# Why are there so few FFAs?



## WizardOfMeh (Jul 7, 2010)

It seems that this entire board is mostly populated by lonely BHMs and not single/not looking FFAs(?)

So, where are all the single/looking FFAs?

Even the BHM friendly dating sites don't seem to have many(any?) enthusiatic FFAs.

Take a look at the female FA section on FantasyFeeders(discount those who are just looking for 'friends' or an 'online relationship', and what are you left with?).

Look at LargePassions(someone here posted a link to the 'popular' guys, who were all lean body beautiful types).

I've been to a few others, and let me tell you, there aren't many FFAs(and certainly none closer to my own age).

Coincidentally, all the RL BBW I know have lots of options(always preferring to hook up with retarded skinny guys, who clearly have nothing else going for them), and I think it goes without saying that skinny women are absolutely off limits to average BHM. 

Even though she is a BBW, my own sister is pretty typical of local BBW(knocked-up with some skinny loser's kid because she apparently thought it would provide some relationship security - before she was dumped, that is).

Of course, having been screwed over again and again by these kinds of douche bags, she's had a taste of 'the best', and won't lower her physical standards to consider the kinds of guys who are likely to stick around and treat her well. 

My sister has confided in me her belief that no woman(with other options) actually prefers a fat guy, all things being equal.

According to her, when you see one of these rare BHM with the kinds women who thin men might want, it indicates that she is with him *inspite* of the fact that he is fat.

Sorry for the rant, but my point is that the pattern I see in real life, is girls electing to go for skinny guys as their first choice, and then going for BHM as a distant second(the one's who aren't good-looking enough to get with the skinny guys).

Is that what an FFA is?

Please tell me I'm wrong.


----------



## MasterShake (Jul 7, 2010)

WizardOfMeh said:


> Please tell me I'm wrong.


I would, but it wouldn't matter. If that is what you genuinely believe, then that is what you'll actually believe, regardless of what I or anyone else can say.

I will ask this: if your sister is an idiot when it comes to her own dating situation, why is she suddenly an expert when it comes to yours?

Trust me, I'm a BHM who has yet to meet an FFA in real life (at least not any that openly acknowledged or let me know). So when I say that your attitude dictates your reality, I'm saying it as a fellow BHM who appears to be in a similar boat (single and frustrated).

I'm shy and (overly) self-aware, and even if I were skinny I'd probably not be the type to flirt with a waitress or some random woman I saw at a bar. It'd be easy in my head to feel like all the pretty waitresses I've seen said "no", but none have, because I never asked. Forgive me if I've misread, but your ranting seemed to mostly be filled with your assumptions about what others think, not what you've actually confirmed how they felt.

My .02 cents, anyhoo.


----------



## escapist (Jul 7, 2010)

As a BHM who has been with more than one FFA you can tell your sister she is totally wrong. Last time I had a 'skinny' guy I knew try to steal an FFA girlfriend of mine I laughed and told him to try. I already knew how icked out she was by these thin-nothing-to-them-guys; so its not like I had anything to worry about.

I think one of the reasons you see so few on the boards/websites and what not, is its really not a big deal to women to be attracted to larger men. Some my scoff at the idea of truly getting excited over the idea of sleeping with a 400+ lb guy, but there are truly plenty who would relish the chance. At this point I can assume you've never been with an FFA or you would know exactly what it is that a BHM can do to/for an FFA. FFA's may not be "main-stream", the ones I've known do tend to be a bit more visual but they still get extremely aroused by the girth of a big man pressing upon their body. Sometimes it seems like they get a sensory overload from being with a BHM they are truly attracted to.

I must say I'm not sure I'd ever settle for an "Average" girl again. If a woman isn't aroused by how huge my body is I'm probably not even interested in her myself. Its just become that much a part of my life now.

So yeah, you are wrong. Those women who just "settle" for big guys are not FFA's. FFA's are women who are TRULY and DEEPLY attracted to the heft, wobble, and giggle of a big man. Tiny guys just can't even excite them for the most part. There are some who are Bi-sizual, but that seems to be an even smaller % of the FFA pool. Real FFA's have generally always wanted Much Bigger men their whole lives. They themselves can't explain it, any more than you can explain the type of woman you want...its just what you want, and you can feel it.


----------



## MasterShake (Jul 7, 2010)

escapist said:


> Last time I had a 'skinny' guy




_(not that there's anything wrong with that! )_


----------



## escapist (Jul 7, 2010)

MasterShake said:


> _(not that there's anything wrong with that! )_



lol well ok, but man he was just scrawny lol, like he hadn't eaten in weeks


----------



## WizardOfMeh (Jul 7, 2010)

MasterShake said:


> I would, but it wouldn't matter. If that is what you genuinely believe, then that is what you'll actually believe, regardless of what I or anyone else can say.
> 
> I will ask this: if your sister is an idiot when it comes to her own dating situation, why is she suddenly an expert when it comes to yours?
> 
> ...



I'm just trying to make sense of my 'situation'(which seems to be the same for all other BHM I see, so I don't think its just a personal problem of mine).

I hang out with a pretty fit(or just skinny) crowd of guys, and let me tell you, women make it abudantly clear that they are interested before anyone makes a move.

Maybe if I got that kind of response, I'd be more successful myself.

I mean, I've studied their body language, and I believe I appear just as confident as they do, but still get no interest coming my way.

Everyone seems to agree that I'll need to lose weight to improve my prospects.

The thing that discourages me, is what if I can't get down to where I am as skinny as my competition - then it will all be for nothing. 

I really don't want to believe what my sister says, but it's the only explanation I know of that can make any sense of the patterns I see going on around me.


----------



## WizardOfMeh (Jul 7, 2010)

escapist said:


> I think one of the reasons you see so few on the boards/websites and what not, is its really not a big deal to women to be attracted to larger men.



Then where are they?

The thing is, I don't see any more of them in real life either(which was why I asked my initial question).


----------



## escapist (Jul 7, 2010)

WizardOfMeh said:


> I'm just trying to make sense of my 'situation'(which seems to be the same for all other BHM I see, so I don't think its just a personal problem of mine).
> 
> I hang out with a pretty fit(or just skinny) crowd of guys, and let me tell you, women make it abudantly clear that they are interested before anyone makes a move.
> 
> ...



I made a post on this just a few days ago. Your physical appearance is only 1/2 the truth. I've been 250 lbs (skinny for me) and I've been well over 500 lbs. All getting 'skinny' did was make more girls "ask for the interview". Later in my 30's when I was well over 400 lbs that I could still get those interviews just from having great skills at opening groups and extracting the girl I wanted to have a 1 on 1 conversation with.

By the way, if your shy at all like I was, having girls walk right up to you and be VERY ON YOU can be just as stressful as a girl not being on you.


----------



## Paquito (Jul 7, 2010)

You are putting way too much pressure on yourself. You'll give yourself an ulcer, and the dating pool of FFAs with ulcer fetishes is extremely small.


----------



## Sasquatch! (Jul 7, 2010)

There aren't many FFAs left because I ATED THEM ALL.


----------



## WizardOfMeh (Jul 7, 2010)

escapist said:


> I made a post on this just a few days ago. Your physical appearance is only 1/2 the truth. I've been 250 lbs (skinny for me) and I've been well over 500 lbs. All getting 'skinny' did was make more girls "ask for the interview". Later in my 30's when I was well over 400 lbs that I could still get those interviews just from having great skills at opening groups and extracting the girl I wanted to have a 1 on 1 conversation with.



None of the guys I hang out with have those kinds of skills, but they seem to do pretty well(I've seen them spark interest from doing nothing more than a blank, catatonic stare into their beer!).

It just seems that unless a guy looks a very specific way, he's not getting that 'interview', no matter what his other qualifications.

You must be pretty special if you can accomplish this, because I've never seen anything like it.


----------



## WizardOfMeh (Jul 7, 2010)

Paquito said:


> You are putting way too much pressure on yourself. You'll give yourself an ulcer, and the dating pool of FFAs with ulcer fetishes is extremely small.



Sorry, I can't help it.

But I've known guys who were stressed out at some point or another, and it hasn't hurt them.


----------



## escapist (Jul 7, 2010)

WizardOfMeh said:


> Sorry, I can't help it.
> 
> But I've known guys who were stressed out at some point or another, and it hasn't hurt them.



Stress can often be a great motivator to action. As long as you don't just sit around stressed out, but use it as fuel to make healthy changes in your life that bring you closer to goals in life you want. When you learn to power success from stress you find a key to achieving your dreams.


----------



## Delineator (Jul 7, 2010)

WizardOfMeh said:


> It seems that this entire board is mostly populated by lonely BHMs and not single/not looking FFAs(?)
> 
> So, where are all the single/looking FFAs?
> 
> ...



Well, if we are to give DIMMs the benefit of doubt(and I'd need to, as I've never seen any comparable offline 'evidence'), there are apparently some FFA who have *preferentially* chosen to be with a BHM(even though, it might be more instructive to see a photo of said 'BHMs', but I digress).

It may be that such anomalies are so prohibitively rare(TRUE *unicorns* - cryptids, unverified by science), as to be discounted for statistical noise, not worthy of practical consideration(I sometimes also invoke Proton decay as an apt analogy).

So, while your intuition may serve you in observing the rarity of hypothetical FFAs, it cannot support a universal statement against their very existence(you can't 'prove' that something doesn't exist, universally speaking). 

The other thing you have to consider is a possible 'fuzzy' dichotomy between male/female assumptions of what contitutes the 'ideal' BHM.

It may be, that for most FFAs, this is a tall ectomorphic guy with a 'paunch'(I recall someone linked a POF thread where one of the women was describing her 'BHM' as being 6'5' and 195 lbs!).

But, one thing is for certain - struggling to find a receptive mate *always* indicates a relative signalling handicap(attractiveness defect), that will be difficult to remedy, if not impossible(if it were always possible, sexual selection could not operate).

So you were right, in the sense that you are not observing a personal problem per se, so much as a *systemic* one.

But, I'd like to address your topical query with a little thought experiment.

Visit any of these size friendly dating sites and, you can observe *alot* more sub-200 lbs men than women(this may seem initially puzzling, but bear with me).

Now, let's take this offline, and assume you are making observations of a ~ typical Western population.

If these observations are anything like mine(and I am betting they are), you will note that BHMs are generally alone, and more rarely paired of with BBWs who tend to the larger variety(I can't recall ever seeing a borderline BBW with anyone I would characterize as even a small BHM) - discounting, for the moment, any unverifyable 'urban legends' of conventionally attractive 'unicorn' sightings.

Now, focus on BBW and you will note something *very* different.

Again, if it is anything like the world I observe, it will tend to resemble a Jerry Springer episode(lots of BBW ostensibly paired with skinny dudes).

But, the interesting thing is, as the size of BBW increase towards the extremes of size, so too do the chances that an observed BBW will be paired with a BHM(assuming they are not alone, the chance of which also increases). 

Clearly, this begs the question as to what we are observing here. 

One might be inclined to reason that there is something about being a BHM that tends them to prefer (relatively)large-ish BBW.

But, evolution demonstrates that males have necessarily evolved to be too opportunistic to justify such a narrow preference, so the onus must then fall upon females.

So, the question then becomes, what effect are we observing where a preference for BHM correlates a woman's own weight?

The answer is trivial: relative opportunity.

Others will pose more 'sympathetic' explanations(watch this thread to see if my 'prediction' holds), but that's why we have occam's Razor - to slice through confounding BS.


----------



## CarlaSixx (Jul 7, 2010)

I think FFAs are just feeling normal enough to not shout their preference from the rooftops. 

There's plenty out there.

Some feel they have to SETTLE for a THIN man! 

And definitely NOT the other way around.

A lot of FFAs are disheartened by the fact that a lot of BHMs in RL think the girl must be faking her attraction to him or must feel desperate, not realizing some women REALLY do like BHMs. So the girls think since the BHMs won't believe them, they might as well settle for a thin guy.

Your sister is wrong. But if you're basing things on your sister's words, I've got nothing else to add.


----------



## SanDiega (Jul 7, 2010)

I feel like women are less likely to announce their sexual fetishes to people they just meet.


----------



## Delineator (Jul 7, 2010)

MasterShake said:


> Trust me, I'm a BHM who has yet to meet an FFA in real life (at least not any that openly acknowledged or let me know). So when I say that your attitude dictates your reality



You got that backwards - it is reality that dictates subjective experience(this is science speaking, not 'law of attraction' quackery).


----------



## escapist (Jul 7, 2010)

Delineator said:


> You got that backwards - it is reality that dictates subjective experience(this is science speaking, not 'law of attraction' quackery).



I don't think anybody came here for science class. I don't think big words turn women on. I don't think big logical discussions get anybody wet. I am 100% sure that a BIG full belly can create an attraction that at least some of the FFA's here can identify with. I know because I got mine rubbed last night after scarfing down an entire supreme pizza  I couldn't even pretend to suck in my 200 lb belly at that point. I also know for a fact I'm not the Only BHM here to experience such things.


----------



## Delineator (Jul 7, 2010)

escapist said:


> I don't think anybody came here for science class. I don't think big words turn women on. I don't think big logical discussions get anybody wet.



I agree.

But you are operating under the assumption that I am here to 'impress' women.

I can assure you, offline, I am *very* different, and far more colloquial/informal. 

Just trying to address the topic to the best of my ability, is all.


----------



## TheMildlyStrangeone (Jul 7, 2010)

escapist said:


> I don't think big words turn women on. I don't think big logical discussions get anybody wet..



You think highly of women I see.


----------



## BigChaz (Jul 7, 2010)

SanDiega said:


> I feel like women are less likely to announce their sexual fetishes to people they just meet.



I'm sorry, but this post is just flat out wrong. I routinely go up to women to ask them if they are FFAs, feeders, gainers, whatever. 99.9% of the time, they say yes. Then we have discussions and bring in bystanders for their opinions and thoughts. Then we go home and have sex.

So yes, this post is me calling you out as a liar. You seriously know nothing of women.


----------



## TheMildlyStrangeone (Jul 7, 2010)

Also, believe it or not, you guys can get non-FFA's. I have only been with 1 FFA in myself but dated and did other things with many others girls. Sure, it's absolutely awesome being with someone who appreciate and even fawns over your belly. Something, that probably for a large portion for your life, was a dark cloud that loomed over you. But yes, women to me, are much more pliable with their tastes and acceptance of a guy's size. You can win a girl over with your personality. Be charming, be witty, and be there for them. Don't be overly negative and focus on your weight. Accentuate the other positives you have. Really, there are many more 'regular' girls than FFA's, so your chances are much better finding a regular one. And maybe along the way, you'll get lucky in finding a great FFA.


----------



## escapist (Jul 7, 2010)

TheMildlyStrangeone said:


> You think highly of women I see.



I can see you think thats all I think. A rather fooling assumption seeing as how its widely known I have a very loving relationship with a woman I care deeply for. I just happen to be more aware knowing that FAism has no basis in rationality! Trying to make it about logic, reason, and cold facts is no place to come from when you want to talk about something that is felt. I am an FA, I'm involved with an FFA and even though not all (F)FA "crave" sex it does have a deeply touching and sexual effect on many of us (F)FA's. I'm sorry if your not aware of this yet. It just is what it is. I think the only thing more shocking to me was to find that for some (F)FA's their lust, and arousal levels were far beyond my own when it came to craving some amazing curves.


----------



## escapist (Jul 7, 2010)

TheMildlyStrangeone said:


> Also, believe it or not, you guys can get non-FFA's. I have only been with 1 FFA in myself but dated and did other things with many others girls. Sure, it's absolutely awesome being with someone who appreciate and even fawns over your belly.



Totally right on on all counts. FFA's are just funner [More Fun] if you have a belly for them to play with.


----------



## escapist (Jul 7, 2010)

*Delineator* - I must say you are reminding me of another lurker who quickly got himself band when he continual went about stirring up trouble and spouting cold methodical facts. He had a wonderful way of getting on most everybody nerves and pretty much ticking all the FFA's off. I'm not sure what it is that really pisses them off it just is what it is I guess.


----------



## WizardOfMeh (Jul 7, 2010)

Delineator said:


> But, one thing is for certain - struggling to find a receptive mate *always* indicates a relative signalling handicap(attractiveness defect), that will be difficult to remedy, if not impossible(if it were always possible, sexual selection could not operate).



I though there was someone out there for everyone.


----------



## BigChaz (Jul 7, 2010)

escapist said:


> *Delineator* - I must say you are reminding me of another lurker who quickly got himself band when he continual went about stirring up trouble and spouting cold methodical facts. He had a wonderful way of getting on most everybody nerves and pretty much ticking all the FFA's off. I'm not sure what it is that really pisses them off it just is what it is I guess.



This is completely off-topic, but I was at Publix today and saw a steak that looked just like your avatar and it made me think of you whilst buying meat.


----------



## WizardOfMeh (Jul 7, 2010)

escapist said:


> *Delineator* - I must say you are reminding me of another lurker who quickly got himself band when he continual went about stirring up trouble and spouting cold methodical facts. He had a wonderful way of getting on most everybody nerves and pretty much ticking all the FFA's off. I'm not sure what it is that really pisses them off



My sister is laughing at this thread.

Meh.


----------



## Amandy (Jul 7, 2010)

escapist said:


> Totally right on on all counts. FFA's are just funner if you have a belly for them to play with.



MORE fun; we are _more fun_. Not funner. We don't like big words, der, just big bellies. Big bellies we can settle with. Mmmmm, settle....


----------



## escapist (Jul 7, 2010)

BigChaz said:


> This is completely off-topic, but I was at Publix today and saw a steak that looked just like your avatar and it made me think of you whilst buying meat.



ROFL lol ok


----------



## escapist (Jul 7, 2010)

Amandy said:


> MORE fun; we are _more fun_. Not funner. We don't like big words, der, just big bellies. Big bellies we can settle with. Mmmmm, settle....



LOL yes...settle....







Your right that is more goodder 

-------------------



WizardOfMeh said:


> My sister is laughing at this thread.
> 
> Meh.



Just tell your Sister: to quote Amandy "It only seems kinky the first time..."

Also I know some FFA's she could PM if she wants to know some the more sexual reasons for their size preference (trust me they are good ones)....yeah that weight isn't all about looks.


----------



## Delineator (Jul 7, 2010)

TheMildlyStrangeone said:


> Also, believe it or not, you guys can get non-FFA's. I have only been with 1 FFA in myself but dated and did other things with many others girls. Sure, it's absolutely awesome being with someone who appreciate and even fawns over your belly. Something, that probably for a large portion for your life, was a dark cloud that loomed over you. But yes, women to me, are much more pliable with their tastes and acceptance of a guy's size. You can win a girl over with your personality. Be charming, be witty, and be there for them. Don't be overly negative and focus on your weight. Accentuate the other positives you have. Really, there are many more 'regular' girls than FFA's, so your chances are much better finding a regular one. And maybe along the way, you'll get lucky in finding a great FFA.



Just a suspicion, how tall are you?


----------



## Delineator (Jul 7, 2010)

SanDiega said:


> I feel like women are less likely to announce their sexual fetishes to people they just meet.



Is BHM attraction a fetish?

I don't see that women are very inihibited in expressing their attraction for muscle-jocks. 

I wonder why?


----------



## escapist (Jul 7, 2010)

Delineator said:


> Is BHM attraction a fetish?
> 
> I don't see that women are very inihibited in expressing their attraction for muscle-jocks.
> 
> I wonder why?



*Fetish*: "c : an *object or bodily part* whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically *necessary for sexual gratification* and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression"

So, yes BHM attraction can be a Fetish, just like a Muscle attraction can be fetish. The determining factor is in the beholders own obsession with the fetish and the level of it required for arousal.

You may know women who are not inhibited form expressing attraction for a muscle fetish but I know women who think its totally disgusting and will tell other women they think so. Just exactly the same as a BHM fetish preference.


----------



## Amandy (Jul 7, 2010)

escapist said:


> Just tell your Sister: to quote Amandy "It only seems kinky the first time..."



For the record, my sig line does not refer to being attracted to a fat guy or fucking a fat guy, which is not kinky and totally vanilla, as far as I'm concerned. 

That said, I cannot disclaimer away the kink level of a gentle, but firm spanking when someone (anyone, hello?) has been naughty... or, say, just as an example, engaged in some trite but cute feeder fantasy. Because, that would be kinky. BUT, not if you did it more than once. I mean, I'm just guessing here.


----------



## MasterShake (Jul 7, 2010)

WizardOfMeh said:


> Sorry, I can't help it.
> 
> But I've known guys who were stressed out at some point or another, and it hasn't hurt them.


There are people who define themselves and people who let themselves be defined by others. To be a bit blunt, you sound like someone who is letting others define you. You seem to define sexual/relationship success by the perceived ease your skinny male friends have, you seem more than willing to accept what your sister opines as gospel truth, and you seem to be placing all the onus on the women (for not being there, for not being point blank obvious, for not hitting on you, for not outnumbering the men on this forum, etc.).

My point is that if the above is true, you should not be necessarily surprised at your lack of success. Yes, some men have it easier, some don't, be it due to looks, or being innately more comfortable/natural at flirting, etc., whatever. But do you think the successful guys, including your friends, allow other men or even the women to define them?


----------



## BigChaz (Jul 7, 2010)

Amandy said:


> For the record, my sig line does not refer to being attracted to a fat guy or fucking a fat guy, which is not kinky and totally vanilla, as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> That said, I cannot disclaimer away the kink level of a gentle, but firm spanking when someone (anyone, hello?) has been naughty... or, say, just as an example, engaged in some trite but cute feeder fantasy. Because, that would be kinky. BUT, not if you did it more than once. I mean, I'm just guessing here.



So...is this the part where I volunteer for your fantasies?...just wondering. For science. Yeeeaahhh.


----------



## MasterShake (Jul 7, 2010)

Delineator said:


> You got that backwards - it is reality that dictates subjective experience(this is science speaking, not 'law of attraction' quackery).


No, I don't. Most people allow their beliefs to dictate their reality. "Science" takes a back seat to ideology 99 out of 100 times.


----------



## Amandy (Jul 7, 2010)

BigChaz said:


> So...is this the part where I volunteer for your fantasies?...just wondering. For science. Yeeeaahhh.



I love science. I first knew I loved science when I was in the 8th grade and we started talking about protons and semen. 

Wait, what?


----------



## Zowie (Jul 7, 2010)

I lot of girls don't really acknowledge it, I think. I've had a friend, when telling me about her boyfriend, say that he's a bit large, but she prefers him that way. And the guy was on the chubby side, but I don't think she'd ever identify it as a fetish, or make it more important than it really needs to be. It's just a question of preference, like some guys like big boobs. No one is calling them out on that.

As for "living" evidence of it, I think it'd freak a guy out more than anything if a random chick passed by and gave his midsection of a squeeze. It also makes it seem a little creepy to put forward your physical attraction before anything else. Personally, I'd be afraid of immediate rejection if I tried to come onto a guy. Girl who make advances on "conventional" attractive men don't have to worry about that, since the guy is generally pretty confident of scoring anyway. 

Tp come back to it, Wizard. I wouldn't blame girls, or the fact that you haven't been sex-tackled by one. As Escapist often says, it's in your own disposition that you'll attract a girl, FFA or not.


----------



## JenFromOC (Jul 7, 2010)

MasterShake said:


> There are people who define themselves and people who let themselves be defined by others. To be a bit blunt, you sound like someone who is letting others define you. You seem to define sexual/relationship success by the perceived ease your skinny male friends have, you seem more than willing to accept what your sister opines as gospel truth, and you seem to be placing all the onus on the women (for not being there, for not being point blank obvious, for not hitting on you, for not outnumbering the men on this forum, etc.).
> 
> My point is that if the above is true, you should not be necessarily surprised at your lack of success. Yes, some men have it easier, some don't, be it due to looks, or being innately more comfortable/natural at flirting, etc., whatever. But do you think the successful guys, including your friends, allow other men or even the women to define them?



Some guys have all the luck....


----------



## escapist (Jul 7, 2010)

Amandy said:


> For the record, my sig line does not refer to being attracted to a fat guy or fucking a fat guy, which is not kinky and totally vanilla, as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> That said, I cannot disclaimer away the kink level of a gentle, but firm spanking when someone (anyone, hello?) has been naughty... or, say, just as an example, engaged in some trite but cute feeder fantasy. Because, that would be kinky. BUT, not if you did it more than once. I mean, I'm just guessing here.



I think in my own pervy mind I think his sister should just try it before she knocks it kind of thing. Some of the FFA's I've talked to didn't get into it until they actually slept with a BHM and found they REALLY LOVED IT. Similar to my experiences of discovering how mind blowing a BBW can be.


----------



## WizardOfMeh (Jul 7, 2010)

MasterShake said:


> There are people who define themselves and people who let themselves be defined by others. To be a bit blunt, you sound like someone who is letting others define you.



I'm just trying to make sense of all the patterns I see.



MasterShake said:


> You seem to define sexual/relationship success by the perceived ease your skinny male friends have, you seem more than willing to accept what your sister opines as gospel truth, and you seem to be placing all the onus on the women (for not being there, for not being point blank obvious, for not hitting on you, for not outnumbering the men on this forum, etc.).
> 
> My point is that if the above is true, you should not be necessarily surprised at your lack of success. Yes, some men have it easier, some don't, be it due to looks, or being innately more comfortable/natural at flirting, etc., whatever. But do you think the successful guys, including your friends, allow other men or even the women to define them?


----------



## WizardOfMeh (Jul 7, 2010)

MasterShake said:


> There are people who define themselves and people who let themselves be defined by others. To be a bit blunt, you sound like someone who is letting others define you. You seem to define sexual/relationship success by the perceived ease your skinny male friends have, you seem more than willing to accept what your sister opines as gospel truth, and you seem to be placing all the onus on the women (for not being there, for not being point blank obvious, for not hitting on you, for not outnumbering the men on this forum, etc.).
> 
> My point is that if the above is true, you should not be necessarily surprised at your lack of success. Yes, some men have it easier, some don't, be it due to looks, or being innately more comfortable/natural at flirting, etc., whatever. But do you think the successful guys, including your friends, allow other men or even the women to define them?




I mean, if I see that the sun happens to rise every morning


----------



## MasterShake (Jul 7, 2010)

JenFromOC said:


> Some guys have all the luck....




To the OP, sorry, I'm the last person to be lecturing you!

All I can say is that I hope your luck improves!


----------



## Delineator (Jul 7, 2010)

MasterShake said:


> No, I don't. Most people allow their beliefs to dictate their reality.



Most people allow their beliefs to influence their *actions*, but those beliefs are still bounded by reality.

Humans are not closed systems.



MasterShake said:


> "Science" takes a back seat to ideology 99 out of 100 times.





If you want to continue living in the dark ages, who am I to stop you.

It's like the age of enlightenment never happened for some of us.


----------



## MasterShake (Jul 7, 2010)

Delineator said:


> Most people allow their beliefs to influence their *actions*, but those beliefs are still bounded by reality.


Methinks you'd be surprised by the ability of people to reshape the reality around them to fit their beliefs.

Sorry, brohan, but at some point we're going to have to 'agree to disagree' on.


----------



## BigChaz (Jul 7, 2010)

Delineator said:


> Most people allow their beliefs to influence their *actions*, but those beliefs are still bounded by reality.
> 
> Humans are not closed systems.
> 
> ...



aaaannndd obvious troll just became more obvious


----------



## chicken legs (Jul 7, 2010)

WizardOfMeh said:


> I'm just trying to make sense of my 'situation'(which seems to be the same for all other BHM I see, so I don't think its just a personal problem of mine).
> 
> I hang out with a pretty fit(or just skinny) crowd of guys, and let me tell you, women make it abudantly clear that they are interested before anyone makes a move.
> 
> ...



FFA's (fa) are not usually aggressive towards big guys (or girls). My BF loves skinny guys but she has a really dominate personality. IMO..I think it has to do with the literal size difference that holds many FFA/FA back from being forward. 

Personally I'm a bit of daredevil and have no problem going against the grain when it comes to my actions and POV, but I still clam up around big guys..especially if they are not playful.


----------



## Delineator (Jul 7, 2010)

bionic_eggplant said:


> I lot of girls don't really acknowledge it, I think. I've had a friend, when telling me about her boyfriend, say that he's a bit large, but she prefers him that way. And the guy was on the chubby side, but I don't think she'd ever identify it as a fetish, or make it more important than it really needs to be. It's just a question of preference, like some guys like big boobs. No one is calling them out on that.
> 
> As for "living" evidence of it, I think it'd freak a guy out more than anything if a random chick passed by and gave his midsection of a squeeze.



False dichotomy.

Why shouldn't she just say 'hello'?

(a strange women saying 'hello' makes an 'easy' interpretation for any guy)



bionic_eggplant said:


> It also makes it seem a little creepy to put forward your physical attraction before anything else. Personally, I'd be afraid of immediate rejection if I tried to come onto a guy. Girl who make advances on "conventional" attractive men don't have to worry about that, since the guy is generally pretty confident of scoring anyway.
> 
> Tp come back to it, Wizard. I wouldn't blame girls,



Is he 'blaming' girls?



bionic_eggplant said:


> or the fact that you haven't been sex-tackled by one. As Escapist often says, it's in your own disposition that you'll attract a girl, FFA or not.



So, first you tell him not to blame girls, and now you turn around and blame him? 

By the way, this whole disposition/confidence fallacy(that success follows from confidence, rather than the other way around) has been disproven so many times, it's scarcely worth the token effort it takes to refute.


----------



## JenFromOC (Jul 7, 2010)

BigChaz said:


> aaaannndd obvious troll just became more obvious



Does he annoy the absolute FUCK out of anyone else? To the point where I don't even read his posts because I can't fucking stand it. Fuck.


----------



## Paquito (Jul 7, 2010)

JenFromOC said:


> Does he annoy the absolute FUCK out of anyone else? To the point where I don't even read his posts because I can't fucking stand it. Fuck.



I can't even understand his posts.


----------



## MasterShake (Jul 7, 2010)

chicken legs said:


> Personally I'm a bit of daredevil and have no problem going against the grain when it comes to my actions and POV, but I still clam up around big guys..especially if they are not playful.


You can go against my grain, er shake, er fat, er, we were talking about clams???


----------



## BigChaz (Jul 7, 2010)

JenFromOC said:


> Does he annoy the absolute FUCK out of anyone else? To the point where I don't even read his posts because I can't fucking stand it. Fuck.



I respect his effort, but he is kinda bad at it.

edit: Well except for the fact that people are falling for it and arguing with him.


----------



## MasterShake (Jul 7, 2010)

bionic_eggplant said:


> sex-tackled


I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter!


----------



## BigChaz (Jul 7, 2010)

Holy crap I want to be sex-tackled


----------



## chicken legs (Jul 7, 2010)

SanDiega said:


> I feel like women are less likely to announce their sexual fetishes to people they just meet.



Especially to a (horny) guy that may have a hundred pounds on them..lol.


----------



## Zowie (Jul 7, 2010)

MasterShake said:


> I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter!





BigChaz said:


> Holy crap I want to be sex-tackled



I'd love to, but I'm usually the one being tackled. I can still try?


----------



## MasterShake (Jul 7, 2010)

bionic_eggplant said:


> I'd love to, but I'm usually the one being tackled. I can still try?


Um, YES???!!!

This is hawt!












I'll be your D-Line if you'll be my O-Line!


----------



## SanDiega (Jul 7, 2010)

After considering this subject during my evening walk, I decided that there are few FFAs because for something to be precious, it needs to be rare.


----------



## chicken legs (Jul 7, 2010)

Delineator said:


> Just a suspicion, how tall are you?



My first love was a Bhm and he was 5'6 or 5'7 and 220. I am 5'4.. and at the time...was a very fit 125. I do have a devil may care attitude and it was even worse then. I think my clubbing got in the way. He wanted to settle down and I just wasn't ready. Plus he was Catholic and I was studying Hindu/Buddhism/Wiccan ways of thought. 

One thing I learned back then was... there has to be *a lot* of flexibility towards each others lifestyle.


----------



## GiantGil (Jul 7, 2010)

JenFromOC said:


> Does he annoy the absolute FUCK out of anyone else? To the point where I don't even read his posts because I can't fucking stand it. Fuck.



You have to admit, the reaction he gets can be amusing to onlookers.

I think he tends to frustrate people who don't sit well with what he says.

So, they desperately want to disprove what he says, even if it happens to be true.


----------



## escapist (Jul 7, 2010)

BigChaz said:


> Holy crap I want to be sex-tackled



Careful what you wish for man, I had this Amazon BBW do it to me once it was almost more than I could handle.  :blush: :happy:


----------



## escapist (Jul 7, 2010)

chicken legs said:


> My first love was a Bhm and he was 5'6 or 5'7 and 220. I am 5'4.. and at the time...was a very fit 125. I do have a devil may care attitude and it was even worse then.



Worse really? Cause I mean, you went from that to taking on 6'3" 500 lbs.  :wubu: :happy:


----------



## djudex (Jul 7, 2010)

BigChaz said:


> Holy crap I want to be sex-tackled



Should I get my running shoes?


----------



## BigChaz (Jul 8, 2010)

djudex said:


> Should I get my running shoes?



Fucking finally, I've been waiting for this question forever.

Yes.


----------



## djudex (Jul 8, 2010)

BigChaz said:


> Fucking finally, I've been waiting for this question forever.
> 
> Yes.



I'm gonna butter yo bread.


----------



## chicken legs (Jul 8, 2010)

escapist said:


> Worse really? Cause I mean, you went from that to taking on 6'3" 500 lbs.  :wubu: :happy:



yes..way worse.:kiss2:


----------



## chicken legs (Jul 8, 2010)

Random reflections of a FFA coming..lol.

When dealing with someone smaller than yourself ..you run the risk of burning them out..(unless you already have a personal staff to cater to you).

Honestly, before Escapist..I had Bhm lovers and fit guy friends. I made a comment on the FA/FFA board that I was a text book closet FFA as far as my actions went. I wanted my organic hormone free cake and eat it too. Looking back, I realized I really don't have a strong personality (totally not energetic, tire easily) and didn't want to be dominated or burned out. Within my own family, the BHM/BBW's have usually burned out their smaller SO's. 

Basically what I'm saying is as a FFA, I have watched the relationships between a large person (high energy) and a small person (low energy), and that made me leery of getting to close to the object of my desire. Being in a relationship with Escapist has been a exercise on being flexible and considerate towards each other.


----------



## fatkid420 (Jul 8, 2010)

BigChaz said:


> Holy crap I want to be sex-tackled



i think i fell victim to this exact scenario the other night :wubu:


----------



## taobear (Jul 8, 2010)

Amandy said:


> For the record, my sig line does not refer to being attracted to a fat guy or fucking a fat guy, which is not kinky and totally vanilla, as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> That said, I cannot disclaimer away the kink level of a gentle, but firm spanking when someone (anyone, hello?) has been naughty... or, say, just as an example, engaged in some trite but cute feeder fantasy. Because, that would be kinky. BUT, not if you did it more than once. I mean, I'm just guessing here.



Sometimes I feel kinky just reading this board.


----------



## Tad (Jul 8, 2010)

JenFromOC said:


> Does he annoy the absolute FUCK out of anyone else? To the point where I don't even read his posts because I can't fucking stand it. Fuck.



psssst....ignore feature


----------



## mercy (Jul 8, 2010)

WizardOfMeh said:


> My sister has confided in me her belief that no woman(with other options) actually prefers a fat guy, all things being equal.



I think there are probably lots of women who would disagree with your sister, but I'm going to make another point: do you actually _want_ a woman who likes you mainly because she likes fat guys and because you are fat? Or would you be ok with a woman who likes the fact you are fat but doesn't define herself by her preferences to the extent that she calls herself an FFA?

I define myself as an FFA on this board because that's the context for me being here. But honestly... if I were coming up with a list of words to define myself to a complete stranger, FFA would be way down the list. It's not that I like big guys in spite of the fact that they're big... just that it would take more than a big belly alone to make me fall for someone. And conversely, the lack of a big belly wouldn't put me off someone if I felt there was a real connection.


----------



## bigpulve (Jul 8, 2010)

I think that FFAs are like Diamonds.....













let that sink in for a sec for my brownie points...






in that they are precieved as rare, but in actuality are quite common.


----------



## escapist (Jul 8, 2010)

bigpulve said:


> I think that FFAs are like Diamonds.....
> 
> let that sink in for a sec for my brownie points...
> 
> in that they are precieved as rare, but in actuality are quite common.



I tend to agree with this.


----------



## Wanderer (Jul 8, 2010)

mercy said:


> I think there are probably lots of women who would disagree with your sister, but I'm going to make another point: do you actually _want_ a woman who likes you mainly because she likes fat guys and because you are fat? Or would you be ok with a woman who likes the fact you are fat but doesn't define herself by her preferences to the extent that she calls herself an FFA?
> 
> I define myself as an FFA on this board because that's the context for me being here. But honestly... if I were coming up with a list of words to define myself to a complete stranger, FFA would be way down the list. It's not that I like big guys in spite of the fact that they're big... just that it would take more than a big belly alone to make me fall for someone. And conversely, the lack of a big belly wouldn't put me off someone if I felt there was a real connection.



I'm lonely, horny and broke. I'll take what I can get and be happy with it, because I know it's still better than being alone.


----------



## mercy (Jul 8, 2010)

I guess the way I'm looking at it is this: some people seem to assume that you can either like someone in spite of their weight or because of their weight. I don't think it's that black and white. You can like someone because you like them, and the weight, for me as an FFA at any rate, would just be an additional plus.


----------



## JenFromOC (Jul 8, 2010)

Wanderer said:


> I'm lonely, horny and broke. I'll take what I can get and be happy with it, because I know it's still better than being alone.



I'm lonely and broke....occasionally horny....but I would never just take what I can get. I'd rather be alone than settle for less than what I really want in a partner. Wow. That was really deep.


----------



## chicken legs (Jul 8, 2010)

mercy said:


> **snip**
> 
> I define myself as an FFA on this board because that's the context for me being here. But honestly... if I were coming up with a list of words to define myself to a complete stranger, FFA would be way down the list. It's not that I like big guys in spite of the fact that they're big... *just that it would take more than a big belly alone to make me fall for someone. And conversely, the lack of a big belly wouldn't put me off someone if I felt there was a real connection.*



My FFAness is a little bit more hardwired than that.:blush::eat2:


----------



## JenFromOC (Jul 8, 2010)

chicken legs said:


> My FFAness is a little bit more hardwired than that.:blush::eat2:



Me too....hehe


----------



## chicken legs (Jul 8, 2010)

Wanderer said:


> I'm lonely, horny and broke. I'll take what I can get and be happy with it, because I know it's still better than being alone.



