cynep: wombatsrus: [www.shotpix.com image 481x641]

I think she may be packing a surprise. no hips, man face, can't see knees can't tell if they be sharp.

LOL, she's real, trust me.I'll pass along the comments.

kkinnison: Plus size = anything above size 6

try 14

Out of the five pictures of women in the article two are of the old "thin" models and one doesn't show the woman's body. The other two have a rather thin looking woman who I don't think anyone other than an anorexic AIDS patient could consider plus sized and the other one has a bunch of slightly bigger than starvation diet thin women.

So essentially this headline and the article are complete and utter drivel that are designed to fart directly onto our collective intellects while generating page clicks and selling crappy overpriced cereal.

Considering that it is Fark and the Daily Mail delivering the anal fumes I for one am SHOCKED and DISMAYED at the disingenuousness and misdirection of this entire matter.

*fart*

/here to help

zarberg: If that's plus sized, what do you call that woman who's so fat she has to ride around on the medical scooter?

Lazy! I cannot stand the cows on those things.

freddy really did want to ride a bicycle instead.

nimawai: It used to be that plus size models were size 16 and up. In our warped sense of what is beautiful it's now around a size 6. I'd KILL to be a size 6. Yes, yes I know I sound fat. Welcome to fark and all that.

The woman in the adds don't even have a stomach. If you're plus sized shouldn't you have a stomach? One that pouches out? Then we wonder why woman are starving themselves. It's because companies like Special K consider those woman as plus sized. smh

What world do you live in that women are starving themselves?

66% of America is overweight, with half of that 66% overweight and obese.

"Normal" is the minority, and underweight "bags of antlers" are 1%-7% of the population, depending on your source.

wombatsrus: cynep: wombatsrus: [www.shotpix.com image 481x641]

I think she may be packing a surprise. no hips, man face, can't see knees can't tell if they be sharp.

LOL, she's real, trust me.I'll pass along the comments.

oh good. I can go to sleep now. ON that note... I have a "plus sized" woman to attend to
toodles!

moothemagiccow: nimawai: It used to be that plus size models were size 16 and up. In our warped sense of what is beautiful it's now around a size 6.

Got anything to back that up? I did a quick google for plus size and lane bryant's advertising sizes 14-28.

Sizing has changed too. What was a size 14 back 4 decades ago is now a size 8.

People are just overall bigger these days.Tall, muscular, fatter, etc. Especially in North america where unlike our parents and grandparents, we grew up with more than enough food.

octopied: "Plus sized" in fashion industry is apparently now a size 8 or 10.

I come in at size 14, or XL, the small end of "plus sized" but usually wear 14 standard, not 14 plus. The difference is the cut. Standard assumes you are bigger but sill have curves. Plus assumes you are shaped like a marshmellow.

How YOU doin?

How did "hittable" and "I'd hit that" become acceptable as a way to refer to a woman a man finds attractive?

Why the violent terminology?

octopied: moothemagiccow: nimawai: It used to be that plus size models were size 16 and up. In our warped sense of what is beautiful it's now around a size 6.

Got anything to back that up? I did a quick google for plus size and lane bryant's advertising sizes 14-28.

Sizing has changed too. What was a size 14 back 4 decades ago is now a size 8.

People are just overall bigger these days.Tall, muscular, fatter, etc. Especially in North america where unlike our parents and grandparents, we grew up with more than enough food.

I gotta be honest, I think somehow they've managed to fark with men's sizes too. I've always worn a size 34 up to size 36 waist and I've fluctuated from 180 to 225 back down to the current 194. My current jeans are size 33 waist, and they fit better than any 34 or 36, but I still have a belly at the moment.

I suppose I should just pull out the measuring tape and check to see if it confirms my suspicions.

downpaymentblues: How did "hittable" and "I'd hit that" become acceptable as a way to refer to a woman a man finds attractive?

Why the violent terminology?

Because make me a motha' fookin' sammich! THAT'S HOW!!!

*KAPOW*

nimawai: It used to be that plus size models were size 16 and up. In our warped sense of what is beautiful it's now around a size 6. I'd KILL to be a size 6. Yes, yes I know I sound fat. Welcome to fark and all that.

The woman in the adds don't even have a stomach. If you're plus sized shouldn't you have a stomach? One that pouches out? Then we wonder why woman are starving themselves. It's because companies like Special K consider those woman as plus sized. smh

I wouldn't want to be a size 6, as I'd be too small. A size 10 or 12 would be nice, but whatever. I walk all the time, so I'm just heavy, not overly unfit.

