somedude81 Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 I know glandular diseases are a lot less common than people think, but that's really not the point at all. You can plug in any characteristic that a person can't help and it invalidates your argument. You think it's wrong for people not to like someone on the basis of something that's uncontrollable. Well whether you like someone or not is uncontrollable too. You talk like being attracted to someone and having preferences is a conscious choice. How about someone with a facial deformity then? Their deformity isn't their fault, so you can't be dismissive of them, right? Well if you're not attracted to them for whatever reason, just make the choice to be attracted to them to prove me wrong. The point being that in a perfect world, we'd love to believe that everyone will be fair and consider everyone else's character first and foremost before anything superficial. But that isn't the way the world works. Attraction is irrational. If you are attracted to tall people, you can't help it and you aren't going to suddenly not be attracted to them after some short guys say "it isn't fair!" Well life isn't fair. It's harsh and you have to deal with the reality of it. If you think I'm wrong, then just change who you're attracted to and you'll be much more successful with women. I'm sure it's just that simple. Facial deformities, glandular diseases, you might as well throw in dwarfism and having a Siamese twin. All are such rare and extreme examples that all of them combined make up less than 1% of the population. What they all have in common is that they are much more extreme than a guy being a few inches shorter than average. Being short is such a minor thing that I find it a completely ridiculous reason to reject somebody, it's like turning down somebody because they have fat ankles. Link to post Share on other sites
normal person Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Facial deformities, glandular diseases, you might as well throw in dwarfism and having a Siamese twin. All are such rare and extreme examples that all of them combined make up less than 1% of the population. What they all have in common is that they are much more extreme than a guy being a few inches shorter than average. Being short is such a minor thing that I find it a completely ridiculous reason to reject somebody, it's like turning down somebody because they have fat ankles. I see what you're saying, but you're still missing the point. Regardless of what the factor is -- be it dwarfism, obesity, height, or fat ankles -- it doesn't matter. If a person is or isn't attracted to it, they can't help it. You're debating that it's stupid and superficial to discriminate against someone over a few inches. I actually agree with you, but that's not the point. The point is that it's whether or not it's shallow is totally irrelevant because people can't rationalize what they like and don't like. It's a physiological response. Look: I like thin, beautiful, smart, funny, blonde girls between 5'2" and 5'7". I know that not being attracted to girls who are slightly above average weight, not particularly clever, insightful, or good looking is shallow. I admit that. Maybe I'm shallow. I would love to be a guy who gave everyone a fair shot and didn't discriminate based on that stuff. I've tried it before and it didn't work. At the end of the day, there's a very specific type of girl that I'm biologically urged to pursue. To be crude, it's the one that gets my **** hard. It's not the other one. Yes, it's shallow but I can't help it. I can't rationalize it. It's not within my control. Just like the girl who has a height preference. And some peoples' preferences are more narrow than others. That's just how it is. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
organizedchaos Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 I have to ask this. Do you ever see a profile that you do not find fault with? Agreed. I've never seen someone b**** and moan more about women and OLD than the OP. Every day it's another thread, or two, or three... 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Author irc333 Posted March 3, 2014 Author Share Posted March 3, 2014 Thing is, I think some people CAN allow for some "wiggle room" in certain dating criteria, but don't want to. Just an example,, I like women with big boobs, however, I'd be willing to date A-cups...that's no biggie to me. Preferences are big boobs, but it doesn't have to be big boobs. But, there are some people that will ONLY date someone with big boobs and nothing smaller, which is severely limiting themselves, but under the right circumstances...which would not entail ONLINE dating most likely, they'd be willing to be flexible. I see what you're saying, but you're still missing the point. Regardless of what the factor is -- be it dwarfism, obesity, height, or fat ankles -- it doesn't matter. If a person is or isn't attracted to it, they can't help it. You're debating that it's stupid and superficial to discriminate against someone over a few inches. I actually agree with you, but that's not the point. The point is that it's whether or not it's shallow is totally irrelevant because people can't rationalize what they like and don't like. It's a physiological response. Look: I like thin, beautiful, smart, funny, blonde girls between 5'2" and 5'7". I know that not being attracted to girls who are slightly above average weight, not particularly clever, insightful, or good looking is shallow. I admit that. Maybe I'm shallow. I would love to be a guy who gave everyone a fair shot and didn't discriminate based on that stuff. I've tried it before and it didn't work. At the end of the day, there's a very specific type of girl that I'm biologically urged to pursue. To be crude, it's the one that gets my **** hard. It's not the other one. Yes, it's shallow but I can't help it. I can't rationalize it. It's not within my control. Just like the girl who has a height preference. And some peoples' preferences are more narrow than others. That's just how it is. Link to post Share on other sites
HopelessRomantic76 Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Its our classy way of saying we find short men unattractive 1 Link to post Share on other sites
William Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 On the one hand, our guidelines allow for unique legitimate topics of discussion to be posted without limitation, as long as they relate to interpersonal relationships (except the off-topic forum) and otherwise conform to our guidelines. On the other hand, telling posters publicly what or what not to post or offering characterizations of their posting habits is a violation of our guidelines. However, discussing such issues privately is permitted. So, where would you all like this to go? Link to post Share on other sites
