Of course, this is only limited to universes for games I have actually played at one point or another. In all of them, I'm assuming I would be a shopkeeper, a scribe, or some other sort of analyst, administrative, or back office support role.

Probably either Tamriel in Elder Scrolls (this would include the provinces of either Skyrim or Cyrodiil), after whatever major conflict is resolved. The lack of technology is a concern, but of course there's magic to resolve medical and technological barriers. It also seems that almost everyone seems to be very well read. In spite of the various conflicts, there always seems to be a lot of food and mead, beer, and wine to be had. You also don't have to be the King to potentially live like one. Even a single mother has no apparent problem buying and owning a house in one of the richest cities in Skyrim, and making enough money.

Another possibility might be Hyrule, after Ganon is defeated.

Another possibility might be the Mushroom Kingdom after Bowser is defeated, where it's widely depicted in Paper Mario. Although, it's unclear what kind of medical technology there is. They do however, have technology in general, including mobile phones and wireless Internet access.


Now a twist, for what I would NOT want to live in. Unsurprisingly, this list is far longer.

Fallout - Doesn't matter if it's the Capital Wasteland, Point Lookout, New Vegas, or even the NCR. The world is cold and brutal, where even day to day survival is questionable. Even if you live in one of more established cities, it's a constant state of war and chaos outside the walls and of course, constant supply chain issues.

Grand Theft Auto / Saints Row series - Of course, the cities are a caricature of America, and the crime is nowhere near that bad. However, there's a frightening amount of truth in these caricatures. I know, because I live in America.

Doom - Not much information is given regarding the day to day civilian life in this world, but nevertheless, a huge demonic invasion is a frightening prospect.

Bioshock - Regardless of whether it's Columbia or Rapture, even if I were one of the elites, in both cases the very high Gini index (wealth inequality) and a substantial underclass will threaten the stability of the city. Even if I don't consider the fact that both cities engage in morally objectionable practices, even someone without morals would or should be put off by how in both cases, they're ticking time bombs.

Half-Life - This should be obvious. The invader keeps you isolated, in constant poverty, and near constant starvation. The resistance is somewhat better, but there's always constant supply issues and winning the fight against the invader is a very long shot, at best. And there's a time limit. If the resistance doesn't succeed in 20 years, maybe 30 at the absolute most, it won't succeed, as the invader is SO technologically advanced, they developed a radio transmitter that somehow prevents pregnancy.

Portal - The risk of death is high, it's cold and lonely, and of course the cake is a lie.

Very interesting. This suggests one's ability to handle cream (or large quantities of dairy fat in general) might depend on the person, and maybe also depend on timing.

You know those quick-fix pasta packets? (e.g. Knorr brand) Despite the instructions calling for optional margarine, of course I use butter. The instructions also call for "low fat" milk. It seems if I use cream, the taste seems no different but without getting into way TMI, let's just say I have to run for the bathroom soon. Using half & half instead seems to prevent that.

It's a little frustrating and disappointing. Because man, if I could suck down a quart of cream every day consistently, I would. Maybe I jumped into it head first when I should have taken it slow first. I don't know.

This isn't a personal ad. Gonna move this to General, and hopefully this will get a bit more visibility.

Unfortunately I don't really have any answers for you, but hopefully someone else might.

I have sort of done this, with mixed results. I do NOT recommend buying anything much larger than your current size, or if you do, just one such item and no more.

It may serve to add to your frustration when you experience a plateau, which I believe everyone will experience at one point or another, for whatever reason.

At your current size, you may be able to get away with getting some 34s and maybe even some 36s. But once you get up to 38 and 40, it'll also take additional weight to add a couple more inches compared to when you gained the previous two inches. Each progressively larger size can also accommodate a larger weight range.

So, my suggestion would be clothes the next size up.

If you'd like to measure progress, you should get a tape measure if you don't have one already. I've yet to see one that isn't at least 5 feet long, though some are 10 feet.

One exception is underwear, of which most underwear is so stretchy, even an S-size will last longer than you might thing, and an XL will still mostly fit someone who'd get an M.

I should also note that for most men's bottoms these days, the inseam distance is on point but the waist size is different. Where X is the advertised number, X+2 is true inches count. So, 40x30 would be 42" around the waist, but the inseam is actually 30". Wrangler seems to be the only brand that doesn't do this, where 40 really means 40. No idea about Levi's nowadays, which actually shows outside what the size numbers are on that leather patch with the brand name. But yeah, that's an observation I've made regarding pretty much every other brand.

