Myopia comparisons
Curt Guenther
I've always had the impression that my five-diopter degree of myopia
was significant, and a significant impairment, until I read the posts
from people whose myopia is twice and three times worse than mine. I'm
interested to know from those people and/or others what that degree of
nearsightedness must be like, when they're not wearing their glasses or
contacts. For example, without any correction, I cannot read the
numerals on my bedside clock, or read a book or magazine without holding
it just beyond my nose. With a much greater degree of myopia, how
limiting must that be?
John Joseph Hefti
In article <324172...@adlan.memphis.edu>,
With a -42.00/-44.00, I can't see the clock, the room, the bed, or my glasses
if they're off. In fact, unless it's broad daylight, I can't really see any
objects; even cars or large buildings are largely invisible. At night, I can
sense a bright light (like a headlight) and locate it to one of the four
visual quadrants.
I'd love to have just a -5.00D correction!
John
Bryan Putnam
he...@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Joseph Hefti) writes:
>In article <324172...@adlan.memphis.edu>,
>Curt Guenther <cgue...@adlan.memphis.edu> wrote:
>>I've always had the impression that my five-diopter degree of myopia
>>was significant, and a significant impairment, until I read the posts
...
>>contacts. For example, without any correction, I cannot read the
>>numerals on my bedside clock, or read a book or magazine without holding
>>it just beyond my nose. With a much greater degree of myopia, how
>>limiting must that be?
Someone posted some time ago that the degree of myopia "x" (in
diopters) is approximately related to the farthest distance you can
see *clearly* "y" (in meters) by
x = 1/y
So, in order to read a book comfortably at say 30 cm, your degree of
myopia should not be much worse than -3.3D. At my -8.5D level, that
distance is about 12 cm which is uncomfortable. At your -5D level,
that distance is about 20 cm (I wish my eyes were that good.)
>With a -42.00/-44.00, I can't see the clock, the room, the bed, or my glasses
-43D is impressive. I guess that means you can't see past the end of
your nose assuming it's more than 2.3 cm long. :-)
>I'd love to have just a -5.00D correction!
Me too!
Bryan
Jennifer
Bryan Putnam wrote:
>
> he...@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Joseph Hefti) writes:
>
> >In article <324172...@adlan.memphis.edu>,
> >Curt Guenther <cgue...@adlan.memphis.edu> wrote:
> >>I've always had the impression that my five-diopter degree of myopia
> >>was significant, and a significant impairment, until I read the posts
> ...
> >>contacts. For example, without any correction, I cannot read the
> >>numerals on my bedside clock, or read a book or magazine without holding
> >>it just beyond my nose. With a much greater degree of myopia, how
> >>limiting must that be?
I have -9.5 and I have about the same limitations as you without
correction. From my bed, I can't discern numbers on my clock, I can't
read anything farther than 3 inches or so from my eyes, I can't see my
glasses on the table, and my poster of the "Friends" cast on the far
wall (13 feet away) looks like a whitish blur. I guess once you're as
"blind" as -5, your visual range is so restricted anyway that more severe
myopia doesn't make a whole lot of difference.
> Someone posted some time ago that the degree of myopia "x" (in
> diopters) is approximately related to the farthest distance you can
> see *clearly* "y" (in meters) by
>
> x = 1/y
>
> So, in order to read a book comfortably at say 30 cm, your degree of
> myopia should not be much worse than -3.3D. At my -8.5D level, that
> distance is about 12 cm which is uncomfortable. At your -5D level,
> that distance is about 20 cm (I wish my eyes were that good.)
> >With a -42.00/-44.00, I can't see the clock, the room, the bed, or my glasses
>
> -43D is impressive. I guess that means you can't see past the end of
> your nose assuming it's more than 2.3 cm long. :-)
Sheesh. How does one get to NEED -43D, John?
> >I'd love to have just a -5.00D correction!
>
> Me too!
> Me three! Actually, I'd love to have no correction, but we can't get
everything we want ;-)
Jen
COMMUT2015
Minus 44.0 !!!!!!!!!!! Good God!!!!!!!!!!!!.............you have my most
sincere sympathy..............I thought I was in bad shape with -
11.00..........
