Request for deletion, as I'm not seeing the reasoning behind the implication in the first place. Fat is fat, obese is obese. It makes no sense to imply one from the other.

Logically, people would search as follows to find things in an image:

Fat = [ fat ]
Obese = [ obese ]
Either = [ ~fat ~obese ]
Both = [ fat obese ]

By contrast, with that implication in place the required search terms become:

Fat = [ fat -obese ]
Obese = [ obese ]
Either = [ fat ]
Both = (impossible to search for)

... Which really doesn't make any sense.

I disagree.

Obese is fat, fat is obese.

Fat can ALSO mean chubby, or morbidly obese... and both mean 'fat' as well. Ultimately, I think 'fat' covers ALL 'not skinny' images... or at least 'obese' and 'morbidly obese'...

Personally, I'd like to see every image with O and MO tagged 'fat'... because they *are*... obesity is just another word that describes the same thing.

To me, it's like.. 'fat' is 'canine'... 'obese' is 'wolf,' 'morbidly obese' is 'fox,' 'chubby' is 'doberman'... etc.

I'm aware that you've posted a 'hierarchy of fat' in the comments of some pictures (chubby, fat, obese, morbidly obese)... The problem with it is, it's all sort of based on perspective. My 'normal' is someone else's 'chubby' after all, and where's the line between obese and morbidly obese? I think the "system" would word better with, say, three tags... chubby, heavy, and morbidly obese... (or replace 'heavy' with obese -- heavy only has a few images, and most of them seem to be hyper-sized breasts, or carrying heavy items... it'd be easy to 'steal' that tag).. and let 'fat' and maybe 'obese' be automatically implicated.

Plus, right now, looking at the first page of results for 'obese' and 'morbidly obese' it would seem that users right now already don't 'get' the distinction... As I see several in 'morbidly' that belong in 'hyper,' or 'chubby'.. and likewise, in 'obese' there are a number of 'morbidly obese,' 'hyper,' and 'chubby'...

I'd suggest a tag like "unrealistically_obese" but that just ADDS to tbe problem....

Fat is just a regular chubby person. Obese is someone who is quite hard to miss.

Ultima_Weapon said:
Fat is just a regular chubby person. Obese is someone who is quite hard to miss.

But if I were looking for "chubby", I'd search for "chubby". If I were looking for obese, I'd search for "fat" first, and probably only be clued into the tag "obese" upon seeing some of the heavier characters tagged as both "fat" and "obese".

I thought "unrealistically obese" was already covered by "hyper"?

ikdind said:
But if I were looking for "chubby", I'd search for "chubby". If I were looking for obese, I'd search for "fat" first, and probably only be clued into the tag "obese" upon seeing some of the heavier characters tagged as both "fat" and "obese".

I thought "unrealistically obese" was already covered by "hyper"?

No, hyper usually refers to muscle and body size, not fat.

I don't care what you call it, just pick one generic term as well so that it's easier to blacklist. I'm getting tired of taggers with thesauruses making it hard to hide the fat pictures.

Shatari said:
I don't care what you call it, just pick one generic term as well so that it's easier to blacklist. I'm getting tired of taggers with thesauruses making it hard to hide the fat pictures.

If you're tired of waiting, then think up every name for the word fat that you can, and add them all to your blacklist. Then you won't have to worry.

Ultima_Weapon said:
If you're tired of waiting, then think up every name for the word fat that you can, and add them all to your blacklist. Then you won't have to worry.

Uh, no, I don't think so. Blacklisting is a perfectly valid reason for wanting a tagging convention to which people should conform.

As for the implication, I'm okay with "fat" being the superset of "chubby", "obese", et al. I would find it confusing, however, for fat to be some sort of exclusive sub-zone between "obese" and "chubby", and I think that's getting to be too specific.

Ultima_Weapon said:
No, hyper usually refers to muscle and body size, not fat.

Hyper can definitely apply to fat. Specifically, it's hard not to call something hyper when it would be measured in thousands of pounds, instead of hundreds (assuming we aren't talking about a blue whale or a full sized dragon or something)

Stuff like that isn't very common.

Then again, I do agree that the various tags for "fat" need to be consolidated, as there is absolutely no consistency at all between chubby, fat, and obese. You can basically pick any of the 3 terms and pull up nearly indistinguishable subsets of pictures.

Marbles said:
Hyper can definitely apply to fat. Specifically, it's hard not to call something hyper when it would be measured in thousands of pounds, instead of hundreds (assuming we aren't talking about a blue whale or a full sized dragon or something)

Stuff like that isn't very common.

