Girls: Height preference is ok. Men: If you have weight as a preference you're a pig

[brokenglass]

I'm a pig if I have a weight preference with a female?

 

Let me get something straight. If a woman is too lazy to get off the couch and actually take care of herself, she's the pig not me. I understand there are women who might not be able to control their weight as much as they'd like, but that's not my problem. I will not suddenly become physically attracted to a woman knowing that she could be thin had it not been for this debilitating disease *rolls eyes*.

 

Height preference is just ridiculous unless your plans are to procreate taller/shorter children.

[phineas]

I'm no george clooney, but I work out & try to stay in shape & stay active. But most of my life women I know have only wanted to set me up with their overweight friends that do nothing but sit at home & watch TV & get pissed at me because i'm a superficial jerk & have something wrong with me for not thinking their friend is good enough.

 

But, if I suggest they introduce me to their hot single friend?

Nope, not a chance in hell.

I'm not good enough for her & that's because yep, there is still something wrong with me. LOL!

 

I went on 3 different blind dates before I figured out I shouldn't go on any more blind dates. LOL!

[samspade]

1. Don't listen to what women say. Watch what they do.

 

2. Don't let anyone shame you for what YOU find attractive. Femininity is defined by men, just as masculinity is defined by women.

 

Go after the females you want, not the ones society thinks you should have. Everything else is just background noise.

[Stockalone]

Height preference is just ridiculous unless your plans are to procreate taller/shorter children.

 

Personally, I was never attracted to petite women or women with a slim runner's physique.

 

Hence, I do believe that some women actually are only physically attracted to taller men.

 

Where is the difference to you, who is only attracted to women who are in shape?

[kiss_andmakeup]

I'm a pig if I have a weight preference with a female?

 

Let me get something straight. If a woman is too lazy to get off the couch and actually take care of herself, she's the pig not me. I understand there are women who might not be able to control their weight as much as they'd like, but that's not my problem. I will not suddenly become physically attracted to a woman knowing that she could be thin had it not been for this debilitating disease *rolls eyes*.

 

First of all, let me say I agree that men are not pigs if they have weight preferences, and neither are women. Everyone is allowed to have likes and dislikes.

 

Height preference is just ridiculous unless your plans are to procreate taller/shorter children.

 

However, you could say that women who are only attracted to tall men (and I am not one of those women, by the way) are so for the same reason that some men are attracted to women with large breasts, a small waist, and slightly fuller hips. As caveman as it sounds, it's all evolutionary. Taller, stronger men were better protectors, and women with large breasts, and a greater hip-to-waist ratio (I.E. "birthing hips") were better birthers, mothers, and caretakers.

 

In modern days, are fit but not-so-curvy women infertile or bad mothers? No, of course not! Are men who are fit but not tall bad protectors? No! But it does still have some effect on the dating world today. I admitted above that from an evolutionary perspective, women with bigger boobs are more desirable, and I have small boobs! Why are men so hung up about height? Yes, from an evolutionary perspective that was only applicable thousands of years ago, taller men may be seen as better "protectors." But there are so many women out there (myself included) who could care less about this.

Edited November 3, 2009 by kiss_andmakeup

[MissJoness]

The womens weight issue is in many ways cultural. There are some cultures in this world where it is the larger women that are more desirable. Even here in the U.S.A. the prefference for thinner women is reletively new. Marilyn Monroe was considered the most beautiful women in her day and though she was not obese she was also not like the women you see on magazine covers today.

Actually she is like the women you see today. A lot of urban magazines geared towards black and latino men have women who are Marilyn's size(Marilyn is quite small, she's just not sickly skinny) or even more voluptuous than her. People act as if only white mainstream pinup magazines that feature slim lollipops are the only ideals out there. If you watch HipHOp videos a lot of the women have body types similar to Marilyn's

[nocode]

As others have said, a preference is a preference. To me, it only becomes a problem when someone makes a big deal about it or starts insulting people who do not fit in with their preference.

Also, I actually prefer guys who are on the shorter side (5'6"-5'10" or so). I'm only 5'2", so I think it would like kind of weird for me to go with a guy a foot taller than me (I wouldn't be opposed to it, but a guy closer to my height is what I prefer). Of course, I probably wouldn't pass their weight requirement anyway...

[mbeewood]

Am I the only one that doesn't think this is a real double standard? Sure, if you say no fatties, that's not going to go over well with women. But same goes for a girl who says no midgets!

 

 

 

Midgets? Hardly. There are many women who will say 5'7 is too "short" for them, when in reality it is like 4% under the average height. 4% is ****ing nothing

[mbeewood]

 

 

However, you could say that women who are only attracted to tall men (and I am not one of those women, by the way) are so for the same reason that some men are attracted to women with large breasts, a small waist, and slightly fuller hips. As caveman as it sounds, it's all evolutionary. Taller, stronger men were better protectors, and women with large breasts, and a greater hip-to-waist ratio (I.E. "birthing hips") were better birthers, mothers, and caretakers.

 

In modern days, are fit but not-so-curvy women infertile or bad mothers? No, of course not! Are men who are fit but not tall bad protectors? No! But it does still have some effect on the dating world today. I admitted above that from an evolutionary perspective, women with bigger boobs are more desirable, and I have small boobs! Why are men so hung up about height? Yes, from an evolutionary perspective that was only applicable thousands of years ago, taller men may be seen as better "protectors." But there are so many women out there (myself included) who could care less about this.

We've already gone over this, the whole height preference due to tall men being a "better protector" does NOT make sense, because even if that were true in the past, height would only be a small part of looking for a suitable mate. And yet nowadays height as a physical trait seems to trump every other physical trait, like muscle, which doesn't make any biological sense. A short muscular guy will be a better protector than a taller guy who is average or skinny, and yet a woman will almost always prefer the taller guy. Infact many women seem to want a tall guy who is not too bulky, which is completely contradicting themselves.

[Rudderless]

We've already gone over this, the whole height preference due to tall men being a "better protector" does NOT make sense, because even if that were true in the past, height would only be a small part of looking for a suitable mate. And yet nowadays height as a physical trait seems to trump every other physical trait, like muscle, which doesn't make any biological sense. A short muscular guy will be a better protector than a taller guy who is average or skinny, and yet a woman will almost always prefer the taller guy. Infact many women seem to want a tall guy who is not too bulky, which is completely contradicting themselves.

 

If you actually read her post you might realise she agreed with you, only she wrote it more eloquently without sounding completely bitter.

[kiss_andmakeup]

If you actually read her post you might realise she agreed with you, only she wrote it more eloquently without sounding completely bitter.

 

It's true! I was agreeing that height has nothing to do with protection, just as boobs have nothing to do with being a good mother. I was saying that both preferences are equally nonsensical...the only reason I made the comparison is to show that both genders have them.

 

I then went on to say that I do not even hold said preference...and I still get my head bitten off! Sheesh.

[Johnny M]

It's true! I was agreeing that height has nothing to do with protection, just as boobs have nothing to do with being a good mother. I was saying that both preferences are equally nonsensical...the only reason I made the comparison is to show that both genders have them.

Actually, height and breast size (as well as attractive facial features and a nice body) are general characteristics of good genetic makeup. And preference of good genes is hardly nonsensical; in fact, it makes perfect sense from the evolutionary theory standpoint.

[pacific84]

Actually, height and breast size (as well as attractive facial features and a nice body) are general characteristics of good genetic makeup. And preference of good genes is hardly nonsensical; in fact, it makes perfect sense from the evolutionary theory standpoint.

 

Good genes how? Long-lived? More intelligent? The Japanese are among the most long lived people on the planet. They don't exactly have the biggest bosoms or longest legs, but I don't think anyone would say they're genetically unhealthy as a people, right?

 

Attractive facial features I'll give you, I've read that facial symmetry is linked with having a stronger immune system, better coordination, stuff like that.

 

I'm not sure how bigger breasts would be a sign of better genes either, unless it meant better fertility or more breast milk or something like that.

