120 lbs

nanner wrote:
:: i don't "read" those magazines - never found anything worth readin
:: in them. I am also not stupid or hypnotized by the media.
::
:: I don't know why y'all are so obsessed with the 120 thing. That's
:: NOT a magic number - it's the RIGHT number for ME but as others have
:: stated it's too high and low low for THIER bodies.
::
:: Besides - don't we always see people (fat ones usually) going on
:: about "who cares about what size my body is, blah blah" Well - it's
:: just as annoying to see everyone with thier panties in a bunch over
:: someone's goal weight or idea of what attractive or thin or healthy
:: might be.

Just who the hell is "everyone"?

We don't care what you weigh......

::
:: Everyone get over it and go back to yer pork rinds :o)

yeah, rinds are good.

nanner said:

"Cate" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"nanner" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

no one wants
to see a 5' 120 pounder either.

Begging your pardon, but yes, I do. Everyone is shaped differently; while
120lbs on your near-5ft frame might look fat to you, 120lbs on another 5ft
frame might look fabulous.

I think to be 120 at 5' you'd either have alot of body fat or be
muscle-bound. either way - ick.

I think Cate has way more brain tissues than nanner, which makes up the difference.

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:24:42 -0500, Roger Zoul <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Cate wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in
:: news:[email hidden]:
::
::: Where do they say that? If you ask me, it is women telling
::: themselves that. Ads, magazines, and movies don't say a thing about
::: weight, just looks.
::
:: While I did pick on the media, I didn't mean to imply that it's not
:: something we do to ourselves.

what I find strange is this: very, very few *real people* (as in everyday
folks) look like the females in ads, magazines, movies, and TV. So,
those
people are the ones that are different. Why is it then that everyday
folks
claim all of this *pressure* to be like them?

Haven't you said that you tend to be attracted to "good looking" women?
If so, why? Whence do you get your ideas of what "good looking" even is?

--
Bob in CT

"enjoyed her"???

it sounds a bit like, you know, bad risque novels.

Roger Zoul said:

hehe.....this time last year I had a gf who was 5'9" and weighed 110 lbs.
She told me that guys really enjoyed her at that weight. I would've
preferred her at 120 lbs as her hip bones were sharp as a knifes!
So, 120 lbs is important to us guys to keep from getting cut up.

🙂

Larelle Read wrote:
:: Can someone tell me why America has this obsession with women being
:: 120 lbs? I've seen one lady on this NG state her target goal is 120
:: lbs? Why 120? Why is 120 the holy grail weight??? At my lightest
:: weight I was 141 lbs and I felt fantastic. I could wear all the
:: clothes that I liked. I was fit, I could exercise easily, I was
:: attractive to the opposite sex. To me, 120 lbs sounds underweight.
:: If I had a target weight of 120 I'd be worried I was just swapping
:: one medical illness (obesity) for another (anorexia).
::
:: PLEASE tell me why 120 is so important?

Cate wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in
:: news:[email hidden]:
::
::: Where do they say that? If you ask me, it is women telling
::: themselves that. Ads, magazines, and movies don't say a thing about
::: weight, just looks.
::
:: While I did pick on the media, I didn't mean to imply that it's not
:: something we do to ourselves.

what I find strange is this: very, very few *real people* (as in everyday
folks) look like the females in ads, magazines, movies, and TV. So, those
people are the ones that are different. Why is it then that everyday folks
claim all of this *pressure* to be like them?

It's shorthand for pointing out
:: cultural differences in societies that have otherwise very similar
:: values. I've had the opportunity to live in two different cultures
:: that place different values on women's weight and appearance, and
:: there is a noticeable difference in the media messages on the
:: subject.
::
:: Fashion magazines do, btw, focus on numbers. It may be a softer
:: approach (comments here and there similar to nanner's) rather than a
:: harder 'you must weigh 120' approach, but it's there. It's also
:: there when famous people are quoted as saying they weigh 120 when
:: they almost clearly don't. They're role models even if they don't
:: want to be.
::
::: Furthermore, why is it that people can't think for themselves?
::
:: This is best answered by advanced sociological and psychological
:: study, not by me.
::
:: Cate

Roger Zoul said:

Where do they say that? If you ask me, it is women telling themselves that.
Ads, magazines, and movies don't say a thing about weight, just looks.
Furthermore, why is it that people can't think for themselves?

