You'reasian Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 I go to grad school, so no. Aha! There's one meal that you're skipping out on that will start your day and give you necessary calories... I try! My appetite is pretty good though--I can eat an entire Chipotle in one sitting. I know, not very dainty Who care. Eat. I like it when the girl I'm hanging out with has an apetite like I do!
movingonandon Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 The tinier, the better . Not that i'd mind wrestling a vixen into submission, but it seems like too much work over the long run . That said, height would be the last thing I'd look into as a decision criterion, unless we're talking about 6'+ women --> while some are proportionate and still attractive, many of those are just freaks, must be the hormones in the milk and all
doushenka Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 I just ran the girls I'm dating now through the BMI calculator and it said 17, 17, 17.2. ...I was in treatment for anorexia at those weights. I'm small-framed like you wouldn't believe and I still looked sick. Not buying that it's healthy, sorry.
clv0116 Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 ...I was in treatment for anorexia at those weights. I'm small-framed like you wouldn't believe and I still looked sick. Not buying that it's healthy, sorry. Are you 5' flat? If it's permitted to post G rated non-identifiable images I can show you one of the skeletons in question. She's pretty curvy. Stats; 4' 11 @ 85 pounds. That's a 17 BMI on a short girl.
anne1707 Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 Look up the word over in a dictionary and get back to me on that OK? . Fair enough. I was taking a more rigid interpretation than I should have done. Just to clarify, I have no problem with somebody liking thinner women. The reasoning behind my posts was not how could somebody find a thin woman attractive or prefer thinner women. It was more along the concerns for the health of someone who is very underweight. I may be wrong but I think 30lbs underweight is more unhealthy than 30lbs overweight.
Isolde Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 Fair enough. I was taking a more rigid interpretation than I should have done. Just to clarify, I have no problem with somebody liking thinner women. The reasoning behind my posts was not how could somebody find a thin woman attractive or prefer thinner women. It was more along the concerns for the health of someone who is very underweight. I may be wrong but I think 30lbs underweight is more unhealthy than 30lbs overweight. It depends on the frame. I'd look absolutely horrible at 5'4 and 150, but it could look pretty ok on someone with a big frame.
The Collector Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 of the skeletons in question. She's pretty curvy. Stats; 4' 11 @ 85 pounds. I think we're dating the same woman.
Isolde Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 I am all for being on the thin side of average weight--I think that is the range that looks best on the vast majority of women.
clv0116 Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 I think we're dating the same woman. Hehehe. I'm not dating her anymore now but she's almost the tiniest woman I ever dated and I had a pic handy so she was a good choice to illustrate the build we're talking about. The BMI system is interesting but like all attempts to boil down a complex subject into a single number it's pretty flawed for edge cases. For instance according to BMI I'm also obese simply because it doesn't differentiate between lean muscle mass and lard.
lino Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 yep, the BMI is a load of sh*t and I don't think it's a useful guide for people trying to lose weight at all! People need to forget about BMI's and ideal figures for body weights or dress sizes. It's so simple. Just look in the mirror... If you don't like what you see then get off the couch/computer and start moving!
Author I'm Joe Posted February 5, 2009 Author Posted February 5, 2009 My Conclusion: Wemon - Height is definitely important, men must be taller. Men - Height not important, wemon must have vagina. As a man the only downside I could see to being with a woman taller than you would be the time you had to ask her to grab something that was out of your reach.... at that point you mind as well put a skirt on and start cleaning the house...
doushenka Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 Are you 5' flat? If it's permitted to post G rated non-identifiable images I can show you one of the skeletons in question. She's pretty curvy. Stats; 4' 11 @ 85 pounds. That's a 17 BMI on a short girl. Yes. I remember what 17 looked like on me at, surprise, 4'11" and eighty-five pounds. It looked a lot slimmer than that, again, to the point of unattractiveness. Arms like sticks, thighs that didn't meet in the middle, all knees and ribs and hipbones -- and no chest to speak of, oh no. I have no idea where she's getting those curves.
Chicago_Guy Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 I don't really care about height, but since I work out and stay in shape I can't tolerate fat chicks. I guess I'd shy away from extremes but the average in America is about 5' 4 and anything near that is fine. That reply made me laugh! It was totally not p.c., but I am in complete agreement myself! I am about 5' 8.5", which is probably on the lower end of "average height" for men. My last girlfriend was 5'0", and her height was not an issue at all. However, if she had been a little but shorter, it may have been an issue for me. There are definitely some women taller than me. I would date a girl as tall as maybe 1 inch taller than me, although she'd have to be very physically fit or I might feel a little self-conscious about it.
clv0116 Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 Yes. I remember what 17 looked like on me at, surprise, 4'11" and eighty-five pounds. It looked a lot slimmer than that, again, to the point of unattractiveness. Arms like sticks, thighs that didn't meet in the middle, all knees and ribs and hipbones -- and no chest to speak of, oh no. I have no idea where she's getting those curves. Well she's not fat looking at all, her blouse is just hanging down from gravity so in all fairness that pic makes her look bigger than she is. She's tiny, her waist has to be in the low 20s, and her hips are very narrow, tiny wrists - I can touch my fingertips and thumbtips around her wrists very very easily. AS for 'chest', I'd guess about an A+ or B- but it looks like more because she's so small everywhere. Probably you have a bigger frame even at your height.
