120 lbs

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

Quoted message said:

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

news:[email hidden]:

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

another

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

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.

>
> >
> > 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;
> > 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:

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

found

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.\

it's NOT abnormal - americans are FAT and I won't lower my own standard
because of that. just because LESS people are fit that doesn't mean it is
abnormal

Quoted message said:

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).

Well - i am shocked whenever I go out by how many people are FAT and not
grossly obese - just overweight in general.

The

Quoted message said:

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.

well - i feel like we -America - has a hand in that

Quoted message said:

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

GaryG said:

"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.

0.7

Quoted message said:

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".

That's true.

Quoted message said:

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...

That's true, but these features could exist if the woman was 120 pounds or
150; why is it that super thin women are selectively chosen? Also, many
of today's models don't have that waist to hip ratio.

--
Bob in CT

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Aww, all this sweet talk is going to my big, fat head.

Take an anthropology class. And put down the Cosmo; it's not doing your IQ
or your demeanor any favors. (And you can always find out 'how to give a
better blow job' by asking a man.)

Cate

what the hell is that blow job comment about???

In article <[email hidden]>,

Roger Zoul 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?

Heheh. That reminds me of something I read once, about how the average
woman in America wears a size 14, but stores call that size "plus sized,"
but they should really call sizes 0-4 "minus sized."

Also, even the women in the magazines often don't look like their pictures,
due to digital manipulation. Legs are lengthened, breast are enlarged,
waists are shrunk, skin is smoothed, all with computers.

--
Michelle Levin
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick

I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bob M 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.)

It's genetic, for the most part. It's all about having healthy babies. In
general, human animals are attracted to clear skin, symmetrical features,
shiny hair, healthy teeth, etc. Men are attracted to women who look like
they would breed well, and women are attracted to men who look virile.

An interesting difference between men and women was shown in a study I read
about somewhere. As usual, I remember what the study was about, but not
where I saw it, sorry.

Men were shown pictures of a woman that had been digitally altered, to show
a range from having "masculine" features to "feminine" features. Most men
were most attracted to the most feminine looking picture.

With women however, most women were _not_ attracted to the most masculine
looking man. They preferred a man with somewhat more feminine features.
But, they _were_ more attracted to the most masculine looking man when they
were ovulating. :o)

--
Michelle Levin
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick

I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.

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

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:16:39 -0800, GaryG <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"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]>
wrote:

> 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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> 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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

0.7

Quoted message said:

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.).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Oddly enough, if you take a whole bunch of faces, and digitally

"average"

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

them, the resulting face is nearly always considered attractive. So,
beautiful faces (say, Julia Roberts) are also generally the "most
average".

That's true.

Quoted message said:

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...

That's true, but these features could exist if the woman was 120 pounds or
150; why is it that super thin women are selectively chosen? Also, many
of today's models don't have that waist to hip ratio.

Good points. I don't have an answer, but perhaps it's an evoluationary
response to overpopulation. As the planet gets more and more crowded,
there's less need to choose a mate based on fecundity. So, perhaps our genes
are now telling us that a more androgynous, less fecund look is preferred.
This could also explain why fatness is not considered attractive - in an
overpopulated group, fat people consume more than their share of resources.
(My fiance's teenage son once joked that dating anorexic cheerleaders is
cheaper because they don't order much when going out to eat!).

Any sociology grad students out there?

GG

Quoted message said:

--
Bob in CT

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:36:51 -0800, GaryG <[email hidden]> wrote:

[cut]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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...

That's true, but these features could exist if the woman was 120 pounds
or
150; why is it that super thin women are selectively chosen? Also, many
of today's models don't have that waist to hip ratio.

Good points. I don't have an answer, but perhaps it's an evoluationary
response to overpopulation. As the planet gets more and more crowded,
there's less need to choose a mate based on fecundity. So, perhaps our
genes
are now telling us that a more androgynous, less fecund look is
preferred.
This could also explain why fatness is not considered attractive - in an
overpopulated group, fat people consume more than their share of
resources.
(My fiance's teenage son once joked that dating anorexic cheerleaders is
cheaper because they don't order much when going out to eat!).

That's funny! (Have you seen the commercial where the lady orders the
salad, the entre...then dessert, and the guy's face goes from happy to sad
-- "What am I, a bank!" -- until he realizes that all that stuff is for
one price.)

Quoted message said:

Any sociology grad students out there?

GG

You bring up good points, and I don't have any answers for them.

--
Bob in CT

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

My senses tell me....basically, if i see a person whose every feature is
basically average, then I assign that person to the good looking catagory.
If one person as a nose that is too big for the face or head, I deduct
points for good looking. Too long a head....too wide a face....too many
chins...etc.

You're not at all
:: influenced by ads, magazines, movies, and TV?

No...because most of them don't even look that way in RL.

(I know I am.) Waht
:: if there was no TV; no ads; no magazines? Would that change your
:: perception of "good looking"?

I really don't think it would. People got together long before there was
media and people had notions of what good looking or desireable was then.

(And I don't know the answer to that,
:: although I'd have to answer in the affimative.)
::
:: --
:: Bob in CT

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:30:17 GMT, Luna <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Roger Zoul 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?

Heheh. That reminds me of something I read once, about how the average
woman in America wears a size 14, but stores call that size "plus sized,"
but they should really call sizes 0-4 "minus sized."

Also, even the women in the magazines often don't look like their
pictures,
due to digital manipulation. Legs are lengthened, breast are enlarged,
waists are shrunk, skin is smoothed, all with computers.

That's true -- some time ago, someone posted somebody's website where he
showed off what he could digitally do to pictures -- he enlarged breasts,
got rid of body hair, all kinds of stuff. The "digitized" lady looked
only vaguely similar to her real self.

--
Bob in CT

GaryG wrote:
:: "Bob M" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:: news:[email hidden]...
::: On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:58:30 -0500, Roger Zoul
::: <[email hidden]> wrote:
:::
:::: 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".

No, not Julia Roberts. Her mouth is way, way, too big and he has teeth for
days. Pick someone else! 🙂

::
:: 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....

somehow I can believe that.

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

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

Whenever I see women together asking each other how they look in this or
that, I always say, "hey, why don't you ask a guy." Almost always they are
trying to be appealing to a guy, not to another woman (mostly, anyway).

::
::
:::
:::
::: (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

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

Good. That must feel nice.

::
:::
:::::
::::::
::::::::
:::::::: 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.

Try them with splenda sometimes. Nice change up.

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??"

I just say: protein and fat.

Bob M wrote:
:: On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:16:39 -0800, GaryG <[email hidden]>
:: wrote:
::
::: "Bob M" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
::: news:[email hidden]...
:::: On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:58:30 -0500, Roger Zoul
:::: <[email hidden]> wrote:
::::
::::: 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.
::
:: 0.7
::
::: 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".
::
:: That's true.
::
::: 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...
:::
::
:: That's true, but these features could exist if the woman was 120
:: pounds or 150; why is it that super thin women are selectively
:: chosen? Also, many of today's models don't have that waist to hip
:: ratio.

I can honestly say that I don't find super thin women particularly
attractive. However, according to a former gf of mine, a lot of guys do.

::
:: --
:: Bob in CT

In article <[email hidden]>,

Cate said:

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

Quoted message said:

Yeah that Roseanne Barr was a hotty!

Yep, I did forget Roseanne.

Ok, that's one.

Cate

The chick on "Less Than Perfect" is normal sized. That woman who hosted
Biggest Loser and was on Sabrina the Teenaged Witch is also not skinny.
Oprah is usually not skinny. The cast on dramas like ER and Law and Order
are a range of sizes. The girl who plays Joan of Arcadia is not
overweight, but she's not a stick either.

--
Michelle Levin
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick

I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.

Luna wrote:
::
:: With women however, most women were _not_ attracted to the most
:: masculine looking man. They preferred a man with somewhat more
:: feminine features. But, they _were_ more attracted to the most
:: masculine looking man when they were ovulating. :o)

Interesting. Good motivation for me to keep working out in the gym!

GaryG wrote:
:: "Bob M" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:: news:[email hidden]...
::: On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:16:39 -0800, GaryG
::: <[email hidden]> wrote:
:::
:::: "Bob M" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:::: news:[email hidden]...
::::: On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:58:30 -0500, Roger Zoul
::::: <[email hidden]> wrote:
:::::
:::::: 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.
:::
::: 0.7
:::
:::: 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".
:::
::: That's true.
:::
:::: 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...
::::
:::
::: That's true, but these features could exist if the woman was 120
::: pounds or 150; why is it that super thin women are selectively
::: chosen? Also, many of today's models don't have that waist to hip
::: ratio.
::
:: Good points. I don't have an answer, but perhaps it's an
:: evoluationary response to overpopulation. As the planet gets more
:: and more crowded, there's less need to choose a mate based on
:: fecundity. So, perhaps our genes are now telling us that a more
:: androgynous, less fecund look is preferred. This could also explain
:: why fatness is not considered attractive - in an overpopulated
:: group, fat people consume more than their share of resources. (My
:: fiance's teenage son once joked that dating anorexic cheerleaders is
:: cheaper because they don't order much when going out to eat!).

