She just had a baby!
Okay guys, let's consider the fact that she just had a baby!
She may lose some of her plumpness.
But she may not lose all of it.
Some women have a physical change, and their hips can widen 2-4", which is irreversible.
Not all women can go back to their size before pregnancy, especially not with added width.
Some women also have a sizeable change in how their thyroid and other glands operate.
With that said, give Lorna A good year to see if she loses much of the weight she gained.
But from the looks of it, her increase in hips and bust size is permanent.
Yes, she could drop 30lbs. or so and lose some of the "plumpness."
But let's face it, she was already a very wide hourglass to begin with.
And many women like that widen in bone structure after their first child.
Hell, a lot of women like her in their teens or 20s tend to widen and gain 30lbs. or so in their 20s and 30s, respectively.
No offense, but one is rather naive if they think every woman can look like they were when they were a decade younger, much less after they have a baby.
Kate Dillon is a perfect example of this.
As a teenager, she was a size 6 and predicted to be the next Cindy Crawford.
By the time she exited her teens, the only way she could maintain it was by starving herself and nearly died.
Today she exercises and is a healthy size 14 -- probably not her slimest, but she can't break a size 10 or 12 without being unhealthy.
As far as the Sports Illustrated comment, how shallow can you really be lovejoy?
Most women with width cannot help it, they can only hope to be slender (flat stomach) but not thin as in bone structure.
Also, some SI models can't maintain their figure as they age past 25 or so.
Yes, some are able to, but some cannot with exercise, and many of the "wider with age" former models are actually more fit than their younger peers.
In fact, the Body Mass Index (BMI) has been rendered obsolete for decades, and most new studies have backed this up.
The new index is to measure the protrusion of the stomach.
I know many women size 10-14 who are more fit and healthy than women half their dress size.
But some people are right, some of these women (several are even current gymists) have self-esteem issues because of comments like in this thread.
And that's just tragic!
Yes, Lorna has a protruding stomach, and to be "completely fit" she could lose 30lbs.
But she is going to be fuller, bustier and more curvy for the rest of her life after this child than she was before.
That's just what happens to many women when they have a child.
We have some very, very narrow minded people in this thread.
And the only reason I don't completely hate them is because there are just more women (especially intelligent women, like female doctors) who can appreciate my intelligent viewpoint.
She's been slowly turning into a MILF over the last decade.
She just got a 9 month acceleration.
And I think she's hotter than ever, but that's just me.
You can disagree, but this unintellegent non-sense is just laughable ...
Okay guys, let's consider the fact that she just had a baby!
She may lose some of her plumpness.
But she may not lose all of it.
Some women have a physical change, and their hips can widen 2-4", which is irreversible.
Not all women can go back to their size before pregnancy, especially not with added width.
Some women also have a sizeable change in how their thyroid and other glands operate.
With that said, give Lorna A good year to see if she loses much of the weight she gained.
But from the looks of it, her increase in hips and bust size is permanent.
Yes, she could drop 30lbs. or so and lose some of the "plumpness."
But let's face it, she was already a very wide hourglass to begin with.
And many women like that widen in bone structure after their first child.
Hell, a lot of women like her in their teens or 20s tend to widen and gain 30lbs. or so in their 20s and 30s, respectively.
No offense, but one is rather naive if they think every woman can look like they were when they were a decade younger, much less after they have a baby.
Kate Dillon is a perfect example of this.
As a teenager, she was a size 6 and predicted to be the next Cindy Crawford.
By the time she exited her teens, the only way she could maintain it was by starving herself and nearly died.
Today she exercises and is a healthy size 14 -- probably not her slimest, but she can't break a size 10 or 12 without being unhealthy.
As far as the Sports Illustrated comment, how shallow can you really be lovejoy?
Most women with width cannot help it, they can only hope to be slender (flat stomach) but not thin as in bone structure.
Also, some SI models can't maintain their figure as they age past 25 or so.
Yes, some are able to, but some cannot with exercise, and many of the "wider with age" former models are actually more fit than their younger peers.
In fact, the Body Mass Index (BMI) has been rendered obsolete for decades, and most new studies have backed this up.
The new index is to measure the protrusion of the stomach.
I know many women size 10-14 who are more fit and healthy than women half their dress size.
But some people are right, some of these women (several are even current gymists) have self-esteem issues because of comments like in this thread.
And that's just tragic!
Yes, Lorna has a protruding stomach, and to be "completely fit" she could lose 30lbs.
But she is going to be fuller, bustier and more curvy for the rest of her life after this child than she was before.
That's just what happens to many women when they have a child.
We have some very, very narrow minded people in this thread.
And the only reason I don't completely hate them is because there are just more women (especially intelligent women, like female doctors) who can appreciate my intelligent viewpoint.
She's been slowly turning into a MILF over the last decade.
She just got a 9 month acceleration.
And I think she's hotter than ever, but that's just me.
You can disagree, but this unintellegent non-sense is just laughable ...
lovejoy said:
Last edited:
