weight, but not height ?

weight, but not height ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

wannapleez -> weight, but not height ? (4/27/2015 6:01:33 AM)
I've been running into a lot of profiles lately where the woman lists her weight but not her height. While I know that not everyone operates by society's f*cked-up standards (that say a size 0 is ideal), enough do to where this practice seems totally counter-intuitive. I would imagine that many who don't fit the standard (but who have bought into it, to some degree) might be a bit embarrassed by their weight, and so, if listing only one measurement, would list height, not weight. Also, if I know a woman weighs X pounds, that's going to look a lot different on a lady who's 4'11" and a lady who's 6'1". For those who have certain make-or-break standards of appearance, it seems that height alone would be stronger than weight alone. E.G. If I'm 16 inches taller than her, and I don't want to go to the chiropractor after every time I kiss her. Put another way, there can even be a certain level of pragmatism to height -- it's not just an appearance thing. But weight? Unless you have a thing for balancing scales, I just don't get it. Any thoughts on what the motivation might be here?

preytolife -> RE: weight, but not height ? (4/27/2015 11:28:17 AM)
Some spammers for a while didn't quite understand the height measurement so they may be removing height to avoid obvious tells. Some people refuse to message or talk to women that don't have their weight listed. Some people who are more self conscious about their weight may feel it's more prudent to disclose that up front and simply don't believe height is a factor. Someone may be very insecure about being too tall/too short.

MercTech -> RE: weight, but not height ? (4/27/2015 11:32:37 AM)
I know about the chiropracter.... consider dancing with someone with a five inch or more difference in height. The lady gets a great view of the belly button and belt buckle while the guy gets to inspect her hairdo up close and personal. Or, the lady puts his neck into a wrestling clinch and they waddle around like a terrier fighting Quasimodo. One thing on my bucket list is swing dancing with a lady I can see eye to eye with. (I'm 6 foot one, btw For dancing I really need taller than five foot six)

BitaTruble -> RE: weight, but not height ? (4/27/2015 12:02:04 PM)
~fr~ My weight doesn't fluctuate much. My height does depending on whether or not I'm on my knees, my back, all fours, have on heels etc.. (I actually have a joke about this in my profile. I'm not kidding!) I think that people looking for women are going to be 'more' interested in their weight than their height, especially men who want their women folk on their knees and those women probably just assume that's all that matters to a guy.. well, that and the size of their bra. Just a guess as to the motivational aspect you spoke of in the OP. It could also be a matter of.. "I'm so fat, my height doesn't even matter" things. ::shrug:: Really, actually, I have no idea of what the motivation is .. I don't do it myself. This place lets one weed out for max weight but not min weight and min height but not max. The whole site is built on exclusionary concepts of 'ideal' so ... just have to do the work sometimes and talk it all out.

vivaciousgrace -> RE: weight, but not height ? (4/27/2015 12:05:20 PM)
I can't remember whether my height is on there or not tbh, it probably is. I have not found many people that were too bothered about it anyway. I seem to always end up with very tall people and they seem to like my petite little self. But I don't see it as an issue if someone asks me about height, or weight or anything else. We all have preferences. If someone can be honest about their preferences without being rude then I am unlikely to take offence. Compatibility is about more than just a list of statistics. You could always get chatting to someone and just ask them?

PandoraFoxxx -> RE: weight, but not height ? (4/27/2015 12:10:20 PM)
I use my drivers license information for height and weight. Those are always accurate, right ;)

