Would you date an underweight woman or man?

[Titanic]

What does one have to do with the other?

My point was just that I didn't think it was technically truly all that against the rules, nor is it viewed truly as "porn". Though the staff is free to disagree with me as it is their final say.

It is the staffs final say and I am sure they would say its against the rules.

 

[Me Myself]

in any case. back to subject?

 

[Titanic]

in any case. back to subject?

Yeah.

 

[Penumbra]

If you don't mind me asking, I know this is completely off-topic but you spent quite a lot of time arguing one time that breasts aren't anything sexual and don't need to be covered. Yet you put up this picture with the guy bare-chested but the girl wearing a bra. Are you reinforcing this double standard by any chance? Heehee

For the record, please don't put up an actual picture of a woman with open breasts, we view that as flat out porn here. That's for the chavs on page 3.

Aaaanyway. Size don't really matter, unless it's excessively skinny or gross overweight. A bit of maccy or running couldn't do any harm really for these extremes.

If you didn't notice, this thread is inspired by the identical thread called "Would You Date an Overweight Man or Woman?" A member posted a useful picture in that thread, so when I made this thread, I used the same picture for convenience in the OP so that there was a visual guide.

Plus, it's not like a lot of BMI charts are going to have topless woman on them.

Ooops.

 

[Penumbra]

I wonder... if we put an aborigin women with boobs out I think it has ben done and also n problem utside of eros room, but if we put a conventionally sexy woman in the beach with boobs out, I wonder if it would be considered porn by the site.

I would also wonder if the commercial sexynnes of the woman's breasts would be part of what would bejudged to say if the picture is porn and not just the pose of the woman.

Well why are they not more breasts pics on here?

It's a religious forum. Do there need to be lots of pics of breasts for some reason? Must we demand pics of elbows and ankles as well?

There is a eros room, why not?

Then start asking people to post pictures of boobs.Or you do.See how far you get.

I guess I would be banned.

It is the staffs final say and I am sure they would say its against the rules.

Please do not post pictures of breasts in this thread. The precedent of the forum is that breasts outside of the Eros room will be moderated. There shouldn't be further discussion of moderation in a thread like this: the place to do that is the site feedback area and it's off topic in this thread.

 

[Penumbra]

also the woman that is a size 6????Sorry she is a 4 .Or even a 2.

For one, those are UK sizes.

Two, I don't know how tall she is by the picture. It helps to know the height of a person if their waist, hip, and bust measurements are being estimated when looking at a picture, because all we see is her picture and therefore the relative approximations of her measurements.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

My type are between 19 and 26 (according to the diagram; I have no idea what the numbers mean). For me to go lower than 19, she would have to have a beautiful face. Like drop dead gorgeous. I don't find anything over 26 to be attractive, and wouldn't consider dating said woman for a second, regardless of personality. I'm extremely shallow and have no problem admitting it.

 

[Penumbra]

My type are between 19 and 26 (according to the diagram; I have no idea what the numbers mean).

The numbers are the body mass index, or BMI. BMI is a ratio of weight to height, or more specifically, is equal to (weight) divided by (height squared).

This ratio, BMI, then has certain numbers that are considered underweight, normal, overweight, and obese. For many people it's accurate, but it begins to become inaccurate at the extremes when people are either very short, very tall, very muscular, or have an atypically wide ribcage and other bones. So for a typical person it's not a bad measurement, but for a more complete determination of the health of someone's weight, there are multiple other variables to consider such as their body fat percentage and their current eating/exercising lifestyle.

"Normal" is said to be about 18.5 to 25, which is almost the same part of the spectrum that you consider attractive. On the chart in the OP, normal is defined as 20-25 which is different than other views I've seen.

 

[Draka]

What BMI really means:

In other words...not much at all.

I prefer going by body fat percentage

 

[Penumbra]

What BMI really means:

In other words...not much at all.

It's not a good measure to use on very muscular people, which is not a group that most people fall into. Body fat percentage is generally a more accurate descriptor all around.

 

[Alceste]

If you don't mind me asking, I know this is completely off-topic but you spent quite a lot of time arguing one time that breasts aren't anything sexual and don't need to be covered. Yet you put up this picture with the guy bare-chested but the girl wearing a bra. Are you reinforcing this double standard by any chance? Heehee

For the record, please don't put up an actual picture of a woman with open breasts, we view that as flat out porn here. That's for the chavs on page 3.

Aaaanyway. Size don't really matter, unless it's excessively skinny or gross overweight. A bit of maccy or running couldn't do any harm really for these extremes.

What, do you think she drew it herself?

 

[dgirl1986]

I do prefer the curvy look but I would not let shape or size be a decider.

 

[Penumbra]

I prefer going by body fat percentage

That was a ninja edit- wasn't in there when I responded but quick enough for it to not say it was edited.

The only downside to body fat percentage is that it's harder to measure. BMI is like the poor man's body fat percentage, since all you need is height and weight to determine it. Body fat percentage requires simple or complex tools (depending on the accuracy desired) and the knowledge on how to use them, but is more reliable when produced.