People are unaware that they have that power, for the most part. Fashion
says "This look is now out!" and only the truly bold will continue to wear
the "out" thing, most people obediently respond to whatever is "in" and
everyone finds themselves liking or disliking a fashion in or out based
on what is currently popular.

I find it an amazing study in sociology that a huge segment of men
suddenly find the hair slicked forward and then sticking up at the front
appealing, all at the same time 🙂 Or the choppy women haircut, for which
many women would have rather worn a wig years ago or cut off ties forever
with their hairdresser (grin), suddenly, everyone finds it beautiful and
strives and pays *extra* to look that way.

Well, bad example, as I was happy when that look came in, as I am bad
at giving my own self haircuts, and one time I gave myself a choppy
haircut and found it quite easy to do (grin - hack hack hack, snip snip
snip, blindfolded, apply some gel and voila).

My own MO is to not care about what the media says is in. I don't watch
television, and I'm dense when it comes to fashion sense. I just wear
what I wear and go on with my day....

ahh, one of my favorite topics, culture and why people follow certain
trends.

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

nanner wrote:
:: i don't "read" those magazines - never found anything worth readin
:: in them. I am also not stupid or hypnotized by the media.
::
:: I don't know why y'all are so obsessed with the 120 thing. That's
:: NOT a magic number - it's the RIGHT number for ME but as others have
:: stated it's too high and low low for THIER bodies.
::
:: Besides - don't we always see people (fat ones usually) going on
:: about "who cares about what size my body is, blah blah" Well - it's
:: just as annoying to see everyone with thier panties in a bunch over
:: someone's goal weight or idea of what attractive or thin or healthy
:: might be.

Just who the hell is "everyone"?

you know "them" LOL

Quoted message said:

We don't care what you weigh......

sure you do
(and I'll have pix of me in the famous red dress real soon - I know you've
been waiting!)

Quoted message said:

::
:: Everyone get over it and go back to yer pork rinds :o)

yeah, rinds are good.

i like them with Hidden Valley Ranch dip mix w/Sour cream (no sugar - yum
yum)

"Larelle Read" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think to be 120 at 5' you'd either have alot of body fat or be
muscle-bound. either way - ick.

God, that's really charming! Full of subtlety. If you think it's "ick",
you
might want to keep that opinion to yourself next time. So much for this NG
being called atl.SUPPORT.diet.low-carb

Quoted message said:

Not to be mean but

...your were earlier, so why stop now!

Quoted message said:

...130-135 is heavy for 5'2.

It *IS* not. The desirable weight for height guide in my carlorie counter
says that for a medium framed woman 5'2" has a weight range of 121 to 133
lbs.

well- i was chunky at 135 and 5'3 so I wouldn't "personally" want to be that
weight at my height. I am 141 now and just a blob at 5'3" - of course it's
all relative :oP

"GaryG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"nanner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Cate" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"nanner" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

> no one wants
> to see a 5' 120 pounder either.

Begging your pardon, but yes, I do. Everyone is shaped differently;

while

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

120lbs on your near-5ft frame might look fat to you, 120lbs on another

5ft

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

frame might look fabulous.

I think to be 120 at 5' you'd either have alot of body fat or be
muscle-bound. either way - ick.

Your perceptions of normal seem highly skewed.

For a 5' tall woman who weighs 120 lbs:

if she were age 30, she would weigh less than 67% of all other 5', 30 year
old women.
if she were age 40, she would weigh less than 79% of all other 5', 40 year
old women.
if she were age 50, she would weigh less than 85% of all other 5', 50 year
old women.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm 5'2" and when I was 120 I wore sizes 4 and 6. I have a large bone
structure (size 9.5 shoes, size 7 rings). 120 is on the small side for

me;

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I feel more comfortable around 130 or 135.

Not to be mean but...130-135 is heavy for 5'2. And I don't think big feet
make up the weight (wow - by the way!). I don't think they've ever found
a
skeleton with Fat Bones BTW. Also - my shoe size was up to 9 when I was
fatter maybe it is weight-related for you? I am back to a normal 7/7.5

re: "130-135 is heavy for 5'2."

