posted
I once dated a woman who was about 160 cm, and about the same in kg. Once. She was not only physically thick, she was thick as three short planks. Ye gods, she believed in astrology.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_raven: [qb]
I feel it's unfair and selfish to 'let yourself go' after being married for a while-it's one of my pet peeves when I see it. I'm talking about not doing your doing your hair and make-up, shaving your legs maybe monthly and staying in your bathrobe until 3 pm or getting a big beer belly, not shaving, and walking around in your underwear scratching yourself and burping.
Makeup- nope Hair- Well, it's brushed Shaving- when it starts to get ticklish Staying in my PJs all day- check Getting a beer belly- I'll try not to for my own sake Walking around in my underwear- all the time, and for some funny reason my boyfriend has never complained. Scratching myself- If I itch, I scratch, if he itches he scratches. Neither one of us minds. Burping- I don't actually know how to burp.
All of this completely unrelated to my relationship status.
I've been trying to think how to say this for a while. And I'm not sure it's clear yet, but here goes.
Different people have different expectations for their significant other. The terms high or low maintenance are generally reserved for women, but I think they work equally well as descriptors for men. A man who expects his wife to always look nice and keep herself trim for him is high maintenance. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as his wife is also high maintenance. But low maitenance people also exist, people like me and my boyfriend. As long as they're both low maintenance, there's also nothing wrong with that.
What I think you're complaining about Bao- is when low maintenance and high maintenance people end up in a relationship together. However, your phrasing implies that the high maintenance person is the one who is "right" and the low maintenance person is the one who is "wrong". Since usually those things happen when a low maintenance person pretends to be high maintenance in order to get a high maintenance person, I see where you're coming from. However, it sounds like you're making an attack on low maintenance people. Which isn't really fair.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Yeah. That is part of my problem. I would really like not to be alone. Now, I have excellent and wonderful proof that there are worthy men who are not deterred by extra weight. I also have a theory that the very best men fall into that category. I (except in some weak and sad moments) do think I am better off on my own than with someone who could only care for me "if".
But in those moments, I do wonder if that is asking too much.
Hear, hear!
quote:Originally posted by ElJay:
quote:. . .shaving your legs maybe monthly and staying in your bathrobe until 3 pm. . .
I totally agree. I shave my legs about every four months, and 3 pm is way too early to get dressed on the weekends, at least.
posted
My birthday is the same as Elanor Gamgee's. Eleven points if you don't have to check the book. When is yours?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I feel it's unfair and selfish to 'let yourself go' after being married for a while-it's one of my pet peeves when I see it. I'm talking about not doing your doing your hair and make-up, shaving your legs maybe monthly and staying in your bathrobe until 3 pm or getting a big beer belly, not shaving, and walking around in your underwear scratching yourself and burping.
I sometimes wonder about advise against "letting yourself go". I agree that it is important to maintain basic standards of cleanliness, but I don't think I should live my life as if I'm going out on a hot date. Granted, I'm a fairly casual person - I rarely wear makeup, I don't shave every day, when I get home at the end of the day the first thing I do is change into something more comfortable (and something I normally wouldn't wear out of the house), on the weekends I sometimes skip a shower or don't do my hair. None of this is surprising to my husband. This is pretty much the way I've always been (both before and after we were married). He doesn't find me any less attractive because of it. I guess my biggest concern in "non letting yourself go" is the idea that who you are at the beginning or end of the day (or when you're sick or otherwise not at your best) is so drastically different from who you are the rest of the time that your spouse doesn't even recognize you as the same person. That would be really sad.
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Only when absolutely necessary. But if you're going to go out, some nightclubs frown on PJs, so getting dressed sometime after dinner isn't always a bad thing.
I always wash up and dress up when going out on the town. I try to look presentable. I just wear t-shirt and blue jeans to work, because I'm not there to find anyone, or anything. Besides, I have to wear a uniform once I get to work, so it takes less time to change if only wearing tshirt and jeans.
Requirements for member of opposing gender... yeah, you could say I have a few. A few physical ones anyway (not all are set in stone). Height, same or shorter than mine. At the most of a few extra pounds. Red hair. Last one is definately not a requirement, but if the hair is red, I'm all stupid stupid. Natural red though. However, everything else is based on who the person is as a person. Right now there is a whole long list of requirements for that. An none of them be moving anytime soon.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That is a dramatic weight gain, MPH. Has anything in your life changed?
