign of ageing I've managed to dodge so far is grey hair - none of the fair-haired women on my mum's side of the family have any.
Men's grey belly pubes amuse me :lol:
:blink:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgifs.gifbin.com%2F1232550297_Dramatic%2520chipmunk.gif&hash=aeaaf7e2651a81c77dd1e828cbcd795e59fe69fe)
Quote from: Brazen on May 30, 2012, 03:47:11 AM
Men's grey belly pubes amuse me :lol:
Well, I guess that makes one of...all of us. :huh:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 29, 2012, 11:13:50 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 29, 2012, 10:57:05 PM
Well he's Canadian. In general, aside from the lumberjacks, a Canadian man is like an average American man if you take away about 50% of his masculinity, on average. So the average Canadian man is only 50% more masculine than you, Ide.
So you're saying Ide is 1/3 of a man? :nerd:
:lol:
The argument is a strong one, as evidenced by several effeminate characteristics of Ide:
-Vegetarianism
-Liberalism/Leftism
-Use of flowery language
-Diminutive/effete build
-Pursuing white collar work
There are probably more.
Quote from: merithyn on May 29, 2012, 11:59:11 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 29, 2012, 10:57:05 PM
Well he's Canadian. In general, aside from the lumberjacks, a Canadian man is like an average American man if you take away about 50% of his masculinity, on average. So the average Canadian man is only 50% more masculine than you, Ide.
You keep using this word "man". I do not think it means what you think it means. :hmm:
I think it means exactly what I say it means.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 30, 2012, 09:50:29 AM
I think it means exactly what I say it means.
The opposite of hockey players?
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2012, 10:00:35 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 30, 2012, 09:50:29 AM
I think it means exactly what I say it means.
The opposite of hockey players?
Say that to anyone toothless hockey player canuk you happen to cross :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2012, 05:26:23 AM
Quote from: Brazen on May 30, 2012, 03:47:11 AM
Men's grey belly pubes amuse me :lol:
Well, I guess that makes one of...all of us. :huh:
Indeed, can't ever say I've had that...reaction.
Quote from: HVC on May 30, 2012, 11:02:34 AM
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2012, 10:00:35 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 30, 2012, 09:50:29 AM
I think it means exactly what I say it means.
The opposite of hockey players?
Say that to anyone toothless hockey player canuk you happen to cross :lol:
Well since I have it on good authority that all males in Canada play Hockey I can only assume that was what he meant. Hockey is girlie.
Tangentially related: (http://www.livescience.com/2307-romance-matters-beautiful.html)
Quote
In Romance, Looks Matters Most to the Beautiful
Jeanna Bryner
Date: 14 February 2008 Time: 05:04 AM ET
In the world of romance, we seek out partners who are just as "hot" or "not hot" as we are.
A new study supports the idea that super models flock together while individuals lacking the perfect face and body also stick together.
"Beautiful people marry beautiful people and less beautiful people marry less beautiful people," said Dan Ariely, a professor of behavioral economics at MIT's Program in Media Arts and Sciences and Sloan School of Management.
But that doesn't mean less-attractive people are destined to lives of unrequited love and feelings of just settling for the mediocre. The study results, which will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Psychological Science, suggest people who lack looks place more stock in non-physical features, such as sense of humor, than in physical beauty.
Guys, however, are less concerned with their own looks when deciding whom to date, the findings suggest. So while a man might have no qualms about going after someone much better looking than he is, a woman will tend more to choose partners with compatible looks.
Another recent study suggests that, in general, for both men and women physical attractiveness guides cupid's arrow. This research did not account for each individual's own looks.
Hot or not
What makes for a "hot" appearance? Research has shown that people have essentially universal standards of beauty, including large eyes, "baby face" features, symmetric faces, so-called average faces, and specific waist-hip ratios in men versus women.
Ariely, Leonard Lee of Columbia University's Business School in New York, and their colleagues looked at information from an online dating Web site called HOTorNOT.com, which allows members to rate others on their physical attractiveness.