As for having a stomach, I used to be just under a size 14(I could fit 13, but not 12) I had a tiny waist(about a 30) with big hip, butt and breasts.

downpaymentblues: How did "hittable" and "I'd hit that" become acceptable as a way to refer to a woman a man finds attractive?

Why the violent terminology?

90% of the time I go by upper arm fat. If the upper arm is not all flabby and her shoulders aren't rounded then the odds are that she's not fat. If they are as described but she got a thinner waist odds are that she's wearing spanks. There are of course exceptions to every rule but I've found that that's usually a good rule of thumb... until of course they start making spanks for arms, then all bets are off.

octopied:
People are just overall bigger these days.Tall, muscular, fatter, etc. Especially in North america where unlike our parents and grandparents, we grew up with more than enough food.

This is a pretty good spin on the obesity epidemic.

moothemagiccow: kkinnison: Plus size = anything above size 6

try 14

nope... the modeling industry thinks anything above 6 is plus sized.

According to this BMI bulls*h*i*t I am supposed to obese, yet my bf percentage never exceeds 10%, even in the off season? Obviously whatever retard conceived it has s*h*i*t for brains. I prefer chics with some sensual curves.

downpaymentblues: How did "hittable" and "I'd hit that" become acceptable as a way to refer to a woman a man finds attractive?

Why the violent terminology?

The etymology of the term "hit" or "hittable" in relation to a man's desire to have sexual congress with a woman has its genesis in 1976, with the release of the Rolling Stones "Black and Blue" album. To promote this album, the record company put up billboards showing a young blonde woman with a black eye & bruises. The caption on the billboard read "I was beaten black and blue by the Rolling Stones... and I loved every minute of it!". This, unsurprisingly, caused significant outrage amongst women's rights organizations. The resultant publicity drove up sales of the album, and ever since then, "hittable" became part of the lexicon.

Bhasayate: [www.shipmentoffail.com image 480x640]

Well, he probably did get laid that night.

Shmopee: So what I'm to believe here is that if you have hips and a nice rack and DON'T look like a ten year old boy, you're considered "plus sized"?
Also, am I the only one bothered by the fact that crack skinny and looking like a ten year old boy is what's turning men on these days?

Did you even read *any* of the comments???

WhippingBoy: Shmopee: So what I'm to believe here is that if you have hips and a nice rack and DON'T look like a ten year old boy, you're considered "plus sized"?
Also, am I the only one bothered by the fact that crack skinny and looking like a ten year old boy is what's turning men on these days?

Did you even read *any* of the comments???

There's so many lazy trolls in this thread, I figure most of them drop their deuce and never return.

GAT_00:

Thanks to the distorted image of health thanks to women's magazines, we're all chubby chasers these days if you don't like visible ribs.

Oh my. We agree on something.

/I like chubby
//You can't sleep comfortably with all angles

downpaymentblues: How did "hittable" and "I'd hit that" become acceptable as a way to refer to a woman a man finds attractive?

Why the violent terminology?


(I also found this).

downpaymentblues: How did "hittable" and "I'd hit that" become acceptable as a way to refer to a woman a man finds attractive?

Why the violent terminology?

Replace the hit in "hittable" and "I'd hit that" with the f-word and the meaning is exactly the same. And what is the root of the f-word? The Dutch fokke, which means "to strike violently."

So you're complaining about something that has been the case since "Old English" was still just "English."

Plus-sized women who are tall and hour-glassed shaped are sexy (10-16 range). It doesn't really work out the same if they're short or square shaped at that size. This is no slight to women who are short, but a short woman sized 12 looks twice as heavy as a tall woman sized 12 even if she weighs less.

The thing is, when people think plus-sized they generally think about full-figured. Full-figured is when you've moved out of the "normal" looking category and into the morbidly obese category. Plus-sized - at least in terms of models who are tall and well-shaped - tends to be rather normal looking, maybe slightly on the chubby side on the upper end, but still sexy.

Sizes are a dumb measure when looked at by themselves. For instance, I find a tall size 12 woman with full natural breasts infinitely sexier than a tall size 0 with no curves. However, a short size 12 is probably not going to be nearly as hot as a short size 0. So this whole one size fits all (sorry for the pun) number is kind of stupid as it doesn't account for height or shape.

The women in the article are obviously sexy and not what people think of when you think plus-sized because they are tall and have nice shapes. We just need a new name for plus-size which is less confusing.

octopied: People are just overall bigger these days.Tall, muscular, fatter, etc. Especially in North america where unlike our parents and grandparents, we grew up with more than enough food.

The modern diet includes low fiber processed foods, which results in spiked insulin levels which blocks the hormone leptin which is how your body knows to stop storing fat. Combined with vastly increased consumption of HFCS which is processed into fat and glucose. And so we've become a nation of lard.

archichris: Its impossible to have pleasurable sex with a size zero woman.

