Is it best for Average people to Date Average people and give up their dreams?

[azsinglegal]

 

I have as much muscle as any average girl you'd see on the streets. That doesn't seem to matter, though. I look about the same as this girl: http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/6261355/Audience-aghast-as-acrobat-falls . She is a performing acrobat, a role that requires good fitness and agility, definitely more than I have. But we have the same body shape, and I'm sure she's judged as chubby too. (Not the best picture, since her shirt is loose, but it was the first I could think of and her arms look like mine)

 

Doesn't look chubby to me.

[Dust]

Sadly there is actually a little truth to Dust's post. No it's not the porn part.

 

My sexual experiences and a general complete lack of experience has messed up how I see women. I could go into a lot more detail but there isn't a need for this thread.

 

BTW, I asked out a girl a few days ago. And while she said no, I'm going to try again later as I don't thinks she knew I was being serious.

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

I'd stop with the porn!

 

Good job asking a girl out... but how the heck did she not know you were beng serious... really good job on asking her out again! Now ask out more women! Be damn sure to make a move when you spend time getting to know these girls. I doubt they'll ask you... but if they do ask about a past relationship you just lie and say its been a few months and not that anything bad happened but you just don't want to talk about exes now.

[Imajerk17]

These are my own preferences, but I think 5'3" 145 is fine, as long as the girl is in shape/muscular.

 

I'd even say that 5'6" 145 is actually a bit on the thin side. Maybe 160 would be ideal.

 

Again, it's more about where she carries the weight.

[jobaba]

I'm 5'1" and 120 lbs, and have been called chubby way more times than I care to repeat. That is the sort of mentality that disgusts me. That a woman has to be either underweight or in the lower end of the normal weight range, or else be called 'chubby'. Most of the girls called 'chubby' are not unhealthy by any means - or at least not in weight-related ways. They would be considered lovely if today's society did not idolize slimness. Unfortunately, they are often made to think poorly of themselves instead for their perfectly normal and healthy bodies.

 

Sorry to point this out, but it's the same with women and how they view men's height.

 

That any man lower than 5'10" or 5'9" will be labeled as short...

 

That disgusts me too. But it is what it is.

 

For women, who like tall men, that's just a preference.

 

For men who like slim women, well that's just a preference too (though not mine).

[azsinglegal]

These are my own preferences, but I think 5'3" 145 is fine, as long as the girl is in shape/muscular.

I'd even say that 5'6" 145 is actually a bit on the thin side. Maybe 160 would be ideal.

 

Again, it's more about where she carries the weight.

 

Hell....I don't look thin at all. You must like'em thick?

[somedude81]

I was 5'5 and 118lbs when I met my husband. Years later, 2 pregnancies & 1 child later, I am 128lbs, so 10lbs heavier. IMO that's reasonable, isn't it?

 

I have a really hard time with men getting **** on for having a weight preference in women. As much as we'd like to pretend it doesn't exist, men ARE very visual and sexually attracted based on physical appearance. Which is why I work my ass off to maintain 128lbs at 30+ with multiple pregnancies.

 

IMO, 5'2 and 145lbs is chubby and I think we all know that. "Acceptable" chubby for many men, yes, but they shouldn't be **** on for not being attracted to it. If a girl can't maintain a reasonable shape when young and single, then it will get worse after she starts having babies. Maybe these men are just being realistic about not wanting to deal with losing sexual attraction when it hardly exists in the first place. You all know that in the marriage forums, one of a man's top complaints is that she let herself go drastically.

 

And yes, my husband has gained 60lbs since I met him. I still find him attractive. But that is me. Some people are honest in saying that they would not- and they should not be hanged for it.

Yes! Another woman who can rationally think things through.

Not only that, you may find yourself attracted to a broader range of women, simply because you are hornier! Also because you aren't artifically associating sex with a narrow "porn type".

 

Bean--I'm not trying to talk any man into dating a woman he isn't attracted to. I'm just saying that it is silly to reject a woman outright based on a number on the scale. Be a little more open minded, look at her as an individual and not a number, and you might be surprised to find attraction grow sometimes. Chubby can be extremely sexy if you simply adore the woman.

And then...

 

OK, some men are turned on by folds and extra curves in, interesting places.

 

I'm not one of them.

 

BTW xxoo I'm sure you have outright rejected plenty of men based on their physical appearance.

Both of these statements show what I am saying.

 

I know women who run longer and faster than me, and are chubby--esp stubborn hip/thigh weight.

 

I am a size 0, and I ran 5 miles on Sat. My sisters, as thin as me, do triathalons and hang from rocks for fun.

 

A number means NOTHING! We are all individuals.

It seems you have no idea what we even mean by chubby. Although it wasn't even my term.

 

On a certain level I agree that people shouldn't be judged for their own attractiveness quota, but when their standards and quota are much higher than they themselves strive to be, and then they whine about how they can't get what they want, it gets under my skin. It then becomes less about attraction, and more about entitlement.

Do you really think all the guys here who are saying no fat chicks, are obese guys themselves?

 

This is me without a shirt . Am I being hypocritical? Or does the fact that I'm short mean I have to take what ever I'm offered.

 

Does the physical really have to be there for you right from the start? Can no other things make up for the lack of physical attraction in a relationship? A lot of people out there are bypassing the physical attraction requirement, because the other benefits (companionship, love, attention, etc.) make up for it.

Any sane person would be insulted by those questions. Nobody, man or woman, wants to date somebody they are not attracted to.

If you're serious about finding love and finding a relationship and someone to care about you, then you may have to be more flexible about your physical requirement if it's not working for you when you adhere to your requirements. Believe it or not, there are plenty of people out there that know they are not physically attractive to the opposite sex, but they are still in relationships for other reasons, and they are getting their needs met for companionship, for love, and even for sex. You ever hear the song "Better With the Lights Off"? (I think that's the name of it). People can and do enjoy sex with someone that they may not be physically attracted to through sight alone, but they still enjoy sex because it feels good regardless of the fact that they are not physically attractive. I'm just suggesting that if it's not working for you to find love with the physical requirements you currently have, you should consider changing those requirements, and that may get you more success with dating.

You know what. You do it first. Then I might consider.

 

Go have sex with a man who disgusts you, without the aid of alcohol and make a post about it.

Doesn't look chubby to me.

Of course not.

 

Chubby too me is a woman who has visible fat on her arms. When seen from the side, her stomach sticks out more than her breasts.

[somedude81]

These are my own preferences, but I think 5'3" 145 is fine, as long as the girl is in shape/muscular.

 

I'd even say that 5'6" 145 is actually a bit on the thin side. Maybe 160 would be ideal.

 

Again, it's more about where she carries the weight.

ROTFL!

 

First of all, there is a 99.9% chance that a woman who is 5'3, 145 will not be in shape/muscular.

 

And then, 5'6, 160 is heavier than I am!

 

A woman that height would not be that heavy because of muscle. Unless she's one of those really freaky extreme body builders.

 

Do you seriously want a girl who can bench 200?

[Imajerk17]

Hell....I don't look thin at all. You must like'em thick?

 

I hooked up with a girl this summer who is 5'6" 150 personal trainer... she didn't seem thick at all. I could pick her up quite easily.

 

I prefer thick and muscular/in shape to thin.

[azsinglegal]

I hooked up with a girl this summer who is 5'6" 150 personal trainer... she didn't seem thick at all. I could pick her up quite easily.

 

I prefer thick and muscular/in shape to thin.

 

I guess I'm close to that and I'm not thick.

 

I was thinking more the 160lbs and my height. I was thick then...but I wasn't working out either.

[FitChick]

Most people are clueless when they talk about weight and clothing size. You should be talking about measurements -- the only numbers that are relevant.

[xxoo]

First of all, there is a 99.9% chance that a woman who is 5'3, 145 will not be in shape/muscular.

 

Have you looked at this site?

 

Type in 5'3" and 150#, and look at the range of shapes and sizes.

[KathyM]

 

 

Do you really think all the guys here who are saying no fat chicks, are obese guys themselves?

 

This is me without a shirt . Am I being hypocritical? Or does the fact that I'm short mean I have to take what ever I'm offered.

 

 

Any sane person would be insulted by those questions. Nobody, man or woman, wants to date somebody they are not attracted to.

 

You know what. You do it first. Then I might consider.

 

Go have sex with a man who disgusts you, without the aid of alcohol and make a post about it.

 

Of course not.

 

Chubby too me is a woman who has visible fat on her arms. When seen from the side, her stomach sticks out more than her breasts.

Actually, people date others on a regular basis and even marry others they aren't particularly physically attracted to because they find companionship to be more of a plus than holding out for some standard of physical attractiveness that hasn't been attainable for them for whatever reason. I know a lot of people who have adjusted their attitude because they realize they'd rather have a companion and be loved than to be alone and holding out for something that they may never get. People also get with others for reasons other than physical attractiveness, and find other attributes equally or even more important, such as personality, character, intelligence, etc. Lots of people are willing to compromise on their standards for attractiveness if the guy/woman has a lot of other things going for them or even one other great thing. I know a very attractive woman who is totally enamoured by a guy that has absolutely no physical attractiveness about him, but he is a really nice, genuine, friendly, sociable guy who treats her extremely well. She's very happy. She has adjusted her standards of what to look for in a guy, and attractiveness is no longer on her list of what's important. You can bet that if I was 30 years old, little to no dating experience, can't seem to attract a guy, I'd be adjusting my standards, and giving those guys with extra weight, receding hairline, nerdy, average, etc., a chance rather than living my life alone. Physical appearance is only one thing, it's not everything. There are many things that go into making a person worthwhile to date. Many attributes a person can have that would make them worth getting to know. Physical attractiveness is only one out of many things. I'm just suggesting that you consider adjusting those requirements you have. If you've done everything you can to improve your situation and you are still unsuccessful, it's time to rethink your expectations. Just a suggestion if you're more serious about getting into a relationship than you are about maintaining a certain standard of attractiveness in a woman. I'm showing you a road to success in dating, since you've said you've tried everything and can't seem to make any headway. If there is seriously nothing you can do for yourself to improve your success rate, and you've exhausted every avenue, then you need to be more open to the kinds of women that you are currently overlooking.

[azsinglegal]

Have you looked at this site?

 

Type in 5'3" and 150#, and look at the range of shapes and sizes.

 

That is a fantastic site. I was surprised at how many ladies were my size but everyone looks so different.

[somedude81]

Have you looked at this site?

 

Type in 5'3" and 150#, and look at the range of shapes and sizes.

5'6, 150 She's OK.

 

5'4, 153 Not really

 

5'3, 155 Hides it on her hips

 

Can I stop now?

 

Looking at that site, I think that 120-13 is the best weight for women that height.

 

If you've done everything you can to improve your situation and you are still unsuccessful, it's time to rethink your expectations. Just a suggestion if you're more serious about getting into a relationship than you are about maintaining a certain standard of attractiveness in a woman. I'm showing you a road to success in dating, since you've said you've tried everything and can't seem to make any headway. If there is seriously nothing you can do for yourself to improve your success rate, and you've exhausted every avenue, then you need to be more open to the kinds of women that you are currently overlooking.

No, I haven't tried everything.

 

There are also still many things I need to learn.

 

I'm not ready to settle just yet.

[azsinglegal]

5'6, 150 She's OK.

 

5'4, 153 Not really

 

5'3, 155 Hides it on her hips

 

Can I stop now?

 

Looking at that site, I think that 120-13 is the best weight for women that height.

 

 

No, I haven't tried everything.

 

There are also still many things I need to learn.

 

I'm not ready to settle just yet.

 

At which height? 5'3"? Sure, depending on body type. You're way too critical on looks dear...

[verhrzn]

5'6, 150 She's OK.

 

5'4, 153 Not really

 

5'3, 155 Hides it on her hips

 

Can I stop now?

 

Looking at that site, I think that 120-13 is the best weight for women that height.

 

Ah, so your type is young and thin. Shocker.

[somedude81]

At which height? 5'3"? Sure, depending on body type. You're way too critical on looks dear...

Yeah, 5'3 120-135. That's ideal.

 

Why am I too critical? You even agreed with me.

Ah, so your type is young and thin. Shocker.

What the heck are you complaining about?

 

You're in that range...

[verhrzn]

Yeah, 5'3 120-135. That's ideal.

 

Why am I too critical? You even agreed with me.

 

What the heck are you complaining about?

 

You're in that range...

 

I'm not even close to that range. I'm 5'1"ish and anywhere from 120-130 pounds. Those girls have about 3-4 inches on me and yet weight either my weight or less.

[azsinglegal]

Yeah, 5'3 120-135. That's ideal.

 

Why am I too critical? You even agreed with me.

 

What the heck are you complaining about?

 

You're in that range...

 

I think you are a bit too critical on looks...at least that's the impression I get from reading your posts. You put a lot of emphasis it.

 

However....

 

Those other girls weren't bad (and they look YOUNG)...BUT...there is potential for serious chunkiness too. Why are young girls so lazy about taking care of themselves? I was 112lbs as a teenager and all thru college. I did sports, cheer and all my friends were the same.

 

It was RARE for someone to be overweight. NOW...girls just let all their fat rolls and muffin top hang out without a care in the world. They let it hang over their jeans, with their bellies lopped out over their belts.

 

I seriously do NOT understand it.

[xxoo]

You're way too critical on looks dear...

 

I agree!

 

I have friends that look like those women--active women in sexual relationships. Their men are getting good loving. Sounds a whole lot better than being involuntarily celibate to me

[somedude81]

I'm not even close to that range. I'm 5'1"ish and anywhere from 120-130 pounds. Those girls have about 3-4 inches on me and yet weight either my weight or less.

LOL!

 

I think your math is a bit off.

 

5'3-5'1 is two inches. Not 3-4.

 

So a girl that's 5'3 is only two inches taller than you. Yes they may weigh less than you but that doesn't mean you're out of that range. Plus, based on your athletic background, I'm sure you have more muscle on you than the average woman. And muscle weighs more than fat.

[Michael30]

I think you are a bit too critical on looks...at least that's the impression I get from reading your posts. You put a lot of emphasis it.

 

However....

 

Those other girls weren't bad (and they look YOUNG)...BUT...there is potential for serious chunkiness too. Why are young girls so lazy about taking care of themselves? I was 112lbs as a teenager and all thru college. I did sports, cheer and all my friends were the same.

 

It was RARE for someone to be overweight. NOW...girls just let all their fat rolls and muffin top hang out without a care in the world. They let it hang over their jeans, with their bellies lopped out over their belts.

 

I seriously do NOT understand it.

 

So what if he wants a girl with good looks. Women are always examining us and expect us to be Superman in bed an Bill Gates in the bank so it's only fair that we make sure the woman we give our balls to is worth it.

[azsinglegal]

LOL!

 

I think your math is a bit off.

 

5'3-5'1 is two inches. Not 3-4.

 

So a girl that's 5'3 is only two inches taller than you. Yes they may weigh less than you but that doesn't mean you're out of that range. Plus, based on your athletic background, I'm sure you have more muscle on you than the average woman. And muscle weighs more than fat.

 

Muscle does NOT weight more then fat. A 1lb of fat = 1lb of muscle.

 

But....muscle is LEANER and therefore looks thinner then fat.

[azsinglegal]

So what if he wants a girl with good looks. Women are always examining us and expect us to be Superman in bed an Bill Gates in the bank so it's only fair that we make sure the woman we give our balls to is worth it.

 

Not all women want that - IE: half the women on this board.

[somedude81]

I think you are a bit too critical on looks...at least that's the impression I get from reading your posts. You put a lot of emphasis it.

Yes I do put a lot of emphasis on looks. But you haven't said why I'm too critical.

 

However....

 

Those other girls weren't bad (and they look YOUNG)...BUT...there is potential for serious chunkiness too. Why are young girls so lazy about taking care of themselves? I was 112lbs as a teenager and all thru college. I did sports, cheer and all my friends were the same.

 

It was RARE for someone to be overweight. NOW...girls just let all their fat rolls and muffin top hang out without a care in the world. They let it hang over their jeans, with their bellies lopped out over their belts.

 

I seriously do NOT understand it.

I think it's because men all over are lowering their standards. Why should a girl be thin if she can get almost any man either way?

I agree!

 

I have friends that look like those women--active women in sexual relationships. Their men are getting good loving. Sounds a whole lot better than being involuntarily celibate to me

Of the three I linked only she was unacceptable. Just too much fat on her stomach, arms, neck and most likely face. I'd actually prefer her because of the hourglass.

 

Muscle does NOT weight more then fat. A 1lb of fat = 1lb of muscle.

 

But....muscle is LEANER and therefore looks thinner then fat.

It's something about the volume. 1lb of fat looks a lot bigger than 1lb of muscle.

 

That's what I was talking about.

 

Somebody can look thinish, but have a weight that is supposedly higher than it should be, because they have muscle on them. I'm pretty sure that's what's going on with verhrzn. If she had no muscle and all her weight was fat, she'd look much bigger than she does now.

 

It's like a gallon of milk vs. a gallon of mercury.

 

BTW a gallon of milk is roughly 8.8lbs and a gallon of mercury is about 113lbs.