They focused on a 10-day period in August 2005 to figure out how an individual's attractiveness rating affected how that person rated others' physical attractiveness on a scale from 1 to the hottest value of 10. Then, the researchers compared the average hot-or-not ratings for each person with the number of dating requests.
On average, participants paired up with others having compatible attractiveness. Compared with the ladies, guys were most influenced by physical attractiveness when requesting dates, but their own appearance ratings had less effect on their date choices.
"Males are less affected by how attractive they themselves are than females," Lee said in a telephone interview. Guys were more likely than ladies to request dates out of their league.
Individuals who slid furthest down the hot-or-not scale seemed more desperate, as they were the most likely to respond "yes" to any date requests. For every unit decrease on the 10-point scale of the member's own attractiveness the member was 25 percent more likely to say "yes" to a potential date.
The hot-rated members were choosier, tending to accept only dates from others in their attractiveness neighborhood.
Beauty in the eye of the beholder?
The researchers wondered whether beauty standards varied depending on a person's own outward appearance.
"If I'm less attractive, which I am, and I hang out with less attractive people, you can imagine I start appreciating different things," Ariely told LiveScience. "I [might] start caring less about symmetry and I start thinking more that big ears could be cute. But that doesn't seem to happen."
Regardless of their hot rating, individuals came to the same consensus regarding the hotness of other members.
"Whereas less attractive people are willing to accept less attractive others as dating partners, they do not delude themselves into thinking that these less attractive others are, in fact, physically attractive," they write in the journal article.
Looks can be overrated
To understand how the physically-lacking individuals cope with the cards they were dealt, the researchers conducted a speed-dating study.
At the event sponsored by a Boston-based online dating company, 24 participants indicated how high they rated the relative importance of six criteria — physical attractiveness, intelligence, sense of humor, kindness, confidence and extroversion — for selecting dates. The participants then chatted for four minutes with each potential date, after which they rated each other on physical attractiveness and decided whether to meet up again with that person.
Turned out, more attractive people placed more importance on physical attractiveness above other features in selecting their dates. Less attractive people placed more weight on other qualities, such as sense of humor.
"The people who are less attractive basically switch what they care about and they start caring less about beauty and more about sense of humor," Ariely said.
Another recent speed-dating study, published in the February issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, revealed that the attractiveness of a potential partner is critical, followed by ambition and earnings.
"In other words good looks was the primary stimulus of attraction for both men and women, and a person with good earning prospects or ambition tended to be liked as well," said study researcher Eli Finkel, an assistant professor of psychology at Northwestern University in Illinois.
I don't know if the phenomenon of seeing a smoking hot girl on the arm of an unspectacular guy has more to do with the guys being more willing to take the shot or if the women prefer a partner who is less attractive than they are.
Also, you guys who don't think looks are important? That doesn't necessarily mean you've lowered your standards because you yourself are ugly. Congrats! :P
Woohoo! Take that uggos!
Quote from: Ideologue on May 31, 2012, 09:45:48 PM
Woohoo! Take that uggos!
QuoteGuys, however, are less concerned with their own looks when deciding whom to date, the findings suggest. So while a man might have no qualms about going after someone much better looking than he is, a woman will tend more to choose partners with compatible looks.
:hmm:
Quote from: merithyn on May 31, 2012, 10:09:12 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 31, 2012, 09:45:48 PM
Woohoo! Take that uggos!
QuoteGuys, however, are less concerned with their own looks when deciding whom to date, the findings suggest. So while a man might have no qualms about going after someone much better looking than he is, a woman will tend more to choose partners with compatible looks.
:hmm:
You saing Ide's a fatty in disguise? :o
She's calling him a self-deluding fug. :secret:
Ide's just a guy who eat a lot Reeses peanut butter cups and then throws them up.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 31, 2012, 10:24:46 PM
She's calling him a self-deluding fug. :secret:
You've met me. :(
Quote from: Ideologue on May 31, 2012, 10:56:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 31, 2012, 10:24:46 PM
She's calling him a self-deluding fug. :secret:
You've met me. :(
it's what's on the inside that counts buddy :hug: :P
No it isn't.
