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.
I can't believe anyone would think this looks better. ^^^^^
And you guys who think a woman 5'10" and 165 is too fat - get over yourselves! That is a good healthy weight for a woman that tall!
Certainly this women appears unappealing with a overwhelmingly slim frame.Although, I do not believe mounds of adipose tissue to be ideal however person(s) with grossly visible scapula and vertebrae also strike up genuine concern.
Pardon me if I enjoy a woman to appear as a woman and not a preteen.
Warrants questioning of marketing firms or fashion moguls (mental capacities/illness) who project such body frames as ideal beauty.
I don't know... but I doubt it. I don't think I've seen a dumber thread. Why has this one persisted for so long? Both of those women are awesome. A guy would be lucky to get with either one. Just because you've been told you should have a "type" doesn't mean its true. There is only one type for a normal guy: female. All else is up to chance. I'm not stupid, I don't expect someone to find 5'3" and 220lbs attractive. I do expect someone to find 20% and 24% bodyfat equally interesting. I do expect someone in a position to be interesting to a woman that is 5'10" to also find a woman 5'7" interesting enough to be attracted to, all other things being equal. Is it too much to ask that if someone is going to make a poll like this that they focus on one variable at a time? I mean... would it have been so hard to find two women the same height but with different builds to compare?
Because it's a thread analyzing the numerical variables which theoretically make one woman appear more physically attractive to a man over another. The Miss America pageant committee would be proud Most men I have met are shallow. Women are as well, but we are either less shallow overall, or we're savvy enough to know we should hide our shallowness.
Certainly this women appears unappealing with a overwhelmingly slim frame.Although, I do not believe mounds of adipose tissue to be ideal however person(s) with grossly visible scapula and vertebrae also strike up genuine concern.
Pardon me if I enjoy a woman to appear as a woman and not a preteen.
Warrants questioning of marketing firms or fashion moguls (mental capacities/illness) who project such body frames as ideal beauty.
I think she looks better there, actually. I like skinny women.
I think people should be careful insulting skinny women in an effort to make bigger women feel better. Some women are just naturally skinny.
My comment expressed concern for both women with additional adipose tissue as well those whom possess very little.
Some women are naturally voluptuous.
Myself, I prefer a woman's frame to possess curves. Few images are more unsightly or disturbing (beyond) women whom smoke or those with excess material slouching around their misplaced derriere.
Lastly, there may very well be efforts to appease larger woman which could also be said for the underweight.
I feel the term "obese" should be redefined. This women is shapely; certainly. However obese doesn't come to mind as I view the photo. Also, I wouldn't say this woman appears Grossly overweight as per the definition of obese.
Clearly beauty is subjective. There are men twice her size and healthier than most of you posting.
People tend to equate the term "obese" with "morbidly obese". But obese just means a BMI greater than 29, or more than 20% of your bodyweight over your ideal weight. The woman in the photo looks kind of short, so maybe her ideal weight is 135-140, max, let's say. At 168, she'd be obese. And the woman in that photo looks like she's at least that, if not more than 20% of her bodyweight over her ideal. She's well beyond shapely, and beyond chubby. She's tubby.
So, here are the physical body specifications of 2 gals:
5'7", 124 lb, 20% body fat
5'10" 166 lb, 24% body fat
Who, in your mind would have a more attractive body shape.
For me, its 1 all the way. Skinny and fit looks amazing on women.
Hefty, um...., not so much.
Without seeing a picture of said woman in each scenario, I can't really make a proper judgement. But I'll say that there are some women who weigh more, but have killer bodies with killer curves. I'll take a curvy body over a stick with no curves any day. With that said, my definition of a curvy body is one where the curves are all in the right places, with a nice flat stomach.
I will say that 5'10" 166 lb woman would not be hefty. Especially if she's working out.
I'm 5'8" and 130lbs with 34D chest. Men check me out over hefties every day of the week.
Actions speak louder.
I am 5'8" 148 lbs with 40 D chest. Not sure if that makes me "hefty" or not.
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.
Most men I have met are shallow. Women are as well, but we are either less shallow overall, or we're savvy enough to know we should hide our shallowness.
, not so much.
Not sure if that makes me "hefty" or not.