Author Topic: Overheard on Facebook  (Read 2306761 times)

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1697
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
  • www.theliveinlandlord.com
    • The Live-In Landlord
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5700 on: December 13, 2016, 01:58:49 PM »
How about that secret sister gift exchange thing going around on facebook. You post on your wall and you only have to send 1 item (I've seen books and bottles of wine) and in return you will get between 6 and 36 items in return.

A friend posted it and I asked how if every person only sends 1 gift out, you get more back than the number of people participating. She never responded, but the post was deleted.
Secret Santa Pyramid Scheme.  Key is to get in early.

Yeah I participated in one, it was for books. I didn't really care to advertise it, but don't mind spending $8 to send a great book to someone I know every once in a while.

I don't mind the idea of having gift exchanges or secret santas, its the breakdown in logic that claims that you will receive many times over what you gave that bugs me. Where are all these extra books coming from?

The government. They already print extra money when they need it; what's a few books?
I squeak softly, but carry a big schtick.

nnls

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 864
  • Location: Perth, AU
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5701 on: December 13, 2016, 03:03:18 PM »
How about that secret sister gift exchange thing going around on facebook. You post on your wall and you only have to send 1 item (I've seen books and bottles of wine) and in return you will get between 6 and 36 items in return.

A friend posted it and I asked how if every person only sends 1 gift out, you get more back than the number of people participating. She never responded, but the post was deleted.
Secret Santa Pyramid Scheme.  Key is to get in early.

Yeah I participated in one, it was for books. I didn't really care to advertise it, but don't mind spending $8 to send a great book to someone I know every once in a while.

I don't mind the idea of having gift exchanges or secret santas, its the breakdown in logic that claims that you will receive many times over what you gave that bugs me. Where are all these extra books coming from?

from my understanding is the person you send your book to is above you, you then send your address to 6 people who then pass it on to another 6 each thus you get 36?

If that makes sense

bridget

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 456
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5702 on: December 13, 2016, 03:20:11 PM »
Quote
from my understanding is the person you send your book to is above you, you then send your address to 6 people who then pass it on to another 6 each thus you get 36?

If that makes sense

Sure, the problem is that this, like all pyramid structures, it cannot go on forever with an infinite supply of people below you on the chain.  Not to mention if it's bounded by a date, like Christmas, people don't have time to send gifts up to the next people on the chain and also get their own gifts.  Realistically, I bet these things barely go a single generation of gifts, so most people send but do not receive.

http://www.snopes.com/secret-sisters-gift-exchange/ (note: the snopes article suggests they are all illegal, but I'm pretty sure it's only illegal when it goes through the federal mail).  When it's on facebook, it's just cringey/awkward that people fall for it.

nnls

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 864
  • Location: Perth, AU
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5703 on: December 13, 2016, 03:46:42 PM »
Quote
from my understanding is the person you send your book to is above you, you then send your address to 6 people who then pass it on to another 6 each thus you get 36?

If that makes sense

Sure, the problem is that this, like all pyramid structures, it cannot go on forever with an infinite supply of people below you on the chain.  Not to mention if it's bounded by a date, like Christmas, people don't have time to send gifts up to the next people on the chain and also get their own gifts.  Realistically, I bet these things barely go a single generation of gifts, so most people send but do not receive.

http://www.snopes.com/secret-sisters-gift-exchange/ (note: the snopes article suggests they are all illegal, but I'm pretty sure it's only illegal when it goes through the federal mail).  When it's on facebook, it's just cringey/awkward that people fall for it.

yes I assume most people don't follow through on the sending of books/wine ect. Most of the ones I have seen havent been bound by a date but either way I assume most people dont do it

BTDretire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1527
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5704 on: December 14, 2016, 08:49:38 AM »
OMG I can't believe you would poke fun at Steve Harvey's dyslexia like that.
Yes, so sad how that has held him back.

JAYSLOL

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 642
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5705 on: December 14, 2016, 01:51:33 PM »
Finally saw something worth mentioning here.  On my local Facebook buy and sell group someone posted an ad that went like this..

47" LED TV - $250
TV is in pawn shop, cost $125 to get it out + I want $125 on top of that.