QuoteWhereas less attractive people are willing to accept less attractive others as dating partners
See, if I were less attractive, I'd be willing to accept that. I'm not, so I don't.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 31, 2012, 11:11:52 PM
No it isn't.
QuoteWhereas less attractive people are willing to accept less attractive others as dating partners
See, if I were less attractive, I'd be willing to accept that. I'm not, so I don't.
Amen, my beautiful bro.
:hug:
You know, even if you guys weren't beautiful you both still have that wonderful sense of humour :hug:
Quote from: Jacob on May 31, 2012, 11:19:31 PM
You know, even if you guys weren't beautiful you both still have that wonderful sense of humour :hug:
Chicks don't dig it when I laugh at them and call them stupid.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 31, 2012, 11:20:43 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 31, 2012, 11:19:31 PM
You know, even if you guys weren't beautiful you both still have that wonderful sense of humour :hug:
Chicks don't dig it when I laugh at them and call them stupid.
i think i'm starting to see where you're going wrong :D
Quote from: HVC on May 31, 2012, 11:24:41 PM
i think i'm starting to see where you're going wrong :D
I yam what I yam.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 29, 2012, 10:57:05 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 29, 2012, 10:40:51 PM
Wrong.
Though I will certainly concede that Beeb looks like he's fifteen.
Well he's Canadian. In general, aside from the lumberjacks, a Canadian man is like an average American man if you take away about 50% of his masculinity, on average. So the average Canadian man is only 50% more masculine than you, Ide.
If you are talking sheer body mass, I agree - the weight of your average american male is twice that of your average Canadian male. -_-
Quit being sensitive. This is Languish. God Damn huggie emo. :mad:
Quote from: Jacob on May 31, 2012, 11:19:31 PM
You know, even if you guys weren't beautiful you both still have that wonderful sense of humour :hug:
You are a man of great taste and discrimination. :)
Am I discriminatory...
Quote from: Jaron on June 01, 2012, 01:56:09 AM
Am I discriminatory...
You should be discriminated against. :P
He is. When he gets up in the morning to find work, they always pick healthier looking guys first.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 01, 2012, 03:35:04 AM
He is. When he gets up in the morning to find work, they always pick healthier looking guys first.
:pinch:
Quote from: merithyn on May 31, 2012, 10:09:12 PM
QuoteGuys, however, are less concerned with their own looks when deciding whom to date, the findings suggest. So while a man might have no qualms about going after someone much better looking than he is, a woman will tend more to choose partners with compatible looks.
:hmm:
Yeah and you would find just the opposite if we were talking about financial success. Both seem crazy to me. Why intentionally choose a less accomplished or less attractive mate (presuming you can be choosy)? All things being equal of course.
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2012, 08:24:27 AM
Yeah and you would find just the opposite if we were talking about financial success. Both seem crazy to me. Why intentionally choose a less accomplished or less attractive mate (presuming you can be choosy)? All things being equal of course.
It was a joke, calling Ide out on his "preferences". :D
I chose a less accomplished partner, and now he's worth 5x me. :) Sometimes, one sees potential over absolute value.
With men, I wonder about the ego thing. I've known guys who absolutely have to be THE bread winner. The wife can work, but she can't make more than him because then he's emasculated. WTF?? :blink:
Quote from: merithyn on June 01, 2012, 08:45:04 AM
With men, I wonder about the ego thing. I've known guys who absolutely have to be THE bread winner. The wife can work, but she can't make more than him because then he's emasculated. WTF?? :blink:
I tend to associate that line of thinking with the older generation or olders school guys. Statistics show that younger men do tend to choose more accomplished women but that just may be by necessity since more women have college degrees these days. In fact, in a stat exactly the opposite of what it was in the 70s and 80s, today the more education a woman has the more likely she is to be married.
