I have put on 60 lbs since a high schooler and I am at normal weight and BMI, if that tells you anything. Not that I would miss being that way at all.

I thought that being super-skinny put a lot of unnecessary pressure on me, because everyone kept telling me to dress like a model because I “could” and to “enjoy it while it lasts” (?). Granted, it was women saying those dumb things. Normal weight is a great thing and not to be sneezed at.

I’ve been called anorexic and emaciated, even though I was never either, and I always wondered why that was less offensive than calling someone a fat pig, followed by dietary suggestions (which I also got, unsolicited, even as a kid! And by kids who were skinnier than I was! WTF?!)

That last girl I can see it – she’s horribly underweight, but probably also young and not really grown into her body yet – but Twiggy was very young and didn’t look unhealthy, same with Kate Moss (although I’ve seen her look pretty weird and unhealthy too in other pics, just that when she started out she was still a teenager and not finished developing. It took me until I was 25 to fill a B-cup bra – and after kids it’s a D, so things do change – now I look more like “fat” Marilyn, but she had nicer boobs, lol).

however, she was ‘picked’ to promote a pre-pubescent homosexual, androgynous look.

women have decided that GAY men know what other men want, and since the 60s the men and lesbians have been serving their own purposes, not the purposes of their gullible and not so bright, but believe their geniuses clientele

when you let the mentality of a drag queen, and sexual extremists (sans limits), is it any real wonder that women, gullible and monolithic as they are, would end up looking like the most extreme type of hooker that used to cost huge amounts extra?

they went from claiming sexual objects, to actually becoming extreme sexual objects that only THEY pay attention to.

IE. women ahve become herd animals, who rather than deny their animus and supress it for more human qualities like skill, intelligence, ability, personality, etc.

a commedian on HBO (sorry, never found out the name since i was flipping chanels), came on stage and told the men in the audience to be quiet as he had a question for the ‘ladies’. this was an auditorium of a couple of thousand people.

he asked (with my cleaning it up a bit for discussion – it doesnt detract from the point)

“ladies, if you were not allowed to use your ‘sex’ or your mouths to please your man, what would you do to keep him happy?

Silence

then he pushed a bit telling them come on ladies, you have nothing?

then someone said ‘anal’, another said, hands…

he then said… thats it?

silence.

then came the punch line…

he said:
“whatever happened to cook him a good meal? go to the movies? travel? play pool, go to a sporting event, and all that?”

Silence

he said:
“ladies, you ALL just reduced yourselves to three holes”

but dont tell them that! they are liberated, tattooed, barren, superior, wordly, set of three holes… and are proud of it.

meanwhile, feminism likes the burka as a solution to the hostile male gaze spoken of by the french philosophers opposing the enlightenment.

we moved from animal, to enlightened, only to have the ruling class, through women, make us animals again…

cause only women could oppose their mates without a fight, and they would comply.

when women wanted society: men made it
when women want state slavery, barren lives, no family, communism: guess what men make for them?

but women have no power, right?
[whatever you do, don’t tell the king that he has power, if he finds out, then we cant use that power without interference. right? its all in the history books, which they revisionism. last night i heard a feminist claim 100,000 women were killed during the witch hunts. the catholic church opened up the records and let all know the real number. 300 and not just women. the actual number is .3% of what feminists say it is…]

WHR is considered to be factor in a person’s attractiveness. Women with a 0.7 WHR (waist circumference being 70% of the hip circumference) are often rated as more attractive by men regardless of culture, race, religion or ethnicity

but we are all equal women say, and our biology is nothing but culturally determined (besides that, men are just being evil)

Men’s preferences for women’s profile waist-to-hip ratio in two societies
Frank MarloweT, Coren Apicella, Dorian Reed
Department of Anthropology, Harvard University

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hbe-lab/acrobatfiles/profilewhr.pdf

Such diverse beauty icons as Marilyn Monroe, Twiggy, Sophia Loren, Kate Moss, Salma Hayek and even the Venus de Milo all have ratios around 0.7, even though they have significantly different weights. Congruent with an evolutionary perspective, evidence suggests that humans use subtle biological cues, such as WHR, to indicate mate potential and fertility.

also, the early onset of menses is a biological reaction to biological father absence. but they wont let you read that as they are trying to blame modern society (such superior Luddites).

AND, in terms of obesity, biological father presence ALSO can mitigate preader willi… (a genetic condition where the person gets real fat)

that is, if dad the provider is gone, girls mature earlier and are more sexualized (see luckaks to understand this is the goal for the slave/victim class), and they tend to store more energy and use it for early maturity, rather than slower growth, higher intelligence, etc. [they also dont let you know in great detail that peri menopause and fertility decline starts at around 25… NOT in the 30s… and that the older we have kids, the more likely they are sociopathic, hyper, suffer downs syndrome, and aspergers/kanner type autism]

its a brave new world improved by women…
who serve a man named marx, and engels, and harmon

and funny thing?
too stupid to look to the countries they claim have the political systems they claim will set them free!

if they did they would perhaps notice that capitalism has set them free, not communism

there is so much supressed literature (like lysenko, and global warming, etc… all active measures to define science and then take over our respect for it, and use it to control the masses. its called scientific socialsm, others call it communism…

Scientific Socialism is the term used by Friedrich Engels to describe the social-political-economic theory first pioneered by Karl Marx. The purported reason why this socialism is “scientific socialism” (as opposed to “utopian socialism”) is because its theories are held to an empirical standard, observations are essential to its development, and these can result in changes/falsification of elements of theory.

problem is that science disproves marx, so science has to change… and thats what women have done now that they dominate science, and are more naturally collective.

sad thing is that they have also cooked the books against the men… that is, they never ever competed fairly… and so like ALL MARXISTS, they fix the game, and claim thats how everyone wins.

really?

they get what they deserve in the long run.
no?

Their families and genetic contribution to the future, and the intelligence and creativity inherent, have now burned out like a passing shooting star never to grace reality again. EVER.

the majority on the plan have have been liberated from existence

be careful what you wish for, you may get it…
or
its exactly what you asked for, but was never what you wanted…

personally i dont care either way… exterminte yourselves or not… what do i care? in fact, i dont really give a damn other than getting facts right. so hiding them, changing them, misconstrue them, dissmiliation and all that have little effect on me.

like the memory and other systemizing skills, having autistic skills, but not being autistic gives me a nice advantage in neutrality…

[and if you think i am not neutral about politics, your right. i am never neutral when smart people are tricking less smart people, and not letting them have the lives they were meant to have naturally by their own… so i DO have morals. which is why i say what i say to the ladies. i care not whether they listen or not, as i have fulfilled the moral obligation towards free will and free choice. that is, gave them the information.

eventually demographics will remove them, and the rest of the population left will be more fertile, and more loyal to their genes and the future.

not in my lifetime… but what do i care?
no one gets out alive…

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

anyone read lukacks yet?

I certainly like them “slender” myself, most would think “too slender” — but she’s too thin even by my standards. The height plays into it, certainly, but not that far.

Unlike Twiggy, SHE actually meets the name.

So the Twiggy thing – not really my cup of tea (in another thread I indicated I prefer what most would call “fat”), but I wouldn’t blink an eye for someone that looked like that.

OTOH the top model woman, it’s *unattractive*. Not only because of her height but she also is at least medium boned and has the same waist as someone MUCH shorter and with a MUCH smaller skeletal frame.

I know from my own experience that I am fit and trim at 220 or so, I have to start loosing muscle mass to get below that. I do not know what Twiggy weighed in that photo but while IMO she could certainly gain some weight I wouldn’t call her emaciated, dessicated, or any other derogatory term. Kate Moss falls into the same category too – little to no body fat but not really loosing muscle mass.

The top model woman literally looks like she came out of a WWII German Concentration camp – if she wore their clothes and was a black and white photo I do not think any of us would question it.

I can’t figure out *why* that is in vogue now, I can’t understand how *anyone* looks at that and thinks “Wow – she is beautiful and I think she would sell my clothes better than anyone else”.