What is your weight range in dating?

Page 4 of 15 [ 221 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 15  Next

Homer_Bob
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,559
Location: New England

20 Feb 2012, 7:18 pm

I'd prefer someone shorter and lighter than me.


_________________
"The less I know about other people's affairs, the happier I am. I'm not interested in caring about people. I once worked with a guy for three years and never learned his name. The best friend I ever had. We still never talk sometimes."


hale_bopp
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2004
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,774
Location: None

20 Feb 2012, 7:28 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
techstepgenr8tion wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
hale_bopp wrote:
I don't really like any smaller than 200 pounds.. just over 90kgs.

Slender guys just don't do it for me.


but i thought you wanted to marry me, I am just 60 kg!

Put some meat on those bones Mr. Runway!



Don't you think 90 kg is too much for a 5'3" (~160cm)?


Yes. 60kg is a good weight for someone of your height.



puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,246
Location: Cottonopolis

20 Feb 2012, 7:57 pm

I can put up with underweight guys, but not underweight girls. For both genders I go as far as the low end of obese.

Guys: BMI 18-32
Girls: BMI 22 - 32.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


Vito
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2011
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 100
Location: Czech Republic

20 Feb 2012, 9:24 pm

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....



Comp_Geek_573
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Sep 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 723

20 Feb 2012, 11:52 pm

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.)


_________________
Your Aspie score: 98 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 103 of 200
You seem to have both Aspie and neurotypical traits
AQ: 33


Wolfheart
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,971
Location: Kent, England

21 Feb 2012, 3:50 am

Image

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



hale_bopp
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2004
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,774
Location: None

21 Feb 2012, 3:58 am

Wolfheart wrote:
Image

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?



hyperlexian
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 21,997
Location: with bucephalus

21 Feb 2012, 4:01 am

hale_bopp wrote:
Wolfheart wrote:
Image

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).


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html


Wolfheart
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,971
Location: Kent, England

21 Feb 2012, 4:02 am

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


Image

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.



hyperlexian
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 21,997
Location: with bucephalus

21 Feb 2012, 4:18 am

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.

Image
Image

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


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,962
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

21 Feb 2012, 4:34 am

Wolfheart's fantasy busted!

btw, she looks better in the unphotoshoped version.



hyperlexian
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 21,997
Location: with bucephalus

21 Feb 2012, 4:37 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
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.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html


Wolfheart
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,971
Location: Kent, England

21 Feb 2012, 4:39 am

hyperlexian wrote:
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.

Image
Image

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


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.



hyperlexian
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 21,997
Location: with bucephalus

21 Feb 2012, 4:42 am

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.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt237032.html


hale_bopp
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2004
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,774
Location: None

21 Feb 2012, 4:54 am

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

And she looks better not photoshopped imo too.