I agree with Jen. Don't waste your hard earned energy/money/life force on someone you don't really dig....ya dig. Alone time is very precious and you should use it to your advantage and sort your shit out before you get involved with someone else's shit..otherwise it can turn into a shit storm. 

I was channeling my inner Foxy Brown for the above statements...lol.


----------



## Joe944 (Jul 8, 2010)

Wtb Ffa!!!


----------



## Isla620 (Jul 8, 2010)

WizardOfMeh said:


> My sister has confided in me her belief that no woman(with other options) actually prefers a fat guy, all things being equal. According to her, when you see one of these rare BHM with the kinds women who thin men might want, it indicates that she is with him *inspite* of the fact that he is fat.



Nice to see her rooting for you. With sisters like that, who needs enemies?


----------



## bigpulve (Jul 8, 2010)

My own opinion is this. If you are say under the age of 50, then being alone isnt a world ender. Im 21, wasnt in any relationship for 4 years after having a few. Recently had a girl that wasnt what I wanted, got out and am alone again. You know what, im alright with that. Ive got issues to deal with and why on earth would I want to share my issues with someone else, or take on someone elses issues?

As the old adage goes, cant build a house without a good foundation.


----------



## djudex (Jul 8, 2010)

JenFromOC said:


> I'd rather be alone than settle for less than what I really want in a partner.



This woman tells the troof!


----------



## RJI (Jul 8, 2010)

In my experience the only lonely BHM's are the ones who don't get off their ass and approach women. Why let the skinny guys have all the fun, beat them to the prize and make the move even if its just to say hi. What's the worst that could happen? Rejection... boohoo move to the next one. Shake enough trees and a piece of fruit will fall to you.


----------



## JenFromOC (Jul 8, 2010)

bigpulve said:


> My own opinion is this. If you are say under the age of 50, then being alone isnt a world ender. Im 21, wasnt in any relationship for 4 years after having a few. Recently had a girl that wasnt what I wanted, got out and am alone again. You know what, im alright with that. Ive got issues to deal with and why on earth would I want to share my issues with someone else, or take on someone elses issues?
> 
> As the old adage goes, cant build a house without a good foundation.



Maybe I just enjoy the single life, but even if you're over 50....being single still isn't the end of the world. I know...I'm going to be alone forever LOL


----------



## bigpulve (Jul 8, 2010)

JenFromOC said:


> Maybe I just enjoy the single life, but even if you're over 50....being single still isn't the end of the world. I know...I'm going to be alone forever LOL


Naw you wont be at all. Pretty girl with a head on her shoulders will be snapped up. 

Now the single over 50 has more to do with being in the last part of life, and with some of my recent life experiences, I know I want someone who loves me and I them, there in the end.

Single life is fun, if you are having fun. lol


----------



## Amandy (Jul 8, 2010)

JenFromOC said:


> Me too....hehe



me three... life with a skinny dude would be a life without orgasms (unless you count wankgasms, which are still much dreamier in the company of a big man than alone with teh youtube belliez)


----------



## Buffetbelly (Jul 8, 2010)

*Weight relates to dating, marriage and marital satisfaction,*
*Cornell studies find*


FOR RELEASE: April 1, 1997 

Contact: Susan Lang
Office: (607) 255-3613
E-Mail: [email protected]

ITHACA, N.Y. -- Although high school women are more concerned about their weight than men are about theirs, the *women are more willing than men to date an overweight person*. Once married, obese husbands are less happy with their marriages than other men, but men who have lost weight report fewer marital problems than obese or average-weight men or men who have gained weight during marriage. Obese wives, on the other hand, are happier with their marriages than average-weight wives. While newly-married women gain more weight than other wives do, or men do proportionately, few gain a lot during their first year of marriage. 
These are some of the recent findings of Jeffery Sobal, a Cornell nutritional sociologist who studies the sociology of obesity and the relationship between obesity and dating, marriage and marital satisfaction. 
"Basically, we're finding that you are what you weigh and you weigh what you are," said Sobal, associate professor of nutritional sciences. "In other words, body weight is largely a reflection of one's culture, socioeconomic and marital status, life stage and ethnicity." 
Some cultures value big round bodies, though not the United States. In this country, the higher one's socioeconomic status, the thinner a person is likely to be. Married people weigh more than the unmarried, parents weigh more than nonparents and whites weigh less -- and value thinness more -- than Hispanics or African Americans, reports Sobal with Cornell colleague Carol Devine, assistant professor of nutritional sciences. They are authors of the chapter, "Social Aspects of Obesity: Influences, Consequences, Assessment, and Interventions," in the new book Overweight and Weight Management, edited by Sharron Dalton (ASPEN 1997). 
"While the population of this country -- and the world for that matter -- is getting fatter, ideals about body weight increasingly emphasize slimness. Society tends to reject obese individuals and subject them to severe stigmatization and discrimination in many social arenas, including education, employment, marriage, housing and health care," Sobal said. "Such discrimination is particularly harmful because it obstructs obese people from entering important and desirable roles in society, such as student, employee and spouse. Such discrimination can have a major impact on a person for their entire life." 
In a study of 786 high school students, Sobal with then-Cornell undergraduate students Vasiliki Nicolopoulos and Jennifer Lee examined how much prejudice students felt in dating obese people. In a paper published in the International Journal of Obesity (Vol. 19, pp. 376-381, 1995), the authors reported that dating someone of the right weight was much more important to high school men than to high school women. 
In addition, women were more likely to consider themselves overweight and had more stringent body weight ideals than men had about women. Women were also much more concerned about being the right weight than men were. 
"*Men had less tolerance for overweight partners than did women, consistently reporting less comfort in dating overweight people*," the authors wrote. 
To examine how body weight is related to marital unhappiness and problems, Sobal and Cornell colleagues Barbara S. Rauschenback and Edward Frongillo used data on 1,980 married individuals. The sample was from the National Survey of Personal Health Practices and Consequences conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics in two waves in 1979-1980. 
While the authors found that body weight was not associated with most aspects of marital quality, several relationships emerged as significant. 
"Obese women were happier with their marriages than other women, whereas obese men had more marital problems other men. Men who gained weight were more likely to report marital problems than men who lost weight, while *women who gained weight were more likely to be happy compared with those who lost weight*," the authors reported in the Journal of Family Issues (Vol. 16, November 1995, pp. 746-763). 
"One theory about why obese women were happier with their marriages is related to recognizing their decreased value in the marriage market in a society that stigmatizes obesity. As a result, obese women are more likely to be satisfied with their current marital condition compared with opportunities for seeking a new partner. In other words, women appear to internalize and accept the negative assessments of their obesity," the authors said. 
*Obese men, on the other hand, may be more likely to have marital problems because their wives may be pressuring them to lose weight; such pressure may lead to hostility and conflict. Also, the authors speculate that men are less likely to accept the negative social view about body weight than women. *
The same three researchers also analyzed data on 2,436 respondents from the same survey to see how a change in marital status affected weight change in one year. In a study published in Obesity Research (Vol. 3, July 1995, pp. 319-327), the researchers noted gender differences in the rate of body weight changes after marriage, with more immediate changes in women than men. 
"Our findings show that women tend to change weight more in that first year of marriage than men do," Sobal noted. "Other studies have shown that during the first two years of marriages, husbands and wives tend to exercise less and eat more but *only husbands gained weight*. Our previously published study showed that *married men are fatter and more likely to be obese than never married or previously married men*. These differences, however, do not emerge during the first year of marriage." The studies were supported, in part, by the National Institutes of Health.


----------



## WizardOfMeh (Jul 8, 2010)

Isla620 said:


> Nice to see her rooting for you. With sisters like that, who needs enemies?



No, you got it all wrong.

My sister is great - we are very close.

We look out for each other(I help her with her daughter).

She didn't say that to hurt me, but because I asked her to be honest with me.

I know that alot of times people tell white lies when they figure they are being helpful, or telling people what they want to hear.

But I would rather take my medicine and hear the truth.

Maybe there are guys out there who would rather be lied to about this, but I'm not one of them.


----------



## WizardOfMeh (Jul 8, 2010)

MasterShake said:


> There are people who define themselves and people who let themselves be defined by others. To be a bit blunt, you sound like someone who is letting others define you. You seem to define sexual/relationship success by the perceived ease your skinny male friends have, you seem more than willing to accept what your sister opines as gospel truth,



To elaborate, if I see that the sun happens to rise every morning, I'll learn to expect it after a while(even if I don't understand the physics behind why it is happening).

So, should I question my senses just because they are showing me something I don't want to see?

I want to understand what's behind these patterns, so maybe I can find a way to turn things to my advantage.

One thing I don't want to ever become, is one of those naive overweight guys who just sit around being 'positive' all day, expecting that good things will spontaneously 'happen' on their own.

From my own experience(and from what I see around me), that all but guarantees failure.

I'm just trying to be proactive, plan things out best, and then get to work!

If this means that I have to swallow some bitter pills, then I'm prepared to do that.



MasterShake said:


> and you seem to be placing all the onus on the women (for not being there, for not being point blank obvious, for not hitting on you, for not outnumbering the men on this forum, etc.).



Not really.

I'm just a little perplexed(and skeptical) that women would communicate their interest in BHMs any differently than non BHMs.

I'm not sure I buy that idea at all.



MasterShake said:


> My point is that if the above is true, you should not be necessarily surprised at your lack of success. Yes, some men have it easier, some don't, be it due to looks, or being innately more comfortable/natural at flirting, etc., whatever. But do you think the successful guys, including your friends, allow other men or even the women to define them?



I don't think any of my friends could handle being an overweight guy any better than I do(they've said as much themselves).


----------



## veil (Jul 8, 2010)

BigChaz said:


> aaaannndd obvious troll just became more obvious



i don't think it's a troll, is the thing. 









JenFromOC said:


> Does he annoy the absolute FUCK out of anyone else? To the point where I don't even read his posts because I can't fucking stand it. Fuck.




fuck yes, jen, fuck yes.


----------



## WizardOfMeh (Jul 8, 2010)

veil said:


> i don't think it's a troll, is the thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Then why aren't all the guys here who can't get laid like that?


----------



## WizardOfMeh (Jul 8, 2010)

Delineator said:


> But, one thing is for certain - struggling to find a receptive mate *always* indicates a relative signalling handicap(attractiveness defect), that will be difficult to remedy, if not impossible(if it were always possible, sexual selection could not operate).



I thought there was someone out there for everyone.


----------



## GiantGil (Jul 8, 2010)

veil said:


> i don't think it's a troll, is the thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey, quit dogging on us already, or help us out.

Put up, or shut up. 

:neg-hit:


----------



## Delineator (Jul 8, 2010)

veil said:


> i don't think it's a troll, is the thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How many BHM do you suppose fall into that category?

Or is this just a prejudice you hold against evolutionary psychology?

But, how do you know I'm not, like, the hottest piece of ass going?

Remember: asshole -> 'hotness' and I suspect Delineator = asshole is non-controversial, as far as you're concerned.


----------



## Delineator (Jul 8, 2010)

Buffetbelly said:


> *Weight relates to dating, marriage and marital satisfaction,*
> *Cornell studies find*
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, this study was already debunked because it does not control for relative *body-composition*, or somatotype.

But, I should add that every guy appreciates the differences between 'dating' and 'hook-ups'. 

Dating, from a justified male(ie. mating) perspective is the kiss of death!

Hook-up culture has ruined the connotation of 'dating' forever.

The surest way to insult a (savvy) guy, is to ask him out on a date - which is just another way of saying 'LJBF'.



Buffetbelly said:


> Once married, obese husbands are less happy with their marriages than other men, but men who have lost weight report fewer marital problems than obese or average-weight men or men who have gained weight during marriage. Obese wives, on the other hand, are happier with their marriages than average-weight wives. While newly-married women gain more weight than other wives do, or men do proportionately, few gain a lot during their first year of marriage.
> These are some of the recent findings of Jeffery Sobal, a Cornell nutritional sociologist who studies the sociology of obesity and the relationship between obesity and dating, marriage and marital satisfaction.
> "Basically, we're finding that you are what you weigh and you weigh what you are," said Sobal, associate professor of nutritional sciences. "In other words, body weight is largely a reflection of one's culture, socioeconomic and marital status, life stage and ethnicity."
> Some cultures value big round bodies, though not the United States. In this country, the higher one's socioeconomic status, the thinner a person is likely to be. Married people weigh more than the unmarried, parents weigh more than nonparents and whites weigh less -- and value thinness more -- than Hispanics or African Americans, reports Sobal with Cornell colleague Carol Devine, assistant professor of nutritional sciences. They are authors of the chapter, "Social Aspects of Obesity: Influences, Consequences, Assessment, and Interventions," in the new book Overweight and Weight Management, edited by Sharron Dalton (ASPEN 1997).
> ...