Woggle Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 People have the right to whatever criteria they want. Just avoid these types. I am nearly six feet and I would avoid them because that kind of mentality would not be compatible with me even though she would probably date me. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
normal person Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Thing is, I think some people CAN allow for some "wiggle room" in certain dating criteria, but don't want to. Just an example,, I like women with big boobs, however, I'd be willing to date A-cups...that's no biggie to me. Preferences are big boobs, but it doesn't have to be big boobs. But, there are some people that will ONLY date someone with big boobs and nothing smaller, which is severely limiting themselves, but under the right circumstances...which would not entail ONLINE dating most likely, they'd be willing to be flexible. You're right, people can have wiggle room. The thing is, they're not going to compromise their ultimate desire on something if they don't have to, so they might as well take the chance and say what they want outright. It's their gamble to make. If there criteria is in fact too restrictive, they're only hurting themselves, not anyone else. That's why I don't get why people are so up in arms about people having personal preferences. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
organizedchaos Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 On the one hand, our guidelines allow for unique legitimate topics of discussion to be posted without limitation, as long as they relate to interpersonal relationships (except the off-topic forum) and otherwise conform to our guidelines. On the other hand, telling posters publicly what or what not to post or offering characterizations of their posting habits is a violation of our guidelines. However, discussing such issues privately is permitted. So, where would you all like this to go? My bad. Won't go down that road again, publicly. Link to post Share on other sites
Author irc333 Posted March 3, 2014 Author Share Posted March 3, 2014 Right, and as a result, you see the same woman on a dating site for years never to have taken it off. Quite a few of those that I had already emailed and live within minutes that could have at least given it a shot for a quite lunch or drink meet....but they'd rather hold out for PERFECT man before discovering that face-to-face. You're right, people can have wiggle room. The thing is, they're not going to compromise their ultimate desire on something if they don't have to, so they might as well take the chance and say what they want outright. It's their gamble to make. If there criteria is in fact too restrictive, they're only hurting themselves, not anyone else. That's why I don't get why people are so up in arms about people having personal preferences. Link to post Share on other sites
iris219 Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Thing is, I think some people CAN allow for some "wiggle room" in certain dating criteria, but don't want to. Just an example,, I like women with big boobs, however, I'd be willing to date A-cups...that's no biggie to me. Preferences are big boobs, but it doesn't have to be big boobs. But, there are some people that will ONLY date someone with big boobs and nothing smaller, which is severely limiting themselves, but under the right circumstances...which would not entail ONLINE dating most likely, they'd be willing to be flexible. If I had A cups, I wouldn't want a man who prefers big boobs to date me. It's much worse to settle for less than you want at the expense of another's feelings than to clearly state your preferences. I do not want a man to settle for me. That's why it's a good thing when people are clear about what they want. Why would you want to date a woman who would prefer a taller man? Putting the height with heels requirement saves everyone time and energy. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
AD1980 Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 If I had A cups, I wouldn't want a man who prefers big boobs to date me. It's much worse to settle for less than you want at the expense of another's feelings than to clearly state your preferences. I do not want a man to settle for me. That's why it's a good thing when people are clear about what they want. Why would you want to date a woman who would prefer a taller man? Putting the height with heels requirement saves everyone time and energy. But very few if any womens ideal is a short man some women just dont care about height as much as others so by your theory short men should just go single then Its foolish to think everyones with their ideal person physically but it doesnt mean they arent in love Link to post Share on other sites
iris219 Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 But no womens ideal is a short man some women just dont care about height as much as others so by your theory short men should just go single then Its foolish to think everyones with their ideal person physically but it doesnt mean they arent in love I'd say the number of men who prefer tiny breasts is equal to or less than the number of women who prefer short men. Link to post Share on other sites
AD1980 Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 I'd say the number of men who prefer tiny breasts is equal to or less than the number of women who prefer short men. not at all i dont see articles about how a huge percent of men reject women with a or b cups online but theyres online studies theyve done that says that about short men Id say a short man is the equivalent of a fat or obese women Link to post Share on other sites
hasaquestion Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Thing is, I think some people CAN allow for some "wiggle room" in certain dating criteria, but don't want to. Just an example,, I like women with big boobs, however, I'd be willing to date A-cups...that's no biggie to me. Preferences are big boobs, but it doesn't have to be big boobs. But, there are some people that will ONLY date someone with big boobs and nothing smaller, which is severely limiting themselves, but under the right circumstances...which would not entail ONLINE dating most likely, they'd be willing to be flexible. So let me pose to you a question - you are presented with two women. All else equal, except one has a great rack and the other one is flat. Both are interested in you. Who do you choose? The nice rack 10/10 times. What you are describing as "willing to date women with small boobs" isn't compromise. It is adjusting your expectations to account for other factors. Likewise, if the woman who wants someone who's taller than her in heels has to adjust her expectations, she'll do so. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
hasaquestion Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) I'm going to point out that I got my first GF at 31, and I bet that there are very few fat girls out there that took nearly as long to get their first BF. Yeah but that's not because you are short. 5'8" is average. The average person is not single. Other than a vague correlation being 5'8" does not condemn you to loveless purgatory or something. Edited March 3, 2014 by hasaquestion 1 Link to post Share on other sites
pteromom Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Right, and as a result, you see the same woman on a dating site for years never to have taken it off. Quite a few of those that I had already emailed and live within minutes that could have at least given it a shot for a quite lunch or drink meet....but they'd rather hold out for PERFECT man before discovering that face-to-face. Some people are perfectly happy being single unless they find exactly what they want. 3 Link to post Share on other sites
pteromom Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Being short is such a minor thing that I find it a completely ridiculous reason to reject somebody, it's like turning down somebody because they have fat ankles. And if someone finds it difficult to be attracted to someone with fat ankles, they should NOT date them. What's the point in giving someone a chance if you find them unattractive? 3 Link to post Share on other sites
Author irc333 Posted March 3, 2014 Author Share Posted March 3, 2014 If I had A cups, I wouldn't want a man who prefers big boobs to date me. It's much worse to settle for less than you want at the expense of another's feelings than to clearly state your preferences. I do not want a man to settle for me. That's why it's a good thing when people are clear about what they want. Why would you want to date a woman who would prefer a taller man? Putting the height with heels requirement saves everyone time and energy. Not sure where you got the idea where a man is "settling" for you if you just so happen to have smaller boobs. Sounds like you're seeing this as a glass half empty situation. I'll date all kind of varying boob-sized....like I said it's just a "preference" not a requirement...BIG difference. To think a guy just "Settled' for you, is quite absurd. Link to post Share on other sites
hasaquestion Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Not sure where you got the idea where a man is "settling" for you if you just so happen to have smaller boobs. Sounds like you're seeing this as a glass half empty situation. I'll date all kind of varying boob-sized....like I said it's just a "preference" not a requirement...BIG difference. To think a guy just "Settled' for you, is quite absurd. But the thing is, there's no real difference between a preference and a requirement. A preference is just a requirement you know you can't have, and are therefore willing to be flexible about. If this woman who won't date a man shorter than her struggles to meet her criteria, after a period of failure, she will make that just a "preference" as well. The market dictate her expectations. Just like you have wisely realized that you're losing out on potential matches by having a hard and fast rule about rack size. No need to call her unreasonable. She's trying to get what she wants. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
somedude81 Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Yeah but that's not because you are short. 5'8" is average. The average person is not single. Other than a vague correlation being 5'8" does not condemn you to loveless purgatory or something. I'm almost 5'6. Average is ~5'9.5 My height has most certainly not helped me in dating, and I am very certain that it has contributed negatively to my physical attractiveness. Link to post Share on other sites
MissBee Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 (edited) Saw this profile of an "addendum" of a woman...she added 3 things where...if you're NOT 3 of those things, don't email her. For one, the obvious...if you're looking for a booty call 2nd, "Don't call me 'honey', or 'hottie'". 3rd...."I wear heels, (shes only 5'4") and if I'm taller than you in heels, sorry, but it won't work". Now, wouldn't you say it's asking too much if a woman is only 5'4", but if she's wearing 4" heels, she's 5'8"? I sent off my email to her, just to see if she even responds by asking her, "So how tall ARE you in heels, if you wore them, would you be taller than me even though your'e only ...realistically...5'4"?" Is it pretty superficial to include your heels along with your height as your standards in dating? In short, she wants a man taller than her in and out of heels. I would never put that up as a dating requirement, but I do prefer a man who is taller than I am whether I'm barefooted or in heels (I'm also 5'4 myself). Most men I've dated have been taller than me whether or not I was in heels. It is a bit superficial but also one is allowed to have preferences and you can choose to alter them or not if you find that it's hindering you in finding meaningful relationships. Edited March 4, 2014 by MissBee 1 Link to post Share on other sites
organizedchaos Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Girl I just started dating is an inch shorter than me without heels. So when we go out she's taller than me. Doesn't bother either one of us. So it's not an issue with all women. Link to post Share on other sites
MissBee Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Why do men (ok, 1 man) read one online post from 1 woman and then instantly generalize that behavior to all women? Always! I'm like come on dude, if one woman does something ask her why and don't simply turn her actions/preferences/opinions into "why do WOMEN do this" when it wasn't "women" doing it as a group but one woman... 4 Link to post Share on other sites
somedude81 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Always! I'm like come on dude, if one woman does something ask her why and don't simply turn her actions/preferences/opinions into "why do WOMEN do this" when it wasn't "women" doing it as a group but one woman... Hmm, I just came to a realization. Thinking that this was a common topic I did a search of other threads about height and heels. While there were a few other threads, they were all started by irc333.... 6 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts