the last two on the right are objectively the most attractive
The peace movement has its new poster and slogan.
One of the prettiest women I've ever met was an Iranian-American lawyer who was working parttime at my old firm when I started there. Just remarkably so.
Now now, Ahmadinejad is a very good-looking man. Stylish, too.
Somebody's gotta help me with this shit.
What could I possibly read to make me understand the Iran that exists in these pictures. Surely in the Bush world, these hotties wouldn't exist.
If I ignored all the captions (okay, and the outside shots), you'd have a dickens of a time convincing me this was Iran. Gracious!
Reading list, please.
Good question, Rich. I have no idea; I haven't read any books on contemporary Iranian society. Well, I read a little of Reading Lolita in Tehran, which gives you some flavor of what it's like. I'll ask some relatives for other books.
Aqoul has a couple of suggestions; they mostly focus more on the Arab world, though.
What wonderful eyes! Those playful, bemused gazes!
THE GAZE... and discuss.
Take a look at that mirror. Your country is also full of: vampires.
What could I possibly read to make me understand the Iran that exists in these pictures.
Listen to Andy Kershaw's report from Iran. His view from Iran is one that doesn't get a lot of air in the American media.
Also: Iranian women = teh sexy.
That vampires are hot is well-attested.
Back around 2000 I knew a dental student who planned to return to Iran once she was certified. She was very pleasant, attractive, and charming, and native-speaker fluent in English. It's never really been the hellhole people say.
Did this dental student specialize in long, sharp incisors?
The porkative subjunctive may be our language's greatest achievement.
17 is a fine example of Becks-style. Bravo, [bork], bravo!
It's never really been the hellhole people say.
That's Americans for you. We imagine politically oppressive countries as a bunch of goatherds with Kalashnikovs.
"...Americans....imagine _______all_... countries... with Kalashnikovs."
Why isn't carpet-bombing a war crime? (Honest question.)
22: If it were, I'm pretty sure I'd have to prosecute my cat.
22: I kind of assumed it was, but that it had never been prosecuted as such for obvious reasons.
Why isn't carpet-bombing a war crime? (Honest question.)
War between states pretty much means wholesale slaughter until one side gives up. Bombs rather than ground troops means less of our people die.
Because we're the ones who (a) are most capable at carpet bombing, and (b) are in a position to make the rules.
Clearly, in the interests of Iranian-American friendship, those ladies need to be supplied with cock pictures from Unfogged.
Speaking of which...
Why isn't carpet-bombing a war crime? (Honest question.)
Tell me what it 'carpet-bombing' is, precisely, and I'll tell you why it should be a war crime.
max
['How many biplanes have to be involved?']
I only said "carpet-bombing" because I was feeling insecure about the spelling of "aerial."
['True confessions.']
Wait, are you really proposing that bombing from aircraft of any kind should be a war crime?
Given the way that bombing actually works in real life, there should be a presumption in favor of its being a war crime. Remember "Shock and Awe"? I doubt that they meant the Iraqis would be "shocked" to find that only their military targets had been hit and "awed" by the total lack of civilian casualties.
In practice, it's a lot like terrorism, or it would be, if it weren't ontologically impossible for the US to be guilty of terrorism.
8, 9, 13: Thanks. Aside from the hottitude, I find the occident vibe very jarring.
I'll be looking forward to any titles you can suggest, ogged.
Given the way that bombing actually works in real life, there should be a presumption in favor of its being a war crime.
I'm not really seeing the moral superiority of "running in and shooting a shitload of people" vs. "bombing a shitload of people."
Listen, I'm a pacifist in general, so you can dismiss everything I'm saying here. Still, it seems clear that bombing almost always causes huge civilian casualties, whereas normal ground combat has much greater potential to be limited primarily to actual combatants. Bombing may not "intend" to hit civilians, but by bombing, you show that you don't give a fuck how many civilians die.
Bombing may not "intend" to hit civilians, but by bombing, you show that you don't give a fuck how many civilians die.
I'm not sure that's quite right. There was an interesting TAL in which they discussed precision bombing a bit; my sense from that program is that the military makes an effort to minimize civilian casualties. It makes sense--fewer civilian casualties means an easier time policing the population down the line.
Still, it seems clear that bombing almost always causes huge civilian casualties, whereas normal ground combat has much greater potential to be limited primarily to actual combatants.
Depending on your POV, I'm a realist/pessimist. I assume tons of civilians are going to get killed, and it's just a matter of are we going to do it up close, or from a distance.
It makes sense--fewer civilian casualties means an easier time policing the population down the line.
Is it now just assumed that the aftermath of a war will involve moving in, such that you'd need to police the population?
