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?
Replies
-
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 -
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.
These aren't things that are operating at the conscious attraction level of "oooh he/she is hot", these are mate selection criteria that are biologically driven -- produce lots of offspring with higher chances of survival.
As far as I recall, the waist-hip ratio study was repeated 10? 20? years later and it was still the main criteria for female attractiveness but the ratio had decreased slightly. Again, this was not something identified by the subjects themselves, it was a variable derived from statistical analysis of the results. All the men did was choose between pictures.1 -
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?1
-
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.
These aren't things that are operating at the conscious attraction level of "oooh he/she is hot", these are mate selection criteria that are biologically driven -- produce lots of offspring with higher chances of survival.
As far as I recall, the waist-hip ratio study was repeated 10? 20? years later and it was still the main criteria for female attractiveness but the ratio had decreased slightly. Again, this was not something identified by the subjects themselves, it was a variable derived from statistical analysis of the results. All the men did was choose between pictures.
I'm not arguing that our decisions about who and who isn't attractive are operating at the conscious level, I'm arguing that it is more complicated than women being programmed to choose tall men. The truth is that many women do find size to be appealing, but there are also women for whom it is irrelevant and women who are able to prioritize other things than height.
I'm not arguing against the waist-hip ratio study either. I would argue that choosing which picture one finds more attractive is worlds away from the complex and sometimes lengthy process of choosing a long-term mate, the subject of the OP. The person I find abstractly most attractive may or may not be my choice for a dating partner, sexual companion, or mate.8 -
I'm following this discussion but am wondering...
In these arguments, what is defined as tall?
Is it taller the the other person, or is it taller than average but not necessarily taller than the other person?
There is a difference between preferring someone who is taller than you (ie woman is 5' and partner is 5'2) vs preferring someone who is 6'3" regardless of how tall you are.3 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »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.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »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.
These aren't things that are operating at the conscious attraction level of "oooh he/she is hot", these are mate selection criteria that are biologically driven -- produce lots of offspring with higher chances of survival.
As far as I recall, the waist-hip ratio study was repeated 10? 20? years later and it was still the main criteria for female attractiveness but the ratio had decreased slightly. Again, this was not something identified by the subjects themselves, it was a variable derived from statistical analysis of the results. All the men did was choose between pictures.
I'm not arguing that our decisions about who and who isn't attractive are operating at the conscious level, I'm arguing that it is more complicated than women being programmed to choose tall men. The truth is that many women do find size to be appealing, but there are also women for whom it is irrelevant and women who are able to prioritize other things than height.
I'm not arguing against the waist-hip ratio study either. I would argue that choosing which picture one finds more attractive is worlds away from the complex and sometimes lengthy process of choosing a long-term mate, the subject of the OP. The person I find abstractly most attractive may or may not be my choice for a dating partner, sexual companion, or mate.
From a social-history perspective, it seems odd to me to put the emphasis on *women* being programmed biologically. (Personally, I suspect everyone of any sex has some hardwired inclinations, but tempered by socio-cultural baggage.)
There are exceptions, but over much of history in many cultures, women have been more chosen than choosing, possibly with some influence but definitely not control over the transaction. Even within my lifetime, "ask her father for her hand" remained as a (largely proforma) nicety, relic of a time when it was required a permission to transfer the woman (a wholly owned subsidiary 😆) from one man's household to another. There have been marriage-by-kidnapping customs (still are or have been recently, in some parts of the world, if friends are to be believed), bride prices, and more. I don't think dowry is a counter-example, I think it's more a "sweetening of the pot" for the overall economic transaction. (As a related aside, if you don't know what "coverture" is, look it up. It existed in law in the US into the 1970s.)
I do recognize that women's power in these decisions has increased dramatically in many cultures over the last few hundred years, especially the last hundredish, and that's perhaps enough time for some biological rewiring . . . but not much.
I have no doubt that women ask for and expect silly things via dating site profiles. Many people are silly. I have no doubt that men get hostile reactions from asking for what they see as equivalent things. Many people are touchy. Whether the women making the silly demands are the same women as those having hostile reactions, I have no idea - that would be my criterion for calling it hypocrisy, not simply that both things are true but among different individuals. I do assume that some individuals (all sexes) are hypocrites, of course.
.
From what I observe among people I know personally (a biased sample by definition) many people's methods of mate-chosing are pretty irrational, and often work out at least somewhat badly. (IME, even a large fraction of couples who stay together don't seem to like or appreciate each other all that much.) I'm not excepting myself from this at all: My choice (of my husband from early 20s to his death at 45) was not very rational, but in practice I think worked out better than average (by pure blind luck).
ETA: None of the above intended as disagreeing with Jane, but just as continuing the conversation. Hers was the most recent relevant reply at the time I started writing.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »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.
In line with this... Screening for weight / fitness is not always about aesthetics, either. In fact I'd argue that it's less about that than compatibility.
Case in point. I was single, athletic and loved weight lifting. I met someone and fell for them who was significantly overweight and didn't do those things. Our relationship really struggled because our priorities were so different. He didn't enjoy the things I did, and I constantly had to choose between him or those things. Going forward, I WILL place more of a priority on fitness just from a compatibility standpoint.
As for the height... I've stated before... I feel like the premise changes if I am a female seeking male and the female is 6' vs 5'.
I am 6' tall. I like wearing heels. It is what it is. I have dated men 5'8 and higher and the shorter they get, the more problem they have with me, and I with them. They get teased by their friends, they tease me about my height, and things have gotten uncomfortable or even hurtful as time progressed.
I would prefer someone close to my height. I'd love if they were taller, but it's not my deal breaker. I don't think it's unreasonable for me to say I prefer active and taller. Nor do I think it's unreasonable for someone to say they don't want to date someone 8" taller than them.
Maybe that makes me superficial. But from experience, I have been BADLY hurt by my partner's and my insecurities at play.7 -
KickassAmazon76 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »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.
In line with this... Screening for weight / fitness is not always about aesthetics, either. In fact I'd argue that it's less about that than compatibility.
Case in point. I was single, athletic and loved weight lifting. I met someone and fell for them who was significantly overweight and didn't do those things. Our relationship really struggled because our priorities were so different. He didn't enjoy the things I did, and I constantly had to choose between him or those things. Going forward, I WILL place more of a priority on fitness just from a compatibility standpoint.
As for the height... I've stated before... I feel like the premise changes if I am a female seeking male and the female is 6' vs 5'.
I have dated men 5'8 and higher and the shorter they get, the more problem they have with me, and I with them. They get teased by their friends, they tease me about my height, and things have gotten uncomfortable or even hurtful as time progressed.
I would prefer someone close to my height. I'd love if they were taller, but it's not my deal breaker. I don't think it's unreasonable for me to say I prefer active and taller. Nor do I think it's unreasonable for someone to say they don't want to date someone 8" taller than them.
Maybe that makes me superficial. But from experience, I have been BADLY hurt by my partner's and my insecurities at play.
Screening for fitness can be a lot of things. In my demographic (65 in a couple of weeks), many women (of whom I'm not one BTW) vehemently believe that many men our age are looking for "a nurse with a purse" (yes, I've seen/heard that phrase used more than once, and yes, it's ugly). At older ages, if someone is partner searching (vs. hookup searching), screening for fitness is potentially screening for people who will be able to be independent and not require partner care very soon.
For clarity: I'm not defending any side of the above. It's an observation. Many of the women I've seen fussing about not being a "nurse with a purse" have no place to stand, if they were to screen for actual fitness. I don't know whether they do so, or not. Many women (whom I know in person) in my demographic do online date, and they're generally looking for longer-term relationships (though not necessarily marriage), and not looking for short-term hookups.
I don't online date, or have any abstract inclination to real-life date. I'm a conscientious objector to the whole thing, these days. If I met someone IRL whose company I enjoyed, I'd spend time with them, doing things we both enjoyed. For me, that would desirably include doing active things.
Thing I found funny: Guy in a social network group I'm in, in a discussion about what kind of partner people sought, mentioned wanting a weight-appropriate woman, and got mega pushback, very hostile (from women). He explained it in terms of wanting to do active outdoor things, which seemed legit to me. Shortly later, I found out that the current (and persistent) state of his health absolutely prevented doing the kinds of active outdoor things he'd mentioned. 😆6 -
KickassAmazon76 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »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.
In line with this... Screening for weight / fitness is not always about aesthetics, either. In fact I'd argue that it's less about that than compatibility.
Case in point. I was single, athletic and loved weight lifting. I met someone and fell for them who was significantly overweight and didn't do those things. Our relationship really struggled because our priorities were so different. He didn't enjoy the things I did, and I constantly had to choose between him or those things. Going forward, I WILL place more of a priority on fitness just from a compatibility standpoint.
As for the height... I've stated before... I feel like the premise changes if I am a female seeking male and the female is 6' vs 5'.
I have dated men 5'8 and higher and the shorter they get, the more problem they have with me, and I with them. They get teased by their friends, they tease me about my height, and things have gotten uncomfortable or even hurtful as time progressed.
I would prefer someone close to my height. I'd love if they were taller, but it's not my deal breaker. I don't think it's unreasonable for me to say I prefer active and taller. Nor do I think it's unreasonable for someone to say they don't want to date someone 8" taller than them.
Maybe that makes me superficial. But from experience, I have been BADLY hurt by my partner's and my insecurities at play.
