Yep, this has always bothered me as well. Weight is much easier to control, but I get a lot of hate if I say I want someone to be fit. However, it's perfectly acceptable for women to say they won't date a man under a specified height. Why the double standard? Either we all have physical preferences and that is alright or we are scum if we won't date someone that doesn't meet a particular physical standard. Why would it be one way for men and different for women?
"Fit" as in performance level is something different than weight, but I think both could be legitimate preferences for a mate -- either for men or women. Is someone arguing that women should have the option to screen partners for height and weight, but men shouldn't? Or that nobody should be screening for weight? I'm trying to understand where the double standard comes in between men and women, because women are absolutely screening for weight in partners, both online and in real life situations.
The double standard is when women argue it is ok to screen based on height, but that men are not supposed to screen based on weight. I see this more often than not.
ETA: On another site, a conversation about this came down to that weight is not something people can control, but that men can become taller with cosmetic surgery. Most everyone involved in the conversation agreed with that perspective.
On the first page of this thread it was covered that people (men and women) routinely screen for fitness. I think you are creating a strawman that does not exist in reality. Bluntly, fat chicks are screened out by those not into fat chicks. This is not controversial. As a former fat chick, I expected men to not be interested. No one has ever said that men must date fat chicks.
I think you've missed something. My experience is that women screen for height and it is considered to be acceptable, but that it is not considered to be acceptable for men to screen based on weight. Nobody is arguing that weight is not used for screening (by either gender), I'm just sharing my experience that we (men) are looked down upon when we won't date obese women. And that those same people who chastise men for refusing to date obese women have no objection to women who refuse to date short men. Again this is my experience. Not everyone has the same experiences and that is perfectly normal.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
Do some men screen women based on their size? Yes. Do some women screen men based on their size? Yes. It happens in both genders.
If you want to look at comparable unfair bias, then you need to compare men screening on height vs women screening on height.
Otherwise you might as well compare height vs intelligence, or size vs hair color.
In my opinion... People have preferences. Period. If they choose to exclude someone based on not meeting their criteria, then it's their loss if that person is a perfect match in every other way.
Yes, as noted above, it's completely common to say only fit or thin people only.
I think it's because of the differences in getting to know someone first and then dating them vs. meeting to date without knowing the person as a person. Of course you tend to focus on the more superficial things more than if you know you already like someone.
And if something truly is a deal-breaker, it's good to let people know upfront and not have them waste their time.
As noted, the first page is on point. I'm quoting myself but many others had similar comments.
The idea that men can't or don't reject fat women is bizarre, IMO. Of course they do and of course it's fine if they do.
It seems I'm still not explaining my point clearly as there is still misunderstanding, so I'll try yet again...
We all have preferences about physical appearance and I am of the opinion that this is acceptable. Many others disagree with me on specific factors. Examples:
1. Men are often shamed for considering weight. Specifically, those people often cite that weight is not something women can control and believe it is unfair.
2. Women often have a minimum height consideration. Many of the same people (both genders) who believe it us unfair for men to look at weight based on their belief that weight cannot be controlled will argue that it is acceptable for women to screen based on height.
In some cases, those people go as far as to argue that men can control our height as a justification. These are the same people who believe women are unable to control weight.
It is my opinion that this is a double standard. While I believe it is perfectly acceptable to screen based on weight and height, I disagree with those who say it is acceptable to ONLY screen based on height, but that it is not acceptable to screen on weight.
How . . . how are you expected to control your height?!?
Yep, this has always bothered me as well. Weight is much easier to control, but I get a lot of hate if I say I want someone to be fit. However, it's perfectly acceptable for women to say they won't date a man under a specified height. Why the double standard? Either we all have physical preferences and that is alright or we are scum if we won't date someone that doesn't meet a particular physical standard. Why would it be one way for men and different for women?
"Fit" as in performance level is something different than weight, but I think both could be legitimate preferences for a mate -- either for men or women. Is someone arguing that women should have the option to screen partners for height and weight, but men shouldn't? Or that nobody should be screening for weight? I'm trying to understand where the double standard comes in between men and women, because women are absolutely screening for weight in partners, both online and in real life situations.
The double standard is when women argue it is ok to screen based on height, but that men are not supposed to screen based on weight. I see this more often than not.
ETA: On another site, a conversation about this came down to that weight is not something people can control, but that men can become taller with cosmetic surgery. Most everyone involved in the conversation agreed with that perspective.
On the first page of this thread it was covered that people (men and women) routinely screen for fitness. I think you are creating a strawman that does not exist in reality. Bluntly, fat chicks are screened out by those not into fat chicks. This is not controversial. As a former fat chick, I expected men to not be interested. No one has ever said that men must date fat chicks.
I think you've missed something. My experience is that women screen for height and it is considered to be acceptable, but that it is not considered to be acceptable for men to screen based on weight. Nobody is arguing that weight is not used for screening (by either gender), I'm just sharing my experience that we (men) are looked down upon when we won't date obese women. And that those same people who chastise men for refusing to date obese women have no objection to women who refuse to date short men. Again this is my experience. Not everyone has the same experiences and that is perfectly normal.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
Do some men screen women based on their size? Yes. Do some women screen men based on their size? Yes. It happens in both genders.
If you want to look at comparable unfair bias, then you need to compare men screening on height vs women screening on height.
Otherwise you might as well compare height vs intelligence, or size vs hair color.
In my opinion... People have preferences. Period. If they choose to exclude someone based on not meeting their criteria, then it's their loss if that person is a perfect match in every other way.
Yes, as noted above, it's completely common to say only fit or thin people only.
I think it's because of the differences in getting to know someone first and then dating them vs. meeting to date without knowing the person as a person. Of course you tend to focus on the more superficial things more than if you know you already like someone.
And if something truly is a deal-breaker, it's good to let people know upfront and not have them waste their time.
As noted, the first page is on point. I'm quoting myself but many others had similar comments.
The idea that men can't or don't reject fat women is bizarre, IMO. Of course they do and of course it's fine if they do.
It seems I'm still not explaining my point clearly as there is still misunderstanding, so I'll try yet again...
We all have preferences about physical appearance and I am of the opinion that this is acceptable. Many others disagree with me on specific factors. Examples:
1. Men are often shamed for considering weight. Specifically, those people often cite that weight is not something women can control and believe it is unfair.
2. Women often have a minimum height consideration. Many of the same people (both genders) who believe it us unfair for men to look at weight based on their belief that weight cannot be controlled will argue that it is acceptable for women to screen based on height.
In some cases, those people go as far as to argue that men can control our height as a justification. These are the same people who believe women are unable to control weight.
It is my opinion that this is a double standard. While I believe it is perfectly acceptable to screen based on weight and height, I disagree with those who say it is acceptable to ONLY screen based on height, but that it is not acceptable to screen on weight.
How does one control height? How does a man become taller? I know many a man who wishes they had this super power.
Also, I don't know of anyone who claims that incongruent double standard is legit. So I'm stymied on this whole thing.
@T1DCarnivoreRunner If anyone ever said those kind of things to me I would never listen seriously to anything else they said.
To be fair, I've never had that discussion ever with anyone because it's silly. Where are you finding "those people?" That's not even a little bit rational.
Yep, this has always bothered me as well. Weight is much easier to control, but I get a lot of hate if I say I want someone to be fit. However, it's perfectly acceptable for women to say they won't date a man under a specified height. Why the double standard? Either we all have physical preferences and that is alright or we are scum if we won't date someone that doesn't meet a particular physical standard. Why would it be one way for men and different for women?
"Fit" as in performance level is something different than weight, but I think both could be legitimate preferences for a mate -- either for men or women. Is someone arguing that women should have the option to screen partners for height and weight, but men shouldn't? Or that nobody should be screening for weight? I'm trying to understand where the double standard comes in between men and women, because women are absolutely screening for weight in partners, both online and in real life situations.
The double standard is when women argue it is ok to screen based on height, but that men are not supposed to screen based on weight. I see this more often than not.
ETA: On another site, a conversation about this came down to that weight is not something people can control, but that men can become taller with cosmetic surgery. Most everyone involved in the conversation agreed with that perspective.
On the first page of this thread it was covered that people (men and women) routinely screen for fitness. I think you are creating a strawman that does not exist in reality. Bluntly, fat chicks are screened out by those not into fat chicks. This is not controversial. As a former fat chick, I expected men to not be interested. No one has ever said that men must date fat chicks.
I think you've missed something. My experience is that women screen for height and it is considered to be acceptable, but that it is not considered to be acceptable for men to screen based on weight. Nobody is arguing that weight is not used for screening (by either gender), I'm just sharing my experience that we (men) are looked down upon when we won't date obese women. And that those same people who chastise men for refusing to date obese women have no objection to women who refuse to date short men. Again this is my experience. Not everyone has the same experiences and that is perfectly normal.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
Do some men screen women based on their size? Yes. Do some women screen men based on their size? Yes. It happens in both genders.