Of course these days education does not necessarily mean more accomplished. These women may just be getting married because they need somebody to help pay off their student loans :ph34r:
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2012, 08:47:02 AM
These women may just be getting married because they need somebody to help pay off their student loans :ph34r:
Shit, I was considering getting married to somebody, simply for healthcare.
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2012, 08:24:27 AM
Quote from: merithyn on May 31, 2012, 10:09:12 PM
QuoteGuys, however, are less concerned with their own looks when deciding whom to date, the findings suggest. So while a man might have no qualms about going after someone much better looking than he is, a woman will tend more to choose partners with compatible looks.
:hmm:
Yeah and you would find just the opposite if we were talking about financial success. Both seem crazy to me. Why intentionally choose a less accomplished or less attractive mate (presuming you can be choosy)? All things being equal of course.
But not everyone can be choosy as far as there are individuals that will generally be out of their league.
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2012, 08:47:02 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 01, 2012, 08:45:04 AM
With men, I wonder about the ego thing. I've known guys who absolutely have to be THE bread winner. The wife can work, but she can't make more than him because then he's emasculated. WTF?? :blink:
I tend to associate that line of thinking with the older generation or olders school guys. Statistics show that younger men do tend to choose more accomplished women but that just may be by necessity since more women have college degrees these days. In fact, in a stat exactly the opposite of what it was in the 70s and 80s, today the more education a woman has the more likely she is to be married.
Of course these days education does not necessarily mean more accomplished. These women may just be getting married because they need somebody to help pay off their student loans :ph34r:
Women generally go for men higher in status than themselves. That's why there's such a large cohort of college educated women turning into cat ladies these days, not enough high-status (compared to them) men around.
Personally I don't give a rat's ass about a woman's educational or earning potential. It's looks, looks, looks, personality and...cooking ability would be a plus. I always smirk a little when women rattle off their educational and financial accomplishments in reference to their sexual market value, sure all these things are a plus...if you're a guy. ;)
If you're a woman and have a hard time getting guys you should work on your apperance and lower your standards. Repeat as often as necessary.
Quote from: Legbiter on June 01, 2012, 08:57:07 AM
That's why there's such a large cohort of college educated women turning into cat ladies these days, not enough high-status (compared to them) men around.
As I said stats show just the opposite. The less educated a woman is the more likely she will be cat lady...or more probably single mom lady.
Quote from: garbon on June 01, 2012, 08:54:49 AM
But not everyone can be choosy as far as there are individuals that will generally be out of their league.
But you gotta try, man.
For the longest time, I kicked myself every day that I never asked a certain somebody out that I knew a couple years ago. This woman was the first one in 20 years that actually knocked me on my ass hardcore. I mean, she was the kind of woman that would make you volunteer to parachute behind enemy lines for and mail enemy ears back home. Yeah, it was like that.
But I'll never know, now will I?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 08:59:29 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 01, 2012, 08:54:49 AM
But not everyone can be choosy as far as there are individuals that will generally be out of their league.
But you gotta try, man.
For the longest time, I kicked myself every day that I never asked a certain somebody out that I knew a couple years ago. This woman was the first one in 20 years that actually knocked me on my ass hardcore. I mean, she was the kind of woman that would make you volunteer to parachute behind enemy lines for and mail enemy ears back home. Yeah, it was like that.
But I'll never know, now will I?
Actually I don't have to try for anything.
Quote from: garbon on June 01, 2012, 09:05:51 AM
Actually I don't have to try for anything.
I didn't mean
you you. You're gay. You people get cock on tap.
Quote from: Legbiter on June 01, 2012, 08:57:07 AM
If you're a woman and have a hard time getting guys you should work on your apperance and lower your standards. Repeat as often as necessary.
