Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish  I don't have an impressive upper body, but I'm in rather excellent shape. I can bench press greater than my own meager body weight, I'm not afraid of pull/chin ups, I can do curls/crunches/sit-ups until my spine is sore from the ground and I can run a mile in a modest 5.5 - 6 minutes. I'm not going to win any medals or high accolades for my strength, but there's a big difference between being fit and being muscular. I'm one, she's neither. |
You have no idea of her fitness level from her photos or her reported weight. That's what I have a problem with. It is altogether possible that she is in better shape cardiovascularly than you are and stronger on top of that. I go to a gym with women who are much heavier than I am who are in better physical condition than I am. They can run faster, run longer, hang in there in aerobics classes far better than a lot of the very thin women.
Quote:
|
Her being overweight is about as close to "fact" as you can get on this particular subject. The cutoff for "healthy" on the BMI scale is 173 lbs. and she's 174. That's just breaking into the "overweight" area, but there still has to be a cutoff somewhere, and she passed it.
|
Yes, and the cutoff for healthy in the other direction for someone who is 6'3" tall is 148 pounds. From your signature, you're much further away from being healthy than she is. Being underweight is no better than being overweight contrary to popular opinion.
Being so harsh isn't necessary. You don't find her attractive? Fine. She's a little to heavy for your tastes? Fine. But calling someone an "ugly cow" is shitty. I also think it's wonderful that people, especially men, find it okay to judge a woman's looks incredibly harshly when they aren't exactly Brad Pitt themselves. People in glass houses and all of that.