Notices
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: "Chubby Chasers"

  1. #1 "Chubby Chasers" 
    Forum Freshman LadyJava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    15
    So, ok, I watched one of my all time favorite crime shows last night, CSI. Now, tell me about this chubby chaser stuff......these big ladies were portrayed as desperate and very self loathing!! What man wants to be with a woman who acts like that?? I have many big women friends who will be insulted by this! I mean come on, if he won't be seen in public with me, why on earth would I let him in my panties???? EESH!! I know some skinny women who feel badly about themselves, why do they single out the big girls??
    Ok, just another area to vent this........


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    2112
    Guest
    Well, there are so many different ways to answer this question.

    For one, in general a woman who is heavy may have low self-esteem, and the type of man who wants the quickest possible route to sex with a woman, and has low self-esteem himself, may seek out larger women in the hopes that they are more vulnerable to sexual advances. If that doesn't answer your question then let me know and I'll come up with another answer.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    133
    I would like to also mention that these would be the guys with no game who need to prey on women with low self-esteem in order to get laid.
    - sploit -
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman LadyJava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    15
    Yes to 2112, many of these women DO have low self esteem. However, there are a large number of these women have very GOOD self esteem. I guess I tend to get irritated with television and it's continued negative influence in alot of areas. Hmm......maybe I should give up TV for Lent eh? Nah........
    Oh, and Sploit, you definitely hit the nail on the head......in SOME regards.....again, some men actually DO prefer a woman with hmmm...."curves".......
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    133
    Curves are different than love handles. Anna Nicole Smilth has curves (Please do not take this as I find her attractive), Rosie O'Donnel is fat.
    Most men like curves (i.e. Anna), no man I know prefers Rosie. Then again, I am 18, arrogant and an superficial asshole.
    - sploit -
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman Communist Hamster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    30
    I like the larger lady. Just my personal preference.
    Up the workers!
    Down Mcdonalds and their evil McCholesterol McShite
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    Ladyjava:
    I guess I tend to get irritated with television and it's continued negative influence in alot of areas. Hmm......maybe I should give up TV for Lent eh? Nah........
    I don't think television is as much to 'blame' for low self-esteem among women.
    Women feel low about themselves mostly because of other women.
    To wit, a daughter is most oppressed by her mother than her Seventeen magazine.
    And the reason for that, men.

    The fashionable woman who follows all the trends does so usually to impress other women. Sure she likes a man to feel she looks nice, but men don't care if your bag is genuine Louis Vuitton or not..

    A woman can be just as depressed in a harem, and there is no corporate media there you can blame.
    A woman can be just as depressed in in a Quaker home full of women.
    A woman can be just as depressed in an Amish home full of women.
    All because of the manipulate guile, the power struggles and childish stupidity of other women obsessed with men.

    So you can't say its the media only.


    mean come on, if he won't be seen in public with me, why on earth would I let him in my panties???
    'cause you want it as bad as he does.
    Admit.

    Sploit:
    I would like to also mention.....
    Why 'also'?
    You said exactly what 2112 said, but in ebonics.
    Then again, I am 18, arrogant and an superficial asshole.
    Don't forget the part where you killed someone and wrote a circuitous poem stating your indifference.

    Am I ever going to let it go? Hell NO.

    "A young person is egotistical because they don't have the mentality developed enough to understand that personal pleasure and happiness is not everything in life."- Vikernes

    You infant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    "A young person is egotistical because they don't have the mentality developed enough to understand that personal pleasure and happiness is not everything in life."- Vikernes
    That goes in the same line as the "Give us a child for eight years and he will be a bolsjevist for the rest of his life." Everything can be developed, but the developed does not neccesarily reflect the nature of behavior.

    'cause you want it as bad as he does.
    Admit.
    How could one not admit? If women did not have sex with these kind of men, these kind of men would not exist, no?

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    36
    According to statistics, women who have low self-esteem are much more likely to have sex, and men with high self-esteem are much more likely to have sex.

    Don't remember where I read that.
    Sciforums Refugee.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    34
    voluptuous women also look fatty at first sight. I find women with a bit of fat are more attractive than the ones with skins over bones.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    9
    Well maybe it's just me, but I much prefer slim, petite women. Just the way I am I guess.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    Everno:
    voluptuous women also look fatty at first sight. I find women with a bit of fat are more attractive than the ones with skins over bones.
    Excellent.
    Kate Moss= Miscarriage.

