Sports Illustrated Fattest Model - Hunter McGrady: Morbidly Obese or pleasingly Plump ?!

Dimensions Magazine

Help Support Dimensions Magazine:

Dan DeLeon

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 4, 2019
Messages
76
Location
California
Why is that asking for much? It's not like I'm asking for "the moon." Y'know, like world peace, affordable healthcare, or the return of Alpha-Bits at my local supermarket.

Lucky lad Brian Carvalho is an inspiration.



 
  • Like
Reactions: Aqw

BigElectricKat

Have a question? PM me!
Staff member
Global Moderator
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
1,486
Location
The Midwest
Don't get me wrong. I wish you much success in your quest for your very own Brunhilde.

There is a young woman here at work that is almost the spitting image of Haleigh Hamton above. The only difference is that is not as Rubenesque. But she is everything else: tall, blonde, beautiful, and as sweet as can be.
 

happily_married

Happy to be part of Dims!
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
1,657
Location
,
Hey, whatever floats your boat. It's all good, as far as I'm concerned. Different strokes, etc. But, it's rather a shame, methinks, when a subculture that is ostracized and rejected by "mainstream" culture imposes exclusionary restrictions and itself ostracizes and rejects "its own."
Exclusionary restrictions? People calling you out for an unseemly description of a certain class of women is hardly “imposing exclusionary restrictions.” GTFO with that.

Say whatever you want, just be ready for others to call you out for your low class bullshit. And then try to act like a 59 year old man instead of a petulant child when they do.
 

waldo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
405
Location
usa
Exclusionary restrictions? People calling you out for an unseemly description of a certain class of women is hardly “imposing exclusionary restrictions.” GTFO with that.

Say whatever you want, just be ready for others to call you out for your low class bullshit. And then try to act like a 59 year old man instead of a petulant child when they do.
Does anyone else see the irony in him calling out the very large supersized people as akin to 'carnival side show acts' when the type of women he is professing to have a 'thing for (6'6" Amazon) fits the same description in an earlier day and age. The lack of awareness is astounding:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Dan DeLeon

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 4, 2019
Messages
76
Location
California
Does anyone else see the irony in him calling out the very large supersized people as akin to 'carnival side show acts' when the type of women he is professing to have a 'thing for (6'6" Amazon) fits the same description in an earlier day and age. The lack of awareness is astounding.
Not seein' the irony. Never used the term "supersized" in my post.

Haleigh Hampton-Carvalho does not fit the interpretation of "supersized" in the context of the Dimensions forums . . . and everyone in the Dimensions community knows what is meant by "supersized."

FWIW, I would not use "supersized" to describe the statuesque and stunning Haleigh. When I hear or read "supersized," I equate the term with morbid obesity (YMMV).

. . . a condition that obviously does not apply to the athletic, Amazonian volleyball pro.
 

Dan DeLeon

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 4, 2019
Messages
76
Location
California
Exclusionary restrictions? People calling you out for an unseemly description of a certain class of women is hardly “imposing exclusionary restrictions.” GTFO with that.
:rolleyes: Oh, brother!

For someone with the moniker, "happily_married," you don't seem happy.

Always fascinating to me to see how folks interpret -- and misinterpret -- things.

By "imposing exclusionary restrictions," I was not referring to me; i.e., I don't feel excluded or restricted. What I meant was, I perceive "BBW" being excluded and restricted by some "SSBBW" and their admirers in the "Fat Rights" community. Specifically because of the following question asked by DragonFly.

Do any of you really think a female is fat at a size 14 or 16?
As I earlier wrote, I'm not up on womens' clothing sizes. So I scoured the Web for "Size 14 to 16 women*," which yielded the following exciting, erotic examples:


Now, DragonFly and perhaps others 'round here might not consider the depicted babes "fat" -- and guess what? I don't either! But, "mainstream society," Madison Avenue, and especially clothing designers do.

My inference (or misinference) of DF's question is that the above curvaceous damsels are not welcome by and among the "Fat Rights" crowd. To further clarify my point: they are excluded and restricted because they are not Fat Enough.

