Now that we have the age issue out of the way, how about some accurate body type descriptions.
I have observed many profiles where the build is listed as average, and when I look at the websites I see many BBW's. Same with the baby fat category.

I understand the first reviewer sets the profile, but most ladies have not stayed the same size for the last 10 years.

If you are 5'3" and 165 lbs, you are not average.
The average female in this country is 5 feet, 3.75 inches, and weighs 135 lbs.
So, this will be easier then updating your ages.
Of course, if the ladies would update their own profiles, I would not have to.
So how about some accuracy in this category?

and let TER management decide if the change is warranted.

There is a button for this purpose on each provider's profile.

and letting the hobbyists make their own determination instead of sticking "lables" on people.

Labels don't work - too subjective. To me if they are a size eight they're getting large lol

of course this  would depend on the lady to be honest about her weight.  That's about as likely as being honest about her age lol

Face it - the whole business of profiling a provider is inherently fucked.

The only truly useful part of the review system is the comments made under the details section.
And there only if taken en masse.

Or with a regulation required specs.

Deal with it.

read the juicy details. I really don't care if the lady weighs 135lbs or 145lbs.  One of my favs weighs 20lbs more than her ads and is 5 years old. It doesn't bother me one bit at all.

That is the not the average height/weight of the american woman. It's more weight than that as the average size is a size 14. I can assure you that a woman who is 5'3, 135 is not a size 14. Not even close. 5'3, 150 is about average. Yes there are exceptions but that is the going size that is considered average. Besides that, if the pics are accurate of what she really looks like, her stats shouldn't matter as long as she is being honest picture wise.

Appearance ratings are pretty useless - what is a 9 to you might be a beast to me, and vice versa.

Are the pictures accurate? If yes, no more is needed, I can make my own judgement. No? A simple drop down menu for the reason - 20 years ago, 40 # ago, maybe it's her sister in the pic, photoshop genius, cleverly posed to hide the... well, you get the picture.

A numerical rating is demeaning to the provider - they can do something about performance, but they can only go so far with appearance. And with the rampant 'grade inflation' it is pretty useless.

Mathesar shows through his calculations that higher appearance scores correlate with higher pricing - but I suspect that a rocking good time makes you more inclined to inflate appearance - I'm not at all sure which is cause and which effect.

Do away with the appearance score and let the pictures speak for themselves.

It might be "average" for an American woman, but it's FAT by any measure.  In my world, 5'3" belongs in the 100-115 lb range.

You could just file a problem report after you see the lady if you feel her profile is no longer accurate.

While you are at it, if her pictures did not turn out to be accurate you should note that on a second problem report as well.

I would not describe myself as Average, BBW or Baby Fat.  Maybe this would work:  "She oozes sex appeal with her beautiful curves."  But, then again that is just MY OPINION.

Johnny-Numbers... Why are we even discussing this crap again?  I am so sick of it.  It is getting old.  READ the darn reviews!  Geesh!  Simple stuff Einstein!  The reviews reveal more details about the ladies appearance and attitude.  Try reading them.  As you can see I have a sarcastic attitude right now just from reading this post.  Amazing how that works!  lol  AND if reading the reviews doesn't help you, look at her pictures.  Now..now Little Johnny-Numbers, before you run on a tangent about pics not being up to date, READ the DARN reviews to be certain of that too.  Duh!

ONCE AGAIN!  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  What you consider to be average, another may see as Athletic or Thin.  What you consider BBW, another may consider curvy or average.  Get over yourself.

BTW:  The first reviewer may START the profile.  However, it is not set in stone.  Mine has changed after reviews.  I also updated information myself.  So, your comment regarding the profiles is way off base too.  Imagine that?!  

Have an average day...lol  Betty xoxo

hey, the only reason the average went down is because of meth-heads and the strange new evolution of the really tall, thin, busty teenager.

Even with all of the starving, cum guzzling ASU students out here, I still see more overweight people on average.

Just figure it this way, if a female says that she's 120, expect 140. The age thing is silly, I know someone who takes 10 yrs off of her age, depending on the day, she gets away with it. I always have and always will post my real age. But I actually look younger than my almost (tuesday) 38 yr (just good genes). I've actually had older gentlemen question if I was as old as I say.

