Religion is often used to justify a person's words or deeds.

"Do whatever you want, then find 'scripture' that can be 'interpreted' to support that action, and you're still 'going to heaven'."

It must be terrible to live in fear that anyone could be a "stalker" or that someone could break through the "anonymity" of the Internet.

It must also limit communication.

Why do many women indicate in profile an interest in dating and friendship (with or without mention of long term relationship) and insist that a man "love animals?" Does she intend to bring pets along on a date or activity? Do pet or animal topics dominate her interest or her conversational topics? Does she think that loving animals indicates that a man is "better" than one who is not an animal lover?

If one is truthfully seeking friends or activity partners it seems irrational to require that they "love animals" unless the only friendships or activities MUST involve animals.

What is threatening about someone having your cell phone number or email address (assuming that neither identify you personally)?

Is the potential or imaged "threat" of receiving unwanted calls or emails so great that one must build walls (which could dissuade genuinely interested people)?

When I encounter a woman who is that easily frightened I suspect that she is likely to be scared to death to actually meet in person or to do anything so dangerous as go on a hike or go canoeing.

Define "good woman"

But, no matter what definition you use, meeting is often difficult. Most women, particularly middle aged and beyond, expect to be pursued (or for the man to make the first move) -- but they don't want to be "pressured."

It is common for female profiles (the only ones I read) to specify that they are seeking a religious man -- EVEN if they list friendship and dating as their objectives (with or without mention of long-term relationship).

Unless a person's real agenda or objective is to find a mate, why would they restrict friendship, dating, or activities to those who share their religious opinions and choices?

MUST friends be chosen according to one's church membership?

Some prefer a more active form of fishing such as in the streams with a fly rod or casting with lures in still water.

I agree 100%

Why bother with profiles of people who are long gone?

Of course, it temporarily makes the site look good to present a large number of people in the area -- until one discovers that most of them are inactive.

Good point GLG2009. Thank you. I did some research and was surprised how complex the topic can become.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_values
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_definition_for_family_oriented
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Family+Values

Even staying within "Family Values" there is tremendous variation in meaning � almost to the point that one would need to inquire what the person means.

"Moral compass"? A pedophile or abusive parent can be "family oriented."

Does family orientation indicate a positive "personal value system?"

Many women who include dating and friendship in their objectives often specify that they require a man with "family values" (or similar terminology).

Does she mean that a man who dates her must love her relatives? Will she be bringing them along on dates or activities?

If a man and woman are compatible and REALLY like each other, is it a deal-killer if they don't care for each other's relatives?

I agree that it may be difficult and perhaps expensive to obtain healthy food. As I said, healthy food IS available -- for those willing to brave the difficulty and expense. Many option for what is convenient and cheap. That is their choice and their priority.



A common and economical device for monitoring the balance of food intake and bodily requirements that is available to almost everyone is a scale. If weight consistently increases or stays high that gives SOME indication that intake exceeds requirements.

More involved or expensive tests (such as a Body Fat Analysis � calipers) may provide greater accuracy for those so inclined. However, we don't need a detailed knowledge of what our pituitary or thyroid are doing in order to observe that our clothes have gotten too small.



Is it possible for people to gain body fat without eating more than their body requires? Of course that implies "under existing conditions" � not what they were twenty years ago or last year. Requirements change with time and circumstances and food intake should be adjusted accordingly.



How I feel about myself is not dependent upon agreement from anonymous people on the Internet.

I understand that people get their feelings hurt when it is suggested that weight control is a personal responsibility.

Of course the general consensus MUST be right.

1) It is not possible in our culture to obtain healthy locally grown, organic, or healthy food. All food must come from the supermarket.

2) Being overweight is beyond the control of the individual because it occurs without eating more than the body requires under existing conditions.

3) Medications can cause weight gain without eating more than the body requires under existing conditions

4) The OP is ignorant and insensitive for insisting that human bodies cannot gain adipose tissue without ingesting more food than their body needs under existing conditions.


Edited to add to 1) All food available in our culture is genetically modified, laden with chemicals and devoid of nutrients. There are no options. This unhealthy produce and meat is what cause overweight – not overeating.

Of course, metabolism is a factor in weight management. Activity level is another, age is another -- and the list goes on.