If you want to look at comparable unfair bias, then you need to compare men screening on height vs women screening on height.
Otherwise you might as well compare height vs intelligence, or size vs hair color.
In my opinion... People have preferences. Period. If they choose to exclude someone based on not meeting their criteria, then it's their loss if that person is a perfect match in every other way.
Yes, as noted above, it's completely common to say only fit or thin people only.
I think it's because of the differences in getting to know someone first and then dating them vs. meeting to date without knowing the person as a person. Of course you tend to focus on the more superficial things more than if you know you already like someone.
And if something truly is a deal-breaker, it's good to let people know upfront and not have them waste their time.
As noted, the first page is on point. I'm quoting myself but many others had similar comments.
The idea that men can't or don't reject fat women is bizarre, IMO. Of course they do and of course it's fine if they do.
It seems I'm still not explaining my point clearly as there is still misunderstanding, so I'll try yet again...
We all have preferences about physical appearance and I am of the opinion that this is acceptable. Many others disagree with me on specific factors. Examples:
1. Men are often shamed for considering weight. Specifically, those people often cite that weight is not something women can control and believe it is unfair.
2. Women often have a minimum height consideration. Many of the same people (both genders) who believe it us unfair for men to look at weight based on their belief that weight cannot be controlled will argue that it is acceptable for women to screen based on height.
In some cases, those people go as far as to argue that men can control our height as a justification. These are the same people who believe women are unable to control weight.
It is my opinion that this is a double standard. While I believe it is perfectly acceptable to screen based on weight and height, I disagree with those who say it is acceptable to ONLY screen based on height, but that it is not acceptable to screen on weight.
How does one control height? How does a man become taller? I know many a man who wishes they had this super power.
Also, I don't know of anyone who claims that incongruent double standard is legit. So I'm stymied on this whole thing.
I truly believe that the vast majority of women are genetically programmed to not date men shorter than them. The proportion of male/female couples where the man is shorter than the woman is so small, much smaller than if random mixing occurred. Which begs the inevitable question: how do lesbians cope? Anyway, I happened to read a paper and it says that gay men prefer a partner who is slightly taller than them.
I have no idea why we're going with the idea that women are "genetically programmed" (yuck, by the way!) here. Why isn't it that men are "genetically programmed" to be attracted to women who are shorter than them?
If the relevant data you have on height preferences involves gay men, this would tend to support the thesis that MALE desires that are potentially relevant here too. Given that only one man can be taller than the other in a gay relationship, why aren't you wondering how they're coping instead of lesbians given that there is no data that lesbians even HAVE height preferences (which kind of knocks the women are "genetically programmed" theory into the water).
I think there might be something to that notion, although I'd say "biologically predisposed" over genetically programmed.
I remember reading something (long ago) about studies showing men seemed hardwired to subconsciously judge female attractiveness based on waist-hip ratio, which had something to do with indicating childbearing potential. Women likely have similar wiring to select mates for height, which should produce taller offspring, probably with higher chance of survival.
So there's biological programming in both sexes, just for different criteria. Both based on reproduction, however. Survival of the species and all that.
I have less objection to the idea that people are generally predisposed to prefer certain traits (with a wide latitude for normal human variations) than the statement that women are somehow "genetically programmed." It just sounds very demeaning.
There has to be an evolutionary advantage for people getting taller. Why would an species decide to create more animals that require more calories to survive. So, I assert that there could be a sexual preference in women for taller men. Life is turning calories into kids.
** edit** I read your post wrong and had to correct myself.
I think part of the problem in this branch of the thread is the use of terms that imply or that some people are going to understand as implying a deliberate effort on the part of an intelligent actor controlling human beings (like "genetically programmed" and a species "deciding" to create more animals that require more calories to survive), rather than sticking to terms like "evolutionary advantage" or a common or dominant genetic trait). This seems to be bothering some people, especially when those terms are being used in a way that seem to them to suggest that women but not men are subject to the control of this "genetic programming."
That's not my problem with it. It's just my observation in reading the various posts.
Words are words. People can get their underroos in a bunch or not.
This is not a feminist debate. I'm not getting into that one. I did state that males have selection bias... Are those words acceptable to the court?🤔
I truly believe that the vast majority of women are genetically programmed to not date men shorter than them. The proportion of male/female couples where the man is shorter than the woman is so small, much smaller than if random mixing occurred. Which begs the inevitable question: how do lesbians cope? Anyway, I happened to read a paper and it says that gay men prefer a partner who is slightly taller than them.
I have no idea why we're going with the idea that women are "genetically programmed" (yuck, by the way!) here. Why isn't it that men are "genetically programmed" to be attracted to women who are shorter than them?
If the relevant data you have on height preferences involves gay men, this would tend to support the thesis that MALE desires that are potentially relevant here too. Given that only one man can be taller than the other in a gay relationship, why aren't you wondering how they're coping instead of lesbians given that there is no data that lesbians even HAVE height preferences (which kind of knocks the women are "genetically programmed" theory into the water).
I think there might be something to that notion, although I'd say "biologically predisposed" over genetically programmed.
I remember reading something (long ago) about studies showing men seemed hardwired to subconsciously judge female attractiveness based on waist-hip ratio, which had something to do with indicating childbearing potential. Women likely have similar wiring to select mates for height, which should produce taller offspring, probably with higher chance of survival.
So there's biological programming in both sexes, just for different criteria. Both based on reproduction, however. Survival of the species and all that.
I have less objection to the idea that people are generally predisposed to prefer certain traits (with a wide latitude for normal human variations) than the statement that women are somehow "genetically programmed." It just sounds very demeaning.
There has to be an evolutionary advantage for people getting taller. Why would an species decide to create more animals that require more calories to survive. So, I assert that there could be a sexual preference in women for taller men. Life is turning calories into kids.
** edit** I read your post wrong and had to correct myself.
I think part of the problem in this branch of the thread is the use of terms that imply or that some people are going to understand as implying a deliberate effort on the part of an intelligent actor controlling human beings (like "genetically programmed" and a species "deciding" to create more animals that require more calories to survive), rather than sticking to terms like "evolutionary advantage" or a common or dominant genetic trait). This seems to be bothering some people, especially when those terms are being used in a way that seem to them to suggest that women but not men are subject to the control of this "genetic programming."
That's not my problem with it. It's just my observation in reading the various posts.
Words are words. People can get their underroos in a bunch or not.
This is not a feminist debate. I'm not getting into that one. I did state that males have selection bias... Are those words acceptable to the court?🤔
Word choice is meaningful, especially in a debate. I don't think you can really discuss whether or not women are *uniquely* vulnerable to "genetic programming" without wandering into issues of agency and whether or not women are fully human.
Whether or not *you're* arguing that women are vulnerable to this "programming" while men are more rational, the wording of the original statement certainly could be interpreted that way, which is what I was objecting to.
I truly believe that the vast majority of women are genetically programmed to not date men shorter than them. The proportion of male/female couples where the man is shorter than the woman is so small, much smaller than if random mixing occurred. Which begs the inevitable question: how do lesbians cope? Anyway, I happened to read a paper and it says that gay men prefer a partner who is slightly taller than them.
I have no idea why we're going with the idea that women are "genetically programmed" (yuck, by the way!) here. Why isn't it that men are "genetically programmed" to be attracted to women who are shorter than them?
If the relevant data you have on height preferences involves gay men, this would tend to support the thesis that MALE desires that are potentially relevant here too. Given that only one man can be taller than the other in a gay relationship, why aren't you wondering how they're coping instead of lesbians given that there is no data that lesbians even HAVE height preferences (which kind of knocks the women are "genetically programmed" theory into the water).
I think there might be something to that notion, although I'd say "biologically predisposed" over genetically programmed.
I remember reading something (long ago) about studies showing men seemed hardwired to subconsciously judge female attractiveness based on waist-hip ratio, which had something to do with indicating childbearing potential. Women likely have similar wiring to select mates for height, which should produce taller offspring, probably with higher chance of survival.
So there's biological programming in both sexes, just for different criteria. Both based on reproduction, however. Survival of the species and all that.
I have less objection to the idea that people are generally predisposed to prefer certain traits (with a wide latitude for normal human variations) than the statement that women are somehow "genetically programmed." It just sounds very demeaning.
There has to be an evolutionary advantage for people getting taller. Why would an species decide to create more animals that require more calories to survive. So, I assert that there could be a sexual preference in women for taller men. Life is turning calories into kids.
