Overlooking a profile lie?

[2jersey]

We received a message from a couple, and judging from their photos they have above average good looks. But here's the twist: the women was listed in the profile as 5'8" and 110 pounds. Unfortunately, the women in the picture was probably 5'8", but her weight was closer to 140 pounds.

Mrs 2jersey is 5'3" and 120 pounds (on the button) - and she/we can easily tell the difference between a women who weighs 110 pounds and one who weighs considerably more. We're accepting of the fact that you can't always judge a person's age from their photos, some people age faster/slower than others. But a 30 pound weight difference on an average sized women is a large and obvious inaccuracy.

So, assuming the women in the photo is attractive, do you ding this couple based on this obvious/significant profile lie (dishonest people are unattractive)? Or do you ignore the lie and credit it to a women's right to not have to discuss her age or weight in public?

[LICouple4u]

I would go based on the photo. It's possible there's a few things that could have happened.

1. It's an old picture and she lost weight.
2. It's a new picture and she's gained weight.
3. Hubby filled out profile and didn't know her exact weight.
4. Picture could just be a bad picture making her appear bigger than she is.

On one site, hubby filled out the profile and had me weighing less that I do. I also have a few pics we took that make me look 20lbs heavier than I am.

To me personally, this doesn't seem like a big deal. I tend to worry more about the profile lies where they say they are married, but then you find out it's really to other people

[good times]

If I liked what I saw in the pictures I would meet them. Their are a lot of reasons that their listed weight does not match the pictures. maybe they just have inaccurate scales.

[JnCC]

Originally Posted by 2jersey

...assuming the women in [a] photo is attractive, do you ding [them] based on this obvious/significant profile lie (dishonest people are unattractive)? Or do you ignore the lie and credit it to a women's right to not have to discuss her age or weight in public?

Nobody can answer that for you. The question is, does she still look good to you?

About half of all internet personal ads misstate height and/or weight by at least 10%. I've gotten to where I just factor that into who I respond to. I expect people to put their best foot forward in an ad. Most are as good as their ads, a few are significantly better, and a few significantly worse. The way I see it, that's why God made "Meeting for drinks" an option prior to hopping into bed. It gives them the option of saying to me, "thanks, but let's just be friends for now."

Actually, 140# spread over 5'8" could be one hell of a package, provided it's spread over the right places...

[Chicup]

Now 110 to 140 is a bit more 'padding' on the weight than usual for that weight class but lying about weight on these adds is so common that telling the truth is the minority.

I think it depends on where the woman fits. Now normally the lies stop at about 120 because its awfully hard to 'fake' that (what I mean is if they say they are 120 lbs odds are they are pretty close to it if they are average height), but the higher the real weight the more wiggle room there seems to be in the lies.

This of course has nothing to do with your question.

Really if they still look good to you, I'd meet them, lying about weight is not the same type of sin as lying about being married or the like.

[2jersey]

As some have noted, there are plausible (albeing unlikely) explainations for the misleading facts - but one would have to be extremely generous to assume that this is an innocent oversight. We are very hard pressed to imagine that a women who had lost 30 pounds would not revise her photos to reflect this change (especially since there is only one photo in the profile). In reality, we would be equally turned off if we knew that the women's husband had written the profile, and that she had never even seen it.

Unfortunately, it is easy for us to imagine that JnCC is correct, and that many online ads (including the ad in question) present purposely misleading data. If someone lies so blatantly, we are inclined to believe that they may struggle with the truth in other (yet undiscovered) areas of their profile (cockroach theory).

Yes, JnCC, 5,8" 140 doesn't sound bad on paper. The physical attraction in this instance is very marginal, however, so we're going to pass. Thanks.

[Chicup]

Originally Posted by 2jersey

As some have noted, there are plausible (albeing unlikely) explainations for the misleading facts - but one would have to be extremely generous to assume that this is an innocent oversight. We are very hard pressed to imagine that a women who had lost 30 pounds would not revise her photos to reflect this change (especially since there is only one photo in the profile).

We haven't updated photos since November and Mrs. Chicup would be horrified if I were to give people access to the old ones due to her being in better shape now (and to think she thought they were so good then). Since we are taking a bit of a break it doesn't matter right now.

So yea its a rare woman who would take the effort to lose 30 lbs and not take the effort to show it off.

[JnCC]

Originally Posted by 2jersey

Yes, JnCC, 5,8" 140 doesn't sound bad on paper. The physical attraction in this instance is very marginal, however, so we're going to pass. Thanks.

Of course it all depends...if she's basically a 100 pound woman with a 40 pound schnozz, for instance...

One thing I'd like to reiterate before this thread goes too far, is that for many guys, weight alone isn't always as much of a factor in who we find attractive as some of the diet ads would have women think. In fact, if you were to poll all the women in here, you'd probably find that most of the girls 5'8" or taller would weigh somewhat more than 140#...some considerably more. If their grooming habits are impeccable, their smile sincere, and they take a genuine interest in those around them, they can still be "knockouts" and highly desireable women at almost any weight or age.

That certainly applies to women over 40, 50, or in some cases, even 60. (I'll reserve on "70" until I get a little closer to that age myself, although I'd nail Angie Dickenson any time between right now and whenever her body cools to below room temperature, just because she's such a classy dame)

I understand some people's attraction to the long, lean types. But I'd hate to think that women new to the lifestyle might see this post and decide that because they're over 140, or over "50" or whatever, they're not going to be "attractive enough" to find a willing, eager, playmate. The issue, as I understand it, is more one of honesty and comfort with ones body regardless of weight, than of actual pounds on a scale.

[2jersey]

Originally Posted by JnCC

Of course it all depends...if she's basically a 100 pound woman with a 40 pound schnozz, for instance...

One thing I'd like to reiterate before this thread goes too far, is that for many guys, weight alone isn't always as much of a factor in who we find attractive as some of the diet ads would have women think. In fact, if you were to poll all the women in here, you'd probably find that most of the girls 5'8" or taller would weigh somewhat more than 140#...some considerably more. If their grooming habits are impeccable, their smile sincere, and they take a genuine interest in those around them, they can still be "knockouts" and highly desireable women at almost any weight or age.

That certainly applies to women over 40, 50, or in some cases, even 60. (I'll reserve on "70" until I get a little closer to that age myself, although I'd nail Angie Dickenson any time between right now and whenever her body cools to below room temperature, just because she's such a classy dame)

I understand some people's attraction to the long, lean types. But I'd hate to think that women new to the lifestyle might see this post and decide that because they're over 140, or over "50" or whatever, they're not going to be "attractive enough" to find a willing, eager, playmate. The issue, as I understand it, is more one of honesty and comfort with ones body regardless of weight, than of actual pounds on a scale.

As further clarification, our initial post was not focused on the relative attractivness of a women who weighs 140 pounds versus one who weighs 110 pounds. We were were merely using this real life example to make a point about blatant profile lies. The women, in our example, understated her weight by 25% (+/-). It could have been 200 pounds versus 250 pounds and it would not have changed the 'point' of the thread. We don't respect blatant liars.

A medical 'ideal' height weight chart has a place in the world, in terms of assessing health risk factors - but it is not the start and end point for assessing one's attractiveness.

[DGrey]

I don't understand how you can assume her weight is 140 pounds just by looking at her picture. She's not the same height as Mrs. Jersey so to assume that her weight isn't the same as hers is not a fair assumption.

A picture isn't always an accurate depiction of a person's true physical attributes.

E

[2jersey]

Originally Posted by DGrey

I don't understand how you can assume her weight is 140 pounds just by looking at her picture. She's not the same height as Mrs. Jersey so to assume that her weight isn't the same as hers is not a fair assumption.

A picture isn't always an accurate depiction of a person's true physical attributes.

E

We saw the photo. It was obvious to each of us, immediately.

If you stretched Mrs 2jersey by about five inches (which she would appreciate very much, btw), she would probably weigh 130-135 pounds. This particular woman is much bustier, much thicker around the waist, hips and legs, and much more big boned - she weighs at least 140 pounds.

This particular couple gets credit, in our book, for including an accurate photo - but is discredited for not acknowledging a basic fact in their description.

[JnCC]

Originally Posted by 2jersey

The women, in our example, understated her weight by 25% (+/-). It could have been 200 pounds versus 250 pounds and it would not have changed the 'point' of the thread. We don't respect blatant liars.

Then be thankful that you guys are a couple looking for another couple, and not a single looking for same!

As half of a "we," I spent a couple of years on Swappernet looking at profiles. I would say that overall, most of the couples were pretty much what we expected in terms of age/weight. In fact, I don't recall meeting anybody who appeared so much different from their profile that we rejected them out-of-hand. However, I recently checked back into that site in connection with another post, and found that many of the couples pictures hadn't changed since then. The "R" and "X" rated photo's in one couples profile, for example, were at least 7 years old. I know this for a fact, because I took them...

The profile pics on vanilla sites are generally pretty accurate, but when they're off, they're WAYYY off. Like... 50 pounds, or 10 years, or more. In one case, the woman used the same lead picture in both her Match.com profile and her SN profile. I later came to know that the occasion of the picture was a family event held in honor of an infant...an "infant" who was in the 6th grade at the time the pics were running in her profile.

Women have told me that men's profiles are usually pretty accurate, with the sole exception that many don't seem to know or differentiate between the fact of whether they're "single" or "married."

I hate to be outright lied to as much as you do. It's usually a waste of my time as well as theirs to be blatantly deceptive in an ad. But sometimes, when I think about how hard it must be for a woman who's perhaps not as young or thin or attractive as she once was, to post anything on this "internet meat-market," I cut them a little slack.

[good times]

I would suspect that the listing of 5'8" and 110 lbs. must be some kind of error because at that height she would be an extremely skinny girl if 110 lbs. were the correct weight.

[WesternSwing]

Originally Posted by 2jersey

So, assuming the women in the photo is attractive, do you ding this couple based on this obvious/significant profile lie (dishonest people are unattractive)? Or do you ignore the lie and credit it to a women's right to not have to discuss her age or weight in public?

I think that unless a woman is exactly the weight she wants to be, she lies about it. And so what? If she looks good, regardless of weight, then what does it matter what the number is? I definitely don't think it makes them a liar in everything. We put little to no credibility in what anyone claims their weight is anyway.

Mr. WS

[fun4Ds]

not to worried about the weight being EXACT. i MR.fun would not bust out the scales to check/validate the weight. that might turn out to be a lonly night . now what we have a peve with, is a good quality pic of a girl and a crompled up old wallet pic of both together that has been scanned.