Trialbyfire Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 Are you 5' flat? If it's permitted to post G rated non-identifiable images I can show you one of the skeletons in question. She's pretty curvy. Stats; 4' 11 @ 85 pounds. That's a 17 BMI on a short girl. While I don't care what your preferences are, that girl is not 85 lbs, unless she's shorter than 4'11". Try 95 to 100 lbs. I think you might be the victim of someone who's...under-assessing...or using historical weights.
sumdude Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 While I don't care what your preferences are, that girl is not 85 lbs, unless she's shorter than 4'11". Try 95 to 100 lbs. I think you might be the victim of someone who's...under-assessing...or using historical weights. I don't know about that.. if that girl is 4' 11".. my ex wife was around 5' 2" and weighed a healthy 100 lbs after gaining just a few.. so 85 at that height is not a huge stretch... very small frame. The whole BMI thing is skewed unless you use an index that takes bone measurements at the wrists and elbows. Otherwise I'd be considered obese at 5' 11" 225.. but I have a very broad chest and big bones.. that said my ideal weight is probably 200-210 ish.. but i like beer, wine and pasta too much.
clv0116 Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 While I don't care what your preferences are, that girl is not 85 lbs, unless she's shorter than 4'11". Try 95 to 100 lbs. I think you might be the victim of someone who's...under-assessing...or using historical weights. I thought it was low too, but the fish scale said 89 or so and she was dressed. Some people are just really small. I didn't check her height however.
Trialbyfire Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 I don't know about that.. if that girl is 4' 11".. my ex wife was around 5' 2" and weighed a healthy 100 lbs after gaining just a few.. so 85 at that height is not a huge stretch... very small frame. The whole BMI thing is skewed unless you use an index that takes bone measurements at the wrists and elbows. Otherwise I'd be considered obese at 5' 11" 225.. but I have a very broad chest and big bones.. that said my ideal weight is probably 200-210 ish.. but i like beer, wine and pasta too much. I'm similar in size as your ex-wife, although she's a touch smaller than I am in height and weight. Ten pounds on someone that small, makes a huge amount of difference, where on a full grown male, is barely noticeable, if at all. When I was 5 lbs heavier, there was a difference in the looseness of my pants, primarily around the waist, since I don't have much body fat and no cellulite at all, from working out almost daily and eating healthy. I thought it was low too, but the fish scale said 89 or so and she was dressed. Some people are just really small. I didn't check her height however. Any idea what her measurements were or clothing size? This will factor into how tiny she really was. Her arms and legs aren't tiny like another member mentions and neither is her posterior. Regardless of frame, which based on the picture isn't that tiny, something doesn't add up. Btw, I'm not insulting her. She looks good.
D-Lish Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 I just stepped on the scale prompted by this thread- I am almost 5"8- 118 lbs. Working outside the last 2 months in the fidgid cold has done a number on me. I have been 160lbs- and down to 105 lbs at my height. I was a skeleton at 105- but my ex mother-in-law used to call me overweight- so I got a bit nutty. I have body dysmorphic disorder. I have since being a child and hitting puberty at 9- I got boobs and curves fast... and people made fun of me, and older men got lecherous with me. I am best at 130lbs.... but I can look at myself at 160lbs and 105lbs.... and still see the same body. It's messed. I have a day when I think I have eaten too much and I go into self loathing mode and punish myself for a few days with intense work outs and zero calories. I went off topic...yikes, sorry.
clv0116 Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 Any idea what her measurements were or clothing size? This will factor into how tiny she really was. Her arms and legs aren't tiny like another member mentions and neither is her posterior. Regardless of frame, which based on the picture isn't that tiny, something doesn't add up. I think she looks nice also, particularly for a 31 yo mother of 3. I didn't measure her other than the scale incident (long story, we were at the beach) but to give you some idea that giant square thing in her pocket is ... a cell phone. Her waist might be near 20 inches and my arms are same or bigger than her legs. EDIT: She has problems finding clothes, BTW.
Trialbyfire Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 I think she looks nice also, particularly for a 31 yo mother of 3. I didn't measure her other than the scale incident (long story, we were at the beach) but to give you some idea that giant square thing in her pocket is ... a cell phone. Her waist might be near 20 inches and my arms are same or bigger than her legs. EDIT: She has problems finding clothes, BTW. Perhaps the top she's wearing hides exactly how tiny she is. Perhaps a picture of her from the front, with a more figure hugging top would reflect her true size. What kind of cell phone? There are so many sizes, it's difficult to get a sense of proportion. Okay, now you're stretching it. Even gangly kids who are 4'11" don't have 20" waists and unless you're built like a brick shyte house, your arms couldn't possibly be equal to the size of her legs! Regardless, I'm sure she's tiny and looks good. That's not what I'm questioning. Just how realistic the numbers are. Carry on!
clv0116 Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 Perhaps the top she's wearing hides exactly how tiny she is. Perhaps a picture of her from the front, with a more figure hugging top would reflect her true size. What kind of cell phone? There are so many sizes, it's difficult to get a sense of proportion. .... Even gangly kids who are 4'11" don't have 20" waists ... I think it's a Nokia N series, and I didn't measure her waist but if I put my thumbs together at the small of her back I can put my fingers over her hipbones. The arm thing is something she said, we never actually measured. A swimsuit we were shopping for in xxs was too big.
Recommended Posts