zengirl Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 I thought it was strange that 1999's data was 63.8 inches but got labeled as 5'4''. That's essentially 5 foot 4. Are you sure you're not having trouble with the feet and inches thing? (Not to be rude. . . but your confusion confuses me.) 60 inches = 5 feet. 60/12 = 5. 3.8 inches was presumably rounded up to 4. If the new average is 64.1 (is that what you're saying?) that's basically still 5'4'', though slightly taller.
udolipixie Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 That's essentially 5 foot 4. Are you sure you're not having trouble with the feet and inches thing? (Not to be rude. . . but your confusion confuses me.) 60 inches = 5 feet. 60/12 = 5. 3.8 inches was presumably rounded up to 4. If the new average is 64.1 (is that what you're saying?) that's basically still 5'4'', though slightly taller. The Watkins couple not NHANES listed 64.1 inches as their the standard deviation in some summary statistics table from the cumulative distribution as they stated that the deviation was not supplied by NHANES. Thought I was clear it was the Watkins number Remember the article was by a couple Watkins and they listed the standard deviation as 64.1 for women ^ I added an R and italicized they The NHANES data most common range was 5'5'-5'8'' but despite 5'6'' being most frequent of the most common heights they listed the average height as 5'5''' with the measurements 163 to 164 cm /64.2 to 64.6 inches. I actually consider that 5'4'' and I'm still wondering why the use the lowest number of the most common heights instead of the middle/most frequent one. A shame I don't have a scanner. I'll use a pdf search engine.
zengirl Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 The NHANES data most common range was 5'5'-5'8'' but despite 5'6'' being most frequent of the most common heights they listed the average height as 5'5''' with the measurements 163 to 164 cm /64.2 to 64.6 inches. I actually consider that 5'4'' and I'm still wondering why the use the lowest number of the most common heights instead of the middle/most frequent one. A shame I don't have a scanner. I'll use a pdf search engine. It could be a matter of mean vs. mode. Generally, the most common "average" used is some version of the mean, but you seem to be looking at the mode in the median range, which is another type of average
udolipixie Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 It could be a matter of mean vs. mode. Generally, the most common "average" used is some version of the mean, but you seem to be looking at the mode in the median range, which is another type of average Hmm my bad then But then if the mean is NHANES 5'5'' why isn't that data used instead of this cycle of using old data ex: 2008 article from 2003 study that was based on 1899s 63.8 inches. Eh whatever still doesn't change my preferences
EnigmaticClarity Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 Eh whatever still doesn't change my preferences Maybe in a few weeks it will skew them upwards--if you're 1" to 2" above the average, then maybe you should be looking at 5' 11" or 6' as your minimum.
zengirl Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 Hmm my bad then But then if the mean is NHANES 5'5'' why isn't that data used instead of this cycle of using old data ex: 2008 article from 2003 study that was based on 1899s 63.8 inches. Eh whatever still doesn't change my preferences I don't think we're using stats from 1899! The stats at CDC.gov seem to come from the most recent NHANES study, though that's inconclusive (they may come from one version back of the same study). I'm not seeing these new numbers of yours at all, so hard to say. At oldest, the stats at CDC are from 2007. Still pretty recent in terms of such things.
udolipixie Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 Maybe in a few weeks it will skew them upwards--if you're 1" to 2" above the average, then maybe you should be looking at 5' 11" or 6' as your minimum. Hmm I do seem to be at an advantage here I can prefer taller guys with my relative to my height preference
udolipixie Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 I don't think we're using stats from 1899! The stats at CDC.gov seem to come from the most recent NHANES study, though that's inconclusive (they may come from one version back of the same study). I'm not seeing these new numbers of yours at all, so hard to say. At oldest, the stats at CDC are from 2007. Still pretty recent in terms of such things. My bad 1899 was suppose to be 1999. Check areas outside the CDC I found the CDC just cycles around old data. A 2008 article/study using data from 2003 a d that 2003's data was using 1999s data.
FinOuch Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 I'm curious as to how many people would make their own top 5 lists. I'm betting a majority wouldn't.
KathyM Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 I'm curious as to how many people would make their own top 5 lists. I'm betting a majority wouldn't. I think I would. I listed too short as a deal breaker. I'm 5'8" (considered the taller range of normal height). My husband is also 5'8", considered average height for a man. I listed overweight as a deal breaker. I'm normal weight. So is my husband. I listed dorky or nerdy as a deal breaker. Neither my husband nor I are those. Unpleasant facial features were a deal breaker for me. Both my husband and I have good facial features. I forgot what my fifth deal breaker was.
AmEricanWomann Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 Short...I'm between 5'6 and 5'7...So I prefer minimum 5'9. Nasty breath-bad teeth. They often go hand in hand, so I'm listing them together. Body Odor Skinny, frail. Fat stomach with no muscle tone. The only thing worse than skinny, is skinny/fat If a guy's big, strongly built and broad shouldered, I don't actually mind a few extra lbs, it makes him seem more teddy bearish, but one of those big ole pregnant bellies on otherwise little guy...no thank you.
KathyM Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 Oh, my fifth was bald or receding hairline. Both my husband and I have a full head of hair, so I can honestly say I'm not expecting my husband (or any theoretical man) to be something that I am not myself.
zengirl Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 My bad 1899 was suppose to be 1999. Check areas outside the CDC I found the CDC just cycles around old data. A 2008 article/study using data from 2003 a d that 2003's data was using 1999s data. But the CDC *HAS* the report you cited up in full on their site, and uses that report (each time it comes out) extensively. So, if the NHANES is what you're going from, the CDC data would likely be reflective of it, it seems. The CDC also lists the exact same stats that every reputable or major source lists. I would be interested to see what studies you're talking about, but the stats that were compiled by a reputable source and are considered average height in the U.S. --- by all major agencies --- are currently what I listed before. Be happy to read anything else, but make sure you're not taking one outlier study over the main organizations that do this, I'd say. FWIW, which isn't much, I'm 5'6'' (a "tall" 5'6'' so closing in on 5'7'') as well, and, while not tall, I'd say on an anecdotal sense, it's probably slightly above the mean in an average room of ladies. I've rarely met men shorter than me, so it's never been an issue. I'll date any guy who's taller than me (5'7'' and above), though the current BF is over 6 foot. Not sure how tall, but I don't wear heels and I definitely have to look a ways up. That's all irrelevant though. Preferences can be whatever you like, but for actual stats, we need stats!
Wolf18 Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 I'm short, got what looks like (but isn't) a receeding hairline, and have small hands. That's 3 out of 5 woman turn offs. There is always someone somewhere who finds every woman attractive no matter what she looks like, but it just feels like it's not true for men. Women tall, short, pretty and ugly, fat and slender, they all seem to be after the same guys. Guess I'm going to have to ask hundreds of women out, or dedicate my life to banging hookers. But I'm only 22, maybe if one day I can get a good job a woman will consider me .
udolipixie Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 I'm short, got what looks like (but isn't) a receeding hairline, and have small hands. That's 3 out of 5 woman turn offs. There is always someone somewhere who finds every woman attractive no matter what she looks like, but it just feels like it's not true for men. Women tall, short, pretty and ugly, fat and slender, they all seem to be after the same guys. Guess I'm going to have to ask hundreds of women out, or dedicate my life to banging hookers. But I'm only 22, maybe if one day I can get a good job a woman will consider me . Shirt = date a shorter girl. Receding hairline faux = shave it off & go for girls who like bald guys or find a better hairstyle Even if there is a guy who finds a certain type of woman attractive whose to say she'll ever meet him. It may not be true for guys because most girl's turnoffs aren't fixed given the right attraction the list usually goes out. The same usually isn't true for most men.
Mme. Chaucer Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 1) Extreme case of Neurofibromatosis. 2) Pendulous breasts 3) facial pussy lesions (as in "pus." Not "puss" y) 4) absolute necklessness 5) a stomach that requires its own transportation system separate from the man's legs. Of course, all of these can be overlooked if the guy has a great personality.
Wolf18 Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 Shirt = date a shorter girl.[/Quote] How do you do that when all the short girls still have a 5'9-5'10 cut off. I actually see more short girls with really tall guys (like 6'3-4) than I do average height women. Receding hairline faux = shave it off & go for girls who like bald guys or find a better hairstyle[/Quote] I look much better with hair, I just have a very marked V hairline that is deep at the corners. Have had it all my life, it runs in my family. Even if there is a guy who finds a certain type of woman attractive whose to say she'll ever meet him.[/Quote] I mean in your daily life. Even the ugly women I know have a bunch of guys dying to be with them. It may not be true for guys because most girl's turnoffs aren't fixed given the right attraction the list usually goes out. The same usually isn't true for most men. [/Quote] That is because the male list is don't be fat. And even if you are fat there are lots of guys out there who love "thick" women. How many women out there ever say a guy is short and mean it as a positive? Never heard that in my life. Most women aren't going to throw out some important parts of their list for anyone. If you're beneath the womans height requirement, in your case even if its by an inch, you have to be unrealistically amazing. It sucks that a mediocre and lame guy whose tall can get the same girl much easier than a guy whose handsome, interesting, brave, confident, yet 5'7.
udolipixie Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 How do you do that when all the short girls still have a 5'9-5'10 cut off. I actually see more short girls with really tall guys (like 6'3-4) than I do average height women. Then average height girls it is I look much better with hair, I just have a very marked V hairline that is deep at the corners. Have had it all my life, it runs in my family. Can't fix that but most girls will ignore that receding faux. I mean in your daily life. Even the ugly women I know have a bunch of guys dying to be with them. I assume you mean sex but how many are dying to have relationships or get married with these women. Even the short o luck guys here wouldn't date/marry a girl they're not attracted to. That is because the male list is don't be fat. And even if you are fat there are lots of guys out there who love "thick" women. How many women out there ever say a guy is short and mean it as a positive? Never heard that in my life. Actually it's usually don't be fat, no tattoos, and a decent face. Hair length occasionally added in. Most women aren't going to throw out some important parts of their list for anyone. If you're beneath the womans height requirement, in your case even if its by an inch, you have to be unrealistically amazing. It sucks that a mediocre and lame guy whose tall can get the same girl much easier than a guy whose handsome, interesting, brave, confident, yet 5'7. I find most women will throw out that list I just happen to be quite stringent on my list because I always find guys that fit my standards..my issue with guys is their bad credit and/or that they deluded themselves into having 'feelings' for me.
EnigmaticClarity Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 Most women aren't going to throw out some important parts of their list for anyone. If you're beneath the womans height requirement, in your case even if its by an inch, you have to be unrealistically amazing. It sucks that a mediocre and lame guy whose tall can get the same girl much easier than a guy whose handsome, interesting, brave, confident, yet 5'7. It's not often I hear men opine about how shallow women are about appearance...methinks you're only choosing to presume the grass is greener without taking much of a peek on the other side of the fence.
Nohbody Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 1) Perfume 2) Excessive Make-up 3) Appears to require more than 30 minutes in the morning to get ready to meet the day 4) Excessive accouterments 5) Lack of muscle tone
Disillusioned Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 Mean-spiritedness Looking like a fat teenage boy instead of like a more typical woman Selfishness Tattoos and/or loads of junk jewelry Lack of intelligence
Wolf18 Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 It's not often I hear men opine about how shallow women are about appearance...methinks you're only choosing to presume the grass is greener without taking much of a peek on the other side of the fence. Well I don't know if it is, but what I do know is that there are lots of imbeciles who laugh at their own farts, have no self-confidence, and are generally just jerkoffs, but they're tall and yet they have girlfriends. Yet there are also a lot of guys like me who have a lot more to offer who are just completely invisible.
Imageiko Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 Well I don't know if it is, but what I do know is that there are lots of imbeciles who laugh at their own farts, have no self-confidence, and are generally just jerkoffs, but they're tall and yet they have girlfriends. Yet there are also a lot of guys like me who have a lot more to offer who are just completely invisible. Don't stress about things you can't control. There are way too many women out there to worry about the ones that aren't interested in you! Work on yourself first. The more effort you put into improving yourself the more confidence you'll have and in turn the more women that'll be attracted to you. A confident guy who is short will always attract more women than somebody taller who has none.
Memphis Raines Posted September 1, 2011 Posted September 1, 2011 In no order, Being waifer thin I wholeheartedly agree here. While I don't find obese attractive, I prefer a woman with a healthy body to having a little extra weight over a woman that looks like a greyhound with the ribs sticking out. Plastic tits once again, I'd rather have a woman with a flat chest than fake boobs. I am attracted to all sorts of women, but if I had to add anything to this, I'd say one HUGE turn off are women with tramp stamps. no thanks.
Recommended Posts