Then again, I do agree that the various tags for "fat" need to be consolidated, as there is absolutely no consistency at all between chubby, fat, and obese. You can basically pick any of the 3 terms and pull up nearly indistinguishable subsets of pictures.

Usually when I see a character who is uber fat, I also see the inflation tag with it, regardless whether the character has actually been inflated, or is just obese.

You guys can't even seem to do "chubby" right. :<
Why am I getting pictures like these when I search "chubby":

http://e621.net/post/show/93448/bed-big_breasts-breasts-canine-chubby-dog-fat-fema
i'm sorry, but I don't want to see obese furs when I type in chubby. :/

http://e621.net/post/show/93447/bed-big_butt-breasts-butt-chubby-clitoris-female-f
http://e621.net/post/show/93439/big_breasts-breasts-chubby-female-hindpaw-kangaroo
http://e621.net/post/show/93447/bed-big_butt-breasts-butt-chubby-clitoris-female-f

More offenders. I'm sorry, but when a character looks pretty much like a big round ball/apple, they are not chubby, chubby means having a little extra, maybe a little beer gut, or thick thighs and a little pouch, not a big fat rolling mass of character :/

now see this: http://e621.net/post/show/92007/big_breasts-breasts-chubby-doctor_ewe-doctorewe-dr this is a chubby character
and so is this: http://e621.net/post/show/88045/canine-chubby-cub-fat-fox-male-nude-penis-shota-si

chubby does not mean rolls of body fat, which is what I find a lot of when I search chubby...

baracudaboy said:
You guys can't even seem to do "chubby" right. :<

...

chubby does not mean rolls of body fat, which is what I find a lot of when I search chubby...

Problem: People are stupid, and think using 'cute' terms instead of accurate ones is acceptable in tags.

Not sure exactly what can be done, other than maybe bludgeon people with awareness that what they're doing is wrong. :/

acct0283476 said:
People are stupid

bludgeon people with...

This. People also like to make up stupid tags and notes for dumb shit.

baracudaboy said:
chubby does not mean rolls of body fat, which is what I find a lot of when I search chubby...

Watch out for my body rolls~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1c2KzJbcGA

baracudaboy said:http://e621.net/post/show/93448/bed-big_breasts-breasts-canine-chubby-dog-fat-fema
i'm sorry, but I don't want to see obese furs when I type in chubby. :/

Meh. I've been with someone as big as that before. Definitely obese though.

If you are actually aware of what defines obesity in real life, and what is a healthy weight... well, chubby is basically everything between the two.

If I were looking for obese, I'd search for "fat" first, and probably only be clued into the tag "obese" upon seeing some of the heavier characters tagged as both "fat" and "obese".

This is exactly my point. :D

and it makes it easier to blacklist, if fat covers everything. :)

sually when I see a character who is uber fat, I also see the inflation tag with it, regardless whether the character has actually been inflated, or is just obese.

and then you get people going "Is she pregnant? I think she's pregnant" and then you have fat, obese, morbidly obese, inflated and pregnant all on the same picture. ;) Which isn't nessecarily a BAD thing... if they're visualyl indistinguishable...

The above is not entierly relevant, BTW :D

baracudaboy said: Links

I'd argue that http://e621.net/post/show/93439/big_breasts-breasts-chubby-female-hindpaw-kangaroo COULD be chubby.. it's hard to tell because of the weird angel and proportions. her boobs are HUGE and so are her thighs, but her belly doesn't seem that big.

Marbles said: If you are actually aware of what defines obesity in real life, and what is a healthy weight... well, chubby is basically everything between the two.

I'd argue that. The whole BMI thing is bull.

Look here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/77367764@N00/sets/72157602199008819/

That's a flicker set of real people in realcloths and what their BMI is and what that 'means' they are (warning, the last image has a very blurry image of a topless woman with her hands covering her boobs):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/77367764@N00/1457384857/in/set-72157602199008819/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/77367764@N00/1463260554/in/set-72157602199008819/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/77367764@N00/1559653551/in/set-72157602199008819/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/77367764@N00/1459208150/in/set-72157602199008819/

Personally, the overweight girl seems 'jsut right' to me... the two 'obese' chicks seem 'chubby' (though the first one could be 'just right'.. that's a very nice photo of her). and the last one personally rides the line between 'chubby' and 'obese' to me. Not 'morbidly obese' as her BMI would suggest.