Yeah, women, listen to Legbiter, and hurry up with lowering standards, I'm not getting any younger. :mad:
Quote from: DGuller on June 01, 2012, 09:17:50 AM
Yeah, women, listen to Legbiter, and hurry up with lowering standards, I'm not getting any younger. :mad:
:lol:
Heh: http://www.marrymesugardaddy.com/index.php?Welcome_to_Marry_me_SugarDaddy&x_source=ib42221
Case and somewhat disturbing point.
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2012, 09:36:14 AM
Case and somewhat disturbing point.
Basic economic theory, man.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 01, 2012, 09:08:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 01, 2012, 09:05:51 AM
Actually I don't have to try for anything.
I didn't mean you you. You're gay. You people get cock on tap.
You meant
youyou? How vain.
Bad youyou.
Quote from: The Brain on June 01, 2012, 09:49:07 AM
Bad youyou.
Freaking keyboard sticks if I use my right thumb to hit the space bar.
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2012, 09:36:14 AM
Heh: http://www.marrymesugardaddy.com/index.php?Welcome_to_Marry_me_SugarDaddy&x_source=ib42221
Case and somewhat disturbing point.
That actually makes me a bit ill. :x
To each their own, I guess, but damn, what a way to set back feminism 100 years or more.
Quote from: merithyn on June 01, 2012, 10:19:35 AM
To each their own, I guess, but damn, what a way to set back feminism 100 years or more.
If Feminism is going to insist every woman be a responsible self actualized adult it is going to have many many setbacks. :P
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2012, 10:28:03 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 01, 2012, 10:19:35 AM
To each their own, I guess, but damn, what a way to set back feminism 100 years or more.
If Feminism is going to insist every woman be a responsible self actualized adult it is going to have many many setbacks. :P
I know. :weep:
Seems to me that's a huge step forward in feminism. People used to have to pay dowries to get rid of daughters, but now... :hmm:
Quote from: Habbaku on June 01, 2012, 10:40:15 AM
Seems to me that's a huge step forward in feminism. People used to have to pay dowries to get rid of daughters, but now... :hmm:
Still property. :contract:
Just worth more.
Quote from: merithyn on June 01, 2012, 10:53:48 AM
Still property. :contract:
Just worth more.
Yeah because the rich dudes with money are totally respected as people by those young ladies :P
It is a mutual self-loathing society.
By the way the dowry, in England anyway, was supposed to sustain the woman when her husband died and his property all went to his heirs. So I am not sure how that treats her like property or have the effect Habs implied :P
Quote from: merithyn on June 01, 2012, 08:45:04 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2012, 08:24:27 AM
Yeah and you would find just the opposite if we were talking about financial success. Both seem crazy to me. Why intentionally choose a less accomplished or less attractive mate (presuming you can be choosy)? All things being equal of course.
It was a joke, calling Ide out on his "preferences". :D
I chose a less accomplished partner, and now he's worth 5x me. :) Sometimes, one sees potential over absolute value.
With men, I wonder about the ego thing. I've known guys who absolutely have to be THE bread winner. The wife can work, but she can't make more than him because then he's emasculated. WTF?? :blink:
Like Legbiter said: I don't care, but I know most women do, so I have to.
To add to what Valmy said, I'd prefer someone with a college degree, much like our modern employers, because while the college degree itself is nearly worthless, and the process a waste of time and money, not having a college degree these days is tantamount to admitting being retarded.
Oh, and what's with the "scare quotes"? Everybody has a type, lady. :angry:
I would have no problems hooking up with a "Sugar Momma." :yes:
Ain't nothing wrong with help out a young lady with her car repair bills. And if she choses to repay me with sexual favors? C'est la vie.
