Log in

View Full Version : The female double standard: heightism...



Pages : 1 [2] 3

Will
12-08-2009, 06:26 AM
Until you talk to god or torture babies for the sake of science, spare me.

What are your qualifications for branding socio-biological theories of behavior "pseudoscience"? All psych research is "soft" science, due to the inherent drawbacks to dealing with human beings.

It's an interesting area of discussion to some in the thread (me included), no one seems to be pushing it as the be all end all for why men and women behave as they do, and there's really no reason to get all negative here.

BTW, quite a bit of this research works across societies with very different social norms, and as animals, there's no doubt at all we, like all animals, also have some pre programed visual cues that activate parts of our brains that may confer to some survival instinct, breeding instinct, etc.

How much of that actually explains human attraction is unclear.

kittygirl
12-08-2009, 06:48 AM
I'd rather you guys address the inherent flaws.

I call it pseudoscience because when you act like it's "genetically" predetermined you're invoking some kind of biological, not psychological, authority.

If men are solely meant to breed with as many women as possible, it's highly unlikely they'll be anyone's provider. If women are then to be sole providers men would choose women who could kick male ass - the big strong ones. And women would never fuck anyone over 25. Blows huh.

Lastly, there may be some cultural similarities, just like everyone loves Michael Jackson.

The world is far from "natural" or genetically programmed. But men love this tick because it reassures them that cheating (note GR made a lovely guest appearance here), money and not kindness, and rape are somehow more forgivable if they claim nature made them do it.

I have read sociobiological literature. In my academic research when I had to rigorously cite sources, I wrote on sociobiology. I would like to point out that I found absolute lies, citations that did not exist, and a lack of citation in even the most famous of their cult heroes. It's bunk.

Will
12-08-2009, 07:07 AM
I'd rather you guys address the inherent flaws.

Then you can explain them to us, without having the thread go negative I hope.


It's bunk.

I respect your opinion, I don't agree with your conclusions. Because we are not lizards, socio biology can only get you so far in explaining some parts of human behavior. It's not an excuse for X behaviors, but may be a partial explanation for them.

YodaLady.com
12-08-2009, 09:36 AM
Kitty, I think you sound like you got hurt bad at some point by a dude and his dumbass said "It's in my nature" or something along those lines. Humans are rational creatures, we make decisions. We decided to cheat and we decide to be faithful. But urges are in our genetic code. Women have them too, supposedly not as strong as men, and some men stronger than others. Some men are just assholes & they lie & deceive women in order to get some ass. But regardless there are a combination of factors as to why people do what they do, and why people prefer what they prefer.

On a side note, I'm sorry you tend to date assholes... (((HUG)))

But back to being on a caveman level.. I think Kitty has a bit of a point. I don't think men really cared who they planted their seed in. I think they saw a woman and said "Hey, time to start farming!" clubbed her over the head.. Game on... I don't really think a caveman would see a girl and be like.. nah.. shes too fat.. and walk away.. haha

But if she was the Amazon some you ladies say a caveman should be more likely to pursue. I feel the caveman would be intimidated and less likely to attempt to mate.

I don't think relationships in those days were partnerships, Like "Hey, I'm big & strong, you're big & strong, LETS START A FAMILY OF BIG & STRONG PEOPLE!!" I think instead it was, I'm big and strong and you have sex with me and then go pick some berries... Before I club you over the head again!! haha

I also feel that cavemen weren't nomadic with their women, meaning they didn't leave one without already having another one. I see a caveman wanting to have as many women as he can. But if he did only want one, he'd keep one till he got one he liked more. Perhaps one with a rounder booty.. or larger fun bags..

Sorry, my stereotypes of cave people make me laugh..

:)

KiwiStrawberry Splenda
12-08-2009, 11:51 AM
I believe, and plenty of sociobiological theory backs me up, that humans are meant to live in tribal groups. Hence, males want to acquire and care for many childbearing women in their tribe to help spread the seed of him and his relatives. Then, the tribe protects and grows the group.

It makes more sense than "fuck and run", and it done by all major primates today, with the exception of the solitary orangutan (who is almost extinct now BTW).

Doesn't that make sense, and allow for greater freedom to culturally decided monogamy, polygamy, power, social roles, etc, cultural variances? I don't think that the urge for males to plant their seed in multiple partners indicates "fuck and run" at all. That's just an excuse for modern males.

Paris
12-08-2009, 12:06 PM
I take issue again with this being reduced to sociobiology or genetic programming.

Guys who believe in this pseudoscience always say women look for men who can provide, but in the same breath insist men are looking to spread their seed and bolt. Since guys are programmed to fuck and "leave" wouldn't they look for the biggest, strongest amazon woman who could protect his seed, while he's looking for pussy, against roving men trying to get rid of his seed.

How can you have it both ways. Either men are programmed to indiscriminately spread seed, in which case they cannot be in 100 places at once to care for the offspring, or women don't give a fuck about "providers" knowing full well men "can't be" monogomous and won't be there.



I think the argument is that wealthy and powerful men keep harems. Much like cattle, many cows for a single bull.

YodaLady.com
12-08-2009, 12:15 PM
Many cows for a single woman... ref: "Johnny Lingo" short film 1969

Nothing better than an 8 cow woman haha :)

Kimbre
12-08-2009, 01:53 PM
Ok, for starters, I'm not picky about many superficial qualities. I will admit that I'm not fond of "heavyset" [to be modest] guys of any height, but I'm not particular about height. I DO, however, have a type. I like "exotic" looking guys.

I'm five feet tall exactly, so I don't really see where I can afford to be choosy about how tall anyone else is. Seriously, though, I'm almost a damn pygmy! I envy height, but I'm not looking exclusively for it - unless I need something off a high shelf, mind you. In fact, some of the best times I've ever had were with guys who were of less than average height.

I've never actually dated anyone who was literally shorter than me, (probably because I don't know any guys who are in third or fourth grade) but if it ever came up, I'm sure it wouldn't be a big deal as long as he had other attractive qualities. Quite frankly, I'd love an opportunity to be taller than my husband/boyfriend/date/Jesus even for just ONE day.

The other side of this is height issue is that my height is a fetish to some men, and even though I'm able to make that, which I feel is basically a "genetic defect," work to my benefit it still ends up being the foundation for all sorts of odd situations. I don't know what seeing someone my size signifies to a man who professes to prefer petite women. I can't tell if he thinks I'm so delicate and fragile that I need to be protected and well taken care of, or if he's looking at me and wondering if I'll pretend to be 12 if we're ever alone together. Strangely enough, I can promise you that I'm not looking for a tall guy to role-play Paul Bunyan, Abe Lincoln, or Jolly Green Giant. If I'm with a tall guy - or any guy for that matter - it's because I enjoy his company.

Elvia
12-08-2009, 06:00 PM
On a side note, I'm sorry you tend to date assholes... (((HUG)))




Just because she disagrees with you is no reason to to go making assumptions about her personal life, and I think you know how passive aggressive this is. ::)

kittygirl
12-09-2009, 01:10 AM
Women who choose to believe in sociobiology. I urge you to stomach your way through "A Natural History of Rape" by Thornhill and Palmer.

I did research on this book for an anthropology class and wrote a thesis while at Berkeley.

I had access to one of the largest libraries in the world, an interface with the Harvard library and could not find the existence of articles they cited anywhere in the world.

They created false sources. Made sweeping assertions with no citations at times. And even when the article did exist, the identified material could not be found on the cited page or in the article.

Some citations did exist, but that is seriously shoddy "academic" work verging on academic blasphemy.

If you read this book, without vomiting or hurling it into a fire, you might see where I'm coming from. I had to reread it about 20 times.

Here's a link to a male critic of the book. It's not my personal opinion but the fastest thing i could find to get a link.



In my "educated" opinion. Children truly need and benefit from two parents and this truly does ensure their survival. We are not just seed spreaders or reproductive drones. We are human and thrive on human relationships. We are also born in an equal ratio.