Sometimes, while walking around, I notice this and have been for awhile. So far, it hasn't been that big of a deal and it's not that extreme, but I know this is only ever going to get worse. I guess it's just one of those things that comes with no thigh gap. I just know it'll be even worse if and when I develop negative thigh gap (where if you keep your legs straight, it's difficult or impossible to place your feet side by side.

This thigh rub action only seems to occur at the top 1/2 of the thigh, or top 1/4 of the inseam length, which makes sense since that's where the thighs are thickest.

The TMI warning section:

I've also noticed it this often seems to collide with my "junk" which is occasionally annoying, so I probably want to think about "support" for that too.

End of TMI section.



So far, I've been using boxer shorts. I suppose briefs might offer better support, though that'd do nothing for slight thigh rub.

The possibly obvious answer might be to consider using boxer briefs. I had tried that before a long time ago, but I had a problem of it stretching out too much, possibly because of the wrong material.

So then I wonder.. could some materials be more resilient from getting stretched out of shape than others? Could being stretched out of shape be the cause of it being too tight? But if too loose or properly sized, would it still offer the same support?

Guess I'm not sure what to get. For obvious reasons, I can't try before I buy. But I would hate to buy something that ends up being nearly useless. So what I'm hoping for, is a possible starting point? Or if there's other solutions I haven't thought of.

Not really sure where I'm going with this, but I can't help but think there's a better way, somehow.

First of all, great job for mentioning possible substitutions, either because of dietary restrictions or how too much of X at once could affect some folks differently. It's one of those YMMV things, so there's no one-size-fits-all approach.

Interesting shake recipe, but I can't help but note a few things.

First is the ice cream with the highest posted calorie count is Haagan-Daz Chocolate Peanut Butter flavor, at 1,180 calories in 14 fl. oz. I will note that Haagan-Daz in general is much richer, probably more so than gelato (which I believe by definition is ice cream with a higher fat content). However, that specific flavor is just plain chocolate ice cream with chunks of peanut butter in it, so I don't consider it a very good value. I'd also say to only ever buy Haagen-Daz from Kroger when there's a sale (occurs about 1 or 2 weeks out of the month, and you have to buy at least 5 of them at once). Failing that, to get them at Wal-Mart (costs a bit more than when Kroger has sales, but Kroger doesn't always have the sale running and some areas may have no Kroger). Otherwise, the pricing is just too high.

I should also note that because of the higher fat content of Haagen-Daz (same holds true for other "super premium" ice cream like Magnum or B & J's), and because there's less additional "whipped" volume, it will take up more space when melted. So if you like the taste, by all means get it, but I don't know if it's the highest potential calorie density. Also of course, some flavors will include various solid bits that won't melt, or would only melt at much higher temperatures, such as the pecan nuts in the Butter Pecan flavor, or the dark chocolate bits in the the Mint Chocolate chip flavor. It might thus be possible to suck down more calories if you go with one of the regular ice cream flavors that will melt/compress into a smaller volume, and for shake recipes, it would probably be wise to avoid flavors with large solid bits like the examples I mentioned. I would have to double-check at some point to see what may have higher calorie density.


I'm also a little surprised that you suggested "protein powder" potentially mixed together with heavy cream, so I'm hoping you may be willing to expand on what you mean by protein powder. I'm assuming you aren't wrong, because you might have tried this at some point or used this recipe in the past.

I know a lot of so-called "weight gain" or "bulking" powders often contain maltodextrin. Cost ineffectiveness aside (damn if this stuff isn't costly), I can't help but note other problems. Raw, plain maltodextrin is far cheaper, but still has the same problems I'm about to mention.

In my experience, unless I did something wrong, it does NOT seem to mix well with dairy fat, and I've heard it has similar effects on cooking oils of various sorts as well. If anything, it will clump up horribly and has a solidifying effect. Awhile back, I attempted to mix half & half (not even heavy cream) with one of these "weight gain" powders. The mixture was SO thick, it was undrinkable. Don't even know if a Hoover vacuum would have been powerful enough. Then, I had to throw it out. I really, really hate waste like this.

I don't know if this is the best possible recipe, although I have noticed that I was able to mix, in a blender, 1/4 of a regular sized box of cake mix (doesn't matter what flavor, just whatever you like) with a pint of half & half. This is about 1,050-1,070 calories in about 20 fl. oz., and it's drinkable. I still haven't tried heavy cream in a blender, since technically it's heavy whipping cream and the last thing I want is for it to get into a whipped state. The whole point of a shake is something I can gulp easily while doing whatever (video games, working on the computer, running errands, driving somewhere), or even try to funnel if I'm so inclined.

Anyway, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

Nothing is guaranteed of course, but some observations I've made, which seem to increase the odds and likelihood of this. However, one could have one or more of these, and it won't necessarily happen.

- If one or both parents are very large but the individual is somehow not. The saying "make sure you meet a lady's mother because that's close to what you'll be stuck with in 25-40 years" very much holds true here.

- As the OP said, if there's already a bit of flab already, so that person is far less likely to be self-conscious.

- The individual dislikes very intensive cardio activity. Gym activity is more likely to include strength training, if the individual goes to the gym at all.

- The individual owns one, or even no pairs of sneakers.

- Those who prefer calorie laden, fattening foods.

- Those who like to party. Not all alcoholic beverages are loaded with calories, but some are. Regardless, they tend to be in addition to whatever food, and this can sometimes inspire late-night hunger.

- Anyone with a background from the Deep South, due to a higher degree of acceptance and food being a central part of the overall culture.

- Anyone in a physically sedentary, or mostly sedentary job, where the taxing aspect of the job is not physical. This includes most office jobs, most jobs in education, and many drivers and heavy equipment operators of various sorts.

- Some individuals respond to stress by eating more.

- Having small children cuts into time that could be used for cardio, and can increase stress sometimes. See previous.

- Small children increases the overall presence of snack and junk food, which you will inadvertently eat more of. Combine this with additional eating and snacking on the run.

- Individuals who live in the suburbs and face a long daily commute. No time for the gym, eating and snacking on the run.

- Individuals who telecommute regularly, since almost by definition, this has to be a desk job.

- Someone who likes to get fast food often, perhaps even weekly or more often.

- Anyone with a major sweet tooth.

- Often engaging in activities that may be more focused around food. For example, cooking classes.

- Anyone who engages in shift work long term (outside of regular business hours).

- Working long hours may encourage snacking and eating on the run.

- Those who really, really get into cooking and baking. There's some exceptions but for the most part, in general they tend to be heavier.

- Preferred leisure activities are mostly or entirely sedentary.

- An unwillingness to regularly wear clothes that are too tight. This could mean the individual doesn't expect to lose weight anytime soon, if ever.


There's probably a lot more. This is just what I came up with off the top of my head.

Thank you for reporting this. I also saw the abuse report, though that didn't have a link to the screenshot or other evidence. Fortunately I noticed this thread, so I can take action.

Though in the future, if you could link to the evidence in the abuse report, that would be better overall. I wonder if/when hiccupx could include some sort of attachment function in abuse reports.

I'd like to be bigger than Santa Claus.

Just kidding.. I don't think that's realistic for me in the time allotted.

Kind of wished I'd be up to 200 lbs by now, but not even sure if that's reasonable by the end of the year. That'd be 8-10 lbs a month, and I'm lucky to go up a pound a month or so. Always one thing or another that prevents me from eating as much as I'd like.

Maybe instead, I'll try to get up to a daily baseline of at least 3,000 calories a day, or if I can somehow make jars of peanut butter a part of a constant routine, blowing past 4,500 shouldn't be hard.

Also can't quite believe I forgot about peanut butter straight from the jar. So, maybe I'll try that instead. The small 16.3 oz. jar of Peter Pan peanut butter has an estimated 14 servings, or about 2,800 calories in the entire jar. The other day, I got through 3/4 of such a jar easy. Not even sure why I didn't just finish it off.. I don't think it would have been that hard.

+1

I think this should be an overall improvement.

Orientation is already even in profiles, albeit within the "Dating" section that most can't see. Building on this, a suggestion might be to move orientation to the "About Me" of a profile.

The main advantage of doing this, that I see, is that for the most part, less undesired attention from other users. Straight folks don't want potential romantic attention from LGBT members, and vice versa.

As a bonus, as far as interaction in general, anti-LGBT bigots who don't express this position (they'd likely end up violating web site rules if they do) would also leave the LGBT folks alone.

The only downside I can think of is this could mean some straight women might end up with even more attention, but I have the impression the ones who stay and can deal with it, are already used to it, and I can't imagine it getting much worse than it already is.