Post: #126

Give me a fucking break. They are about the same waist size as Kate Upton, who most seem to fawn over. Maybe you people would scoff at her as well, I don't know anymore. They aren't slim, but they certainly aren't heavy.

In any case, I didn't mean to derail the thread with those pictures; my point was that there is a spectrum between anorexia and largeness, and within that spectrum, there is a place between the A4 cutoff and "thickness" in which a woman can be considered attractive.

Post: #127

(03-27-2016 09:13 PM)chadverdad Wrote:  Give me a fucking break. They are about the same waist size as Kate Upton, who most seem to fawn over. Maybe you people would scoff at her as well, I don't know anymore. They aren't slim, but they certainly aren't heavy.

In any case, I didn't mean to derail the thread with those pictures; my point was that there is a spectrum between anorexia and largeness, and within that spectrum, there is a place between the A4 cutoff and "thickness" in which a woman can be considered attractive.

Agreed. Kardashian and Ava Addams are sexy.

Post: #128

(03-27-2016 09:13 PM)chadverdad Wrote:  Give me a fucking break. They are about the same waist size as Kate Upton, who most seem to fawn over. Maybe you people would scoff at her as well, I don't know anymore. They aren't slim, but they certainly aren't heavy.

In any case, I didn't mean to derail the thread with those pictures; my point was that there is a spectrum between anorexia and largeness, and within that spectrum, there is a place between the A4 cutoff and "thickness" in which a woman can be considered attractive.

I think they're playfully trolling you.

Unlike the guys who keep rolling in and saying any girl who passes the A4 test is a 1.

Post: #129

Anybody else catch the part where the western femwhales complained that the A4 challenge promotes "unrealistic" body shape, even though there's probably at least one billion people on the planet who pass the test? It'd be like a guy saying "benching 160 lbs" or "running a seven-minute mile" is unrealistic.

Post: #130

(03-27-2016 09:13 PM)chadverdad Wrote:  Give me a fucking break. They are about the same waist size as Kate Upton, who most seem to fawn over. Maybe you people would scoff at her as well, I don't know anymore. They aren't slim, but they certainly aren't heavy.

In any case, I didn't mean to derail the thread with those pictures; my point was that there is a spectrum between anorexia and largeness, and within that spectrum, there is a place between the A4 cutoff and "thickness" in which a woman can be considered attractive.

Thats the insidious lie the fat feminists are trying to sell. You might be buying it but I'm not

Kate Upton...good choice. She has a beautiful face but has big sloppy saggy tits (they may look good in a bikini but once they're unleashed I'd bet dollars to donuts they're shite...I've seen that type of tit before with their big silver dollar sized aereolas ...gross), a fat ass and no waist or hips. Her body is more lumpish than feminine



Now compare her body to Nina Agdal another SI swimsuit model with very similar facial features



THATS what a feminine swimsuit model's body looks like

Post: #131

(03-29-2016 09:04 AM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

Now, that's what I can an A4 body.

Post: #132

I call that an A+ body

Post: #133

(03-29-2016 09:04 AM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

(03-27-2016 09:13 PM)chadverdad Wrote:  Give me a fucking break. They are about the same waist size as Kate Upton, who most seem to fawn over. Maybe you people would scoff at her as well, I don't know anymore. They aren't slim, but they certainly aren't heavy.

In any case, I didn't mean to derail the thread with those pictures; my point was that there is a spectrum between anorexia and largeness, and within that spectrum, there is a place between the A4 cutoff and "thickness" in which a woman can be considered attractive.

Thats the insidious lie the fat feminists are trying to sell. You might be buying it but I'm not

Kate Upton...good choice. She has a beautiful face but has big sloppy saggy tits (they may look good in a bikini but once they're unleashed I'd bet dollars to donuts they're shite...I've seen that type of tit before with their big silver dollar sized aereolas ...gross), a fat ass and no waist or hips. Her body is more lumpish than feminine

C'mon man! Even though you may not like her body structure, you can't call this version of Kate Upton a fat ass! Granted that she can easily become a fat ass with her genetics, but on this pic, she's at her possible best. To be skinnier than that, she's have to starve or take some cutting drugs. Chicks with giants saggy tits are a different breed. You may not like her, but you can't call this version of Kate Upton a fat ass, you just can't... and this coming from an A4 fan.