Just look for someone, if they aren't as they make themselves out to be, tell them you're just not feeling it. Most will tell you to have a nice day and go on with theirs. Them post a review warnining others. Just be polite, ones man coal is another mans diamond

a VIP member...lol..what amazes me is a man says he is athletic and shows up with a big belly...who am I to judge...maybe he is athletic a man says he is 8" but I swear he is 4 at best...should I get a ruler out...my question to Johnny is...does he have Fun or just complains all the time...stop judging and start Enjoying is all I have to say...and I bet having an Average day would be having a Great day to the rest of us...lol...

The profile of the last provider I saw said below shoulders but to me it appeared to be mid back. That's it. I'm cancelling my membership. Damn unreliable profiles.

... "foot size and shape" catagory!  They keep losing their erections while sucking and licking providers feet because they were PROMISED a "HIGH ARCH" and a "GLOSSEY RED POLISH" in the "Juicey Details" section and the lying, thieving escort shows up and DAMNIT!! -she has FLAT feet, PINK polish, and bunions and CORNS on her toes...!!!  I keep telling them that lots of guys EXAGERATE how pretty a girl's feet are in their reviews (you know- the whole "reviews are a FICTIONAL FANTASY deal...)

If you want to know if a girl REALLY has luscious, SUCKABLE toes you have to PM her reviewers, I say!  BACK CHANNEL is the ONLY way to TRUELY know if a girl really gets a pedicure EVERY week, like she claims! But they NEVER listen!

You both certainly drove the point home!  Thanks.  Next thing you know, Johnny-Numbers may want to count how many teeth you have in your mouth and want to know if any are crooked or how many fillings do you have?!  LOL

I am sorry BB, but just because you don't describe yourself as Average, BBW or Baby Fat doesn't mean the rest of us don't, and truth be told you are much larger than average. I don't mean this in a bad way, it is simply the truth. The good news in your case is that there is a sizable demand for larger women.

What I find ironic is the fact that while every larger sized women out there claims to be happy with their size, not a single one of them wants to be "labeled" as large. (With the execption of Ally Moore of course. lol)

With all due respects to those larger than average ladies, this is a site created for the purpose of the sharing of information between hobbyists, not an ad venue for providers.

I completely agree with Johnie Numbers, just because this is necessarily a flawed system doesn't mean that we should not make it as good a system as possible. We all realize (or at least we should) that a certain amount of "reading between the lines" is necessary, but why not make the profiles as accurate as possible?

BB I don't mean to pick on you, but since you piped in I will use you as an example. Your profile lists your body type as average, again I don't mean any offense, but if you are average someone like Ally would be considered downright skinny, and I doubt anyone would call Ally skinny not even Ally herself.

My point is, if the profiles are going to be meaningless why even have them at all? If beauty is going to be in the eye of the beholder then let the "beholders" have the final say, not the "beauties".

I think you and some of the other providers are the ones that should take your advice and "get over yourselves"

I am annoyed at his stupidity.  This subject has been beaten to death.  I do not agree with him mainly because everyone's opinion will be different.  You and Johnny may see eye to eye.  However, there many gents right behind you who disagree.

I am a larger lady.  Go on my website and read it.  I post new pics every 2-3 months.  I am honest about my size and happen to love how I look.  Guess What?  So do most of my clients.  I lost 80 pounds over 12 years ago and am loving life.  If you take the time to read my reviews many state that I am a larger lady, but no BBW.  I am also 43 years old so Baby Fat just sounds stupid.  So, I must say no to your accusation GaGambler.  I am not offended.  I am what I am and I love me!

It is near impossible to describe most people using just one word.  That's where reading the reviews comes into play.

I also agree with you.  Ally and I are not even close to being the same size.  Average is a very broad term.  I would consider Ally to be Athletic/Thin.  IMHO.  Once again, these are our OPINIONS.  Not everyone is going to agree on this subject.  Obviously not, because whomever decided to "LABEL" me and Ally decided on the "Average" for body type.  So it seems you're barking up the wrong tree.  Talk to the gents who write the reviews.

Don't worry about picking on me...as you can see by my pictures, I have thick skin.  Hhhmmmm?  Thick Skin!  Maybe that should be a new description!  LOL  

The thing is, if you don't like what you see, don't see the lady.  The reviews are a "package" of information.  If the only thing you are going by is the "body type" area, you are not utilizing this site for all it has to offer.

Hugs, Betty xoxo

You are certainly not average, my dear.
How about mini BBW for you? Oh, we don't have that one yet. My bad.
As far as oozing sex appeal, that is YOUR OPINION, certainly not mine.
I still fail to see the objections to accurate profiles.

Btw, are you going to update your profile or not?

You cannot judge what you haven't exerienced.  You are however entitled to your opinion.  

Have a great day!  Betty xoxo

If there is going to be a profile than why not try to make it as accurate as possible?

It seems to me the only ones with a major problem with accurate profiles are the ones that stand to lose business because of it. I would think that anyone with an accurate profile would be the first one to cry foul when other women are reaping the benefits of inaccurate and out of date profiles whether intentional or not.

I do agree that the most important pact to me is whether the pics are accurate or not. There are so many WK reviewers the whole 1-10 rating system is virtually worthless, but it doesn't mean that we should stop trying to make it meaningful.

BTW there is no category for height and weight, only height and build. If there was a weight category we could all make up our own mind whether 5'3" and 135 lbs was average, baby fat, or BBW.

(need to be able to balance your beer)

Why not try and make it as accurate as possible?

I don't recommend a hobbyist rely on any "one" criteria before seeing a provider, my point remains "why not make it as accurate as possible?"

Your profile indicates "Average" body build. Do you really consider yourself of average build?

You say "Talk to the gents who write the reviews" I couldn't agree with you more and I believe that was the target audience for Johnny Numbers OP, since they are the ones that write the profiles. If everyone appears to tacitly agree that the system is just fine, even though by your own admission we all know otherwise than nothing gets fixed. I think you should applaud Johnny Numbers efforts to fix a problem that needs addressing.

Because I do have a problem with the term BBW cropping up in my reviews lmfao.

I am nearly 5'6 and a size 10; and though my photographs show me in my best light I do not hide anything.  I'm not a BBW, a "mini-BBW" or any of that bullshit.

I advertise accurately, nearly all of my reviews feature my stature - and I still get those who decide that my charming online personality may overrule their most base instinct and attraction to petite/slender women.  It doesn't and I get back-ended with "BBW" because I'm not their usual size 2 fare.  Not my problem.

Baby fat?  When I think of baby fat, I think of skinny fat girls - you know slender-ish women who are like size 4-8 with pouches or who are soft.

Baby fat is probably an inappropriate designation on my profile and I realize that-
But seeing as though there are at least three different definitions of "average" going on in this thread alone that probably wouldn't be fitting either (despite the fact that when I'm walking around in the mall or on the street in my ripped jeans and a tee...I am quite "average" compared to other women that I see).
I'm not modifying shit on that profile because you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Read the reviews- are the pictures accurate?  Then you've got your answer.
Does she routinely hide her ass or her stomach?  
Then you've got your answer.

I keep it real - and no, I don't want to be labeled "BBW" and I am not the poster child of "large women who are self-deprecating."

Moderator- excuse me cropping up again in this thread.  I did appear as "SissyAssNoize" but I did have to address Gambler's post.

I am very athletic, I love working out and I am consistently noted as being very firm.
I ran competitively for 6 years and underneath the evidence that I like cookies I have a great deal of muscle mass.  I bench, lift, press, run, eat, drink - and am happy.

Before providing, at my leanest (six pack abs, 12% body fat, 16:30 5k time) - I weighed considerably more than this 135 lb "average" weight that they're touting.

What these idiots who are determined to make a square peg fit into a circle hole refuse to realize is that body composition is very different for EVERYONE.  Pornography and accessibility has everyone thinking that 115 lbs is how much a woman should weigh.

I've seen rock solid athlete women at 175 lbs and women who looked clinically obese at 145 lbs.

In deciding whether a lady meets a physical criteria for a meet, one should go by more than someone else's subjective view of her body type.

The pics are the big thing for me. I want recent and accurate.  I can relate to this because on paper my stats suggest I need to hit the gym and train.  However, when I meet my companion friends, their first reaction: "Is all you do is hit the gym and train?"

I don't fit into some arbitrary numerical range, so I don't need my lady friends to do it, either.

Dumbjock

Please accept my apology.

I did not mean to portray you as a BBW or as the "honest fat girl"

I find your entire reasoning for this and your other post pure baiting tactics for the purposes of being cynical....else you would pose your questions under your real handle...and it would not be in such terms that are acusing us of being old fat ass liars.

You are not at all interested in the answers you are only interested in trying to go around in circles on topics that are known to be sensitive topics for women in GENERAL.

if I were to ask this of you.....I would be deemed a MEANY....the boards would be in an uproar and many men and providers would be INSULTED as they rightfully should be:

MEN....are you height and weight proportionate for your age? Can you work it and how big is it?

That is as rude and mean spirited as your questions about our age and weight are.


If you need to update profiles so badly...make appointments with the ladies in question, pay them and go see for yourself.

We are all sick of this bullying by a no name about our age and weight!

If men don't like curves....date a stick.

-- Modified on 8/23/2009 3:34:30 PM

Why do you object to calls for accuracy in provider's profiles?

I don't see a bullying comment in the OP's post, just a call for accuracy.

If you are a size six and 42 than your profile is already accurate, why take offense? I would think that you would prefer all providers to be held to the same standard. After all why should your profile be accurate and others be misleading?

Because he is not interested in an answer....if he were he would go see the women in question and update their profiles himself....

His questions are posed to be purposely suggesting some of us are old lying fat asses.

As I stated in my post above....

If I asked this question....almost everyone would agree I was being a mean ass....and folks would rightfully be pissed off:

MEN: ARE YOU HEIGHT AND WEIGHT PROPORTIONATE...HOW BIG IS YOUR JOHNSON? CAN YOU WORK IT WELL? DO YOU NEED VIAGRA? ARE YOU GOOD DATY?

It would be an outrage!!! My question would probably be pulled off the board and I would have a nasty gram or 10 (some from admin I am sure) in my email box.

I was expecting you to pay me.

The reality of the situation is that you are charging hundreds of dollars per hour to gentleman for the privilege of your "company", anyone planning on spending hundreds of dollars per hour for that privilege should expect some honest, current, and accurate information from if not the lady herself, at a minimum from his fellow clients. That is the whole purpose of TER.

that statement is also a falsehood, you're much more likely to see a woman who is 130 lbs, describe herself as 120 lbs as opposed to a plus size woman who is 250 lbs, describe herself as 240 lbs. The fact is that men that like larger women, like larger women. They seek them out and when you say in your profiles, that you are bbw, they find you faster.

"blah blah blah..." "The HOBBYISTS aren't the ones up for REVIEW... blah blah blah!!!"

The funny thing is some of the guys around here seem to think the word "REVIEW" is a synonym for the word "attack" or "berate" or even "abuse"...

Maybe they made some revisions to the dictionary while I slept last night...??

Lets see..

re·view
v.

1. To look over, study, or examine again.
2. To consider retrospectively; look back on.
3. To examine with an eye to criticism or correction: reviewed the research findings.
4. To write or give a critical report on (a new work or performance, for example).
5. Law To reexamine (an action or determination) judicially, especially in a higher court, in order to correct possible errors.
6. To subject to a formal inspection, especially a military inspection.


Hmmm... NOPE- the DEFINITION is the same as I remember it being!  How exactly you can give a CREDIBLE "critical report" on something you have never EXPERIENCED is BEYOND ME!  There is nothing to "look back on" or "inspect" because you have never SEEN said ladies- at least not up front, alive and in person! And nor do you (if your own words are to be believed) WANT TO...

It's like feeling you are qualified to give a one * review to a broadway play that you vowed you would never see because you didn't like the design of the promo poster..!! Step aside children and let the SERIOUS lovers of theatre through.. and stop your griping!

it took me over half an hour.
Everyone's opinion is their own business, but it sure seems to me that Johnny-Numbers has a real valid question to pose.  

And GA-Gambler is the only respondent who made sense.

A friend of mine had a guy complain because she had wavy hair in the photo and straight hair that day. Seriously.....wow......

****RED Face for attention, not anger.****

To answer your question.  Yes.  I believe I am of average build.  If you do not agree, that suits me just fine.  We can agree to disagree.  I see gents often who tell me I am one of the most beautiful women they have ever been with.  (Their words, not mine)  I had it happen to me twice last week.  Maybe they are being honest and maybe they are blowing smoke up my ass.  They think I look great.  I think I look great.  So, who are you to sit in judgement of me when you and I have never met?  I am tall, larger build and I look great.  If you don't think so, don't see me.  

I don't applaud Johnny-ALIAS-Numbers.  He is a trouble maker and I personally disagree with him.  

Okay....Okay....you can label me as being "above average!"  lol  Oops!  THAT won'y work either!  Yikes!  How about curvy?  Oh, don't misunderstand me, I don't think ANYONE'S build can be described with just one word.  But I pick that one for me...CURVY.  I am not looking for your approval on it either.  Only the gents who book me and WANT to see me.  

In my eyes there is no problem with TER profiles.  All I see here is a bunch of whining baby boys who feel the need to be in complete control of the "LABELS" they put on us ladies.  Give me a break and get over it.  

Betty xoxo

beetlejuice.  Beetlejuice.  BEETLEJUICE!

My apologies are rare, but in your case I never meant to imply you were a BBW.

The rest of my posts on the subject stand. I can't believe some women are overtly arguing that their profiles should not be accurate or that "they" and not the clients that review them should have final say about their profiles.

That really was my point and why I referenced you in my post. To categorize you at a size 10 as "baby fat" and to categorize other ladies who are probably much closer to a size 20 as average makes absolutely no sense to me.

If women are so proud of being BBW, why don't they insist that their profiles reflect their true size and shape? Or is it that they are not quite so sincere in their proclamations that they are happy to be BBW's. Ladies, you can't have it both ways, either you are proud of your size or you aren't. You can't have it both ways.

I think this thread has outlived it's usefullness, Ally as long as you and I are good, I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks. I think I will move on and argue about other subjects now. lol

I am NO WHERE even close to a size 20!  You my dear are an ass.  I wear a size 12/14.  Which for my build and height is not BBW.  It sounds about AVERAGE to me!  How about THAT!?

You should "move on and argue about other subjects now" because you obviously don't know what the heck you're talking about here.  

I never said my profile was not accurate.  YOU did!  I believe it is VERY accurate.  

I am done with you (GaGambler) and your little boys club with this shit.  Yes.  I'm ticked off.  If you think I am close to a size 20, you need to have your eyes checked and your head examined.  What a jerk you are.

Betty

I do reviews.  There is not a good body description for ladies such as Betty.  This is associated with earlier threads of how words meanings become twisted over time so as to mean something different from what the words orignally, and still technically, mean.

Specifically, BBW.  It's current "meaning" makes it something I could not use in a review of Betty, for as it is used, it would be misleading.  HOWEVER - Is Betty a woman?  ABSOLUTELY.  Is she big?  She is 5-8 and no thin pencil.  Is she "fat" compared to ladies in her age range in the general poplulace, not really.  Average? No, she is a bigger (taller and curvier) than average, so OK, Big.  Beautiful?  ABSOLUTELY.  So technically BBW - as the english language would intend it, could apply.  But there we go again, as the term is unfortunately used as a "nice way" to refer to "fat women", I do not find it an honest description of this particular provider (or a couple of others I have seen).  So again our habit or putting subjective meaning to "objective' words works against us again.

In point of fact, she is curvy in that she is proportional.  Point blank, her big tits make her proportional.  I know guys definitely look at her and it is NOT because they are offended by the view.  It is the opposite.

So I would say, as I often do, that TER has many shortcomings.  One is, and I have felt for some time, is the body description.  So if the intent of the OP or GaG is to improve the system, I am behind you.  As far as who should update some data, I am mixed.  I USED to believe the ladies should be in charge of certain elements.  I am not sure now and frankly the age thing is a perfect example.  Look at the ages used at date-check rather than here.  The ages here seem closer as it is hobbyists that impact that.  So rest assured if I do a review on Betty, it will be in the 40-45 range.  Body type...I am a bit stuck with the options currently there.

BUT GUYS...while I can be as anal retnetive as the next analyst in this situation we have something better than a one word data element.  We have a link ot her site.  She makes clear that she is of larger nature.  She posts current pics.  It is the part of the tool that is more important.

So JN, GaG, etc. I will totally White Knight at this point -- and frankly you guys COMPLETELY prove my point.  You should apologize to Betty in this one regard.  The "inference" is that she is complicit in deception because of a data element reviewers either don't update or are like me, confused how to use it.  Betty has control of one thing and that is her webs site.  She is honest about herself there.  She continually posts recent pics (wont go there LOL).  She is doing all the things at her site to be honest and upfront.  Seriously guys, shouldn't you at least praise her for being honest?  Don't we all wish all providers were so honest with their web pages and pics?  You have used her honestly there as a weapon against her here.  So don't you think you should praise her for having an honest web site rather than whine about a data element us reviewers are supposed to keep current?  Are there REALLY hobbyists the DON'T check the ladies web sites and instead go purely on a data element on the profile?  I mean REALLY?  