If our nature was truly that men procreate with abandon and women are choosy, we could do with 75% females and 25% men. They have enough sperm to spread according to theories of their nature.

If you argue we are meant to live in tribes by "nature", then we are already privileging "relationships" as necessary to the survival of humans. This whole concept flies in the face of what sociobiologists tend to claim which is more individually based.

Lastly, if I am to believe my nature is to procreate with success. I then argue womens' sexual drive is probably many times greater than men. Why have a barren baby vessel, instead a high female sex drive would ensure procreation much more than hoping the penis finds a way to get laid.

OK for real lastly, even Darwin's very intelligent theories of evolution point out the variety above all else ensures a species survival.

Evolution is the idea that adaptations to environment (which changes and varies - think Ice Age or desert vs. tundra) is the driving factor behind success and survival.

It is not the individuals spiritually given knowledge of what he thinks will be geneticall successful. Which they claim is somehow written into his DNA.

Golden_Rule
12-09-2009, 12:07 PM
I call it pseudoscience because when you act like it's "genetically" predetermined you're invoking some kind of biological, not psychological, authority.

I didn't see anyone suggest it was genetically predetermined. I saw folks, myself included, saying there are real instinctual issues that have to be considered as part of the overall social equation. Are there other things involved like cultural teachings, individual experience/learning, etc? Certainly. All anyone is saying, I think, is don't disregard the effect of basic higher primate, mammalian and reptilian biology [three evolutionary phases we all passed through in route to becoming human beings] whose baggage still exists in everyone of us.

Golden_Rule
12-09-2009, 12:12 PM
I believe, and plenty of sociobiological theory backs me up, that humans are meant to live in tribal groups. Hence, males want to acquire and care for many childbearing women in their tribe to help spread the seed of him and his relatives. Then, the tribe protects and grows the group.



This is the way it works in many higher primates. Gorillas particularly. A tribal group exists in which a dominant male is the major provider of the male component of genetic material. The females, in what is referred to as a harem, breed with the dominant male. Other males may catch as catch can as far as breeding is concerned with mixed results [mostly negative] and/or challenge the dominant male for his position as "seed spreader", for lack of a better term.

There is no 'cut and run'. The group lives together and are co-dependent upon one another for survival.

Golden_Rule
12-09-2009, 12:16 PM
I think the argument is that wealthy and powerful men keep harems. Much like cattle, many cows for a single bull.

Not knowing if you are suggesting otherwise but just in case you are may I point out that:

It wouldn't work if the women involved weren't either: 1) allowing themselves to be deluded into presuming they are the only one, or 2) willing participants in sharing the wealth and/or power of the male in question via mutual consent or "turning the blind eye'.

Laurisa
12-09-2009, 12:26 PM
I'm 5'2, and I've never seriously dated someone that was my height or close to my height. I've been involved with men that were 5'10, 5'11, 6'1, and 6'5... all different ranges, but no one under 5'10. Would I give a guy a chance if he was shorter than 5'10? Yes. Shorter than me? Probably not... I'm pretty damn short.

YodaLady.com
12-09-2009, 01:35 PM
Just because she disagrees with you is no reason to to go making assumptions about her personal life, and I think you know how passive aggressive this is. ::)

You're right. I apologize, I was just teasing, I think & hope she knew that ;D
(See, I did the smiley face, that means everything is cool now!)

Almost Jaded
12-09-2009, 02:55 PM
Hmm. I am 6'1", and definitely attracted to shorter, "petite" girls myself. I prefer a lovely face and a "fit" body - though my "preferences" cover a fairly wide range as far as body mass, breast size, etc. Not fat, and for some reason, shorter. I think I've dated maybe 4 or 5 girls in my whole life over 5'4". I don't have problems with taller girls, I just go gaga over short ones :shrug:

SteveSmith
12-09-2009, 07:02 PM
Nature made humans fall in love :cupid: so they'd stick around to raise the children and not fuck and run.