Post: #134

(03-29-2016 09:04 AM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  I've seen that type of tit before with their big silver dollar sized aereolas ...gross)

Oh snap, are we debating this too? I actually like tig ol bitties with silver-dollar-sized areolas.

Post: #135

(03-29-2016 09:04 AM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

(03-27-2016 09:13 PM)chadverdad Wrote:  Give me a fucking break. They are about the same waist size as Kate Upton, who most seem to fawn over. Maybe you people would scoff at her as well, I don't know anymore. They aren't slim, but they certainly aren't heavy.

In any case, I didn't mean to derail the thread with those pictures; my point was that there is a spectrum between anorexia and largeness, and within that spectrum, there is a place between the A4 cutoff and "thickness" in which a woman can be considered attractive.

Thats the insidious lie the fat feminists are trying to sell. You might be buying it but I'm not

The fat feminists aren't really selling attraction, they are trying to lower the standards and avoid being shamed. In any case, my attraction to women has never and will never change because of someone else's viewpoint or agenda.

As for the picture of the model you posted: yes, her body is better than Kate Upton's and I would rate her higher on the scale. But I don't see how that inherently precludes attraction to Kate Upton. Furthermore, saying she's attractive is not an indication of what I consider top tier. It's whether or not I would bang. And from your comments, I can only infer that you would not bang Kate Upton.

It is clear that you don't rate any woman who misses the A4 cutoff. You could have stated that simply, and excluded the taunting and passive-aggressive comments.

Post: #136

(03-29-2016 12:01 PM)Captain Gh Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 09:04 AM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

(03-27-2016 09:13 PM)chadverdad Wrote:  Give me a fucking break. They are about the same waist size as Kate Upton, who most seem to fawn over. Maybe you people would scoff at her as well, I don't know anymore. They aren't slim, but they certainly aren't heavy.

In any case, I didn't mean to derail the thread with those pictures; my point was that there is a spectrum between anorexia and largeness, and within that spectrum, there is a place between the A4 cutoff and "thickness" in which a woman can be considered attractive.

Thats the insidious lie the fat feminists are trying to sell. You might be buying it but I'm not

Kate Upton...good choice. She has a beautiful face but has big sloppy saggy tits (they may look good in a bikini but once they're unleashed I'd bet dollars to donuts they're shite...I've seen that type of tit before with their big silver dollar sized aereolas ...gross), a fat ass and no waist or hips. Her body is more lumpish than feminine

C'mon man! Even though you may not like her body structure, you can't call this version of Kate Upton a fat ass! Granted that she can easily become a fat ass with her genetics, but on this pic, she's at her possible best. To be skinnier than that, she's have to starve or take some cutting drugs. Chicks with giants saggy tits are a different breed. You may not like her, but you can't call this version of Kate Upton a fat ass, you just can't... and this coming from an A4 fan.

The photo is clearly photoshopped. The left side of her belly is so smooth and her stomach is like a blank canvas (way too smooth to be natural).

Kate Upton a few years ago is quite different from the one posted.

Post: #137

(03-29-2016 07:32 PM)kinjutsu Wrote:  The photo is clearly photoshopped. The left side of her belly is so smooth and her stomach is like a blank canvas (way too smooth to be natural).

Kate Upton a few years ago is quite different from the one posted.

Yes, she's MUCH thinner in this picture and looks plenty bangable. You can see her tits started out floppy. I'm not a fan of the pancake tits myself, but pancake tits coupled with a non-existent ass is a turn off. I'm happy for other guys to enjoy those girls.

This is closer to what she's like now:

Click here only if you have eye-bleach handy.