 

[Me Myself]

That was a ninja edit- wasn't in there when I responded but quick enough for it to not say it was edited.

The only downside to body fat percentage is that it's harder to measure. BMI is like the poor man's body fat percentage, since all you need is height and weight to determine it. Body fat percentage requires simple or complex tools (depending on the accuracy desired) and the knowledge on how to use them, but is more reliable when produced.

yeah but is so much more reliable :cover:

I truly give no penny to BMI.

 

[Draka]

It's not a good measure to use on very muscular people, which is not a group that most people fall into. Body fat percentage is generally a more accurate descriptor all around.

You don't have to be that overly muscular for it to make a difference. I don't think most people realize that though. I've often pointed out that the entire time I was in the Navy, each and every time I weighed in for PRTs I weighed in as overweight by BMI standards. I had to be measured for body fat every time. I was in the "fit" range, not just "healthy" but "fit", for body fat consistently. I didn't look like I was overly muscular or anything. Everyone is built differently.

On the flip side, one can appear that they are healthy going by BMI numbers but they may actually have a lot more body fat than they should. It's referred to as "skinny fat". You can fall squarely in the "healthy" range for BMI, but also be "morbidly obese" according to body fat if you lack lean muscle and most your weight is fatty tissue. So just because someone is safe according to BMI, they should still check their BF. I have a friend whose BMI is "healthy" but their BF is close to 40%. They found that out and nearly flipped. Went straight to the doctor and wanted to get started on a good diet and exercise regimen.

BMI is straight up misleading.

 

[Penumbra]

You don't have to be that overly muscular for it to make a difference. I don't think most people realize that though. I've often pointed out that the entire time I was in the Navy, each and every time I weighed in for PRTs I weighed in as overweight by BMI standards. I had to be measured for body fat every time. I was in the "fit" range, not just "healthy" but "fit", for body fat consistently. I didn't look like I was overly muscular or anything. Everyone is built differently.

On the flip side, one can appear that they are healthy going by BMI numbers but they may actually have a lot more body fat than they should. It's referred to as "skinny fat". You can fall squarely in the "healthy" range for BMI, but also be "morbidly obese" according to body fat if you lack lean muscle and most your weight is fatty tissue. So just because someone is safe according to BMI, they should still check their BF. I have a friend whose BMI is "healthy" but their BF is close to 40%. They found that out and nearly flipped. Went straight to the doctor and wanted to get started on a good diet and exercise regimen.

BMI is straight up misleading.

I realize all that, but keep in mind the context of the thread. It's about underweight people. Skinny-fat and large muscles are not really a factor when we're talking sub-20 BMI's here. It becomes rather accurate in that range because most of the factors that can mess it up aren't really present. The OP included the chart, with a BMI under each picture which I used as a reference when mentioning a specific picture, and also included a visual description about the underweight person, such as an overview of the visibility of the ribs and such.

I've specifically trained people that were skinny-fat. They generally weigh 15-20 pounds more than you'd expect by looking at them, because they don't have weight (muscle) around the arms and shoulders and such that one looks at when estimating someone's weight, and instead have moderate amounts of fat around the middle and lower parts of their body hidden by clothing.

 

[Me Myself]

another great reason for completley skipping the "weight" issue and going straight to what people actually look:

Shape

I always find it mind blowing when women are so concerned with weight. "No! I am fat I weight x! "

"Look, I wont even pretend to know if that is supposed to be a lot, but trust me no one is looking at a woman and saying "Omg... have you just saw that sexy insert your measure here? Oh yes, I am so turned on by that number of pounds!" You look sexy and yo got all the right curves. You dont have my permission to trick yourself into thinking any different"

(I admit on being a bit authoritative here and there with people )

 

[Penumbra]

another great reason for completley skipping the "weight" issue and going straight to what people actually look:

Shape

I always find it mind blowing when women are so concerned with weight. "No! I am fat I weight x! "

"Look, I wont even pretend to know if that is supposed to be a lot, but trust me no one is looking at a woman and saying "Omg... have you just saw that sexy insert your measure here? Oh yes, I am so turned on by that number of pounds!" You look sexy and yo got all the right curves. You dont have my permission to trick yourself into thinking any different"

(I admit on being a bit authoritative here and there with people )

Hence why there were pictures in the OP.

 

[Me Myself]

Hence why there were pictures in the OP.

I know but they still hd a secondary focus.

I mean I was confused since start because my first thought was "how would I know if she is underweight?"

I chose probably not because while I wouldnt want to date someone eating below healthy requirements, they dnt have a tattoo on their foreheads and unless they look the way I more or less imagine an anorexic looks, I dont know if they under eat.

So ultimately its not really about being underweight, but about shape.

I mean was the question was about health or what looks sexually appealing to someone?

 

[Aquitaine]

I don't date people, so being over/underweight isn't a problem. But then why am I posting in this thread then....