    The qua mother- the beefy mother that smelled of milk and pasture and had a heavy hand- was built for earth.
    She was a woman, and all her children came in pain- now, the aneimic arthropod you'd swear has a penis tucked between her boyish 'thighs', with her modern self, that in pregnacy won't even feel it as the epidural sucks all the labor out of labor- dares to call herself a mother.

    When the mother is what's on television.
    Burn them all!!

    (this post is null and void when and if pussy Abraxas gets an epidural)


    Homouniversalis:
    Everything can be developed, but the developed does not neccesarily reflect the nature of behavior.
    Then what is behaviour if you can mold it to anything?

    You are not who you will be 30 years from now and the person you are now scoffs at the fool you were 10 years ago.
    Then who are we really?
    I tend to agree with you- my mother tells me I was always a caustic yet distant child and I've remaind so to this day but I don't feel I am the same person I was as a teenager.

    Yet my 'nature' I had from birth.

    "False as water", Othello accused Desdemoda of this, that she was false as water. Took me a while to get it, but water is false because it takes the shape of whatever contains it.

    If that is behaviour, taking on the shape of whatever social container it drips in, then who are you?

    I lose sleep over headnoise like this.

    How could one not admit? If women did not have sex with these kind of men, these kind of men would not exist, no?
    Oh my precious!
    All men of all stripes exist so long as vagina does.

    They'd take it anyway. Which reminds me....I"ve got 'homework' as in thread to put up on Rape.
    Damn the world.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    Then what is behaviour if you can mold it to anything?
    What it's nature is? I'm a redutionist myself, and the idea of revenge is something that fascinates me. There are two different patterns of behaviour, in my view, that contribute to 'revenge', as we know it (the act of getting back at someone).
    Now, this is the basic act of self-defense. If you are in the savanna with a big ass lion and you slap it in the face, it'll show self-defense. Basically, the immediate eye for an eye.
    Now, if you happen to meet a lion cub (or cup? A young lion :P), and slap that one, he might run away scared. Now, the next time he will encounter a human, he might either be afraid or attack you, depending on the experience he had. The sight of a human is hardwired into his brain with a certain emotion.

    Now, in the animal mind, there is no revenge. Only humans use revenge, and this I find fascinating. In my eyes, all behaviour comes from instincts, and is than developed (through darwinistic laws, behaviour that is unsuitable is filtered, because the human dies in that case) through 'moral values', basically, stuff that shapes those instincts into new behaviour. Now, in my view, these instincts are pure behaviour, at it's most natural and beautiful form. But that is secondary. In any case, if there is a definition of the nature of behaviour, 'from hence it came', it would be that.

    You are not who you will be 30 years from now and the person you are now scoffs at the fool you were 10 years ago.
    Then who are we really?
    Hmm. Does behaviour define us? When we look apon a table, do we merely define it by its purpose or by its actions or also its shape? (imagine an artsy-fartsy table. We no longer define that by just something you can put a book on, but also something that is stylishly made)

    Yet my 'nature' I had from birth.
    True, but I feel that nature is no longer visible. A hair analogy. The original hair is what we have, now through imprintment of values, our hair is colored and turned into a rasta (for example) haircut (everyone's hair is different, in this analogy ). Can you recognise the original hair in this new haircut? Perhaps a little, but the overall is completely different.
    Now, I recognise that the hair might still change, however, it is difficult, since since childhood, so many patterns have already been set (probably why it's so hard to loose weight; it's difficult to change behaviour (BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE!).

    If that is behaviour, taking on the shape of whatever social container it drips in, then who are you?
    A valid question, but again, are we really defined by behaviour, or our responses to a certain situation? I do not claim to know the answer to this, as it is personal. I feel that there is more than external behaviour, that there is also the internal redemption. That it is just as important to shape your own moral values as it is to exercise them externally.
    But, it's a tough one, no doubt.

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman Xerxes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    30
    I've witnessed that once and it only happened because they were both kind of desperate.

    But why should it anger you? Its just another form of mutual exploitation. Sad, but not bad.
    where oh where is sciforums?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    The middle padding on your panties
    Posts
    122
    Xerxes:

    The woman has not posted here in ages. You're addressing Xerxes, Xerxes.

    Homouniversalis:
    What it's nature is? I'm a redutionist myself, and the idea of revenge is something that fascinates me. There are two different patterns of behaviour, in my view, that contribute to 'revenge', as we know it (the act of getting back at someone).
    Now, this is the basic act of self-defense. If you are in the savanna with a big ass lion and you slap it in the face, it'll show self-defense. Basically, the immediate eye for an eye.
    Now, if you happen to meet a lion cub (or cup? A young lion ), and slap that one, he might run away scared. Now, the next time he will encounter a human, he might either be afraid or attack you, depending on the experience he had. The sight of a human is hardwired into his brain with a certain emotion.

    Now, in the animal mind, there is no revenge. Only humans use revenge, and this I find fascinating. In my eyes, all behaviour comes from instincts, and is than developed (through darwinistic laws, behaviour that is unsuitable is filtered, because the human dies in that case) through 'moral values', basically, stuff that shapes those instincts into new behaviour. Now, in my view, these instincts are pure behaviour, at it's most natural and beautiful form. But that is secondary. In any case, if there is a definition of the nature of behaviour, 'from hence it came', it would be that.
    In other words, behaviour is contorted instinct.

    My gorgeous mutt ‘hardwired’ to attack children is revenge.
    Brutus piercing Caesar’s flank with a dagger was moralized vengencace.
    Ok.

    But I don't see why you wonder if we are defined by behaviour.
    How are we not defined by anything but behavior? Certainly not wealth- outwardly a stooge praises the millionaire that he sucks on but inside despises him as a scoundrel because of his character.
    Certainly not looks- most Americans agree that Jessica Simpson's appearance degrades when she opens her mouth. The same with anyone initially seen as delicious.
    Certainly not status- who doesn't dream of killing their boss?

    The senile and retarded, that are little more than animate matter, are treated as matter because of no character- no?
    We see them as matter.

    The shy are neglected.
    The proud are admired.
    The stupid are mocked.
    The weak are destroyed.
    The arrogant are maligned.
    At bottom is character, or behaviour, the thing in a person we all interact with.

    So I don't see how one can wonder or say we are not defined and reacted to according to behavior.

    Hmm. Does behaviour define us? When we look apon a table, do we merely define it by its purpose or by its actions or also its shape? (imagine an artsy-fartsy table. We no longer define that by just something you can put a book on, but also something that is stylishly made)
    I don't think we look at tables.
    We use tables. Therefore do not define tables, unless posting on a forum talkin' bout tables


    Behaviouir is how one teaches another to treat you. Sucks, I know, but people just loooooooooooooooooooove to judge.
    And deny it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Maastricht, Netherlands
    Posts
    861
    View it from platonism, than! The one table, the define prefab, is the ultimate nature table (as it perfectly resembles what is in its nature). It suits nothing else but to be used. However, each and every individual existant table is more than that. It varies from this nature, it's different.

    So too do I view man. Man has a nature, which is altered, and thus he differs from the perfect prefab. However, man is more than merely the outward behaviour.
    Basically, I believe in a form of altruism, except it has nothing to do with doing good. It has to do with completing one self, without trying to effect others with it.
    In the eastern religions, spiritual enlightenment, the transition to Buddha, in my eyes shows this excellently. People can be so mixed up with this process, with becoming Buddha, that they do not care about anyone recognicing their ascension, they do not care about the behaviour they will share with the world, or the responses of it. They care about the sake of their own soul.

    I believe this goes in lesser forms in the western world. Many have a 'will to knowledge', or whatever form you wish to put it in.
    Now, at it's most base form, I would say that this will to knowledge is propelled from the urge to become alpha-male. Man is trying to be best suited to the environment to get more offspring (we are culturally beyond the strongest getting most females. Women recognize this, and our behaviour is hardwired to create an image of what is best suited in our culture (someone to look up to), and recreate this image).
    However, as I have shown with vengeance, this has also grown past it's original purpose, into some sort of altruism. Not doing something for the effect it has on women, but for the profound knowledge it might bring, for the profound quest to knowledge, wisdom, power, whatever.

    It is thus that our behaviour does not define us any longer. 'Our behavior' has changed in such a manner that it no longer reflects our nature, and thus our new nature (will to knowledge) now reflects who we truly are. Our deepest unworldy desires (including vengeance) define what we are, and ultimately what we do, our behaviour.

    Mr U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman teeniewitabeenie1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    making lemons into lemonade
    Posts
    81
    go 'head girl! *high fives* yay big proud confident women youre beautiful!!!!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    teenie, it really doesn't make much sense to dig up threads that are nearly 3 years old, you know
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman teeniewitabeenie1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    making lemons into lemonade
    Posts
    81
    sorry
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    not to worry, it's not a hanging offense (at least i think not), it's just rather hard to become interested in a thread that's been dead + buried for this long
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •