Dove's real women campaign - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

sadeianlinguist · 05-26-2006, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toaster126

I said women, like you did, and I call bullshit.

Six of these people are women. Most of them have jobs that require them to stand at least six out of eight hours. There's nothing to call bullshit on. Besides, it's pretty well known that women generally carry more fat than men anyway. There are people who exist who simply can't lose the weight eating a normal 1600 to 1800 calorie diet. It makes little sense to me to try to make them feel bad because we think they might be unhealthy. I drink soda and coffee everyday, but no one's wagging fingers in my face saying that I'm killing myself and destroying my heart.

WHY don't you think someone can be fat and otherwise healthy? What exactly is your understanding of the biochemics of fat that would lead you to understand that it's always bad for you? Tell me what you know.

Ustwo · 05-27-2006, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadeianlinguist

Six of these people are women. Most of them have jobs that require them to stand at least six out of eight hours. There's nothing to call bullshit on. Besides, it's pretty well known that women generally carry more fat than men anyway. There are people who exist who simply can't lose the weight eating a normal 1600 to 1800 calorie diet. It makes little sense to me to try to make them feel bad because we think they might be unhealthy. I drink soda and coffee everyday, but no one's wagging fingers in my face saying that I'm killing myself and destroying my heart.

WHY don't you think someone can be fat and otherwise healthy? What exactly is your understanding of the biochemics of fat that would lead you to understand that it's always bad for you? Tell me what you know.

When I want to loose weight I eat about 1800 calories a day but I'm over 6 feet tall and a male with more muscle mass than any female with my lifestyle would have. If I did the 'normal' for me I'd not lose weight either (I think its something like 2600 calories by the numbers). The 'normal' doesn't mean shit to the individual, we all have different physiologies to a point and what works for person 1 won't always work for person 2.

So therefore this 'I can't lose weight' claim is total bullshit. No person violates the laws of physics. If you eat less calories than your body is burning you WILL lose the weight. Anything else is just a cop out.

To me its not a health issue, I could care less if people want to live unhealthy life styles, smoke, drink, and eat what you want, but for gods sake don't whine about it afterwords.

The real issue here has little to do with health and more to do with sexual attraction. Women who are overly thin are not getting overly thin because they think its healthy. Women who are fat do not feel bad about themselves because people look at them and think 'unhealthy'. So unless you can change what look is considered sexually attractive, nothing will change.

Toaster126 · 05-28-2006, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadeianlinguist

WHY don't you think someone can be fat and otherwise healthy? What exactly is your understanding of the biochemics of fat that would lead you to understand that it's always bad for you? Tell me what you know.

Being fat and being healthy are mutually exclusive. And as far as that calorie nonsense, if you intake less calories than you burn, you lose weight. It's that simple.

sadeianlinguist · 05-28-2006, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

When I want to loose weight I eat about 1800 calories a day but I'm over 6 feet tall and a male with more muscle mass than any female with my lifestyle would have. If I did the 'normal' for me I'd not lose weight either (I think its something like 2600 calories by the numbers). The 'normal' doesn't mean shit to the individual, we all have different physiologies to a point and what works for person 1 won't always work for person 2.

So therefore this 'I can't lose weight' claim is total bullshit. No person violates the laws of physics. If you eat less calories than your body is burning you WILL lose the weight. Anything else is just a cop out.

To me its not a health issue, I could care less if people want to live unhealthy life styles, smoke, drink, and eat what you want, but for gods sake don't whine about it afterwords.

The real issue here has little to do with health and more to do with sexual attraction. Women who are overly thin are not getting overly thin because they think its healthy. Women who are fat do not feel bad about themselves because people look at them and think 'unhealthy'. So unless you can change what look is considered sexually attractive, nothing will change.

Actually, there's truth to the "I can't lose weight," bullshit. Our bodies have different plateaus. My body simply doesn't want to weigh any less than 80-some lbs. I know that from suffering from an eating disorder as a teenager. You can also slow your metabolism to a grind from poor diet for years. (I know this from personal experience.) I eat about 1.5x the calories I used to eat a couple years ago and I weigh less. There are a lot of complex variables when it comes to metabolism. It's not just "calories in, calories out."

I do agree with your statement that women or men don't get overly thin because they think it's healthy. However, I think fat people do feel bad in part because of being told their fat is inherently unhealthy. (I'm sure the disgusting part probably has a negligible effect.

)

As far as changing what's sexually attractive, if you mean culturally, not gonna happen. However, what's sexually attractive to me and what's sexually attractive to you are different. It's different for everyone on the planet. If someone is greatly attracted to fat women, great. I don't think we should treat it like a mental illness.

I also agree that whining is worthless. However, companies should be aware of the repercussions of not recognizing the fat market, or treating them badly. If you've not recognized it, there are a hell of a lot of fat people in America.

sadeianlinguist · 05-28-2006, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toaster126

Being fat and being healthy are mutually exclusive. And as far as that calorie nonsense, if you intake less calories than you burn, you lose weight. It's that simple.

Really? You mean to tell me there are no fat athletes who are healthy people? You also avoided my question: What is your understanding of the biochemics of fat that leads you to believe it's always unhealthy?

Regarding "calorie nonsense," read my reply above.

braisler · 05-28-2006, 05:54 AM

Way off topic, but I just love how amazing varied skin tone can be.
On topic, I think the overall sentiment is clear here. People like the ad and the message, myself included. It takes a lot more than one ad to convince an industry though.

Rodney · 05-28-2006, 07:24 AM

Those are all fine-looking women. Dove knows what all men know, really: a healthy-looking woman is a sexy-looking woman. And all those women are certainly, ah, healthy-looking -- good skin, shapely and vigorous ('cause there's muscle under that padding). In the real world, outside the fashion magazines, women like these can get as much attention from the male sex as they want.

I've seen a lot of thin waifs who _didn't_ look all that healthy, had bad skin from the dieting, probably weren't vigorous enough to open a catsup bottle on their own -- and certainly didn't seem all that attractive to me.

Toaster126 · 05-28-2006, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadeianlinguist

Really? You mean to tell me there are no fat athletes who are healthy people? You also avoided my question: What is your understanding of the biochemics of fat that leads you to believe it's always unhealthy?

Regarding "calorie nonsense," read my reply above.

Yes, if you are fat you aren't healthy. As I said, they are mutually exclusive terms. And I answered your other question. My applicable knowledge of biochemics is how calorie intake works. If you intake less calories than you burn, you lose weight. Are you being obtuse on purpose, or what?

I think you need to read a biology book or something.

sadeianlinguist · 05-29-2006, 04:37 AM

Okay. Duh. But my point is, are you aware of the finer workings of the metabolism? If ANYONE starts on a reduced calorie diet, their metabolism tends to hault. Some people more so than others have it occur. Not everyone loses weight. At the very least, some people don't keep it off. The weight's not the problem anyway.

Fat's necessary in the human body. As far as fat people always being unhealthy, not true. If we're defining healthy as able to run a marathon with decent blood pressure and LOW cholesterol, as well as work in a physically demanding field (police officer), my own brother fits that bill. (He's 6' and was 250 or so when he ran the marathon. He's about 240 or so now, and definately a "hefty boy.") Fat does not necessary mean unhealthy. (Click for the link. I'm not pulling this out of my ass.)

Edit: You also didn't address my question about fat athletes. I answered my own question. That's fine. Dodging questions is fine.

Toaster126 · 05-29-2006, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadeianlinguist

If ANYONE starts on a reduced calorie diet, their metabolism tends to hault. Some people more so than others have it occur. Not everyone loses weight. At the very least, some people don't keep it off. The weight's not the problem anyway.

I understand that metabolisms are different and that they have different speeds. However, my point stands.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadeianlinguist

Fat's necessary in the human body. As far as fat people always being unhealthy, not true. If we're defining healthy as able to run a marathon with decent blood pressure and LOW cholesterol, as well as work in a physically demanding field (police officer), my own brother fits that bill. (He's 6' and was 250 or so when he ran the marathon. He's about 240 or so now, and definately a "hefty boy.") Fat does not necessary mean unhealthy. (Click for the link. I'm not pulling this out of my ass.)

