• Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Would Mich?

Exactly, implying that if she's not a 'real woman' and she's not a fatty, then she's underweight, which she clearly isn't.

I know you didn't mean it that way now - just saying why I originally called her 'normal'.

To be fair, she's 17; lots of 17 year olds are naturally thin and once she's in her 20s she might will fill out. It's simply that I don't find that thinness attractive and I didn't when I was 17 either. I always preferred the hockey girls with their firm buttocks and jiggly wiggly brea... I'm being naughty now aren't I?
 
Or just not eat to excess. I know lots of great looking who don't exercise at all - although the ones who do look better (to someone who prefers a more athletic look).
No. It's healthier to have some fat on you. And also some muscle. That gap between her thighs even when her legs are shut shows a lack of muscle, suggesting she doesn't use her legs.
 
The thread isn't about what's ' normal', it's about what people find 'attractive'

Indeed and attractive is not necessarily beautiful. Those perfect models do nowt for me.

Him down there has his own ideas, too. I was reasonably good at pulling in my yoof and dated the Uni Beauty queen for a while. Never attempted to touch her, her kisses turned me on about as much as eating an ice cream. Another was pretty plain with a big nose but he really liked her.
 
hotter_than.jpg
 

Advertisers

Back
Top