or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Your definition of a chunky girl?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Your definition of a chunky girl? - Page 3

post #31 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

B) My back-of-the-envelope calculation using your formula reveals that, by your standards, the chick you're seeing should be at 110, not 115. Congrats - you're, shallow, dating a chick you consider to be below your own standards, AND you suck at math!





post #32 of 95
Christina Hendricks probably weighs more than me, but I would leave my dying mother's side for a chance to bone her.
post #33 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milhouse View Post
I have a very simple metric that I would like to propose for determining whether a girl is above your "Chunkiness Threshold Value©" (CTV)

I am designing a special 2 by 2 matrix that consultants can use during client engagements as well.

For now, here is the "Chunkiness Threshold Rating System©":

Do you get an erection when you see the girl naked?

If yes, don't worry.

If no, then she is over your CTV©

Your ideas intrigue me and i wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
post #34 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroStyles View Post
I know what my gfs weighed but that's because they were thin. I would never bring it up with a fat girl.

Anyway, chunkiness has to be seen, not measured. A girl with a lot of extra meat but with a great ass and a huge chest, with a cute face and a nice tan to boot is a girl I would not kick out of bed. A girl with lots of extra meat, a flat chest, and a busted face is another story.

Some overweight girls are really sexy, and some are disgusting. It's hard to make a hard and fast rule about it, and even if you did, what would be the point?

Agreed.
post #35 of 95
if her skin makes visible waves when you bone her, she's chunky
post #36 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchausen View Post
Christina Hendricks probably weighs more than me, but I would leave my dying mother's side for a chance to bone her.

You would fall in before you finished. And you would never get out.


- B
post #37 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by voxsartoria View Post
You would fall in before you finished. And you would never want to get out.


- B

fixt
post #38 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by voxsartoria View Post
You would fall in before you finished. And you would never get out.


- B

post #39 of 95
It's real simple: a gut bigger than the titties is always a skip.

Beyond that simple rule, it will vary from dude to dude.
post #40 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by acidicboy View Post
if her skin makes visible waves when you bone her, she's chunky

But ripples in the right area could be a good thing. I would say waves in the chest/bottom areas are 8 times out of 10, a good thing. Waves in the thigh/stomach/neck/etc. are always bad.
post #41 of 95
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post
My back-of-the-envelope calculation using your formula reveals that, by your standards, the chick you're seeing should be at 110, not 115. Congrats - you're, shallow, dating a chick you consider to be below your own standards, AND you suck at math!

It's quite simple if you pay attention, my failing student. For instance, if a girl is 5'4", then the chunkiness threshold is 116 lbs. So if she is 120 lbs, then she would be considered too chunky, unless she has a D cup (subtract 6 lbs), then her sex appeal went up and she's within the chunkiness threshold.

The chick I'm seeing is certainly thin enough within the threshold. If you consider her huge, pert knockers, then she has the body of a girl that weighs 109 lbs with an A cup. A D cup subtraction would be 6 pounds, not 5. Wow, you're bad at math & logic.

Notice how people that accuse other people of things are usually the ones that are the worst at that particular subject?
post #42 of 95
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by superego View Post
It's real simple: a gut bigger than the titties is always a skip. Beyond that simple rule, it will vary from dude to dude.

That makes me want to vomit. I can barely stand to be with a girl that's 10 lbs over weight. You're talking like 40 lbs overweight. Gross!

Indeed, some men have a high tolerance for blubber. By all means, entertain all the fatties while I snatch up the skinny ones.
post #43 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by grundletaint View Post





Haha! I can't take all the credit. I mean, the OP is the one who threw the grapefruit-sized pitch right in my wheelhouse. I simply took the swing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gilwood View Post
From 5'0" at 100 lbs, add 4 lbs for every inch of height. Subtract 2 additional lbs for every cup size above A. Anything above that weight is chunky.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gilwood View Post
It's quite simple if you pay attention, my failing student. For instance, if a girl is 5'4", then the chunkiness threshold is 116 lbs. So if she is 120 lbs, then she would be considered too chunky, unless she has a D cup (subtract 6 lbs), then her sex appeal went up and she's within the chunkiness threshold.

The chick I'm seeing is certainly thin enough within the threshold. If you consider her huge, pert knockers, then she has the body of a girl that weighs 109 lbs with an A cup. A D cup subtraction would be 6 pounds, not 5. Wow, you're bad at math & logic.

Notice how people that accuse other people of things are usually the ones that are the worst at that particular subject?



The first quote is drawn verbatim from your OP. The second quote may be what you meant, but it certainly isn't what you said.

Following the directions from your OP without any deviation leads to the following:

Start with a baseline of "5'0" at 100lbs"
"Add 4 lbs for every inch of height (over 5')." In this case we're talking about a girl who is four inches over 5', so we add 16 pounds (4*4=16).
We're now up to 116.
"Subtract 2 additional lbs for every cup size above A." You said she's a D cup, which is three sizes above A, so we subtract six pounds (3*2=6)
We're now down to 110.
"Anything above that weight is chunky."
The girl you're seeing is 115 at 5'4" and a D cup, thus, if we follow your directions exactly, she would be considered chunky.

Q.E.D.

I'm also going to reiterate how retarded this concept is in the first place.
post #44 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by gilwood View Post
It's quite simple if you pay attention, my failing student. For instance, if a girl is 5'4", then the chunkiness threshold is 116 lbs. So if she is 120 lbs, then she would be considered too chunky, unless she has a D cup (subtract 6 lbs), then her sex appeal went up and she's within the chunkiness threshold. The chick I'm seeing is certainly thin enough within the threshold. If you consider her huge, pert knockers, then she has the body of a girl that weighs 109 lbs with an A cup. A D cup subtraction would be 6 pounds, not 5. Wow, you're bad at math & logic. Notice how people that accuse other people of things are usually the ones that are the worst at that particular subject?
This is so much fail, I can't even summon a facepalm... MrG has it correctly, you're just inept at explaining your assbackward "logic". You should have either said, add 2lbs for every cup size to determine the threshold (and if the girls weight falls within the calculated threshold), or subtract 2lbs for every cup size from her ACTUAL weight and then from that number determine if her weight falls within the calculated threshold. You did neither, therefore you are fail at math and logic.
post #45 of 95
How many pounds do you add or subtract for sharp elbows or knees?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Your definition of a chunky girl?