There's *alot* more 'overweight' guys who tend to comprise mostly muscle, then there are women.

So, again, unless you clarify what 'overweight' means with respect to body-composition, this tells us nothing interesting.



Buffetbelly said:


> ," the authors wrote.
> To examine how body weight is related to marital unhappiness and problems, Sobal and Cornell colleagues Barbara S. Rauschenback and Edward Frongillo used data on 1,980 married individuals. The sample was from the National Survey of Personal Health Practices and Consequences conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics in two waves in 1979-1980.
> While the authors found that body weight was not associated with most aspects of marital quality, several relationships emerged as significant.
> "Obese women were happier with their marriages than other women, whereas obese men had more marital problems other men. Men who gained weight were more likely to report marital problems than men who lost weight, while *women who gained weight were more likely to be happy compared with those who lost weight*



Guys are less picky, so alot of women can *literally* have their cake(hot husband) and eat it too(eat all/whatever they want).

So, no surprise there.



Buffetbelly said:


> ," the authors reported in the Journal of Family Issues (Vol. 16, November 1995, pp. 746-763).
> "One theory about why obese women were happier with their marriages is related to recognizing their decreased value in the marriage market in a society that stigmatizes obesity. As a result, obese women are more likely to be satisfied with their current marital condition compared with opportunities for seeking a new partner. In other words, women appear to internalize and accept the negative assessments of their obesity," the authors said.
> *Obese men, on the other hand, may be more likely to have marital problems because their wives may be pressuring them to lose weight; such pressure may lead to hostility and conflict. Also, the authors speculate that men are less likely to accept the negative social view about body weight than women. *




Ha ha.

Busted!

You've got to get up pretty early in the morning.

Note how strategic there were with respect to their placement of the terms 'overweight' and 'obese'(which is more likely to describe a fatty body-composition) throughout the paper.

But, yeah, women(inclusive of wives) tend not to tolerate fat guys very well, so no news there either.



Buffetbelly said:


> The same three researchers also analyzed data on 2,436 respondents from the same survey to see how a change in marital status affected weight change in one year. In a study published in Obesity Research (Vol. 3, July 1995, pp. 319-327), the researchers noted gender differences in the rate of body weight changes after marriage, with more immediate changes in women than men.
> "Our findings show that women tend to change weight more in that first year of marriage than men do," Sobal noted. "Other studies have shown that during the first two years of marriages, husbands and wives tend to exercise less and eat more but *only husbands gained weight*.



Competition is more intense for wives than husbands, so these guys are just taking a well deserved breather.



Buffetbelly said:


> Our previously published study showed that *married men are fatter and more likely to be obese than never married or previously married men*.



Yeah, the 'hotter' guys are 'playing the field', just like we should expect.



Buffetbelly said:


> These differences, however, do not emerge during the first year of marriage." The studies were supported, in part, by the National Institutes of Health.


----------



## veil (Jul 8, 2010)

Delineator said:


> How many BHM do you suppose fall into that category?
> 
> Or is this just a prejudice you harbor against evolutionary psychology?
> 
> ...




if all you noticed was the center square, you missed both the joke and the point.


----------



## Delineator (Jul 8, 2010)

RJI said:


> In my experience the only lonely BHM's are the ones who don't get off their ass and approach women. Why let the skinny guys have all the fun, beat them to the prize and make the move even if its just to say hi. What's the worst that could happen? Rejection... boohoo move to the next one. Shake enough trees and a piece of fruit will fall to you.



That's like saying the only reason why someone doesn't win the lottery is because they don't play.

It doesn't say anything about the relative liklihood of winning, even if you do play.


----------



## Delineator (Jul 8, 2010)

JenFromOC said:


> I'm lonely and broke....occasionally horny....but I would never just take what I can get. I'd rather be alone than settle for less than what I really want in a partner. Wow. That was really deep.



That's a convenient position for some people(with obvious options) to take.

But, men and women really do have conflicted evolutionary agendas, so we shouldn't expect that they would subjectively observe the same world. 

If you were a BHM you would view the problem differently.


----------



## Paquito (Jul 9, 2010)

I wouldn't want to settle for less either. Being single is far better than scraping the bottom of the barrel.


----------



## Delineator (Jul 9, 2010)

WizardOfMeh said:


> I thought there was someone out there for everyone.



Unfortunately, no.

Evolution must cull frequencies every generation in order to operate opportunistically(where it must necessarily select against a certain subset of the population - almost entirely male)


----------



## Delineator (Jul 9, 2010)

Since I think everyone in this thread has finally reconciled the truth that genuine FFAs are prohibitively rare, I have an interesting evolutionary explanation as to why.

If we consider only conventionally attractive FFA(which does a good job of controlling for opportunity as an obvious confounder), we will see just how rare this phenomenon is.

This suggests an obvious mutation where, given the unique hypostatic properties of endomorphy(ie. in confounding extrinsic signals of genetic quality), it's expression can represent a significant signalling handicap which only rare(mutant) females are willing to trade-off in exchange for compensatory signals(esp. characters which are not prone to hypostatic suppression, like superior stature).

So, finding a genuine FFA(mutant/unicorn) is prohibitively rare, because such females incur a fitness disadvantage(observed in their limited frequency) for the prospect of a male lineage with some increased tendency towards endomorphy(which would thus prove handicapped, with respect to reproductive fitness).

As for solutions, I would like to engineer an FFA clone war(against non-FFA, so as to increase the relative frequency of FFA).

So, we need certified FFA to volunteer for cloning experiments(PM me).


----------



## Hozay J Garseeya (Jul 9, 2010)

If I add someone to my ignore list, does that mean i can't see their posts?


----------



## Paquito (Jul 9, 2010)

Hozay J Garseeya said:


> If I add someone to my ignore list, does that mean i can't see their posts?



Yep, so hopefully you don't put me on ignore or else you can't read this post.
But if someone quotes said ignored person's post, then you'll see it.


----------



## Paquito (Jul 9, 2010)

Delineator said:


> Since I think everyone in this thread has finally reconciled the truth that genuine FFAs are prohibitively rare, I have an interesting evolutionary explanation as to why.



I'm sorry, but when did we all "accept the truth?"


----------



## bigpulve (Jul 9, 2010)

Delineator said:


> That's a convenient position for some people(with obvious options) to take.
> 
> But, men and women really do have conflicted evolutionary agendas, so we shouldn't expect that they would subjectively observe the same world.
> 
> If you were a BHM you would view the problem differently.


Both sexes are equally interested in a high value mate evolutionarily speaking. High value means a high procreative rate and viability of the offspring. Now usually the female having the power of carrying said offspring has the most ability to be stringent in terms of a mate, but men had a check list as well. Wide hips, ample breast size to indicate milk production, enough body fat to sustain a pregnancy though lean times ect. 

So being interested in a high value mate isnt one sided.


----------



## Delineator (Jul 9, 2010)

Paquito said:


> I wouldn't want to settle for less either. Being single is far better than scraping the bottom of the barrel.




You may come to re-evaluate that position in a decade or so.


----------



## bigpulve (Jul 9, 2010)

Delineator said:


> Since I think everyone in this thread has finally reconciled the truth that genuine FFAs are prohibitively rare, I have an interesting evolutionary explanation as to why.
> 
> If we consider only conventionally attractive FFA(which does a good job of controlling for opportunity as an obvious confounder), we will see just how rare this phenomenon is.
> 
> ...


This is evolutionarily incorrect. Before the industrial revolution, the larger sized the man was, the higher value he had. A large man had access to the most important thing, food. So your hypothesis that FFAs are a rare breed isnt true. Its more of a title that are being thrust upon women who are still genetically and evolutionarily enticed by a certain phenotype now that the "top shelf" male ideal has been artificially changed. Along with the fact that in America we have plenty of food.

Some remote tribes in Africa are still the "correct" way.


----------



## Paquito (Jul 9, 2010)

Delineator said:


> You may come to re-evaluate that position in a decade or so.



I mean if you wanna waste your life spending money on two-bit hookers and internet porn, go for it.


----------



## Delineator (Jul 9, 2010)

bigpulve said:


> Both sexes are equally interested in a high value mate evolutionarily speaking. High value means a high procreative rate and viability of the offspring. Now usually the female having the power of carrying said offspring has the most ability to be stringent in terms of a mate, but men had a check list as well. Wide hips, ample breast size to indicate milk production, enough body fat to sustain a pregnancy though lean times ect.
> 
> So being interested in a high value mate isnt one sided.



Actually, it tends to be very one-sided, precisely because females are 'reproductively limiting'(as you have so conveniently observed).

What this means, is that males have a higher reproductive potential, and thus a higher optima mating rate.

So, it is an evolutionary optima for males to trade-off quality, for frequency(or 'availability').

This is why we can observe that guys are *way* less selective - it is *exactly* what evolution predicts.


----------



## Delineator (Jul 9, 2010)

bigpulve said:


> This is evolutionarily incorrect. Before the industrial revolution, the larger sized the man was, the higher value he had. A large man had access to the most important thing, food. So your hypothesis that FFAs are a rare breed isnt true. Its more of a title that are being thrust upon women who are still genetically and evolutionarily enticed by a certain phenotype now that the "top shelf" male ideal has been artificially changed. Along with the fact that in America we have plenty of food.
> 
> Some remote tribes in Africa are still the "correct" way.



A tendency for evolution to favor large males has *very* little to do with relative hunting/foraging competencies, lol.

It has do do with the fact that, under conditions of ecological stress, smaller than average size is correlated with decreased viability - ergo the female preference for large males(which posed a reverse correlation, within Koinophiliac limits) was 'fixed' by evolutionary success.


----------



## GiantGil (Jul 9, 2010)

Sorry, but this Delineator guy owns. :eat1:


----------



## bigpulve (Jul 9, 2010)

Delineator said:


> Actually, it tends to be very one-sided, precisely because females are 'reproductively limiting'(as you have so conveniently observed).
> 
> What this means, is that males have a higher reproductive potential, and thus a higher optima mating rate.
> 
> ...


optimum. 

I was observing that males were also reproductively savvy. It was not in the males best interest to mate with a starved, small hips "super model" type woman. Yes men were wired to mate often, but only with women capable of bearing and delivering the offspring. 



Delineator said:


> A tendency for evolution to favor large males has *very* little to do with relative hunting/foraging competencies, lol.
> 
> It has do do with the fact that, under conditions of ecological stress, smaller than average size is correlated with decreased viability - ergo the female preference for large males(which posed a reverse correlation, within Koinophiliac limits) was 'fixed' by evolutionary success.


Never said it was a "tendency". Just stating that your hypothosis on how FFAs are like unicorns is not true. The most pursued mate in tribes and even into the early 20th century were larger men. Back then it was leaders, kings, top executives ect. 

And large men were not "fixed" out of evolution. Rather they were a rarer breed of male that were similar to super models today. So women were thus drawn to one when they were around if not straight up sought after. females wanted a male to mate who could provide food. Simple as that. Now I know you are unwilling to simplify things considering your abrupt and forceful use of polysyllabic words.

So the unnatural change forced upon the western populous, is in fact, evolutionarily contradictive.


----------



## WizardOfMeh (Jul 9, 2010)

SanDiega said:


> After considering this subject during my evening walk, I decided that there are few FFAs because for something to be precious, it needs to be rare.




Then I would rather they be less 'precious', and more common.


----------



## Delineator (Jul 9, 2010)

bigpulve said:


> optimum.



or optima(look it up).



bigpulve said:


> I was observing that males were also reproductively savvy. It was not in the males best interest to mate with a starved, small hips "super model" type woman. Yes men were wired to mate often, but only with women capable of bearing and delivering the offspring.


 
If you're trying to say that there is an absolute minimum threshold for female attractiveness, then yes, I will concede your point.

But my (justified) point, is that females are significantly more selective.



bigpulve said:


> Never said it was a "tendency". Just stating that your hypothosis on how FFAs are like unicorns is not true. The most pursued mate in tribes and even into the early 20th century were larger men. Back then it was leaders, kings, top executives ect.



What do you mean by 'larger men'?



bigpulve said:


> And large men were not "fixed" out of evolution.


 
So, large men didn't evolve?




bigpulve said:


> Rather they were a rarer breed of male that were similar to super models today. So women were thus drawn to one when they were around if not straight up sought after. females wanted a male to mate who could provide food. Simple as that.



That's ridiculous.

What does being a 'large man' have to do with his relative hunting/foraging competencies?

Well nourished, I will concede, but that's not necessarily the same thing.

Like I said, smaller than average size(under conditions of ecological stress) is more likely to suggest reduced viability through developmental incompetence(regardless of causality - whether it be malnutrition, or some other congenital factor), as well as assorted competitive handicaps(assuming survival to a reproductive age).

But, the onus of selection really is on viability, before competition.



bigpulve said:


> Now I know you are unwilling to simplify things considering your abrupt and forceful use of polysyllabic words.



It's called terminology. 



bigpulve said:


> So the unnatural change forced upon the western populous, is in fact, evolutionarily contradictive.



How can something evolve that is evolutionarily contradictive.


----------



## bigpulve (Jul 9, 2010)

Delineator said:


> If you're trying to say that there is an absolute minmum threshold for female attractiveness, then yes, I will concede your point.
> 
> But my (justified) point, is that females are significantly more selective.


Not really. They just had a larger pool to select from. Females wanted a male who could provide food to the new offspring. That correlates to womens attraction to power in todays world.





> What do you mean by 'larger men'?
> 
> And what does being a 'larger man' have to do with being a leader, king, top executive, etc.
> 
> ...


 Not the "ideal" modern western male is what I mean. People that looked like they had lots of food. And that was just an example of those larger men with lots of food. 


And no, because its a natural mechanism for the body to want to store extra food. evolution and all.



> That's ridiculous.
> 
> What does being a 'large man' have to do with his relative hunting/foraging competencies?
> 
> Well nourished, I will concede, but that's not necessarily the same thing.


How can one be well nourished 100,000 years ago, if one did not have a high competency in hunting? 





> It's called terminology.
> 
> 
> 
> How can something evolve that is evolutionarily contradictive.


No its called trying to sound so much smarter that the other person doesnt want to try. You are such an easy one to figure out. You come in here to argue against the basis of this board in such a way that would "turn" others to the truth that they are wrong. Using big words and textbook page arguments are not a useful tactic. You are nothing more than the bar guy in Good Will Hunting.


----------



## Delineator (Jul 9, 2010)

bigpulve said:


> Not really. They just had a larger pool to select from. Females wanted a male who could provide food to the new offspring. That correlates to womens attraction to power in todays world.



So, now you want to argue principles of sexual evolution? :doh:

Hey, don't tell it to me - I'm just an impartial observer.



bigpulve said:


> Not the "ideal" modern western male is what I mean. People that looked like they had lots of food. And that was just an example of those larger men with lots of food.
> 
> 
> And no, because its a natural mechanism for the body to want to store extra food. evolution and all.



And I still don't know what you mean by 'large men'.



bigpulve said:


> How can one be well nourished 100,000 years ago, if one did not have a high competency in hunting?



You're still missing the focus of selection.

How can a *neonate* be a competent hunter/forager? 



bigpulve said:


> No its called trying to sound so much smarter that the other person doesnt want to try.



If I didn't know what I was talking about, that might be a reasonable conclusion.

But, since you are obviously unqualified to make that determination, your conclusion is not reasonable.



bigpulve said:


> You are such an easy one to figure out. You come in here to argue against the basis of this board in such a way that would "turn" others to the truth that they are wrong. Using big words and textbook page arguments are not a useful tactic. You are nothing more than the bar guy in Good Will Hunting.



I agree with the principle of this forum.

I support it 100%

The OP wanted to know the truth, so I am informing him to the best of my ability.

You're the one with the issue here.

If you have a genuine problem with me, lets take it to PM and spare everyone else.

Sound fair?


----------



## GiantGil (Jul 9, 2010)

bigpulve said:


> Not really. They just had a larger pool to select from. Females wanted a male who could provide food to the new offspring. That correlates to womens attraction to power in todays world.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh, leave him be.

Every forum needs an honorary tr*ll, like a lightning rod!

edit: I didn't mean to provoke anything with my earlier comment.


----------



## GiantGil (Jul 9, 2010)

veil said:


> if all you noticed was the center square, you missed both the joke and the point.



I thought that was the point.


----------



## bigpulve (Jul 9, 2010)

Delineator said:


> So, now you want to argue principles of sexual evolution? :doh:
> 
> Hey, don't tell it to me - I'm just an impartial observer.
> 
> ...



No I dont have a problem at all. I am just bored and felt like screwing with you.


----------



## TheMildlyStrangeone (Jul 9, 2010)

veil said:


> if all you noticed was the center square, you missed both the joke and the point.



I love the pinker reference


----------



## WizardOfMeh (Jul 9, 2010)

Delineator said:


> As for solutions, I would like to engineer an FFA clone war(against non-FFA, so as to increase the relative frequency of FFA).
> 
> So, we need certified FFA to volunteer for cloning experiments(PM me).




I'm still not sure what to make of you, but I'm repping you for this.

It's a sig waiting to happen. :bow:


----------



## Hozay J Garseeya (Jul 9, 2010)

Nice, all i had to do was adjust my ignore settings, and Noe this thread is all cleaned up.


----------



## bigpulve (Jul 9, 2010)

Hozay J Garseeya said:


> Nice, all i had to do was adjust my ignore settings, and Noe this thread is all cleaned up.


sorry for quoting him.



Unless I got added then well.. you cant see my apology. :doh:


----------



## WizardOfMeh (Jul 9, 2010)

mercy said:


> I guess the way I'm looking at it is this: some people seem to assume that you can either like someone in spite of their weight or because of their weight. I don't think it's that black and white. You can like someone because you like them, and the weight, for me as an FFA at any rate, would just be an additional plus.



What I want to know is: why are FFAs so progressive when it comes to weight(not excluding skinny guys), while other women are so close minded(in excluding BHMs)?

Whatever the reason(maybe what Delineator was talking about?), it sounds like bad news for BHM.


----------



## Delineator (Jul 9, 2010)

CarlaSixx said:


> I think FFAs are just feeling normal enough to not shout their preference from the rooftops.
> 
> There's plenty out there.
> 
> ...




But your explanation poses a bit of a logical problem.

Why should BHM conclude that women are 'faking' their attraction, without some historical precedence to justify such an expectation?

I submit, that if BHM are more apprehensive that women are trying to 'bait' them for a laugh, it *must* be because this is more commonly the case.

Otherwise slim/muscular guys should be equally apprehensive.

Confidence and expectation are not a priori quantities.


----------



## WizardOfMeh (Jul 9, 2010)

Some people think FFAs are rare, while some think they're common. :doh:


----------



## Delineator (Jul 9, 2010)

WizardOfMeh said:


> Some people think FFAs are rare, while some think they're common. :doh:



Don't sweat it.

Even the FFAs can't seem to figure out whether they're rare or common, lol.

Common is evident.

If it's not evident, it's not common.


----------



## WizardOfMeh (Jul 9, 2010)

Delineator said:


> Don't sweat it.
> 
> Even the FFAs can't seem to figure out whether they're rare or common, lol.
> 
> ...



Maybe you're right.


----------



## Melian (Jul 9, 2010)

For fuck's sake.....this thread is tedious and annoying to read.

This is really all anyone needs to say on the topic:


----------



## Sasquatch! (Jul 9, 2010)

Melian--as always--has amazing curves.


----------



## Tad (Jul 9, 2010)

Hozay J Garseeya said:


> If I add someone to my ignore list, does that mean i can't see their posts?



You'll still see that they posted, but to actually read the post you have to go click on a link. If someone else quotes them you do see the quote.


----------



## MasterShake (Jul 9, 2010)

JenFromOC said:


> I know...I'm going to be alone forever LOL


Not if I have anything to do about it!


----------



## Bearsy (Jul 9, 2010)

CarlaSixx said:


> A lot of FFAs are disheartened by the fact that a lot of BHMs in RL think the girl must be faking her attraction to him or must feel desperate, not realizing some women REALLY do like BHMs. So the girls think since the BHMs won't believe them, they might as well settle for a thin guy.



I struggled with this problem a couple times last year and a few more in the years before that. 

Thankfully since I've found this board I haven't had that gnawing fear that "There must be something seriously fucked up with her if she's showing interest in me." 
I'm learning to take any interest I see and run with it. I've improved my flirting skills somewhat, and am working on being more playful... I used to talk to girls like one would speak to a professor.
I used to give fake phone numbers and/or avoid the hell out of girls that showed any interest in me. Not because I didn't like them but because I was sure any one who liked me were some kind of crazy cause no one could be into me.
So thank you Dims, for helping me with that.

Unfortunately, I'm still not able to make the jump into getting a date yet :/
Ever onward though, neh?


----------



## MasterShake (Jul 9, 2010)

WizardOfMeh said:


> To elaborate, if I see that the sun happens to rise every morning, I'll learn to expect it after a while(even if I don't understand the physics behind why it is happening).


There's a difference between observing an inanimate object and a person. I can only go off your posts here, but it sounds (to me) like you are making observations based on what you think you're seeing and then treating them as having the same, rock-solid truth as the sun rising in the east.

My point is, I'm asking you to doubt or question that conviction. We all have a tendency to want to explain other people in clear, unequivocal terms, and that drive can push us into making conclusions that aren't supported by the actual evidence, or on evidence that itself has not been proven.

But because of our natural beliefs in the rightness of our own convictions and thought processes, we tend not to question our opinions, especially if they appear to confirm our own biases or fears. IMO, again, based only on what I've seen you write here, you seem driven by two basic things:

1) a belief that FFAs are almost infintesimaly rare in reality, and/or that FFAs aren't as committed to seeking out bigger guys.

2) a fear of being "naive" and "optimistic" about your chances.

To me, such forces as these two are bound to set you up for failure, because they are pushing you to make assumptions about a woman before you even meet her:

"This woman is here in real life, not on the Dimms forum, so she's probably not an FFA and a good chance totally disgusted at my body."
"This woman doesn't openly flirt like a Dimms girl, so clearly she's not into me."
"This woman is ugly or fat herself, so I don't want her and it doesn't count."

Etc. etc.

BTW, kinda tweaking you with the last one, don't want to imply I think you've ever said that, but to me that's another point/issue that BHMs tend to ignore in their favor: there's a difference between saying "there's no FFAs" and "there's no FFAs I'm attracted to". I have big friends who've been openly hit on by women who didn't meet their criteria of being drop dead cute and skinny, but if you were to ask them, all women are shallow because they won't date them.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with having preferences and not wanting to date/be receptive to a girl that doesn't fulfill them, but to me it's very - arrogant? hypocritical? - to make sweeping generalizations of all women, or even just all FFAS, when you're discounting the ones you aren't attracted to.

Again, not meaning to suggest you do that, but just trying to point out that it'd be very easy for me to go around saying "oh woe is me, no real life girls find me attractive" because I've conveniently forgotten the handful of women who seemed to be flirty and possibly receptive but weren't my type and instead I only remember the handful who were my type but ignored me.

I hope that rambling makes sense. Again, I'm not trying to attack you, and I'm simply trying to respond to the comments you've made, so I can only go off what relatively little you've said, but my own experience is that it's easy to remain miserably lonely if you allow yourself to be dictated to by the nebulous, pseudo-scientific/"obvious fact" belief systems we're all prone to creating and reinforcing through our biased and selective minds.


----------



## LovelyLiz (Jul 9, 2010)

Based on some of the "logic" that's been passing for truth in this thread, something else that must be really rare, then, are women who like thin or athletic guys. I mean, go to any major dating site and the place is just crawling with thin and/or athletic guys who are single and having trouble finding a date or a mate.

After reading this thread I just want to say to the BHMs, don't let anyone steal your joy or sense of self-worth (I mean that in a sincere way, and not a patronizing way). There are happy, well-loved BHMs and there are also lonely, desperate BHMs. But hey, guess what, there are happy, well-loved thin guys, and lonely, desperate thin guys. If someone wants to convince you that all BHMs are lonely, desperate, or undesirable as sexual or romantic partners, I think it's more than appropriate to question their grasp of reality, and even moreso their motivation.

Thanks for letting me jump into this conversation. I'll take my leave now.


----------



## chicken legs (Jul 9, 2010)

WizardOfMeh said:


> What I want to know is: why are FFAs so progressive when it comes to weight(not excluding skinny guys), while other women are so close minded(in excluding BHMs)?
> 
> Whatever the reason(maybe what Delineator was talking about?), it sounds like bad news for BHM.



My experience with large men has been rather positive. Its actually an offshoot of my muscle fetish. Dealing with athletes in their off season was always way more fun. The only time I've been turned off is when they are negative cheap selfish lazy know-it-all assholes who feel the need to crap on everything others do. However, that type of personality comes in many different forms and in both genders..lol.


----------



## LovesBigMen (Jul 9, 2010)

chicken legs said:


> My experience with large men has been rather positive. Its actually an offshoot of my muscle fetish. Dealing with athletes in their off season was always way more fun. The only time I've been turned off is when they are negative cheap selfish lazy know-it-all assholes who feel the need to crap on everything others do. However, that type of personality comes in many different forms and in both genders..lol.



Haha nice way of putting it xD.


----------



## chicken legs (Jul 9, 2010)

I'm going to be really brutally honest. You are going to need money and be willing to spend it to get most "Hot Chicks" (what ever the definition of Hot Chick is). Otherwise, you will run the risk of turning a Hot Chick into a Frazzled Chick...which is what most Hot Chicks try to avoid at all costs. On the other hand, you have to come to terms with just being a piece of ass for a Hot Chick with her own money and learning not to resent being a piece of ass that she enjoys at the end of the day. Likewise, you have to find a Hot Chick that doesn't need a man to accompany her like a puppy dog. Now this doesn't even factor in the stressors like kids, family, etc.