Food (har har) for thought if you will.

SnowWolf said:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/77367764@N00/1457384857/in/set-72157602199008819/[/quote]She is nearly identical to my weight. She's overweight, because I'd be boldfaced lying if I said I wasn't. It's obvious in her stomach where she, like me, is carrying about 20 pounds of raw fat on the stomach.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/77367764@N00/1463260554/in/set-72157602199008819/[/quote]Deceptive angle. Can't tell shit.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/77367764@N00/1559653551/in/set-72157602199008819/[/quote]I call bullshit. My partner is 5'8" and 210 pounds too, and it visibly obese. I should know, we make love on a daily basis, and there is no way she could not be described as obese, and while I love her with all my heart, we are both worried about her health. She wears a size XXL, and has trouble finding any pants that will fit her as her pants as her waistline is 44 inches. And she is roughly in the same shape as an apple; her torso is nearly as wide as it is long.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/77367764@N00/1459208150/in/set-72157602199008819/[/quote]Worthless picture. Can't tell shit about it. EDIT: Seriously, she's 5'10" and 302 pounds. Even if she was a professional bodybuilder (which she's obviously not) she wouldn't even come close to that weight. The picture is deceptive as hell.

Look, there's a big difference from being "brutally honest about your weight" and "trying to pose or take a picture in such as way as to hide your weight".

Oh hey look, I can suck in my gut when I take a picture too! http://i27.tinypic.com/2eb4hnd.jpg Doesn't mean I don't still have a freaking beer belly. I'm just going out of my way to hide it in that photo. Like most everyone, I look substantially better in pictures than I do in real life, because "Oh hey, I can take a dozen pictures and pick out the one which obscures how terrible I look"

*raises eye brow* I think you missed the poitn of my post... or perhaps not.

The girl in red is not carrying around "20 pounds of raw fat".... Im' sorry, but no. Maybe I'm biased, but that's some really harsh wording there.

Yes, the second picture is a deceptive angel, but that's the *POINT*. This is all about perceptions. What is chubby, what's obese, what's morbidly obese? We're not goign to pull characters out of drawings and determine height to weight ratios. This is ALL about what you see. Deceptive angles are used all the time here. Characters leaning over slightly to make boobs look bigger, low angles, high angles, forced perspective. So. Looking at the image, looking at the drawing, right here infront of us now, Who is chubby? who's obese? THAT is the question.

Not "She's obviously sucking it in, so she's obese, not chubby".

...On an aside... this is off my topic... but... wow, n regards to your girl... I am a female, I am 5'8 and weigh 240. (I am losing weight, after having a bad few years.) I too wear an XXL. However, my torso is not 'as wide as it is long', my waistline is about 36 inches, and have no problems finding pants. I am obese, I am morbidly obese. I am fat. I am way past chubby. And I think your numbers are off. If your girlfriend is really sized like you say, you might should look into a different scale. A lot of bathroom scales are inaccurate over around 200lbs.

And no, I totally belive that tht girl is 200lbs. it's--again--perspective. she's angled just so, and wearing a fabric that hels conceal her belly. she's also sucking it in, as you say.

But none of that matters.

We are discussing drawn images. And how they appear. and the diffrene betewen morbidly obese and chubby, and why BMI doesn't work for tagging images, because everyone with even a slight belly would be tagged mobidly obese. :P

Here's what I figure.

In a drawn image, odds are if you are drawing a character overweight, obese, morbidly obese, or fuck even uberfat... whatever you want to tag them, they are drawn that way because that's how the artist wanted them to look. They aren't going to go out of their way to hide it like a person would in a photograph (or if they were having the character trying to hide it, they'd make it obvious that the character was trying to hide it).

Also. Tag what you see.

...

As a general rule, with regards to real life weight, it doesn't do anybody good to pretend that the problem isn't there. Hell, even 5 pounds of fat is a lot http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/features/health/theskinny/blog/fatblob.jpg

The definition of obesity and stuff is largely about the point where you start having a chance of weight related medical problems occurring. It's not supposed to be an argument on beauty.

I have made love over the years with people of all sizes. from as small as 90 pounds, to the biggest being around 570 pounds. To be frankly honest, I generally found the people who were medically obese to be more attractive. Soft, squishy, Marble's likes big butts and she cannot lie? But the fact that I find overweight people attractive doesn't mean "Oh, it's too harsh for them to be considered medically obese". Because sadly, we live in a world where the human body has a tendency to start damaging itself if a person has more than very little fat on their body. It sucks.