Greg
COMMU...@aol.com
William Stacy
In <324172...@adlan.memphis.edu> Curt Guenther
<cgue...@adlan.memphis.edu> writes:
>
>I've always had the impression that my five-diopter degree of myopia
>was significant, and a significant impairment, until I read the posts
I'm
>interested to know from those people and/or others what that degree of
>nearsightedness must be like, when they're not wearing their glasses
or
>contacts. For example, without any correction, I cannot read the
>numerals on my bedside clock, or read a book or magazine without
holding
>it just beyond my nose. With a much greater degree of myopia, how
>limiting must that be?
Not *that* much different. I mean if a 10 D. myope has to hold it 10
cm from his eyes (the distance from the nose varies with nose length),
and you have to hold it 20 cm from your nose, that's not all that big a
difference. The difference in distance blur is also not that great,
both of you needing distance Rx desperately.
(Well, maybe the 10 D. *really* desperately and you only sort of
desperately)
Bill
John Joseph Hefti
In article <3241FF...@getting.her.address.soon>,
Jennifer <jen's...@getting.her.address.soon> wrote:
>> x = 1/y
>>
>> So, in order to read a book comfortably at say 30 cm, your degree of
>> myopia should not be much worse than -3.3D. At my -8.5D level, that
>> distance is about 12 cm which is uncomfortable. At your -5D level,
>> that distance is about 20 cm (I wish my eyes were that good.)
>
>> >With a -42.00/-44.00, I can't see the clock, the room, the bed,
or my glasses
>>
>> -43D is impressive. I guess that means you can't see past the end of
>> your nose assuming it's more than 2.3 cm long. :-)
Actually, my focal plane cuts through my nose about two-thirds of the
way down-- and I don't have a big nose. This means that my eyes focus
behind my glasses if my glasses slip down (which they do all the time),
and I can't see.
>
>Sheesh. How does one get to NEED -43D, John?
>
Not quite sure I understand the question, but perhaps you mean to ask
how I progressed to a -42D/-44D correction. I started somewhere in the
range of -15D at age 2 (my first Rx) and increased as much as 4D per year
in the interim. My eyes have been stable for the last 5 years or so.
>> >I'd love to have just a -5.00D correction!
>>
>> Me too!
>> Me three! Actually, I'd love to have no correction, but we can't get
>everything we want ;-)
No correction.... I can't imagine. The best I've been able to do is a
high sphere contact lens, glasses for the astigmatism (-6D/-8D), and for
the reading.
>
>Jen
John
Jennifer
John Joseph Hefti wrote:
>
> In article <3241FF...@getting.her.address.soon>,
> Jennifer <jen's...@getting.her.address.soon> wrote:
> >> x = 1/y
> >>
> >> So, in order to read a book comfortably at say 30 cm, your degree of
> >> myopia should not be much worse than -3.3D. At my -8.5D level, that
> >> distance is about 12 cm which is uncomfortable. At your -5D level,
> >> that distance is about 20 cm (I wish my eyes were that good.)
> >
> >> >With a -42.00/-44.00, I can't see the clock, the room, the bed,
> or my glasses
> >>
> >> -43D is impressive. I guess that means you can't see past the end of
> >> your nose assuming it's more than 2.3 cm long. :-)
>
> Actually, my focal plane cuts through my nose about two-thirds of the
> way down-- and I don't have a big nose. This means that my eyes focus
> behind my glasses if my glasses slip down (which they do all the time),
> and I can't see.
You should really wear contacts, if they can make them strong enough for
you. You'd see a lot better and look better too. How thick are your
glasses for -43D? At least a couple inches I'd imagine...how do they
even fit lenses that thick into frames??
> >Sheesh. How does one get to NEED -43D, John?
> >
> Not quite sure I understand the question, but perhaps you mean to ask
> how I progressed to a -42D/-44D correction. I started somewhere in the
> range of -15D at age 2 (my first Rx) and increased as much as 4D per year
> in the interim. My eyes have been stable for the last 5 years or so.
>
> >> >I'd love to have just a -5.00D correction!
> >>
> >> Me too!
