When somebody says "lower your standards" or "stay in your league"

[taiko]

Buddy, most women have far more relationships by two by the time women settle down. Still, most women can find a mate to marry them. We're talking about average women. They come with children too. And body grafitti.

 

Why wouldn't Angelina Jolie be capable of attracting any man? She's extremely beautiful, she's probably also terrific in bed and she seems crazy enough to bring another women to the bed.

 

She WAS extremely beautiful, now she has aged and is trying to look young by adding so called art to her body. Plus she has to find someone willing to take care of kids from many different men. Only her name makes her more attractive then any other person with a relatively good body who had the gangsta's child when she was 14.

[Akherousia]

She WAS extremely beautiful, now she has aged and is trying to look young by adding so called art to her body. Plus she has to find someone willing to take care of kids from many different men. Only her name makes her more attractive then any other person with a relatively good body who had the gangsta's child when she was 14.

 

Angelina Jolie is still far more beautiful than most young women out there. Hm, no. Her name is without meaning. Look, she bagged Brad Pitt. You've seen a 20 year old woman bagging Brad Pitt? Why not?

[hydorclops]

You're talking about an hormone. Oystricn(sp?). It's created during sex, present mostly in women. This hormone's purpose is to bind the men to women and likewise. It's not real. It can be created in a lab. It's not love.

 

I've read somewhere that virgins were highly prized because women would become(lifetime) highly attached to the first guy they slept with. Now, I've also read that the more sexual partners a woman has, the less capacity she has to create lasting emotional bonds.

 

I don't know. It might be a load of rubbish. I never got attached to anyone. Never quite saw the purpose of being attached to anyone.

That hormone might have something to do with sexual bonding, I don't know.

 

When I refer to attachment, I'm thinking of something that can happen between any two people. People have attachments (or not) to their siblings, their same sex friends, anyone really. It's not even inherently good it just happens.

 

Richard Dawkins himself warns against trying to think the way genes operate. He was mortified to learn that The Selfish Gene was Jeff Skilling's favorite book. Genes are mindlessly selfish. People can be, but aren't by nature.

 

I don't mean to say you are wrong in your personal life, there is a wide degree of natural variation amongst individuals. But you paint a pretty bleak view.

[Kamille]

 

I don't know. It might be a load of rubbish. I never got attached to anyone. Never quite saw the purpose of being attached to anyone.

 

Exactly. If everyone was uninterested in forming emotional attachments, then we would mate purely on genetic principles. That, however, is not how we have evolved. Attachment serves a function in the reproduction of the specie. That does not mean, however, that everyone feels an impulse to get emotionally attached. You would be proof of that.

[stillafool]

Unless of course, the guy is extremely good looking. Then, he doesn't have to worry about his education to get a wife. Same can be said about a very attractive woman.

 

I don't know about this. It is highly unlikely that a man who is a Harvard graduate is going to wed the gorgeous female 7/11 cashier.

[SteveC80]

Are you kidding? There are so many goodlooking guys it isn't even funny. Most men who are tall with a good body are attractive to women. I don't think a goodlooking face is as important to women as most of us like a kind of rugged masculine look. However the "boyish" face is appealing as well.

 

Ive always told fellow tall Men who cant get women that theyres something wrong with them if they cant get women

 

Height is like gold to women if youre tall and in just halfway decent shape it doesnt even matter what your face looks like as long as its not ugly your gonna be highly valued by women

 

Be proud of your height and thank god youre a Tall Man whos looked up at instead of a short guy searcihng for scraps

Edited November 7, 2010 by SteveC80

[D-Jam]

Are most people picked because the perosn inittiating realized he or she just cant do any betetr and not becasue they tohught that person was good looking when they first sae them?

I think that unfortunately this happens in many instances. Hence why divorce and infidelity rates are so high. Too many will do what they see as "settling", but can't seem to find love in their choice...so they cheat and/or divorce.

 

I hate the word settle but we all settle in some way for whatever we can get or attract and it may not be what we are that moved by but we cant do any better

 

I know its depressing to break down the whole thing like this but isnt it kind of reality we settle for what we can get with where we are on the social food chain?

I think the problem is that too many men and especially women have a lot of bad teaching in their mindsets when it comes down to picking a mate.

 

Both authors Lori Gottleib and Jillian Strauss both touched on this, but were dismissed especially by women's lib. They simply pointed out how many single women there are out there as well as dateless guys who would commit, and started to ask if people are now too unrealistically picky.

 

I for one live by and push this simple statement in this matter:

 

Standards for a mate are only good if you can actually attain such a person as your mate.

 

I've said variations of this for a while now, and it still tells both men and women that you're stuck with the pool of available singles that are in front of you, and can only pick from those WILLING to be with you.

 

Many though seem to still think they can change someone's mind. Men who think they can "win someone over", and women who do the same...or worse believe that because a man of a certain "caliber" slept with them in a fling or ONS, that they can actually get him or someone like him to be their boyfriend or husband.

 

On and off these boards, I see men and women complain how no one is "good enough". Women who claim all the hot guys are jerks and/or losers, all the good guys are ugly, and all the hot good guys are gay. Men who complain how all the hot girls have less education and no career, but all the educated/career women are ugly. On and on.

 

The reality is that's their pool and they can either pick from it, or stay alone. That's what many don't want to accept. If you have certain standards set for your ideal mate, then you have to also examine IF such a person exists AND IF that person would choose you as his/her mate.

 

So the hot, wealthy, exciting, successful man might roll along, but then the red flags pop up of things like he's got a wife, or he's chosen to be "single 4 life" or he's a horrible man in RLs. The reality then is women need to move on, not think they can "win him over". Men are in the same boat...so when it comes down to the hot cocktail waitress who has a kid versus the average office professional who doesn't drink a lot...you choose. Not complain.

 

If you see it as "settling for less", then you might as well remain alone and accept you don't want a real love. Too many put the priority on looks, lifestyle, and money so much they forget the rest. Things like "will he/she be good to me?" should be the top priority and never compromised on, but too many do compromise it in the hopes of hot arm candy.

 

The thing I tell most people is you can't change others...no matter how much you want to. So if you're a woman and you meet Mr Amazing, but he won't ever commit, then he's not Mr Ideal. Not even Mr Project or Mr Could-be. Same deal with men. If you meet hot women who are stuck-up bitches and yet plain janes who are not, then you might have to decide how much you value a hot wife over a good wife.

 

Right now I see the happy RLs and marriages are the nice guys and nice girls who get past their own crap and find one another. I don't see the stuck-up bitches, douchebags, bad boys, entitled princesses, bad-boy chasers, or doormats having happy love lives.

 

And if we were allot higher up wed probably be with somebody different?

I notice those who are "up higher" are even more chronically single. They simply set the bar way too high and then wonder why they can't find someone.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Ive always told fellow tall Men who cant get women that theyres something wrong with them if they cant get women

 

Height is like gold to women if youre tall and in just halfway decent shape it doesnt even matter what your face looks like as long as its not ugly your gonna be highly valued by women

 

Be proud of your height and thank god youre a Tall Man whos looked up at instead of a short guy searcihng for scraps

 

I believe that you might have a form of Body Dysmorphia Disorder. Your connection with reality regarding "Tall Men" (LOVE the use of CAPS) is very tenuous.

 

These fora are full of women, married and single. Let's see your pictures and we can decide for ourselves whether we will throw our beloved husbands over for one night in the presence of your height ...

 

Please!

[dreamingoftigers]

I agree with your posts,as some here know i used to do a little modeling and when i was younger and not to brag but women flocked to me

 

Im not exaggerating in that hundred of married women came to me and tried to cheat on their husbands just becadue they were insanely attracted to me

 

My best friends wife who never showed signs of being bad or promiscious and my best friend who treated her liek godl long story short she texted me one day and told me to meet her and wanted to *blank* me

 

Women will kill each other to get to extrenely hot men

 

The oens who say they dont like the extremely hot guys blla blah hblah are saying that out of insecurity,if oen of us hit on them and charmed thme theyd drop their panties whitin seconds

 

Women are worse then men

 

I would say "no." Not at all, not a chance, even when I was single. Guys who are "hot" actually do very little for me because I don't think they attach properly in many cases because women fall all over them all of the time. Why would I want to rub up against someone who has probably been with every girl in a 12 block radius? I find it pretty gross. I also find that hot guys tend to be more predatorial, they look at you like they already have you right out the gate. Blech.