...

EDIT: On the subject of BMI, you were the one who brought it up SnowWolf, not me. And no I'm not suggesting that taggers should eyeball character's height and weight and do the math to figure out if they are medically obese or not.

As for in real life, is BMI perfect? No. Is it reasonably accurate? Yes. BMI works accurately enough for it's purposes as long as you are not: a child, a midget, basketball player tall, or a person who exercises. Now, if you fall in one of those categories, of course BMI won't work for you, and you need to use water displacement to figure out what percentage of body fat you have.

For adults, of reasonably average height, who don't exercise (AKA 95+% of adults), it is an accurate measurement. And screaming at the heavens "BUT IT DOES NOT WORK FOR CHILDREN AND BODYBUILDERS" does not make it any less accurate.

Are there people it doesn't work on? Hell yeah. One of my friends is about 270 pounds, and lifts weights daily. He can benchpress stuff that scares the crap outta me. Because he exercises, he has built a lot of muscle, and BMI gives a grossly exaggerated number. He's still obese (both visibly and medically by water displacement), but not nearly as obese as BMI says he is.

Do you lift weights? Do you jog? Are you a child? A midget? 7ft+ tall? No? Then BMI is accurate for you within a reasonable variance, and no amount of protesting that she is the most beautiful person I have ever met in my life will change that my lifemate is obese, and has high blood pressure, and I'm deeply terrified that she is going to die long before I do.

SnowWolf said:

Look here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/77367764@N00/sets/72157602199008819/[/quote]

I'm sorry, but this CANNOT be "morbidly obese": http://www.flickr.com/photos/77367764@N00/1455482846/in/set-72157602199008819/ because, if shes mirbidly obese what the hell do you call those people that use the wheelchairs at walmart and weigh about 300?? Megas?

I don't have the time, MArbles for as complete a reply as I might want to offer... and I strongly suspect that we'd keep chasing eachother in circles around this too :) and this isn't really the place for it either... but.. in short...

we agree. Even if we're not agreeing. I think.

Tag what you see. IE, tag what you percieve the picture to be.

Yes, I brought up BMI, but you were the one who said "what defines obesity and real life"... a lot of people belive that that = BMI... and I'd remembered that website (which happened to measure things using a BMI scale), so... pretty much. BMI was what I had convinient. My point wasn't so much about how horrible BMI is, but that 98% of "fat" art is going to be in the morbidly obese catagory, if you go off of BMI standards. Actually, 90% of THAT is probably in the Terrifyingly, unrealistically Morbidly obese catagory, but that's neither here nor there.

The VISUAL difference, for an illustrated character covered in FUR between 'normal' and 'obese' is slim, and the girls I linked to listed as 'obese' would likely just be called chubby. Thus, I"m suggesting that the 'fat catagories' be gneralized a bit, or thrown out the window. Fat is fat, chubby is fat, Obese is fat, but chubby is not obese. I don't know. I actually think I like that better... three tags: one to cover fat, one or a little fat and one for a whole lot of fat and peopel an duke it out as to if a particualr image is a little or a lot.

I'm not debating attractiveness, or aestetics, or health or anything like that. Just tagging conventions in my wish to make e621 a better place. :)

I"m sorry if I started harassing a sensitive topic for you, it wasn't my intention to start a large debate over this

baracudaboy said: if shes mirbidly obese what the hell do you call those people that use the wheelchairs at walmart and weigh about 300?? Megas?

Terrifyingly, hugely, unbelievably obese. ;)

Off the top of my head, the only two artists I know who regularly draw what I would tag as chubby are Lucah and Inuki. I'm sure there are other artists that frequently draw chubby, but I can't think of any immediately by name. Neither of which would be morbidly obese.

For an example of where I would call the cutting point. post #91041 and post #93449 got tagged chubby, but I really think that's too heavy to call chubby, and should only get the tag fat. Particularly post #91041 I would consider an excellent example of the "cut off point" between fat and chubby, and that picture is fairly closely matching the proportions of my lifemate. post #87640 would be an example on the other side, a character which is just on the border of not being tagged chubby anymore, but I would still consider chubby.

A person who is inshape has about a 1 to 3 ratio of torso width to torso height (shoulders to crotch), maybe 1.2 to 3 or so. A person who would, in my opinion, get tagged fat, is when they exceed a 2 to 3 ratio (AKA, approaching nearly apple-like). AKA they are about 60% as wide in the torso as they are long. Chubby would be everything between that 1/3 and 2/3 ratio.

That's just the sorta way I look at images.

Then of course you have macro which get's tagged as fat and chubby, which I don't really think it should, as they aren't the same thing IMO. Example: post #93440

EDIT: Another eyeballing metric: Assuming average height, if you put your arms around the person's stomach, could your hands touch? If not, they shouldn't get the chubby tag, only the fat tag. (Marbles was sad the day her hands could no longer touch each other behind her lifemate's back.)

Just as a note on post #93440: it's all a matter of proportions IMHO. It's tagged chubby for the shape of the hyena, not the size of the hyena. I don't see why being a foot or two taller would exempt them from such tags -- and a foot or two difference is hardly 'macro'. :/

http://www.e621.net/post/show/91041 I agree is an excellent example of the line between fat and chubby. She does also look like a large-boned sort of creature. http://www.e621.net/post/show/93449 is.... well.. scary for one. I don't think anatomy works like that... but I'll agree, is definetly fat.

http://www.e621.net/post/show/93440 On the other hand is neither chubby, nor fat. The only "macro" I see there is the giant cock and huge breasts. However, I think that is technically suposed to by hyper, not macro. Regardless, Hyenas are pretty hefty animals--generally weighing about twice as much as a standard poodle... so, yeah. That picture really should, IMHO, be retagged :D

(SnowWolf thinks Marble's lifemate is very lucky to have someone who cares so much about her!)

acct0283476 said:
Request for deletion, as I'm not seeing the reasoning behind the implication in the first place. Fat is fat, obese is obese. It makes no sense to imply one from the other.

Logically, people would search as follows to find things in an image:

Fat = [ fat ]
Obese = [ obese ]
Either = [ ~fat ~obese ]
Both = [ fat obese ]

By contrast, with that implication in place the required search terms become:

Fat = [ fat -obese ]
Obese = [ obese ]
Either = [ fat ]
Both = (impossible to search for)

... Which really doesn't make any sense.

The point of tags isn't semantics about varying degrees of being fat, it's helping the most number of average users possible search, and helping them blacklist.

At one point here on the site, due to fractional tagging, I had to have 5 or 6 different terms on my blacklist just to stop seeing morbidly fat porn posted. People were posting things that were wider than they are tall and calling it "chubby", or posting "morbidly_obese" but not "fat" or "obese". That's unacceptable, and it's precisely because of divergent tagging and a lack of aliasing.

Aliasing corrects these problems, and if you have a problem with the aliasing it's a lot easier to expect the minority to search for "fat" and have to wade through some "obese" images, than to expect the majority to maintain a growing library of 5+ blacklisted tags just to stop seeing fat porn.

It's not like someone aliased watersports to scat. This is all varying degrees of the same fetish, which a lot of people would like an easy way to blacklist to keep them from complaining in the comments of your favored images.

Oh, well, then should we just merge all breast size tags to big_breasts, including city-sized hyper? After all, it's all the same fetish, right? -_-

You want an easy way to blacklist? LOOK IN THE DAMN WIKI. Head to the page for the most common tag, and there should be this cute little list at the bottom of related tags!

... I'm sorry, but the 'my laziness in blacklisting is more important than your ability to comprehensively search for what you like' mindset is really starting to piss me off. The fact that many people tag poorly because they're ignorant or don't like using accurate terms is not sufficient reason to abandon the goal of having useful or logical tags altogether.

Inaccurate or insufficient tags on an image can be fixed by someone who comes across it. Having a simplistic tagging system that prevents detail through over-aliasing can't.

so.....much.....reading......

acct0283476 said:
I don't see why being a foot or two taller would exempt them from such tags -- and a foot or two difference is hardly 'macro'. :/

SnowWolf said:
http://www.e621.net/post/show/93440 On the other hand is neither chubby, nor fat. The only "macro" I see there is the giant cock and huge breasts. However, I think that is technically suposed to by hyper, not macro.

I'm sorry, I mis-spoke. I meant hyper. Sometimes I get the two words mixed up in my head due to them being reasonably similar, and neither of them being a personal fetish of mine.

EDIT: The more I think about it, the arms around the waist seems like a really good metric. "Assuming you are the same height as the character, if you would not be able reach your arms around the person, they should be tagged obese/fat, not chubby."