** edit** I read your post wrong and had to correct myself.
I think part of the problem in this branch of the thread is the use of terms that imply or that some people are going to understand as implying a deliberate effort on the part of an intelligent actor controlling human beings (like "genetically programmed" and a species "deciding" to create more animals that require more calories to survive), rather than sticking to terms like "evolutionary advantage" or a common or dominant genetic trait). This seems to be bothering some people, especially when those terms are being used in a way that seem to them to suggest that women but not men are subject to the control of this "genetic programming."
That's not my problem with it. It's just my observation in reading the various posts.
Words are words. People can get their underroos in a bunch or not.
This is not a feminist debate. I'm not getting into that one. I did state that males have selection bias... Are those words acceptable to the court?🤔
Word choice is meaningful, especially in a debate. I don't think you can really discuss whether or not women are *uniquely* vulnerable to "genetic programming" without wandering into issues of agency and whether or not women are fully human.
Whether or not *you're* arguing that women are vulnerable to this "programming" while men are more rational, the wording of the original statement certainly could be interpreted that way, which is what I was objecting to.
No matter what "words" I use, I am going to offend someone. If you are Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, odensist, atheist, believe that Zendu the extraterrestrial dropped us off from the mothership... all have different creation ideas or evolutionary ideas... so, I dont really care if it offends someone with words like "decided" or programmed.
One question. Would you agree that the brain is a super computer of sorts?
I truly believe that the vast majority of women are genetically programmed to not date men shorter than them. The proportion of male/female couples where the man is shorter than the woman is so small, much smaller than if random mixing occurred. Which begs the inevitable question: how do lesbians cope? Anyway, I happened to read a paper and it says that gay men prefer a partner who is slightly taller than them.
I have no idea why we're going with the idea that women are "genetically programmed" (yuck, by the way!) here. Why isn't it that men are "genetically programmed" to be attracted to women who are shorter than them?
If the relevant data you have on height preferences involves gay men, this would tend to support the thesis that MALE desires that are potentially relevant here too. Given that only one man can be taller than the other in a gay relationship, why aren't you wondering how they're coping instead of lesbians given that there is no data that lesbians even HAVE height preferences (which kind of knocks the women are "genetically programmed" theory into the water).
I think there might be something to that notion, although I'd say "biologically predisposed" over genetically programmed.
I remember reading something (long ago) about studies showing men seemed hardwired to subconsciously judge female attractiveness based on waist-hip ratio, which had something to do with indicating childbearing potential. Women likely have similar wiring to select mates for height, which should produce taller offspring, probably with higher chance of survival.
So there's biological programming in both sexes, just for different criteria. Both based on reproduction, however. Survival of the species and all that.
I have less objection to the idea that people are generally predisposed to prefer certain traits (with a wide latitude for normal human variations) than the statement that women are somehow "genetically programmed." It just sounds very demeaning.
There has to be an evolutionary advantage for people getting taller. Why would an species decide to create more animals that require more calories to survive. So, I assert that there could be a sexual preference in women for taller men. Life is turning calories into kids.
** edit** I read your post wrong and had to correct myself.
I think part of the problem in this branch of the thread is the use of terms that imply or that some people are going to understand as implying a deliberate effort on the part of an intelligent actor controlling human beings (like "genetically programmed" and a species "deciding" to create more animals that require more calories to survive), rather than sticking to terms like "evolutionary advantage" or a common or dominant genetic trait). This seems to be bothering some people, especially when those terms are being used in a way that seem to them to suggest that women but not men are subject to the control of this "genetic programming."
That's not my problem with it. It's just my observation in reading the various posts.
Words are words. People can get their underroos in a bunch or not.
This is not a feminist debate. I'm not getting into that one. I did state that males have selection bias... Are those words acceptable to the court?🤔
Word choice is meaningful, especially in a debate. I don't think you can really discuss whether or not women are *uniquely* vulnerable to "genetic programming" without wandering into issues of agency and whether or not women are fully human.
Whether or not *you're* arguing that women are vulnerable to this "programming" while men are more rational, the wording of the original statement certainly could be interpreted that way, which is what I was objecting to.
I could care less of how anyone interprets my words. I am going to offend someone. Whether you are Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Jewish, pagan, atheist, believe that Zendu dropped us off from the mothership. All have different beliefs or opinions on how we got here.
One question... would you agree that the brain is a giant supercomputer of sorts?
I truly believe that the vast majority of women are genetically programmed to not date men shorter than them. The proportion of male/female couples where the man is shorter than the woman is so small, much smaller than if random mixing occurred. Which begs the inevitable question: how do lesbians cope? Anyway, I happened to read a paper and it says that gay men prefer a partner who is slightly taller than them.
I have no idea why we're going with the idea that women are "genetically programmed" (yuck, by the way!) here. Why isn't it that men are "genetically programmed" to be attracted to women who are shorter than them?
If the relevant data you have on height preferences involves gay men, this would tend to support the thesis that MALE desires that are potentially relevant here too. Given that only one man can be taller than the other in a gay relationship, why aren't you wondering how they're coping instead of lesbians given that there is no data that lesbians even HAVE height preferences (which kind of knocks the women are "genetically programmed" theory into the water).
I think there might be something to that notion, although I'd say "biologically predisposed" over genetically programmed.
I remember reading something (long ago) about studies showing men seemed hardwired to subconsciously judge female attractiveness based on waist-hip ratio, which had something to do with indicating childbearing potential. Women likely have similar wiring to select mates for height, which should produce taller offspring, probably with higher chance of survival.
So there's biological programming in both sexes, just for different criteria. Both based on reproduction, however. Survival of the species and all that.
I have less objection to the idea that people are generally predisposed to prefer certain traits (with a wide latitude for normal human variations) than the statement that women are somehow "genetically programmed." It just sounds very demeaning.
There has to be an evolutionary advantage for people getting taller. Why would an species decide to create more animals that require more calories to survive. So, I assert that there could be a sexual preference in women for taller men. Life is turning calories into kids.
** edit** I read your post wrong and had to correct myself.
I think part of the problem in this branch of the thread is the use of terms that imply or that some people are going to understand as implying a deliberate effort on the part of an intelligent actor controlling human beings (like "genetically programmed" and a species "deciding" to create more animals that require more calories to survive), rather than sticking to terms like "evolutionary advantage" or a common or dominant genetic trait). This seems to be bothering some people, especially when those terms are being used in a way that seem to them to suggest that women but not men are subject to the control of this "genetic programming."
That's not my problem with it. It's just my observation in reading the various posts.
Words are words. People can get their underroos in a bunch or not.
This is not a feminist debate. I'm not getting into that one. I did state that males have selection bias... Are those words acceptable to the court?🤔
Word choice is meaningful, especially in a debate. I don't think you can really discuss whether or not women are *uniquely* vulnerable to "genetic programming" without wandering into issues of agency and whether or not women are fully human.
Whether or not *you're* arguing that women are vulnerable to this "programming" while men are more rational, the wording of the original statement certainly could be interpreted that way, which is what I was objecting to.
No matter what "words" I use, I am going to offend someone. If you are Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, odensist, atheist, believe that Zendu the extraterrestrial dropped us off from the mothership... all have different creation ideas or evolutionary ideas... so, I dont really care if it offends someone with words like "decided" or programmed.
One question. Would you agree that the brain is a super computer of sorts?
Let me be clear: I'm not offended. I am well aware that many men consider women to be less logical or less capable of rationality than men, I am simply unwilling to spend my life being upset about it.
If individual men choose to believe that women are "programmed" or at the mercy of evolutionary impulses in a way that men are not, that's their loss and their limitation -- it's not mine.
I think there's a big difference between the general position "I know my words could offend somebody out there" and responding to someone who is telling you, real time, the objections that they have to your words (or the words of someone else that you're defending). I'm not some abstract person who thinks we've been dropped off from a mothership (???), I'm a real person telling you that the concept that women are "genetically programmed" to choose tall men is potentially demeaning, depending on the extent to which it implies that women are uniquely driven to choose mates by virtue of said programming.
In some ways the brain could be considered a "super computer," as it is a organ with huge computing capacity. But in the sense of it being "programmed" or controlled by some sort of external force, no.
I truly believe that the vast majority of women are genetically programmed to not date men shorter than them. The proportion of male/female couples where the man is shorter than the woman is so small, much smaller than if random mixing occurred. Which begs the inevitable question: how do lesbians cope? Anyway, I happened to read a paper and it says that gay men prefer a partner who is slightly taller than them.
I have no idea why we're going with the idea that women are "genetically programmed" (yuck, by the way!) here. Why isn't it that men are "genetically programmed" to be attracted to women who are shorter than them?
If the relevant data you have on height preferences involves gay men, this would tend to support the thesis that MALE desires that are potentially relevant here too. Given that only one man can be taller than the other in a gay relationship, why aren't you wondering how they're coping instead of lesbians given that there is no data that lesbians even HAVE height preferences (which kind of knocks the women are "genetically programmed" theory into the water).
I think there might be something to that notion, although I'd say "biologically predisposed" over genetically programmed.
I remember reading something (long ago) about studies showing men seemed hardwired to subconsciously judge female attractiveness based on waist-hip ratio, which had something to do with indicating childbearing potential. Women likely have similar wiring to select mates for height, which should produce taller offspring, probably with higher chance of survival.
So there's biological programming in both sexes, just for different criteria. Both based on reproduction, however. Survival of the species and all that.
I have less objection to the idea that people are generally predisposed to prefer certain traits (with a wide latitude for normal human variations) than the statement that women are somehow "genetically programmed." It just sounds very demeaning.
There has to be an evolutionary advantage for people getting taller. Why would an species decide to create more animals that require more calories to survive. So, I assert that there could be a sexual preference in women for taller men. Life is turning calories into kids.
** edit** I read your post wrong and had to correct myself.
I think part of the problem in this branch of the thread is the use of terms that imply or that some people are going to understand as implying a deliberate effort on the part of an intelligent actor controlling human beings (like "genetically programmed" and a species "deciding" to create more animals that require more calories to survive), rather than sticking to terms like "evolutionary advantage" or a common or dominant genetic trait). This seems to be bothering some people, especially when those terms are being used in a way that seem to them to suggest that women but not men are subject to the control of this "genetic programming."
That's not my problem with it. It's just my observation in reading the various posts.
Words are words. People can get their underroos in a bunch or not.
This is not a feminist debate. I'm not getting into that one. I did state that males have selection bias... Are those words acceptable to the court?🤔
Word choice is meaningful, especially in a debate. I don't think you can really discuss whether or not women are *uniquely* vulnerable to "genetic programming" without wandering into issues of agency and whether or not women are fully human.
Whether or not *you're* arguing that women are vulnerable to this "programming" while men are more rational, the wording of the original statement certainly could be interpreted that way, which is what I was objecting to.
I could care less of how anyone interprets my words. I am going to offend someone. Whether you are Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Jewish, pagan, atheist, believe that Zendu dropped us off from the mothership. All have different beliefs or opinions on how we got here.
One question... would you agree that the brain is a giant supercomputer of sorts?
But you're not in a situation where you're offending some unknown person out there who believes in a mothership. I'm an actual person in conversation with you, stating what I find worrying about those words.
To be clear: I'm not offended. I've long ago realized that many men are determined to believe that women are intellectual inferior or not capable of rational thought. That's their loss, not mine.
The brain is an organ that is capable of a great deal of computing power. Do I consider it a "super computer" in the sense that it is programmed? No. Do I believe there is a lot happening in there, in combination with our bodies, that we are not yet aware of. Yes. Do I think that women are uniquely vulnerable to subconscious drives or impulses? No.
I truly believe that the vast majority of women are genetically programmed to not date men shorter than them. The proportion of male/female couples where the man is shorter than the woman is so small, much smaller than if random mixing occurred. Which begs the inevitable question: how do lesbians cope? Anyway, I happened to read a paper and it says that gay men prefer a partner who is slightly taller than them.
I have no idea why we're going with the idea that women are "genetically programmed" (yuck, by the way!) here. Why isn't it that men are "genetically programmed" to be attracted to women who are shorter than them?
If the relevant data you have on height preferences involves gay men, this would tend to support the thesis that MALE desires that are potentially relevant here too. Given that only one man can be taller than the other in a gay relationship, why aren't you wondering how they're coping instead of lesbians given that there is no data that lesbians even HAVE height preferences (which kind of knocks the women are "genetically programmed" theory into the water).
I think there might be something to that notion, although I'd say "biologically predisposed" over genetically programmed.
I remember reading something (long ago) about studies showing men seemed hardwired to subconsciously judge female attractiveness based on waist-hip ratio, which had something to do with indicating childbearing potential. Women likely have similar wiring to select mates for height, which should produce taller offspring, probably with higher chance of survival.
So there's biological programming in both sexes, just for different criteria. Both based on reproduction, however. Survival of the species and all that.
I have less objection to the idea that people are generally predisposed to prefer certain traits (with a wide latitude for normal human variations) than the statement that women are somehow "genetically programmed." It just sounds very demeaning.
There has to be an evolutionary advantage for people getting taller. Why would an species decide to create more animals that require more calories to survive. So, I assert that there could be a sexual preference in women for taller men. Life is turning calories into kids.
** edit** I read your post wrong and had to correct myself.
I think part of the problem in this branch of the thread is the use of terms that imply or that some people are going to understand as implying a deliberate effort on the part of an intelligent actor controlling human beings (like "genetically programmed" and a species "deciding" to create more animals that require more calories to survive), rather than sticking to terms like "evolutionary advantage" or a common or dominant genetic trait). This seems to be bothering some people, especially when those terms are being used in a way that seem to them to suggest that women but not men are subject to the control of this "genetic programming."
That's not my problem with it. It's just my observation in reading the various posts.
Words are words. People can get their underroos in a bunch or not.
This is not a feminist debate. I'm not getting into that one. I did state that males have selection bias... Are those words acceptable to the court?🤔
Word choice is meaningful, especially in a debate. I don't think you can really discuss whether or not women are *uniquely* vulnerable to "genetic programming" without wandering into issues of agency and whether or not women are fully human.
Whether or not *you're* arguing that women are vulnerable to this "programming" while men are more rational, the wording of the original statement certainly could be interpreted that way, which is what I was objecting to.
I could care less of how anyone interprets my words. I am going to offend someone. Whether you are Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Jewish, pagan, atheist, believe that Zendu dropped us off from the mothership. All have different beliefs or opinions on how we got here.
One question... would you agree that the brain is a giant supercomputer of sorts?
I'm not Jane, but . . .
Speaking as someone with strong info tech background, a casual loose understanding of AI, and a hobbist-level interest in neurosci, that's an analogy that breaks down very quickly as one gets close enough to consider details . . . and it breaks down in varying ways, to varying degrees, depending on the context in which the analogy appears.
In most any context, it's more likely to muddy the waters than clarify them.
I truly believe that the vast majority of women are genetically programmed to not date men shorter than them. The proportion of male/female couples where the man is shorter than the woman is so small, much smaller than if random mixing occurred. Which begs the inevitable question: how do lesbians cope? Anyway, I happened to read a paper and it says that gay men prefer a partner who is slightly taller than them.
I have no idea why we're going with the idea that women are "genetically programmed" (yuck, by the way!) here. Why isn't it that men are "genetically programmed" to be attracted to women who are shorter than them?
If the relevant data you have on height preferences involves gay men, this would tend to support the thesis that MALE desires that are potentially relevant here too. Given that only one man can be taller than the other in a gay relationship, why aren't you wondering how they're coping instead of lesbians given that there is no data that lesbians even HAVE height preferences (which kind of knocks the women are "genetically programmed" theory into the water).
I think there might be something to that notion, although I'd say "biologically predisposed" over genetically programmed.
I remember reading something (long ago) about studies showing men seemed hardwired to subconsciously judge female attractiveness based on waist-hip ratio, which had something to do with indicating childbearing potential. Women likely have similar wiring to select mates for height, which should produce taller offspring, probably with higher chance of survival.
So there's biological programming in both sexes, just for different criteria. Both based on reproduction, however. Survival of the species and all that.
I have less objection to the idea that people are generally predisposed to prefer certain traits (with a wide latitude for normal human variations) than the statement that women are somehow "genetically programmed." It just sounds very demeaning.
There has to be an evolutionary advantage for people getting taller. Why would an species decide to create more animals that require more calories to survive. So, I assert that there could be a sexual preference in women for taller men. Life is turning calories into kids.
** edit** I read your post wrong and had to correct myself.
I think part of the problem in this branch of the thread is the use of terms that imply or that some people are going to understand as implying a deliberate effort on the part of an intelligent actor controlling human beings (like "genetically programmed" and a species "deciding" to create more animals that require more calories to survive), rather than sticking to terms like "evolutionary advantage" or a common or dominant genetic trait). This seems to be bothering some people, especially when those terms are being used in a way that seem to them to suggest that women but not men are subject to the control of this "genetic programming."
That's not my problem with it. It's just my observation in reading the various posts.
Words are words. People can get their underroos in a bunch or not.
This is not a feminist debate. I'm not getting into that one. I did state that males have selection bias... Are those words acceptable to the court?🤔
Word choice is meaningful, especially in a debate. I don't think you can really discuss whether or not women are *uniquely* vulnerable to "genetic programming" without wandering into issues of agency and whether or not women are fully human.
Whether or not *you're* arguing that women are vulnerable to this "programming" while men are more rational, the wording of the original statement certainly could be interpreted that way, which is what I was objecting to.
I could care less of how anyone interprets my words. I am going to offend someone. Whether you are Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Jewish, pagan, atheist, believe that Zendu dropped us off from the mothership. All have different beliefs or opinions on how we got here.
One question... would you agree that the brain is a giant supercomputer of sorts?
But you're not in a situation where you're offending some unknown person out there who believes in a mothership. I'm an actual person in conversation with you, stating what I find worrying about those words.
To be clear: I'm not offended. I've long ago realized that many men are determined to believe that women are intellectual inferior or not capable of rational thought. That's their loss, not mine.
The brain is an organ that is capable of a great deal of computing power. Do I consider it a "super computer" in the sense that it is programmed? No. Do I believe there is a lot happening in there, in combination with our bodies, that we are not yet aware of. Yes. Do I think that women are uniquely vulnerable to subconscious drives or impulses? No.
Big words scare UGG... I go back to safe, warm, cave and scrape callous off knuckles...
Just like many women think men are all knuckle daggers that have no rational thoughts in their heads and only constantly thinking about 1 thing...
What is instinct besides a form of biological programming? 🤔
I'll leave you with that one.
Yes... I think men are "programmed" by nature as well....
I truly believe that the vast majority of women are genetically programmed to not date men shorter than them. The proportion of male/female couples where the man is shorter than the woman is so small, much smaller than if random mixing occurred. Which begs the inevitable question: how do lesbians cope? Anyway, I happened to read a paper and it says that gay men prefer a partner who is slightly taller than them.
I have no idea why we're going with the idea that women are "genetically programmed" (yuck, by the way!) here. Why isn't it that men are "genetically programmed" to be attracted to women who are shorter than them?
If the relevant data you have on height preferences involves gay men, this would tend to support the thesis that MALE desires that are potentially relevant here too. Given that only one man can be taller than the other in a gay relationship, why aren't you wondering how they're coping instead of lesbians given that there is no data that lesbians even HAVE height preferences (which kind of knocks the women are "genetically programmed" theory into the water).
I think there might be something to that notion, although I'd say "biologically predisposed" over genetically programmed.
I remember reading something (long ago) about studies showing men seemed hardwired to subconsciously judge female attractiveness based on waist-hip ratio, which had something to do with indicating childbearing potential. Women likely have similar wiring to select mates for height, which should produce taller offspring, probably with higher chance of survival.
So there's biological programming in both sexes, just for different criteria. Both based on reproduction, however. Survival of the species and all that.
I have less objection to the idea that people are generally predisposed to prefer certain traits (with a wide latitude for normal human variations) than the statement that women are somehow "genetically programmed." It just sounds very demeaning.
There has to be an evolutionary advantage for people getting taller. Why would an species decide to create more animals that require more calories to survive. So, I assert that there could be a sexual preference in women for taller men. Life is turning calories into kids.
** edit** I read your post wrong and had to correct myself.
I think part of the problem in this branch of the thread is the use of terms that imply or that some people are going to understand as implying a deliberate effort on the part of an intelligent actor controlling human beings (like "genetically programmed" and a species "deciding" to create more animals that require more calories to survive), rather than sticking to terms like "evolutionary advantage" or a common or dominant genetic trait). This seems to be bothering some people, especially when those terms are being used in a way that seem to them to suggest that women but not men are subject to the control of this "genetic programming."
That's not my problem with it. It's just my observation in reading the various posts.
Words are words. People can get their underroos in a bunch or not.
This is not a feminist debate. I'm not getting into that one. I did state that males have selection bias... Are those words acceptable to the court?🤔
Word choice is meaningful, especially in a debate. I don't think you can really discuss whether or not women are *uniquely* vulnerable to "genetic programming" without wandering into issues of agency and whether or not women are fully human.
Whether or not *you're* arguing that women are vulnerable to this "programming" while men are more rational, the wording of the original statement certainly could be interpreted that way, which is what I was objecting to.
I could care less of how anyone interprets my words. I am going to offend someone. Whether you are Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Jewish, pagan, atheist, believe that Zendu dropped us off from the mothership. All have different beliefs or opinions on how we got here.
One question... would you agree that the brain is a giant supercomputer of sorts?
But you're not in a situation where you're offending some unknown person out there who believes in a mothership. I'm an actual person in conversation with you, stating what I find worrying about those words.
To be clear: I'm not offended. I've long ago realized that many men are determined to believe that women are intellectual inferior or not capable of rational thought. That's their loss, not mine.
The brain is an organ that is capable of a great deal of computing power. Do I consider it a "super computer" in the sense that it is programmed? No. Do I believe there is a lot happening in there, in combination with our bodies, that we are not yet aware of. Yes. Do I think that women are uniquely vulnerable to subconscious drives or impulses? No.
Big words scare UGG... I go back to safe, warm, cave and scrape callous off knuckles...
Just like many women think men are all knuckle daggers that have no rational thoughts in their heads and only constantly thinking about 1 thing...
What is instinct besides a form of biological programming? 🤔
I'll leave you with that one.
Yes... I think men are "programmed" by nature as well....
We are ALL programmed in that we are who we are as a result of learned behaviors, experiences and external messages received and processed by our brain. A lot of our programming (if you like that word) is a result of messages we receive from mainstream media, from our family structures, and from our collective society. That programming (and this is a broad generalization) often teaches us that: Tall strong men are handsome, thin women with big breasts are desireable, beauty is defined by flawless skin (with the absence of any blemishes, wrinkles or flaws). Handsome is big and brawny. Blondes are bimbos, and athletic men are blonde hair and dumb too. ETA: Oh and usually tall women are awkward, gangly, and single.
Every day we are surrounded by messages that we receive and some of them impact our perceptions of selves and our perception of beauty and desireability.
Can you say that women are programmed to like tall men? That men are programmed to want thin women? Well, mainstream media tends to pair men with women smaller than them. Often times the weight of the man doesn't matter, but the weight of the women usually does. So yeah - I think there are messages out there that definitely lean people into that way.
But it certainly isn't all men, or all women, and it is not a programming that we have to accept as fact. We are in charge of our brains and can work to change our narrative. I used to admire the idea of a tall, handsome, blond hair blue eyed athletic hottie with an amazing six pack and fabulous body. I have never ever dated that. I've dated taller, thinner, shorter, heavier, blonde, brunette, active, inactive. (Never did get that six pack though lol). Who I choose to be with is a result of criteria that expands way beyond one element of their nature.
And if the women you are interested in are rejecting men based on their height alone, then maybe YOU are looking at the wrong women. What is YOUR narrative?
I truly believe that the vast majority of women are genetically programmed to not date men shorter than them. The proportion of male/female couples where the man is shorter than the woman is so small, much smaller than if random mixing occurred. Which begs the inevitable question: how do lesbians cope? Anyway, I happened to read a paper and it says that gay men prefer a partner who is slightly taller than them.
I have no idea why we're going with the idea that women are "genetically programmed" (yuck, by the way!) here. Why isn't it that men are "genetically programmed" to be attracted to women who are shorter than them?
If the relevant data you have on height preferences involves gay men, this would tend to support the thesis that MALE desires that are potentially relevant here too. Given that only one man can be taller than the other in a gay relationship, why aren't you wondering how they're coping instead of lesbians given that there is no data that lesbians even HAVE height preferences (which kind of knocks the women are "genetically programmed" theory into the water).
I think there might be something to that notion, although I'd say "biologically predisposed" over genetically programmed.
I remember reading something (long ago) about studies showing men seemed hardwired to subconsciously judge female attractiveness based on waist-hip ratio, which had something to do with indicating childbearing potential. Women likely have similar wiring to select mates for height, which should produce taller offspring, probably with higher chance of survival.
So there's biological programming in both sexes, just for different criteria. Both based on reproduction, however. Survival of the species and all that.
I have less objection to the idea that people are generally predisposed to prefer certain traits (with a wide latitude for normal human variations) than the statement that women are somehow "genetically programmed." It just sounds very demeaning.
There has to be an evolutionary advantage for people getting taller. Why would an species decide to create more animals that require more calories to survive. So, I assert that there could be a sexual preference in women for taller men. Life is turning calories into kids.
** edit** I read your post wrong and had to correct myself.
I think part of the problem in this branch of the thread is the use of terms that imply or that some people are going to understand as implying a deliberate effort on the part of an intelligent actor controlling human beings (like "genetically programmed" and a species "deciding" to create more animals that require more calories to survive), rather than sticking to terms like "evolutionary advantage" or a common or dominant genetic trait). This seems to be bothering some people, especially when those terms are being used in a way that seem to them to suggest that women but not men are subject to the control of this "genetic programming."
That's not my problem with it. It's just my observation in reading the various posts.
Words are words. People can get their underroos in a bunch or not.
This is not a feminist debate. I'm not getting into that one. I did state that males have selection bias... Are those words acceptable to the court?🤔
Word choice is meaningful, especially in a debate. I don't think you can really discuss whether or not women are *uniquely* vulnerable to "genetic programming" without wandering into issues of agency and whether or not women are fully human.
Whether or not *you're* arguing that women are vulnerable to this "programming" while men are more rational, the wording of the original statement certainly could be interpreted that way, which is what I was objecting to.
I could care less of how anyone interprets my words. I am going to offend someone. Whether you are Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Jewish, pagan, atheist, believe that Zendu dropped us off from the mothership. All have different beliefs or opinions on how we got here.
One question... would you agree that the brain is a giant supercomputer of sorts?
But you're not in a situation where you're offending some unknown person out there who believes in a mothership. I'm an actual person in conversation with you, stating what I find worrying about those words.
To be clear: I'm not offended. I've long ago realized that many men are determined to believe that women are intellectual inferior or not capable of rational thought. That's their loss, not mine.
The brain is an organ that is capable of a great deal of computing power. Do I consider it a "super computer" in the sense that it is programmed? No. Do I believe there is a lot happening in there, in combination with our bodies, that we are not yet aware of. Yes. Do I think that women are uniquely vulnerable to subconscious drives or impulses? No.
Big words scare UGG... I go back to safe, warm, cave and scrape callous off knuckles...
Just like many women think men are all knuckle daggers that have no rational thoughts in their heads and only constantly thinking about 1 thing...
What is instinct besides a form of biological programming? 🤔
I'll leave you with that one.
Yes... I think men are "programmed" by nature as well....
I don't think men are "knuckle draggers" who aren't capable of rational thought, so I'm not sure what the relevance of that is here. Maybe you should have that conversation with those women.
If you're arguing that you believe that men and women are both subject to biological "programming," I'm not even sure we have that much of a disagreement. My initial comments were to someone who stated that women were programmed and left it open-ended whether or not men were equally subject to said "programming." That was what prompted my objection, the implication that women were somehow subject to forces compromising their rationality, forces that men were exempt from.
Yep, this has always bothered me as well. Weight is much easier to control, but I get a lot of hate if I say I want someone to be fit. However, it's perfectly acceptable for women to say they won't date a man under a specified height. Why the double standard? Either we all have physical preferences and that is alright or we are scum if we won't date someone that doesn't meet a particular physical standard. Why would it be one way for men and different for women?
"Fit" as in performance level is something different than weight, but I think both could be legitimate preferences for a mate -- either for men or women. Is someone arguing that women should have the option to screen partners for height and weight, but men shouldn't? Or that nobody should be screening for weight? I'm trying to understand where the double standard comes in between men and women, because women are absolutely screening for weight in partners, both online and in real life situations.
The double standard is when women argue it is ok to screen based on height, but that men are not supposed to screen based on weight. I see this more often than not.
ETA: On another site, a conversation about this came down to that weight is not something people can control, but that men can become taller with cosmetic surgery. Most everyone involved in the conversation agreed with that perspective.
On the first page of this thread it was covered that people (men and women) routinely screen for fitness. I think you are creating a strawman that does not exist in reality. Bluntly, fat chicks are screened out by those not into fat chicks. This is not controversial. As a former fat chick, I expected men to not be interested. No one has ever said that men must date fat chicks.
I think you've missed something. My experience is that women screen for height and it is considered to be acceptable, but that it is not considered to be acceptable for men to screen based on weight. Nobody is arguing that weight is not used for screening (by either gender), I'm just sharing my experience that we (men) are looked down upon when we won't date obese women. And that those same people who chastise men for refusing to date obese women have no objection to women who refuse to date short men. Again this is my experience. Not everyone has the same experiences and that is perfectly normal.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
Do some men screen women based on their size? Yes. Do some women screen men based on their size? Yes. It happens in both genders.
If you want to look at comparable unfair bias, then you need to compare men screening on height vs women screening on height.
Otherwise you might as well compare height vs intelligence, or size vs hair color.
In my opinion... People have preferences. Period. If they choose to exclude someone based on not meeting their criteria, then it's their loss if that person is a perfect match in every other way.
Yes, as noted above, it's completely common to say only fit or thin people only.
I think it's because of the differences in getting to know someone first and then dating them vs. meeting to date without knowing the person as a person. Of course you tend to focus on the more superficial things more than if you know you already like someone.
And if something truly is a deal-breaker, it's good to let people know upfront and not have them waste their time.
As noted, the first page is on point. I'm quoting myself but many others had similar comments.
The idea that men can't or don't reject fat women is bizarre, IMO. Of course they do and of course it's fine if they do.
It seems I'm still not explaining my point clearly as there is still misunderstanding, so I'll try yet again...
We all have preferences about physical appearance and I am of the opinion that this is acceptable. Many others disagree with me on specific factors. Examples:
1. Men are often shamed for considering weight. Specifically, those people often cite that weight is not something women can control and believe it is unfair.
2. Women often have a minimum height consideration. Many of the same people (both genders) who believe it us unfair for men to look at weight based on their belief that weight cannot be controlled will argue that it is acceptable for women to screen based on height.
In some cases, those people go as far as to argue that men can control our height as a justification. These are the same people who believe women are unable to control weight.
It is my opinion that this is a double standard. While I believe it is perfectly acceptable to screen based on weight and height, I disagree with those who say it is acceptable to ONLY screen based on height, but that it is not acceptable to screen on weight.
How does one control height? How does a man become taller? I know many a man who wishes they had this super power.
Also, I don't know of anyone who claims that incongruent double standard is legit. So I'm stymied on this whole thing.
The methods suggested in conversations for how men can become taller:
A. Wear pleasers (I had to Google this because I haven't heard of these. They are high-heels, and not really the same as gaining actual height.)
B. Hormones. - I had to google this also and apparently there are some substances that might provide a small height gain under the right conditions.
C. Cosmetic surgery. Apparently, there is a surgery that can add a few inches. My understanding is they cut the femurs and add supports to essentially extend the bones. I assume the soft tissue (muscles, skin, etc) adapts over time and is probably a tough recovery.
Yep, this has always bothered me as well. Weight is much easier to control, but I get a lot of hate if I say I want someone to be fit. However, it's perfectly acceptable for women to say they won't date a man under a specified height. Why the double standard? Either we all have physical preferences and that is alright or we are scum if we won't date someone that doesn't meet a particular physical standard. Why would it be one way for men and different for women?
"Fit" as in performance level is something different than weight, but I think both could be legitimate preferences for a mate -- either for men or women. Is someone arguing that women should have the option to screen partners for height and weight, but men shouldn't? Or that nobody should be screening for weight? I'm trying to understand where the double standard comes in between men and women, because women are absolutely screening for weight in partners, both online and in real life situations.
The double standard is when women argue it is ok to screen based on height, but that men are not supposed to screen based on weight. I see this more often than not.
ETA: On another site, a conversation about this came down to that weight is not something people can control, but that men can become taller with cosmetic surgery. Most everyone involved in the conversation agreed with that perspective.
On the first page of this thread it was covered that people (men and women) routinely screen for fitness. I think you are creating a strawman that does not exist in reality. Bluntly, fat chicks are screened out by those not into fat chicks. This is not controversial. As a former fat chick, I expected men to not be interested. No one has ever said that men must date fat chicks.
I think you've missed something. My experience is that women screen for height and it is considered to be acceptable, but that it is not considered to be acceptable for men to screen based on weight. Nobody is arguing that weight is not used for screening (by either gender), I'm just sharing my experience that we (men) are looked down upon when we won't date obese women. And that those same people who chastise men for refusing to date obese women have no objection to women who refuse to date short men. Again this is my experience. Not everyone has the same experiences and that is perfectly normal.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
Do some men screen women based on their size? Yes. Do some women screen men based on their size? Yes. It happens in both genders.
If you want to look at comparable unfair bias, then you need to compare men screening on height vs women screening on height.
Otherwise you might as well compare height vs intelligence, or size vs hair color.
In my opinion... People have preferences. Period. If they choose to exclude someone based on not meeting their criteria, then it's their loss if that person is a perfect match in every other way.
Yes, as noted above, it's completely common to say only fit or thin people only.
I think it's because of the differences in getting to know someone first and then dating them vs. meeting to date without knowing the person as a person. Of course you tend to focus on the more superficial things more than if you know you already like someone.
And if something truly is a deal-breaker, it's good to let people know upfront and not have them waste their time.
As noted, the first page is on point. I'm quoting myself but many others had similar comments.
The idea that men can't or don't reject fat women is bizarre, IMO. Of course they do and of course it's fine if they do.
It seems I'm still not explaining my point clearly as there is still misunderstanding, so I'll try yet again...
We all have preferences about physical appearance and I am of the opinion that this is acceptable. Many others disagree with me on specific factors. Examples:
1. Men are often shamed for considering weight. Specifically, those people often cite that weight is not something women can control and believe it is unfair.
2. Women often have a minimum height consideration. Many of the same people (both genders) who believe it us unfair for men to look at weight based on their belief that weight cannot be controlled will argue that it is acceptable for women to screen based on height.
In some cases, those people go as far as to argue that men can control our height as a justification. These are the same people who believe women are unable to control weight.
It is my opinion that this is a double standard. While I believe it is perfectly acceptable to screen based on weight and height, I disagree with those who say it is acceptable to ONLY screen based on height, but that it is not acceptable to screen on weight.
How does one control height? How does a man become taller? I know many a man who wishes they had this super power.
Also, I don't know of anyone who claims that incongruent double standard is legit. So I'm stymied on this whole thing.
The methods suggested in conversations for how men can become taller:
A. Wear pleasers (I had to Google this because I haven't heard of these. They are high-heels, and not really the same as gaining actual height.)
B. Hormones. - I had to google this also and apparently there are some substances that might provide a small height gain under the right conditions.
C. Cosmetic surgery. Apparently, there is a surgery that can add a few inches. My understanding is they cut the femurs and add supports to essentially extend the bones. I assume the soft tissue (muscles, skin, etc) adapts over time and is probably a tough recovery.
All three of these hurt my heart. For someone to be so upset with their height that they go to the extremes of B and C is really sad. I mean I get it. In JR high, when my nickname was saskquatch and bigfoot and big bird... I dreamed of having inches taken off... but I never would do that.
In reality, I guess B and C aren't that different from breast augmentation, face lifts or liposuction. What it tells me is that we, as a populace, are far too concerned about deriving our value from our looks. AND that there is good money to be made from promoting that perception.
Yep, this has always bothered me as well. Weight is much easier to control, but I get a lot of hate if I say I want someone to be fit. However, it's perfectly acceptable for women to say they won't date a man under a specified height. Why the double standard? Either we all have physical preferences and that is alright or we are scum if we won't date someone that doesn't meet a particular physical standard. Why would it be one way for men and different for women?
"Fit" as in performance level is something different than weight, but I think both could be legitimate preferences for a mate -- either for men or women. Is someone arguing that women should have the option to screen partners for height and weight, but men shouldn't? Or that nobody should be screening for weight? I'm trying to understand where the double standard comes in between men and women, because women are absolutely screening for weight in partners, both online and in real life situations.
The double standard is when women argue it is ok to screen based on height, but that men are not supposed to screen based on weight. I see this more often than not.
ETA: On another site, a conversation about this came down to that weight is not something people can control, but that men can become taller with cosmetic surgery. Most everyone involved in the conversation agreed with that perspective.
On the first page of this thread it was covered that people (men and women) routinely screen for fitness. I think you are creating a strawman that does not exist in reality. Bluntly, fat chicks are screened out by those not into fat chicks. This is not controversial. As a former fat chick, I expected men to not be interested. No one has ever said that men must date fat chicks.
I think you've missed something. My experience is that women screen for height and it is considered to be acceptable, but that it is not considered to be acceptable for men to screen based on weight. Nobody is arguing that weight is not used for screening (by either gender), I'm just sharing my experience that we (men) are looked down upon when we won't date obese women. And that those same people who chastise men for refusing to date obese women have no objection to women who refuse to date short men. Again this is my experience. Not everyone has the same experiences and that is perfectly normal.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
Do some men screen women based on their size? Yes. Do some women screen men based on their size? Yes. It happens in both genders.
If you want to look at comparable unfair bias, then you need to compare men screening on height vs women screening on height.
Otherwise you might as well compare height vs intelligence, or size vs hair color.
In my opinion... People have preferences. Period. If they choose to exclude someone based on not meeting their criteria, then it's their loss if that person is a perfect match in every other way.
Yes, as noted above, it's completely common to say only fit or thin people only.
I think it's because of the differences in getting to know someone first and then dating them vs. meeting to date without knowing the person as a person. Of course you tend to focus on the more superficial things more than if you know you already like someone.
And if something truly is a deal-breaker, it's good to let people know upfront and not have them waste their time.
As noted, the first page is on point. I'm quoting myself but many others had similar comments.
The idea that men can't or don't reject fat women is bizarre, IMO. Of course they do and of course it's fine if they do.
It seems I'm still not explaining my point clearly as there is still misunderstanding, so I'll try yet again...
We all have preferences about physical appearance and I am of the opinion that this is acceptable. Many others disagree with me on specific factors. Examples:
1. Men are often shamed for considering weight. Specifically, those people often cite that weight is not something women can control and believe it is unfair.
2. Women often have a minimum height consideration. Many of the same people (both genders) who believe it us unfair for men to look at weight based on their belief that weight cannot be controlled will argue that it is acceptable for women to screen based on height.
In some cases, those people go as far as to argue that men can control our height as a justification. These are the same people who believe women are unable to control weight.
It is my opinion that this is a double standard. While I believe it is perfectly acceptable to screen based on weight and height, I disagree with those who say it is acceptable to ONLY screen based on height, but that it is not acceptable to screen on weight.
How does one control height? How does a man become taller? I know many a man who wishes they had this super power.
Also, I don't know of anyone who claims that incongruent double standard is legit. So I'm stymied on this whole thing.
The methods suggested in conversations for how men can become taller:
A. Wear pleasers (I had to Google this because I haven't heard of these. They are high-heels, and not really the same as gaining actual height.)
B. Hormones. - I had to google this also and apparently there are some substances that might provide a small height gain under the right conditions.
C. Cosmetic surgery. Apparently, there is a surgery that can add a few inches. My understanding is they cut the femurs and add supports to essentially extend the bones. I assume the soft tissue (muscles, skin, etc) adapts over time and is probably a tough recovery.
That's frankly horrifying.
Back a page or few, I wondered whether you might be getting less opposition here to weight-based screening because this forum overselects (in a statistical sense) for people who believe weight loss *IS* possible.
Like some others, I haven't run across anyone who believes/asserts all of the things that you say you've observed in some women. If I did, I would think they were idiots, frankly - and I don't say things that extreme in public very often. I'm back at: If this were a population of dating candidates, wouldn't you want to know they thought things that silly, so you could avoid them?!?
Also like some others above, a guy screening in a very strict way for bodyweight in a woman would put me off (even though I'm thin). Partly, that's because I've known some jerk-esque guys in real life (not in my dating pool, BTW) who felt that way, but didn't hold themselves to even remotely similar standards (speaking of hypocrites). Partly, that's because I'm not super appearance-focused myself when it comes to who I find attractive, so appearance-based screening would make me suspect the person was a bit superficial (I recognize that as a prejudice on my part). (I'd feel the same way about women screening for height.)
One question... would you agree that the brain is a giant supercomputer of sorts?
Not directed to me but I'll agree anyway.
The brain is just a mass of neurons firing on and off. Learning, whether academic or social or emotional, is accomplished through repeat firing of neurons in the same pattern, which creates neural pathways.
Computers are basically also a mass of on/off switches firing in patterns.
One question... would you agree that the brain is a giant supercomputer of sorts?
Not directed to me but I'll agree anyway.
The brain is just a mass of neurons firing on and off. Learning, whether academic or social or emotional, is accomplished through repeat firing of neurons in the same pattern, which creates neural pathways.
Computers are basically also a mass of on/off switches firing in patterns.
Uh-uh.
Neurons are analog, not digital, huge difference, with *profound* implications. Fundamental implications!
AI learning, not fully conditioned by the physical world (yet, mostly - super limited input channels, at most). That means no physical bad consequences, and social consequences aren't inherently important to AI. Social factors are not well modeled, yet - simulated only stupidly. Knowledge domains are limited, or AI doesn't work well at all. (It's impressive, in limited domains, like IBM's Watson on Jeopardy - a very complex, quite stunning party trick.)
Actual human hard-wiring is distributed, in very non-computer-esque ways: Physical reflexes, physically distributed neurally active cells, hormones, more.
The computer analogy is OK at a *super* high level, if one stands back and squints. Fails up close, at detail.
Even in AI, pathways don't reinforce in the same way in computers as in bodies (reaction's not just in brains, in human bodies).
It's a misleading analogy, in most contexts. The closer (more detailed) we get, the worse it is.
Even the Turing Test threshold hasn't been passed, except in coyly constrained circumstances (Eugene Goostman).
I'm not saying we can't get there - but we aren't even remotely near there. The analogy is more unhelpful than useful. Too facile.
Replies
How . . . how are you expected to control your height?!?
How does one control height? How does a man become taller? I know many a man who wishes they had this super power.