34: "Normal" ground combat in the modern military era (say, US Civil War on) is brutal on noncombatants; with the advent of total war, armies hoping to win are pretty much required to attack and disable the production centers of the opposition, which are almost invariably cities. Even if the ground army's policy isn't explicitly aimed at civilians, and the civilians themselves don't want to fight, you're still going to get horrible collateral damage if the opposing army puts up any resistance. Moreover, with ground forces you also get rape. Bombing does obviously send the message that you care about the lives of your own troops more than you do about the civilians of the opposition, but I think that's pretty much assumed anyhow.
Because we're the ones who (a) are most capable at carpet bombing, and (b) are in a position to make the rules.
And because (c) Persians (and other Mexicans living around there) make carpets.
On the subject of aerial bombing in general, I enthusiastically recommend this book.
The Gap Band has also done some excellent work on the topic of dropping bombs.
38: There's been a long-standing Air Force belief in the efficacity of strategic bombing to do the work of ground forces that well predates Curtis LeMay (although he's the guy I most associate with it). I think the general consensus is that the AF has drunk their own Kool-Aid and that bombing is not terribly likely to eliminate the need for ground troops (except in certain unusual circumstances), but I'm not a military historian.
37 -- hasn't occupation always historically been the upshot of conquest?
41, Rob Farley, who is a military historian (or political scientist specializing in the military, or something), agrees with the consensus I'm pretty sure. He is in general not fond of the USAF.
[Clown, wars don't have to be wars of conquest. Look at Gulf War I.]
41: I'm no military historian either, and I definitely agree that an army isn't going to accomplish with bombing what it accomplishes with ground troops. But I do think that unless bombing is specifically tailored towards terror and civilian casualties (like LeMay), ground combat is even worse for civilians than air combat. Put it this way: I would much rather be living in Baghdad during the shock and awe campaign than during the ground force occupation.
Andrew at Obsidian Wings also had a good take on air war.
than during the ground force occupation.
But this is because civil war has broken out. What about the bombing versus the ground force invasion? (Note: I don't know the answer to this question.)
(Also, didn't "shock and awe" name a plan for bombing that was much more severe and extensive than what was actually carried out?)
I believe Stub means during the initial invasion rather than, say, now.
Okay, I think that this post means I am officially no longer defending you, Ogged. Enough with the fucking hotties.
What, appealing to sexism to prevent war isn't feminist enough for you?
46 and 47- yeah, as Teo surmises I was actually talking about the actual ground war, but as Matt suggests I was also typing out of my ass, as I don't know that much about the actual ground war. I guess a better case study might be: I'd rather have been a civilian in the Battle of Britain than at Stalingrad, to take two archetypal examples of air and ground war. The worst case scenario is clearly being caught in the middle of a mcmanus-jones flamewar, though.
49: I just feel that Ogged has made his point and done his joshing and we're kind of getting to the toddler stage where once is cute, twice is funny, three times is fucking annoying.
Btw, Teo, I'm sitting in a hotel in Albuquerque.
Teo, I doubt you have spare time to pursue bitchphd if you're currently being double-teamed by FL.
FL obviously counts as two people if he's double-teaming anyone.
Not sure what you're talking about B. The kind of reaction Rich has in 7 is exactly what I was after. I know, and some other people know that Iran isn't all crazy fucker Ahmadinejad, and I can say that all I want, but a picture like this makes it clear in an inimitable way. They look like recognizable humans, and they're attractive; not like every other picture we've been seeing for the past few weeks of wacko jihadis.
B is obviously on about "look! hotties!".
For his next trick, ogged will tell us a number that can be written as the sum of two perfect squares in three different ways.
The Ayatollah Khomeini himself had a certain smoldering je ne sais quois.
The exciting EconoLodge on Central right next to the exciting interstate 25. Come one, come all.
57: Right, Ogged, and there are absolutely no pictures of men, or men and women together, who are Iranian. And we know, of course, that attractive young women are the ne plus ultra of "recognizable humans."
The Ayatollah Khomeini himself had a certain smoldering je ne sais quois.
All this time I thought it was his shroud they were after.
Given your breastblogging, I can no longer take your feminist credentials seriously. At least until you come out against Roe v. Wade.
Here's a picture of some nice young Iranian guys. You tell me whether this, or the one I posted does more to undermine the popular conception of Iran as a crazy theocracy. Because we're always shown Iranian women wearing hijab, while Iranian men look basically like guys anywhere, it's much more powerful to see "western"-looking Iranian women. I'm not even sure why I'm arguing about this.
Nevermind, some googling reveals that there is indeed an Econolodge at Central & I-25.
No, Teo, I mean 25. I've been driving on the damn thing all day, I know where I am.
66: Okay, fine, re. men as potential soldiers, women as potential victims. Still, the hotties thing.
Actually, I had in mind my friend Ali, who is thin, 40-something, and balding, and who I always picture sitting at a bar smoking and flirting with me. Just about the least bomb-worthy person ever.
Not sure what you're talking about B. The kind of reaction Rich has in 7 is exactly what I was after. I know, and some other people know that Iran isn't all crazy fucker Ahmadinejad, and I can say that all I want, but a picture like this makes it clear in an inimitable way.
Exactly. I think the "that could be a house in my neighboorhood" is especially compelling for most people.
That being said, I say the pictures of hotties are awesome, and should continue.
Teo, no apology! I always enjoy being right.
72: Glad to hear it. I confess I don't pay too much attention to motels near my house. I e-mailed you, btw.
I emailed you back and asked you to tell me where to go eat breakfast. Unless, of course, you want to just cook for me, which would be great as neither of us cares much for eggs.
I don't remember that thread containing much about how you don't care for eggs...
(I replied with some suggestions.)
It probably didn't, but in fact, I am not so much an egg person. I prefer sweet bready things, with a side of bacon.
On top of which, a house of bacon.
After that, it's turltles all the way down.
66: I'm surprised you didn't pick this picture, Ogged.
Sweet! I searched for "Tehran," so I missed that one. Dude on the left looks like a cross between Danny DeVito and Chevy Chase. Wet. And naked.
Do American women find smoldering-eyed Arab and Persian men teh hott? I understand that they're supposed to be attractive, but I just can't see it.
American women
I think you're misreading the genders of our 'Postropher and -gg-d.
84: No. Some are, but it seems that in general, Persian women are all gorgeous, and Persian men, while not all fugly, seem not to be related at all to the beautiful women in their country.
Carpet-bombing is not a crime because the considered opinion of the art world is that "Guernica" wasn't really all that great. Deal with it, Picasso, you pansy midget!
If ogged had wanted a picture of Iranian guys, he would have had to ask them to take off their gold-chain necklaces. Otherwise he would have made war even more likely. But Iranian men believe that their juju is located in those gold chains and are extremely reluctant to take them off. It's a cultural thing.
84, 86: Persian men rank moderate-high on my scale of objectifying.
This article, while horribly written, seems relevant.
Dude on the left looks like a cross between Danny DeVito and Chevy Chase.
I think the name you're looking for is Andy Kaufman.
84: I think what happens is that huge dark eyes with long sweeping doe-like lashes, to an American, come off as much more attractive on a woman than a man. They aren't detrimental on a man, but they don't make him hugely handsomer, while they do make women very, very pretty.
I think what happens is that huge dark eyes with long sweeping doe-like lashes, to an American, come off as much more attractive on a woman than a man.
By anecdote, those traits actually work better for men.
62: Right, Ogged, and there are absolutely no pictures of men, or men and women together, who are Iranian. And we know, of course, that attractive young women are the ne plus ultra of "recognizable humans."
While the window dressing of that first picture was pleasant, what I reacted to more was clicking through to the photrapher's flickr page to see more of the wedding party (which I would urge anyone who hasn't yet done so).
Read: even more of teh normal, including pics of gramps and uncle joes. I still have a hard time believing this is the Iran that we want to blow up.
93 should link to some version of "Little Red Riding Hood".
("Oh, Grandmama -- what big eyes you have!")
I think the name you're looking for is Andy Kaufman.
Yes! I couldn't place the face, but that's it.
I think what happens is that huge dark eyes with long sweeping doe-like lashes, to an American, come off as much more attractive on a woman than a man.
Like Timbot says, really a matter of taste here. Some women dig the long lashes, etc. on a guy, and think Iranian men are very handsome. That those women seem not to be reading this blog is a great wrong.
Surely swooning at your feet at the meetup last December conveyed how I, personally, feel about Iranian men with doe-like eyes? All I was saying that it's part of the standard, generic, American version of what an attractive woman looks like, and it's not the generic image of an attractive man.
66: Iranian men basically look like guys anywhere
Yeah, but it struck me that the guys in these pictures seem more comfortable hanging all over each other. Are male Iranian friends in general more comfortable with physical contact? If so, that's kind of different from here. It's also nice to see bc it reminds me that not all guys are afraid of being called a homo bc they can hug their friends.