***this is a slightly sarcastic post***


----------



## chicken legs (Jul 9, 2010)

LovesBigMen said:


> Haha nice way of putting it xD.



Gracias la jefe.


----------



## LovesBigMen (Jul 9, 2010)

chicken legs said:


> Gracias la jefe.



De nada


----------



## WizardOfMeh (Jul 9, 2010)

MasterShake said:


> There's a difference between observing an inanimate object and a person.



But expectations don't really observe any difference.

Phenomenon is phenomenon.



MasterShake said:


> I can only go off your posts here, but it sounds (to me) like you are making observations based on what you think you're seeing and then treating them as having the same, rock-solid truth as the sun rising in the east.



Like I said, the only way I know how to fight that, is to delude my senses. 

I'm not sure I can do that, and I'm not sure that I would even if I could.

Maybe this is just a fundamental difference between us.



MasterShake said:


> My point is, I'm asking you to doubt or question that conviction. We all have a tendency to want to explain other people in clear, unequivocal terms, and that drive can push us into making conclusions that aren't supported by the actual evidence, or on evidence that itself has not been proven.



Expectations and explanations are different things, and I already have expectations, and the assumptions that they create. 

Now I'm looking for other evidence and explanations that can either support or dispute my assumptions.

You advocate questioning my assumptions, and I do that because I can see the value in it(because beliefs aren't always justified by fact).

But, at the same time, you seem to be saying that I should arbitrarily 'disbelieve' any negative conclusions that don't lend to positive thinking.

The problem is, without compelling alternatives, as a reasonable guy, I've got to go with the only valid explanations I can find.

And, the evidence presented in this thread seems to lean heavily towards only one conclusion. 



MasterShake said:


> But because of our natural beliefs in the rightness of our own convictions and thought processes, we tend not to question our opinions, especially if they appear to confirm our own biases or fears. IMO, again, based only on what I've seen you write here, you seem driven by two basic things:
> 
> 1) a belief that FFAs are almost infintesimaly rare in reality, and/or that FFAs aren't as committed to seeking out bigger guys.



I'll admit that I am starting to believe that.

But, what else should I infer, given what's been presented in this thread?

Without contradictory evidence, it seems like any contradictory conclusions must be based entirely on wishful thinking.

I don't see how that can be very useful to the proactive approach I'm resolved to take. 



MasterShake said:


> 2) a fear of being "naive" and "optimistic" about your chances.



It's more a cautionary appreciation, than a fear.



MasterShake said:


> To me, such forces as these two are bound to set you up for failure, because they are pushing you to make assumptions about a woman before you even meet her:
> 
> "This woman is here in real life, not on the Dimms forum, so she's probably not an FFA and a good chance totally disgusted at my body."
> "This woman doesn't openly flirt like a Dimms girl, so clearly she's not into me."
> ...



I know BHM who think that way, and I know BHM who don't think that way.

And I don't see any difference between their prospects.

It's also a truism that poor success breeds skepticism.

So, I think it makes more sense to conclude that people are skeptical *because* they fail, rather than they fail because they are skeptical.

Because, even with the latter case, the problem must have originated somewhere else.



MasterShake said:


> BTW, kinda tweaking you with the last one, don't want to imply I think you've ever said that, but to me that's another point/issue that BHMs tend to ignore in their favor: there's a difference between saying "there's no FFAs" and "there's no FFAs I'm attracted to".



But, is there an effective difference?



MasterShake said:


> I have big friends who've been openly hit on by women who didn't meet their criteria of being drop dead cute and skinny, but if you were to ask them, all women are shallow because they won't date them.
> 
> There's absolutely nothing wrong with having preferences and not wanting to date/be receptive to a girl that doesn't fulfill them, but to me it's very - arrogant? hypocritical?



I don't think it's hypocritical, because no one says that women shouldn't have the ability to pick whichever guy they prefer.

Some guys are simply lamenting the fact that women in general have alot more options, and are thereby more picky.



MasterShake said:


> - to make sweeping generalizations of all women, or even just all FFAS, when you're discounting the ones you aren't attracted to.
> 
> Again, not meaning to suggest you do that, but just trying to point out that it'd be very easy for me to go around saying "oh woe is me, no real life girls find me attractive" because I've conveniently forgotten the handful of women who seemed to be flirty and possibly receptive but weren't my type and instead I only remember the handful who were my type but ignored me.



So, I should be content that the only women who find me attractive(coincidentally, only those who skinny guys don't want either) are the ones who I can't find attractive?

I have a hard time doing that.

I don't know anyone who could.



MasterShake said:


> I hope that rambling makes sense. Again, I'm not trying to attack you, and I'm simply trying to respond to the comments you've made, so I can only go off what relatively little you've said, but my own experience is that it's easy to remain miserably lonely if you allow yourself to be dictated to by the nebulous, pseudo-scientific/"obvious fact" belief systems we're all prone to creating and reinforcing through our biased and selective minds.



I appreciate your input, even if we happen to disagree.

That's what this forum is about, I guess.

It's too bad that the topic has turned into an obvious train wreck for some posters.

But, I still can't figure out exactly what people find so objectionable about it.

Is it the subject matter, or a certain poster(not to be named)?


----------



## Paquito (Jul 9, 2010)

Something something dark side...
something something...complete...


----------



## Delineator (Jul 9, 2010)

Melian said:


> For fuck's sake.....this thread is tedious and annoying to read.
> 
> This is really all anyone needs to say on the topic:



Which says nothing about evident skewness with respect to male endomorphy(I would argue that guys need only betray a modicum of observable endomorphy to be clustered nearer the extreme of the distribution).

By your own admission:

http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62219

So, obviously we observe something of the same world(where directional selection does, in fact, exist - as I'm sure you appreciate).

But, don't you think the topic of this thread is a legitimate question that speaks to (obvious) BHM concerns?

Isn't it's resolution more important than respecting the irrational sensetivities of advantaged parties hurling unqualified derision and contempt from their Ivory Towers?

What have we to fear from honest inquiry?

Being a friend of science, I would think you would share this sentiment.

But, there is something about prevailing treatment of the subject(how would you advise I treat the the subject more tactfully?) that is clearly distressing local denizens.

And, I am genuinely curious as to what that might be.

Perhaps you can relate something of that reason, more dispassionately(no ad-hominem's please - I know you're better than that) than the rest(over PM if you wish).


----------



## BigChaz (Jul 9, 2010)

Delineator said:


> Not, by your own admission:
> 
> http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62219
> 
> ...



Watch me quote this post.

I will make myself sound really smart by forcing the reader to read my words slowly. And succinctly.

My arguments and ideas are not very intelligent.

But when I want to be a smart ass I am pretty good at it.

Do I come off as intelligent yet?

Do I need to add a few more lines of single sentences to achieve that goal?

Here is one more line that shows how smart I am. Read it slowly please.

Edit: I WROTE A POEM


Forgetting our past rivalries
Understand where I am coming from
Childen argue and fight, but together
Kinder words can be said to each other

You are truly someone with whom discourse
Objectively is horrible
Understand my lack of desire to talk to you


----------



## Delineator (Jul 9, 2010)

mcbeth said:


> Based on some of the "logic" that's been passing for truth in this thread, something else that must be really rare, then, are women who like thin or athletic guys. I mean, go to any major dating site and the place is just crawling with thin and/or athletic guys who are single and having trouble finding a date or a mate.



Guys can never get enough sex.

So, it would make sense that attractive guys would put up online profiles to score easy and convenient sex - they're not there because they're lonely, but rather because they're opportunistic.

This can be trivially confirmed through experimentation with fake male dating profiles - create one with a conventionally hunky pic advertising NSA, and watch the hits sky-rocket. 



mcbeth said:


> After reading this thread I just want to say to the BHMs, don't let anyone steal your joy or sense of self-worth (I mean that in a sincere way, and not a patronizing way). There are happy, well-loved BHMs and there are also lonely, desperate BHMs. But hey, guess what, there are happy, well-loved thin guys, and lonely, desperate thin guys.



Not anywhere near as many as their BHM counterparts.



mcbeth said:


> If someone wants to convince you that all BHMs are lonely, desperate, or undesirable as sexual or romantic partners, I think it's more than appropriate to question their grasp of reality, and even moreso their motivation.
> 
> Thanks for letting me jump into this conversation. I'll take my leave now.


----------



## Delineator (Jul 9, 2010)

BigChaz said:


> Watch me quote this post.
> 
> I will make myself sound really smart by forcing the reader to read my words slowly. And succinctly.
> 
> My arguments and ideas are not very intelligent.



That's trivial to claim, but justifications are a bitch.

Try disputing them with something more than a fallacious ad-hominem.


----------



## BigChaz (Jul 9, 2010)

Delineator said:


> Try disputing them with something more than a fallacious ad-hominem.



This is impossible for me (on the internet).


----------



## escapist (Jul 9, 2010)

BigChaz said:


> This is impossible for me (on the internet).



Chaz I suggest you, "generate subjective units" and then, "transform open-ended synergies". The results will be the ability to "evolve constructivist niches". If thats not enough you may need to "undefined peer-based niches". If you are still yet to achieve your goals you're probably just suffering from a need to "orchestrate innovative facilitators".

This BS brought you by a Random BS Generator


----------



## Delineator (Jul 9, 2010)

BigChaz said:


> This is impossible for me (on the internet).



Then what motivates your line of discourse?

But, it really shouldn't be impossible.

There is nothing you can demonstrate offline, which you should not be able to summarize online.

The veracity of anecdotes are only relevant insofar as they can falsify some fundamental assumption on which my arguments depend.

Beyond that, particular cases cannot dispute claims with some justified expectation in confidence(or ones with a probabalistic basis).


----------



## Zowie (Jul 9, 2010)

Back to the original post! 

I spotted and FFA today, I'm fairly certain, judging by her boyfriend and the way she kept wrapping her arms around his middle.
So two FFAs are in suburban french-canada. Try moving there? 
I also think there are a few from southern Ontario, if you want to try that. We seem to prefer cooler climates, and have an aversion to Texas and Kansas City.


----------



## escapist (Jul 9, 2010)

bionic_eggplant said:


> Back to the original post!
> 
> I spotted and FFA today, I'm fairly certain, judging by her boyfriend and the way she kept wrapping her arms around his middle.
> So two FFAs are in suburban french-canada. Try moving there?
> I also think there are a few from southern Ontario, if you want to try that. We seem to prefer cooler climates, and have *an aversion to Texas and Kansas City*.



Hell I thought everybody had an aversion to Texas and Kansas City.


----------



## Amandy (Jul 9, 2010)

This is SOOOO much better on ignore... ignore is like beer goggles and quoting is the hangover


----------



## Delineator (Jul 9, 2010)

Amandy said:


> This is SOOOO much better on ignore... ignore is like beer goggles and quoting is the hangover



That will alter reality only insofar as it changes information of the system.

But, this is why the age of enlightenment must be declared a bust - irrational agenda will always prevail over knowledge.


----------



## Delineator (Jul 9, 2010)

chicken legs said:


> I'm going to be really brutally honest. You are going to need money and be willing to spend it to get most "Hot Chicks" (what ever the definition of Hot Chick is).



I see hot-chicks hooking up with economically mediocre guys all the time(some of them don't even have cars!).



chicken legs said:


> Otherwise, you will run the risk of turning a Hot Chick into a Frazzled Chick...which is what most Hot Chicks try to avoid at all costs. On the other hand, you have to come to terms with just being a piece of ass for a Hot Chick with her own money and learning not to resent being a piece of ass that she enjoys at the end of the day. Likewise, you have to find a Hot Chick that doesn't need a man to accompany her like a puppy dog. Now this doesn't even factor in the stressors like kids, family, etc.
> 
> ***this is a slightly sarcastic post***



Your sarcasm is appreciated.


----------



## escapist (Jul 9, 2010)

Amandy said:


> This is SOOOO much better on ignore... ignore is like beer goggles and quoting is the hangover



Why is it when I read "hangover" all I get is the picture of my massive 100+ lb belly hanging over my jeans and getting kissed and loved on by an FFA? :wubu: :blush: :happy:


----------



## Delineator (Jul 10, 2010)

bionic_eggplant said:


> Back to the original post!
> 
> I spotted and FFA today, I'm fairly certain, judging by her boyfriend and the way she kept wrapping her arms around his middle.
> So two FFAs are in suburban french-canada.




Does that say anything about the availability of FFA who are single and looking(or taken, but looking to trade-up - and I can only speculate on whatever criteria that might entail)?



bionic_eggplant said:


> Try moving there?
> I also think there are a few from southern Ontario, if you want to try that. We seem to prefer cooler climates, and have an aversion to Texas and Kansas City.



Stick > Carrot.


----------



## Paquito (Jul 10, 2010)

Delineator said:


> Does that say anything about the availability of FFA who are single and looking(or taken, but looking to trade-up - and I can only speculate on whatever criteria that might entail)?
> 
> 
> 
> Stick > Carrot.



More

important

question:

do 

you

ever

stop?


----------



## Crumbling (Jul 10, 2010)

Melian said:


> For fuck's sake.....this thread is tedious and annoying to read.
> 
> This is really all anyone needs to say on the topic:



I think it might be better represented thus... 

View attachment 69e1bf11-1b28-4f34-b967-5493f764d48f.jpg


----------



## Delineator (Jul 10, 2010)

Paquito said:


> More
> 
> important
> 
> ...



Yes, for intervals of time.

But, my post count is positively anemic compared with yours, so the question is a little ironic coming from the likes of you, wouldn't you say?

But be careful what you wish for - you'll miss me when I'm gone(obviously, you haven't set me to ignore yet - I wonder if there's some kind of 'ignore list' record or something, lol). *sniff*

I just want to get my post count to 100, so I can get my custom member descriptor(unless I already have this option, and I'm just overlooking it).


----------



## Paquito (Jul 10, 2010)

Delineator said:


> Yes, for intervals of time.
> 
> But, my post count is positively anemic compared with yours, so the question is a little ironic coming from the likes of you, wouldn't you say?
> 
> ...



Yea,

but

my

level

of

douchebaggery

is

anemic

compared

to

yours

(which

is

quite

an

achievement,

lol).

Besides,

custom

titles

don't

allow

500000000

spaces,

hate

to

break

it

to

you.


----------



## bigpulve (Jul 10, 2010)

im lolling now.


----------



## BigChaz (Jul 10, 2010)

I feel like my poem hasn't gotten enough attention.




It was hard for me to write poetry in this situation


----------



## Paquito (Jul 10, 2010)

BigChaz said:


> I feel like my poem hasn't gotten enough attention.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Evolution made me skip over it.


----------



## extra_fat_guy (Jul 10, 2010)

bionic_eggplant said:


> Back to the original post!
> 
> I spotted and FFA today, I'm fairly certain, judging by her boyfriend and the way she kept wrapping her arms around his middle.
> So two FFAs are in suburban french-canada. Try moving there?
> I also think there are a few from southern Ontario, if you want to try that. We seem to prefer cooler climates, and have an aversion to Texas and Kansas City.



I hope this isn't true. Because I am looking for a job in Texas. Hopefully I can find one or two down there along with a job.


----------



## Delineator (Jul 10, 2010)

Crumbling said:


> I think it might be better represented thus...



One problem is, I think some people(who should know better, but I digress) are assuming ideal populations with hardy-weinburg proportions(in perfect equilibrium).

Of course, such populations are only useful for considering an ideal frame of reference, where evolutionary forces are precisely balanced.

And, there is more than just stabilizing selection forces at work in any population, otherwise evolution could not be an observable phenomenon.

But(and perhaps the bigger problem), assuming a normal population doesn't tell us anything about the way selection is operating(consider obvious problems in genomic sexual conflict, for example).

Thus we cannot assume that selection pressures are distributed normally with respect to any(especially male) population under consideration.

I hate to break it to people, but the universe is not symmetric.

Matter dominates over antimatter, the weak interaction is not symmetric, and life on earth universally uses molecules of only one chirality.

Deal.


----------



## Delineator (Jul 10, 2010)

Paquito said:


> Yea,
> 
> but
> 
> ...



That depends on how you define 'douche bag'(where my definition is likely to differ from yours).

Mine involves hard-luck cases(ie. losers) who are hindered by a concern for their 'online' reputation.

I'm betting that's a better description of you than me.


----------



## Paquito (Jul 10, 2010)

Delineator said:


> That depends on how you define 'douche bag'(where my definition is likely to differ from yours).
> 
> Mine involves hard-luck cases(ie. losers) who are hindered by a concern for their 'online' reputation.
> 
> I'm betting that's a better description of you than me.



Nah, if I realized that I contribute absolutely nothing helpful or necessary to a forum, I have enough self-worth to not waste my precious time continuing to troll meaningless garbage.


----------



## Delineator (Jul 10, 2010)

Paquito said:


> Nah, if I realized that I contribute absolutely nothing helpful or necessary to a forum, I have enough self-worth to not waste my precious time continuing to troll meaningless garbage.



In other words, you satisfy my definition.


----------



## Paquito (Jul 10, 2010)

One of us is a troll.

Here's 

the 

hint:

it's 

not 

me.


----------



## Delineator (Jul 10, 2010)

Paquito said:


> One of us is a troll.
> 
> Here's
> 
> ...



I most earnestly protest the implication.


----------



## WizardOfMeh (Jul 10, 2010)

Paquito said:


> One of us is a troll.
> 
> Here's
> 
> ...



What's the old adage about feeding trolls again?


----------



## Paquito (Jul 10, 2010)

WizardOfMeh said:


> What's the old adage about feeding trolls again?



I go against the recommended and provoke them.


----------



## chicken legs (Jul 10, 2010)

Delineator said:


> That's trivial to claim, but justifications are a bitch.
> 
> Try disputing them with something more than a *fallacious* ad-hominem.



heheh..

At first I thought you said Phallus ad-hominem...


----------



## taobear (Jul 10, 2010)

chicken legs said:


> heheh..
> 
> At first I thought you said Phallus ad-hominem...



Girl is your mind always in the gutter?


----------



## chicken legs (Jul 10, 2010)

extra_fat_guy said:


> I hope this isn't true. Because I am looking for a job in Texas. Hopefully I can find one or two down there along with a job.



Hrmm..everything is big in Texas...lol. I hope you're cool with that..


----------



## chicken legs (Jul 10, 2010)

taobear said:


> Girl is your mind always in the gutter?



..when it comes to adult forums...

Yes

YES


OOOOOOHHHH YOU MOTHEREFFERrrggrrr


YESSSSSSS


I love When Harry Met Sally:bow:


----------



## taobear (Jul 10, 2010)

chicken legs said:


> Hrmm..everything is big in Texas...lol. I hope you're cool with that..



LOL thats funny coming from a non Texan. The main thing about Texas is if a woman drives a truck she has a BF or husband somewhere or a pair of her own. LOL


----------



## chicken legs (Jul 10, 2010)

Delineator said:


> I see hot-chicks hooking up with economically mediocre guys all the time(some of them don't even have cars!).
> 
> 
> 
> Your sarcasm is appreciated.



Mediocre guys are easier to control and easier to discard...muahahahah


----------



## taobear (Jul 10, 2010)

chicken legs said:


> ..when it comes to adult forums...
> 
> Yes
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for the preview LOL


----------



## chicken legs (Jul 10, 2010)

taobear said:


> LOL thats funny coming from a non Texan. The main thing about Texas is if a woman drives a truck she has a BF or husband somewhere or a pair of her own. LOL



LOL...a pair of her own??


----------



## chicken legs (Jul 10, 2010)

taobear said:


> Thanks for the preview LOL



LOL..no prob..


----------



## taobear (Jul 10, 2010)

chicken legs said:


> LOL...a pair of her own??



yeah a pair of testicles


----------



## veil (Jul 10, 2010)

BigChaz said:


> Watch me quote this post.
> 
> I will make myself sound really smart by forcing the reader to read my words slowly. And succinctly.
> 
> ...



GODDAMNIT chaz why can i not rep you five hundred times. accio rep!


----------



## extra_fat_guy (Jul 10, 2010)

chicken legs said:


> Hrmm..everything is big in Texas...lol. I hope you're cool with that..



Well I should fit in I just hope I am big enough. lol.


----------



## Hozay J Garseeya (Jul 10, 2010)

veil said:


> GODDAMNIT chaz why can i not rep you five hundred times. accio rep!



hahaha, accio rep!

I love it.


----------



## MasterShake (Jul 11, 2010)

escapist said:


> Hell I thought everybody had an aversion to Texas and Kansas City.


DIE IN A FIRE!


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Jul 11, 2010)

chicken legs said:


> Mediocre guys are easier to control and easier to discard...muahahahah



I have always loved you....since I read this post  :bow: 



BigChaz said:


> Watch me quote this post.
> 
> I will make myself sound really smart by forcing the reader to read my words slowly. And succinctly.
> 
> ...





Delineator said:


> That's trivial to claim, but justifications are a bitch.
> 
> Try disputing them with something more than a fallacious ad-hominem.




Don't know about all that but how about I just agree with him? Works well for me......*shrugs*


----------



## Wanderer (Jul 12, 2010)

extra_fat_guy said:


> I hope this isn't true. Because I am looking for a job in Texas. Hopefully I can find one or two down there along with a job.



There are at least a few... I have a friend who weighs 500 pounds, and has a girlfriend that's still with him even in the hospital (RL mobility issues). Though, as the gag goes, it's hard to say whether she's an FFA or just enjoys a confident man with a raunchy sense of humor. 

What sort of job do you seek?


----------



## Melian (Jul 12, 2010)

Crumbling said:


> I think it might be better represented thus...





Delineator said:


> One problem is, I think some people(who should know better, but I digress) are assuming ideal populations with hardy-weinburg proportions(in perfect equilibrium).



:doh:

Jesus Christ....I wasn't publishing the thing.


----------



## GuessWho? (Jul 14, 2010)

Melian said:


> and also, I wasn't considering the question because....I don't really care about it.



You do realize, I've been banned, right(or is that what emboldens your belated reply), lol?

But, is it not possible that someone else cares about the problem?

And again, this all begs an earlier question as to what compels your investment in this discourse?

If it is not to demonstrate any hypothetical error on my part(which is clearly beyond your ability), one might reasonably conclude that your agenda is to deter investigation and undermine inquiry for your own selfish reasons(neither of which you have been able to accomplish).

It thus occurs that you are *way* out of your depth. :0wn4d:

BTW, thx to all the FFA who PM'd me regarding the cloning experiments(you know who you are). 

- Delineator(aka 'Symmetry Breaker').


----------



## Paquito (Jul 14, 2010)

GuessWho? said:


> You do realize, I've been banned, right(or is that what emboldens your belated reply), lol?
> 
> But, is it not possible that someone else cares about the problem?
> 
> ...




Thank God this account won't last for long. Try to get as much mileage of being pathetic and worthless on this board as you can (which will probably only be another few posts).


----------



## GuessWho? (Jul 14, 2010)

Paquito said:


> Thank God this account won't last for long. Try to get as much mileage of being pathetic and worthless on this board as you can (which will probably only be another few posts).





> On Timeout



*DEATH TO THE UNBELIEVERS!*, lol.

But, just consider this a parting shot.


----------



## Melian (Jul 15, 2010)

GuessWho? said:


> You do realize, I've been banned, right(or is that what emboldens your belated reply), lol?
> 
> But, is it not possible that someone else cares about the problem?
> 
> ...



Yes. I am trying to deter investigation of this highly important issue. :doh: Actually, I only read the posts in this thread out of boredom, and posted the figure because it was amusing. It's not really productive to try to argue with people on the internet, especially those who repeatedly get banned from a fat fetish site.

Honestly, I don't see why you bothered to single me out for this - I don't study evolutionary bio and don't claim to be an expert in any of it. So congrats on the pwnage, if it makes the wanking that much better.


----------



## TheMildlyStrangeone (Jul 15, 2010)




----------



## JenFromOC (Jul 15, 2010)

TheMildlyStrangeone said:


>



LOLOLOLOL This made me laugh so fuckin' hard


----------



## MasterShake (Jul 15, 2010)

JenFromOC said:


> LOLOLOLOL This made me laugh so fuckin' hard


That is one of my fave webcomics (2nd only to Penny Arcade!)

http://xkcd.com/

Good call MildlyStrangeOne!!


----------



## truebebeblue (Jul 20, 2010)

I don't think there is a shortage of women who date fat men.
There may be a shortage of women who Label themselves FFAs and frequent this board because women tend to date who they like and it's not really an issue... I date a range of body types and do not really consider myself an Fa... I just like good looking men of all varieties. I know several women IRL that feel this way too. Like every single woman in my famiy has dated or married an fat guy at some point in their lives...
I think you may find yourself single for the same reason alot of people do,not getting out there. Are you asking women out? Are you socializing? Asking friends if they know anyone you might match with? Or is the majority of your hunt online? Nothing wrong with meeting people online but it really doesn't replace real interaction.

Good luck with your search i hope you find what you are looking for.

True


----------



## extra_fat_guy (Jul 20, 2010)

Wanderer said:


> There are at least a few... I have a friend who weighs 500 pounds, and has a girlfriend that's still with him even in the hospital (RL mobility issues). Though, as the gag goes, it's hard to say whether she's an FFA or just enjoys a confident man with a raunchy sense of humor.
> 
> What sort of job do you seek?



Well I was looking for a teaching and football coaching job. But all the schools that had openings didn't want to hire someone from out of state. So looks like I will be doing something else for another year.


----------

