Apologies to the Ladies on the Board. My buddies and I used to have a system back in the day for gauging how fat a girl would become (you have to remember, all the guys at my Catholic College were looking long term shallowness, not short term hook-up shallowness). There were two main factors that went into gaging a girl's FP, or fat potential if you will. The first was quite obvious. Take a look at her mother. If her mother was quite large, then there would be a pretty good chance the girl would plump up in years to come. We even witnessed girls gain amounts of 50 or more pounds in college, which, I must admit, was strangely intriguing. The second factor we used in determining FP was the 'back of the arm fat test' If a skinny girl had back arm fat, it was a sure sign she would be a porker. Once again, our calculations usually proved correct. Upon going to a wedding this past weekend, I happened upon girls from college who had moderately high FP's, as gauged by my stupid buddies and I, and sure enough, they had gained weight in the year or so after college. As I see it, the FP test is a wonderful portal into the future, and she be used with reckless abandonment. So I pose two questions. Does this test seem logical? And if so, does anyone have experience with friends, girlfriends, wives, who have gained a lot of weight? And for those of you who care, I don't mind a little Chub on my girlie.
I don't know what you're talking about they are spelled right! They need an emoticon for looking around the room suspiciously.
yeah, that must work wonders as one of those "natural" birth control techniques you were telling us about.
Not all of them were... The phenomenom that interest me infinitely more are the girls who mysteriously lose sixty pounds over six months. I ran into this girl from college who was always right around 180 pounds at about 5'6'' during college. When I ran into her at 120 pounds at a bar last weekend I couldn't even recognize her.... she was really hot. She was always one of those girls you would say "had a pretty face". She came up to me in the bar and said "Mike....what's up!?" And I was like "cool this hot girl knows me....". It took about half an hour of conversation until I realized who she was. I was floored and I just played it off like I always knew but I think she knew the moment I realized who she was. Amazing stuff. Really drives home the point that change is possible.
What's that you say, Twhy77? The back of my arms? How about squirrel-nut cheeks? Any correlation there? "FP" could also abbreviate another potential.
Oh of course, that's why we only call it potential. Its pretty darn accurate in my experience though.
Anybody have pictures of her mom? We'd need both to tell. Its always wierd and strange to watch a celebrity gain weight too.
twhy -- you're overplaying the mom thing, i think. in an age where exercise and healthy eating is encouraged big time, i think it can be beat. girl i dated in high school and early part of college is an actress in la. she's ridiculously beautiful. done a bunch of commercials. her mom is overweight...but this girl is coming on 30 now and doesn't show a sign of it.
Yeah I didn't make it clear or even really a point in the first post that both need to be working in conjunction. One or the other usually gets the job done. So I read Lindsey's mom was a Rockette. Take away two letters and its almost like she was a Rocket.
Have you guys ever seen this? Maxim had it as an interesting site way back in like 2000. Don't know why I remembered it. Fat Project
I think the fat on the back of the arm test is good, but I prefer to check the ankles. If a girl has fat ankles, she will be fat. If she has cankles, she's doomed.
c'mon guys, does it really matter...most of you would hit anything around 2 a.m and drunk off your azz...me too, but that's not the point... Anyway, the behind the arm is a good gauge, but the mom thing is iffy... A MILF is a MILF is a MILF...
The Mom and Dad test is really the ultimate. If they are both health-conscious and are in good shape, chances are they taught that to their kids. If they have some vanity (wear jewelry, try to dress nicely, try to look sexy), then, again, chances are their kids have been brought up with some priority on physical appearance. If they both have naturally fit builds (aren't naturally overweight), this is the best. Their offspring won't have to fight a genetic tendency to be overweight. <RANTING> Personally, I think people don't emphasize physical appearance nowadays. We're taught that "people will love you for who you are inside"... which is true. But before someone can get to know you on the inside, they will first, upon introduction, evaluate you entirely based on your physical appearance. In other words... until I am introduced to you and get to know you, I will first look at you and make an immediate judgement about whether or not I like your appearance. And first impressions ARE important. For those reasons, it bothers me when people are so focused on comfort. "I don't like to wear that - it's not comfortable". Ya know what's comfortable to me? Walking around buck naked. But you don't see me doing that, do you? People would do better to place less emphasis on what's comfortable and more emphasis on what is presentable, appropriate, proprietous, and attractive. It makes you feel better about yourself and builds self-esteem to know that you are physically fit and that others like the way you look. </RANTING> -- droxford
