f13.net

(http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/2037/survey01025lf3.jpg)

From a British website, so as voted on by Brits!

(http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/7482/levine1ah1.jpg)

You're about what? A size 16?

I think the size/weight thing is a problem.  It's all about proportion and symmetry. 

Men want symmetry and shape.  Worrying about weight is really wasted effort... ok, unless your BMI is a big number.

I only weigh 160lbs, I prefer to be the heavier of the two of us.  This has not always been the case, but in the perfect world...

I'm 5'10" 180. If a woman is heavier than me, unless she is much taller, she's obese. I don't usually date women taller than me either, so if they are bigger than me, they are out.

They don't know me very well.

This can be challenging if you're like me and barely weigh over 140.  Of course, my wife is a size 2 or 0 depending on the store. 

Middle one looks best. Other two look fat, IMO. 

It may be the different poses, but the lady on the right looks better than the lady on the left despite being four sizes larger.  Caroline is the largest, but has nice curves.  Anna has no butt (or hips, but again could be the angle) and her face makes her look heavier than the other ladies.

I consider both Tillie and Caroline pretty.  As Nebu said, symmetry is important.

Women's sizes aren't a real good indicator though, as they're not proportional to height and weight.  I'm 5'10", 140, and a size 10 or 12.  While I've put on 10-15 pounds since then, anyone who has seen my photos knows I'm a twig.  Proportionally, were I five-foot even, I would be 85 pounds and around a size 0.

None of that counts fitness levels or builds, either.

Double post since this is about body image and was the current story in the abcnews scroll when I switched tabs: Kiera Knightly against airbrushing her promo photos (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5471524).

Maybe it's time we started trying to get away from the "image is everything" bullshit? Tillie could be a complete bitch, Anna might murder puppies for a hobby and Caroline might be a fascist. Or alternatively they could all be really nice people. At the age of 39, after 17 girlfriends and one divorce I have learned that it's who someone is not what they look like that really matters.



Plus fat girls try harder.

They all look just fine to me.  All three look to be in ok shape, though they could have airbrushed out blemishes, cellulite, etc.  And it's not like I'm some sort of Adonis myself.

As someone who hasn't reached that point yet allow me to proudly wear my "no fat chicks" t-shirt.  :awesome_for_real:

Also in that pic, Caroline definitely looks better than Anna. Size alone isn't a great indicator because I honestly think there's a right weight that differs from woman to woman. I know a girl whose not massively heavy but just shapeless and frankly she doesn't look nearly as good as other girls who carry more weight but just carry it with some form, some girls sadly can't carry any weight at all while others look good with it.

Women's ideal seems to be my ideal. The taller, the better though.

Can't say that looks aren't important myself. It's the first thing one usually notices.

Again, it's all about proportion and ratio.  I agree that Anna looks the least attractive in that photo, while I think Tillie looks too damn bony. Feed her a sammich.


Too late, they're already pushing it on men now that the female market is saturated.  See: metrosexuals and the new Men's Makeup line that is just being launched. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1039275/Introducing-Guy-liner-Manscara--new-metrosexual-make-just-men.html)  I'm sure it'll have competition soon enough, much like men's moisturizers and men's skincare lotion.  Pretty soon we'll all be obsessing that we don't have 6-packs and sure the women are simply repulsed by us.  Then the catty comments about other guy's eyeliner.   It'll be 17th century Europe all over again!  :drill:

Good health (i.e. not being obese) and cleanliness should be on everyone's to do list -- but too much more than that is a bit counter-productive, I think! Unless you just want to have pointless fun with tons of women. Actual girlfriends/wives don't usually like a guy who attracts too much attention, or stays in the bathroom longer than she does.  :lol:

Images matters, but not that much.

I don't like their faces. But I'm kinda like that. A lot of times I see a girl that looks great but where I just don't like the face. It's my number one turn on/off everythin else would be negotiable.

Just for reference the UK sizes are different than US sizes.

UK 8 = US 4, UK 12 = US 8, UK 16 = US 12.   

US sizes seem to be more of a marketting ploy nowadays.  Stores like Banana Republic have sizes that are 2-4 below what they were just a few years ago for exactly the same sized piece of clothing. 

I said men's makeup and the focus on the GQ/ Metrosexual image is on the rise and it's as stupid as the focus on women being the Cover Girl/ Underwear model types.    Of course you need you need to be relatively fit and clean and neat.  It's not a question of image at that point.  There's a vast gulf between maintaining yourself and GQ-land.  Image doesn't and shouldn't matter at all.

The one i'm with.

I'm horrible for how girls look. I've outright said some of my girlfriends look "ok." At the same time that was after we had been dating for awhile, so it could of been that her personality was total shit and changed them from hot to ok.

Of course, who am I to talk. I'm in that college phase of having fun and not having to date crazies :grin:

Fair enough. We're in agreement then. Just that when some people talk about image not mattering, they negate fitness as well (directly or indirectly).

And on that note, just about anyone can be physically attractive if they just do that. There shouldn't be a "perfect" ideal of a body per se, but a healthy look is ideal at least (no matter the proportions). Things that can't be naturally changed -- like your face -- shouldn't be dwelt upon. Everyone's got an interesting face (even the crazy preternatural looking folks), and the healthier they are in general, the better their face will look.

Anyone [artificially] striving for some cover girl or GQ thing is wasting their time imo. For one, you have to be tall. Which you either have or you don't.

We're allowed to be superficial in this thread.  It's about rating physical attractiveness.  Make another thread with pictures of women's brains and we'll discuss those qualities there.

Must be marketing for Samoans - I don't think I've ever met one that wasn't a self-declared "size two", no matter how many chins.

And Caroline's kinda hot  :grin:

They all look like silly nitwits. Maybe the one on the right has a vague gleam in her eye that suggests she's got two brain cells to rub together, but then again, she's in the picture. If there's one thing that turns me off right away about any woman its an inability to be her own person. Unless, of course, I've been at sea for a month and/or have had too much to drink.  :grin:

Why are you even considering their personalities?  They probably had to hold that pose for several minutes so of COURSE their facial expressions are going to be odd.  Jeez.

I am pretty sure that I would be happy to bang all of them together, so they all get my vote.

In general, any woman who does not look like she is  :pedobear: under eighteen or over fifty-six  :| is ok in my book.

Jesus christ those pics are airbrushed to hell.

Beat me to it.

Plus if they stand still for long enough, some madcap will inevitably come along and give them wacky haircuts.

Oh and by the way, Caroline is NOT the UK average woman. The UK average woman may be a size 16 but she's got a big arse, no tits, 2.5 screaming children, several badly done tatoos and is dressed in Primark clothes. She's also rarely smiling that much... :p

Less teeth too.

I agree with the women.  The middle one has the best body. 

I think they should have blanked out the faces and shown all of them from the same angle.  The girl on the left carries less fat than the one on the right, but I find her MUCH less attractive.  I think it might be because she has a fat face.  However, this exercise is not about judging faces, but bodies.  I can't see enough of her body, compared to the other two, to make an informed decision (but from the photos I rank the left one last).

Which one swallows, does anal and also has an accomodating and playful sister ?

If we're going down the 'women as meat' route, let's go all the way, eh ?

Less teeth too.
[/quote]

Fewer.

Viewing the women from three different angles and poses makes this meaningless, and equating preference with size alone is also silly. (Maybe this pic is for dramatic effect and the actual poll was run more scientifically?) Also I'll be a cad and point out that breasts are a part of the body. They should be uncovered in the spirit of proper social science.

Internet survey! Isn't there some kind of colour text this should be in? I've not worked that out yet ;)

That second line was unnecessarily. You have to be careful not to waste your quote of words on trivial explanations.

Quota of words?

unnecessarily  ???

Just so you know, I don't think of any of you to be "meat".  Or even as having any.

Heheheheheh. Well played.

It's true.  Most of us are so poor, we only have the two veg.

It's more fun when you write posts really really tired.

(ok that was on purpose.)

Seriously though; no fatties.

For some reason this thread just reminded me of the forum signature of some EVE player that said "I have the body of a supermodel....... I just can't remember where I buried it".

The whole thing is rather silly, since we're not even bringing body type in to the equation here.

For me personally, it's generally that she doesn't out weigh me, and that her hips and shoulders are in reasonable proportion. If she passes that, it's all about the eyes.

100% Agreed.

My wife is a size 6 and runs marathons.

I'll take the one that wakes up happy in the morning.  Mental stability > physical attractiveness

You guys will understand once you get out of your thirties.

Some of us got wind of that whilst still in our thirties. Yay us.

Happy > all

Nah. 250# at 5'-4 would still trump mentally stable for me.  I guess I'm just that shallow.

Chances are that 250# you ain't gonna get mentally stable either.

Brain cramp maybe, but I'm not deciphering the measurements you're using here.

250 lbs and 5'4" That's about the size of a volkswagen beetle, right?

I missed the " for inches.

250 pounds, five feet four inches tall.

The person who used to work here and fit those measurements seemed reasonably stable.  At least as stable as any other coworker, but that doesn't mean I'd ever have considered her attractive.

250lbs at 5'4" is either completely unstable and good at hiding it or has a gland disorder. Never, ever assume someone that short and fat has their shit together.

This is a terribly wonderful sentence. 

In the words of Todd Snider, "I can drink any woman pretty"

Be fair Schild.  She may have a medical condition, like Cake Retention.