"Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in news:35v47mF4oksvvU1
@individual.net:

Evidently.

Cate

Just who the hell is "everyone"?

We don't care what you weigh......

yeah, rinds are good.

Why do you assume that YOU were THE target of this thread simply because
120 happens to be your goal weight?  I'm sure it's the goal weight for a
LOT of women, hence the original poster's comments, but you clearly seem
to be taking this as a personal attack on YOU.  Chill out.

That's what you think, but is it the reality?  What makes you think that you hae
acute awareness of what others think?  Are you God?

You seems to be oblivious to the fact that the argument is not about personal
taste, it's about you judging the rest of the female population based on your
one woman's observation of how you look at various weight given your height.
Your frame of reference is not valid - it's only a sample of ONE.

Pardon the intrusion, but what are cankles?
Em

And what's your conclusion?  That people are all identical?

Clich?s have to start somewhere.  Some people really are big boned, and
many more just say they are but they're actually fat.  

For every height, there is a range of healthy weights, and how big your
frame is can help you figure out which end of the range you should be in.  
When "big boned" is an excuse is when you're way above that range.  

I'm 5'5" and a healthy weight for me is between 111 and 149 pounds,
according to BMI.  I am medium-boned, so 149 is too heavy and 111 is too
small, but 130 is right in the middle.  I set my goal at 135, with the
provisions that my body fat percentage is less than 24%, and that I don't
feel fat at that weight.  I decided on 5 pounds above the middle number
because I am aiming for an "athletic and curvy" body, not a "slender and
willowy" one.  

It's only a cliche when it's used as an excuse for being fat.

During the years I was underweight, when form-fitting clothes were
in fashion (as opposed to the loose, floppy fits of recent years),
I had to buy medium jackets and blouses and have them tailored,
because I'd rip the shoulders out of a small.  I've always had to
buy large size women's gloves (or medium men's), and my rings and
shoes are considerably larger than most women my height.  When I was
trying unsuccesfully to have children, it was medically determined
that my pelvis is unusually large for someone of my short stature.
I'm definitely big-boned.

What's kind of funny is that a close relative who is anorexic
always tried to rationalize her severe underweight by saying
she was small-boned, when in actuality she's quite large-boned
for 5'2".

168/125/125 LC since 2/18/97 maintaining since 3/17/99

Neither did mine.  He was born with a very severe case of Tunnel Chest
- essentially, instead of his ribs forming a nice open 'cage' around
his lungs, his sternum was sharply depressed with the ribs curving
around.   You can imagine how this effects the lungs and heart of a
person with the condition!  No sports, no running at all - some days
he could barely walk across the room without panting and gasping for
breath.  To give you an idea of how severe it was - before the surgery
he could wear a skin-tight T-shirt, put a tennis ball down into the
depression and it would NOT push up the shirt at all.  

At 13 he had surgery to repair it.  It was major surgery and he was
the second in Australia (about #8 in the world) to have it done.
Essentially, he had every rib broken in 2 places, except for the 2
that were taken out in their entirety and cut into tiny chunks.  His
sternum was also cut into pieces.  Using the pieces plus a lot of
wire, a new chest was 'basket-woven' to hold it in approximately the
right position.  His parents were told to make sure that he had a
really spectacular 18th birthday party.  The odds were he wouldn't
make it to 21 because there was so much damage to his heart and lungs
from the years of compression.

He turns 43 in July.  He still gets winded easily but since his legs
are so long his casual lope is anyone else's jog <g>.  Other than that
he's fine.  It always bemuses him that whenever he needs an x-ray that
shows his chest he never gets to keep the film.  Either the doctor or
the radiologist wants to keep it because it's such an unusual
configuration.  The surgery was discontinued a few years later when a
less-invasive way to repair it was found.

One of his brothers and several of his cousins have less severe tunnel
chest, as does our younger daughter.  At this stage she doesn't have
it so severely that treatment is needed, she can breathe, exercise and
so on without any restriction.  Give her a few years, though, and she
will have an impressive cleavage, even if she only needs an A cup.