94: There's no story as such. I just have a good friend who would be--how to say it?--entirely hideous except for his eyes. He does fine. Actually he does much, much better than fine, and the eyes are the physical feature women seem to key off. I've known other men who have had roughly the same experience as my friend. If you're willing to believe that women are less focussed on looks than men, it makes a certain sense: with women, you only need a hook; with men, the requirements are endless.
That said, I'm not sure it's the eyes that work for Iranian women. Personally, I'm a fan of the nose, the general angularity of the face, and the weird skin color. Further, I'm not sure the belief in the beauty of Iranian women is more widespread than similar beliefs about other ethnicities; I have heard similar claims made about a variety ethnicities.
I read LB's 100 to be saying that if LB does decide to have a lesbian experience in the future, she wants it to be with you, ogged.
If you think those women are hot, please explain the absence of any sort of babeolutionary groundswell of the sort that has made Beirut the Paris of the 21st century.
it's not the generic [American] image of an attractive man
Ah, got it. That seems right.
Are male Iranian friends in general more comfortable with physical contact?
Very much so. There's a lot of affectionate male behavior that would seem clearly homo here. In fact, this is something people are "taught" when they emigrate: don't put your arm around my shoulder when we're out, don't lean against me, etc.
Other anecdote of one: my older brother, an Arab (obv.), has huge eyes and ludicrously long lashes, and seems to do quite well with the ladies indeed.
Of course, that could just be because of the startingly good looks he shares in common with his sisters. Ahem.
104: Somebody bombed Paris airport?
They tell me Tehran is a buzzing place, but I wonder whether an invasion of Eurotrash on stag parties would actually be welcomed by the city fathers right now.
Samoa's the same -- it's funny how bizarre two big strong teenage boys being snuggly looks. You don't know how strong the taboo is untill you see it violated.
I think the no-straight-male-affection/homo-fear thing is really mostly American, or anyway American/Western European/Anglosphere at most. It's no kind of cross-cultural norm.
I wonder if the taboo is stronger here in part because homosexuality is more tolerated--after all, when of course you're not gay, you can be a lot more affectionate without "arousing suspicion."
It's weird, because in the Muslim world they still hate the homos, they just don't associate male-affection with homosexuality. In Cairo, it's an everyday occurrence to see men on the street walking with linked arms, around the shoulders, or even holding hands. Women, too. I didn't realize how different it was here until I saw my Korean friend out with her mom and they were holding hands. It was cute.
104: Every time Beirut gets settled, 20 years of peace, and becomes a tourist resort, someone bombs it or blows it up?
Every time Beirut gets settled, 20 years of peace, and becomes a tourist resort, someone bombs it or blows it up?
I like that "someone," so as not to rule out the possibility it'll be the Bolivians next time.
The 'someone' is there because I didn't want to get into a debate about whether it was Israel or Hezbollah's or the U.S.'s fault.
But we must guard against Bolivian aggression! Constant vigilance!
111: I don't think so, or at least it doesn't work that way in Samoa. They're completely fine with gay (or the reasonably close cultural equivalent thereof), but you are or you aren't; being snuggly with your male friends isn't diagnostic of gayness.
I think that it's a Northern European "personal distance" thing, which also governs how close people stand when they talk. British, Scandinavian, German, and probably Dutch. Has nothing necessarily to do with gay-friendliness or sexual liberation.
What you get taught in Britain is that it comes from the moral panic among Victorian evangelicals over sexual relations in boarding schools. But while that's certainly well documented, it doesn't explain why it should have been exported in such a piecemeal fashion.
Do American women find smoldering-eyed Arab and Persian men teh hott? I understand that they're supposed to be attractive, but I just can't see it.
Probably the most attractive guy I've ever been involved with was Iranian. And all last spring I had a crush on the Iranian guy in the next cubicle. He totally had doe eyes.
it seems that in general, Persian women are all gorgeous, and Persian men, while not all fugly, seem not to be related at all to the beautiful women in their country.
I would say this is true of many, many countries, especially in Eastern Europe. Go to Bulgaria some time. The contrast is shocking.
Also, or the most part, Eastern Europeans who live in the cities are beautiful and those who live in the villages are ugly. See this made me realize that beauty has, in fact, very very little to do with genes.
I wonder if the taboo is stronger here in part because homosexuality is more tolerated
That's a large part of it, I'm pretty sure.
Btw, does the family name come first or last in Farsi? I'm wondering if the photographer's name is Ms. Sogol or Ms. Saidi? Disappointingly, whatever her name is, she's already married, but this picture should give hope to balding 47 yr olds everywhere.
118-
I would say this is true of many, many countries, especially in Eastern Europe.