Screening for fitness can be a lot of things. In my demographic (65 in a couple of weeks), many women (of whom I'm not one BTW) vehemently believe that many men our age are looking for "a nurse with a purse" (yes, I've seen/heard that phrase used more than once, and yes, it's ugly). At older ages, if someone is partner searching (vs. hookup searching), screening for fitness is potentially screening for people who will be able to be independent and not require partner care very soon.
For clarity: I'm not defending any side of the above. It's an observation. Many of the women I've seen fussing about not being a "nurse with a purse" have no place to stand, if they were to screen for actual fitness. I don't know whether they do so, or not. Many women (whom I know in person) in my demographic do online date, and they're generally looking for longer-term relationships (though not necessarily marriage), and not looking for short-term hookups.
I don't online date, or have any abstract inclination to real-life date. I'm a conscientious objector to the whole thing, these days. If I met someone IRL whose company I enjoyed, I'd spend time with them, doing things we both enjoyed. For me, that would desirably include doing active things.
Thing I found funny: Guy in a social network group I'm in, in a discussion about what kind of partner people sought, mentioned wanting a weight-appropriate woman, and got mega pushback, very hostile (from women). He explained it in terms of wanting to do active outdoor things, which seemed legit to me. Shortly later, I found out that the current (and persistent) state of his health absolutely prevented doing the kinds of active outdoor things he'd mentioned. 😆
He just wanted her to do the yardwork! 😂 😂4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »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.0 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »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.
Oh, good grief. Yes, some people are basically idiots. Wouldn't want to date them anyway, I would think? 😆 Best they out themselves, for the sake of others' self-protection.7 -
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 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.5 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »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.9 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »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.2 -
Weird you think it's not acceptable for men (or women) to screen based on weight. It totally is.5
-
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »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.
Good grief! I never looked at your avatar and have assumed all this time that you were a woman. I'm laughing now at my preconceptions.
On topic: I suspect you have run into a very vocal minority who want weight not to be a factor in dating while the vast majority know it is and accept it as a given, thus not worth discussing.5 -
Weird you think it's not acceptable for men (or women) to screen based on weight. It totally is.
I never said that. In fact, I think it's fair to screen based on weight. I'm saying that most people I encounter disagree. Most people I encounter think I'm a d-bag for screening based on weight.1 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »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.
Good grief! I never looked at your avatar and have assumed all this time that you were a woman. I'm laughing now at my preconceptions.
On topic: I suspect you have run into a very vocal minority who want weight not to be a factor in dating while the vast majority know it is and accept it as a given, thus not worth discussing.
IDK. It isn't just the one discussion I mentioned. I get the same response pretty much everywhere. This is the first time I've seen where a fair amount of others in the conversation actually think it's ok for me to not want to date an obese woman. Sometimes I'll see 1 other person who agrees with me, but other times I'm entirely alone in my perspective.5 -
oh my, where do I begin, I know I am late to the party here, but... first of all I am blessed on a good day I am 6' tall was definitely that in high school, ha ha
this indeed is such a bizarre requirement this one lady went out with my friend ( 6' 9" ) no joke, and she was like 5' 2" he did not ask her height prior to the date, so imagine his surprise that her minimum was a guy that was 5'11" needless to say it did not work out
but then I have heard so many gals use that as an excuse to let them down "gently" it did bite this one gal though when while sitting down she told a guy "I'm just not that into you I would prefer you were taller", he was a confident good looking guy and simply replied, "taller than 6' 3"0 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »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.
5 -
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.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »If it really bothers you: women are terrible at evaluating a dude's height IRL. Just saying...
Someone should compare the distribution of male height on dating apps with that of the general male population.
True in my case, I tend to describe anyone taller than me as "tall" (I'm 5'4) and anyone who is around 6 feet or more as "really, really tall," even if they're 6'1. The men in my family tend to be shorter. I have a brother is who is 5'11 and we all refer to him as the "tall one."
Yeah, I can't tell height or weight and think most can't. I'm 5'3 but usually see men below 5'10 as short, because my dad is 6 foot. But I worked with a guy 6'5 who all the guys thought was super tall and I didn't really notice. I prefer dating someone taller than me but otherwise don't notice much.
On weight, I've seen men guessing women who are obv 120 or more, and perfectly in shape, as 100, which I assume is women lying about their weight or just a lack of knowledge. When I lost a bunch and was super fit at 125, an ex bf (older, taller, in shape around 190), couldn't believe I was more than 110.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »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.
These aren't things that are operating at the conscious attraction level of "oooh he/she is hot", these are mate selection criteria that are biologically driven -- produce lots of offspring with higher chances of survival.
As far as I recall, the waist-hip ratio study was repeated 10? 20? years later and it was still the main criteria for female attractiveness but the ratio had decreased slightly. Again, this was not something identified by the subjects themselves, it was a variable derived from statistical analysis of the results. All the men did was choose between pictures.
I'm not arguing that our decisions about who and who isn't attractive are operating at the conscious level, I'm arguing that it is more complicated than women being programmed to choose tall men. The truth is that many women do find size to be appealing, but there are also women for whom it is irrelevant and women who are able to prioritize other things than height.
I'm not arguing against the waist-hip ratio study either. I would argue that choosing which picture one finds more attractive is worlds away from the complex and sometimes lengthy process of choosing a long-term mate, the subject of the OP. The person I find abstractly most attractive may or may not be my choice for a dating partner, sexual companion, or mate.
From a social-history perspective, it seems odd to me to put the emphasis on *women* being programmed biologically. (Personally, I suspect everyone of any sex has some hardwired inclinations, but tempered by socio-cultural baggage.)
There are exceptions, but over much of history in many cultures, women have been more chosen than choosing, possibly with some influence but definitely not control over the transaction. Even within my lifetime, "ask her father for her hand" remained as a (largely proforma) nicety, relic of a time when it was required a permission to transfer the woman (a wholly owned subsidiary 😆) from one man's household to another. There have been marriage-by-kidnapping customs (still are or have been recently, in some parts of the world, if friends are to be believed), bride prices, and more. I don't think dowry is a counter-example, I think it's more a "sweetening of the pot" for the overall economic transaction. (As a related aside, if you don't know what "coverture" is, look it up. It existed in law in the US into the 1970s.)
I do recognize that women's power in these decisions has increased dramatically in many cultures over the last few hundred years, especially the last hundredish, and that's perhaps enough time for some biological rewiring . . . but not much.
I have no doubt that women ask for and expect silly things via dating site profiles. Many people are silly. I have no doubt that men get hostile reactions from asking for what they see as equivalent things. Many people are touchy. Whether the women making the silly demands are the same women as those having hostile reactions, I have no idea - that would be my criterion for calling it hypocrisy, not simply that both things are true but among different individuals. I do assume that some individuals (all sexes) are hypocrites, of course.
.
From what I observe among people I know personally (a biased sample by definition) many people's methods of mate-chosing are pretty irrational, and often work out at least somewhat badly. (IME, even a large fraction of couples who stay together don't seem to like or appreciate each other all that much.) I'm not excepting myself from this at all: My choice (of my husband from early 20s to his death at 45) was not very rational, but in practice I think worked out better than average (by pure blind luck).
ETA: None of the above intended as disagreeing with Jane, but just as continuing the conversation. Hers was the most recent relevant reply at the time I started writing.
To expand on your thought, I don't even think there is any evidence that "rational" mate choosing has better long term outcomes (measured either in subjective reports of happiness or more objective divorce rates) or if we even have a good template for what such "rational" choice would look like.
I think we can all think of couples who were perfect on paper and wound up making each other miserable. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who knows couples who seem like they should never work out but seem blissful. I myself am a "irrational chooser" who has been with my choice for over fifteen years.
I guess my point is . . . if height is an important first consideration to someone, do we really have any evidence that it's a worse preference than any other? I'm not saying you can build a relationship on "He's tall and I like that," but many of us probably began relationships because the initial spark was provided by something that sounds kind of ridiculous. My husband and I clicked when we met online, but what really made me interested was that when we met in person, he just smelled so good (like his actual smell, not any products he was using). I think we can all agree there is nothing rational about that, but it somehow worked out. And it just as easily couldn't have worked out. We just don't have a good template for what rational mate selection would look like.6 -
T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »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.
If I saw that dynamic in action, I would absolutely object. There's no justification for screening for height that wouldn't also apply to screening for weight.
You could argue that it's okay to have an preference for certain body types. Okay, that applies to weight too.
You could argue that it's not okay to screen for weight because there are so many social associations with it and the preference for a more slender weight isn't made outside of that context. Okay, but we have strong social associations with height for men as well.
I would say that any kind of physical preference that exists is valid, in that it is part of what creates "attraction" for the person in question. The choice itself may be based on bigotry or small-mindedness (or it may not). It may be part of what makes someone an irrational or unfair or unkind person, but it still exists. Why should anyone be expected to waste time dating people they're not attracted to? Why would I want to go out on a date with someone if he knows from the jump that I'm just not his type?
These short men who want to go out with women who want tall men and overweight women who want to go out with men who want slender mates . . . what outcome do they really think is going to happen? You can shame people into pretending their preferences aren't real, but that isn't going to result in the preferences going away.4 -
KickassAmazon76 wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »T1DCarnivoreRunner wrote: »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.
4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions