so now fat chicks are beautiful ... msn article .. wtf?!?

[WaterTiger]

But no one has commented on the PHOTO of the woman in question! Is the girl in the OP's first message too fat...or acceptable?

 

[zekko]

But no one has commented on the PHOTO of the woman in question! Is the girl in the OP's first message too fat...or acceptable?

Are you talking about the 20 year old model with the belly roll? I think it's pretty obvious she's an attractive woman, but that's not a very flattering picture of her. Lay her on her back and I bet you wouldn't see the roll
I'm sure she could lose that without much difficulty if she put her mind to it anyway. So she's not perfect, who cares?

 

[muscleman]

It's justification for being fat. All of those fat shows (note how they're almost all on "chick" channels) are one reason I stopped watching more than ~15-20 minutes of tv/day (I only watch it while I eat dinner), and even then it's usually Spike. Anyway ... it's sad, but not a whole lot you can do about it. If anything though, it'll make the elite fit people stand out way more

 

[Energizer]

But no one has commented on the PHOTO of the woman in question! Is the girl in the OP's first message too fat...or acceptable?

She looks weird, not because of her belly, but because her legs are fat and the upper part of her body is slimmed lined, still I wouldn't say no.

 

[Pathgen]

I'm sorry, but no. Absolutely not. This one, you're completely wrong. I don't know why you said this, but you're completely wrong. Let me explain. Firstly, what makes a person gain weight? Your answer should be: when the calories intanken are more than the calories used. And to do so, you normally have to eat a fair amount of food (as in the 3k+ range). And what does eating 3k calories require? A larger appetite. And if there is a food shortage, food will be rationed evenly between all people. This means that less food will be given to each person. So if we can only eat 1.8k worth of a calories a day, then who will it impact the most? The guy eating 2k calories, or the guy eating 3k calories? Your body will have two choices- reduce appetite and weight to survive, or suffer. Fat people will the ones hit the HARDEST by a food shortage, not vice versa.

http://caloriecount.about.com/truth-starvation-mode-ft28742

A starvation diet does not mean the absence of food. It means cutting the total caloric intake to less than 50% of what the body requires.

Alright, that quote is from the article above. Now lets examine this. An average person who eats 3k calories a day will have around 20 pounds of fat on them at least when starvation strikes. Each pound of fat is 3,500 calories. Giving them 70,000 calories to play with. (20*3500=70000). Now when starvation hits their bodies will actually shut down for the most part to preserve energy. UP TO 50%. Which puts their daily needs from 3k to 1,500 calories. Lets say their body will take 200-300 calories of fat to help it survive. (Understand that your body still wants to keep the fat because it is an advantage to have it on). You could live on 1800 calories that way for 233.33333333333 days (70,000/300 = 233.333333333).

Now lets take the skinny person. They are eating probably a healthy 1,500 calories a day. When their starvation hits they reduce down to 750. However, if in their day they need to do physical exertion to survive or at all they are going to need to have more energy. However, their isn't any lying around. Instead of having those 233 days as the fat person does, their bodies will start to break apart their muscle for energy.

Your right the fat person spends more energy breathing than a skinny person. However, in times of food crisis fat is an advantage. Otherwise, what is keeping the body from just discarding extra calories as waste and storing it in the first place?

It will take longer for the fat guy to need to break his own body down, which will slow down the process of starvation.

 

[Bible_Belt]

still I wouldn't say no.

http://blstb.msn.com/i/37/CF14FAF653EED5437C3711A8473A.jpg

agreed. that is not fat.

now this...this is fat:
http://z.hubpages.com/u/45495_f520.jpg

When those girls are supermodels, then things have changed.

 

[CTApprentice]

http://blstb.msn.com/i/37/CF14FAF653EED5437C3711A8473A.jpg

I think Ms. Miller is pretty attractive(in nothing but a thong and a smile on her face), she looks healthy, but its obvious that the belly roll is a result of the position she's in. (take a look at second pic at the bottom)

I love a girl that has confidence in her body, thats a huge turn-on(I don't mean fat)

but here's another pic of her:

http://www.glamour.com/images/health-fitness/2009/03/0303-lizzie-miller_at.jpg

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Whenever the 'fat is OK' debate pops up all it does is serve to further illustrate yet another feminine social convention. All of these conventions are sociological and psychological methodologies with the latent purpose of securing breeding opportunities for less than physically optimal women.

Point 1: Women know on an instinctual, biological level that, overall, men generally base their breeding selection on the physical conditions of a female. Hips to waist ratio, breast size, facial symmetry, fullness of lips, youthful appearance, etc.