> >> Me three! Actually, I'd love to have no correction, but we can't get
> >everything we want ;-)
>
> No correction.... I can't imagine. The best I've been able to do is a
> high sphere contact lens, glasses for the astigmatism (-6D/-8D), and for
> the reading.
That's too bad. I'd hate to need -7ish glasses in addition to contacts.
> >Jen
>
> John
Jen
John Joseph Hefti
In article <32439B...@getting.her.address.soon>,
Jennifer <jen's...@getting.her.address.soon> wrote:
>>
>> Actually, my focal plane cuts through my nose about two-thirds of the
>> way down-- and I don't have a big nose. This means that my eyes focus
>> behind my glasses if my glasses slip down (which they do all the time),
>> and I can't see.
>
>You should really wear contacts, if they can make them strong enough for
>you. You'd see a lot better and look better too. How thick are your
>glasses for -43D? At least a couple inches I'd imagine...how do they
>even fit lenses that thick into frames??
>
So far I haven't found any contacts which even come close. As far as the
thickness goes, it really depends on the type of lens. With the myodisk
(peephole type) lenses, they're only and inch or so thick. With the larger
double concave design, they're 2.5-3.00 inches at the largest edge. Needless
to say, I'm very limited as far as frame selection goes.
>>
>> No correction.... I can't imagine. The best I've been able to do is a
>> high sphere contact lens, glasses for the astigmatism (-6D/-8D), and for
>> the reading.
>
>That's too bad. I'd hate to need -7ish glasses in addition to contacts.
It sure beats -44D lenses.
BTW... What's you Rx? I'd gues less than -7D, given the above comment.
John
Jennifer
John Joseph Hefti wrote:
>
> In article <32439B...@getting.her.address.soon>,
> Jennifer <jen's...@getting.her.address.soon> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Actually, my focal plane cuts through my nose about two-thirds of the
> >> way down-- and I don't have a big nose. This means that my eyes focus
> >> behind my glasses if my glasses slip down (which they do all the time),
> >> and I can't see.
> >
> >You should really wear contacts, if they can make them strong enough for
> >you. You'd see a lot better and look better too. How thick are your
> >glasses for -43D? At least a couple inches I'd imagine...how do they
> >even fit lenses that thick into frames??
> >
> So far I haven't found any contacts which even come close. As far as the
> thickness goes, it really depends on the type of lens. With the myodisk
> (peephole type) lenses, they're only and inch or so thick. With the larger
> double concave design, they're 2.5-3.00 inches at the largest edge. Needless
> to say, I'm very limited as far as frame selection goes.
I'll say. I thought my glasses were thick with .5-inch-thick
lenses...Ai yi yi. Thank goodness for contacts!
> >>
> >> No correction.... I can't imagine. The best I've been able to do is a
> >> high sphere contact lens, glasses for the astigmatism (-6D/-8D), and for
> >> the reading.
> >
> >That's too bad. I'd hate to need -7ish glasses in addition to contacts.
>
> It sure beats -44D lenses.
>
> BTW... What's you Rx? I'd gues less than -7D, given the above comment.
No, -9 and -9.5 actually. What I meant is, if I already wore contacts
AND needed these thick glasses in addition, that would really suck.
Jen
John Joseph Hefti
In article <324A00...@getting.her.address.soon>,
Jennifer <jen's...@getting.her.address.soon> wrote:
>John Joseph Hefti wrote:
>> >> behind my glasses if my glasses slip down (which they do all the time),
>> >> and I can't see.
>> >
>> >You should really wear contacts, if they can make them strong enough for
>> >you. You'd see a lot better and look better too. How thick are your
>> >glasses for -43D? At least a couple inches I'd imagine...how do they
>> >even fit lenses that thick into frames??
>> >
>> So far I haven't found any contacts which even come close. As far as the
>> thickness goes, it really depends on the type of lens. With the myodisk
>> (peephole type) lenses, they're only and inch or so thick. With the larger
>> double concave design, they're 2.5-3.00 inches at the largest edge. Needless
>> to say, I'm very limited as far as frame selection goes.
