Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Height-ism?
Options
Replies
-
I'm going to de-rail my own thread just a bit to point out something else I've seen through the lens of online dating: Most profile I read have pretty strictly gender-normative expectations of men. Even women who loudly and proudly proclaim they're not a "girly girl" do imply that their partner should be a "manly man." It's interesting how women get some degree of freedom in that regard that men largely don't.
Me, I listen to Tori Amos, read classical literature, and have 3 cats as roommates. I'm perfectly comfortable in my "girly man" skin, but at the same time, it's not really "accepted" in broader society. People who meet me in person are often surprised to discover I'm not gay. This bothered me 20 years ago, but I've thankfully gotten wiser since then.
On the other hand, being a tomboy or, as Gillian Flynn calls her, a "cool girl," is not only accepted -- it's attractive. Think of the girl who can chug beer and enjoys watching sports. "One of the guys," etc.
I wonder what the sociological roots of this phenomenon are.
Things that are perceived as feminine are lesser in a society that has traditionally put men at the top of the food chain so a girl acting like a boy will always be perceived as a good thing because it's seen as inspirational behaviour.
I think it's interesting that you think listening to a woman sing is "girly". It's music. Classical literature was largely written by men for men and cats? They come in either sex. I don't see how they are girly either. My husband was a bit of a music snob when I met him and listened to male and female musicians and I'd have thought it was really weird if didn't listen to women too. Good music is good music.
Additionally, it's only fairly recently that average Joe has been trying to break gender boundaries (70s, 80s?) and move into traditionally women's domains. Women have been doing the opposite for far longer. Suffragettes were wearing pants 150 years ago to the point that it is largely normalised. Pushing to get into male only universities, and jobs like medicine and law.
How long have men been trying to wear makeup, dresses and get into midwifery or nannying?
It will take some time but will require men to actually do those things to normalise them. The first women wearing pants would have struggled to find relationships with men who weren't horrified too.3 -
paperpudding wrote: »bmeadows380 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »bmeadows380 wrote: »@futurefit2020
Well, in my brother's case, he's not a controlling creep but i do think he's rather an idiot. He went and found him a wife that "needs" him alright; she sits on the couch and has emotional breakdowns while he works 10 hours a day and then does all the housework, cooking, cleaning, and taking care of the 3 month old and 6 month old. She even expect him to get up and feed the infant because "she's just stressed" even though he is a trucker and needs to be up the next morning to drive.
Real peach, my sister in law......
really derailing now - but have you considered she may have post natal depression?
@paperpudding
I would think that truly, especially since they had 2 kids within 14 months not to mention the crazy family she comes from, but this was also going on long before she ever got pregnant. They were married for 6 years before their daughter was born, and she was like that the whole time.
And even if she's struggling now with post partum making things even more difficult, that is definitely absolutely no excuse for getting completely drunk more than once while you are home responsible for a 3 month old and a 15 month old while your husband is at work, which has happened several times lately. That's the part that scares me - she doesn't want to get help; she just wants my brother to do it all and gets upset when he can't make her life perfect, so she's taken to self-medicating with alcohol.
drinking is a new twist, that didnt get mentioned before
anyway everyone's relationship dynamics are their own thing, I guess - and we are obviously only hearing one second hand version of the situation.
*shrugs* well, you asked, and all I have to offer is my one second hand version.psychod787 wrote: »
I think that's doable. 😅
Besides, in my family, its not the cats you have to worry about - its my dad and sister lol1 -
KickassAmazon76 wrote: »I am 6'1". Most of my relationships have been with men shorter than me. (Why? because apparently they like women a foot shorter than them lol)
In MANY cases, the person I dated claimed not to be bothered by me being 3, 4, 5" taller than them.. but I couldn't wear heels because then it'd be 6, 7, 8" and that bothered them. Sometimes they told me outright, other times I overheard them bitching to their friends, other times it became clear that my choice of apparell was not desireable. "hey, why don't you wear these ones instead?"
In many cases I grew to feel like a freak, a monster. And it effing hurt.
Also, being as tall as I am, there are times when I just want to feel protected and envelopped by my man's arms. When I overshadow them (and maybe even lift heavier than them), I have a hard time feeling that way. Is that a flaw on my side, maybe. It's hard to feel girly and feminine when you overpower your man.
So when I tried dating website earlier this year, I said that I am effing tall (6'1) and like to wear heels (3") sometimes, and would prefer someone as tall as me. Was it shallow, maybe, but I am so TIRED of being hurt and rejected EVENTUALLY because of something I cannot control. I had someone message me and got very angry at me for saying that. Yet, I am sure that many other men clicked off my profile when they saw how tall *I* was.
BMI you can gauge based on many profile pics. Breast size you can gauge. Height you cannot. Trust me, I tried. (Where does his head sit in relation to the door frame? How low is his phone?)
As for the dating thing.. I quit after a very short time. Too many creeps and too much hassle. I'd rather be single than deal with that bs right now.
You're rejected the same way short men are rejected for something they can't control.
Also i'm curious how much you lift, either you are unusually strong or the men are really weak.
Nothing special. At my best I Squat 200, deadlifted 325. Bench sucked.
It is what it is, I guess. Unless someone falls in my lap, I'm going to be alone for a while. I'm so done with the whole dating / relationship thing.5 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »bmeadows380 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »bmeadows380 wrote: »@futurefit2020
Well, in my brother's case, he's not a controlling creep but i do think he's rather an idiot. He went and found him a wife that "needs" him alright; she sits on the couch and has emotional breakdowns while he works 10 hours a day and then does all the housework, cooking, cleaning, and taking care of the 3 month old and 6 month old. She even expect him to get up and feed the infant because "she's just stressed" even though he is a trucker and needs to be up the next morning to drive.
Real peach, my sister in law......
really derailing now - but have you considered she may have post natal depression?
@paperpudding
I would think that truly, especially since they had 2 kids within 14 months not to mention the crazy family she comes from, but this was also going on long before she ever got pregnant. They were married for 6 years before their daughter was born, and she was like that the whole time.
And even if she's struggling now with post partum making things even more difficult, that is definitely absolutely no excuse for getting completely drunk more than once while you are home responsible for a 3 month old and a 15 month old while your husband is at work, which has happened several times lately. That's the part that scares me - she doesn't want to get help; she just wants my brother to do it all and gets upset when he can't make her life perfect, so she's taken to self-medicating with alcohol.
drinking is a new twist, that didnt get mentioned before
anyway everyone's relationship dynamics are their own thing, I guess - and we are obviously only hearing one second hand version of the situation.
*shrugs* well, you asked, and all I have to offer is my one second hand version.psychod787 wrote: »
I think that's doable. 😅
Besides, in my family, its not the cats you have to worry about - its my dad and sister lol
Did I mention I ama prison nurse. So, not worried about family... I can handle almost anything....7 -
KickassAmazon76 wrote: »KickassAmazon76 wrote: »I am 6'1". Most of my relationships have been with men shorter than me. (Why? because apparently they like women a foot shorter than them lol)
In MANY cases, the person I dated claimed not to be bothered by me being 3, 4, 5" taller than them.. but I couldn't wear heels because then it'd be 6, 7, 8" and that bothered them. Sometimes they told me outright, other times I overheard them bitching to their friends, other times it became clear that my choice of apparell was not desireable. "hey, why don't you wear these ones instead?"
In many cases I grew to feel like a freak, a monster. And it effing hurt.
Also, being as tall as I am, there are times when I just want to feel protected and envelopped by my man's arms. When I overshadow them (and maybe even lift heavier than them), I have a hard time feeling that way. Is that a flaw on my side, maybe. It's hard to feel girly and feminine when you overpower your man.
So when I tried dating website earlier this year, I said that I am effing tall (6'1) and like to wear heels (3") sometimes, and would prefer someone as tall as me. Was it shallow, maybe, but I am so TIRED of being hurt and rejected EVENTUALLY because of something I cannot control. I had someone message me and got very angry at me for saying that. Yet, I am sure that many other men clicked off my profile when they saw how tall *I* was.
BMI you can gauge based on many profile pics. Breast size you can gauge. Height you cannot. Trust me, I tried. (Where does his head sit in relation to the door frame? How low is his phone?)
As for the dating thing.. I quit after a very short time. Too many creeps and too much hassle. I'd rather be single than deal with that bs right now.
You're rejected the same way short men are rejected for something they can't control.
Also i'm curious how much you lift, either you are unusually strong or the men are really weak.
Nothing special. At my best I Squat 200, deadlifted 325. Bench sucked.
It is what it is, I guess. Unless someone falls in my lap, I'm going to be alone for a while. I'm so done with the whole dating / relationship thing.
I would say that is quite impressive compared to what I see on a regular basis in the gym. I'm talking for the female lifters.3 -
psychod787 wrote: »bmeadows380 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »bmeadows380 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »bmeadows380 wrote: »@futurefit2020
Well, in my brother's case, he's not a controlling creep but i do think he's rather an idiot. He went and found him a wife that "needs" him alright; she sits on the couch and has emotional breakdowns while he works 10 hours a day and then does all the housework, cooking, cleaning, and taking care of the 3 month old and 6 month old. She even expect him to get up and feed the infant because "she's just stressed" even though he is a trucker and needs to be up the next morning to drive.
Real peach, my sister in law......
really derailing now - but have you considered she may have post natal depression?
@paperpudding
I would think that truly, especially since they had 2 kids within 14 months not to mention the crazy family she comes from, but this was also going on long before she ever got pregnant. They were married for 6 years before their daughter was born, and she was like that the whole time.
And even if she's struggling now with post partum making things even more difficult, that is definitely absolutely no excuse for getting completely drunk more than once while you are home responsible for a 3 month old and a 15 month old while your husband is at work, which has happened several times lately. That's the part that scares me - she doesn't want to get help; she just wants my brother to do it all and gets upset when he can't make her life perfect, so she's taken to self-medicating with alcohol.
drinking is a new twist, that didnt get mentioned before
anyway everyone's relationship dynamics are their own thing, I guess - and we are obviously only hearing one second hand version of the situation.
*shrugs* well, you asked, and all I have to offer is my one second hand version.psychod787 wrote: »
I think that's doable. 😅
Besides, in my family, its not the cats you have to worry about - its my dad and sister lol
Did I mention I ama prison nurse. So, not worried about family... I can handle almost anything....
now see? Now I'm thinking there's gotta be a catch - you're sounding too good to be true lol
2 -
Height is important to me in terms of attraction, I find if a guy is tall I’m more likely to be attracted to them and actually find its more important than if he’s conventionally attractive. If I was single I would prefer to date taller men but I would NOT put it on a dating profile and it would not be a deal breaker either1
-
I'm going to de-rail my own thread just a bit to point out something else I've seen through the lens of online dating: Most profile I read have pretty strictly gender-normative expectations of men. Even women who loudly and proudly proclaim they're not a "girly girl" do imply that their partner should be a "manly man." It's interesting how women get some degree of freedom in that regard that men largely don't.
Me, I listen to Tori Amos, read classical literature, and have 3 cats as roommates. I'm perfectly comfortable in my "girly man" skin, but at the same time, it's not really "accepted" in broader society. People who meet me in person are often surprised to discover I'm not gay. This bothered me 20 years ago, but I've thankfully gotten wiser since then.
On the other hand, being a tomboy or, as Gillian Flynn calls her, a "cool girl," is not only accepted -- it's attractive. Think of the girl who can chug beer and enjoys watching sports. "One of the guys," etc.
I wonder what the sociological roots of this phenomenon are.
As a woman who is now pretty run of the mill femme but presented as fairly "boyish" until I was in my mid-20s, my experience is that it's way more complicated than this.
Lots of guys think they want a tomboy, but for many of them it does have to be paired with some standard feminine features/character traits to be truly desirable.
Think: she can chug a beer without smearing her lipstick.
Not: she can chug a beer and doesn't own a lipstick.
The whole thing with the "cool girl" as outlined by Flynn is that she had to have all the "right" parts of being "one of the boys" while still being attractive and desirable.
A "cool girl" is not a "tomboy."
She's a woman that is conventionally attractive while appearing to put in no effort to be so, who doesn't stop guys from doing what they want, and is willing to join in when it's fun for him (and disappears to let him enjoy himself when she isn't welcome).
(Note: I'm not saying YOU aren't genuinely attracted to tomboys, but a true tomboy is not what many guys -- especially those in their teens and twenties -- are looking for).10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I'm going to de-rail my own thread just a bit to point out something else I've seen through the lens of online dating: Most profile I read have pretty strictly gender-normative expectations of men. Even women who loudly and proudly proclaim they're not a "girly girl" do imply that their partner should be a "manly man." It's interesting how women get some degree of freedom in that regard that men largely don't.
Me, I listen to Tori Amos, read classical literature, and have 3 cats as roommates. I'm perfectly comfortable in my "girly man" skin, but at the same time, it's not really "accepted" in broader society. People who meet me in person are often surprised to discover I'm not gay. This bothered me 20 years ago, but I've thankfully gotten wiser since then.
On the other hand, being a tomboy or, as Gillian Flynn calls her, a "cool girl," is not only accepted -- it's attractive. Think of the girl who can chug beer and enjoys watching sports. "One of the guys," etc.
I wonder what the sociological roots of this phenomenon are.
As a woman who is now pretty run of the mill femme but presented as fairly "boyish" until I was in my mid-20s, my experience is that it's way more complicated than this.
Lots of guys think they want a tomboy, but for many of them it does have to be paired with some standard feminine features/character traits to be truly desirable.
Think: she can chug a beer without smearing her lipstick.
Not: she can chug a beer and doesn't own a lipstick.
The whole thing with the "cool girl" as outlined by Flynn is that she had to have all the "right" parts of being "one of the boys" while still being attractive and desirable.
A "cool girl" is not a "tomboy."
She's a woman that is conventionally attractive while appearing to put in no effort to be so, who doesn't stop guys from doing what they want, and is willing to join in when it's fun for him (and disappears to let him enjoy himself when she isn't welcome).
(Note: I'm not saying YOU aren't genuinely attracted to tomboys, but a true tomboy is not what many guys -- especially those in their teens and twenties -- are looking for).
Absolutely. And part of that adolescent/post-adolescent conception of the "buddy girl" is that it's just like having a guy buddy, but you get hetero sex, too. Relationships? Nah, buddies don't want/have relationships.
Being a tomboy or having traits usually thought of as more masculine is not accepted in the way you're thinking it's accepted.
I agree that the mainstream of popular culture isn't uniformly kind to men with interests or attributes popularly imagined to be feminine. Popular culture is an idiot. Most people seem to want to be like most other people, and seemingly prefer to be around other people who also want to be like most people.
That's pretty boring. 😆
I don't see why a man's height matters, but when I was looking for partners, what I looked for and appreciated in a serious relationship was more about intelligence, character and curiosity. I'm a conscientious objector to the whole relationship thing at this point, but I still find female friends' tastes - especially when it comes to initial attractors - surprising and odd. 🤷♀️
OP, you're way too young for me, but speaking abstractly, only the Tori Amos thing would give me pause. (I'm an aspiring bluegrass banjo player. That *should* give guys, or any potential close associates, pause. 🤣)7 -
psychod787 wrote: »stevehenderson776 wrote: »Finding a mate seems so much easier in the animal world. If I were a bird I'd just attract females with my colourful plummage and song. If I were I spider I'd win her over with my mating dance. If I were a wolf I'd kill her a nice juicy rabbit. That's it. Do the one mating ritual and you're in.
Women want it all though. Songs, dances, bright colourful displays, dead rabbits, etc. It gets to be a bit much.
You forgot about praying mantises...😬
**edit** going to have to mention pair bonding vs tournament mating. In pair bonding, the female is looking for the best provider with decent genetics. In tournament species, it's all about genetics. That is why we generally see a greater size disparity between males and females of the same species. Humans are a strange mix. We tend to be mostly pair bonding with some residual tournamental tendencies.
Glad I got through before I realised it was this complicated. My wife is shorter than I am, but neither of us is extreme. Now two of our children are taller than me, and the other is shorter than my wife. Want to know which one is married?? The short one!!2 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »bmeadows380 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »bmeadows380 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »bmeadows380 wrote: »@futurefit2020
Well, in my brother's case, he's not a controlling creep but i do think he's rather an idiot. He went and found him a wife that "needs" him alright; she sits on the couch and has emotional breakdowns while he works 10 hours a day and then does all the housework, cooking, cleaning, and taking care of the 3 month old and 6 month old. She even expect him to get up and feed the infant because "she's just stressed" even though he is a trucker and needs to be up the next morning to drive.
Real peach, my sister in law......
really derailing now - but have you considered she may have post natal depression?
@paperpudding
I would think that truly, especially since they had 2 kids within 14 months not to mention the crazy family she comes from, but this was also going on long before she ever got pregnant. They were married for 6 years before their daughter was born, and she was like that the whole time.
And even if she's struggling now with post partum making things even more difficult, that is definitely absolutely no excuse for getting completely drunk more than once while you are home responsible for a 3 month old and a 15 month old while your husband is at work, which has happened several times lately. That's the part that scares me - she doesn't want to get help; she just wants my brother to do it all and gets upset when he can't make her life perfect, so she's taken to self-medicating with alcohol.
drinking is a new twist, that didnt get mentioned before
anyway everyone's relationship dynamics are their own thing, I guess - and we are obviously only hearing one second hand version of the situation.
*shrugs* well, you asked, and all I have to offer is my one second hand version.psychod787 wrote: »
I think that's doable. 😅
Besides, in my family, its not the cats you have to worry about - its my dad and sister lol
Did I mention I ama prison nurse. So, not worried about family... I can handle almost anything....
now see? Now I'm thinking there's gotta be a catch - you're sounding too good to be true lol
Trust me ma'am. I come with my own issues. Though being independent and having a job are not among them.🙃psychod787 wrote: »stevehenderson776 wrote: »Finding a mate seems so much easier in the animal world. If I were a bird I'd just attract females with my colourful plummage and song. If I were I spider I'd win her over with my mating dance. If I were a wolf I'd kill her a nice juicy rabbit. That's it. Do the one mating ritual and you're in.
Women want it all though. Songs, dances, bright colourful displays, dead rabbits, etc. It gets to be a bit much.
You forgot about praying mantises...😬
**edit** going to have to mention pair bonding vs tournament mating. In pair bonding, the female is looking for the best provider with decent genetics. In tournament species, it's all about genetics. That is why we generally see a greater size disparity between males and females of the same species. Humans are a strange mix. We tend to be mostly pair bonding with some residual tournamental tendencies.
Glad I got through before I realised it was this complicated. My wife is shorter than I am, but neither of us is extreme. Now two of our children are taller than me, and the other is shorter than my wife. Want to know which one is married?? The short one!!
The subject of evolutionary psychology is a very large one. I have at least 100+ hrs listen to college lectures on it and still earn new things..3 -
It's google stats, but it may be closer to 18% among the younger generation.0
-
It's google stats, but it may be closer to 18% among the younger generation.
I wonder what the stats are about height differential preferences in general. If I were 5' tall, 6' wouldn't be something that mattered to me. I'd be fine with someone close to my height. But being 6'1", dating someone 5' tall doesn't appeal to me. Not because of them, but more because of my own insecurities about being freakishly tall "for a woman".
4 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »The funny thing with women who only date men over 6ft. A quick Google search tells you that only 15% of men in the US are over 6ft. That means 85% of men are written off 🤣. That's quite something.
Not doubting your stat, but that is wild. I'm 6'2" a group of like 10 of us HS friends were together and got a group picture. I was second to the shortest.
That's amazing. I don't know that many 6 footers.1 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »The funny thing with women who only date men over 6ft. A quick Google search tells you that only 15% of men in the US are over 6ft. That means 85% of men are written off 🤣. That's quite something.
Not doubting your stat, but that is wild. I'm 6'2" a group of like 10 of us HS friends were together and got a group picture. I was second to the shortest.
that would be unusual for a random collection of men ( particularly men of all racial backgrounds - obviously asian people, for example, tend to be shorter )- different if it were a group like your family who are all tall or a professional basketball team or some other non random group.
3 -
So, I had heard this was a thing, but had not encountered it myself until recently.
A couple of months ago, I decided to dip my toe into the world of online dating. And it didn't take long to see women's profiles where height isn't just a preference, but an absolute (dis)qualifier ("Under 5'10", do not message"; "Must be tall"; "No one under 6' please" etc.).
This strikes me as odd. I could never and would never write something like "BMI < 25 only." And yet, height is completely out of a person's control, whereas weight is not.
I understand we all have preferences. I have preferences. But I like to think none of my preferences are absolute, binary statements. As in, I would never date this particular person because of this one characteristic. I might prefer a slim person, yet I married an overweight person -- because she was funny, smart, creative - basically she checked almost all my boxes, and I try to look at a person in their totality. To put it another way, I might be attracted to X, but that doesn't rule out Y or Z.
In my own profile, I try to imply my preferences rather than lead with them ("looking for someone to go on runs with me..."). I think this is much better.
And I assure you, I write all of this without bitterness. It's more a curiosity of why this form of discrimination is seemingly socially acceptable. Or at least, acceptable in the dimension of online dating.
It goes both ways. Short guys and tall girls...
Not true for everyone of course. But I've heard enough complaints.0 -
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.1
-
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.
Are there any studies or statistics on this? What happens to all the short men or tall women out there?
If gay men all prefer partners taller than them, what finally happens to the taller one in the partnership??7 -
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.
It hardly seems necessary for it to be a genetic predisposition in the vast majority of women, given that women on average are shorter than men.
ETA: I'm almost smack dab exactly average height for a woman in the U.S. I rarely meet an adult male who is shorter than me.4 -
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.
. . . and to add to Lynn's comment, why is it only the women who in your view are "genetically programmed"? It's been pretty clear from some women who've commented in the thread that at least some men don't appreciate dating a woman who's taller than they are. If there's "genetic programming", it could be symmetric, with very short men and very tall women both more likely to be left out in the cold, amongst the hetero set.
(But I have no relevant personal experienced, being midsized. While I can recall feeling attraction to men shorter than I, I don't remember whether it'ss ever gone beyond that; and the guy I was married to was taller than me, though I don't recall that having been one of my selection criteria. (I was nice to have someone around to reach stuff from tall shelves, though.)5 -
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).13 -
janejellyroll wrote: »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.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »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.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.1 -
psychod787 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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'm not arguing that sexual preferences don't exist, I just bristle at attributing them exclusively to women (why can't it also be the fact that men may also prefer women who are smaller than them?) and using terms like "programming," which seem awfully dehumanizing.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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'm not arguing that sexual preferences don't exist, I just bristle at attributing them exclusively to women (why can't it also be the fact that men may also prefer women who are smaller than them?) and using terms like "programming," which seem awfully dehumanizing.
Programmed is a great word to use imho. What else is the brain but a giant super computer? It's making many calculations all at once and directing our actions. I think there are certain things a man is programmed to look at in a mate physically. The Paleolithic Venus statues are great examples. They are thought to be fertility totems. They are over exaggerations of things a man looks at in a potential mate. Large hips, buttocks, breast, and stomach. In the times of our ancient ancestors, a women who had these characteristics was more likely to be able to carry a child to term in times when food availability was uncertain. There are reasons why women may choose to exaggerate certain body features. Aka... push up bras, high heels, high waisted pants. They may think they are "doing it for themselves", but it's an old brain response. We have the old brain and the new brain. The neocortex is the high brain. It makes rational decision making selections. Then we have the old brain. Basically our subconscious. It drives us to do certain things that we rationalize with the new brain. When a man's eye shoots to a gal in tight pants rear end, it's an old brain response. Now that doe not excuse staring because that Is a rational choice. The initial look... all old brain. So, yes WE ARE programmed...1 -
I will add that in a previous post I talked about tournament species vs pair bonding species. In a tournament species, we see much larger Males compared to females. Most likely dt size showing superior genetics and the ability to defend a groups of females. In pair bonding, both male and females are roughly the same size. Humans are an little different. We are mostly pair bonding, but still caring some of the traits of a tournament species particularly because men tend to be larger than women. So, is there a sexual selection for taller men. I think so. The biggest selection bias for pair bonding tends to be resources and child rearing capabilities mostly, there is an high rate of cuckolding in pair bonding that we dont see in tournament species. This could be females trying to make sure they are getting the best genetics for their offspring. Men might stray because of the part of us that are tournament species. Looking for maximum chance of our offspring living. This does not excuse adulatory. We do have rational brains.janejellyroll wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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'm not arguing that sexual preferences don't exist, I just bristle at attributing them exclusively to women (why can't it also be the fact that men may also prefer women who are smaller than them?) and using terms like "programming," which seem awfully dehumanizing.0 -
psychod787 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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'm not arguing that sexual preferences don't exist, I just bristle at attributing them exclusively to women (why can't it also be the fact that men may also prefer women who are smaller than them?) and using terms like "programming," which seem awfully dehumanizing.
Programmed is a great word to use imho. What else is the brain but a giant super computer? It's making many calculations all at once and directing our actions. I think there are certain things a man is programmed to look at in a mate physically. The Paleolithic Venus statues are great examples. They are thought to be fertility totems. They are over exaggerations of things a man looks at in a potential mate. Large hips, buttocks, breast, and stomach. In the times of our ancient ancestors, a women who had these characteristics was more likely to be able to carry a child to term in times when food availability was uncertain. There are reasons why women may choose to exaggerate certain body features. Aka... push up bras, high heels, high waisted pants. They may think they are "doing it for themselves", but it's an old brain response. We have the old brain and the new brain. The neocortex is the high brain. It makes rational decision making selections. Then we have the old brain. Basically our subconscious. It drives us to do certain things that we rationalize with the new brain. When a man's eye shoots to a gal in tight pants rear end, it's an old brain response. Now that doe not excuse staring because that Is a rational choice. The initial look... all old brain. So, yes WE ARE programmed...
I don't know that we're that far apart, I just think that "programmed" is a stronger word than I would use. I would go with "generally attracted to." And even within the context of saying that men *tend* to be attracted to certain features in women (at least the men who are attracted to women) and that women *tend* to be attracted to certain features in me (at least the women who are attracted to men), I think we can all think of people who are indifferent to relatively popular features. And we also have examples of how standards of attractiveness fluctuate over time, both of which are not what we would expect to see if we were literally programmed to find certain things attractive.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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'm not arguing that sexual preferences don't exist, I just bristle at attributing them exclusively to women (why can't it also be the fact that men may also prefer women who are smaller than them?) and using terms like "programming," which seem awfully dehumanizing.
Programmed is a great word to use imho. What else is the brain but a giant super computer? It's making many calculations all at once and directing our actions. I think there are certain things a man is programmed to look at in a mate physically. The Paleolithic Venus statues are great examples. They are thought to be fertility totems. They are over exaggerations of things a man looks at in a potential mate. Large hips, buttocks, breast, and stomach. In the times of our ancient ancestors, a women who had these characteristics was more likely to be able to carry a child to term in times when food availability was uncertain. There are reasons why women may choose to exaggerate certain body features. Aka... push up bras, high heels, high waisted pants. They may think they are "doing it for themselves", but it's an old brain response. We have the old brain and the new brain. The neocortex is the high brain. It makes rational decision making selections. Then we have the old brain. Basically our subconscious. It drives us to do certain things that we rationalize with the new brain. When a man's eye shoots to a gal in tight pants rear end, it's an old brain response. Now that doe not excuse staring because that Is a rational choice. The initial look... all old brain. So, yes WE ARE programmed...
I don't know that we're that far apart, I just think that "programmed" is a stronger word than I would use. I would go with "generally attracted to." And even within the context of saying that men *tend* to be attracted to certain features in women (at least the men who are attracted to women) and that women *tend* to be attracted to certain features in me (at least the women who are attracted to men), I think we can all think of people who are indifferent to relatively popular features. And we also have examples of how standards of attractiveness fluctuate over time, both of which are not what we would expect to see if we were literally programmed to find certain things attractive.
Even if attractiveness "standards" change, we still see general associations of what men and women look at.0 -
I think society as a whole is taller because we have more cathedral ceilings on the whole.
Back when they had tiny sod houses, it would be better to be small so it would be easier to move around in that tiny dwelling.
Now that houses have 8 foot ceilings, we can grow tall ... And now that we have multi thousand square foot homes, we can be wider too! Lol8
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 396.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44.2K Getting Started
- 260.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 449 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.3K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.5K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions