What is your weight range in dating?

Post Reply New Topic

I do not have a weight range in dating, since I take looks into the account only a little bit. I cannot even say what is my favorite weight of a girl, it depends mainly on body structure. However, my sister once commented that I seem to like not really thin girls. I must say, that my current girlfriend (height 160cm - approximatelly 5'3") weighed around 45 kg (100 pounds) when we met which I thought it is not enough (she said that it was due to sudden loss of appetite and that she plans to get a bit heavier). Now she revolves around 52 kg (115 pounds) and I must say that I like it a lot more....

My least favorite weight is actually severely anorexic (like so thin she literally looks like a perambulating skeletion.) My second least favorite weight is super-super-obese (but higher than the "morbidly obese" mark BMI-wise.) Anything other than that, I can love. So my BMI range is about from 15 to 50. Mine's currently hanging in the 22-23 range. I've been at 24.x, but never hit the dreaded 25 mark (190 lb for me.)

This is probably the most ideal body, in terms of weight range, I'd say 45-70kg, depending on how tall they are.

Is it just me or does she have a really massive head?

hahaha i was trying so hard not to say anything. i didn't notice the size of her head, but i DID notice the photoshopped waistline (hint: look at the uneven horizon line and the broken waves behind her). sorry Wolfheart, her figure doesn't exist (at least, not on her).

I guess it's just the way the photo was taken, her head looks bigger in proportion to her body, she is also rated the 8th sexiest woman in world.

here's Kelly Brook with no Photoshop. she looks quite great but you can see her hip to waist ratio is more realistic in these candid photos. and her butt is a lot flatter. also... her head is a more normal size.




EDIT: interestingly, there seems to have been an "enhancement".

Wolfheart's fantasy busted!

btw, she looks better in the unphotoshoped version.

actually i agree. she is a natural beauty and looks beautiful with no makeup. and her figure looks nice in the candid pics.

Of course but not everyone stays at the exact weight, she has good proportion in her body and she looks naturally good even in those photos, most celebrities don't look as half as good without make up or when they are caught in candid photos. The weight of a person can change over a year, perhaps she did carb cycling and exercised prior to those modelling shoots. Even those photos are flattering for photos that are candid.

you missed what i said completely....

the pics you posted were photoshopped to give her a bigger butt and narrower waist. also she had a boob job. so the figure you like best does not exist on that particular female. i am sure someone out there may have a figure like that, but she doesn't.

i don't think people realise how much the media can manipulate our preferences and expectations.

EDIT: also, i think she looks better in her natural state. i thought you would too because you prefer women with no makeup.

Wolfheart, it's photoshopped to hell. You're in denial.

And she looks better not photoshopped imo too.

The stupidity some men portray when trying to tell apart false beauty and real beauty is the reason so many women exploit it.

I'll give you an example.

I know a girl who really abused fake tan. It wasn't the orange colour of snooki, but it was obviously fake tan.

She said something about fake tan one day at work and a guy pipes up "Don't use fake tan, you'll go orange" - little did he know she never leaves the house without it anyway.

Some men seem to think women get out of bed with a full face of make up, fake tan and done hair. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

She had a miscarriage and surgery, of course, she's going to look different. Here's a candid photo of her several years ago.



Here's a photo of Lee Priest in off season and a photo of him in competitive season, of course the body and waist size can change rapidly depending on diet and lifestyle.

i found many, many other pictures of her with the same figure - those 2 were just the most illustrative. the pictures i posted were prior to her miscarriage, so that event would not have had an effect.

here is another shot from the same series you just posted (it may be candid). from this angle you can see her normal sized waist and lack of rear end:



not sure why you have a problem with her looking normal. she is still very attractive, just less supernatural.

A video of her from 2 years ago in South Africa where the model shots were taken.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUuqzmkG_F4&feature=related[/youtube]

A video of her from a year ago.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_SyVFSvu3g[/youtube]