>
>I'll say. I thought my glasses were thick with .5-inch-thick
>lenses...Ai yi yi. Thank goodness for contacts!
>
>> >>
>> >> No correction.... I can't imagine. The best I've been able to do is a
>> >> high sphere contact lens, glasses for the astigmatism (-6D/-8D), and for
>> >> the reading.
>> >
>> >That's too bad. I'd hate to need -7ish glasses in addition to contacts.
>>
>> It sure beats -44D lenses.
>>
>> BTW... What's you Rx? I'd gues less than -7D, given the above comment.
>
>No, -9 and -9.5 actually. What I meant is, if I already wore contacts
>AND needed these thick glasses in addition, that would really suck.
>
>Jen
It does suck, which is why I don't wear contacts anymore. It aint worth it.
BTW... I've received several dozen requests for old pairs of my glasses;
some for donation (which I do all the time), one for a science project,
but most for unstated reasons. One women even asked to meet me to "discuss"
my glasses. (This will be my first date made over the internet.)
What's the deal here?
John
Bryan Putnam
The Littl Shynin Man <lab...@unixg.ubc.ca> writes:
>John Joseph Hefti wrote:
>>
> One women even asked to meet me to "discuss"
>> my glasses. (This will be my first date made over the internet.)
>>
>> What's the deal here?
>>
>> John
>--
>John,
>All I can say is that you obviously missed the discussions over this NG
>where several people found thick glasses to be a turn-on.
>Maybe -40D makes you the Brad Pitt of sci.med.vision!
> Mike
This is funny. Now people are going to be looking for *low* index
lenses. Might I suggest something in an n=1.01 ??
Bryan
John Joseph Hefti
In article <324B4C...@unixg.ubc.ca>,
The Littl Shynin Man <lab...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
>John Joseph Hefti wrote:
>>
> One women even asked to meet me to "discuss"
>> my glasses. (This will be my first date made over the internet.)
>>
>> What's the deal here?
>>
>> John
>
>--
>John,
>
>
>All I can say is that you obviously missed the discussions over this NG
>where several people found thick glasses to be a turn-on.
>
>Maybe -40D makes you the Brad Pitt of sci.med.vision!
>
> Mike
Jeez.. That would be great. Actually, several women have said that they
find my glasses a turn-on, but I thought that they were trying to be nice.
John
Bryan Putnam
The Littl Shynin Man <lab...@unixg.ubc.ca> writes:
>John Joseph Hefti wrote:
>>
> One women even asked to meet me to "discuss"
>> my glasses. (This will be my first date made over the internet.)
>>
>> What's the deal here?
>>
>> John
>--
>John,
>All I can say is that you obviously missed the discussions over this NG
>where several people found thick glasses to be a turn-on.
> Mike
Maybe soon we'll be seeing advertisements for *low* index lenses.
"Might I interest you in an n=1.001 ??" :-)
The Littl Shynin Man
John Joseph Hefti wrote:
>
> In article <324B4C...@unixg.ubc.ca>,
> The Littl Shynin Man <lab...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
> >John Joseph Hefti wrote:
> >>
> > One women even asked to meet me to "discuss"
> >> my glasses. (This will be my first date made over the internet.)
> >>
> >> What's the deal here?
> >>
> >> John
> >
> >--
> >John,
> >
> >
> >All I can say is that you obviously missed the discussions over this NG
> >where several people found thick glasses to be a turn-on.
> >
> >
> > Mike
>
> Jeez.. That would be great. Actually, several women have said that they
> find my glasses a turn-on, but I thought that they were trying to be nice.
>
> John
Maybe you'll see something like this:
SF seeks hi myope for fun times, possibly more. Reply w/copy of Rx.
--
邢 唷��
Jennifer
John Joseph Hefti wrote:
>
> In article <324B4C...@unixg.ubc.ca>,
> The Littl Shynin Man <lab...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
> >John Joseph Hefti wrote:
> >>
> > One women even asked to meet me to "discuss"
> >> my glasses. (This will be my first date made over the internet.)
> >>
> >> What's the deal here?
> >>
> >> John
> >
> >--
> >John,
> >
> >
> >All I can say is that you obviously missed the discussions over this NG
> >where several people found thick glasses to be a turn-on.
> >
> >Maybe -40D makes you the Brad Pitt of sci.med.vision!
> >
> > Mike
>
> Jeez.. That would be great. Actually, several women have said that they
> find my glasses a turn-on, but I thought that they were trying to be nice.
This is weird...I've never thought of the possibility that thick glasses
could be a turn-on. I certainly feel *much* less attractive when I wear
my glasses. And, sorry John, but IMHO -40 glasses would not be a
turn-on.
> John
Jen
John Joseph Hefti
In article <324DFB...@getting.her.address.soon>,
Jennifer <jen's...@getting.her.address.soon> wrote:
>John Joseph Hefti wrote:
>>
>> In article <324B4C...@unixg.ubc.ca>,
>> The Littl Shynin Man <lab...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
>> >John Joseph Hefti wrote:
>> >>
>> > One women even asked to meet me to "discuss"
>> >> my glasses. (This will be my first date made over the internet.)
>> >>
>> >> What's the deal here?
>> >>
>> >> John
>> >
>> >--
>> >John,
>> >
>> >
>> >All I can say is that you obviously missed the discussions over this NG
>> >where several people found thick glasses to be a turn-on.
>> >
>> >Maybe -40D makes you the Brad Pitt of sci.med.vision!
>> >
>> > Mike
>>
>> Jeez.. That would be great. Actually, several women have said that they
>> find my glasses a turn-on, but I thought that they were trying to be nice.
>
>This is weird...I've never thought of the possibility that thick glasses
>could be a turn-on. I certainly feel *much* less attractive when I wear
>my glasses. And, sorry John, but IMHO -40 glasses would not be a
>turn-on.
>
>> John
>
>Jen
Well... according to some it is. I asked two of my sisters, both of whom
need strong glasses (-20 something), and they both said that many guys found
their glasses to be a turn on. Of course, one of my sisters is a rather
well-to-do model, and is quite beautiful, so I'm not surprised that guys
would say whatever they needed to to get a date. (The other is quite
good-looking, too, and is never at a loss for a boyfriend.)
And to think all these years I've thought that my girlfriends were just
trying to be nice (which they probably were).
Go figure.....
John
Jennifer
I guess different people find different things to be sexy, although thick
glasses is something I've never even thought of as remotely attractive.
It's nice, though, that some guys find girls who need strong glasses to
be attractive. But wouldn't your sister who's a model wear contacts most
of the time?
> And to think all these years I've thought that my girlfriends were just
> trying to be nice (which they probably were).
>
> Go figure.....
>
> John
Jen
The Littl Shynin Man
Jennifer wrote:
> It's nice, though, that some guys find girls who need strong glasses to
> be attractive.
>
> Jen
My girlfriend (and soon to be wife) *still* doesn't believe me that I
think she is extra attractive in hers (at -10 something).
I guess that she's grown up resenting them. When she was little, her
parents used to have arguments about whose side of the family she got
her crappy vision from, which I though was pretty crappy of *them*.
The comments that some people make (one optician whistled and said "WOW!
Pretty thick prescription!", which I thought was pretty thick of *him*)
are also no help to her self esteem.
I always seem to notice women wearing glasses rather than those who
aren't. I dunno why...but I've heard from a few people on this NG who
think the same.
Mike
--
邢 唷��
The Littl Shynin Man
John Joseph Hefti wrote:
> >> Actually, my focal plane cuts through my nose about two-thirds of the
> >> way down-- and I don't have a big nose. This means that my eyes focus
> >> behind my glasses if my glasses slip down (which they do all the time),
> >> and I can't see.
> >
John, I'm curious...even though your glasses may correct the refractive
error of your eyes what happens with the minimizing effect of high minus
lenses?
I mean, what about reading small print and stuff like that - do your
lenses make everything look real teeny? And when you wore contacts in
conjuction with lower power glasses, did it make much difference?
Thanks,
Mike
--
邢 唷��
Jennifer
The Littl Shynin Man wrote:
> My girlfriend (and soon to be wife) *still* doesn't believe me that I
> think she is extra attractive in hers (at -10 something).
Well, considering that she's going to be your wife, you probably find her
attractive no matter what she wears ;).
> I guess that she's grown up resenting them. When she was little, her
> parents used to have arguments about whose side of the family she got
> her crappy vision from, which I though was pretty crappy of *them*.
>
> The comments that some people make (one optician whistled and said "WOW!
> Pretty thick prescription!", which I thought was pretty thick of *him*)
> are also no help to her self esteem.
Yup--know whatcha mean. I had to wear my glasses to school a couple days
ago and at least ten people must've said "MAN, those are THICK glasses!"
The irritating thing was, most of those people were my friends!
Jen
The Littl Shynin Man
Jennifer wrote:
>
> Well, considering that she's going to be your wife, you probably find her
> attractive no matter what she wears ;).
Yah, true, except for bell bottoms (70's flashback y'know). But
seriously, I DO like her in glasses.
> Yup--know whatcha mean. I had to wear my glasses to school a couple days
> ago and at least ten people must've said "MAN, those are THICK glasses!"
> The irritating thing was, most of those people were my friends!
>
> Jen
So they've never seen 'em before? Do you only wear them as a last
resort? Avoid it like the plague :)?
Mike
--
邢 唷��
Jennifer
The Littl Shynin Man wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Well, considering that she's going to be your wife, you probably find her
> > attractive no matter what she wears ;).
>
> Yah, true, except for bell bottoms (70's flashback y'know). But
> seriously, I DO like her in glasses.
Right. We KNOW you have a bell bottom fetish ;).
> > Yup--know whatcha mean. I had to wear my glasses to school a couple days
> > ago and at least ten people must've said "MAN, those are THICK glasses!"
> > The irritating thing was, most of those people were my friends!
> >
> > Jen
>
> So they've never seen 'em before? Do you only wear them as a last
> resort? Avoid it like the plague :)?
Quite a few of my friends didn't even know I wore contacts. Those who
did know I have vision problems had no idea that they were quite so
severe. And of COURSE I avoid wearing my glasses if I can...they're
ULTRA-thick and I do NOT look good in them. My boyfriend would argue
otherwise, but still.
Jen
John Joseph Hefti
In article <324F1F...@getting.her.address.soon>,
Jennifer <jen's...@getting.her.address.soon> wrote:
>> >
>>
>> Well... according to some it is. I asked two of my sisters, both of whom
>> need strong glasses (-20 something), and they both said that many guys found
>> their glasses to be a turn on. Of course, one of my sisters is a rather
>> well-to-do model, and is quite beautiful, so I'm not surprised that guys
>> would say whatever they needed to to get a date. (The other is quite
>> good-looking, too, and is never at a loss for a boyfriend.)
>
>I guess different people find different things to be sexy, although thick
>glasses is something I've never even thought of as remotely attractive.
Nor I. But it appears that many do.
>It's nice, though, that some guys find girls who need strong glasses to
>be attractive. But wouldn't your sister who's a model wear contacts most
>of the time?
>
Actually, she almost never wears contacts except when she's working
(i.e. modeling). She doesn't get a good correction w/ contacts. She also
doesn't seem to be self-conscious about her glasses, either.
John
The Littl Shynin Man
Jennifer wrote:
>
> Right. We KNOW you have a bell bottom fetish ;).
>
I admit it. Bell bottoms and Earth shoes. Ohhh baby.
--
邢 唷��
Gary VanderMolen
The Littl Shynin Man <lab...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote in article
<324F2C...@unixg.ubc.ca>...
> Jennifer wrote:
>
> > It's nice, though, that some guys find girls who need strong glasses to
> > be attractive.
>
> >
>
> My girlfriend (and soon to be wife) *still* doesn't believe me that I
> think she is extra attractive in hers (at -10 something).
Different strokes for different folks, I guess. We'd be in one heck of a
fix if all males liked exactly the same look in females.
But I haven't seen any fashion models on the front covers of magazines
wear glasses.
stefanr
I must say that when I choose my girlfriend, her wearing strong glasses is
a very important factor. It is true. I don't know why. Everyone has his or
her particular "things". Myopia is one for me. So you better believe it.
Steve