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.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,989,150 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshyy
I know that people ain't gonna want to bang people who look like they'd crush us if they got on top of us.
So your criteria actually has nothing to do with average, it actually has to do with who you want to have sex with. If you want to "crush" them then they are your "average".
My inclination would be to avoid a sexual encounter that may lead to suffocation or grievous bodily harm.
And people wonder why I have a lifelong-fondness for women who are too skinny for how tall they are. I like to not die, thanks.
Quote:
So your criteria actually has nothing to do with average, it actually has to do with who you want to have sex with. If you want to "crush" them then they are your "average".
No, dude, my criteria has nothing to do with what makes my genitalia work, it has everything to do with how being unhealthy and looking unhealthy has nothing to do with being average, and everything to do with being vastly below average.
Really? The center for whatever the hell that is think being nearly 170lbs while being 5'3'' is perfectly normal? Jesus Christ.
And that is something I will never believe in, because those girls I showed you pictures of, I met so many women like that who thought they were below average, that they were nothing special, and then we have folks saying that being 170lbs and 5'3'' is what's normal and natural be like.
If a 168# woman can crush you, I suggest hitting the gym. You're too puny.
Most of the women I've met are 90 to 120lbs, from 4'10'' to 5'7'+ respectively, thanks, I got enough weight on me to keep my back working as it was intended while still feeling like a man, but thanks for the advice I appreciate it, I'm going to give up on cross-country and instead imma go do that.
Quote:
They did not say "normal", they said "average". And if you haven't heard of the Center for Disease Control, back to school for you.
Yes, please. With women like the ones in the pictures who wouldn't want to go back to school?!
That average thingy needs to get itself balanced right. That ain't right, and it will never be, and I will say so on my grave.
No, dude, my criteria has nothing to do with what makes my genitalia work, it has everything to do with how being unhealthy and looking unhealthy has nothing to do with being average, and everything to do with being vastly below average.
But "average" is mathematical not conceptual. I think that's what timberline is getting at. You're posting pictures of "average" women that aren't actually, mathematically average. Your data is questionable, mostly because you don't have any.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,989,150 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshyy
Most of the women I've met are 90 to 120lbs, from 4'10'' to 5'7'+ respectively, thanks, I got enough weight on me to keep my back working as it was intended while still feeling like a man, but thanks for the advice I appreciate it, I'm going to give up on cross-country and instead imma go do that.
Yeah, um, one thing guys should learn when getting older is that overwhelmingly guys underestimate women's weights. Very very very few women, or even college girls, are in this weight range. Even in Universities that are considered to have much much better than the normal looking populations like USC, Arizona State, and Mississippi State. A VERY small portion of them are under 120#.
But "average" is mathematical not conceptual. I think that's what timberline is getting at. You're posting pictures of "average" women that aren't actually, mathematically average. Your data is questionable, mostly because you don't have any.
I don't care about mathematics average. I care about what I see when I look around me. When I leave the house. When I board a bus. When I buy my brocolli at the grocery store. And that is what I see. Now it's all starting to make sense. Why guys on this forum think being average is the death-all of ever getting laid, because if that's the female average the male average shouldn't be so far behind
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,989,150 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshyy
I don't care about mathematics average. I care about what I see when I look around me. When I leave the house. When I board a bus. When I buy my brocolli at the grocery store. And that is what I see. Now it's all starting to make sense. Why guys on this forum think being average is the death-all of ever getting laid, because if that's the female average the male average shouldn't be so far behind
Of course the male average isn't any much further behind, if it is behind at all. It's the average. It's the way it works.
You see with a filter. We all do. What you notice, and what is scattered throughout society, are different.
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.