Quote from: merithyn on June 01, 2012, 08:45:04 AM
With men, I wonder about the ego thing. I've known guys who absolutely have to be THE bread winner. The wife can work, but she can't make more than him because then he's emasculated. WTF?? :blink:
Yeah, think about what makes men think they are a good potential mate. A guy losing his job while his wife supports him is a lot like a woman hitting the wall and becoming fat ugly and sterile all of a sudden. A crippled caveman can't hunt for food or protect his mate and offspring from the bears. Therefore, cavewoman must find a new mate.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 01, 2012, 12:47:22 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 01, 2012, 08:45:04 AM
With men, I wonder about the ego thing. I've known guys who absolutely have to be THE bread winner. The wife can work, but she can't make more than him because then he's emasculated. WTF?? :blink:
Yeah, think about what makes men think they are a good potential mate. A guy losing his job while his wife supports him is a lot like a woman hitting the wall and becoming fat ugly and sterile all of a sudden. A crippled caveman can't hunt for food or protect his mate and offspring from the bears. Therefore, cavewoman must find a new mate.
:mellow:
No, not gonna' do it. Not gonna' rise to the bait. :sleep:
I thinkk what he is saying is that men feel secure thinking that they are needed as providers not that women are necessarily actually going to leave them.
Heh, I don't know about that. There was a poll done here recently in which 80% of women said they would not date an unemployed man. In contrast, 68% of the men answered they would date a woman without a job.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 01, 2012, 01:33:00 PM
Heh, I don't know about that. There was a poll done here recently in which 80% of women said they would not date an unemployed man. In contrast, 68% of the men answered they would date a woman without a job.
That's only a 12% difference.
Basically, no one wants to date someone without a job. Shocking. :mellow:
Quote from: Iormlund on June 01, 2012, 01:33:00 PM
Heh, I don't know about that. There was a poll done here recently in which 80% of women said they would not date an unemployed man. In contrast, 68% of the men answered they would date a woman without a job.
Well there is a pretty big difference between who you want to date and what happens to somebody you are already committed to. Like nobody faults Ide for not wanting to date women over 90 lbs/41kgs but dumping your girlfriend/wife because she ballooned up to 105 lbs/48kgs is something entirely different.
Quote from: merithyn on June 01, 2012, 01:40:09 PM
Basically, no one wants to date someone without a job. Shocking. :mellow:
What Kayne said.
Quote from: merithyn on June 01, 2012, 01:40:09 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 01, 2012, 01:33:00 PM
Heh, I don't know about that. There was a poll done here recently in which 80% of women said they would not date an unemployed man. In contrast, 68% of the men answered they would date a woman without a job.
That's only a 12% difference.
:hmm:
Quote from: merithyn on June 01, 2012, 10:19:35 AM
To each their own, I guess, but damn, what a way to set back feminism 100 years or more.
Why? Isn't feminism about choice?
Quote from: merithyn on June 01, 2012, 01:40:09 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 01, 2012, 01:33:00 PM
Heh, I don't know about that. There was a poll done here recently in which 80% of women said they would not date an unemployed man. In contrast, 68% of the men answered they would date a woman without a job.
That's only a 12% difference.
Basically, no one wants to date someone without a job. Shocking. :mellow:
You're out by a factor of 4, it's a 48%, and a bad difference at that.
Quote from: garbon on June 01, 2012, 02:13:09 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 01, 2012, 10:19:35 AM
To each their own, I guess, but damn, what a way to set back feminism 100 years or more.
Why? Isn't feminism about choice?
Sure, but some choices set others back which makes it harder for them to choose. In other words, to make that choice, those in power (ie men) could say that women don't NEED to work, so laws and changes could be moved back to what they were in the 1950s. Hell, some laws are already going in that direction, see: SAHPs not being allowed to get their own credit cards.
There are individual choices, and then there are choices that affect the greater good.
Quote from: merithyn on June 01, 2012, 02:22:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 01, 2012, 02:13:09 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 01, 2012, 10:19:35 AM
To each their own, I guess, but damn, what a way to set back feminism 100 years or more.
Why? Isn't feminism about choice?
Sure, but some choices set others back which makes it harder for them to choose. In other words, to make that choice, those in power (ie men) could say that women don't NEED to work, so laws and changes could be moved back to what they were in the 1950s. Hell, some laws are already going in that direction, see: SAHPs not being allowed to get their own credit cards.