I dig BBW (which, within the context of this discussion, are gals size 14 to 16). Again, I think it is a shame that women who are labeled, marginalized, and stigmatized as "fat" are likewise discriminated by their "supersized" sisters (and brothers).

* Interesting Reading: https://www.hautecurvywoman.com/7/post/2012/06/at-what-size-are-women-actually-considered-plus-sized.html/

 

happily_married

Happy to be part of Dims!
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
1,657
Location
,
For someone with the moniker, "happily_married," you don't seem happy.
Guess you wouldn’t know, would you?

Always fascinating to me to see how folks interpret -- and misinterpret -- things.
And I’m always fascinated by how people think they’ve communicated something that maybe isn’t as clear as they thought it was.

But maybe it’s indeed me. Maybe I’m just disinclined to give you the benefit of the doubt for the afore mentioned unseemly word choice by you. And weather you realize it or not, @waldo makes a good point about you.
 

waldo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
405
Location
usa
Not seein' the irony. Never used the term "supersized" in my post.

Haleigh Hampton-Carvalho does not fit the interpretation of "supersized" in the context of the Dimensions forums . . . and everyone in the Dimensions community knows what is meant by "supersized."

FWIW, I would not use "supersized" to describe the statuesque and stunning Haleigh. When I hear or read "supersized," I equate the term with morbid obesity (YMMV).

. . . a condition that obviously does not apply to the athletic, Amazonian volleyball pro.
It seems your reading comprehension leaves A LOT to be desired. Probably best for you to quit now because you are simply digging the hole deeper.

On a happier note, I want to point out another full-figured gal in the 2019 SI Swimsuit Issue named "Tara Lynn" . She is smaller than Hunter and Ashley (maybe a size 12-14?) but still smoking hot for such a 'skinny minny' (j/k) (actually them are some pretty big hips;))
https://www.si.com/swimsuit/model/tara-lynn/2019/photos
 
Last edited:

Dan DeLeon

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 4, 2019
Messages
76
Location
California
It seems your reading comprehension leaves A LOT to be desired. Probably best for you to quit now because you are simply digging the hole deeper.
Said The Pot to The Kettle (and take your own advice).

Though our opinions differ, we have the same tastes regarding "plus-size" Sports Illustrated swimsuit models.

Another delectable SI "plus-size" bathing beauty: Philomena Kwao






I have been subjected to a lot of criticism from plus-size woman saying, “Oh she’s not plus-size. She’s too small to fit into these clothes. She doesn’t represent us.” - Philomena Kwao (https://madamenoire.com/1028628/philomena-kwao/)
 
Last edited:

DragonFly

Ahem Prema
Staff member
Global Moderator
DM Supporter
Joined
Apr 28, 2017
Messages
1,883
Location
New York Hudson Valley
:rolleyes: Oh, brother!

For someone with the moniker, "happily_married," you don't seem happy.

Always fascinating to me to see how folks interpret -- and misinterpret -- things.

By "imposing exclusionary restrictions," I was not referring to me; i.e., I don't feel excluded or restricted. What I meant was, I perceive "BBW" being excluded and restricted by some "SSBBW" and their admirers in the "Fat Rights" community. Specifically because of the following question asked by DragonFly.



As I earlier wrote, I'm not up on womens' clothing sizes. So I scoured the Web for "Size 14 to 16 women*," which yielded the following exciting, erotic examples:


Now, DragonFly and perhaps others 'round here might not consider the depicted babes "fat" -- and guess what? I don't either! But, "mainstream society," Madison Avenue, and especially clothing designers do.

My inference (or misinference) of DF's question is that the above curvaceous damsels are not welcome by and among the "Fat Rights" crowd. To further clarify my point: they are excluded and restricted because they are not Fat Enough.

I dig BBW (which, within the context of this discussion, are gals size 14 to 16). Again, I think it is a shame that women who are labeled, marginalized, and stigmatized as "fat" are likewise discriminated by their "supersized" sisters (and brothers).

