Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

boobs


Jase

Recommended Posts

Sag yes... shrink, idk. I always thought it was linked to weight gain/loss...

Joking aside, biscuit makes a good point. I have heard of them shrinking from weight loss. Also the obvious getting bigger when producing milk then going back down when no longer producing milk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you're right Biscuit...unless you gain or lose weight..boobies just go...down :)

that being said..When I swelled up to cow size, my boobs were DD's...lost 50 lbs...they're now D's...but 12 years ago they were C's when I first met MrPF...and I'm the same size now as I was then...don't think muh boobs will ever be C's again :(....though I thought MrPF was going to cry ...it's like he could see them shrinking by the day

Link to comment
Share on other sites

isn't your wife on a diet/excercise program?

boobs are mostly fatty deposits, over time the breast tissue diminishes leaving only said fatty deposits. Lose weight=lose boobs, ask MPF (I really don't mean that in a bad way, she's commented on it in here before)

Also breast milk blows them up like balloons and when the milk stops it's like a popped balloon. I think petite boobs are super sexy, so it doesn't concern me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's what's perplexing, she weighs more now than before kids. but boobies are now smaller.

she went between D to DD before kids, now after 2 kids, she's down to C.

i learned the other day that cup size is a ratio of boob size to strap size... same size boobs + larger strap = smaller cup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you're right Biscuit...unless you gain or lose weight..boobies just go...down :)

that being said..When I swelled up to cow size, my boobs were DD's...lost 50 lbs...they're now D's...but 12 years ago they were C's when I first met MrPF...and I'm the same size now as I was then...don't think muh boobs will ever be C's again :(....though I thought MrPF was going to cry ...it's like he could see them shrinking by the day

I fail to see a problem here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i learned the other day that cup size is a ratio of boob size to strap size... same size boobs + larger strap = smaller cup.

They seem smaller to the hand test, too. I'll have to keep re-evaluating until I figure it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...