Sounds like somebody in my town is going to have their own "Pawn Shop Debacle", LOL

Toffeemama

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 697
  • Age: 2013
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5706 on: December 14, 2016, 01:58:35 PM »
How about that secret sister gift exchange thing going around on facebook. You post on your wall and you only have to send 1 item (I've seen books and bottles of wine) and in return you will get between 6 and 36 items in return.

A friend posted it and I asked how if every person only sends 1 gift out, you get more back than the number of people participating. She never responded, but the post was deleted.

My mom participated in that, and tried to get me to sign up.  I didn't have the heart to explain it to her.

Edit:  I was also reminded of a friend who posts photos of this monthly clothing subscription box she receives.  Basically, this company sends you several items of clothing, every month, that they pick out for you, and you pay for them.  That's the deal.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2016, 02:06:53 PM by Toffeemama »

Kitsune

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1553
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5707 on: December 14, 2016, 02:23:28 PM »
How about that secret sister gift exchange thing going around on facebook. You post on your wall and you only have to send 1 item (I've seen books and bottles of wine) and in return you will get between 6 and 36 items in return.

A friend posted it and I asked how if every person only sends 1 gift out, you get more back than the number of people participating. She never responded, but the post was deleted.

My mom participated in that, and tried to get me to sign up.  I didn't have the heart to explain it to her.

Edit:  I was also reminded of a friend who posts photos of this monthly clothing subscription box she receives.  Basically, this company sends you several items of clothing, every month, that they pick out for you, and you pay for them.  That's the deal.

To be fair: if I could find the mythical clothing service of my dreams, I'd pay for it. As it stands, it doesn't exist.

The mythical clothing service of my dreams would:
- Take into account exact size and body shape
- Take into account preferences (flannel button-down vs peplum top? Texture of fabric? etc)
- Take into account what's needed (aka: right now, I need button-down PJ tops and shirts, new black socks, high-waisted cotton panties for postpartum use, and 1-2 non-patterned cardigan in this specific range of colors, so ONLY send me that)
- Ship to Canada

Basically, if they could offer me a clothing service that was essentially an affordable personal shoppig service that delivered what I needed to my door without me needing to comb through 16 websites OR the mall, I'd totally pay an extra bit to avoid the aggravation. I don't need 6 cute tops that generally suit my tastes, nor am I willing to pay for them - eff subscription boxes. I'd absolutely pay for someone to find me the specific thing I want in under 6 hours of shopping, though. The mall near my old apartment had a FREE personal shopping service that did that. It wasnt well-known, but MAN was it useful.


cheapass

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 503
  • Location: Dallas, Texas
  • On track for FIRE @ 40
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5708 on: December 14, 2016, 11:00:36 PM »
I'm here, what's the fat chick want?

Man, you really got some jimmies rustled with this one LOL
Every single decision you make with money either shortens or lengthens your working career.

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3629
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5709 on: December 15, 2016, 11:20:52 AM »
If you're going to use Facebook I highly recommend the Facebook Purity add in. It's free and totally cleans up all of the crap.
Seconded, except it's called "Fluff Busting Purity" for trademark reasons :)  No ads, no "sponsored" posts, and tons of ways you can customize (i.e. remove the junk) your feed.

I'm gonna have to look into this.
Semi-FIREd December 2017, part-time entrepreneur, lover of puppies and saltwater.

johnny847

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3199
    • My Blog
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5710 on: December 16, 2016, 07:13:01 PM »
I unfollowed all my friends. Every single one. I had a totally blank newsfeed for months. It was fantastic. Now I'm deciding whether to re-follow just a few people that I actually miss having updates from, or whether to carry on manually going to their profile whenever I wonder what they're up to. I would highly recommend the mass unfollow.

I went a different direction and just quit Facebook entirely. I miss some of the pics from friends but nothing else about FB. I especially don't miss feeling addicted to the feed.

Another option is this browser extension http://socialfixer.com

Cpa Cat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1458
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5711 on: December 18, 2016, 08:12:21 PM »
I fell for the Pyramid Scheme Book Club. I guess I didn't read closely enough, because I assumed it was going to be a situation where you send a book to someone else who expressed an interest and someone on the list sends a book to you. Like an actual Secret Santa - not some BS Facebook chain letter.

I was disappointed to get the "details" and I never shared it. But I did decide to buy the book to send to the person who wanted books. Because ultimately she just wanted someone to send her books.

