Cockeyed's Photographic Height/Weight Chart
February 28, 2010 1:40 PM   Subscribe

posted by nevercalm at 2:08 PM on February 28, 2010

...and no "Metafilter's own"?
posted by nevercalm at 2:08 PM on February 28, 2010

Ogle Girth.
Interesting. Will check back when filled up (and out) some more.
posted by hal9k at 2:10 PM on February 28, 2010 [1 favorite]

I know this has been an FPP before - just not finding it at the moment.
posted by idiopath at 2:41 PM on February 28, 2010

Related, previously.
posted by purpleclover at 2:58 PM on February 28, 2010

wow, a blast from the past -- can't believe no one posted it before.
posted by special-k at 3:08 PM on February 28, 2010 [1 favorite]

If flaky physiognomy is what you want, then you want the Atlas of Men.
posted by Tube at 3:19 PM on February 28, 2010

What's interesting to me is that the woman at 5'6", 200 lbs is to me stunningly gorgeous, with an absolutely killer figure. She's ridiculously hot, and I along with many men would consider myself a very lucky man to have such a woman find me attractive (and oddly, the guy at the same height I'd think seems doughy and unappealing).

Yet like most people, a teenage diet of pilfered Playboys and peroxide pornstars would have me assume that that height/weight must be 'obese' and 'undesirable'. Looking at these pics, I realize how utterly wrong I'd be at guessing what ___ pounds looks like on a _' __" frame Granted, men don't care about the numbers and we know what we like when we see it- but for example if I were applying a height/weight filter on a dating site, I'd be missing out on women that I found very attractive.
posted by hincandenza at 3:58 PM on February 28, 2010 [4 favorites]

huh. This is about right. Although our muscle/fat locations and totally different (and I have like, the widest fucking shoulders in the world) so this stuff gets you in the ballpark but human forms vary so widely and we're so finely tuned to details that you can't make a standard chart without it being a bit silly.
posted by The Whelk at 4:15 PM on February 28, 2010

hincandenza's remark reminds me of a German artist's project that I saw not too long ago. He took pictures of people in their clothes and then in their undies. They were a variety of shapes and sizes. What I found interesting was how different they looked when unclothed from what I expected. If I remember correctly it also gave weight and height, but maybe not. Most of the time, from my perspective, the people who looked great in clothes looked less great clothed and vice versa. I can't find the link right now, but I'll keep looking.
posted by Belle O'Cosity at 4:19 PM on February 28, 2010

This is awesome. Among other things, if I were putting this together, I probably would have separated out by gender -- and that would have been the wrong decision. It's much more interesting this way.
posted by feckless at 4:22 PM on February 28, 2010

Belle O'Cosity: Is it this project? Although that is completely naked and not underwear (and is therefore NSFW).

I've seen this site, and the similar BMI project ones before, but I like to see all the diversity of human bodies laid out on one page.
posted by penguinliz at 5:09 PM on February 28, 2010 [1 favorite]

hincandenza - I am familiar with that woman from online forums. There many people who are more than happy to tell her she's gorgeous.
posted by pinky at 5:50 PM on February 28, 2010

I don't doubt it, pinky. I don't doubt it at all!

Oh to be attractive enough that strangers on the Internet ogle me lasciviously- or even just not on the middle-right of this chart!
posted by hincandenza at 6:35 PM on February 28, 2010

Thanks to a previous MeFi comment I now own a copy of Sheldon's Atlas of Men. It's a fascinating book, a sort of 1950s phrenology where Sheldon tried to classify men's personality by their body shapes. I'm a big fan of small multiple presentations and scientific classifications, all the more so if the underlying theory is fundamentally flawed. It's also a book full of pictures of nearly naked men, which has a rather simple charm. If you stripped the pseudo-psychology from the book it'd be a pretty useful catalog of body types.
posted by Nelson at 6:56 PM on February 28, 2010

Oh Ed.
posted by cashman at 6:58 PM on February 28, 2010

This chart always serves only to make me mad, because the guy at my height/weight seems in so much better shape than I am. Damn you, Mike Buurman!
posted by threeants at 7:48 PM on February 28, 2010

What's interesting to me is that the woman at 5'6", 200 lbs is to me stunningly gorgeous, with an absolutely killer figure.

I, on the other hand, am 5'7", 205 lbs, and shaped like a potato.

It takes all kinds of people to make a world.
posted by muddgirl at 7:04 AM on March 1, 2010

Ah, yes. I'm 5'6" and 205ish and I, too, carry half of it in my boobs. It's nice if you can manage it, I suppose.
posted by restless_nomad at 7:07 AM on March 1, 2010

muddgirl: Oh, I know. Women who have the right shape to be plus-size models have won the genetic lottery. I can always lose weight and look good as a thin person, but very few women can gain weight without looking like potatoes, and there's absolutely nothing we can do about it.

It's funny how plus-size models are said to look like "real women," and though it's great that they're gaining acceptance, we potato-shaped women know that they are just as removed from looking like us as the waifs are. They never seem to have any fat in their faces, either.

(I'm not complaining at all, by the way. Models are models, no matter how many articles claim they look like real women. Just pointing it out.)

Also, I thought the Mr. 5'6", 200 lbs was cute. Of course he would seem doughy and unappealing if you prefer boobs.
posted by Toothless Willy at 10:44 AM on March 1, 2010

« Older SR-71A Flight Manual   |   AFOL A Blocumentary Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments