Bigger girls...

Moonspheres

Rozie wrote:

I must say I never expected you to find the site, I'm sorry if I offended you somehow by bringing you up as a defense in an argument, it might have been a litle disrespectful.

Hello, Rozie

I'm not offended in the slightest. Actually I was doing some googling, trying to see how far my art/photography page has spread along the web. (The actual moonspheres site is where I display my art, photography, music, etc.) Anyway, I googled my name and the word moonspheres and I was surprised to see quite a bit - some of which linked back to my "I am" page.

I knew when I created the "I am" page, that it would generate both positive and negative responses. I wasn't offended at all.

But you ARE a very attractive lady, I think it's wonderful you found a loving husband. I would put you over the majority of Irish women any day.

While I thank you for your kind words, I think there are beautiful women of all shapes & sizes to be found in any culture *grin* As for my husband, well we truly are very fortunate to have found each other. We are, as they say, ridiculously in love.

My eating has been miracously cut down enormously lately - but at a cost. I feel inactive much of the time, and I often get sick when I eat. I don't see to be loosing weight, which is a shame.

If you can, try eating often (5-6 times per day) but eating small amounts when you do. I have found that when I am able to do this, it helps boost my nearly non-existant metabolism and I feel much more energized.

The denial of food will just make you feel sluggish and your body will try harder to retain fat.

I think the ideal figure for me(in a partner, wouldn't mind having myself though :P) is Jane Goldman's -

I tend to like hippier, bustier figures myself. Someday I hope to regain my former curvy shape. For now, I'll just keep trying and enjoying life along the way.

Well wishes to you, Rozie.

-Moon

rsynnott

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Refusing or restricting health care to people with high-risk lifestyles seems like a reasonable idea on the face of it, but it could elevate horribly; once you start going after smokers and the obese, you'll end up going after those who play extreme sports, and those who use cars, and those who travel internationally... and before you know it, only the odd nun can get free health care.

It probably wouldn't be sensible to put a levy on junk food (and in any case, you can get fat without junk food). And "you're fat, pay more tax" would be unreasonable. I think it would be sensible to force fast food restaurants to offer decent healthy options at the same price as the junk.

Anyway, when it comes to it, the government, in its infinite wisdom, spends my tax on far sillier things than health care.

Moonspheres

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

What about air traffic controllers? (One of the most stressful jobs in the world) Or social workers? Or linemen?

With the exception of the few people in the world who are fortunate enough to live virtually stress-free lives, work in virtually stress-free environments, and who also don't smoke, drink, eat junkfood, participate in risky activities, have a family history of cancer/heart disease/diabetes, etc., most people fall into some risk category.

But I will add - I pay for my own health care. It isn't funded by the taxes of others. Oh - and I don't eat junk food very often at all.

Cheers,

-Moon

Rozie

rsynnott wrote:

Refusing or restricting health care to people with high-risk lifestyles seems like a reasonable idea on the face of it, but it could elevate horribly; once you start going after smokers and the obese, you'll end up going after those who play extreme sports, and those who use cars, and those who travel internationally... and before you know it, only the odd nun can get free health care.

It probably wouldn't be sensible to put a levy on junk food (and in any case, you can get fat without junk food). And "you're fat, pay more tax" would be unreasonable. I think it would be sensible to force fast food restaurants to offer decent healthy options at the same price as the junk.

Anyway, when it comes to it, the government, in its infinite wisdom, spends my tax on far sillier things than health care.

That is very true, this is one of those scenarios where there isn't a huge seperation between the different "dangers". For all we know, using mobile phones could turn out to be as healthy as adding a McDonalds a day to your diet.

And I rather think us mobile phone users (i.e. most of the country) get ripped off enough as it is.

EDIT: just the above post, I Have to say that stress is the biggest killer today, and the biggest cause of cancer, and most likely when mixed with certain scenarios, the biggest thing that causes people to gain weight.

