On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 19:55:00 -0700 (PDT), Tommy Joe
> wrote:

>On Aug 25, 4:32*am, "Julie Bove" > wrote:
>
>
>> You might be on to something!
>
>
> Turns out I was wrong, my suspicions unfounded. I found this out
>from a scientist friend of mine who knows a lot about these things.
>He said my theory was smart but very doubtful, nearly impossible. He
>did say however that back in the 80s when tight pants with no back
>pockets were promoted with the purpose of those buying and wearing the
>pants losing money from not having enough pockets to safely carry
>things, as well as pockets too tight to fit things into properly.
>Over a period of several years, my expert scientist friend told me,
>many tight pants lovers became disenchanted with the style due to
>losing money and other valuables due to the impractical pants, and
>this was done on purpose by the manufacturers who for years had been
>secretly waiting to spring the fanny pack onto the public.

With your monster ass you don't need any widdle fanny pack. LOL
I see obese women who think wearing tights hides their lard, they
often wear a fanny pack or three... I swear, those gals gotta have
bigger balls then me. LOL Whenever I spot a BBW I have to get a peek
at her bosom, most hardly have more than a a small roll of fat but
some have monster udders with cleavage like the Grand Canyon.