*looks at registration date*
Mostly I stopped doing Aikido. While it was great, it was just too much of a time commitment. In order to exercise for half an hour, it was almost a 2-hour commitment.
Also, bear in mind that when you're 6'3" and 200 lb, a 40-lb weight gain isn't as much as for somebody who is smaller and shorter.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think letting oneself go implies that one has set a standard that their SO can reasonably expect to be kept, and then not adhered to that standard.
Say I worked out constantly, kept my hair very short and trim, shaved daily and kept up with current events. I find a nice young lady that is incredibly attracted to me for some of those very reasons. We fall in love and get married. Then I stop working out and don't watch what I eat, I let my hair grow long and shaggy, grow a two foot beard, and stop keeping up with the news. I feel that the nice young lady that I married has a right to be very upset by this turn of events, possibly to the point where our relationship would be in danger.
Of course a person has a right to change, and along with that a person's SO has a right not to love the person you've decided to change in to. To me, when a person says their wedding vows, they are saying, "I love you and always will," as apposed to "I love you and always will, even if you change completely."
It's not a problem of a person being one way or another (heavy or thin, clean or not, with or without makeup, waking up early or late) so much as a difficulty adjusting to a person that you know and love changing something about themselves. Hopefully there are enough things about our SO that a change or two wouldn't hurt the relationship, but enough changes and it can start feeling like a completely different person is sleeping next to you.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, I do think that a lot of what you talked about - gaining weight, staying in your bathrobe etc. could happen with depression or illness or age.
Yes, but we’ve already established that illness and aging (and their results as well) don’t fall under the category of what I was discussing.
quote: BQT, I don't mean to put works in your mouth, but I do wonder about those kinds of expectations. And I mean wonder. How much of love is built on things that are transient and how much on things that are permanent.
I don’t recall mentioning love in my post. I’m not suggesting that (for example) if someone gets fat, the love goes out of the relationship. See my response to the last post for a more fleshed out version of what I mean.
quote: BQT while there is a definate difference between the kind of hygene you are describing, and the demand that your wife never gets sick, so too is there a difference between expecting your love to shower, and demanding that they get plastic surgery because you have a hankering for women with bigger bra sizes.
blink How did you get from what I said to advocating breast enhancement? I agree that there is a huge difference between the shower/surgery comparison. I don’t know where this demand about wife never getting sick comes from. I’m confused.
quote: What I think you're complaining about Bao- is when low maintenance and high maintenance people end up in a relationship together. However, your phrasing implies that the high maintenance person is the one who is "right" and the low maintenance person is the one who is "wrong". Since usually those things happen when a low maintenance person pretends to be high maintenance in order to get a high maintenance person, I see where you're coming from. However, it sounds like you're making an attack on low maintenance people. Which isn't really fair.
I think you’ve probably hit the nail on the head on what bothers me. It’s the pretending. A person has fooled another person into thinking that they are something they are not. Once the other person has committed to them, they then revert to their real nature. The other person may feel trapped and accused of being shallow if they say something. I’m not talking about 10 years down the road either, I mean like a couple months after marriage. I’m still probably not doing a good job of articulating it, but I think that’s what bothers me.
I apologize if I came across as being on the side of the ‘high maintenance’ person. I think that’s a result of the example I used to illustrate the principle that bothers me. I would be equally irritated if a ‘high maintenance’ person pretended to be cool with a ‘low maintenance’ person, that then demanded the above mentioned breast augmentation, wardrobe changes, etc. In my personal experience, I just see that happen less often. Basically I see it as a trust issue that could potentially reveal other characteristics about a person that are not desirable but which matter much more in the long run.
Please note: I’m not sure I would classify these people with high and low maintenance; I’m just using them for purposes of the conversation.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: "I love you and always will," as apposed to "I love you and always will, even if you change completely."
It sounds to me like you're saying "I love you and will continue to unless you change" as opposed to "I love you and always will."
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
well when you're getting married you're kind of wanting to get what you wanted before marriage, not necessarily the change after.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Working out constantly" is not necessarily a good trait for a family man. Expecting a married woman to spend hours a day on hair, makeup, and perfect clothing is not very doable if she has a job and kids. Single women and men have a ton more time for those kinds of things.