 

If you really think about it, there's no benefit to Humans as a whole if we become physically larger. There's benefit to a single individual in a society, competing with other individuals, because of the way we perceive height as being associated with power. But if the average height for everyone collectively increased, to seven feet tall for example, there would still be short people. Short would become 6 foot 6 inches, tall would become 7 foot 6 inches. It's all relative. And that society the people would be twice as big, so they would need to produce and eat twice as much food to grow their bodies, everything would need to be twice as big, cars, structures, clothes. Yata yata. We would need to consume large resources for all of this. And there would still be short people.

Edited November 4, 2009 by pacific84

[Lish]

I'm sick of this double standard.

 

Virtually every girl agrees that having a height preference is fine, and it's just having "standards", yet if a guy prefers thin women...

 

From the OKcupid forums:

 

http://www.okcupid.com/forum?tid=12241354882162481663

 

Hahahahahahahaha!

 

 

...saying nothing

 

hi

[mbeewood]

If you actually read her post you might realise she agreed with you, only she wrote it more eloquently without sounding completely bitter.

No. She explained why height might be somewhat attractive but the explanation still didn't account for the huge preference of height over other features.

[mbeewood]

Actually, height and breast size (as well as attractive facial features and a nice body) are general characteristics of good genetic makeup. And preference of good genes is hardly nonsensical; in fact, it makes perfect sense from the evolutionary theory standpoint.

 

No, height/breast size have nothing to do with having 'good genes'

[mbeewood]

It's true! I was agreeing that height has nothing to do with protection, just as boobs have nothing to do with being a good mother. I was saying that both preferences are equally nonsensical...the only reason I made the comparison is to show that both genders have them.

 

I then went on to say that I do not even hold said preference...and I still get my head bitten off! Sheesh.

 

I wasn't talking about whether height has anything to do with protection. I was talking more about why women have such a huge thing with height over other physical characteristics, when in reality height should only be a small part of attraction. Your post:

 

"Yes, from an evolutionary perspective that was only applicable thousands of years ago, taller men may be seen as better "protectors." But there are so many women out there (myself included) who could care less about this. "

 

To me, is more or less saying "women are attracted to height as much as they are because of this biological reason". Which is what I am disagreeing with you on. They put way more emphasis on height than they should if it was all biological.

 

The womans common excuse for this preference would be that it was because they are hardwired to look for the best "protector". But there is an obvious flaw with this which can be seen when you look at other preferences women commonly have. They want men to be lean and not too bulky and this shows that a womans preferences are obviously not all biological, because if they were truly looking for a "protector" they would find the most muscle the most attractive.

 

And it is obvious that muscle and actual bulkiness is much more of an indicator of strength than height, thus it would make more sense for a woman to be attracted to a guy with muscle than a guy with height. But a woman will almsot always go for the taller average/skinny guy than the shorter muscular guy, which would not be happening if it was all biological.

Edited November 4, 2009 by mbeewood

[Holding-On]

Hm. I'm wondering about the height thing. This is really news to me.

I turned to my husband, exactly the same height as me at 5'6 and change and asked him if, in his youth, he had ever run into any problems with his height being a problem in getting women. (my husband had a lot of sex in his youth)

He just looked at me and went "huh?"

so you see he was not focused on his height or lack or even thinking about it. He was not focused on women who didn't like him. I think some of the men on this forum are doing both.

 

Also he is a HAPPY person. He is genuinely enjoyable to be around. He is not pushing or expecting or entitlement minded.

 

Expecting a female friend to hook you up with a "hot friend" is entitlement. Go and talk to said hot friend when she is in the room/near you. It isn't some woman's job to make sure you get a date. Take the initiative that, ironically you clearly see missing in those overweight women (which may be why, incidentally, you are getting hooked up with/seen as good match for them)

 

Edited to add: I actually have a preference for men around my own height. I have had crushes on men shorter than me (and I'm 5'6") back in the day when I was much younger (and supposedly more desirable right?). You know what?! THEY had a height preference too! They wanted to date women who were SHORTER than they were. These men became my friends during engineering school so they admitted this to me.

I never got in such a lather because they had a height preference! lol

Edited November 4, 2009 by Holding-On
story to add

[Johnny M]

Good genes how? Long-lived? More intelligent? The Japanese are among the most long lived people on the planet. They don't exactly have the biggest bosoms or longest legs, but I don't think anyone would say they're genetically unhealthy as a people, right?

The Japanese may be shorter than whites, but that doesn't change the fact that a taller Japanese man would theoretically have a better chance of survival in the natural environment (i.e. taller men are generally faster runners than their shorter counterparts) than a shorter Japanese man, all else being equal.

 

If you really think about it, there's no benefit to Humans as a whole if we become physically larger. There's benefit to a single individual in a society, competing with other individuals, because of the way we perceive height as being associated with power. But if the average height for everyone collectively increased, to seven feet tall for example, there would still be short people. Short would become 6 foot 6 inches, tall would become 7 foot 6 inches. It's all relative. And that society the people would be twice as big, so they would need to produce and eat twice as much food to grow their bodies, everything would need to be twice as big, cars, structures, clothes. Yata yata. We would need to consume large resources for all of this. And there would still be short people.

When men and women pick their mates, they are not concerned with what's good for society as a whole....they are only concerned with what's good for their offspring.

[Johnny M]

No, height/breast size have nothing to do with having 'good genes'

Why? Because you said so?

[dreamergrl]

For the love of it all.. what is with the 23048054390 height threads?

 

SERIOUSLY. Everyone has their own preferences in who they want to date. Some agree with them, some don't. I like guys between five feet seven inches and five feet eleven inches. Slim, but not scrawny. I like dark features. I like a man that can dress well. I think dark eyes are sexy. Big flipping deal.

 

If this keeps up "height" is going to be omitted out of thread titles like the word "help".

[pacific84]

The Japanese may be shorter than whites, but that doesn't change the fact that a taller Japanese man would theoretically have a better chance of survival in the natural environment (i.e. taller men are generally faster runners than their shorter counterparts) than a shorter Japanese man, all else being equal.

 

Well, I only brought the Japanese up because you said long legs and big gazongas are an indicator of good genetics. And the Japanese, by and large, have neither long legs nor big gazongas.

 

Yet they have just as high a proportion of people with good genes and bad genes as the rest of us.

[mbeewood]

Why? Because you said so?

Height just has nothing to do with good genes, that's why. I don't have to explain how it doesn't since there's not any evidence supporting that it does.

[crazy_grl]

I just think allot of wmen can be insensitive especially to short men..Its not just they have a preference for tall men which is fine but some women seem to have a condscennding attitude and almost bitterness towards short men ..

 

I just find it funny that allot of women are so insecure about their own looks and how theyre judged yet have no hesitation being insensitive when judging mens looks and theyre dislikes ..

 

They dont want to be judged harshly yet they judge so harshly..

 

Have you met my roommate? lol.

 

My roommate once told me that she likes guys over 6' tall because she wants a man who can protect her. My response was, "From what?" She didn't have an answer.

 

OTOH, if a man was bold (and stupid enough) to state "no fatties" (or something to that effect) in his profile he would not only alienate overweight and obese women (which account for approximately 60% of the population), but he would also offend nearly every non-overweight woman and be seen as shallow. I would honestly be amazed if he received any responses from women.

 

If the rest of the guy's profile was interesting, I'd think that was funny. But then, I have a bit of a twisted sense of humor.

 

I don't see any problem with a guy wanting to date skinny girls. I don't want to date fat guys either. It's hard to stay in shape and eat healthy foods yourself if your partner is eating Twinkies and being lazy. (Excluding the very, very small percentage of people who do exercise and eat well but are still a little overweight.)

 

For some reason, it also offends people (especially women) that their mate would no longer be attracted to them if they were originally skinny and got fat during the relationship. That doesn't make sense to me either.

[Johnny M]

Height just has nothing to do with good genes, that's why. I don't have to explain how it doesn't since there's not any evidence supporting that it does.

Tell that to a midget...