Shouldn't she be thanked for having an honest web site?  What is her motivation to keep current pics there if then slammed for dishonesty?  It would be easier for her to just let it sit with old or touched-up pics.  Oh, the answer happens to be her integrity by the way.

"If you take the time to read my reviews many state that I am a larger lady"

These are your own words from earlier today. Your build is not average, despite your protests to the contrary. As to the size 20 I was not talking about you. This thread was not a personal attack on you. It was an attempt by the OP to get a little more accuracy on the profile for the good of the hobbyists that count on this site to make informed decisions about the providers they see. You are the one taking everything personal.

I will go back to having fun with MDkiller now.

Peace, but no apology.

You would have to take into account BMI, fat to muscle ratios, bone structure and more...

I'm 5'4".  At 110#'s I was emaciated to the point that my friends and family all thought I had an eating disorder and constantly tried to feed me. I'm now quite content at 120#'s and I do not have a high muscle ratio, nor strong and large bones.  For someone else my height, 150# might be just right.

Photos really do tell more than any numbers ever could.

Yes!  Larger because I am just over 5'8" tall with a medium/large frame.  When I meet with many of my clients, I wear heels that bring my up to 6' tall or taller.  NOT what you are referring to.  I coached swimming for years and was a competitive swimmer myself.  So, I have a lot of muscle mass too.  

I am a size 12 and sometimes a 14.  Many 14's are too big and some 12's are too small.  So, where does that leave me?  Average is where I think it leaves me.  

There is someone for everyone out here.  Try to be nice about it.

Peace, Betty

Stan the MAN! That was very nicely stated. Thank you bunches!

I too agree that there should be more descriptive words to choose from for build.  Like you, I choose curvy for me.  Unfortunately, there are not enough options offered.

I appreciate you being my White Knight!  I hope you don't have to deal with too much backlash.  See you soon sweets!

Muah! Betty xoxoxo

LOL!  I should have looked at your pics again before I posted.  I would classify you as above average if TER offered it.  

Hugs, Betty xoxo

that it was being implied that your were being desceptive when in fact you have a web site that is based on honesty.  In the big picture, honesty there is FAR more important than a data element that frankly is our (clients) responsibility to keep up.  

OUR side should be responsible for a site that is based on serving US.  You ladies keep your sites honest and post honest ads on your weekly posts and we shouldn't have to ask for more.  

If the OP wants to hammer us guys for not being honest in reviews, etc., fine.  It has been stated a hundred times in here and will continue to be.  To imply dishonesty because YOU wont update your body description because HE thinks you are something else is frankly looney.

-- Modified on 8/23/2009 6:36:17 PM

Accurate pictures are the only necessity and then read the juicy details as was added.  Maybe the larger women are the ones to speak up but they aren't the only ones annoyed with or find some of the profile ridiculous.  E

I am not sure where you got your numbers, but the average weight for American women is 163 lbs with a waist measuring 36 inches and wearing a size 12-14.

That said, profiles should be an accurate representation of the lady.

Here's a few facts about men:

The report, Mean Body Weight, Height, and Body Mass Index (BMI) 1960-2002: United States, shows that the average height of a man aged 20-74 years increased from just over 5'8" in 1960 to 5'9½" in 2002, while the average height of a woman the same age increased from slightly over 5'3" 1960 to 5'4" in 2002.

Meanwhile, the average weight for men aged 20-74 years rose dramatically from 166.3 pounds in 1960 to 191 pounds in 2002, while the average weight for women the same age increased from 140.2 pounds in 1960 to 164.3 pounds in 2002.

Though the average weight for men aged 20-39 years increased by nearly 20 pounds over the last four decades, the increase was greater among older men:


Men between the ages of 40 and 49 were nearly 27 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.

Men between the ages of 50 and 59 were nearly 28 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.

Men between the ages of 60 and 74 were almost 33 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared to 1960.

This and post that niggle and poke at providers are the reasons why I won't be reviewed...what a crock of goat sh*t. They get to nit-pick, rate out of ten and still they piss and moan.

I hope to have the opportunity to meet you!