* Interesting Reading: https://www.hautecurvywoman.com/7/post/2012/06/at-what-size-are-women-actually-considered-plus-sized.html/

Post as many pictures as you want. Link to articles that support your arguments about what plus sized is. Until you own your fat shaming and offensive comments and behavior, I’m going to consider this conversation closed. Your media and research is the same propaganda that fat people are faced with everyday. Illuminating the first step of fat in mainstream publications, does not mean that the problems are solved. Love and adore what you want, just don’t expect everyone to buy your short sighted and rather smarmy dialogue. You by any stretch of the imagination are not one of my “own”.
 

Elfcat

Socialist Cat Man
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
806
Location
,
When I hear or read "supersized," I equate the term with morbid obesity (YMMV).

. . . a condition that obviously does not apply to the athletic, Amazonian volleyball pro.
I would say that you are depressingly resigned to having your mind yoked to the toxic terminology propagated by vicious profiteers of misery who delight in taking a couple of measurements of a person and arbitrarily prognosticating on their health with a ghoulish-sounding word.

But we already know you are the type who will paint anyone who looks askance at the fascist agenda as a "SJW".
 

waldo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
405
Location
usa
That's a whole lot of eye candy! I would say the first one in the black has the most potential (+150 lb to her and she might be the ideal SSBBW). As they stand, that pear shaped gal in the 4th pic is just awesome. Long live BBW, and anyone who is quick to judge regarding 'objectification" can pound sand!
 

waldo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
405
Location
usa
Post as many pictures as you want. Link to articles that support your arguments about what plus sized is. Until you own your fat shaming and offensive comments and behavior, I’m going to consider this conversation closed. Your media and research is the same propaganda that fat people are faced with everyday. Illuminating the first step of fat in mainstream publications, does not mean that the problems are solved. Love and adore what you want, just don’t expect everyone to buy your short sighted and rather smarmy dialogue. You by any stretch of the imagination are not one of my “own”.
You are 100 % correct, of course, but he does provide some value in posting some pics of attractive BBWs. We just need him to lay off the commentary. As I said before, I agree these 'smallish' fat gals do not adequately fly the flag for fat acceptance circa 2019, but it is better than nothing.
 

tmur

Active Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2007
Messages
32
Location
,
Since "size" is being discussed, has anyone noticed the following?
I m 6' tall. For many years I seldom saw a female who stood eye to eye. Now I see MANY young women who do.
I went to a Target near a major university last week and was astounded by the number of women near my height and taller.
 

waldo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
405
Location
usa
Fat chance (pun intended)! :p

For the record:
  • Waldo is the one bomb-throwing the incendiary "SJW" pejorative (since "owning" comments was brought up). Just an FYI, Elfcat!

  • I care not one whit about being one of DragonFly's "own" (not on my bucket list of Things to Do).
Yeah the only reason I originally made that reference about 'SJWs' was because of the nonsense that Hunter McGrady was writing on the topic of inclusivity and all the wokeness going on at Sported illustrated . Actually it seems this term this was traditionally never considered a 'perjorative', but that started changing about 10 years ago with the ramping up of the intersectionality and related over the top grievance mongering on the progressive left from fools who like to throw out words like 'fascist agenda'
 

Dan DeLeon

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 4, 2019
Messages
76
Location
California
We just need him to lay off the commentary.
Does anyone else see the irony of Waldo calling for me to lay off the commentary? The lack of awareness is astounding. :rolleyes:

Re your alibi for making that reference about SJW:

Probably best for you to quit now because you are simply digging the hole deeper.

"Social Justice Warrior" (abbreviated "SJW" . . .) is a term used to refer to liberals, progressives, feminists, and supporters of political correctness. The term is an appropriated one, generally used by the right wing as a negative snarl word, despite originally having positive connotations. It is commonly used by far right reactionaries as a toxic ad hominem [attack that] almost certainly raises a red flag that a pointless nonconstructive discussion will follow. -- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior
 
2
Top