EDIT: I really think that fat should be consolidated to three terms. Chubby, Fat/Obese (either term works), and uberchub/uberfat (either term works). With uberchub/uberfat being the hyper equivalent for fat (instead of penises/breasts/whatever). I think having more than 3 categories is excessively complicated, and just causes inaccurate and inconsistant tagging. But you cannot reduce it to a single category either like WaffleSteel wants, for obvious reasons.

EDIT: Since, for a lack of a better way to describe it, this is a personal "fetish" of mine, if a mod says it's okay or whatever, I'll help clean up all the fat-related tags into one of those three categories. I mean there's only 600 images or so; unless there's some limit on how many tags I can change in one day, it shouldn't be too hard to get straight.

EDIT: Oh god a lot of edits.

Here's an idea. Why not treat the fat fetishes like we do intersexed? We could expand the implication of "fat" to include "chubby", "obese", and "uberfat", much like how "intersex" is currently implied by "herm", "dickgirl", and "cuntboy". Then just consolidate the rest of the tags down to those three, combined with maybe some aliases to try and force people to only use those three terms.

Lemme put it all in one place, cause it's getting confusing to make out what all I was saying in my long wall of text posts.

~~PROPOSAL~~

Tag Definitions:

Chubby = Fat character, that another character of the same height would be ABLE to reach their arms around them.
Obese = Fat character, that another character of the same height would be UNABLE to reach their arms around them.
Uberfat = Fat character, which is a hyper of fat, as opposed to penis/breast/whatever.

Tag Implications:

Chubby -> Fat
Obese -> Fat
Uberfat -> Fat

I agree with Marbles' consolidated proposal :D

Fat the overarching term, and chubby, obese and uberfat/uberchub are the 'degrees'. I actually really like the 'uberfat' concept myself. There will still be a gray area ( http://e621.net/post/show/90359 ) but at least it'll help keep the 'oh my god the legs don't even reach the ground~!' out of the 'Fried food is a food group' :D

and it'll make it so that anyone who DOESN'T want to see stuff like this, can black list easily :D

... ... uhm.. now how does this get put into action or whatever?

I figure I've argued so much for this sort of idea, I may as well help with the tagging. (This actually isn't one of my fetishes ^^; but I like keeping things organized :D)

SnowWolf said:
... ... uhm.. now how does this get put into action or whatever?

No idea. I don't wanna get in trouble for tag vandalism if I go and change some 2000+ tags over the course of one very boring day without having mod/admin approval first.

As for the uberfat/uberchub thing. I don't think the tag is currently used on e621, but there certainly should be a tag to describe those rare 20,000+ pound images, where the person is fat enough that a small city could set up on their stomach with room to spare. I actually can't recall seeing many images of this type on e621, though I know I've seen them fairly regularly on other sites, and I have a few doze in my person collection on my computer which I should probably go ahead and upload.

In before people get angry at me for posting a small flood of something they think is gross.

EDIT: Ahh, uberfat/uberchub is currently getting tagged Morbidly_obese.

Hrrruuhmm. Well, hopefulyl someoen will tell us. *looks around hopefully*

as for uberfat/uberchub... I think these'd be counted under that:

post #85529 (though debatebly it shouldn't be here in fat at all as I think this is inflation...ish.)
post #83112 (as that is an unrealistic amount of hugeness, though is pretty minor compared to...)
post #75266
post #94447

I don't think any of those count as 20K plus (well, maybe that last one) but they definerly are in the realm of heartstopingly unrealistically fat. :)

But, eh, ultimatly, the exact border doesn't matter so much, as the important parts (tag implications and definetions) are covered :D

:P

I uploaded that last one yesterday. I uploaded 5 pics. I dont upload very often though, so I haven't got in the groove of it yet, takes me a while to do it.

About 90% of what is under morbidly obese would fall under an uberfat title too, in fact, that seems to be more or less what they decided the morbidly obese tag meant.

No offense meant by that of course ;) Just she is heartstoppingly unrealistically fat XD Not horifingly or anything... I actually think she's rather cute, but.. yeah XD

I've only uploaded a few things myself, and the tagging does take a bit to get in the groove of. the 'recent tags' is pretty awesome, but which in included more of 'em, or maybe the most recent AND most common tags you've used recently.... when you're uploading stuff with different but sometimes related subject matter, it becomes sort of a strategy game to get the images uploaded in the right order to minimize redundant typing XD

But, that's neither here nor there :D

also: one more reason morbidly obese should be called something other then it is now :D