Point 2: In order to compete with similar women in meeting the physical standards of a given demographic of men, women must create physical methods in order to compensate for this deficit. Thus they have make up, cosmetic surgery, high-heels, hair dye, etc.

Point 3: Failing this, sociological and psychological constructs are necessary to 'level the playing field' in the sexual marketplace. Thus, fat, out of shape women attempt to convince men to feel ashamed for wanting a physically superior female by converting that desire into shame. It becomes superficiality. Likewise, older women who's sexual marketability wanes with every passing year, must create social constructs that praises the sexual prowess of older women.

This article is nothing new. Women have been trying to convince themselves for centuries that there's more to sexual attraction than physical appeal, and for centuries this method has been thwarted by simple male biology. Rather than play the game better, they attempt to change the rules of the game to better fit their own limitations in a variety of ways.

Most male sexual fetishes are a direct result of men playing into these social conventions. The ironic thing is that women actually have a higher standard of physical acceptability than men. Need evidence? Try to find a parallel to the "chubby chasers" fetish of men in women. There are no online dating services that cater to in shape women specifically seeking out obese men. While men's fetishes periodically shift, women's physical standards for men remain almost static throughout history.

Sorry to break it to the ladies here, but Liz Miller is fat. I'm sure she'd have no problem attracting a man of a comparative or lesser physique, but the woman is overweight. The problem with the idea that "it's what's inside that counts" is that it's what's outside that arouses. All the "feeling good about your body" that a fat woman can muster is NEVER going to be an aphrodisiac or a substitute for having a great body that men are aroused by.

 

[Nutz]

I wouldn't say she's fat at all. However, if I saw that flap hanging over her stomach I wouldn't hit it though. Looks like she used to be huge and dropped a ton of weight and needs the excess skin removed.

 

[MisterMcGee]

Exactly. That's not a little extra meat on her bones, that's flabby unfitness. THAT'S what's unattractive about her. If she didnt have that flap, and instead a slightly bigger gut, she'd be hotter x10.

 

[base2ball2boy2]

http://caloriecount.about.com/truth-starvation-mode-ft28742



Alright, that quote is from the article above. Now lets examine this. An average person who eats 3k calories a day will have around 20 pounds of fat on them at least when starvation strikes. Each pound of fat is 3,500 calories. Giving them 70,000 calories to play with. (20*3500=70000). Now when starvation hits their bodies will actually shut down for the most part to preserve energy. UP TO 50%. Which puts their daily needs from 3k to 1,500 calories. Lets say their body will take 200-300 calories of fat to help it survive. (Understand that your body still wants to keep the fat because it is an advantage to have it on). You could live on 1800 calories that way for 233.33333333333 days (70,000/300 = 233.333333333).

Now lets take the skinny person. They are eating probably a healthy 1,500 calories a day. When their starvation hits they reduce down to 750. However, if in their day they need to do physical exertion to survive or at all they are going to need to have more energy. However, their isn't any lying around. Instead of having those 233 days as the fat person does, their bodies will start to break apart their muscle for energy.

Your right the fat person spends more energy breathing than a skinny person. However, in times of food crisis fat is an advantage. Otherwise, what is keeping the body from just discarding extra calories as waste and storing it in the first place?

It will take longer for the fat guy to need to break his own body down, which will slow down the process of starvation.

Once again, misunderstood. During a food crisis, everyone is not going to get food amounts proportional to how much their daily intake was before the food crisis. They will get a certain amount of food, and that's all. I think an example is appropriate here.

Let's say there is a neighborhood where Person 1 and Person A are next-door neighbors. Person 1 is your typical, relatively in shape person, intaking the gov't proposed 2k calories/day. Person A, on the other hand, is overweight and intakes 3k calories/day.
Everything is fine and dandy, until one day, they hear on the news of a food shortage. Food is going to be rationed. Each person will get a set amount per week, no more. Let's say (for easiness' sake) that they get 1750 calories/day now. Not a lot, but enough to keep a person going.

So no real difficult math is required. Who's going to have a tougher time? Person 1, only missing 250 calories from their diet (hungry, but a managable hunger) or Person A, missing a whopping 1250 calories?

Your theory with the starvation diet makes sense. In a fair fight, a fat man will outlast a skinny man. I knew that.

But in the real world, no. S/He'll have to cut out nearly a day's worth of food from his diet, which will be a huge change for him/her. Yes, the fat will come in handy, but they'll be hit very hard.

 

[Pathgen]

See what i think you misunderstand is that metabolic rates are dynamic. When food becomes scarce peoples metabolic rates will drop. So the 3k person will lower close to the 2k person. However, the 3k person will use more energy because he weighs more and it takes more energy for his body to function.

For a couple of days though you are right the 3k person will lose a larger amount. The metabolic rate will have to have time to lower itself naturally in the absence of food.

 

[Jitterbug]

In a real starvation, the skinny guys will eat the fat bastards.

 

[base2ball2boy2]

See what i think you misunderstand is that metabolic rates are dynamic. When food becomes scarce peoples metabolic rates will drop. So the 3k person will lower close to the 2k person. However, the 3k person will use more energy because he weighs more and it takes more energy for his body to function.

For a couple of days though you are right the 3k person will lose a larger amount. The metabolic rate will have to have time to lower itself naturally in the absence of food.

Yes, your metabolism can change over time. Mine pretty much doubled over the course of my middle school years. But you've got it backwards. A high metabolism means that more food is converted into energy, less is stored as fat or exited as waste.

And again, yes, the fat guy will adapt. But we've strayed too far from our original topic of debate: Fat chicks being ugly. From an evolutionary standpoint (based upon this theory I have, very long), men look for a girl in shape. This displays proper chemical balance in her body and proper mental health, all something we look for (subconsciously) in a woman. Fat chicks, like I said, can have health and mental problems (ex: life's a b8tch, eat a cake), so therefore, they are not evolutionary attractive, which is our basis for attraction today.

But getting back to the whole famine thing:

In a real starvation, the skinny guys will eat the fat bastards.

There's always this solution.

 

[Paintballguy]

I don't find fat chicks attractive. As people have noted, we are wired to be attracted to chicks that are the most fertile and healthy. And being overweight is not healthy. These are all just excuses to be a lazy fat *****.

 

[MisterMcGee]

Overweight is not the topic. Look at the girl in the pic. It's girls WITH FAT.

Or we could all continue to talk about how obviously unattractive overweight people are. Because THAT'S a good use of everyone's time.

 

[Minotaur]

The article is also giving wight l;oss tips and straight up saying that men dont find fat attractive. Its not as pro-fat chick as it seems.

Yeah that's what I was going to say. It isn't some bull**** written by an obese chick trying to convince herself that she is beautiful just how she is. It even says that when the fat crosses over into being a sign of poor health, it is unattractive. I expected the article to be much worse, giving obese people an excuse not to work on their health or image.

I think it really is natural for some women to be bigger- but only to about the extent of the model in the photo. If a 200lb chick claims she is from a big family and that is just how their bodies are made, she is full of ****. That's how her parents made her body by providing her with a terrible diet from the day she was able to eat solids.

I find myself attracted to women who are a little bigger these days, but the hottest are the tiny, model-sized women, and I can't help that I feel that way. It's the society I was raised in, and sure it sucks that healthy women who aren't stick-thin aren't as attractive to me, but like someone said, my brain has been wired this way.

 

[Ganondorf!]

I think all the brain wiring doesn't play a huge part at all

sure, some men like skinny, some like bigger women, but I think the brain only goes as far as being wired to like women

I like any woman that's sexy, and yes some chicks with a little fat on their bodies can still be sexy. it depends on the fat. Liz Miller too me is by no means fat at all. the stomach roll doesn't mean sh1t to me, I think she's still hot.

And for men who don't think a female being comfortable with her body make a difference, look at Monique. She's a fat woman and proud of it and has had boyfriends all her life. So it must make some difference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mo%27Nique

 

[zekko]

And for men who don't think a female being comfortable with her body make a difference, look at Monique. She's a fat woman and proud of it and has had boyfriends all her life. So it must make some difference

I don't find Monique attractive by any means, but I've seen her on TV and she seems pretty cool. Anyway, the point is, if being comfortable with her body helped her, a woman, how much more is it going to help a guy?

 

[base2ball2boy2]

I think all the brain wiring doesn't play a huge part at all

sure, some men like skinny, some like bigger women, but I think the brain only goes as far as being wired to like women

I like any woman that's sexy, and yes some chicks with a little fat on their bodies can still be sexy. it depends on the fat. Liz Miller too me is by no means fat at all. the stomach roll doesn't mean sh1t to me, I think she's still hot.

And for men who don't think a female being comfortable with her body make a difference, look at Monique. She's a fat woman and proud of it and has had boyfriends all her life. So it must make some difference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mo%27Nique

Now THAT'S more cushin for pushin!