Post: #138

Speaking of Kate Upton, this thread is a classic. I'm glad MidniteSpecial was resurrected from his initial ban. He never did finish the story though.

Post: #139

To be fair. Kate Upton is a different type of "model" she was never meant to compete against the Giseles or the Lima models.
She was there to capture the girl next door look.

Her tits were never perky to begin with.

Post: #140

So how tall would a skinny girl have to get before she can't meet the A4 challenge?

Post: #141

Can't beat the tall girls:



What faggot wouldn't hit that?

Get the fuck out of here with those porn obsessed picture analyses.

Post: #142

Full video just because I double posted:

https://vimeo.com/41393068

Post: #143

(03-29-2016 12:01 PM)Captain Gh Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 09:04 AM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

(03-27-2016 09:13 PM)chadverdad Wrote:  Give me a fucking break. They are about the same waist size as Kate Upton, who most seem to fawn over. Maybe you people would scoff at her as well, I don't know anymore. They aren't slim, but they certainly aren't heavy.

In any case, I didn't mean to derail the thread with those pictures; my point was that there is a spectrum between anorexia and largeness, and within that spectrum, there is a place between the A4 cutoff and "thickness" in which a woman can be considered attractive.

Thats the insidious lie the fat feminists are trying to sell. You might be buying it but I'm not

Kate Upton...good choice. She has a beautiful face but has big sloppy saggy tits (they may look good in a bikini but once they're unleashed I'd bet dollars to donuts they're shite...I've seen that type of tit before with their big silver dollar sized aereolas ...gross), a fat ass and no waist or hips. Her body is more lumpish than feminine

C'mon man! Even though you may not like her body structure, you can't call this version of Kate Upton a fat ass! Granted that she can easily become a fat ass with her genetics, but on this pic, she's at her possible best. To be skinnier than that, she's have to starve or take some cutting drugs. Chicks with giants saggy tits are a different breed. You may not like her, but you can't call this version of Kate Upton a fat ass, you just can't... and this coming from an A4 fan.

"Kate Upton is a sloppy fat ass"...PapayaTapper

Post: #144

(03-29-2016 12:56 PM)262 Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 09:04 AM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  I've seen that type of tit before with their big silver dollar sized aereolas ...gross)

Oh snap, are we debating this too? I actually like tig ol bitties with silver-dollar-sized areolas.

Next time I run up against some of those washed-out-melted-cheese-in-the-microwave nips I'll know who to refer them to.

Post: #145

(03-29-2016 03:04 PM)chadverdad Wrote:  

(03-29-2016 09:04 AM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

(03-27-2016 09:13 PM)chadverdad Wrote:  Give me a fucking break. They are about the same waist size as Kate Upton, who most seem to fawn over. Maybe you people would scoff at her as well, I don't know anymore. They aren't slim, but they certainly aren't heavy.

In any case, I didn't mean to derail the thread with those pictures; my point was that there is a spectrum between anorexia and largeness, and within that spectrum, there is a place between the A4 cutoff and "thickness" in which a woman can be considered attractive.

Thats the insidious lie the fat feminists are trying to sell. You might be buying it but I'm not

The fat feminists aren't really selling attraction, they are trying to lower the standards and avoid being shamed.

Post: #146

Those "7.5s" that our lovely fat lover posted is insulting to the wonderful Blonde Southern Snowbunnies that are fairly common here in the deep South(which are common, but not common enough for guys to not be thirsty).




^This is a 7.5 not those whales with troll-like faces. Though technically an 8 as most girls who look like the above have a few blemishes here and there.



^This is a 6 at best. Anyone thinking this is a 7.5 needs to get their head out from under a rock. That thing has a face that only someone with low energy could love. Check the previous thread as I'm not reposting the rest of what our friend considered a 7.5.

Post: #147

I'm sorry gentleman. Here is some well deserved eye-bleach.

Post: #148

Let's try to add some fresh blood.

Post: #149

Oh look!


Back to asian girls.

Post: #150

American girls be like.