RE: weight, but not height ?

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: weight, but not height ?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: weight, but not height ?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: weight, but not height ? - 4/28/2015 1:52:53 PM

wannapleez

Posts: 358
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spiritedsub2

You have no quandary. You appear to be shallow and obsessed with physical appearance to an exhaustive degree, an impression supported by your posts on this "issue" and by your profile avatar. No worries. Your focus is a common one. I would point out that submissive men here have long lamented the dearth of dominant women, so further limiting yourself with your physical appearance obsession will only make your search that much more frustrating. To each his own.

Your reading comprehension is SHIT !

I said multiple times that the "standards" were all fucked up, and incessantly put words like "standards" and "acceptable" in quotes to (very obviously) show that I didn't consider them to be true. I don't hold to any of this crap, but a lot of people do, unfortunately -- even if only subconsciously. And with that in mind, I was trying to understand the underlying mentality as it applied to that.

(in reply to Spiritedsub2)

Profile

Post #: 21

RE: weight, but not height ? - 4/28/2015 1:59:59 PM

wannapleez

Posts: 358
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug

quote:

ORIGINAL: wannapleez

THEORY (though I think it's solid): A woman completely comfortable with her body shape/size will have no problem posting both height and weight. Posting neither or only one seems to indicate a certain level of self-consciousness (which I'm not condemning; though a woman whose attitude is "F*ck society" is a personal turn-on.)

I post neither. I find that stating a height and weight from the get-go is just about as useless as me stating that I have brown hair and blue eyes.

No real self-consciousness here. I just find that sending a full body (clothed) photo to someone I am interested in gives a way better representation than "describing myself".

Fair enough. Thanks for your perspective on that. Hadn't thought of it that way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug

quote:

ORIGINAL: wannapleez
THEORY (though I think it's solid): Most men who have appearance preferences are more interested in the lady's height-weight proportion rather than fixed numbers in one category or the other. Height alone is really only relevant in and of itself if you are seeking a lot of kissing standing up, dancing (as MercTech mentioned), or 69. And as I mentioned before, weight alone is only relevant if you have a scale-balancing or small-airplane fetish.

"Height/weight proportion"? What do numbers tell you? (Taking out the extremes) Where does she carry her weight? Chest, hips, butt, elsewhere?

I would think that *anyone*, not just men, who have appearance preferences would be smart enough to actually take a *look* at the person and not just rely on numbers, which at the end of the day (again, unless we're talking about extremes) don't really amount to a whole heck of a lot.

Many more than you seem to imply are concerned about or interested in extremes. And many define "extremes" a lot tighter than you seem to imply. I was not exaggerating about the "make or break" 5 pounds. It's f*cked up; but it is what it is, and sadly, many buy into it, at least subconsciously.

(in reply to littleladybug)

Profile

Post #: 22

RE: weight, but not height ? - 4/28/2015 2:03:45 PM

wannapleez

Posts: 358
Joined: 1/26/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sexyred1
I don't provide weight, but do say I am a BBW.

That, to me, says a lot more than numbers. And I don't mean just info about your body shape/size. I see that, and I see a refreshing middle finger to society's "standards". Rock on!

(in reply to sexyred1)

Profile

Post #: 23

RE: weight, but not height ? - 5/6/2015 6:42:24 PM

SweetlySadistic1

Posts: 74
Joined: 5/25/2014
From: Bellingham, WA U.S.A.
Status: offline

I really don't know why people lie, it's stupid. I openly say in my profile that I'm 6'1"(which I am). I don't lie about my weight per se, I just omit it entirely because a person can tell much more about my size from my picture than some arbitrary number on a scale. If, once they get to know me better, they ask then I'll tell them openly. I won't post it on my profile or say it to the whole world though.

SweetlySadistic1

_____________________________

On CM since December 2008. I have a new username now.

Formerly NiceButMeanGirl.

MissBossyPants57 on FL

(in reply to wannapleez)

Profile

Post #: 24

RE: weight, but not height ? - 5/7/2015 6:45:25 PM

Anchises

Posts: 25
Joined: 4/18/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble
This place lets one weed out for max weight but not min weight and min height but not max.

I had immediately noticed what BitaTruble is saying.
The search allows only a lopsided filter.
It's not a big deal, but a shorter guy can't find a shorter woman because there is only the choice of MAX WT and MIN HT.

It would seem, if I delve a bit too deeply into other people's thoughts and desires, that the MAX WT can be used, for example, for the men to weed out heavier women, while the MIN HT could be, for example, used by women to weed out shorter men.

But, what if you're a shorter guy who wants to weed out women who are taller than you are?
Or, if you're a heavier guy who wants to weed out women who are too light for your tastes?

Realistically, I can see that a minimum weight might not be needed, but, a maximum height would be very useful for shorter people seeking shorter other people.

Just saying I agree with Bita.

(in reply to BitaTruble)

Profile

Post #: 25