Fat DOES always mean unhealthy. Having fat is completely necessary for the body to function. But we aren't talking about removing all the fat from a body (which I don't think is possible), we are talking about fat people. And fat people, by definition, aren't healthy. As far as your brother is concerned, yes, he can do feats with his body, and that's great. I'm not sure if his 250 pounds is mostly muscle or not, so I can't say if he is fat or not. But yes, fat people are by definition not healthy. If they were, we wouldn't call them fat. We would call them fit, or buff, or built, or whatever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadeianlinguist

Edit: You also didn't address my question about fat athletes. I answered my own question. That's fine. Dodging questions is fine.

I did, but not the way you wanted me too apparently, so I'll do it again. Athletes can certainly be capable of doing althletic things while still being fat. In fact, it is often good for athletes to have extra fat on them due to the increased mass. But that isn't because fat is more useful than muscle, it's because they can't put any more muscle on.

There are loads of baseball players that are fat. In fact, if you look at competitive women's softball, most of the pitchers are fat. That doesn't mean that their size is a problem for them - it helps them put something extra on the ball. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't be healthier if they dropped weight, which is my point.

Also, I love debating this with you, but please stop trying to play the wounded victim card. I'm answering your questions; you just don't like my answers and think I'm wrong.

sadeianlinguist · 05-30-2006, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toaster126

I understand that metabolisms are different and that they have different speeds. However, my point stands.

Fat DOES always mean unhealthy. Having fat is completely necessary for the body to function. But we aren't talking about removing all the fat from a body (which I don't think is possible), we are talking about fat people. And fat people, by definition, aren't healthy. As far as your brother is concerned, yes, he can do feats with his body, and that's great. I'm not sure if his 250 pounds is mostly muscle or not, so I can't say if he is fat or not. But yes, fat people are by definition not healthy. If they were, we wouldn't call them fat. We would call them fit, or buff, or built, or whatever.

I did, but not the way you wanted me too apparently, so I'll do it again. Athletes can certainly be capable of doing althletic things while still being fat. In fact, it is often good for athletes to have extra fat on them due to the increased mass. But that isn't because fat is more useful than muscle, it's because they can't put any more muscle on.

There are loads of baseball players that are fat. In fact, if you look at competitive women's softball, most of the pitchers are fat. That doesn't mean that their size is a problem for them - it helps them put something extra on the ball. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't be healthier if they dropped weight, which is my point.

Also, I love debating this with you, but please stop trying to play the wounded victim card. I'm answering your questions; you just don't like my answers and think I'm wrong.

WHY is fat unhealthy? My point is, you've just said little more than, "It's bad." That's fine. Why? If their joints and mobility and blood pressure, etc, are good, I fail to see a problem. There are people who easily define themselves as fat and fit.

To me, if someone has to eat an unreasonably small amount of food and exercise all the time just to stay "not fat," it hardly seems worth the effort to stay thin. I certainly don't have the willpower to eat 1000 calories or less just to maintain ideal thinness. Do you?

Not being a victim here. You're just not directly answering things until I ask again, it seems.

CSflim · 05-30-2006, 07:31 AM

I think you two may be arguing over different interpretations of the word "fat".

sadeianlinguist says that he knows people who are very athletic, healthy and who are also, say, "large people", and hence they are 'fat'. This disproves the claim that fat people are necessarily unhealthy.

Toaster126 seems to say that if someone is athletic and healthy, then they should not be considered fat, rather that they are 'built' or 'buff'. Fat people are unhealthy by definition: a person is fat if and only if the amount of fat in their body so high that it is causing them to have health problems (or is likely to do so in the future) .

Ustwo · 05-30-2006, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sadeianlinguist

I also agree that whining is worthless. However, companies should be aware of the repercussions of not recognizing the fat market, or treating them badly. If you've not recognized it, there are a hell of a lot of fat people in America.

And yet so very few of them would call themselves fat and be happy about it. America (and Europe is starting to get there too) is over all quite fat. I'd not be surprised to see that in the over 30 crowd a majority are FAT (and I'm not talking BMI fat, but guts and cheese thighs fat). Yet this 'fat' market isn't 'in'. While some may think fat is sexy, most don't, most wish they were thin.

So while the reality is that America is fat, no one is proud of it, no one wants to reminded of it, and no one really wants to see it on TV, and very few want to see it naked.