 

If I am having sex with someone I better feel damn attractive, not "enh, well, you'll do." There is nothing less attractive then a guy who gets laid regularly with random partners. Even studies have shown that most women do find men less attractive who advertise more sexual partners instead of less. Most men think that if you advertise having more, it makes you more virile, what a laugh.

 

I think that in today's world there seems to be more of a polarization towards getting "it all."

 

Some folks who grew up with this tv and internet ideal so heavily programmed into them will not settle for anything less in the looks department. Our society has become incredibly shallow and it is very sad. I think more girls are buying into the idea that they don't "need" a man and that they can make their own money. Relationships shouldn't be about "needing something" or about "having money." I know that the standard arrangement of old had been based on economic and sexual control, but really relationships should be because they are incredibly rewarding and healthy in the long run. You get a partner that you can reach together for the stars, you boost each other up, you reach out when they are down. You stick out the rough times together and if you choose raise children together. Yes bonding hormones are just hormones, but when chanelled through our brains, they make up whole new depths of the Human Experience. There is more than how big her breasts are or how full his wallet is. If that is what you are looking for, you miss out on so, so much.

 

Personally the guys I have felt a strong attraction to tended to be socially awkward and looked average or less than. I don't know exactly why. I do know that many girls are visually attracted, but I have not ever been that way, in fact what attracts me tends to be the conversations I can have with someone, whether or not they can string together logical sentences and have bright ideas. Education level was not a factor. Afterwards I would catch myself almost studying the object of my attraction like my brain was trying to absorb it. I have found different features attractive depending on how much I liked the person. The day after my ex dumped me I saw him and thought "wow I never realized that he had bad teeth, yuck." I never really noticed until that relationship severed. My husbands blue eyes that I loved to gaze into, I noticed were slightly off-kilter this past year when we were having troubles, then I noticed some other people that were attractive. Now I look at him and just see how him just like I used to, the fact that our little girl looks so much like him touches my heart.

 

I used to work in the Military and Strategic Studies department at the University here. What finally convinced me to go back to school was the idiots walking out with Master's degrees. Some were not even doing the assigned activities anywhere near proper and they still would get half-decent grades. I was appalled at some of the things I have seen pulled off. I am convinced that education is not more a function of intelligence than it is of social class and organizational ability.

 

When I took classes at Carleton, the class average for introductory astronomy was so low that the prof took questions from the online quizzes and put them in the final and let everyone know so that they could study beforehand. At both Carleton and the U of C people would use the wireless to simply play on facebook etc when the lecture was going on. Often pertinent things too. Class average again had to be boosted up on the final. (Not to brag, but I was very happy with my final grades.)

 

Many after their degrees were not able to do research past googling something . Many were simply extending their four-year beerfest on campus. It was pretty sad. Some of the profs were completely bizarre.

 

The intelligence factor I think is bigger than the visual factor, depending on who you are trying to attract. I think when most intelligent women are looking for a lifetime mate, visual attraction falls down the list. Really intelligent women would look for more than just credentials.

 

Often both men and women would just go for the superficial factors that give them that little zing! when they are trying to get laid. Our media has promoted looks and money as being the biggest priorites when really: if you want to find a long-term mate emotional stability and the ability to accept responsibility and do long-term planning should be the priorites.

 

Tall guys may do better overall financially etc., "hot" women may find themselves with more options. Really though I have seen a lot of relationship where beautiful women get cheated on and left, because the guy figures if he got her, then he must be The King. Women looking for that rich dude will jump ship when someone with the bigger bank account comes along.

 

I would encourage people to not be so selective when it comes to looks and bank statements (unless it is to determine how much of a planner the individual is which may be a sign of emotional stability and planning)/ credentials.

 

Unfortunately the little zing! factor has been marketed as the basis for most fledgling relationships. And we wonder why the divorce rate is so high... and the marriage rate is dropping.

 

Of course women more and more are buying into the zing! factor and have accepted early and random sex as a lifestyle. What a lot of the player guys don't seem to get is that they are pulling from a frequently-used sample. A girl with values is not going to touch a guy with a ten foot pole that just talks with her for five minutes and then wants to go at it. Except if it is an off night.