While that might be your perception, and you might prefer to be thinner,
you
are wrong when speaking of the "average woman".

For a 5' 2" tall woman who weighs 132 lbs:

if she were age 30, she would weigh less than 61% of all other 5' 2", 30
year old women.
if she were age 40, she would weigh less than 73% of all other 5' 2", 40
year old women.
if she were age 50, she would weigh less than 79% of all other 5' 2", 50
year old women.

So, a 5' 2" 132 lb woman would be considered thin by most standards...not
"model thin", but clearly quite a bit thinner than the average.

Note: all numbers based on US height/weight/age averages.

--
GG
http://www.WeightWare.com
Your Weight and Health Diary

aw brother! I really don't think you should go by AVERAGES - especially in
America where everyone is FAT and getting FATTER - the average standard is
pretty low -

"Ada Ma" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

nanner said:

"Cate" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"nanner" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

>no one wants
>to see a 5' 120 pounder either.

Begging your pardon, but yes, I do. Everyone is shaped differently; while
120lbs on your near-5ft frame might look fat to you, 120lbs on another
5ft
frame might look fabulous.

I think to be 120 at 5' you'd either have alot of body fat or be
muscle-bound. either way - ick.

I think Cate has way more brain tissues than nanner, which makes up the
difference.

bite me.

i think fat people want to be stroked and think it's Just Fine - especially
if they have Big Fat Bones.

"Cate" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Larelle Read <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

No, it's because whenever I see programmes from America about women
wanting to lose weight, they all wanna get to 120.

You've pretty much answered your own question: It's a cultural thing. The
average American woman believes the cultural pressure that she's fat if
she
weighs more than 120. Every ad, every fashion magazine, every TV show,
every movie tells her so. (Have you ever seen Helen Gurley Brown, the
publisher of Cosmopolitan? She's about 80 and looks like a torture victim,
partially because of her adventures in plastic surgery, and partly because
she weighs almost nothing.)

Conversely, when I used to live in England, I found that European
advertisers, TV producers, and filmmakers tended to use more women of
average shape. You'd never, ever see a Dawn French of 'The Vicar of
Dibley' given a sitcom in the US. Which is one reason the US has a very
high ratio of [censored] TV shows to good ones.

Yeah that Roseanne Barr was a hotty!

Quoted message said:

Cate

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Cate wrote:
:: Larelle Read <[email hidden]> wrote in
:: news:[email hidden]:
::
::: No, it's because whenever I see programmes from America about women
::: wanting to lose weight, they all wanna get to 120.
::
:: You've pretty much answered your own question: It's a cultural
:: thing. The average American woman believes the cultural pressure
:: that she's fat if she weighs more than 120. Every ad, every fashion
:: magazine, every TV show, every movie tells her so.

Where do they say that? If you ask me, it is women telling themselves
that.
Ads, magazines, and movies don't say a thing about weight, just looks.
Furthermore, why is it that people can't think for themselves?

notice it's the WOMEN trying to convince others they have been HYPNOYIZED by
the evil media. Poor brainless things..

Quoted message said:

(Have you ever
:: seen Helen Gurley Brown, the publisher of Cosmopolitan? She's about
:: 80 and looks like a torture victim, partially because of her
:: adventures in plastic surgery, and partly because she weighs almost
:: nothing.)
::
:: Conversely, when I used to live in England, I found that European
:: advertisers, TV producers, and filmmakers tended to use more women of
:: average shape. You'd never, ever see a Dawn French of 'The Vicar of
:: Dibley' given a sitcom in the US. Which is one reason the US has a
:: very high ratio of [censored] TV shows to good ones.
::
:: Cate

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

what I find strange is this: very, very few *real people* (as in
everyday folks) look like the females in ads, magazines, movies, and
TV. So, those people are the ones that are different. Why is it then
that everyday folks claim all of this *pressure* to be like them?

Interesting question. I can only speak for myself and a few of my friends
who I've talked with about this (two of whom have histories of bulimia--so,
major body image issues). When I (or they) am trying to improve my
appearance, whether it be by losing weight, changing my hairstyle, getting
new glasses, taking to flat-front pants instead of pleats, etc., it's
usually because it's been pointed out to me that those traits/styles are
more flattering than what I've been doing in the past.

Now, where did I get the idea that those traits/styles are more flattering,
and therefore more confidence-building, and therefore more attractive to
others? Where am I looking that I see people reflected back to me? People
who I relate to (or want to), people I see as role models?

Depends on the person, I guess. If I were to go only by what's on network
TV and in fashion magazines, I'd see almost no one that represents the
average American woman who's a size 14 and 5'4". I'd see no one that looks
like me. Or if I did, they'd always be labeled or written about as being
'the zaftig actress xyz' or 'the plus-size model xyz.'

And maybe that would tell me that I don't look ok, and/or that I needed to
look different.

Cate

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:58:30 -0500, Roger Zoul <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Bob M wrote:
:: On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:24:42 -0500, Roger Zoul
:: <[email hidden]> wrote:
::
::: Cate wrote:
::::: "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in
::::: news:[email hidden]:
:::::
:::::: Where do they say that? If you ask me, it is women telling
:::::: themselves that. Ads, magazines, and movies don't say a thing
:::::: about weight, just looks.
:::::
::::: While I did pick on the media, I didn't mean to imply that it's
::::: not something we do to ourselves.
:::
::: what I find strange is this: very, very few *real people* (as in
::: everyday folks) look like the females in ads, magazines, movies,
::: and TV. So, those
::: people are the ones that are different. Why is it then that
::: everyday folks
::: claim all of this *pressure* to be like them?
:::
::
:: Haven't you said that you tend to be attracted to "good looking"
:: women? If so, why? Whence do you get your ideas of what "good
:: looking" even is?

Not from ads, magazines, movies, and TV. I see plenty of good looking
women
walking around.

OK, but how do you "know" what "good looking" is? You're not at all
influenced by ads, magazines, movies, and TV? (I know I am.) Waht if
there was no TV; no ads; no magazines? Would that change your perception
of "good looking"? (And I don't know the answer to that, although I'd
have to answer in the affimative.)

--
Bob in CT

Bob M wrote:
:: On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:24:42 -0500, Roger Zoul
:: <[email hidden]> wrote:
::
::: Cate wrote:
::::: "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in
::::: news:[email hidden]:
:::::
:::::: Where do they say that? If you ask me, it is women telling
:::::: themselves that. Ads, magazines, and movies don't say a thing
:::::: about weight, just looks.
:::::
::::: While I did pick on the media, I didn't mean to imply that it's
::::: not something we do to ourselves.
:::
::: what I find strange is this: very, very few *real people* (as in
::: everyday folks) look like the females in ads, magazines, movies,
::: and TV. So, those
::: people are the ones that are different. Why is it then that
::: everyday folks
::: claim all of this *pressure* to be like them?
:::
::
:: Haven't you said that you tend to be attracted to "good looking"
:: women? If so, why? Whence do you get your ideas of what "good
:: looking" even is?

Not from ads, magazines, movies, and TV. I see plenty of good looking women
walking around.

"nanner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"GaryG" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"nanner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Cate" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> "nanner" <[email hidden]> wrote in

news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>> no one wants
>> to see a 5' 120 pounder either.
>
> Begging your pardon, but yes, I do. Everyone is shaped differently;

while

Quoted message said:

> 120lbs on your near-5ft frame might look fat to you, 120lbs on

another

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

5ft

Quoted message said:

> frame might look fabulous.

I think to be 120 at 5' you'd either have alot of body fat or be
muscle-bound. either way - ick.

Your perceptions of normal seem highly skewed.

For a 5' tall woman who weighs 120 lbs:

if she were age 30, she would weigh less than 67% of all other 5', 30

year

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

old women.
if she were age 40, she would weigh less than 79% of all other 5', 40

year

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

old women.
if she were age 50, she would weigh less than 85% of all other 5', 50

year

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

old women.

Quoted message said:

>
> I'm 5'2" and when I was 120 I wore sizes 4 and 6. I have a large bone
> structure (size 9.5 shoes, size 7 rings). 120 is on the small side

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

me;

Quoted message said:

> I feel more comfortable around 130 or 135.

Not to be mean but...130-135 is heavy for 5'2. And I don't think big

feet

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

make up the weight (wow - by the way!). I don't think they've ever

found

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a
skeleton with Fat Bones BTW. Also - my shoe size was up to 9 when I was
fatter maybe it is weight-related for you? I am back to a normal 7/7.5

re: "130-135 is heavy for 5'2."

While that might be your perception, and you might prefer to be thinner,
you
are wrong when speaking of the "average woman".

For a 5' 2" tall woman who weighs 132 lbs:

if she were age 30, she would weigh less than 61% of all other 5' 2", 30
year old women.
if she were age 40, she would weigh less than 73% of all other 5' 2", 40
year old women.
if she were age 50, she would weigh less than 79% of all other 5' 2", 50
year old women.

So, a 5' 2" 132 lb woman would be considered thin by most

standards...not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"model thin", but clearly quite a bit thinner than the average.

Note: all numbers based on US height/weight/age averages.

--
GG
http://www.WeightWare.com
Your Weight and Health Diary

aw brother! I really don't think you should go by AVERAGES - especially in
America where everyone is FAT and getting FATTER - the average standard is
pretty low -

If you wish to base your standards on fashion magazines, that's OK with me.
I'm just pointing out that the height/weight range that you consider "fat"
is abnormal by most standards.

FWIW, those weights are also all well within the "Normal" weight range for
height, per the World Health Organization, and the US Centers for Disease
Control.

As for your putdown of America - we're not all fat (though many are). The
sad news is that the rest of the world is eating as fast as they can to
catch up, and some countries have even surpassed us. For instance,
Australia is now considered "fatter" than the US (at least, for men). And,
increasing rates of obesity have been reported in Europe, and even in
African countries.

--
GG
http://www.WeightWare.com
Your Weight and Health Diary

nanner wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:: news:[email hidden]...
::: nanner wrote:
::::: i don't "read" those magazines - never found anything worth readin
::::: in them. I am also not stupid or hypnotized by the media.
:::::
::::: I don't know why y'all are so obsessed with the 120 thing. That's
::::: NOT a magic number - it's the RIGHT number for ME but as others
::::: have stated it's too high and low low for THIER bodies.
:::::
::::: Besides - don't we always see people (fat ones usually) going on
::::: about "who cares about what size my body is, blah blah" Well -
::::: it's just as annoying to see everyone with thier panties in a
::::: bunch over someone's goal weight or idea of what attractive or
::::: thin or healthy might be.
:::
::: Just who the hell is "everyone"?
:::
::
:: you know "them" LOL
::
::: We don't care what you weigh......
::
:: sure you do
:: (and I'll have pix of me in the famous red dress real soon - I know
:: you've been waiting!)

Geez...🙂 I didn't even have to ask for jpegs. Nice! All of that dieting
is paying off, huh?

::
:::
:::::
::::: Everyone get over it and go back to yer pork rinds :o)
:::
::: yeah, rinds are good.
:::
::
:: i like them with Hidden Valley Ranch dip mix w/Sour cream (no sugar
:: - yum yum)

I buy the plain ones...mix in cinnamon and granular splenda....good.

Ada Ma wrote:
:: "enjoyed her"???

Well....I was trying to be nice for her sake....she had a really big
ego....girls with egos....man!

I don't think she meant it has I made it sound, though. Basically, she hold
me the guys thought she was hot. I thought she was hot, but not because of
her weight....

::
:: it sounds a bit like, you know, bad risque novels.
::
::
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::
::: hehe.....this time last year I had a gf who was 5'9" and weighed
::: 110 lbs. She told me that guys really enjoyed her at that weight.
::: I would've preferred her at 120 lbs as her hip bones were sharp as
::: a knifes!
::: So, 120 lbs is important to us guys to keep from getting cut up.
:::
::: 🙂
:::
:::
::: Larelle Read wrote:
::::: Can someone tell me why America has this obsession with women
::::: being 120 lbs? I've seen one lady on this NG state her target
::::: goal is 120 lbs? Why 120? Why is 120 the holy grail weight??? At
::::: my lightest weight I was 141 lbs and I felt fantastic. I could
::::: wear all the clothes that I liked. I was fit, I could exercise
::::: easily, I was attractive to the opposite sex. To me, 120 lbs
::::: sounds underweight. If I had a target weight of 120 I'd be
::::: worried I was just swapping one medical illness (obesity) for
::::: another (anorexia).
:::::
::::: PLEASE tell me why 120 is so important?

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

nanner wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:: news:[email hidden]...
::: nanner wrote:
::::: i don't "read" those magazines - never found anything worth readin
::::: in them. I am also not stupid or hypnotized by the media.
:::::
::::: I don't know why y'all are so obsessed with the 120 thing. That's
::::: NOT a magic number - it's the RIGHT number for ME but as others
::::: have stated it's too high and low low for THIER bodies.
:::::
::::: Besides - don't we always see people (fat ones usually) going on
::::: about "who cares about what size my body is, blah blah" Well -
::::: it's just as annoying to see everyone with thier panties in a
::::: bunch over someone's goal weight or idea of what attractive or
::::: thin or healthy might be.
:::
::: Just who the hell is "everyone"?
:::
::
:: you know "them" LOL
::
::: We don't care what you weigh......
::
:: sure you do
:: (and I'll have pix of me in the famous red dress real soon - I know
:: you've been waiting!)

Geez...🙂 I didn't even have to ask for jpegs. Nice! All of that dieting
is paying off, huh?

yeah - well- i've been on break for a while but am back in business. 21lbs
to goal - 120lbs of course ;o)

Quoted message said:

::
:::
:::::
::::: Everyone get over it and go back to yer pork rinds :o)
:::
::: yeah, rinds are good.
:::
::
:: i like them with Hidden Valley Ranch dip mix w/Sour cream (no sugar
:: - yum yum)

I buy the plain ones...mix in cinnamon and granular splenda....good.

i never had pork rinds sweetened. I've had spicy, bbq or plain. I never had
them till i started LC though - not the most popular snack in these parts. I
still get alot of people saying "you're eating WHAT??"

"Bob M" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:58:30 -0500, Roger Zoul <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Bob M wrote:
:: On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:24:42 -0500, Roger Zoul
:: <[email hidden]> wrote:
::
::: Cate wrote:
::::: "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in
::::: news:[email hidden]:
:::::
:::::: Where do they say that? If you ask me, it is women telling
:::::: themselves that. Ads, magazines, and movies don't say a thing
:::::: about weight, just looks.
:::::
::::: While I did pick on the media, I didn't mean to imply that it's
::::: not something we do to ourselves.
:::
::: what I find strange is this: very, very few *real people* (as in
::: everyday folks) look like the females in ads, magazines, movies,
::: and TV. So, those
::: people are the ones that are different. Why is it then that
::: everyday folks
::: claim all of this *pressure* to be like them?
:::
::
:: Haven't you said that you tend to be attracted to "good looking"
:: women? If so, why? Whence do you get your ideas of what "good
:: looking" even is?

Not from ads, magazines, movies, and TV. I see plenty of good looking
women
walking around.

OK, but how do you "know" what "good looking" is? You're not at all
influenced by ads, magazines, movies, and TV? (I know I am.) Waht if
there was no TV; no ads; no magazines? Would that change your perception
of "good looking"? (And I don't know the answer to that, although I'd
have to answer in the affimative.)

Some very interesting research has been done in this area, and it appears
that many of the things that we find "good looking" are similar across
nations and cultures.

Specifically, men find women's bodies attractive when they have a specific
waist to hip ratio.

And, both men and women show preferences for faces that are highly
symettrical (e.g., eyes at the same height and distance from nose, etc.).
Oddly enough, if you take a whole bunch of faces, and digitally "average"
them, the resulting face is nearly always considered attractive. So,
beautiful faces (say, Julia Roberts) are also generally the "most average".

It's assumed that the waist-to-hip preference is because it's an indicator
of a woman who is more able to bear children, while the preference for
facial symmetry is because it is an indication of "good genes".

It all gets back to sex....

--
GG
http://www.WeightWare.com
Your Weight and Health Diary

Quoted message said:

--
Bob in CT