HOWEVER, no matter what the metabolism, activity level, age, etc may be, one cannot gain weight without eating more than THEIR body requires.

Yes, some can eat hearty without gaining weight, some cannot. Each must eat the quantity and quality that THEIR body requires -- not what others eat.

That may appear stupid to some people or irritate those who perhaps think that fat forms magically somehow.

Most of us live in a society that offers wide-ranging food choices – from healthy and naturally grown to pure junk food. We each make our choices from what is available. A healthy diet IS possible for almost all of us – IF we care.



Perhaps we should define "overeat": One reasonable definition is "Overeating generally refers to the long-term consumption of excess food in relation to the energy that an organism expends (or expels via excretion), leading to weight gaining and often obesity. It may be regarded as an eating disorder." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overeating

What we observe of people's eating habits may NOT reflect their actual eating habits (including when not observed). It is not uncommon for people to seriously underestimate the caloric content of the total food they consume.



Stress, by itself, does not produce body fat. Food in excess of need is required. Perhaps one under stress is inclined toward "comfort food" and/or reduced activity level – but that doesn't put on weight without excess eating.




I totally agree that BMI is a very poor measure. It is simply a refinement and renamed version of the old "Height weight charts" developed by insurance companies from actuarial data that were popular fifty years ago. It's advantages are that it is cheap and self-administered / calculated.

A far better measure is "Percent body fat" (otherwise known as "Body composition"). However, accurate assessment requires some skill, equipment and a bit of cost. A Lange Skinfold Caliper test by a trained person (at a fitness center or clinic) can provide reliable results. Information is available with an Internet search.

Even more accurate, and the standard of the industry, is Hydrostatic weighing – actual weighing of the person in water. Of course this requires even more equipment, time, training and expense (probably more than practical for most people, and not readily available).

Edited to add first paragraph inadvertently omitted.

Perhaps genetics have changed radically during the past twenty or thirty years?

As a member of the minority who are not overweight, I acknowledge a lack of physical attraction to heavyset women – similar to many women being not attracted to men who are short, balding, older, etc. If my jeans are too small to fit her, she is too big for me (at 5'11" and 175#).

If I was overweight and out of shape, I would not expect anything more from others. As it is, statistics indicate that two-thirds of the population is heavyweight (and personal observation suggests that may be a conservative estimate).

Unlike height, hair and age, the condition of overweight represents a choice – a choice to overeat consistently. Regardless of circumstances (or excuses), it is not possible for the human body to accumulate adipose tissue (body fat) unless it is supplied with more energy (food) than it needs. Drinking water won't add fat in the absence of an excess of food, nor will medications, nor "gland problems."

Obamacare pays for the liposuction AND gives you a free cell phone. All it costs you is doubling of your health insurance rates or a fine if you don't buy insurance.

Sound like a plan?

Interesting observation (and accurate I suspect).

This situation has changed radically during my lifetime. Even using CDC data that is ten years old (and is not likely to have avoided getting worse):

"From 1960 to 2002, the average BMI of adult males rose from 25.1 to 27.8, and the average BMI of adult females increased from 24.9 to 28.1."

And

"The average weight for men rose 'dramatically,' in the CDC's words, from 166.3 pounds in 1960 to 191 pounds in 2002. Women went from 140.2 pounds in 1960 to 164.3 pounds in 2002.

http://www.livescience.com/49-decade-study-americans-taller-fatter.html


My lifetime goes back twenty years before that statistical period to when people tended to be more slender after the Depression and WWII (and before exertion became a bad word except for the few who "exercise").

"Failed relationships"? I have been involved in several wonderful relationships that eventually terminated for one reason or another.

That they were not "till death do us part" is no indication of "failure." Those were remarkable women and our time together was rewarding and fulfilling. Some stay in touch at least occasionally (one from fifty years ago).

We each went on to other adventures and other relationships -- but still think highly of each other and "are there" for support or an intelligent conversation.

Failure? I don't think so.

Regarding "change for a good love": I absolutely do not expect anyone to change substantially in order to be in a relationship with me and I damn sure am not about to change anything important. Little things I might consider -- and did stop smoking my pipe at a lady's request on two different occasions -- once for 25 years and once for five.

Should one take up religion, or become an animal lover, or "dumb it down", or become sedentary to entice someone into a relationship?