Maybe the infinite supply of books comes from suckers like MgoSam and me who end up sending books without the expectation of receiving books in return... because we just want to send books to our friends. :)

Cathy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1044
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5712 on: December 18, 2016, 10:38:12 PM »
But it is relatively recently in human society, and still not universal, that sexual preference is protected by being put in an "inherent" category rather than the "personal choice" category ...

I don't know what "inherent" or "personal choice" mean to you, but as far as I know there's no convincing evidence showing a particular etiology of sexual preferences (end even if those did exist, it wouldn't necessarily shed any light on "choice"). I'm not even aware of a convincing argument that sexual preference is a meaningful category. None of the models I've read even attempt to account for all of the diversity.

I think "choice" is irrelevant here. To be sure, the term "choice" can be useful as a descriptive shorthand (and I use it myself in that sense), but it has limited independent ontological content. The real reason that we shouldn't judge people for their sexual preferences is not because the preferences are "inherent", but because those preferences don't say anything negative about the person in question, and in particular do not reflect adversely on that person's character. A characteristic being "inherent" is a fragile basis on which to build protection for individual rights, not only because of the philosophical difficulties with choice, but also because acting on sexual preferences is itself a choice, and therefore a theory of rights based on "choice" protects only the preference and not the actions. The "choice" theory can't even deal with certain formalistic arguments against equal rights in the public sphere.

I briefly weighed in on the weight debate back on October 4, 2015, and my position has not changed since then. I think it's in poor taste to criticise people for their weight, but my analysis does not rely on "choice" or lack thereof. Instead, I just think that weight by itself doesn't tell you anything interesting about a person (not without a whole lot of other information), and therefore it is objectionable to criticise people for it without understanding the full story. Even if we assume that obesity is associated with poor willpower (a topic on which I express no comment), it's not necessarily present poor willpower but possibly only past poor willpower, and furthermore, it is really just one particular species of poor willpower that does not readily generalise to other life activities, or even to any important life activities outside of eating. The willpower involved in controlling how much food one eats involves a very specific set of biological effects which may not be the same effects that are relevant in other situations, such as in financial situations.

The weight issue is further complicated when the subject is a woman because, in general, our society heavily regulates appearance and beauty standards for women in a way it does not do for men. I found the phrase "fat chick" to be problematic because, in context, it seems like a pretty clear example of a patriarchal pejorative phrase designed to sanction a woman for straying from male-crafted standards of conventional physical attractiveness. The phrase was not just a neutral factual description. If that was the goal, a phrase like "the woman in the first photo" could have been used. No such unmarked phrase was used because the goal was to enforce beauty standards, not just to uniquely identify the person in the picture.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2016, 11:17:07 PM by Cathy »
This post contains only general information on the issues raised by this topic. This post does not provide help tailored to your specific situation. There are many facts that could be relevant to your specific situation and I am not in possession of those facts. If you need help tailored to your specific situation, you should retain an appropriate professional and not rely on this post.

[a]bort

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5713 on: December 19, 2016, 08:28:24 AM »
lol

Dave1442397

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 596
  • Location: NJ
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5714 on: December 19, 2016, 08:33:40 AM »
If you're going to use Facebook I highly recommend the Facebook Purity add in. It's free and totally cleans up all of the crap.
Seconded, except it's called "Fluff Busting Purity" for trademark reasons :)  No ads, no "sponsored" posts, and tons of ways you can customize (i.e. remove the junk) your feed.

I'm gonna have to look into this.

I installed it yesterday - now FB works the way I want it to, for the most part. Thanks for the suggestion!

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3496
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5715 on: December 19, 2016, 09:31:23 AM »
Maybe the infinite supply of books comes from suckers like MgoSam and me who end up sending books without the expectation of receiving books in return... because we just want to send books to our friends. :)

LOL. If all that happens is that me and CPA Cat have sent a great book to someone we knew, I consider it a fair bargain. I LOVE reading and don't mind sharing books every once in a while.

For the record the book I sent was, "Shadow of the Wind," by Zafon.

mm1970

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4810
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5716 on: December 19, 2016, 10:47:24 AM »
But it is relatively recently in human society, and still not universal, that sexual preference is protected by being put in an "inherent" category rather than the "personal choice" category ...

I don't know what "inherent" or "personal choice" mean to you, but as far as I know there's no convincing evidence showing a particular etiology of sexual preferences (end even if those did exist, it wouldn't necessarily shed any light on "choice"). I'm not even aware of a convincing argument that sexual preference is a meaningful category. None of the models I've read even attempt to account for all of the diversity.

I think "choice" is irrelevant here. To be sure, the term "choice" can be useful as a descriptive shorthand (and I use it myself in that sense), but it has limited independent ontological content. The real reason that we shouldn't judge people for their sexual preferences is not because the preferences are "inherent", but because those preferences don't say anything negative about the person in question, and in particular do not reflect adversely on that person's character. A characteristic being "inherent" is a fragile basis on which to build protection for individual rights, not only because of the philosophical difficulties with choice, but also because acting on sexual preferences is itself a choice, and therefore a theory of rights based on "choice" protects only the preference and not the actions. The "choice" theory can't even deal with certain formalistic arguments against equal rights in the public sphere.

I briefly weighed in on the weight debate back on October 4, 2015, and my position has not changed since then. I think it's in poor taste to criticise people for their weight, but my analysis does not rely on "choice" or lack thereof. Instead, I just think that weight by itself doesn't tell you anything interesting about a person (not without a whole lot of other information), and therefore it is objectionable to criticise people for it without understanding the full story. Even if we assume that obesity is associated with poor willpower (a topic on which I express no comment), it's not necessarily present poor willpower but possibly only past poor willpower, and furthermore, it is really just one particular species of poor willpower that does not readily generalise to other life activities, or even to any important life activities outside of eating. The willpower involved in controlling how much food one eats involves a very specific set of biological effects which may not be the same effects that are relevant in other situations, such as in financial situations.

The weight issue is further complicated when the subject is a woman because, in general, our society heavily regulates appearance and beauty standards for women in a way it does not do for men. I found the phrase "fat chick" to be problematic because, in context, it seems like a pretty clear example of a patriarchal pejorative phrase designed to sanction a woman for straying from male-crafted standards of conventional physical attractiveness. The phrase was not just a neutral factual description. If that was the goal, a phrase like "the woman in the first photo" could have been used. No such unmarked phrase was used because the goal was to enforce beauty standards, not just to uniquely identify the person in the picture.

While I often have to read these sentences a few times to get the gist (and look up words in the dictionary too), I liked this response.  Well said.

viverl

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
  • Location: Germany
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5717 on: December 21, 2016, 11:20:35 AM »
One of my favourite threads here is in dire need of some lightening up. So here: cat pictures from facebook - you could interprete it in some mustachian way if that is too off-topic. ;)




MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3496
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5718 on: December 21, 2016, 12:47:12 PM »
I guess a new arcade opened up at the Mall of America. There's people on FB gushing about it.

It looks like a single go-kart ride costs $23, though there are probably packages or other ways to make the per ride cost lower. Virtual reality games cost $5 each. I can see this as being a money maker as there are plenty of people that will throw down money for such things.

The guy behind this is has opened up 5 in various malls in India, this is his first venture into the US. I give him credit for the investment.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4108
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5719 on: December 21, 2016, 01:26:50 PM »
One of my favourite threads here is in dire need of some lightening up. So here: cat pictures from facebook - you could interprete it in some mustachian way if that is too off-topic. ;)



I see nothing wrong in this picture. :D

Sibley

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2179
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Chicago, IL
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5720 on: December 21, 2016, 02:02:09 PM »
One of my favourite threads here is in dire need of some lightening up. So here: cat pictures from facebook - you could interprete it in some mustachian way if that is too off-topic. ;)



I see nothing wrong in this picture. :D

Provided all cats are adequately fed, loved, are spayed/neutered, and have shelter from bad weather (whatever that looks like) - this looks like heaven :)

iowajes

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5304
  • Location: United States
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5721 on: December 21, 2016, 02:05:43 PM »
My first seeing that photo was that the cats were dead. It took me awhile to figure out why people were not okay with it...

marty998

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4942
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5722 on: December 21, 2016, 02:11:33 PM »
The weight issue is further complicated when the subject is a woman because, in general, our society heavily regulates appearance and beauty standards for women in a way it does not do for men. I found the phrase "fat chick" to be problematic because, in context, it seems like a pretty clear example of a patriarchal pejorative phrase designed to sanction a woman for straying from male-crafted standards of conventional physical attractiveness. The phrase was not just a neutral factual description. If that was the goal, a phrase like "the woman in the first photo" could have been used. No such unmarked phrase was used because the goal was to enforce beauty standards, not just to uniquely identify the person in the picture.

Not disagreeing with your post but have you read a women's magazine before? They are the ones holding women to impossible standards of beauty.

I would also add that body image is increasingly becoming a problem for boys/men too. The entire industry built around protein supplements, steroid use and fitness in general is testament to that.

cheapass

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 503
  • Location: Dallas, Texas
  • On track for FIRE @ 40
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5723 on: December 21, 2016, 02:18:19 PM »
I would also add that body image is increasingly becoming a problem for boys/men too. The entire industry built around protein supplements, steroid use and fitness in general is testament to that.

Good motivation to make good food choices and work out though, so one can be healthy and fit. We all can aspire for constant improvement and seeing examples of fit people is inspiring.

 Our maybe it's a "microaggression", who the hell knows in today's world.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2016, 02:19:56 PM by cheapass »
Every single decision you make with money either shortens or lengthens your working career.

Making Cookies

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1652
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5724 on: December 21, 2016, 02:21:01 PM »
I guess a new arcade opened up at the Mall of America. There's people on FB gushing about it.

It looks like a single go-kart ride costs $23, though there are probably packages or other ways to make the per ride cost lower. Virtual reality games cost $5 each. I can see this as being a money maker as there are plenty of people that will throw down money for such things.

The guy behind this is has opened up 5 in various malls in India, this is his first venture into the US. I give him credit for the investment.

You can OWN a used go-cart for ~$150 from a garage sale...

gimp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2360
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5725 on: December 21, 2016, 03:00:57 PM »
Good motivation to make good food choices and work out though, so one can be healthy and fit. We all can aspire for constant improvement and seeing examples of fit people is inspiring.

Our maybe it's a "microaggression", who the hell knows in today's world.

Everything is a "microaggression" if you're too much of a coward to admit criticism is true, or too much of a child to ignore things you find unpleasant.

As hilarious as this subforum is (dedicated to mocking people's spending habits, needs a safe space over eating habits - funny how that goes), at least it's nowhere near as bad as facebook.



Cute cats, though. I want more cat pictures.

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3496
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5726 on: December 21, 2016, 03:05:19 PM »
I guess a new arcade opened up at the Mall of America. There's people on FB gushing about it.

It looks like a single go-kart ride costs $23, though there are probably packages or other ways to make the per ride cost lower. Virtual reality games cost $5 each. I can see this as being a money maker as there are plenty of people that will throw down money for such things.

The guy behind this is has opened up 5 in various malls in India, this is his first venture into the US. I give him credit for the investment.

You can OWN a used go-cart for ~$150 from a garage sale...

In honor of "Rogue One,"

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/ca919506-0146-4cd1-892e-3b9451affc84

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1891
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5727 on: December 21, 2016, 11:57:09 PM »
Not disagreeing with your post but have you read a women's magazine before? They are the ones holding women to impossible standards of beauty.

Right! Beauty standards would go away if not for those damn women's magazines. I don't know where they came up with such a crazy idea. Women, amirite?

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5728 on: December 22, 2016, 05:09:45 AM »
Not disagreeing with your post but have you read a women's magazine before? They are the ones holding women to impossible standards of beauty.

Right! Beauty standards would go away if not for those damn women's magazines. I don't know where they came up with such a crazy idea. Women, amirite?

Nope, it's the men buying all those magazines and products that the ads in them sell.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

carolinap

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5729 on: December 22, 2016, 05:48:06 AM »
Not disagreeing with your post but have you read a women's magazine before? They are the ones holding women to impossible standards of beauty.

Right! Beauty standards would go away if not for those damn women's magazines. I don't know where they came up with such a crazy idea. Women, amirite?

Nope, it's the men buying all those magazines and products that the ads in them sell.


weeeeird, i don't read this magazines neither buy much beauty products but i STILL AM pressioned by those beauty standards.
it's almost like the magazines aren't the cause, but a byproduct of a whole culture.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5730 on: December 22, 2016, 06:19:10 AM »
Not disagreeing with your post but have you read a women's magazine before? They are the ones holding women to impossible standards of beauty.

Right! Beauty standards would go away if not for those damn women's magazines. I don't know where they came up with such a crazy idea. Women, amirite?

Nope, it's the men buying all those magazines and products that the ads in them sell.


weeeeird, i don't read this magazines neither buy much beauty products but i STILL AM pressioned by those beauty standards.
it's almost like the magazines aren't the cause, but a byproduct of a whole culture.

Excellent point.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3672
  • Age: 9
  • Warned Member
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5731 on: December 22, 2016, 09:16:17 AM »
Isn't the average American woman 170 lbs for 5'4 of height?

These impossible beauty standards must not be observed by that many.

MrMoogle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 971
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5732 on: December 22, 2016, 09:18:57 AM »
Isn't the average American woman 170 lbs for 5'4 of height?

These impossible beauty standards must not be observed by that many.
That's the state, but not the goal. 

iowajes

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5304
  • Location: United States
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5733 on: December 22, 2016, 09:38:42 AM »
Isn't the average American woman 170 lbs for 5'4 of height?


And constantly made to feel bad about it.

viverl

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 53
  • Location: Germany
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5734 on: December 22, 2016, 09:49:57 AM »
Perhaps move your discussion in a new thread if you have the urgent need to discuss this? :)

Apropos:


cheapass

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 503
  • Location: Dallas, Texas
  • On track for FIRE @ 40
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5735 on: December 22, 2016, 10:25:17 AM »
Isn't the average American woman 170 lbs for 5'4 of height?

I wonder how much this bell curve has shifted to the right in the last 100 years. Americans are getting larger, no doubt about it. The "average" american also is sedentary, dies early of heart disease, and has no retirement savings.

Average is a statistical term and should not be something to strive for.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2016, 10:34:54 AM by cheapass »
Every single decision you make with money either shortens or lengthens your working career.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4108
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5736 on: December 22, 2016, 11:58:31 AM »
Isn't the average American woman 170 lbs for 5'4 of height?

These impossible beauty standards must not be observed by that many.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/average-weight-american-men-15-pounds-20-years/story?id=41100782

168.5lbs, up from 140lbs in 1960 @ 5'4".

Men went from 166.3lbs in 1960 to 195.7lbs.

mm1970

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4810
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5737 on: December 22, 2016, 01:33:17 PM »
Isn't the average American woman 170 lbs for 5'4 of height?


And constantly made to feel bad about it.
No kidding.  I see that it's about 166.2 lbs?

Anyway, after baby #2 (born at 42), I was at 168.  I managed to get down to 153 THREE TIMES, but gained it all back.  Because: hormones. Stress.  Lack of sleep. Breastfeeding. Full time job.
(I'm 5'2.5")

While that's overweight, it's not horrible.  I was still physically fit.


dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7394
  • Registered member
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5738 on: December 22, 2016, 01:48:46 PM »
Isn't the average American woman 170 lbs for 5'4 of height?

These impossible beauty standards must not be observed by that many.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/average-weight-american-men-15-pounds-20-years/story?id=41100782

168.5lbs, up from 140lbs in 1960 @ 5'4".

Men went from 166.3lbs in 1960 to 195.7lbs.

Wow, clearly thyroid disorders have skyrocketed since 1960

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5739 on: December 22, 2016, 02:02:13 PM »
Isn't the average American woman 170 lbs for 5'4 of height?

These impossible beauty standards must not be observed by that many.

And the median age is 36. I don't think it's outrageous to prefer a partner who is 'non-average'.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

cheapass

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 503
  • Location: Dallas, Texas
  • On track for FIRE @ 40
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5740 on: December 22, 2016, 02:05:07 PM »
Wow, clearly thyroid disorders have skyrocketed since 1960

From what I hear, it's genetics. The human species has evolved that much in recent history.
Every single decision you make with money either shortens or lengthens your working career.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7394
  • Registered member
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5741 on: December 22, 2016, 02:26:01 PM »
Wow, clearly thyroid disorders have skyrocketed since 1960

From what I hear, it's genetics. The human species has evolved that much in recent history.

True, but don't forget that modern society is so much more stressful these days, given the mandatory Facebook accounts and compulsory Fox News watching.

gimp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2360
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5742 on: December 22, 2016, 02:52:40 PM »
Isn't the average American woman 170 lbs for 5'4 of height?