seekingreality -> RE: weight, but not height ? (4/27/2015 1:01:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wannapleez I've been running into a lot of profiles lately where the woman lists her weight but not her height. While I know that not everyone operates by society's f*cked-up standards (that say a size 0 is ideal), enough do to where this practice seems totally counter-intuitive. I would imagine that many who don't fit the standard (but who have bought into it, to some degree) might be a bit embarrassed by their weight, and so, if listing only one measurement, would list height, not weight. Also, if I know a woman weighs X pounds, that's going to look a lot different on a lady who's 4'11" and a lady who's 6'1". For those who have certain make-or-break standards of appearance, it seems that height alone would be stronger than weight alone. E.G. If I'm 16 inches taller than her, and I don't want to go to the chiropractor after every time I kiss her. Put another way, there can even be a certain level of pragmatism to height -- it's not just an appearance thing. But weight? Unless you have a thing for balancing scales, I just don't get it. Any thoughts on what the motivation might be here? I can't say I've ever noticed this myself, and am puzzled you've seen "a lot." Just for fun, I did a quick random check of some names and didn't come across anyone who listed weight but not height. My guess is this isn't as common as you imagine, and it's probably just a few people who forgot to click that box.

Spiritedsub2 -> RE: weight, but not height ? (4/27/2015 3:22:01 PM)
-fr Apparently some women don't disclose their height. I have observed that though men almost always do, they add a few inches to reality [:D]

preytolife -> RE: weight, but not height ? (4/27/2015 3:52:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Spiritedsub2 -fr Apparently some women don't disclose their height. I have observed that though men almost always do, they add a few inches to reality [:D] Oh all the places for men to add a few inches, I've never understood why they add it to their height.

seekingreality -> RE: weight, but not height ? (4/27/2015 4:24:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Spiritedsub2 -fr Apparently some women don't disclose their height. I have observed that though men almost always do, they add a few inches to reality [:D] OKcupid did a study and found that men and women add 2 inches on average to their height in their profile, and they claim an income that is 20% higher than reality. Most photos were taken within 92 days, but hotter photos were twice as likely to be 3 years old or more than average photos.

wannapleez -> RE: weight, but not height ? (4/28/2015 5:29:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seekingreality I can't say I've ever noticed this myself, and am puzzled you've seen "a lot." Just for fun, I did a quick random check of some names and didn't come across anyone who listed weight but not height. My guess is this isn't as common as you imagine, and it's probably just a few people who forgot to click that box. Yeah, you're right. I lied. I've never seen it. I just wanted to start a new thread. That "quick random check" thing should be written up in an advanced mathematics journal. (insert eyeroll here)

NookieNotes -> RE: weight, but not height ? (4/28/2015 5:31:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seekingreality quote: ORIGINAL: Spiritedsub2 -fr Apparently some women don't disclose their height. I have observed that though men almost always do, they add a few inches to reality [:D] OKcupid did a study and found that men and women add 2 inches on average to their height in their profile, and they claim an income that is 20% higher than reality. Most photos were taken within 92 days, but hotter photos were twice as likely to be 3 years old or more than average photos. I've read this, too. And find it both fascinating and dispiriting. After all, I have no interest in presenting anything but the truth, as my goal os to attract/repel based on who I actually am... and now, could it be assumed by those "in the know" that I am actually 2" shorter and 20% lighter in the wallet? Woe is me!

wannapleez -> RE: weight, but not height ? (4/28/2015 5:38:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble My weight doesn't fluctuate much. My height does depending on whether or not I'm on my knees, my back, all fours, have on heels etc.. (I actually have a joke about this in my profile. I'm not kidding!) Brilliant! quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble This place lets one weed out for max weight but not min weight and min height but not max. The whole site is built on exclusionary concepts of 'ideal' so ... just have to do the work sometimes and talk it all out. Very true.

mnottertail -> RE: weight, but not height ? (4/28/2015 5:39:50 AM)
But when the weight is listed as 58 pounds, and they are from Accra, Iowa you know they cant run much more than 6'4"

wannapleez -> RE: weight, but not height ? (4/28/2015 5:44:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vivaciousgrace Compatibility is about more than just a list of statistics. You could always get chatting to someone and just ask them? Very true. I just don't understand the phenomenon in the first place.

