Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well if being rooted in reality and calling what clearly is BS out is being a villian then fine by me.
Is that so? For someone that lives in California, you sure act like you hate it. Why is that? I haven't seen you say one good thing about it in my 5 months as a forumer.
Quote:
I also agree Miami, LA, and SD have some of the sexiest women but that doesn't mean those ares are the most fit and healthiest though. Fake boobs and lipo don't make you healthy.
Makes them more attractive. I don't think of that as a bad thing.
One area where I disagree with PosterExtraordinaire is that I think NYC and Boston have plenty of attractive women, especially Boston, for the cold cities. DC could fit in also but its already in the south and its just as hot as it is cold, maybe even hotter than colder, so there's no need to make a special report for it, its in a region with cities that have reputations for beautiful women. The region with a reputation for dressing fashionably. See Austin, Atlanta, Miami, and Dallas.
Again, find a better study if you don't like it. Or better yet find one that shows LA, Miami, and SD being the most "in shape" cities.
There is no better study, they're all ****. More for fun than anything. But everytime I googled this I got a different list, with a different ranking. Try this one:
1)Denver
2)Portland
3)Austin
4)San Diego
5)Seattle
6)Minneapolis
7)Miami
8)San Francisco
9)Honolulu
10)Los Angeles
11)Santa Fe
12)Phoenix
13)Charleston
14)Boston
15)Houston
16)Providence
17)Nashville
18)Chicago
19)Orlando
20)Kansas City
21)Washington DC
22)Atlanta
23)San Antonio
24)Dallas
25)Cleveland
26)St. Louis
27)New York
28)Philadelphia
29)Las Vegas
30)New Orleans
So which study is better? The ranking of this one is more or less completely different. The answer is both are bull****, and rely on easy quantifiable data to make rankings when those indicators only take into 1% of the picture. Sometime, going by your eyes is the best thing to do.
Travel and leisure is the superior ranking because it lets us, the travelers, decide where cities belong. It doesn't leave studies in the hands of pointdexters in a lab that likely can never score. These people don't even have a large enough sample pool to conduct an analysis.
Travel and leisure is the superior ranking because it lets us, the travelers, decide where cities belong. It doesn't leave studies in the hands of pointdexters in a lab that likely can never score. These people don't even have a large enough sample pool to conduct an analysis.
Is that so? For someone that lives in California, you sure act like you hate it. Why is that? I haven't seen you say one good thing about it in my 5 months as a forumer.
I don't boast about CA, I don't thinK I need to at all but I have and will defend it when people unfairly stereotype/generalize it and/or just say things that are flat out false. There are plenty of things I don't like about CA but I don't hate this place at all.
Quote:
Makes them more attractive. I don't think of that as a bad thing.
One area where I disagree with PosterExtraordinaire is that I think NYC and Boston have plenty of attractive women, especially Boston, for the cold cities. DC could fit in also but its already in the south and its just as hot as it is cold, maybe even hotter than colder, so there's no need to make a special report for it, its in a region with cities that have reputations for beautiful women. A region with a reputation for dressing fashionably. See Austin, Atlanta, Miami, and Dallas.
I don't think it's a bad thing either just saying don't equate having a high concentration of good looking women with an area being really fit and healthy overall. Plenty of fit yet unattractive women in SF and Berekley. Climate has almost nothing to do with how fit/healthy the overall population is and that was my main point.
I don't think it's a bad thing either just saying don't equate having a high concentration of good looking women with an area being really fit and healthy overall. Plenty of fit yet unattractive women in SF and Berekley. Climate has almost nothing to do with how fit/healthy the overall population is and that was my main point.
Attractiveness goes with health. It's biological instinct.
There is no better study, they're all ****. More for fun than anything. But everytime I googled this I got a different list, with a different ranking. Try this one:
1)Denver
2)Portland
3)Austin
4)San Diego
5)Seattle
6)Minneapolis
7)Miami
8)San Francisco
9)Honolulu
10)Los Angeles
11)Santa Fe
12)Phoenix
13)Charleston
14)Boston
15)Houston
16)Providence
17)Nashville
18)Chicago
19)Orlando
20)Kansas City
21)Washington DC
22)Atlanta
23)San Antonio
24)Dallas
25)Cleveland
26)St. Louis
27)New York
28)Philadelphia
29)Las Vegas
30)New Orleans
So which study is better? The ranking of this one is more or less completely different. The answer is both are bull****, and rely on easy quantifiable data to make rankings when those indicators only take into 1% of the picture. Sometime, going by your eyes is the best thing to do.
Well certainly not one that simply asks for people's opinions rather than using actual scientific data that is studied. But a Travel and Leisure survey would probably be more to your liking as it's simply a survey of people's opinions and perceptions rather than based in quantifiable data. Judging by where most visitors would spend time in places like SD, Miami, and LA these results are not surprising at all.
If you want to think you're right based on your own personal perception go ahead but don't expect anyone to find that credible.
I don't boast about CA, I don't thinK I need to at all but I have and will defend it when people unfairly stereotype/generalize it and/or just say things that are flat out false. There are plenty of things I don't like about CA but I don't hate this place at all.
Ah, that makes sense. Sorry about the distrust sav. I was under the impression that you were a birther or tea bagger living in California and hating it.
Quote:
I don't think it's a bad thing either just saying don't equate having a high concentration of good looking women with an area being really fit and healthy overall. Plenty of fit yet unattractive women in SF and Berekley. Climate has almost nothing to do with how fit/healthy the overall population is and that was my main point.
k.
Those are decent points. I still don't agree with them fully but I can see what you're getting at. The issue is that its easier to spot good looking women in warm weather cities, they typically wear less clothes, have a good tan, and are more often spotted in recreation areas like lakes, rivers, pools, beaches, etc. In addition to that their sense in wardrobe is influenced by the weather. It's much easier to spot an attractive woman in a place with warm weather than a place with cold weather.
Houston. Houston is hot, and very humid in the summer, and situated a bit further inland than many people think.
I would actually expect that most people are unaware that Houston is a coastal city.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
roflmao