 

You may say that women drop their panties easily and some do. The women that drop their panties regularly are looking specifically for one thing and they are that type. Often you won't even find women of a higher calibre in the places where you pick up women that are looking for the random sex. They don't want the random sex, so they won't go there. How many happily-married women with values will you find at the singles bar? Very few.

 

How many good mothers with kids that are committed to their relationships will you find at the frat house getting sloshed. Not many, not really any. They don't let their mates question what they are up to.

 

Women that can only see the short-term (there are more and more of them coming up) are the ones who are going to run around and sleep with the "hot guy." If you want something real, start by being real and looking for someone that has some dedication to their values. Go where people with values go.

 

If your values match with someone, leagues do not apply. Neither do rough attractiveness scores.

[Valie]

I believe that most people are attracted to someone first sight...Whether it's looks or personality...okay an example would be I play univeristy basketball,i work out im fit. If im at the court and playing a game a girl would get attracted to me physically and because im a player in the team.

 

Personality wise lets say you were hangin out with friends and you managed to make her feel comfy with you and make her laugh...etc..

 

It all depends on whether you got personality or looks or both..and get the opportunity to show either

 

I gues what im trying to say is that sometimes the girl doesnt see you for what you are really due to the current situation like lets say you got personality but you guys never talked...so she looks at a guy and gets attracted to him because he is good looking does that mean that you have a bad personality? no...it just means that she didnt get to see it....So i believe everyone is in everyone's league it just depends on how the girl sees it and when she sees it and whether she is into that kind of "attraction"

 

Hope you understood me....

[sweetjasmine]

I never said 110 at 5 ' 5 was always ideal for YOU.

 

No, but you said that a woman who is 5'5", 110 lbs is going to be universally more attractive than a woman who is 5'2", 140 lbs. What if the shorter woman is closer to her natural weight? What if the taller woman is 30 pounds underweight for her body?

 

Why did you use the word "universally" and then backtrack about women looking good at their natural weight?

 

I am saying, that the women who have naturally slender, long limbs, whilst also having a big wip to waist ratio ( a curvy hour glass), in addition to a ncie butt and breasts, are more physically attractive than a 5 '2 women who is 140 lbs.

 

Why? How? You're not saying anything about the 5'2" woman except her weight, even though you acknowledge that it's not just about the number.

 

I am saying that I think the hottest looking women, have prety faces, in addition to having long and slelnder limbs, with a smallish body type that CAN healthily be 5 ' 5 ish and 114 ish or lower, or be 5 '7 and even 112 lbs.

 

Right, and here you wrote "I think". It's your opinion/preference. But don't make the mistake of ascribing that to everyone else.

 

There is a reason the soccer stars and all those male models, and just attractive men in general, are not with womon who are 5 '2 and 140 lbs; these women are NOT FAT by any means, however, it is not as physically attractive to as many men, as is a women that has naturally long and slender limbs, such as models do ( the healthy ones, with curves, not boy ish ones).

 

Soccer stars and male models are with super thin models because of social status. Fashion models are rail thin skeletons because the fashion industry wants a body that won't distract from the clothes, and as a result, that extreme level of thinness is seen as chic, elegant, and classy. Having a beautiful skeleton hanging on your arm is like having a Mercedes or a fancy convertible and showing it off to all your friends.

 

That doesn't tell you what ordinary people are physically attracted to, removed from the complications of social status.

 

I AM NOT saying any one is "fat". I am saying that very very good looking men DO tend to go for women who have great skin, look pretty, are fit and healthy, and take care of their bodies, in addition to being slender and feminine

 

And you know that a 5'2" 140 lbs woman can't have great skin, look pretty, be fit and healthy, take care of her body, and be slender and feminine....how? Why is that only achievable by being medically underweight?

 

This is just reality.

 

No, it's not. You're obsessed with numbers. I hope you're getting professional help.

[threebyfate]

Not sure why people can't understand the concept of average without including their ideal preferences, particularly as an opportunity to showcase their own "ideal" bodies.

[dreamingoftigers]

If I had to pick a fling solely on looks, I would pick a chubby guy, I actually get a little sicked out by six-pack abs. I also love chest hair, that certainly isn't a trend nowadays.

[Akherousia]

If I had to pick a fling solely on looks, I would pick a chubby guy, I actually get a little sicked out by six-pack abs. I also love chest hair, that certainly isn't a trend nowadays.

 

There's always an exception to the rule. Your point? Concerning your previous post:

 

Good looking guys, tall guys, and fit guys don't get attached as easily as the average guy because they don't have to. Most good looking guys have options; why would they attach themselves to a single woman?

 

Why would I attach myself to a man? I have my own money. I'm young. I want to have fun. I'm not interested in having children and I'm not interested in an "emotional" relationship, I have my girlfriends for that.

´

So what's wrong with women or men looking for good looking partners? They might not make good long - term partners? Maybe. But I don't go to a restaurant thinking I'm going to go that one until I die.

 

Human beings have always been fascinated with beauty. Look at the Ancient Greeks, how they venerated the male form and it's fitness level. Look at the great painters from Italy. The women they painted(the women they really wanted to paint) were very beautiful.

 

Beauty inspires greatness. Beauty can be seen in boldness and in courage but it's mostly in the shape of the face, the gleam in those eyes and that body that makes worlds tremble.

 

michelangelo, this man based his 'David' on what? A young, very handsome and fit man. He didn't storm into the nearest inn and got the services of an obese, short and balding man. Why not? Because when people think of greatness, of valour, of courage and of conquest they are going to think about a young man with great beauty.

 

Sometimes those traits are found in very good looking men, sometimes they aren't but that's not the point. The point is, beauty is what makes the world go round. Not the intelligence level of the man.

 

Tesla died a virgin. Sir Isaac Newton died a virgin. Beethoven died a virgin. Yet, Casanova bedded hundreds of young and attractive women - without paying for it.

 

If intelligence was the number 1 trait(instead of looks, height/money, body and money) sought after by women and men we wouldn't have guys looking like Christian Bale or Bruce Williams.

 

We'd have guys with the IQ of Goethe running around.

 

As for women not worrying that much about a man's physical appearance when they have marriage in mind; marriage has nothing to do with love.

 

Never had, never will. Marriage is a contract.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Akherousia

[Cracker Jack]

What an unbelievable topic. I'm stumped now:confused:

[Eeyore79]

And you know that a 5'2" 140 lbs woman can't have great skin, look pretty, be fit and healthy, take care of her body, and be slender and feminine....how?

 

If a woman is 5'2" and weighs 140 pounds, she is medically overweight... most definitely not slender and feminine.

[Eeyore79]

So are such couplings doomed to a life of mediocre connection, intimacy, sex, etc. if we're not in that upper echelon of physical attractiveness?

Think about it on a 1-10 scale of attractiveness; I hate to use such a thing, but it helps to explain what I mean. People tend to find other people to be acceptable if they're equally or more attractive than themselves. If someone is significantly less attractive than yourself, you probably won't find them attractive.

 

Two 4s would probably find each other attractive, and would be perfectly happy together. The 4 woman finds the 4 guy acceptable because he's around the same level of attractiveness as herself. But a 9 woman might look at the 4 guy and be completely repulsed, because her standards are higher; if she dated him she'd feel like she was dating beneath her and deserved better. But the two 4s aren't necessarily any less happy than two 9s would be... they are attracted to each other and enjoy sex etc just as much as the 9s do.

 

The reason you see ugly guys with hot women, or vice versa, is because attractiveness isn't just about looks. Someone might not be good looking, but they might have a great personality, be smart, funny, kind, etc... and once those things are added up they are as attractive as another person who might be more hot but have less good personal qualities.

[Eeyore79]

I often wondered why some people would date down, so to speak ,if they do not find their partners attractive. I have seen some odd couples where their is an obvious difference in physical appearance and yet they seem very together.

Attractiveness isn't just about physical appearance. The less good looking partner probably has some admirable personal qualities which makes the more good looking partner see them as an equal.

 

 

I think there are some guys and girls out there who mistakenly link their self-esteem to the "hotness" of who they can date.

 

It seems to me that when someone is ok looking but not gorgeous, they're more concerned about dating someone attractive to boost their own self esteem. The truly beautiful people date whoever they want, even if their partner isn't conventionally attractive, because they're already secure about their looks and don't need an attractive partner to boost their self esteem.

[Content]

The overly shallow visual whackos have infiltrated this thread, geez

[irc333]

Angelina Jolie is still far more beautiful than most young women out there. Hm, no. Her name is without meaning. Look, she bagged Brad Pitt. You've seen a 20 year old woman bagging Brad Pitt? Why not?

 

Sorry EVA MENDEZ, makes Angelina look like an old HAG. Seriously.

[counterman]

Attractiveness isn't just about physical appearance. The less good looking partner probably has some admirable personal qualities which makes the more good looking partner see them as an equal.

 

 

Agreed. Even though I was talking about the pure physical, the qualities I do observe, which makes me admire them of so much, is genuine kindness and confidence. They're just comfortable in their own skin and being around them feels comfortable too.

[dreamingoftigers]

I think that unfortunately this happens in many instances. Hence why divorce and infidelity rates are so high. Too many will do what they see as "settling", but can't seem to find love in their choice...so they cheat and/or divorce.

 

 

I think the problem is that too many men and especially women have a lot of bad teaching in their mindsets when it comes down to picking a mate.

 

Both authors Lori Gottleib and Jillian Strauss both touched on this, but were dismissed especially by women's lib. They simply pointed out how many single women there are out there as well as dateless guys who would commit, and started to ask if people are now too unrealistically picky.

 

I for one live by and push this simple statement in this matter:

 

Standards for a mate are only good if you can actually attain such a person as your mate.

 

I've said variations of this for a while now, and it still tells both men and women that you're stuck with the pool of available singles that are in front of you, and can only pick from those WILLING to be with you.

 

Many though seem to still think they can change someone's mind. Men who think they can "win someone over", and women who do the same...or worse believe that because a man of a certain "caliber" slept with them in a fling or ONS, that they can actually get him or someone like him to be their boyfriend or husband.

 

On and off these boards, I see men and women complain how no one is "good enough". Women who claim all the hot guys are jerks and/or losers, all the good guys are ugly, and all the hot good guys are gay. Men who complain how all the hot girls have less education and no career, but all the educated/career women are ugly. On and on.

 

The reality is that's their pool and they can either pick from it, or stay alone. That's what many don't want to accept. If you have certain standards set for your ideal mate, then you have to also examine IF such a person exists AND IF that person would choose you as his/her mate.

 

So the hot, wealthy, exciting, successful man might roll along, but then the red flags pop up of things like he's got a wife, or he's chosen to be "single 4 life" or he's a horrible man in RLs. The reality then is women need to move on, not think they can "win him over". Men are in the same boat...so when it comes down to the hot cocktail waitress who has a kid versus the average office professional who doesn't drink a lot...you choose. Not complain.

 

If you see it as "settling for less", then you might as well remain alone and accept you don't want a real love. Too many put the priority on looks, lifestyle, and money so much they forget the rest. Things like "will he/she be good to me?" should be the top priority and never compromised on, but too many do compromise it in the hopes of hot arm candy.

 

The thing I tell most people is you can't change others...no matter how much you want to. So if you're a woman and you meet Mr Amazing, but he won't ever commit, then he's not Mr Ideal. Not even Mr Project or Mr Could-be. Same deal with men. If you meet hot women who are stuck-up bitches and yet plain janes who are not, then you might have to decide how much you value a hot wife over a good wife.

 

Right now I see the happy RLs and marriages are the nice guys and nice girls who get past their own crap and find one another. I don't see the stuck-up bitches, douchebags, bad boys, entitled princesses, bad-boy chasers, or doormats having happy love lives.

 

 

I notice those who are "up higher" are even more chronically single. They simply set the bar way too high and then wonder why they can't find someone.

 

I agree with the above post!

[Disillusioned]

But you can't have it both ways, either you have a laundry list and realize that the odds of meeting someone who hits every item on the list is very low or you loosen the criteria and are open to meeting, getting to know, and perhaps dating someone who doesn't hit all the items.

 

You cannot have a list of criteria a mile long and then mope because there aren't many people who meet the criteria and the ones that do are so turned off by your attitude that they aren't interested in you.

 

True, but since I haven't fallen for an incompatible person, I've avoided the divorce mill.

[Leigh 87]

No, but you said that a woman who is 5'5", 110 lbs is going to be universally more attractive than a woman who is 5'2", 140 lbs. What if the shorter woman is closer to her natural weight? What if the taller woman is 30 pounds underweight for her body?

 

Why did you use the word "universally" and then backtrack about women looking good at their natural weight?

 

 

 

Why? How? You're not saying anything about the 5'2" woman except her weight, even though you acknowledge that it's not just about the number.

 

 

 

Right, and here you wrote "I think". It's your opinion/preference. But don't make the mistake of ascribing that to everyone else.

 

 

 

Soccer stars and male models are with super thin models because of social status. Fashion models are rail thin skeletons because the fashion industry wants a body that won't distract from the clothes, and as a result, that extreme level of thinness is seen as chic, elegant, and classy. Having a beautiful skeleton hanging on your arm is like having a Mercedes or a fancy convertible and showing it off to all your friends.

 

That doesn't tell you what ordinary people are physically attracted to, removed from the complications of social status.

 

 

 

And you know that a 5'2" 140 lbs woman can't have great skin, look pretty, be fit and healthy, take care of her body, and be slender and feminine....how? Why is that only achievable by being medically underweight?

 

 

 

No, it's not. You're obsessed with numbers. I hope you're getting professional help.

 

 

 

You have a skewed image, not me; I am realistic. I see myself as I be slender at that height and weight; not that I think this makes her any less of a person.

 

 

 

I was not inferring to the notion of super models being arm candy; it happens, but I was describing the universally attractive body, which is NOT super model thin, in fact.

 

Actually, the body I am describing to be the most sought after, by the highest majority of men, is THIS: a women who is not too short, and has long, slender limbs, is not a large build, and has a NARROW waist that contrasts with her WIDE hips ( hour glass), and has the lonbg slender limbs hanging off of the hour glass.

 

To me, the ball park weight and height ratio for such a women, would be 5 - 6 and 114 ish - 110 lbs. NOT THAT particular height, but the SAME weight to height ratio with OTHER Heights.

 

A small waist, wide hips, and that slender frame with long limbs, IN ADDITION do a striking face ( that is not boring, and has something different about ti to stand out) = a women that will GET MORE MALE ATTENTION than a 5 ' 2 women, with a stocky build.

 

I am not saying that a 5 ' 2 women with a large body type looks ugly; if they eat well ( real , natural food), and find the right exercise that suitts them, they will attain a look that is healthy and fit.

 

However, the women who has a thick body type and a not so attractive face, will even at her healthiest and best version of herself, not attract as many very, very attractive men, as her taller, long limbed counter part.

 

I DO NOT think stick thin, bony models are the ideal; some men like them, but the body I AM talking about IS NOT a skeleton, and is simply long limbed, with the narrow waist - hour glass look.

 

GREEN has the same taste - the girl cannot be unnaturally thin; she is not emaciated, but naturally long limbed and healthy at 114 - 110 lbs, and 5 ' 5 to 5 ' 7.

 

 

Now, from the women who are blessed with slender long limbs, and a pretty enough face, there are bound to be intelligent ones, that are fun and have an over all great personality.

 

The women with a thicker body and less attractive facial features may well be fantastic too, but they can never look slim, slender, and slight. I do not think most 5 ' 2 women are naturally 140 lbs... I think if they ate the right amount for a women of 5 ' 2, and exercised accordingly, and ate clean, they would fall at a lower weight.

 

 

My area of interest is actually at how the MAJORITY of women are bigger than they could be, due to the chemicals in our food, and general environment. The world, and the air we breath, to our food supply and make up and facial care products, make MOST PEOPLES bodies malfunction to some extent; because we are in an environment we are not designed for.

 

Basically, most women of that height, 5 ' 2, are not " naturally' 140 or more lbs, if they ate 100% chemical free real food, and ate and exercised the right amounts. Only a small amount of shorter women have large bones, not the majority.

 

 

So stop saying that I have an image problem, because I think that thicker women do not look as slender and attractive as long limbed, taller women; I do not think emaciated looks good, I do not like bones poking out, I si mply think naturally long limbed women who are small boned are more attractive than thicker, short women.

 

SHEESH. Liking taller thinner women does not mean I like emaciated sketetons, and it does not mean I think normal women are ugly. I do not think a women of 5 '2 and 140 or more lbs can be slim and have an attractive body to super hot men. I have a right to feel that way.

[Woggle]

I agree with the above post!

 

I agree as well. I wish the nice people would find each other and leave the rest to be miserable treating each other like trash.