If I'm understanding this claim right, there must either be a global imbalance of highly attractive men and women, or there must be a contrasting set of cultures whose women seem not to be related at all to the beautiful men in their country. Which is it? (And, if the latter, where?)
Also, I've just realized 17 was me.
I would say this is true of many, many countries, especially in Eastern Europe.
I agree. I suspect it's mostly American attractiveness norms not translating well, like LB said. Or maybe men just aren't as physically attractive as women, all things considered.
contrasting set of cultures whose women seem not to be related at all to the beautiful men in their country. Which is it?
From an American point of view, Samoa again. Exaggeratedly broad-shouldered and muscled like a superhero looks great on a man (oh, stockiness sets in in later life, but the guys in their teens and early twenties would break your heart.) On the women, on the other hand, it looks stocky from the get-go to an American taste. (Samoan men also have that doe-eyed thing going, but it's in addition to the comic-book musculature.)
Nothing wrong with Samoan women, but the American women I knew in the PC spent more time looking at the local men and making little whimpering noises than the American men spent looking at the local women.
Or maybe men just aren't as physically attractive as women, all things considered.
Well duh. The body hair factor alone tells us that. And nothing trumps the scrotum.
And nothing trumps the scrotum.
This can get very weird when playing bridge.
I think the imbalance has to do with surface stuff -- nice clothes, straight teeth, good haircuts, etc. Men in Bulgaria might not have been so bad if they didn't work out so much that they had big necks, and didn't wear those nylon tracksuits.
Eastern European teenage boys aren't bad looking.
113 - to be fair, last time it was a home-improvement job for the first 7 years before the Cousins applied the finishing touches.
Also, back to the original post: like that trick worked for Lebanon.
re: "If I'm understanding this claim right, there must either be a global imbalance of highly attractive men and women, or there must be a contrasting set of cultures whose women seem not to be related at all to the beautiful men in their country. Which is it? (And, if the latter, where?)"
My wife claims that British guys are totally hot. We were talking about the stereotype that all Czech woman are attractive and I asked pretty much the question above, about this attractiveness 'imbalance', and she claims that, for her Czech female friends, British guys are seen as pretty attractive -- and certainly better dressed than their Czech counterparts. She says the first time she was in London with a bunch of other Czech girls they spent the day going round pointing out the hot looking well-dressed guys.
[And the 'city versus country' thing mentioned by dagger aleph in 118 rings quite true.]
122: I knew 2 Samoan women in college who were 6 feet tall and around 150-160 lbs. They were really quite queenly, I thought. But then, I like the Williams sisters too.
It is pretty universally true that city dwellers have access to better health care than villagers.
127: You are so right. I also found British guys to be pretty hot, or at least hotter than Canadian guys. It's all about clothes and hair cuts.
128: 160 is not stocky for a 6 foot tall woman. It's pretty darn thin. Did they say that was how much they weighed?
or at least hotter than Canadian guys
Nothing like applying high standards.
128, 131: 160 for any 6' tall person - male or female - is way too thin. Ugh. I like a little meat on a person.
129: Very true. And also they don't spend their days toiling in the sun, they dress better, they go to salons, and they actually bother to tweeze the hair out of their moles.
In the village, no one gives a shit what you look like. Everyone's too busy eking out a meager existence.
Relatedly, I just looked up Venus Williams' weight and height on Wikipedia and it's listing her as 6'1" and 160 lbs. I simply do not believe that. I wonder where that came from, and whether it was from her. Do female athletes lie about their weight?
136: Too much or too little? That seems credible to me.
re: 131 and 133
It depends on the individual doesn't it? 160lbs is actually a BMI of around 21 or 22 which is bang in the 'healthy' range. Now we all know that BMI is a pretty poor indicator for whether someone is actually over or underweight, but it gives a loose ball-park indication.
A 6ft tall woman who weighed 160lbs *could* look perfectly healthy.
Too little. Dude, *I* weigh 160 and I'm 5'7". Obviously VW is carring around less body fat than I am but a hell of a lot more muscle, and her frame does not seem narrow or small to me.
re: 136
Yeah, seems perfectly credible to me too. I know 6ft tall guys who only weigh a little more than that and who don't look skinny.
I don't believe it for Venus Williams at all. For a 6'1" woman, I know one of those and 160 is a little below the rock bottom weight she gets to if she's skinny and totally out of shape at the same time -- no fat and no muscle. A very slightly built person might be able to carry some muscle at that height and weight, but not competitive athlete muscle, and not at VW's build.
142: Don't kid yourself. When Jordan came into the league, he was 6'6" (maybe 6'5"), 185 lbs.