Hmm, I've never had any complaints.

There's nothing worse than a thread full of men talking about women's clothing sizes and measurements. So clueless. Hell, it's so complicated, most women are clueless. People like what they like, let it go. And aren't most normal men attracted to a variety of body shapes and sizes? Why is this such a brutal topic on Fark?

And yes, I think the women in the article are beautiful, it's all about proportion.

This article has made me understand something. This is my girlfriend:



Now I understand why she is always calling herself "fat" and why she doesn't believe me when I roll my eyes and tell her she's being ridiculous.

fark you, media. Stop giving my girlfriend a complex!

/also explains why when I bought her that outfit is was a "large," which I thought had to be a typo or something. She's 5'3" and 130 lbs. How the fark is that "large?"

JmBa: archichris: Its impossible to have pleasurable sex with a size zero woman.

Hmm, I've never had any complaints.

There's nothing worse than a thread full of men talking about women's clothing sizes and measurements. So clueless. Hell, it's so complicated, most women are clueless. People like what they like, let it go. And aren't most normal men attracted to a variety of body shapes and sizes? Why is this such a brutal topic on Fark?

And yes, I think the women in the article are beautiful, it's all about proportion.

You know what's not attractive? Nagging.

WhippingBoy: downpaymentblues: How did "hittable" and "I'd hit that" become acceptable as a way to refer to a woman a man finds attractive?

Why the violent terminology?

The etymology of the term "hit" or "hittable" in relation to a man's desire to have sexual congress with a woman has its genesis in 1976, with the release of the Rolling Stones "Black and Blue" album. To promote this album, the record company put up billboards showing a young blonde woman with a black eye & bruises. The caption on the billboard read "I was beaten black and blue by the Rolling Stones... and I loved every minute of it!". This, unsurprisingly, caused significant outrage amongst women's rights organizations. The resultant publicity drove up sales of the album, and ever since then, "hittable" became part of the lexicon.


hahahaha, sure.

JmBa: archichris: Its impossible to have pleasurable sex with a size zero woman.

Hmm, I've never had any complaints.

There's nothing worse than a thread full of men talking about women's clothing sizes and measurements. So clueless. Hell, it's so complicated, most women are clueless. People like what they like, let it go. And aren't most normal men attracted to a variety of body shapes and sizes? Why is this such a brutal topic on Fark?

And yes, I think the women in the article are beautiful, it's all about proportion.

*Thinks: Uh huh, sure you haven't had any complaints* *Looks at profile* Ok, yeah you probably haven't had any complaints.

skepticultist: This article has made me understand something. This is my girlfriend:

[img821.imageshack.us image 227x472]

Now I understand why she is always calling herself "fat" and why she doesn't believe me when I roll my eyes and tell her she's being ridiculous.

fark you, media. Stop giving my girlfriend a complex!

/also explains why when I bought her that outfit is was a "large," which I thought had to be a typo or something. She's 5'3" and 130 lbs. How the fark is that "large?"

you should post more pictures of her so we can all be sure.

yes, it would be like...research. yes yes yes.

Representative of the unwashed masses: I'd be more concerned about the facial condition... yum!

The doctors haven't been able to do anything about it, but we keep hoping.

Pray 4 Mojo: Because it's "large" for an 8 year old... it's intended market.

Uh...what? That's like a dieselpunk pin-up aviatrix costume, ala Sucker Punch. That exact outfit (with a blue shirt) was featured on the cover of an issue of "Dark Beauty" (link). Anyone who would put an 8-year old in an outfit like that needs a quick visit from Chris Hanson.

Nerdy? Sure. Appropriate for children? Not so much.

/I'd fark her
//Once you're done with her of course.
///you know.... cause of respect and all

Bad news, bro. I think she may be a keeper. But if I manage to screw things up with her (by, you know, doing shiat like posting her picture on Fark), I'll be sure to let her know you're interested.

Representative of the unwashed masses: skepticultist: This article has made me understand something. This is my girlfriend:

[img821.imageshack.us image 227x472]

Now I understand why she is always calling herself "fat" and why she doesn't believe me when I roll my eyes and tell her she's being ridiculous.

fark you, media. Stop giving my girlfriend a complex!

/also explains why when I bought her that outfit is was a "large," which I thought had to be a typo or something. She's 5'3" and 130 lbs. How the fark is that "large?"

I'd be more concerned about the facial condition... yum!

She has a very square jaw.

I don't even know what standards I'm suppose to be judging women by anymore.

Like most other size metrics, American body shape standards are two or three notches bigger than the rest of the world.

e.g. British "plus-size" is American "average".