wannapleez -> RE: weight, but not height ? (4/28/2015 6:38:25 AM)
Some good inputs, but I'm still kinda puzzled. Maybe if I expound a bit more, you'll better understand the depths of my cluelessness. :-) Note: My statements will be as related to a female Domme (as that is what I seek). I'm not just singling them out arbitrarily. FACT: Society's standards are totally fcked up. (Note: I'm not saying that it's wrong if your preferences coincidentally match up with those standards. But anyone who takes their preference cues from Mike Jeffries needs to lean into the next pitch.) FACT: Said fcked-up standards lean a LOT more heavily (no pun intended) toward weight than height. Yes, the very short and the very tall are seen as "out of bounds". But if you're within the "acceptable" height range, as little as 5 pounds can "make or break" you. FACT: Either you're comfortable with your body size/shape or you aren't. 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 "Fck society" is a personal turn-on.) THEORY (though I think it's solid): A woman who is not completely comfortable with her body shape/size probably gets that discomfort from the "standards", either directly or from others who subscribe to them (or both). 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. OK, with all that out of the way, let us disregard the very tall and the very short. After all, it's much more likely that a woman would violate the "standards" because she's 7 ounces over-weight than because of her height. Except for the aforementioned airplane fetish, weight alone (unless it's extreme in either direction) tells me nothing about her appearance or if she fits my preferences. Whereas height alone would at least clue me in on some of that pragmatic stuff (which would be more likely to be a factor). Does that shed any more light on my quandary?*

Spiritedsub2 -> RE: weight, but not height ? (4/28/2015 9:26:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wannapleez Some good inputs, but I'm still kinda puzzled. Maybe if I expound a bit more, you'll better understand the depths of my cluelessness. :-) Note: My statements will be as related to a female Domme (as that is what I seek). I'm not just singling them out arbitrarily. FACT: Society's standards are totally fcked up. (Note: I'm not saying that it's wrong if your preferences coincidentally match up with those standards. But anyone who takes their preference cues from Mike Jeffries needs to lean into the next pitch.) FACT: Said fcked-up standards lean a LOT more heavily (no pun intended) toward weight than height. Yes, the very short and the very tall are seen as "out of bounds". But if you're within the "acceptable" height range, as little as 5 pounds can "make or break" you. FACT: Either you're comfortable with your body size/shape or you aren't. 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 "Fck society" is a personal turn-on.) THEORY (though I think it's solid): A woman who is not completely comfortable with her body shape/size probably gets that discomfort from the "standards", either directly or from others who subscribe to them (or both). 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. OK, with all that out of the way, let us disregard the very tall and the very short. After all, it's much more likely that a woman would violate the "standards" because she's 7 ounces over-weight than because of her height. Except for the aforementioned airplane fetish, weight alone (unless it's extreme in either direction) tells me nothing about her appearance or if she fits my preferences. Whereas height alone would at least clue me in on some of that pragmatic stuff (which would be more likely to be a factor). Does that shed any more light on my quandary?* 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.

littleladybug -> RE: weight, but not height ? (4/28/2015 9:59:53 AM)
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 "Fck 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". quote:* ORIGINAL: wannapleez THEORY (though I think it's solid): A woman who is not completely comfortable with her body shape/size probably gets that discomfort from the "standards", either directly or from others who subscribe to them (or both). This is probably true for some, if not many. 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.

AAkasha -> RE: weight, but not height ? (4/28/2015 10:07:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wannapleez quote: ORIGINAL: vivaciousgrace Compatibility is about more than just a list of statistics. You could always get chatting to someone and just ask them? Very true. I just don't understand the phenomenon in the first place. To the above poster's point: You can engage in a conversation and get the clarification you seek as long as you can spark a mutually beneficial discussion. And, if the woman does not look at your profile pic and go "gross. Another one of those types."

sexyred1 -> RE: weight, but not height ? (4/28/2015 12:08:16 PM)
I don't provide weight, but do say I am a BBW. Since that connotes anything from size 14 on up, it's not incumbent on me to provide weight, chest size or my measurements. It's not being self conscious. It's being choosy about what you share. With just my face photo and my profile, that's all I care to share. I won't even list my BDSM interests. While attraction is important, photo or numbers don't cut it. When someone gets to finally meet me, if I can get past a phone conversation, then they can figure out if they are attracted. I really don't worry about it.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875