140: Don't look weak or small is what you mean by don't look skinny. What they look is gawky, or lanky, or lean -- that 'big skeleton, not a lot of meat on it' look. That's not what VW looks like, and it's not what any Samoan, man or woman, looks like.
We're also talking about a body-fat difference. MJ was probably coming in with a 5% body fat percentage. Competitive female athletes run more like 15%.
Men frequently underguess women's weight. I regularly get men saying, with apparent sincerity, that they think I weigh 125-135 lbs, and I always wanna be like, what is it that you think little girls are made of? The craziest example of this was an exboyfriend, who knew what I looked like naked, and also knew that we were the same height and I fit perfectly into his shoes, jeans, shirts, and hats, guessing that I was 130.
But LB - muscle weighs more than fat, right?
138: Yes, I suppose it does depend on the individual. I'm stating a personal preference wrt physical looks when considering physical looks only. I know one guy who's around 6', maybe 6'2" or so, who's a sickly string bean, but add in other stuff about him and I think he's a total hottie.
As I said above, that weight is within the normal BMI range and Venus Williams is lanky. She's pretty much textbook 'lanky'. Not skinny, or weak looking. But like there's little but bone and lean muscle on her? Yes.
I'd be amazed if Serena Williams, given her musculature, weighed as little as 160lbs, but Venus? Seems perfectly believable to me.
[Insert all the 'no value judgements being made' caveats here.]
147: Sure. But if you've got a man and a woman who are the same height, and you put the same amount of muscle on them, the woman's going to be heavier because she's going to carry fat in addition to the muscle. Women mostly don't carry as much muscle as men, of course -- I'm just saying that an athletic man is almost pure muscle, while even an athletic woman is muscle + fat.
Maybe I'm misremembering what VW looks like -- I think of her and SW as having very similar builds. Broadshouldered and carrying an awful lot of visible muscle.
re: 146
I don't think that's specific to men guessing women's weight -- although it may be worse in that direction.* I weigh around 215 pounds. People usually under guess my weight by *at least* 20 lbs.
People often look surprised when I tell them I am trying to lose weight and mention that I need to lose around 30lbs.
* In the sense that men underestimate more than women.
and also knew that we were the same height and I fit perfectly into his shoes, jeans, shirts, and hats
I'm amused at the implication, by inclusion of "hats" in the above list, that Tia carries significant weight around the temples.
re: 151
Yes, they are very different. Both athletic looking but in different ways.
You're right, Venus is less heavily muscled (it's a shot of the two of them in bathing suits). Venus still doesn't look anywhere near 160 to me. 160 at that height looks slight. She doesn't look slight.
Lisa Leslie purportedly clocks in at 6'5", 170. Sharapova: purportedly 6'2", 149. Kournikova: purportedly 5'8", 123. Three things: First, I don't think you can make assumptions about what Williams must weigh. As MM notes, she's really, really thin. And she really, really is a freak athlete: more so than her sister. Second, Kournikova's numbers are credible to me, because I dated someone with that height/weight combination. Third, people look thicker on TV and the rest. I remember seeing an NBA game in person from a good seat and being shocked (shocked!) at how twiggy the players looked. They looked absolutely breakable.
I may be underestimating how low pro athletes are getting their body fat. I'm still finding even Lisa Leslie's stated weight more probable than VW's - LL has that very narrow basketball player's build. While she's very muscular, it's on a slight frame. VW, lean as she is, is broad.
But I really don't know what I'm talking about here -- goodness knows why I've been arguing about it.
God, I need to stop reading these threads.
And, of course, I'm doing it too, in this thread more than anyone else.
Of the Samoan women I knew, one was average build, one a little husky. Part of it was that they didn't carry themselves in a femme-type way; they were pretty bold and straightforward.
160# was a pure estimate, they could have been heavier. As I understand, though, for the same height and width, women are lighter.
I really do think the problem is that weight is a surprisingly poor tool for describing what someone's body looks like. Some of it has to do with the muscle/fat weight differential, and I'm sure there are other factors involved too. But I've known people (okay: women) who were 5'7"/160 lbs. who looked bad*, and 5'5"/165lbs. who looked fantastic. It's something of a cliche, but the number on a scale doesn't in and of itself tell you very much about what a body looks like. It's a shame it's so often used.
FWIW, (women's) clothing sizes seem to be characterized by the same oddity. I've known women who had unattractive-looking (and I don't mean too skinny) "size 6" bodies, and others -- many others -- who look great and wear size 12 or 14 (or probably a variety of other sizes of which I'm unaware). As far as I can tell, knowing a woman's dress size tells me next to nothing about the attractiveness of her body.