Also, I don't know of anyone who claims that incongruent double standard is legit. So I'm stymied on this whole thing.
To be fair, I've never had that discussion ever with anyone because it's silly. Where are you finding "those people?" That's not even a little bit rational.
Walk away, T1, walk away.
Exactly this.
Words are words. People can get their underroos in a bunch or not.
This is not a feminist debate. I'm not getting into that one. I did state that males have selection bias... Are those words acceptable to the court?🤔
Word choice is meaningful, especially in a debate. I don't think you can really discuss whether or not women are *uniquely* vulnerable to "genetic programming" without wandering into issues of agency and whether or not women are fully human.
Whether or not *you're* arguing that women are vulnerable to this "programming" while men are more rational, the wording of the original statement certainly could be interpreted that way, which is what I was objecting to.
No matter what "words" I use, I am going to offend someone. If you are Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, odensist, atheist, believe that Zendu the extraterrestrial dropped us off from the mothership... all have different creation ideas or evolutionary ideas... so, I dont really care if it offends someone with words like "decided" or programmed.
One question. Would you agree that the brain is a super computer of sorts?
I could care less of how anyone interprets my words. I am going to offend someone. Whether you are Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, Jewish, pagan, atheist, believe that Zendu dropped us off from the mothership. All have different beliefs or opinions on how we got here.
One question... would you agree that the brain is a giant supercomputer of sorts?
Let me be clear: I'm not offended. I am well aware that many men consider women to be less logical or less capable of rationality than men, I am simply unwilling to spend my life being upset about it.
If individual men choose to believe that women are "programmed" or at the mercy of evolutionary impulses in a way that men are not, that's their loss and their limitation -- it's not mine.
I think there's a big difference between the general position "I know my words could offend somebody out there" and responding to someone who is telling you, real time, the objections that they have to your words (or the words of someone else that you're defending). I'm not some abstract person who thinks we've been dropped off from a mothership (???), I'm a real person telling you that the concept that women are "genetically programmed" to choose tall men is potentially demeaning, depending on the extent to which it implies that women are uniquely driven to choose mates by virtue of said programming.
In some ways the brain could be considered a "super computer," as it is a organ with huge computing capacity. But in the sense of it being "programmed" or controlled by some sort of external force, no.
But you're not in a situation where you're offending some unknown person out there who believes in a mothership. I'm an actual person in conversation with you, stating what I find worrying about those words.
To be clear: I'm not offended. I've long ago realized that many men are determined to believe that women are intellectual inferior or not capable of rational thought. That's their loss, not mine.
The brain is an organ that is capable of a great deal of computing power. Do I consider it a "super computer" in the sense that it is programmed? No. Do I believe there is a lot happening in there, in combination with our bodies, that we are not yet aware of. Yes. Do I think that women are uniquely vulnerable to subconscious drives or impulses? No.
I'm not Jane, but . . .
Speaking as someone with strong info tech background, a casual loose understanding of AI, and a hobbist-level interest in neurosci, that's an analogy that breaks down very quickly as one gets close enough to consider details . . . and it breaks down in varying ways, to varying degrees, depending on the context in which the analogy appears.
In most any context, it's more likely to muddy the waters than clarify them.
Big words scare UGG... I go back to safe, warm, cave and scrape callous off knuckles...
Just like many women think men are all knuckle daggers that have no rational thoughts in their heads and only constantly thinking about 1 thing...
What is instinct besides a form of biological programming? 🤔
I'll leave you with that one.
Yes... I think men are "programmed" by nature as well....
We are ALL programmed in that we are who we are as a result of learned behaviors, experiences and external messages received and processed by our brain. A lot of our programming (if you like that word) is a result of messages we receive from mainstream media, from our family structures, and from our collective society. That programming (and this is a broad generalization) often teaches us that: Tall strong men are handsome, thin women with big breasts are desireable, beauty is defined by flawless skin (with the absence of any blemishes, wrinkles or flaws). Handsome is big and brawny. Blondes are bimbos, and athletic men are blonde hair and dumb too. ETA: Oh and usually tall women are awkward, gangly, and single.
Every day we are surrounded by messages that we receive and some of them impact our perceptions of selves and our perception of beauty and desireability.
Can you say that women are programmed to like tall men? That men are programmed to want thin women? Well, mainstream media tends to pair men with women smaller than them. Often times the weight of the man doesn't matter, but the weight of the women usually does. So yeah - I think there are messages out there that definitely lean people into that way.
But it certainly isn't all men, or all women, and it is not a programming that we have to accept as fact. We are in charge of our brains and can work to change our narrative. I used to admire the idea of a tall, handsome, blond hair blue eyed athletic hottie with an amazing six pack and fabulous body. I have never ever dated that. I've dated taller, thinner, shorter, heavier, blonde, brunette, active, inactive. (Never did get that six pack though lol). Who I choose to be with is a result of criteria that expands way beyond one element of their nature.
And if the women you are interested in are rejecting men based on their height alone, then maybe YOU are looking at the wrong women. What is YOUR narrative?
I don't think men are "knuckle draggers" who aren't capable of rational thought, so I'm not sure what the relevance of that is here. Maybe you should have that conversation with those women.
If you're arguing that you believe that men and women are both subject to biological "programming," I'm not even sure we have that much of a disagreement. My initial comments were to someone who stated that women were programmed and left it open-ended whether or not men were equally subject to said "programming." That was what prompted my objection, the implication that women were somehow subject to forces compromising their rationality, forces that men were exempt from.
The methods suggested in conversations for how men can become taller:
A. Wear pleasers (I had to Google this because I haven't heard of these. They are high-heels, and not really the same as gaining actual height.)
B. Hormones. - I had to google this also and apparently there are some substances that might provide a small height gain under the right conditions.
C. Cosmetic surgery. Apparently, there is a surgery that can add a few inches. My understanding is they cut the femurs and add supports to essentially extend the bones. I assume the soft tissue (muscles, skin, etc) adapts over time and is probably a tough recovery.
All three of these hurt my heart. For someone to be so upset with their height that they go to the extremes of B and C is really sad. I mean I get it. In JR high, when my nickname was saskquatch and bigfoot and big bird... I dreamed of having inches taken off... but I never would do that.
In reality, I guess B and C aren't that different from breast augmentation, face lifts or liposuction. What it tells me is that we, as a populace, are far too concerned about deriving our value from our looks. AND that there is good money to be made from promoting that perception.
(I struggle with this too).
That's frankly horrifying.
Back a page or few, I wondered whether you might be getting less opposition here to weight-based screening because this forum overselects (in a statistical sense) for people who believe weight loss *IS* possible.
Like some others, I haven't run across anyone who believes/asserts all of the things that you say you've observed in some women. If I did, I would think they were idiots, frankly - and I don't say things that extreme in public very often. I'm back at: If this were a population of dating candidates, wouldn't you want to know they thought things that silly, so you could avoid them?!?
Also like some others above, a guy screening in a very strict way for bodyweight in a woman would put me off (even though I'm thin). Partly, that's because I've known some jerk-esque guys in real life (not in my dating pool, BTW) who felt that way, but didn't hold themselves to even remotely similar standards (speaking of hypocrites). Partly, that's because I'm not super appearance-focused myself when it comes to who I find attractive, so appearance-based screening would make me suspect the person was a bit superficial (I recognize that as a prejudice on my part). (I'd feel the same way about women screening for height.)
Not directed to me but I'll agree anyway.
The brain is just a mass of neurons firing on and off. Learning, whether academic or social or emotional, is accomplished through repeat firing of neurons in the same pattern, which creates neural pathways.
Computers are basically also a mass of on/off switches firing in patterns.
Uh-uh.
Neurons are analog, not digital, huge difference, with *profound* implications. Fundamental implications!
AI learning, not fully conditioned by the physical world (yet, mostly - super limited input channels, at most). That means no physical bad consequences, and social consequences aren't inherently important to AI. Social factors are not well modeled, yet - simulated only stupidly. Knowledge domains are limited, or AI doesn't work well at all. (It's impressive, in limited domains, like IBM's Watson on Jeopardy - a very complex, quite stunning party trick.)
Actual human hard-wiring is distributed, in very non-computer-esque ways: Physical reflexes, physically distributed neurally active cells, hormones, more.
The computer analogy is OK at a *super* high level, if one stands back and squints. Fails up close, at detail.
Even in AI, pathways don't reinforce in the same way in computers as in bodies (reaction's not just in brains, in human bodies).
It's a misleading analogy, in most contexts. The closer (more detailed) we get, the worse it is.
Even the Turing Test threshold hasn't been passed, except in coyly constrained circumstances (Eugene Goostman).
I'm not saying we can't get there - but we aren't even remotely near there. The analogy is more unhelpful than useful. Too facile.