• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Fat Lesbians

I can only dance in a very OTT, theatrical, Alice Cooper fashion...:eek!!!!:
 
i can do :)rofl: ) the waltz. if that helps
 
Well, I didn't think actual dance-dances counted...I was on a Scottish country dancing team once...
 
All women are told as soon as they enter puberty that men who are good dancers are usually great in bed.......

waits for sudden rush of fabulous dancers to start posting.........
 
Blueswidow said:
Men who can dance well are very rare and absolutely irresistable.
Click to expand...
Hm, my man can :). AND he dresses well (with a little help from me i.e. I buy most of his clothes), looks after himself and he is attractive (both male and female friends have confirmed this), and he is charming. Strange why his ex-wife wanted to get rid of him really !
 
Blueswidow said:
waits for sudden rush of fabulous dancers to start posting.........
Click to expand...

sod that!, i think that i'd rather sit in the corner reading a good book!...
 
Inverurie Jones said:
I can only dance in a very OTT, theatrical, Alice Cooper fashion...:eek!!!!:
Click to expand...
Would that be the typical squaddie 'I'm going to annex the entire dancefloor, and perform extensive military manoovers' type boogieing?
 
Blueswidow said:
All women are told as soon as they enter puberty that men who are good dancers are usually great in bed.......
Click to expand...

Hehe - just asked a friend of mine, who used to go out with a dance instructor, if such a tale is true. Her answer was a definite 'No' :D
 
what about different forms of dance? are ballet dancers better than, for example, tap dancers?
 
Toffeenose said:
are ballet dancers better than, for example, tap dancers?
Click to expand...

yes cos they dont fall off into the sink :D

(shall i get my coat?)
 
I think any kind of wild loose-hipped snaky, energetic dancing would qualify...i fear I've opened a can of worms here.......
 
Filcee said:
Would that be the typical squaddie 'I'm going to annex the entire dancefloor, and perform extensive military manoovers' type boogieing?
Click to expand...

Yes. Best done in groups.
 
I've never seen Hubcap dance, but I imagine he'd look like a giraffe on a skateboard.
I too would rather read a book, and can never understand how something can be difficult and boring at the same time.

How did we get from fat lesbians to dancing? :confused:
 
we should award a prize to the first person who can convincngly turn the thread into fat lesbians dancing.
 
Dinosaur said:
Funny though, lesbians always seem to have strong hands and well developed tounges.
Click to expand...

Funny you should say that. I just typed this with my hands tied behind my back.:blah:
 
A very fit gay friend of mine (and, no - I'm not gay so by fit I'm mean physically healthy ... oh, why bother) pointed out that many (but not all) gay guys are fit because male homosexuality is very physical in attraction and one of the best "pulling places" is in the gym!

I live near Earls Court and the amount of very obviously gay guys who are physically outstanding and (on some occasions excessiively) muscle-bound would take anyones breath away.

Ahem ...

Of course, if lesbians danced more, especially in boiler sits and Doc Martens, then the discussion about them being less healthy and more fat wouldn't occur. So Viva Dancing Lesbians! Pans People needs a reboot!
:blah:
 
Originally posted by Dinosaur
Funny though, lesbians always seem to have strong hands and well developed tounges.
Click to expand...

And breath through their ears? :D
 
Blueswidow said:
All women are told as soon as they enter puberty that men who are good dancers are usually great in bed.......
Click to expand...

It's twue! it's twue what they say!!

Sorry, I just had a Blazing Saddles moment. That's the exit there, then?
 
Stormkhan said:
A very fit gay friend of mine (and, no - I'm not gay so by fit I'm mean physically healthy ... oh, why bother) pointed out that many (but not all) gay guys are fit because male homosexuality is very physical in attraction and one of the best "pulling places" is in the gym!
Click to expand...

A gay male friend told me that men are very visual in their sexuality, gay or straight, so there tends to be the same proportion of appearance conscious gay men (wanting fit, pretty partners) as there are appearance conscious straight men (wanting fit, pretty partners). Which is not to say that any of these men want perfection, but rather someone who takes care of themselves.
 
Is my experience that gay men aren't any better looking than straight men, but they do tend to take care of their appearance better, and not take great care nuturing a beer belly and patting it with maternal pride in public like most of my straight male friends do.

And re butch lesbians, as an ex of mine once annouced (rather too) loudly in great despair "What the %****^8%%99((**********fuck is the point of being a lesbian if you only fancy women who look like men?!"
 
Getting back to the original subject (radical idea) there are well known differences in patterns of some diseases between gay and straight women. These are usually attributed to the fact that gay women have fewer children.

There are slightly higher rates of heart disease and lung cancer, on average gay women drink and smoke more - no children means you have more money and can go out more.

Breast cancer rates are also higher because the risk is reduced by childbearing and breastfeeding. Breast cancer rates are extremely high amongst nuns.

On the plus side, lower cervical cancer rates because this is associated with exposure of the cervix to sperm.

On an anecdotal level, the lesbians I know come in a whole variety of shapes and sizes.
 
The problem with interpreting any statistics is that sometimes the results make sense to one assumption (e.g lesbians don't care about their body weight) even if ancedotal evidence proves this counter intuitive (there are plenty of lesbians who are concerned about appearance and/or body weight).

Nuns have a higher incidence of breast cancer? Oh, does this mean that being religiously inclined and female is carcinogenic?

While statistics can be surprising, facinating and useful, the interpretation is always open to abuse, prejudice and mistaken assumptions. What is important is that statistics can act as indicator for further areas of research. Statistics are a tool and not a definitive diagnostic.
 
Nuns do have higher rates of breast cancer- references to this fact go back to the 16th century.
The reason, as I stated, is to do with childbearing and breastfeeding. Nuns generally don't have many children.
Cancer research UK have been carrying out a major epidemiological on factors affecting breast cancer, due to be published very soon. Breast cancer risks were found to be reduced by having children, with a corresponding reduction in risk for each of the first three children. Breast feeding also results in a reduction in relative risk.

These results are from a properly designed epidemiological study based on thousands of women using matched case controls and taking account of factors such as family history. The statistical validity is therefore somewhat higher than for the study at the start of this thread.
 
Physick said:
Nuns do have higher rates of breast cancer- references to this fact go back to the 16th century.
The reason, as I stated, is to do with childbearing and breastfeeding. Nuns generally don't have many children.
Cancer research UK have been carrying out a major epidemiological on factors affecting breast cancer, due to be published very soon. Breast cancer risks were found to be reduced by having children, with a corresponding reduction in risk for each of the first three children. Breast feeding also results in a reduction in relative risk.

These results are from a properly designed epidemiological study based on thousands of women using matched case controls and taking account of factors such as family history. The statistical validity is therefore somewhat higher than for the study at the start of this thread.
Click to expand...

While I agree that certain factors are important in research (such as breast-feeding etc.) and that you seem to take one set of statistics to have "more statistical validity" than others - I admit to distrusting any statistics as proof on its own - there are plenty of other factors that should be taken into account. Do more women breast-feed now than ten years ago? Why? Are women physically less able now to provide breast-milk now than years ago?

While I'd never belittle the work that Cancer Research UK sponsors (my own father died of cancer so I'm as aware of the disease as many should be) my only point was that statistics can be interpreted in any way that the publisher/media might want. Each year tabloids publish "statistical evidence" to show XYZ is bad for us (usually research funded by an anti-XYZ organisation) then, after a month or so, publish the same evidence and interpretation that XYZ is safe for consumption (usually funded by a pro-XYZ organisation).

Take a look at the evidence for/against mobile telephone use ... the mobile phone sellers representation say that it is perfectly safe. The anti-mobile phone mast groups say that statistics prove that transmitters cause harm. Who should we believe?

I know it is a long way from "being fat and lesbian is carcinogenic" to mobile phones but I wanted to point out that statistics aren't definitive proof! They are indicators for further research!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top