Aramanth

Not from ads, magazines, movies, and TV.  I see plenty of good looking women
walking around.

$ And if he and the other men on this NG tell the truth - they are not
attracted to overweight/obese women.  And women are not attracted to
overweight/obese men.

While I have succumbed to fashion off and on over the years, especially
as a teenager, I've mostly sought to wear clothes that flatter MY
figure.  Unfortunately, that RARELY coincides with whatever is currently
IN fashion.  I cannot fathom why women of ANY age, for instance, wear
low-slung pants (called hip-huggers when I was a teen).  Well, okay, I
can understand why TEENAGERS do it, since I did it myself :-)  I RARELY
see ANYONE, on TV or on the street who looks good in them.  For MOST
women, it's unflattering because it cuts across the widest part of the
body and the belly and top of the rear end bulges over the top, if not
while standing, CERTAINLY while SITTING.  If the wearer is super-thin
and their belly DOESN'T hang over it, they usually look fairly emaciated
in any case and it just calls said emaciation to my attention.  Yet,
because the women/girls I see on TV and in print ARE fairly emaciated,
when I see someone who is wearing them and they DON'T look emaciated, my
mind starts telling me that they are slightly overweight even when they
are actually THIN because I'm being CONDITIONED to think that -- it's
weird and confusing -- sometimes I have to give myself a mental slap to
shake me back to reality.  It's a lose-lose look, as far as *I'm*
concerned.  Yet many have said in this newsgroup that they have a lot of
trouble FINDING anything that ISN'T low-slung.  I think they sometimes
DO look good if the TOP is close-cropped (bra-like) because then at
least there is an unbroken expanse of flesh showing as opposed to what
looks like spillover busting out of it's restraints.  Since that's NOT
usually the case unless it's summertime, it simply looks sloppy, like
the plumber with the loose pants and the resulting unwanted view of a
butt-crack.

My figure is best flattered by pants where the waistline matches the
smallest point of MY waistline (thanks to SNL, they are now usually
referred to as "mom jeans").  To wear pants with a waistline that is
lower makes my waist appear larger.  Whatever -- I always think of
flared pants that end well above the ankle but well below the knee as
"highwater pants" and the word "dork" flashes like a neon sign in my
head (but that association goes way back to my childhood and young adult
years when pretty much EVERYONE considered them to be dorky looking
except the dorks that wore them :-)  I found it absolutely HILARIOUS
that it suddenly became fashionable again a few years ago.  It was right
up there with the time I was in the feminine hygiene aisle at the
grocery store and my glance fell upon an EXCITING, ****NEW**** product:  
the Menstrual Thong.  I literally threw my head back and howled out loud
with laughter (and a tinge of HORROR), recalling my early puberty and
the torture of having to wear a menstrual belt.  To have it advertised
37 years later as "sexy" and fashionable seems absolutely LUDICROUS to
ME.  Face it, fashion trends and the notion of what is attractive and
not attractive from one year or even generation to the next are ABSURD,
no matter WHAT happens to be in fashion at any given time.  And MOST of
them come BACK in style at some point, usually 20-30 years later because
there's really only so much you can do to look "different".  It's all a
matter of perception.  

That's true -- some time ago, someone posted somebody's website where he  
showed off what he could digitally do to pictures -- he enlarged breasts,  
got rid of body hair, all kinds of stuff.  The "digitized" lady looked  
only vaguely similar to her real self.

right.  so we all want to look like a computer generated image. now that
really is scary.

Not true...it all depends on how fat they are....there is a wide range from
super thin models to how fat some people are...

This puts tremendous pressure on females to "live up" to

Well, not everyone who isn't a super thin model is obese....

<snip>

I'm sure calling her your chubby granddaughter helped alot.

I'm glad someone else said it.

Yeah, I like Jane too.