Latest Posts

Feminists just appear to be incapable in excepting the fact that no reasonable Man wants to have a bar of them even if it's a supermodel. The affect on a female suffering from a severe dose of feminism is akin to a 24/7 dose of PMS. There appears to be no difference between the two. When suffering from PMS, which happens every month, at least there is an end, some relief is forthcoming, but not when you are a compulsive victimhood queen determined to find fault on a daily basis with all and sundry.
Unfortunately there are no drugs available for Severe Feminist Psychosis as it would have to insure they were comatose but I do believe that there are several treatments available one could try to alleviate said condition which is as follows..

1. Total Lobotomy.
2. Removal of the Victimhood Complex Cerebrum (Frontal Lobe..see above)

Right now she weighs just a touch over 600lbs.  
So 400lbs in 2 years is certainly reasonable AND healthy in her world.
Almost One Ton Tessy,,

And The Fatties Complain
by comminate 
Well, that took longer than expected!
A couple of days ago, news broke of research which confirms that in general, women with a lower BMI than their husbands report being happier in their marriages.
Today, a fat, ugly feminist with hair shorter than most men complains: “Can a fat woman ever make a thin man happy?”, and goes on to wonder where all the Jack Sprats have gone. The research above is dismissed as “barmy”, and she goes on to imply that the study is daft on account of the fact that J-Lo just split up from Marc Anthony (or something like that).
And of course, because she’s a feminist, it’s all about power* to her:
The clear implication of the research is that a relationship where the woman is bigger, whether in height or girth, upsets what might be perceived as the natural order of things.
Big equals power. Power equals male. Thus a man cannot be satisfied with a woman whose size implies she wears the trousers. What rubbish.
Wrong. Wrong! A thousand times, wrong!
It isn’t about who wears the trousers, because pretty much everyone wears pants these days anyway, at least some of the time (although women do look their hottest in dresses and skirts). It is entirely about the fact that men are designed to derive sexual attraction and excitation from the visible and the physical first and foremost…and excess fat is just bloody unattractive on anyone, women especially.
Most men probably don’t care what their girl is wearing when she comes over, though they may prefer one thing or another, but since it’s coming off anyway, it’s not that important. As long as she looks attractive — as long as, in looking at her, they feel attracted to her — then it’s all fine.
It’s when they have to dig through rolls of fat and pounds of thunder thigh to find her ladyparts that things become problematic. It’s when her stomach spills out of her shirt more readily — and more voluminiously — than her breasts that things become problematic.
Real women are not obese land whales, nor are they supermodels. Real women are women who are in a state of reasonable physical health, who have reasonable body symmetry, and who have physical proportions within walking distance of that magical — and evolutionarily relevant — 0.7 “golden ratio”.
Or: fatties are not “real women”; there, I said it.
But to answer Jenni Murray’s question directly (can a fat woman ever make a thin man happy?): yes, dearie, she can. It’s called a gym membership.
* Seriously, do feminists even have another form of argument, another posited first cause for “issues” that exist between men and women? Or is it necessary to assume, as a feminist, that everything ultimately reduces to hypothetical male insecurity?