There are individual choices, and then there are choices that affect the greater good.
These are individual choices though. A few tacky girls go on a website about wanting a sugar daddy and suddenly we're saying that women don't need to work? :huh:
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2012, 08:59:04 AM
As I said stats show just the opposite. The less educated a woman is the more likely she will be cat lady
You sure about this? I've read the opposite several times, and would appreciate a source.
Quote from: mongers on June 01, 2012, 02:17:54 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 01, 2012, 01:40:09 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 01, 2012, 01:33:00 PM
Heh, I don't know about that. There was a poll done here recently in which 80% of women said they would not date an unemployed man. In contrast, 68% of the men answered they would date a woman without a job.
That's only a 12% difference.
Basically, no one wants to date someone without a job. Shocking. :mellow:
You're out by a factor of 4, it's a 48%, and a bad difference at that.
Oooooh.... totally misread that. :blush:
Nevermind.
See women fail at maths!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 01, 2012, 02:25:58 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2012, 08:59:04 AM
As I said stats show just the opposite. The less educated a woman is the more likely she will be cat lady
You sure about this? I've read the opposite several times, and would appreciate a source.
Sure! I know right where I got it, it was a fairly recent study. But it may take me a bit to dig it out.
Quote from: katmai on June 01, 2012, 02:27:57 PM
See women Meri fails at maths reading comprehension!
FYP
Quote from: katmai on June 01, 2012, 02:27:57 PM
See women fail at maths!
Move to England if you want to talk like that <_<
Quote from: merithyn on June 01, 2012, 02:33:30 PM
Quote from: katmai on June 01, 2012, 02:27:57 PM
See women Meri fails at maths reading comprehension!
FYP
Yeah, I was going to say that too. :hug: :D
Quote from: Ideologue on June 01, 2012, 11:10:04 AM
To add to what Valmy said, I'd prefer someone with a college degree, much like our modern employers, because while the college degree itself is nearly worthless, and the process a waste of time and money, not having a college degree these days is tantamount to admitting being retarded.
I dunno, I'd say a cute waitress would be a better choice than some chick with a worthless college degree and matching student loan debt.
Quote from: Legbiter on June 01, 2012, 03:10:27 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 01, 2012, 11:10:04 AM
To add to what Valmy said, I'd prefer someone with a college degree, much like our modern employers, because while the college degree itself is nearly worthless, and the process a waste of time and money, not having a college degree these days is tantamount to admitting being retarded.
I dunno, I'd say a cute waitress would be a better choice than some chick with a worthless college degree and matching student loan debt.
My wife has her two year diploma and she most definitely is not retarded.
But no so sure her choice in men.
Quote from: katmai on June 01, 2012, 03:14:01 PM
But no so sure her choice in men.
True. But she's preggo now so she's stuck with me. :shifty:
Quote from: Barrister on June 01, 2012, 03:12:57 PM
My wife has her two year diploma and she most definitely is not retarded.
Yep.
Hot, sweet and feminine trumps a BA in psychology.
Quote from: Barrister on June 01, 2012, 03:15:57 PM
Quote from: katmai on June 01, 2012, 03:14:01 PM
But no so sure her choice in men.
True. But she's preggo now so she's stuck with me. :shifty:
Hey, BB; do preggos ick you out, or do you do the business anyhow?
Quote from: Legbiter on June 01, 2012, 08:57:07 AM
Women generally go for men higher in status than themselves. That's why there's such a large cohort of college educated women turning into cat ladies these days, not enough high-status (compared to them) men around.
Thankfully my wife didn't - when we met I was doing my worthless anthro degree while she was a business major. :D
Quote from: Malthus on June 01, 2012, 03:18:38 PM
Thankfully my wife didn't - when we met I was doing my worthless anthro degree while she was a business major. :D
Yeah but you were edgy, sexy as hell (back then at least), displayed social acumen, etc. Chicks dig that. ;)