Unless they go to expensive restaurants! Then they can't eat what they get.

Luna wrote:
:: In article <[email hidden]>,
:: "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?
::
::
:: Heheh. That reminds me of something I read once, about how the
:: average woman in America wears a size 14, but stores call that size
:: "plus sized," but they should really call sizes 0-4 "minus sized."
::
:: Also, even the women in the magazines often don't look like their
:: pictures, due to digital manipulation. Legs are lengthened, breast
:: are enlarged, waists are shrunk, skin is smoothed, all with
:: computers.

right. so we all want to look like a computer generated image. now that
really is scary.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Roger Zoul said:

Luna wrote:
:: In article <[email hidden]>,
:: "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?
::
::
:: Heheh. That reminds me of something I read once, about how the
:: average woman in America wears a size 14, but stores call that size
:: "plus sized," but they should really call sizes 0-4 "minus sized."
::
:: Also, even the women in the magazines often don't look like their
:: pictures, due to digital manipulation. Legs are lengthened, breast
:: are enlarged, waists are shrunk, skin is smoothed, all with
:: computers.

right. so we all want to look like a computer generated image. now that
really is scary.

Eh, I don't know anyone who wants to look like those pictures. Maybe
teenagers do, but as you age you get more sophisticated and savvy about the
media and you realize most models are genetic freaks to start with, and
then digitally altered to look even more freakish.

I think the whole super skinny ideal is on its way out anyway. With the
increasing popularity and visibility of female atheletes, and the increased
participation in sports among girls, the ideal is shifting towards an
athletic body type and away from the anorectic or "heroin chic" look. Now,
looking like Venus or Serena Williams may be just as unattainable for most
women as looking like Kate Moss is, but at least striving for the
"athletic" ideal encourages healthier lifestyles than striving for the
"skinny" ideal.

--
Michelle Levin
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick

I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.

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

Quoted message said:

Bob M wrote:
:: On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:16:39 -0800, GaryG <[email hidden]>
:: wrote:
::
::: "Bob M" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
::: news:[email hidden]...
:::: On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:58:30 -0500, Roger Zoul
:::: <[email hidden]> wrote:
::::
::::: 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.
::
:: 0.7
::
::: 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".
::
:: That's true.
::
::: 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...
:::
::
:: That's true, but these features could exist if the woman was 120
:: pounds or 150; why is it that super thin women are selectively
:: chosen? Also, many of today's models don't have that waist to hip
:: ratio.

I can honestly say that I don't find super thin women particularly
attractive. However, according to a former gf of mine, a lot of guys do.

Men generally find women most "attractive" at a body mass index of around 21
(thin, but not anorexic). Interestingly, even though this BMI is quite a
bit below average, when women are asked their "ideal" weight, most give very
similar numbers.

Some interesting references:

http://www.halls.md/bmi/figures.htm - the BMI figures used in much research
on this subject.

http://www.obesityresearch.org/cgi/content/full/10/3/158 - a study of
ethnicity's influence on body size preference.

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/ijo/journal/v25/n10/abs/0801742a.html&dynoptions=doi1106935738 -
a study of Causacian norms.

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

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bob M 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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of "good looking"? (And I don't know the answer to that, although I'd
have to answer in the affimative.)

It's genetic, for the most part. It's all about having healthy babies.

In

Quoted message said:

general, human animals are attracted to clear skin, symmetrical features,
shiny hair, healthy teeth, etc. Men are attracted to women who look like
they would breed well, and women are attracted to men who look virile.

An interesting difference between men and women was shown in a study I

read

Quoted message said:

about somewhere. As usual, I remember what the study was about, but not
where I saw it, sorry.

Men were shown pictures of a woman that had been digitally altered, to

show

Quoted message said:

a range from having "masculine" features to "feminine" features. Most men
were most attracted to the most feminine looking picture.

With women however, most women were _not_ attracted to the most masculine
looking man. They preferred a man with somewhat more feminine features.
But, they _were_ more attracted to the most masculine looking man when

they

Quoted message said:

were ovulating. :o)

Perhaps this explains the appeal of Leonardo DiCaprio, and Johnny Depp?

Quoted message said:

--
Michelle Levin
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick

I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.