Stress is terrible, but as long as we ruthlessly defend our broken ideals of botched up capitalism, it's going to be there, and it will continue to pick us off one by one.

EDIT 2: I'd have to add, as a transsexual, I have a hell of a lot of health risks. Are you saying I should be taxed further on that? I already have to fork out for all kinds of stuff like hormones, shrinks, laser, not to mention surgery, purely to be "Normal", as the health system (unlike the UK's, I believe) doesn't provide for us.
But, you're right, I should be even more financially crippled than I'm possibly facing because we should always tax the unfortunate people.

rsynnott

Rozie wrote:

That is very true, this is one of those scenarios where there isn't a huge seperation between the different "dangers". For all we know, using mobile phones could turn out to be as healthy as adding a McDonalds a day to your diet.

That's not a reasonable statement; there's no hard evidence that mobile phones are particularly harmful, whereas adding a McDonalds a day would have most people obese quite quickly, with widely recognised health risks.

Rozie wrote:

EDIT: just the above post, I Have to say that stress is the biggest killer today, and the biggest cause of cancer, and most likely when mixed with certain scenarios, the biggest thing that causes people to gain weight.

Again, evidence?

Rozie

rsynnott wrote:

That's not a reasonable statement; there's no hard evidence that mobile phones are particularly harmful, whereas adding a McDonalds a day would have most people obese quite quickly, with widely recognised health risks.

I was just using it as a possible example, not stating it as fact. Plus gaining weight isn't the only way to become unhealthy, nor is it even the most efficent by a long shot.

D

I can't believe this stuff keeps coming up. :rolleyes: Once and for all, most men look for the "70% rule" subconciously btw. As in, if your waist is 70% the size of your hips, this indicates fertility. Like has been said SO many times before, on many different forums, threads, conversations, books etc. All in proportion.

Scarinae

D wrote:

I can't believe this stuff keeps coming up. :rolleyes: Once and for all, most men look for the "70% rule" subconciously btw. As in, if your waist is 70% the size of your hips, this indicates fertility. Like has been said SO many times before, on many different forums, threads, conversations, books etc. All in proportion.

But what about women who naturally put on weight on their stomachs but not their legs? One of my friends has killer legs and pretty much no hips, when she puts on weight it goes onto her stomach. Would that be less attractive than a girl who puts her weight onto her hips but has a defined waist?

EvilPixieOne

Thats really what the studies show. I know I have some days where I feel fatter then others and I'll always feel it on my stomach so my perception of what is fat must also be centered around there, and it's the same with most of my friends.

Aisling(",)

Having just sat here and read all the posts and looked at all the acompanied pictures I'm more confused then ever.

One person gave a definition of curvy:Having bigger breasts and behind then normal.But can anyone ever say what is normal.

I'm 5ft3 8 and a half stone.I carry most of my excess weight at my thights and stomach.Does this mean i'm fat?am I curvy or am I skinny?Some people say I'm skiny some say too skiny but others have told me i'm extremly overweight and I need to loose weight.

I know a girl that is 8stone 3 lbs.She is 5ft9/10.She does a lot of excersise but yet is trying to loose weight.She is underweight and looks very bony but not anorexic yet I'm worried that if she carries on she easily could be.But I also know people of the same height and weight but they have a lot more fat on them then she does so i think the argumenthas more to do with size then with the weight of people.

I have asked some of my male friends and they say that they would prefer a girl that is size 12/14 to a size 6 skinny person.

We are using sizes as a guide to the person but sizes vary greatly from shop to shop so that also can't be judged properly

DoctorEdgeWild

It's impossible to judge people on some sort of scale - there is no height/weight formula which will give you a definite answer or figure to answer the old classic "Am I fat?".

It makes absolutely no difference unless you are endangering your health. People who are obese will probably know that they are and may have to do something to sort it out before they find themselves in a hospital.

Everyone has their own opinion as to what they find attractive, one man/woman's idea of perfection may no do it for another person.