I wanted to comment that people change over time. If two 19 year olds marry, they are going to change a lot in 6 years. More, perhaps, than the 25 year olds who get married. The appearance, weight, even interests can change a lot in young adulthood. Expecting a 30 year old to be almost as trim and buff as he was at age 20 just isn't going to happen all that often. A 19 year old girl may wear a lot more makeup than the 30 year old, or vice versa. People change. Priorities change. Beliefs change. Not to mention expanding families change everyting. It'd be nice if people could cut other people some slack about these things.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, bear in mind that when you're 6'3" and 200 lb, a 40-lb weight gain isn't as much as for somebody who is smaller and shorter.
If you want to do something about it, make it a point to start soon. I let a 20 pound gain go, then another 20, then another 20. I look back nostalgically on only being 40 pounds overweight.
That's it. This weekend the workout routine starts again.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: "I love you and always will," as apposed to "I love you and always will, even if you change completely."
It sounds to me like you're saying "I love you and will continue to unless you change" as opposed to "I love you and always will."
I wouldn't stop loving my wife if something about her changed. As I said, I would hope that a husband and wife would have have enough things they love about each other that some things changing would't hurt their relationship. Hopefully the change is a good change, and we love our significant other more for them, but that is not always the case. While it is unfortunate, if a person changes a significant part of Who They Are, I don't think it's right to call someone shallow for not loving the person they change in to.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to chime in with the kmboots love from the first page. And add a voice of total agreement to the first post. Though, you're much more patient than I would've been with someone making that kind of statement. But, I might be speaking from the bias of someone who was told by a guy that, despite having the ideal personality for him to date, I simply wasn't pretty enough.
Also, I'm really, really glad that my darling hubby loves me for my personality and doesn't care that I've gained weight.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Megan: And add a voice of total agreement to the first post. Though, you're much more patient than I would've been with someone making that kind of statement.
I agree. My first reaction tends to activate my junk-kicking action. My freshman year, a few people suggested I get breast implants. I said I only ever wanted to be a B, and I was an A, and I didn't really think that was worth it. They told me that because I'm so tall, I ought to have C-cup breasts. Then all the boys would be falling all over themselves.
posted
Loving someone who loves you is the best feeling in the universe.
Loving someone for their looks, or being loved for you looks -- neither is the best feeling in the universe.
If I had to choose.
Hence, the motivation to lose weight has to come from something other than a desire to be worthy of someone's love. However, having someone's love does motivate me (at least) to want to stay around longer and see how it all turns out.
posted
My friend's wife got surgery done to slim down. He didn't want her to do so (his argument was that he loved her as she is/was). She went ahead with the surgery because she said she was doing this for him. He got tired of arguing and filled out the paperwork to fly home for 3 weeks vacation to be with her and watch the kids.
- for those questioning why he had to fly home: We were (I still am) in the navy. His wife and kids worked or went to school in CT. He had gotten orders to Virginia. Rather than move his family out of their house away from his wife's family, they opted for this route since it was his last 4 years before retiring from the service.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, bear in mind that when you're 6'3" and 200 lb, a 40-lb weight gain isn't as much as for somebody who is smaller and shorter.
If you want to do something about it, make it a point to start soon. I let a 20 pound gain go, then another 20, then another 20. I look back nostalgically on only being 40 pounds overweight.
That's it. This weekend the workout routine starts again.
I actually started last night. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do too, Bob. Or more acurately, I know their whole family, it's my dad's cousin's wife. She wanted to be thin so she could play with her twin grandsons. She died three weeks later from having something not stick.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've come to the realization lately that it's my obligation as a human being to MOVE. Nowadays, with the cars, and the computers, and the pizza being delivered, it's possible to be ambulatory for a total of 10 minutes a day. We weren't built for that level of inactivity. Or for MSG.
If you don't get with the evolutionary program, you will probably become overweight, and I, during one of my weaker moments, may glare at you for no reason other than because of my belief that if I can make me healthy, you can make you healthy. I don't think self-image is quite as important as becoming a real human being.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: By "real human being," you mean "ambulatory?"
Sort of. Using the hunting/gathering muscles every once in a while would also be a good idea. Eating proportionally to the energy spent on hunting/gathering is also good.
quote:Originally posted by pH: How does being overweight make you not a real human being?
-pH
It doesn't. It means that the people that got overweight due to an extended period of inactivity weren't trying hard enough to be the beings we were designed to be. And stepping it up for the species would probably be a pretty healthy idea.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
What determines what we were designed to be? What humans used to do in the wild? Because we don't do PLENTY of things that we did "in the wild," I'm sure.
posted
pH - We were designed to ingest whatever we found around us to eat. We were designed to be able to go looking for it over a period of time and run from predators that came after us. When food was scarce, it was OK, because we were designed to store up a little bit of fat to use in conjunction with stumbled-upon-bear/wooley mammoth later. We were not designed to sit down all day and eat three meals until we are full to bursting. If we were, we'd all just be really fat butts. I'm not focusing on the weird crap we did in "the wild" I'm focusing on how we were built to operate.
