Reply to: Would Mich?

[Mich the Tester]

The top row never did become sexier than the bottom row; the fashion industry is run by gay men who prefer girls to look like boys and 'designers' who think people should be made to fit their crap clothes. Proper design is about making things that fit people.

[Spacecadet]

Enough with the "real" women crap

http://www.funnymemes.com/wp-content...ave-curves.jpg

[greenlake]

[mudskipper]

She's 16 - still going through puberty. Just as 16 yo boys are often lanky and skinny but fill out later, so do 16 yo girls.

[xoggoth]

The thread isn't about what's ' normal', it's about what people find 'attractive'

Indeed and attractive is not necessarily beautiful. Those perfect models do nowt for me.

Him down there has his own ideas, too. I was reasonably good at pulling in my yoof and dated the Uni Beauty queen for a while. Never attempted to touch her, her kisses turned me on about as much as eating an ice cream. Another was pretty plain with a big nose but he really liked her.

[Bellona]

Although she might have trained those inner thigh muscles over the last week or so.

[Mich the Tester]

No. It's healthier to have some fat on you. And also some muscle. That gap between her thighs even when her legs are shut shows a lack of muscle, suggesting she doesn't use her legs.

Although she might have trained those inner thigh muscles over the last week or so.

[d000hg]

Or just not eat to excess. I know lots of great looking who don't exercise at all - although the ones who do look better (to someone who prefers a more athletic look).

No. It's healthier to have some fat on you. And also some muscle. That gap between her thighs even when her legs are shut shows a lack of muscle, suggesting she doesn't use her legs.

[Mich the Tester]

Exactly, implying that if she's not a 'real woman' and she's not a fatty, then she's underweight, which she clearly isn't.

I know you didn't mean it that way now - just saying why I originally called her 'normal'.

To be fair, she's 17; lots of 17 year olds are naturally thin and once she's in her 20s she might will fill out. It's simply that I don't find that thinness attractive and I didn't when I was 17 either. I always preferred the hockey girls with their firm buttocks and jiggly wiggly brea... I'm being naughty now aren't I?

[SpontaneousOrder]

or live in a very poor family.

Or just not eat to excess. I know lots of great looking who don't exercise at all - although the ones who do look better (to someone who prefers a more athletic look).

[SpontaneousOrder]

Notice I also said 'not fatties'.

Exactly, implying that if she's not a 'real woman' and she's not a fatty, then she's underweight, which she clearly isn't.

I know you didn't mean it that way now - just saying why I originally called her 'normal'.

[d000hg]

I've only got to take a quick walk down the high street to see that the new normal is at least 2 stone overweight.

It IS the norm to be overweight in the UK right now, but that doesn't change the fact that that image is not of a "naturally normal" woman. You have to work to have a figure like that, or live in a very poor family. When we look at what's healthy in animals, we don't say they should be skinny but should have a healthy amount of body-fat.

[Mich the Tester]

Sure.
My original response was to your 'real women' - I know you were probably saying 'real women' are heavier, like you might say real cowboys wear Levis. But lots of people do think that the muffin-tops are normal in the sense of being 'proper'. I don't like it because the fatties' rage against the slim(different to skinny)=attractive stereotype is causing young women to grow up very unhealthy.

I personally don't have too much of a preference as far as attractiveness is concerned (within limits). It's normally which ever i've had the least of until i can manage to tip the scale in the other direction. Variety being the spice of life and all.

Notice I also said 'not fatties'.

[SpontaneousOrder]

The thread isn't about what's ' normal', it's about what people find 'attractive'. To the endless regret of some people, those are not necessarily the same things.

Sure.
My original response was to your 'real women' - I know you were probably saying 'real women' are heavier, like you might say real cowboys wear Levis. But lots of people do think that the muffin-tops are normal in the sense of being 'proper'. I don't like it because the fatties' rage against the slim(different to skinny)=attractive stereotype is causing young women to grow up very unhealthy.

I personally don't have too much of a preference as far as attractiveness is concerned (within limits). It's normally which ever i've had the least of until i can manage to tip the scale in the other direction. Variety being the spice of life and all.

[Mich the Tester]

I've only got to take a quick walk down the high street to see that the new normal is at least 2 stone overweight.

The thread isn't about what's ' normal', it's about what people find 'attractive'. To the endless regret of some people, those are not necessarily the same things.