These impossible beauty standards must not be observed by that many.

Remember, the average american is overweight; roughly a third obese.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7394
  • Registered member
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5743 on: December 22, 2016, 03:19:33 PM »
Isn't the average American woman 170 lbs for 5'4 of height?

These impossible beauty standards must not be observed by that many.

Remember, the average american is overweight; roughly a third obese.

On it's face, this seems like proof that the standards are "impossible," since so many people fall outside the standards.  But lets get real about the beauty standards we are talking about.  I don't personally think "not obese" is an unreasonable beauty standard.  I don't expect any real-life people to look like a photoshopped magazine cover, but unhealthy weight (over and under) is unattractive.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2016, 03:28:36 PM by dragoncar »

gimp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2360
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5744 on: December 22, 2016, 03:26:49 PM »
My beauty standards at this point are 1) normal weight for a human of that height [normal means not overweight], and 2) not extremely unfortunate.

Pretty much any lady that takes care of herself passes the looks test. The rest is a lot harder to find...

Thankfully living in areas of high education and income, there are far more people who take care of themselves to that bare minimum standard. Shit, if I lived in Kansas, I may as well be celibate.

marty998

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4942
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5745 on: December 22, 2016, 07:11:20 PM »
I always wonder about those signs in lifts e.g. there is one in my work building:

MAX 20 PERSONS (1440KGS)

____________

72kg per person... makes you think.

The increasing 'size' of the population has a number of implications...

- fuel economy of your average car
- weight distribution on aircraft
- load bearing standards of chairs and seats
- width of doors and corridors

My beauty standards at this point are 1) normal weight for a human of that height [normal means not overweight], and 2) not extremely unfortunate.

Pretty much any lady that takes care of herself passes the looks test. The rest is a lot harder to find...

I blamed women mags before but I will also blame snapchat filters and airbrushing apps. It changes what is perceived as normal.

Long hair does it for me. Almost any woman looks hot with long hair to me.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5746 on: December 22, 2016, 07:28:39 PM »
My beauty standards at this point are 1) normal weight for a human of that height [normal means not overweight], and 2) not extremely unfortunate. The rest is a lot harder to find...

Right? There's plenty of attractive people in the world. It's the rest of the package that is the standard most people fail to meet.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

ysette9

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1876
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5747 on: December 22, 2016, 11:07:33 PM »
Confidence and a positive attitude are attractive in all sorts of packages in my opinion.
"It'll be great!"

Playing with Fire UK

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2056
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5748 on: December 23, 2016, 12:11:40 AM »
On it's face, this seems like proof that the standards are "impossible," since so many people fall outside the standards.  But lets get real about the beauty standards we are talking about.  I don't personally think "not obese" is an unreasonable beauty standard.  I don't expect any real-life people to look like a photoshopped magazine cover, but unhealthy weight (over and under) is unattractive.

I agree with you Dragoncar. For otherwise healthy people, maintaining a healthy weight / body composition isn't difficult.

It does bother me that some people consider someone dangerously underweight to be 'super hot' rather than an indication someone could be really unwell.

shadowmoss

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 719
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #5749 on: December 23, 2016, 10:39:44 AM »
When I went to a doctor and stepped onto a scales for the first time in about 3 years, I was totally upset about the change in my weight.  I could tell my clothes fit differently, but the numbers made it real for me.  I was discussing his with my boyfriend.  For the record, I had gone from 130# to 115#.  I am 5'2".  I was discussing how to gain back up to my previous weight in a healthy way, when he said that actually I need to lose a few more pounds.  A dietician put me close to the top of tje perfect BMI, which is 101-120#, and essentially agreed with my bf.  I am floored.  I know personally that I do better above 120#, but everyone else seems to buy into that skinny is best mindset.  I'm a recovering anorexic.  It seems that the nuts are running the nuthouse.

Edit:. The dietician/nutritionist was at Mayo Clinic, and at 115# I am a size 3/4, not all that large.  Unfortunately, all the clothes I have are size 6, and don't fit now.  I'm good with being a size 6 myself.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2016, 10:46:38 AM by shadowmoss »
Bad spellers of the world UNTIE!

http://shadowmoss.blogspot.com/