Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 djones520 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I wonder how much she makes or her husband makes that she can afford that body with kids.
And Seaward, It is not that they are off limits it is that having common decency not to be rude to someone has gone away. If this mother went up t someone on the street my size and said "What is your excuse" She would be so in the wrong.

Golds Gym provides 2 hours of child care a day, for $13 every two weeks in membership fees.

Doesn't take a rich man to afford that.

Which brings up an interesting question: Do you want typical gym employees to have 2 hours a day of influence on your child during his formative years?

2 hours with grandma can make my boy into a monster. I can't imagine how bad things would get with some schmo who doesn't care and is paid a low wage.

Listen Bob - don't screw up my favorite Youtube channel, "Gym Childcare Fight Club".

You laugh, but we've had a hell of a time finding a daycare option that doesn't have child-sized skeletons in the closet.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
You laugh, but we've had a hell of a time finding a daycare option that doesn't have child-sized skeletons in the closet.

Uh... figuratively?

Sometimes.

 Ratius wrote:
Hey, hey, hey, we said "not hot", not "would not bang".
Reel it in MR :p

My feelings too she's fethable but she's nothing exceptional at least looks wise.

 Monster Rain wrote:
I knew eventually the old "2/10, would not bang" would show up.

Don'tcha love men on the internet?

~Tim?

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
I knew eventually the old "2/10, would not bang" would show up.

Don'tcha love men on the internet?

~Tim?

To be fair what someone finds attractive is kind of personal (although I think it is effected by a lot of social factors as well).

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
I knew eventually the old "2/10, would not bang" would show up.

Don'tcha love men on the internet?

~Tim?

To be fair what someone finds attractive is kind of personal (although I think it is effected by a lot of social factors as well).

Oh, duh. Everyone knows that. I'm rolling my eyes at the kinda rhetoric used. Y'know, the whole rating thing/would bang/wouldn't bang. It's just kinda sad.

~Tim?

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
I knew eventually the old "2/10, would not bang" would show up.

Don'tcha love men on the internet?

~Tim?

To be fair what someone finds attractive is kind of personal (although I think it is effected by a lot of social factors as well).

Oh, duh. Everyone knows that. I'm rolling my eyes at the kinda rhetoric used. Y'know, the whole rating thing/would bang/wouldn't bang. It's just kinda sad.

~Tim?

It's just a personal response man, besides I get the impression that this women is conventionally attractive (considering how many guys/gals claim she's hot) but she doesn't do much for me looks-wise. Also why does it bother you so much that physical appearance is important to some

people and they like talking about it?

Maybe you just don't like Asian women. She's a solid 7/8 in my book.

 cincydooley wrote:
Maybe you just don't like Asian women. She's a solid 7/8 in my book.

Why measure out of 8? That's just...weird. This stuff needs to be standardized dammit!

I'm sorry. Clarification: 7 or 8. Although I looked again and she's definitely an 8 to me.

Edited, I'm getting too self-indulgent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:
Maybe you just don't like Asian women. She's a solid 7/8 in my book.

Don't really care much for race.

I dont like skinny girls. I preger girls with a little bit of pudge in the right places

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I dont like skinny girls. I preger girls with a little bit of pudge in the right places

I'm not too concerned about body weight just as long as they aren't the extremes on both sides of the spectrum but I love hour glass curves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't mind skinny girls but if they start looking like a holocaust victim then that's too intense for me, I don't mind girls who are a little thick either.

Sounds like we just disagree aesthetically. It happens.

I'm not attracted to Rhianna but I know tons of people are. So that's that.

 cincydooley wrote:
Sounds like we just disagree aesthetically. It happens.

I'm not attracted to Rhianna but I know tons of people are. So that's that.

Yeah, I have no problem with people disagreeing with me on my taste on women besides what are the odds we're going to have the exact same tastes, at least I had fun talking about what I find psychically attractive in women even if it serves no value to anyone else (seriously who cares

what Cheesecat is into).

This little article might help explain it. Due to her trunk muscles and low body fat, she has a larger hip-to-waist ratio than is considered ideal. Regardless of race, women are considered to be attractive when they have "an hourglass shape" or "curves," with this woman falling on the outside of the belle curves.


Or, to use some appropriated Sir Mix-a-Lot's phraseology, white boys are plenty capable of avoiding shouting because she ain't got a motor in the back of her Honda.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Red beans and rice barely know who she is.

This thread has outlived its natural lifespan.