Golden_Rule
12-09-2009, 07:22 PM
Nature made humans fall in love :cupid: so they'd stick around to raise the children and not fuck and run.

Umm, hey Cupid :) , you do realize that falling in love has probably existed pretty much since pre-humans walked erect and that matrimony and monogamy are relatively new concepts when placed on the time line of human evolution.

SteveSmith
12-09-2009, 07:57 PM
Umm, hey Cupid :) , you do realize that falling in love has probably existed pretty much since pre-humans walked erect and that matrimony and monogamy are relatively new concepts when placed on the time line of human evolution.


Falling in love evolved as a survival strategy because children took years to mature and needed two parents to survive.

KiwiStrawberry Splenda
12-09-2009, 09:44 PM
Falling in love evolved as a survival strategy because children took years to mature and needed two parents to survive.


I don't know about two parents, but usually having at least two people, or better yet, a group of closely related people who care for one another's welfare, is very helpful. And since women are generally smaller and weaker than men, its good to have a couple of guys around.

kittygirl
12-10-2009, 02:16 AM
It's so funny how everyone has the great answers here. My claim when I give alternate theories is that they are just as good as anything else people are pulling out of their ass, maybe better ;D.

I don't need people telling me how men and women are predetermined to behave based on theory in order to understand how we intereact.

There is no proof. Yes we're biologically driven, but we also wear deoderant so most of attraction (it's very odor driven) has been blown out nature's window.

If you're into caveman theories, quit wearing deoderaant and perfume and quit the pill. Then we can see how nature really works.

You wouldn't be able to find true nature now if you tried.

Some men love it though because it asserts they are more sexual (not true), they can't be monogamous (not true), and women only want men for their money therefore they're bitches and I got screwed (also not true).

As usual, my opinions.

In a world where men control 90% of the money and resources (look it up) our current interactions are so skewed there is no impartial study.

alice_island
12-10-2009, 03:11 AM
i'm short and must be one of the few women alive who prefer short guys, as in 5'2"-5'6" short, BUT they cant be skinnier than me. seriously, i am small and i dont want to look fat next to you. you dont need to be muscular (prefer you're not actually), just not thinner than me, k? so eat those donuts i got ya!

threlayer
12-10-2009, 11:24 AM
...
A lot of people bitched about me being with my boyfriend who was just a hair under 6'6, saying I was taking away the opportunity for taller girls. But we fell in love despite our height differences, and he has always been open to dating women of all heights.
...

That's about the stupidest comment I've heard in a long time. Sounds like jealousy to me. You love who you love and are attracted to whomever attracts you. I hope those people have grown a little wiser since those comments.

Golden_Rule
12-10-2009, 04:13 PM
Falling in love evolved as a survival strategy because children took years to mature and needed two parents to survive.

Not exactly. Familial ties probably socially established themselves as group ties first because cohesive groups bound by interconnecting loyalties survived better and more often than groups that had looser ties.

The nuclear family you describe [two parents and children] is, again, a relatively new bit of business comparatively on the human evolutionary time line.

Will
12-10-2009, 04:23 PM
Not exactly. Familial ties probably socially established themselves as group ties first because cohesive groups bound by interconnecting loyalties survived better and more often than groups that had looser ties.

The nuclear family you describe [two parents and children] is, again, a relatively new bit of business comparatively on the human evolutionary time line.

Although I think you are correct, alternatively, It can also be simply an alternative strategy withing the same species. Many species actually have different strategies between members of that same species for reproductive success. The most insight on human sexual behavior I think I have got was while doing course work in animal reproductive behavior. Some of it really blew my mind in terms of the parallels to human behavior.

Djoser
12-10-2009, 04:42 PM
I'm also 5'8" and my ex husband is 5'4".

He used to love it when I'd go to his office to bring him lunch. I'd dress up, heels the whole bit and was in my blonde phase. He loved having people say "Dude.. THAT'S your wife?!"

It didn't bother me because I loved him. I prefer someone my height or taller, but it's not an absolute.

But why why why WHY do so many guys tell me they only like "tiny" girls? Bums me out.

I've had tall SO's and short SO's. Basically it's their loss if they don't like a woman 5'8". I tend to prefer shorter women but won't rule out tall ones. One of the hottest women I have ever played around with is 5' 10" or 11".

But it is true that the Double Standard works both ways, and women have just as stupid reasons for fucking guys as guys do for fucking women.

Golden_Rule
12-10-2009, 04:49 PM
It's so funny how everyone has the great answers here. My claim when I give alternate theories is that they are just as good as anything else people are pulling out of their ass, maybe better ;D.

Truly?

Let me see. To me it looks something like this:


Major portion of social scientists, philosophers and others with bona fides over here <-------------------------------------> KG and a handful alt theory thinkers over here.

I think I'll cast my lot with the majority.



Some men love it though because it asserts they are more sexual (not true), they can't be monogamous (not true), and women only want men for their money therefore they're bitches and I got screwed (also not true).


FYI: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article77126.ece

SteveSmith
12-10-2009, 05:03 PM
Not exactly. Familial ties probably socially established themselves as group ties first because cohesive groups bound by interconnecting loyalties survived better and more often than groups that had looser ties.

The nuclear family you describe [two parents and children] is, again, a relatively new bit of business comparatively on the human evolutionary time line.

Yeah, you're right, GR. Men and women just fell in love for no reason, then started families for no reason, stayed together for many years and sometimes for a lifetime and raised families for no reason. Yeah, it all makes sense to me now. Thanks for clearing that up. ::)

Golden_Rule
12-10-2009, 05:05 PM
I'm also 5'8" and my ex husband is 5'4".

He used to love it when I'd go to his office to bring him lunch. I'd dress up, heels the whole bit and was in my blonde phase. He loved having people say "Dude.. THAT'S your wife?!"

It didn't bother me because I loved him. I prefer someone my height or taller, but it's not an absolute.

But why why why WHY do so many guys tell me they only like "tiny" girls? Bums me out.

It's a personal preference, what can one say. Like I suggested, its even queerer when that personal preference runs contrary to what that person is themselves. Like the fat guy who won't date a woman with a few extra pounds on her.

While I like a pleasing looking woman, and what man doesn't, my personal criteria puts more importance on what kind of company she makes. If it feels great to be around her and gives off a vibe like I'm going to be glad I know this person that is someone I will be more interested in than just a pretty face and figure.

I've known some very pretty people get ugly really fast once you get to know them. :)

Golden_Rule
12-10-2009, 06:01 PM
Yeah, you're right, GR. Men and women just fell in love for no reason, then started families for no reason, stayed together for many years and sometimes for a lifetime and raised families for no reason. Yeah, it all makes sense to me now. Thanks for clearing that up. ::)

That isn't even remotely what I implied, let alone said.

You said:


Nature made humans fall in love :cupid: so they'd stick around to raise the children and not fuck and run.

I simply pointed out that humans had successfully raised children long before one man/one woman raising their children was the norm. That in fact such "coupling" was a relatively new development on the human evolutionary time scale.

Then you said:


Falling in love evolved as a survival strategy because children took years to mature and needed two parents to survive.

To wit I replied and stated again that the nuclear family was a relatively new phenomenon.

In fact one of the theories social scientists put forth for humans becoming monogamous more often was as a response to social needs. As we moved from wandering bands of small nomadic tribes, where the social order for procreation was usually dominant males doing most of the breading and the women collectively raising the children, to ever more static villages and larger communities problems arouse. Males fathering children would move between communities leaving the provision of their offspring and the women who had them on the community at large. As tribal elders evolved into governing entities social rules were established to required men who fathered children to be directly responsible for their maintenance and that of the women who bore those children to them. This released the community at large of the obligation.

So it was a function of changing society and the needs of the greater welfare of the community, and NOT individual love between couples, that fostered the social norms and morality changes that resulted in men being directly responsible for the providing of their offspring. Frequently tying these new values into religion as a way to inspire peer pressure to insure men "took care of their business". This setting the ground work to make "coupling" a better way to have and raise children.

threlayer
12-10-2009, 07:49 PM
A couple of things have not been considered here yet, except by G_R:

It is not a couple that raises a kid - it is the clan - only very recently has that changed (and for the worse IMO).

The most vulnerable time for a stable relationship is when the woman is well along in her pregnancy and at the point where she may refuse copulation. Another vulnerable time when copulation is often refused is during menopause. Those are the times when the males will look around because those periods are protracted, not just a day or two. Historically speaking of course.

threlayer
12-10-2009, 07:55 PM
...Basically it's their loss if they don't like a woman 5'8"....
But it is true that the Double Standard works both ways, and women have just as stupid reasons for fucking guys as guys do for fucking women.

Agreed, except that it isn't really a double standard; it's just human preferences for almost random reasons. After all, look at the woman who get married (in the paper). Wow, what a range of looks!!

kittygirl
12-10-2009, 10:01 PM
My 66 year old mother still likes sex.

It always takes some men, doctors or stripperweb theorists, to tell us we don't.

I'm over this debate. It's all theoretical, but some people claim their theories are correct.

A lot of these theories are based on sexist presumptions, but sometimes it's hard for men (and some women) to see through that.

The only science out their is few and far between and syas nothing of monogamy, marriage, or resources. It's mostly about biochemical attraction.

Men just want to see science behind claims of non-monogamy, marriage, or resources. You cannot get scientific about social concepts or institutions no matter how hard you try or wish.

Lastly, I was thinking about one girl's claim here that men like smaller women because "in caveman days" (wnatever that means) men could overpower them easier and then have sex.

Since when did women not want sex. I highly doubt it's a new adaptation and only recently women started wanting intercourse.

Just an example of how most people who buy into these unprovable theories can get way carried away.

I'm out.

SteveSmith
12-11-2009, 01:00 PM
Lastly, I was thinking about one girl's claim here that men like smaller women because "in caveman days" (wnatever that means) men could overpower them easier and then have sex.

Since when did women not want sex. I highly doubt it's a new adaptation and only recently women started wanting intercourse.

Just an example of how most people who buy into these unprovable theories can get way carried away.


Yes, Kittygirl, in caveman days, men would club the women into unconsciousness then rape them. Eventually, these cavemen became extinct because many of the women died from blunt force trauma.

What happened was that the men who romanced the women into having sex eventually outnumbered the cavemen who beat the women senseless with a club. This evolution took tens of thousands of years until modern men and women fell in love with each other and stayed together to raise a family.

These cavepeople joined other cavepeople to start a clan, then a community, then a nation. But at the core were two cavepeople who fell in love and started a family. They were like the inner core of an onion. The outside layers aided them in their survival.


Ancient Caveman


http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/4224/caveman1d.jpg






Modern Caveman


http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/8161/23257.jpg


http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/1221/232655478286e690ea00.jpg


Modern Cavemen use romance and communication instead of a club to win over the girl.

Djoser
12-11-2009, 01:26 PM
I see lots of claims on SW recently concerning the 'true' or 'original' way humans raised children, structured mating patterns, reacted to biological imperatives, etc. These claims then being used to 'justify' male patterns of behavior, specifically non-monogamous sexuality.

I am not convinced of the bona fides of everyone making these claims. None of us were there to watch early family structure evolve, either.

Oh, and I have also seen a couple scientific studies indicating that the women are by nature polygamous, in order to keep the gene pool wide open, this inclination being curbed by later patriarchal developments in societal structure. I wasn't entirely convinced, but they were interesting.

Golden_Rule
12-16-2009, 12:41 PM
Yes, Kittygirl, in caveman days, men would club the women into unconsciousness then rape them. Eventually, these cavemen became extinct because many of the women died from blunt force trauma.

What, have you seen X-rays of these cave dwelling folk to back up your forensics? Anyone of them pass down stories through your ancestors that have reached your ears?


What happened was that the men who romanced the women into having sex eventually outnumbered the cavemen who beat the women senseless with a club. This evolution took tens of thousands of years until modern men and women fell in love with each other and stayed together to raise a family.

These cavepeople joined other cavepeople to start a clan, then a community, then a nation. But at the core were two cavepeople who fell in love and started a family. They were like the inner core of an onion. The outside layers aided them in their survival.

You are kidding right. I mean you are having us on, I trust.

If not please name one anthropologist or social scientist of any positive repute who puts forth the notions you provide above.

I mean to say if you are trying to be witty, fine. You are failing, in my opinion, but fine. If you are being serious I'm going to seriously ask you what you are basing your conclusions on. Show me the science.

SteveSmith
12-16-2009, 02:37 PM
What, have you seen X-rays of these cave dwelling folk to back up your forensics? Anyone of them pass down stories through your ancestors that have reached your ears?



You are kidding right. I mean you are having us on, I trust.

If not please name one anthropologist or social scientist of any positive repute who puts forth the notions you provide above.

I mean to say if you are trying to be witty, fine. You are failing, in my opinion, but fine. If you are being serious I'm going to seriously ask you what you are basing your conclusions on. Show me the science.


I was being sarcastic. :rotfl:

laurcon
12-16-2009, 04:34 PM
okay idk what GR twisted this thread into like usual because i have him on ignore, but to the OP - guys are the same way! most guys want a short girl. and short girls who insist on dating tall guys really piss me off. i'm 5'7 with a really long torso, so when i date a guy my height, which all 3 of my boyfriends in my life have been, we have a really awkward spooning situation. his head is literally in my shoulder. doesn't make me feel very sexy. but i'm not as shallow as some of the short girls, so i put up with it. like even though i dream of 6'4 men, i always end up dating short ones because they're nice and have money and treat me right.

its funny though how most men like short women, but many clubs in nyc ask that women who attend be 5'7 and over if they want to get in. i think that's just for the model image. 5'7 is a bum height though, too short to model but too tall for many guys.

Will
12-17-2009, 08:40 AM
but to the OP - guys are the same way!

Well not all of us, but yes, men also have some serious double standards: the classic being she has to have a killer fit body, while he's a fat slob. I love that one..not.


most guys want a short girl. and short girls who insist on dating tall guys really piss me off.

My favorite being the 5' chick that will only date guys over 6'2" or what ever. /:O


i'm 5'7 with a really long torso, so when i date a guy my height, which all 3 of my boyfriends in my life have been, we have a really awkward spooning situation. his head is literally in my shoulder. doesn't make me feel very sexy. but i'm not as shallow as some of the short girls, so i put up with it. like even though i dream of 6'4 men, i always end up dating short ones because they're nice and have money and treat me right.

Which goes a long way no doubt. So many good looking people get ugly real fast once you get to know them, and visa versa. However, I would maintain (and I love you all for it...) that women are more willing to see the total package (nice, smart, has a few $$$ in his pocket, etc) vs men.

Is there a biological, evolutionary, selfish gene, reason for that??!! Kidding...:O


its funny though how most men like short women, but many clubs in nyc ask that women who attend be 5'7 and over if they want to get in. i think that's just for the model image. 5'7 is a bum height though, too short to model but too tall for many guys.

Thanx for getting the thread back on topic! Although I admit, I do find the topic of socio-biology an interesting one, too much negativity developed.

shoshanna
12-17-2009, 03:13 PM
One of my best friends is 5 feet tall and usually dates big guys over 6 feet tall. Her reasoning? She wants to make sure her kids aren't short!

Another friend of mine is 5'8" and 140 pounds and won't date a guy she "weighs more than".

I'm 5'3" and usually date guys within the range of 5'9"-6'3". I went out with one guy who was 5'4" and could not feel any sexual attraction for him...sorry...

Will
12-17-2009, 05:34 PM
One of my best friends is 5 feet tall and usually dates big guys over 6 feet tall. Her reasoning? She wants to make sure her kids aren't short!

Another friend of mine is 5'8" and 140 pounds and won't date a guy she "weighs more than".

I'm 5'3" and usually date guys within the range of 5'9"-6'3". I went out with one guy who was 5'4" and could not feel any sexual attraction for him...sorry...

It's my experience/opinion that to limit yourself to one size, shape, height, or color is to limit the beauty and experience different people can bring. However, I have my own set of rules that may limit me also, so I aint perfect in that respect either. I do know some guys with some VERY narrow rules, that limit them to the point they are always alone, like will only date blonds with blue eyes, etc., and I think that's sad.

My buddy is like that and he's been single forever. He's got this fixation for skinny blonds, and won't date anything else. There was this stunning sista who really liked him, and he was just not interested. I told him he was f-ing crazy. He was not interested in her because she was black and an inch or so taller then he.

I told him to bring a step ladder on the date, and get his freak on.

He's still single...

lestat1
12-17-2009, 11:47 PM
Something I saw on the Discovery channel about early human evolution put forth the theory that the so called "seven year itch" experienced today when after about 7 years together a couple gets the uge to seperate is because that's about how long humans were naturally monogamous long ago. Around age 7 a child way back when would start to be able to contribute to the food gathering/hunting/surviving, at which point the male was able to go off and have another child elsewhere. Humans a long time ago were "temporarily monogamous."

Note when I say "natural" I refer to explanations for our biologically-induced behavior. An explanation, not an excuse. I don't know what's best today. I just think understanding urges provides a context which helps understand our behavior. Although I do wonder what the suicide rate was 100,000 years ago compared to today. I don't know many happily-married couples. And yet I still want to get married. How odd.

Golden_Rule
12-18-2009, 11:44 PM
I was being sarcastic. :rotfl:

Couldn't tell.

That might be me... then again... :)

Golden_Rule
12-18-2009, 11:46 PM
okay idk what GR twisted this thread into like usual because i have him on ignore...

::) She has me on ignore [which is fine if she wants to] but still makes comments about what I am writing. ::)

I reference part of my sig in matters such as these. [the part in blue]

Vyanka
12-20-2009, 02:26 PM
I don't think it's a shallow double standard when you are usually attracted to a certain type. You can't help what you're usually attracted to. But if you ask me, men are always going to be more shallow than women. :P

Djoser
12-20-2009, 05:41 PM
I don't think it's a shallow double standard when you are usually attracted to a certain type. You can't help what you're usually attracted to. But if you ask me, men are always going to be more shallow than women. :P

I must respectfully disagree. When women actually judge a guy by what kind of shoes he is wearing, etc. that's about as shallow as you can get. I would never judge a woman by her fucking shoes, lol! I think that is funny as all hell. But seriously, from what I've seen women are every bit as shallow as men, they just show it in different ways.

Speaking of feet and personal preferences, I knew a guy who rejected an extremely hot woman because her feet were too big. :O I was like 'What feet? Jesus, did you see that girl? What the hell is wrong with you??' I doubt her feet were really all that big, but as it turns out this guy had a foot fetish...

;D

Trem
12-20-2009, 05:51 PM
I don't think it's a shallow double standard when you are usually attracted to a certain type. You can't help what you're usually attracted to. But if you ask me, men are always going to be more shallow than women. :P

You won't ever see a guy reject a hot girl because shes working at mcdonalds or drives a shitty car. Women are more forgiving about looks but that doesn't make them any less shallow, PEOPLE are shallow both men and women just in different ways.

shoshanna
12-20-2009, 05:58 PM
I agree that women can be just as shallow as men...I have a friend who wouldn't go out with a guy any more because he wore Teva's on the first date, and dumped another guy because he took her to the Olive Garden for dinner...

Djoser
12-20-2009, 06:10 PM
What are Teva's?

Trem
12-20-2009, 06:18 PM
What are Teva's?

Glad you asked first, i got no clue either and we are apparently not supposed to wear them.