*"Bad" is more judgmental than I'm trying to be. I want to say "overweight", but "weight" is the very concept I'm trying to leave out.
As I understand, though, for the same height and width, women are lighter.
This is true, and was the point of 147. LB was bringing up a fact that actually exacerbates the Williams Paradox, not one that explains it.
women are lighter.
Herein lies the ultimate connection between racism and sexism.
I just get slightly peeved when I sense, perhaps wrongly, that somewhere deep in the lizard brain of the man estimating my weight that he is employing the following heuristic: this woman is attractive, therefore, I must attach a number to her weight that I have preconceived of as skinny. Similarly, I hated sifting through Nerve ads where men capped their preferred weight at 135; I strongly suspected they didn't know what they were talking about, or what they'd be happy with if it were in front of them.
Brock and Tia have it (or varying facets of it). I was arguing because I see the same thing happen that Tia does, and it annoys me similarly. However, Brock is right that you really can't look at someone and guess their weight easily at all -- the variations in how people carry weight, differences in body structure, etc. make it an entirely non-transparent way of assessing what someone looks like or how fit they are.
Given that, I haven't got any particularly strong reason to be disputing VW's reported weight, or anyone else's.
This is an obvious point which probably doesn't need to be made, and it doesn't apply to the nerve personals, but could it be that some of the guys guessing your weight weren't saying whatever their guesses were because they thought they were true? I've been asked to guess women's ages and weights (not at a carnival or amusement park or something), and I never can figure out what to say, but that's because I'm tryng to figure out what they want to hear, not what the answer actually is.
I am relatively certain they were being sincere in the cases I'm thinking of. I've asked them about their thought processes afterwards.
166 is also true. No sane man would ever try to be "accurate" in guessing a woman's weight, because -- for whatever reason and Tia's complaints aside -- underguessing is perceived as neutral or even a compliment, whereas overguessing is likely to get you hurt feelings and tears.
I think the issue is more, if you're going to guess wrong, better to underestimate than overestimate. So the guessers aren't being purposefully misleading, but the responses still trend downward.
"Similarly, I hated sifting through Nerve ads where men capped their preferred weight at 135; I strongly suspected they didn't know what they were talking about, or what they'd be happy with if it were in front of them."
Women tend to overestimate their preferred mens' weight, and I tend to strongly suspect the same thing.
Are there a lot of women's ads with stated minimum weights? I suppose there might be -- I don't know from online ads.
I remember this from some thread or other. It may be quite rare, but there was some ad, somewhere, with a height minimum of 5'10 and a weight minimum of 200 or so. 5'10, 200 looks like Menelaus from Troy.
Then again, maybe that's who the ad was looking for. Or maybe my fevered brain constructed the whole thing.
In other words, please disregard all of my comments on this thread.
re: 172
I'm 5ft 10 and weight 215lb. I am overweight -- read fat -- but could quite easily be in pretty good shape and still weigh 200lbs without coming over like some body-builder.
It's the whole body-proportion thing again. Weight really isn't much of a guide, even on people of the same height.
I think people usually underestimate my weight by 15-20 pounds. I think they don't expect that I'm as muscled as I am, and also that a woman could be more or less hourglass shaped with a weight around 175. I agree with Tia's suspicions that men who think they have a weight cap are underestimating what it is.
I, on the other hand, tend to guess women's weights very accurately. Once you can put a woman in her weightclass, you're within eight pounds. Men's weights I have no eye for.
re: countries with many attractive women, few attractive men.
Yeah, I've certainly thought that overseas, but then again, that's my reaction looking around a US mall or college campus.
There's another differential I'm surprised no one has commented on:
While Iranian women are not terribly good-looking, Persian women are clearly very beautiful.
(Also--London is a dive, but Londres est trés jolie, for all you Kripke fans.)
Seriously--is it some form of political correctness that led to people referring to the women in the photo as 'Persian' rather than "Iranian"? Or was it a political vs. racial idea (since not every Iranian citizen is of Persian stock)?
I suppose I am confused by VW because I am underestimating the degree to which she is narrow (TV might be helping with that) and I am broad. I suppose since I have childbearing hips and a back that curves out to broad shoulders, I am heavier than she would be at my height. Also, Graham is 5'10" and something like 215, I think. He has some weight to lose himself, but I think he could make it above 200 without looking like a body builder, too.
This is me being pig-ignorant, but aren't most Iranians Persian? It's just an older name for the same geographical area, right?
Seriously--is it some form of political correctness that led to people referring to the women in the photo as 'Persian' rather than "Iranian"?
It might be teasing (I didn't look for the comment you're referencing). Ogged apparently hates (not in the joking way) self-identified Persians; IIRC, he sees the word choice as a tell about the chooser's affiliation with the Shah and the SAVAK.
re: 176
re: Graham - Yeah, some guys have sufficiently broad shoulders and chest that, even if they aren't in very good shape, they can carry a lot of extra weight around the torso without looking particularly fat. I have a friend who is about 20 lbs lighter than me (we're the same height) and he looks actively obese while I just look a bit 'heavy'.
Re: Persian/Iranian. See this.
Via Language Log.
"Iranian" is sometimes synonymous with "Persian", new word for the same ethnicity, but it also means "citizens of the nation of Iran", of whom about 50% are Persian/Iranian.
This came up in my Farsi class, and I heard a number of explanations for either saying Persian or Iranian.
Pro Persian:
Americans have bad associations with the word Iranian.
It refers to the culture left over from the Persian empire.
Pro Iranian:
Not everyone in Iran is from the Pars tribe and you are excluding some Iranian Jews and Zoroastrians, for example.
We should reclaim Iranian.
Get over the Persian empire already.
My Iranian former step-dad said Iranian, so I tend to as well.
Whoops. Actually, that above link is on the controvery over whether one should refer to the language as "Persian" or "Farsi." But the debate features some of the same issues as the "Persian"/ "Iranian" question.
There seems to be an underlying notion that if we just appreciated the appealing humanity of another people, "we" would be less likely to go to war with them. I don't think that holds at all.
The Persian-Iranian-Farsi question was commented on by my English-speaking Persian friends back around 1978-880. No one seemed indignant, but they thought it was odd.
I'm about 205, and people consistently guess lower than that. I'm pretty sure it isn't out of politeness, either. Posture alone can make a huge visual difference; broad shoulders can as well. And some people are just denser than others.
Everyone guesses low, because the weights published in things like women's magazines are either flat-out lies or else the women are actually airbrushed to look curvier than they are. That plus probably we still remember our high school weights, or something, and think that everyone else hung onto them.
back to impressions of weight--
when we watch old films (my daughter loves the old MGM catalogue, Fred & Ginger, etc.), I am often impressed by what a difference a well-tailored suit can make in how a guy looks.
A lot of the character-actors of that period were fairly obese, and look it in shirt-sleeves. (Guys like Eugene Pallett, who played Friar Tuck in the Errol Flynn Robin Hood, or Edward G. Robinson). Major guts.
But then they put on a well-tailored double-breasted suit (and this was when people took their suits seriously), and look--not svelte, clearly, but a lot more pulled-together. Interesting effect.
That still works. It's the shoulder-pads -- they turn a fat guy into a stocky-but-muscular guy, and hide a little gut completely.
O thin men of Haddam,
Why do you imagine golden birds?
Do you not see how the blackbird
Walks around the feet
Of the women about you?
182: If everybody would just standardize on Mexican, we wouldn't have this problem.
189: For some value of "works." Anything but a three button suit is an abomination.
Well, at least you removed my face, so I guess it's not a complete outing.
1. I can't believe I missed this thread.
2. This was all you, people.
Well I'm not going to call anyone or anyone's significant other overweight here, but even for a big shouldered, fairly thick man, 200 seems absurdly high for a minimum weight on a 5'10 frame.
I may be completely wrong, in which case, bring on the fried pork belly.
194: I'M IN UR UNF0GG3D POSTIN UR CL0WNZ.
re: 196
It is absurdly high for a *minimum* weight, yeah. It's at the upper range of weights that a guy that height could be without being fat or a serious weight lifter.
However, I'm pretty sure I (and Tia's Graham, and others) could be 200lbs while still having a not excessively high body fat percentage.
I had a flat mate at one time who played rugby fairly seriously. He was barely 6ft tall and weighed 225lbs with little or no obvious body fat at all.
total pee and comity for me. You can easily be 200, 5'10 and not be particularly overweight. You would be burly. An inside center on a rugby squad, or an NFL full-back.
But you could equally be 5'10, 160, and fairly broad looking. An NCAA cornerback, or a winger on a rugby squad.
(Okay, 205-210 really. But I'm working on it.)
actually, these days, 5'10 200 would be an NFL tailback. but those guys are big.
anyway, I'll stop objectifying men with my false consciousness.
Cool, I can be a tailback.
("ATM,", he hastened to point out.)
(Hey B-Wo -- what d'you think of those apples?)
I'm around 5'10", 160 lbs, and am often described as sculpted white chocolate.
Bettis is both taller and heavier than I.
sculpted white chocolate
Though it's often very hot in D.C.
Did what I think really just happen?
No, adult undergarments.