The health risks are a happy excuse to be thin, but if you asked a majority of men if they wanted a thin smoker or a fat non-smoker for a GF I'd be willing to bet most are picking the smoker.

Sultana · 05-30-2006, 10:51 AM

To quickly answer the "Why is fat unhealthy" question, a simplistic answer is that the heart muscle has to work harder to support a heavier person being athletic/active. Fat tends to accumulate in the arteries, and when the heart pumps harder during activity, there's a greater chance of fat breaking up into the valves and bloodways, blocking the flow and causing a heart attack/stroke/whatever (weekend warrior syndrome).

Also it's much harder on the joints (esp. knees) to have to support a lot of extraneous weight.

Excess fat has been linked to worsening all kinds of ailments, from asthma to diabetes to alzheimers (sp?). It can even interfere with sleep patterns.

Therefore, I think I can safely agree with Toaster that fat = unhealthy. Yes, as a general rule, it's true. And in those who appear to defy the generalities, I'd venure to say that there is a decent amount of denial going on.

Also, yes--if one intakes less calories than one uses, one will lose weight. That has nothing to do with a screwed up metabolism. Yes metabolisms can get screwed up, making it very difficult to use up more calories than one intakes, but it still holds true. Of course it would be better to correct the metabolism before being concerned about weight loss.

ChistledStone · 05-30-2006, 03:13 PM

Hi, I'm not very knowledgable in this area, but some people are saying 250 pounds bla bla bla and throwing figures everywhere, but a weight does not show (well most of the time) whether a person is fat or not.

I am skinny. If I packed on fat, and said I weighed 180, that would be normal. Yet I'm obese. If I'm heavy, but I'm made of pure muscle, I could be 210 and more but still be healthy and happy;

There's a difference.

abaya · 05-30-2006, 04:34 PM

I have to say, even though I have no desire for skin cream (nor did I even notice what was being sold), I really enjoy those Dove ads. That's what my body looks like, too, and I love my body.

I am a 5-2" woman and weigh around 130 lbs, and even though my body shape is rather short and stocky, I know I'm in damn good shape. Using BMI as a measure of health, I'm in the upper range of normal for that height... and I'd guess most of the women in that Dove ad are in that "normal" range, which is awesome.

But for measuring health, I've actually been surprised by an often overlooked figure: one's resting heart rate. Since I've been working out 3-5 times a week (for the last 9 months or so), a couple of nurses have commented that my resting pulse is very low (58-ish, last I checked) when I've had doctor's appointments. I didn't know what that meant, but they explained that a low resting pulse indicates very good cardiac health and usually means that the person is exercising regularly. So from now on I am using my resting pulse as a good indication of health... I would never use "body size" or whatever bullshit that is to check in on my health status.

Toaster126 · 05-31-2006, 07:33 AM

Yeah, BMI isn't a good barometer for those of us who have added a lot of muscle to our frames. According to the BMI, I'm borderline obese, but if someone labeled me as obese, I'd have to label them as delusional.

xepherys · 06-05-2006, 03:00 PM

I applaud the campaign. I think the guys who make women feel they need to be size zeros (and the chicks that do this, too) are dispicable! I've dated girls that were a size 6 and girls that were an 18-20... I've not liked or disliked either or found either more or less attractive and especially not due to their size.

Gah, I hate people! *sigh*

rsl12 · 06-13-2006, 08:14 PM

by merriam webster--the main definition for the adjective "fat": notable for having an unusual amount of fat.

pretty broad. if we were in subsaharan africa, fat would be pretty slim indeed. if we were in fiji, fat would be something very very large. 'Obese' is probably what toaster means when he says 'fat'. (obese meaning "excessively fat".)

Toaster126 · 06-14-2006, 08:22 AM

No, I meant "fat" when I said "fat".

rsl12 · 06-14-2006, 09:14 AM

toaster: not to belabor the point, but you said, "fat always means unhealthy." It doesn't, as described in my above post. Obese, on the other hand, does have this connotation.

Sultana · 06-14-2006, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toaster126

No, I meant "fat" when I said "fat".

I think it's pretty clear that the term "fat" is highly subjective, and there are many different ways to measure/determine "fat".

opus123 · 06-14-2006, 10:59 AM

I really like the ads. Shows a good diversity there. Could be a bigger diversity perhaps with tattoos and piercings and even wider age ranges, but nothing is perfect.

