[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
There was a magazine in Australia that did a survey among men (online) to find out the ideal size. They chose between 8, 12 & 14. Of course they picked 12.
Dude, I would totally wreck that 14.[/quote]
I wouldn’t.
I mean, I would, but if given the choice, I’d go for the 12 or the 8.
Maybe it’s just the angle, but she looks a bit tubby.
Now if she was squatting on the other hand…
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sadly, it is that popular. No one listens to guys anymore. It’s not like we push for exposed ribcages and no tits.
There was a magazine in Australia that did a survey among men (online) to find out the ideal size. They chose between 8, 12 & 14. Of course they picked 12.
[/quote]
Is it just me or would those women wear sizes 4-6 smaller than those listed in the article if they were in the US?
[quote]Otep wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
There was a magazine in Australia that did a survey among men (online) to find out the ideal size. They chose between 8, 12 & 14. Of course they picked 12.
Dude, I would totally wreck that 14.
I wouldn’t.
I mean, I would, but if given the choice, I’d go for the 12 or the 8.
Maybe it’s just the angle, but she looks a bit tubby.
Now if she was squatting on the other hand…[/quote]
The 8’s knees just don’t do it for me. Imagine what those ribs would be like… (barfs).
If had to order 'em it’d be 12, 14 then 8. Only the 8 if I had to. I don’t know about you lot, but I’d be afraid of breaking her.
At least with the other two, I can cut loose.
[quote]BackForMore wrote:
Is it just me or would those women wear sizes 4-6 smaller than those listed in the article if they were in the US?[/quote]
NZ/Australian sizing is different to you dirty yanks.
EDIT: Here ya go, we use the UK sizing.
I think I’m going to go one all of these, and try to pick up some hotties.
Thanx.
You know what I don’t get? Women sizes. I prefer men’s much more. It goes by inches. We get to the point and don’t try to hide our skinniness or fatness like women do with their misleading size numbers. It’s like a whole new system of math for their shit.
[quote]Otep wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
Otep wrote:
I think there is an uncomfortable degree of fair comparison.
You’re missing the point. Bodybuilding doesn’t necessarily lead to death if not treated.
On an amateur level, I agree with you. On a professional level, there’s a much higher level of risk. Here’s a link to an article called “The Dead Pool '99”. It’s about how close some professional bodybuilders are to dying from steroid abuse.
http://www.T-Nation.com/article/features/the_dead_pool_99
I’m not saying the two are identical. I agree that bodybuilding is much healthier a past time than anorexia. But the more fanatically an individual persues these goals, the farther the limit of ‘healthy’ activity gets stretched.[/quote]
Like was already written, the same goes for ALL professional sports. There is a reason many older football players can barely walk on their own, if they can walk at all. That fame and glory is fleeting once you get too beat up to reach your own peak levels. People also completely accept this from every other sport or activity.
Does anyone here think pro boxing is a “safe” activity?
Then why do people pay big money for it?
[quote]Padilla7921 wrote:
You know what I don’t get? Women sizes. I prefer men’s much more. It goes by inches. We get to the point and don’t try to hide our skinniness or fatness like women do with their misleading size numbers. It’s like a whole new system of math for their shit.[/quote]
I think men tend to be less insecure about a couple extra inches.
Bodybuilding at a pro level isn’t exactly the healthiest thing, but you can’t equate the desire to get bigger with the anorexia disorder. Even the most size-obsessed bodybuilder probably doesn’t see themselves as ‘skinny’ in the mirror like an anorexic does.
I’m going to be a body builder on a pro ana website, looking for support for my insane habit.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sadly, it is that popular. No one listens to guys anymore. It’s not like we push for exposed ribcages and no tits.
There was a magazine in Australia that did a survey among men (online) to find out the ideal size. They chose between 8, 12 & 14. Of course they picked 12.
I’d take the 14, no damn contest. 8 never, she’s disgusting to me. 12 is decent.
I’m not too concerned about this anorexic family thing going on. It’s always gonna be around, and they’ll always look for excuses to keep doin’ it. Let their families intervene, not the gov’t or somethin’ like that.
I wonder what would happen if we introduced the anorexia site to that fat fetish site we posted on months ago.
[quote]AssClown wrote:
I’d take the 14, no damn contest. 8 never, she’s disgusting to me. 12 is decent.[/quote]
I’m pretty sure that 12 & 14 were pretty much the same with 12 coming first my a tiny margin. 8 on the other hand was a miserable 20%, which shows no one listens to men anymore.
[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
Well, assuming the woman has good proportions. Most “Rubenesque” women are just plain fat.[/quote]
At which point they aren’t rubenesque (despite using that descriptions for themselves) they’re just fat.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Natural Nate wrote:
Well, assuming the woman has good proportions. Most “Rubenesque” women are just plain fat.
At which point they aren’t rubenesque (despite using that descriptions for themselves) they’re just fat.[/quote]
Perhaps when the fat they gain goes primarily to their midsection rather than their hips and breasts.
Obviously you’ll get a different response from every person you ask but I think that’s a good rule of thumb.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
As much as I’m annoyed by it, I’d rather not let “them” decide what to shut down and what to allow.
[/quote]
The argument is that they are promoting a dangerous and potentially fatal activity to impressionable kids. Websites like this convince girls that their anorexia is acceptable, a good thing, and give them tips to perpetuate it and hide it from their family [for example, spending loads of time in front of the fridge so parents get the impression you’re eating a lot].
[quote]Makavali wrote:
The 8’s knees just don’t do it for me. Imagine what those ribs would be like… (barfs).
If had to order 'em it’d be 12, 14 then 8. Only the 8 if I had to. I don’t know about you lot, but I’d be afraid of breaking her.
At least with the other two, I can cut loose.[/quote]
I’m totally with you, if by ‘had to’ you mean ‘was drunk’.
Yep, my definition of the word was off. I was thinking of the hour glass body shape.
[quote]will to power wrote:
I’m totally with you, if by ‘had to’ you mean ‘was drunk’.[/quote]
Sounds about right! God bless my low-powered beer goggles.
[quote]AssClown wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Sadly, it is that popular. No one listens to guys anymore. It’s not like we push for exposed ribcages and no tits.
There was a magazine in Australia that did a survey among men (online) to find out the ideal size. They chose between 8, 12 & 14. Of course they picked 12.
I’d take the 14, no damn contest. 8 never, she’s disgusting to me. 12 is decent.
I’m not too concerned about this anorexic family thing going on. It’s always gonna be around, and they’ll always look for excuses to keep doin’ it. Let their families intervene, not the gov’t or somethin’ like that.[/quote]
I must be the only one that would take the 8 over the 14. The 12 is obviously first.
I’m sure there is quite a bit of cellulite and rolls that have been air brushed off of the 14, and when the rest of the clothes come off it is all going to come undone.
Also, not that I advocate anorexia, but that kind of dedication is admirable.
[quote]Otep wrote:
But the more fanatically an individual persues these goals, the farther the limit of ‘healthy’ activity gets stretched.[/quote]
We agree on that, but you are speaking about individual neurosis/OCD. Bodybuilding can’t be considered inherently bad, but anorexia can be considered inherently bad.