KoM - That's goofy. Thinking, opposable thumbs, bipedality, etc are all human beingy characteristics. That doesn't change what we are supposed to do with our bodies when we first picked 'em up. It all still applies, and if you're not so good at maintenance and upkeep, then you're not being a very good operator of your physical humanity.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: It doesn't. It means that the people that got overweight due to an extended period of inactivity weren't trying hard enough to be the beings we were designed to be. And stepping it up for the species would probably be a pretty healthy idea.
*mildly
You know, there is no reason to privilege physical design (such as it is) over mental and social. One could quite legitimately bemoan the lack of social skills and tact shown by so many as exhibiting a dearth of humanity.
-----
Edited to add: You know, evolutionary biology is a descriptive discipline, not a prescriptive one. When evolutionary pressures change, then so will the results of those pressures.
I don't think the notion that "we aren't doing what we were designed or have evolved to do" really makes any sense, other than in an emotional rallying cry. That is to say, it strikes me as rhetoric, not science.
Not that emotional rhetoric is necessarily a bad thing. It just isn't an argument, you see -- or rather, not a tenable one.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: It doesn't. It means that the people that got overweight due to an extended period of inactivity weren't trying hard enough to be the beings we were designed to be. And stepping it up for the species would probably be a pretty healthy idea.
*mildly
You know, there is no reason to privilege physical design (such as it is) over mental and social. One could quite legitimately bemoan the lack of social skills and tact shown by so many as exhibiting a dearth of humanity.
-----
Edited to add: You know, evolutionary biology is a descriptive discipline, not a prescriptive one. When evolutionary pressures change, then so will the results of those pressures.
I don't think the notion that "we aren't doing what we were designed or have evolved to do" really makes any sense, other than in an emotional rallying cry. That is to say, it strikes me as rhetoric, not science.
Not that emotional rhetoric is necessarily a bad thing. It just isn't an argument, you see -- or rather, not a tenable one.
I'll grant that lack of social skills and tact are the equal of being overweight. But all I'm saying is that there are reasons why heavier people are heavier and not of "average" size. Heart problems, low energy, bone issues, it's the body saying, "I'm being abused!"
Now you can say that "we aren't doing what we were designed or have evolved to do" doesn't really makes any sense, but it's obvious that people with a series of similer problems in a similer condition aren't. They are all doing something wrong.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then what about people who can eat massive amounts of junk food, laze about, and still be thin? Are they operating in the manner for which they were designed?
posted
Hey, someone had to sit around the cave and keep the sabertooths from stealing all the leftover mammoth.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: but it's obvious that people with a series of similer problems in a similer condition aren't. They are all doing something wrong.
Oh, they are? All of them?
I have nothing more to say to you, except, obese people actually have less osteoporosis than thin people. Heavier weight and more fat cells actually promote stronger bones. One of the few advantages.
I doubt you can tell the skinny healthy people from the skinny sick people. I bet as long as they look cute in a bathing suit you assume they are healthy ones.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Theca - Generally those with problems are doing something wrong. Generally.
I believe that having joint trouble is a side-effect of carrying around too much extra poundage?
Ouch! Yup, I'm supershallow. But you knew that. It is safe to say that my thinnish friends are all pretty fit. But that's because I take them to the gym with me. I don't like going alone, and it gets them out of their chairs. The not thinnish ones too.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: that having joint trouble is a side-effect of carrying around too much extra poundage?
Ouch! Yup, I'm supershallow. But you knew that. It is safe to say that my thinnish friends are all pretty fit. But that's because I take them to the gym with me. I don't like going alone, and it gets them out of their chairs. The not thinnish ones too.
I'm thin. Actually, I'm in good, athlete-type shape. My body fat is almost the same as my personal trainer's.
But I have joint problems. When I was in high school especially, I had to go through physical therapy for malalignment syndrome. All of my joints hyperextend to a degree that will cause most of those who see it to cringe.
So there are plenty of joint problems that have nothing to do with fitness or weight.
posted
I didn't mean that only people carrying around a couple of extra pounds were allowed to have problems with their joints. That'd be weird.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