Jonathan

WhiteDevil · 06-14-2006, 11:43 AM

I think it's a step foward. I'm a admirer of more full-figured women, so I'm glad to see some girls with some substance take the place of the usual models who look borderline creepy sometimes. Although I'd I hardly venture to call these women 'fat', and I'd be a bit saddened by others who did. Happily, at least the consensus here on the board is that these women are healthy and good-looking.

05-28-2006, 05:54 AM	#86 (permalink)
braisler Addict Location: Midway, KY	Way off topic, but I just love how amazing varied skin tone can be. On topic, I think the overall sentiment is clear here. People like the ad and the message, myself included. It takes a lot more than one ad to convince an industry though. __________________ --- You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother. - Albert Einstein ---

05-29-2006, 04:37 AM	#89 (permalink)
sadeianlinguist Upright Location: TN	Okay. Duh. But my point is, are you aware of the finer workings of the metabolism? If ANYONE starts on a reduced calorie diet, their metabolism tends to hault. Some people more so than others have it occur. Not everyone loses weight. At the very least, some people don't keep it off. The weight's not the problem anyway. Fat's necessary in the human body. As far as fat people always being unhealthy, not true. If we're defining healthy as able to run a marathon with decent blood pressure and LOW cholesterol, as well as work in a physically demanding field (police officer), my own brother fits that bill. (He's 6' and was 250 or so when he ran the marathon. He's about 240 or so now, and definately a "hefty boy.") Fat does not necessary mean unhealthy. (Click for the link. I'm not pulling this out of my ass.) Edit: You also didn't address my question about fat athletes. I answered my own question. That's fine. Dodging questions is fine. __________________ If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?

05-30-2006, 07:31 AM	#92 (permalink)
CSflim Sky Piercer Location: Ireland	I think you two may be arguing over different interpretations of the word "fat". sadeianlinguist says that he knows people who are very athletic, healthy and who are also, say, "large people", and hence they are 'fat'. This disproves the claim that fat people are necessarily unhealthy. Toaster126 seems to say that if someone is athletic and healthy, then they should not be considered fat, rather that they are 'built' or 'buff'. Fat people are unhealthy by definition: a person is fat if and only if the amount of fat in their body so high that it is causing them to have health problems (or is likely to do so in the future) . __________________

05-30-2006, 10:51 AM	#94 (permalink)
Sultana Falling Angel Location: L.A. L.A. land	To quickly answer the "Why is fat unhealthy" question, a simplistic answer is that the heart muscle has to work harder to support a heavier person being athletic/active. Fat tends to accumulate in the arteries, and when the heart pumps harder during activity, there's a greater chance of fat breaking up into the valves and bloodways, blocking the flow and causing a heart attack/stroke/whatever (weekend warrior syndrome). Also it's much harder on the joints (esp. knees) to have to support a lot of extraneous weight. Excess fat has been linked to worsening all kinds of ailments, from asthma to diabetes to alzheimers (sp?). It can even interfere with sleep patterns. Therefore, I think I can safely agree with Toaster that fat = unhealthy. Yes, as a general rule, it's true. And in those who appear to defy the generalities, I'd venure to say that there is a decent amount of denial going on. Also, yes--if one intakes less calories than one uses, one will lose weight. That has nothing to do with a screwed up metabolism. Yes metabolisms can get screwed up, making it very difficult to use up more calories than one intakes, but it still holds true. Of course it would be better to correct the metabolism before being concerned about weight loss. __________________ "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come." - Matt Groening My goal? To fulfill my potential.

05-30-2006, 03:13 PM	#95 (permalink)
ChistledStone Crazy Location: Australia	Hi, I'm not very knowledgable in this area, but some people are saying 250 pounds bla bla bla and throwing figures everywhere, but a weight does not show (well most of the time) whether a person is fat or not. I am skinny. If I packed on fat, and said I weighed 180, that would be normal. Yet I'm obese. If I'm heavy, but I'm made of pure muscle, I could be 210 and more but still be healthy and happy; There's a difference. __________________ A.minor.fall.then.a.major.lift

05-28-2006, 07:24 AM	#87 (permalink)
Rodney Observant Ruminant Location: Rich Wannabe Hippie Town	Those are all fine-looking women. Dove knows what all men know, really: a healthy-looking woman is a sexy-looking woman. And all those women are certainly, ah, healthy-looking -- good skin, shapely and vigorous ('cause there's muscle under that padding). In the real world, outside the fashion magazines, women like these can get as much attention from the male sex as they want. I've seen a lot of thin waifs who _didn't_ look all that healthy, had bad skin from the dieting, probably weren't vigorous enough to open a catsup bottle on their own -- and certainly didn't seem all that attractive to me.

05-30-2006, 04:34 PM	#96 (permalink)
abaya Location: Iceland	I have to say, even though I have no desire for skin cream (nor did I even notice what was being sold), I really enjoy those Dove ads. That's what my body looks like, too, and I love my body. I am a 5-2" woman and weigh around 130 lbs, and even though my body shape is rather short and stocky, I know I'm in damn good shape. Using BMI as a measure of health, I'm in the upper range of normal for that height... and I'd guess most of the women in that Dove ad are in that "normal" range, which is awesome. But for measuring health, I've actually been surprised by an often overlooked figure: one's resting heart rate. Since I've been working out 3-5 times a week (for the last 9 months or so), a couple of nurses have commented that my resting pulse is very low (58-ish, last I checked) when I've had doctor's appointments. I didn't know what that meant, but they explained that a low resting pulse indicates very good cardiac health and usually means that the person is exercising regularly. So from now on I am using my resting pulse as a good indication of health... I would never use "body size" or whatever bullshit that is to check in on my health status. __________________ And think not you can direct the course of Love; for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course. --Khalil Gibran

05-31-2006, 07:33 AM	#97 (permalink)
Toaster126 Extreme moderation Location: Kansas City, yo.	Yeah, BMI isn't a good barometer for those of us who have added a lot of muscle to our frames. According to the BMI, I'm borderline obese, but if someone labeled me as obese, I'd have to label them as delusional. __________________ "The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." (Ayn Rand) "The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers." (M. Scott Peck)

06-05-2006, 03:00 PM	#98 (permalink)
xepherys <3 TFP Location: 17TLH2445607250	I applaud the campaign. I think the guys who make women feel they need to be size zeros (and the chicks that do this, too) are dispicable! I've dated girls that were a size 6 and girls that were an 18-20... I've not liked or disliked either or found either more or less attractive and especially not due to their size. Gah, I hate people! sigh

06-13-2006, 08:14 PM	#99 (permalink)
rsl12 On the lam Location: northern va	by merriam webster--the main definition for the adjective "fat": notable for having an unusual amount of fat. pretty broad. if we were in subsaharan africa, fat would be pretty slim indeed. if we were in fiji, fat would be something very very large. 'Obese' is probably what toaster means when he says 'fat'. (obese meaning "excessively fat".) __________________ oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.

06-14-2006, 08:22 AM	#100 (permalink)
Toaster126 Extreme moderation Location: Kansas City, yo.	No, I meant "fat" when I said "fat". __________________ "The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." (Ayn Rand) "The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers." (M. Scott Peck)

06-14-2006, 09:14 AM	#101 (permalink)
rsl12 On the lam Location: northern va	toaster: not to belabor the point, but you said, "fat always means unhealthy." It doesn't, as described in my above post. Obese, on the other hand, does have this connotation. __________________ oh baby oh baby, i like gravy. Last edited by rsl12; 06-14-2006 at 09:16 AM..

06-14-2006, 10:59 AM	#103 (permalink)
opus123 Crazy Location: Shoreline, WA, USA	I really like the ads. Shows a good diversity there. Could be a bigger diversity perhaps with tattoos and piercings and even wider age ranges, but nothing is perfect. Jonathan

06-14-2006, 11:43 AM	#104 (permalink)
WhiteDevil Brave Corporate Logo Location: Undisclosed	I think it's a step foward. I'm a admirer of more full-figured women, so I'm glad to see some girls with some substance take the place of the usual models who look borderline creepy sometimes. Although I'd I hardly venture to call these women 'fat', and I'd be a bit saddened by others who did. Happily, at least the consensus here on the board is that these women are healthy and good-looking. __________________ Join me or die! Can you do any less?