A new article on this delightful site:
http://www.sexinfo101.com/positions_larger_lovers.shtml
What strikes me is that it mentions several times where to put a belly :eek: Like when in doggystyle he could put it on top of her buttocks or in butterfly on top of her pubic bone... Is it just me who finds this odd? Cause really; if you can "put" your belly somewhere, isn't "larger lover" an understatement? My lover has got a considerable belly and is way too heavy at the moment (he's working on it). And I'm a big girl myself (my fight with the scale seems endless ;)). But he can't "put" his belly somewhere... I'd say that with a belly that size, your movement is restraint and sex puts such strain on your body, that it becomes virtually impossible... or wouldn't it?
I'm not trying to offend anyone and I wish people of all shapes and sizes to enjoy sex! :) This just amazed me and I wondered what you guys think...
You have read my rants on obesity. I am rather trim and have never had an obese partner. Certainly excess weight limits much of what we do, including sex. The more trim one is, the more alternatives for sexual activity. The converse is true until genital sex is simply not possible.
"Putting your belly " somewhere is simply gross and grossly unhealthy. The price one is paying for weight at that point goes well beyond sexual gratification. So much else in life can be improved by staying fit that the improved sex is simply icing! And, unlike you Red, I could care less whom I offend on this topic. Weight is doing for health in the 21st century what tobacco did in the 20th.
Yes i was confused when i saw that RR,i thought it meant positions for a larger penis.It sounds a bit ambiguous to me,and i agree with Brandye that putting your belly somewhere during sex is gross,and it would actually put me off sex.I need to lose a little bit of weight myself to be honest.
Well, there are articles on the larger and smaller penis, but they explicitly called it that way :)
http://www.sexinfo101.com/positions_smaller_penis.shtml
http://www.sexinfo101.com/larger_penis_positions.shtml
I figured that it would be an article about people that are big, but not that obese! :(
I need to lose at least 12 pounds to get to a healthy BMI of 25, 24 pounds if I'd want to be back at my former weight of about 3 years ago. Though no excuses, there were circumstances that caused me to gain over time. First because I had to travel and sleep over at hotels for a few months for my job, which robbed me of my favorite gym evenings and all the travel and bad sleep exhausted me. Also the food wasn't half as healthy as what I prepare for myself. After that, cumulative sad events last year made me fall into depression. I'm slowly getting back on my feet again now. And I'm trying to get more comfortable and healthy in my own skin again (including lose some), without getting into extremes. I have a history of undereating and overexercising due to stress. So it's kinda vital for my body & health to keep things moderate. Though I haven't lost much weight in the past 6 weeks (maybe 1 or 2 pounds, but the scale tends to show me slightly different numbers ;)) I've already lost a dresssize around my waste. Thank you corestability-training! :)
Well, I have a "baby flap" from when I was pregnant and I could probably put it somewhere but it'd have to be close lol.
[QUOTE=Brandye;264554]You have read my rants on obesity. I am rather trim and have never had an obese partner. Certainly excess weight limits much of what we do, including sex. The more trim one is, the more alternatives for sexual activity. The converse is true until genital sex is simply not possible.
"Putting your belly " somewhere is simply gross and grossly unhealthy. The price one is paying for weight at that point goes well beyond sexual gratification. So much else in life can be improved by staying fit that the improved sex is simply icing! And, unlike you Red, I could care less whom I offend on this topic. Weight is doing for health in the 21st century what tobacco did in the 20th.[/QUOTE]
Sir Walter Raleigh did the damage in the 16th century Brandye. Fags and potatoes - what a combination - although one has to say that the spuds did not become chips for a long while!
I may not be the healthiest person in this world, but I have not found it difficult to lose weight - simply by NOT eating or not eating as much.
Unless you are doing heavy physical labor, healthy adults do NOT need three square meals a day. One meal will be sufficient.
[QUOTE=EvilEvilKitten;265326]I may not be the healthiest person in this world, but I have not found it difficult to lose weight - simply by NOT eating or not eating as much.
Unless you are doing heavy physical labor, healthy adults do NOT need three square meals a day. One meal will be sufficient.[/QUOTE]
I'd say that's true in part. Depends on what you qualify as a meal though ;) I've been told that actually it's nice for a lot of people to eat little bits during the day, instead of those big meals. That way the energy-levels are up during the day (instead of up and down), the digestive system keeps working (instead of waves of attack :rolleyes:) and you'll probably eat less. After all: people eat quite a lot in a short time at a meal. And it is not the stomach that determines whether you've had enough, it's actually the first part of the smaller intestine that tells you this. So you'll notice it "too late" when you've already overate.
I saw a documentary in which they described this with a great experiment: people eating a bowl of soup that slowly filled up while they ate (barely noticeable). Immediately after they said they felt ok (researchers asked questions). Some time after (I think it was half an hour but not sure), they started to feel very full, like overflowing with soup! Which wasn't that weird as they had actually eaten several bowls. People seem to be more prone to be fooled like this (and eat even more! :eek:) when eating while watching a movie. This shows that it's good to pay attention to what you eat (conscious eating), instead of sitting in front of the tv or computer.
@Brandye can you confirm this (or oppose to it if I'm talking nonsense off course!)
And perhaps explain this mechanism in the digestive system more accurate?
The here, RR, is that one already has the supplies to generate energy - one simply has to use them. People have taught their bodies to expect plenty and their bodies have gotten lazy about it -- now one has to train one's body to expect famine and must therefore get what it needs from fat stores.
I am not saying this is easy - only that it can be done.
Training that to your body is not easy... depends on your natural metabolism too I guess. My doc once referred to my metabolism as "made for longterm survival". I used to help my little sister crash-dieting by eating just as little as she did (she's an emotional and social eater and a yo-yo on weight). I didn't know crash-diets were bad at the time. She lost weight, I didn't. My weight used to be pretty steady. You could say I'm an emotional non-eater; my throat just blocks. And as a plus: I get hyperactive while stressed. But even that will not show up in my weight. It did show up messing up my digestive system (but only after a few bacteria shook it up first ;))
I could sometimes swear that emotions influence weight... or at least the core-area...
When I feel happy: I exercise and eat relaxed and healthy, I lose inches of my wasteline and sometimes weight...
When I feel down/stressed: I run like a headless chicken and hardly eat, my core seems to swell and my weight stays the same or adds...
Is that anywhere near possible???
There are those who, like you RR, can't lose weight to save themselves - yes it is metabolism but generally speaking less in & more out will work.
...Since the conversation has drifted a bit to eating habits, I'd like to ask if I'm fine.
I moved to my mom's and started eating a lot less than at my dad's (she doesn't have all the in-between-the-meals stuff) and I'm fine, I never knew that but I actually lose my appetite quite fast.
The problem is that sometiem I didn't ate a breakfast or even lunch and my stomach feels very empty, but I'm not hungry at all, I really don't feel like eating.
Now, I'm a bit overweight and need to lose some pounds, already lost five in a month, but I don't know if it's healthy, I'd say it's not.
Dear Barely18Guy,
Looking at the flat facts (not from an expert, just a common sense point of view);
No sneaking in between meals can be a good thing, esp when we're talking skipping fatty/sugary snacks. Though some healthy snacks in between isn't that wrong to do at all. Losing 5 pounds in one month is some, but not that weird or much considering you changing eating patterns. Moving in itself is always a somewhat stressful event. So that could explain something.
But: I'd say your specific situation does show a few flags of it possibly not being healthy. First of all: you thinking it is a problem yourself, indicates you're not feeling as healthy. Being healthy is in a large part about your own feelings. Another thing that strikes me as important would be that I can imagine you moving from your dad to your mom could be more than "just moving". When the moving is caused by troubles or other emotional events. Or when the new situation is difficult to adjust to for some reason. Could it be your lack of appetite relates to stress or emotions? Apart from your stomach being empty, is there perhaps a feeling of emptiness/loneliness/sadness/being out-of-place/etc? Are you missing something/someone?
I'm not trying to talk you into things you don't feel. I'm just trying to help. Search your heart and share if you feel comfortable with that.