How long is too long...?
Replies
-
Yeah I think a lot of people need to realize that this image of an ideal mate they have in their heads probably doesn't even exist. Keep an open mind, get rid of the shopping list, and try to get to know people before you count them out.
And remember when you turn someone away because of something trivial, you're usually doing so based on your own insecurities. There's probably nothing wrong with them, but there could be something wrong with you.
Also, look at the big picture. Rejecting someone because they have, for instance, facial hair makes no sense. Facial hair can be easily cut, it's not forever. If they live too far away, have a pet you're not fond of, etc there's always ways around it. Don't get hung up on things like that. Try to see the forest through the trees.0 -
Lets be honest about it though,saying something is a preference is often simply a distinction without a difference.
Example,many ladies here have declared that their preference in a man in 6 foot or taller.
Myself at 5'8"-9" (which is pretty average) misses the preference.
Now the reality is that some other trait or characteristic has to cancel that out which is an additional challenge over and above the normal relationship ones.
In short my chances realistically are just slightly north of zero depending on how strong the "preference" is.
Now add in a guy as competition that is 6'1" and my chances likely fall completely to zero all else being equal.0 -
I agree with the absurdity of having such stringent requirements of a potential partner.... except for the kids part. This is a huge deal.Everyone has their preferences. No problem with that. I have mine, too.
I have no problem with the statement, "I prefer to date women with no kids." Or "I prefer tall, muscular men," or whatever.
I do have issues with speaking in absolutes when it comes to relationships, especially when combined with a very cold, calculating approach to the entire filtering process. It seems to be overly superficial, and detached from reality.
For example, if you are terrible with kids, if you don't like kids, if you know you'll make a terrible parent, of course it's fine to say you would prefer to date a person with no kids, and who doesn't want kids, and there is almost no way you're going to change your mind on this. Makes perfect sense.
But to say, "I'll only date tan, fit women from 23 - 34 with no kids, although I'll adjust that to 30 - 40 and allow one kid under 5 years old if she is rich and has large breasts" strikes me as absurd. Is that how people think now?
Again, I'm wondering how much on-line dating - with its hard filtering process - is changing the way we think about relationships. Just note the stress here in deciding which body type to be on-line. We have reduced the infinite complexity of the individual to a check list of simplification and generalization. And now we're even thinking this way off-line when we look for mates. I think it's gone past what was typical 20 years ago. And I do believe it is changing us for the worse.
The world exists in analog. We have mapped it to digital. But what have we lost in the process?
--P
Speaking from my own life, I was absolutely not ready to be in a relationship with children (of my own or a partner's) when I was in my 20s, largely because of my own immaturity and career aspirations. This is definitely one of those criteria that some people, like myself, have adjusted with age and it's nothing to do with online dating since that didn't exist (I don't think) when I was dating before I got married. I don't have children now because I wasn't ready for children through much of marriage - not until it was circling the drain.
I'm not sure what's so wrong about recognizing that people can be at different life stages when it comes to wanting a family - some people are not ready for it, some are ready and looking for a partner to start a family, some have a family and want a partner to add to their family to maybe have more children together, and some have been there, done that and have no interest whatsoever in having more children. It's good to be as open as possible to new people, but there are some things like this that I think are too big to expect someone to change in their search like they might extend the height range of their matches or accept someone with water sign or a beer belly. To me, that's not really a shopping list item.Also, look at the big picture. Rejecting someone because they have, for instance, facial hair makes no sense. Facial hair can be easily cut, it's not forever. If they live too far away, have a pet you're not fond of, etc there's always ways around it. Don't get hung up on things like that. Try to see the forest through the trees.
I disagree with everything here as being nit-picky items.
I've known some men who have sported a mustache forever - it's their personal style and form of self-expression. Don't we always say it's wrong to go into a relationship with the idea of changing someone? To date someone with the expectation that he will have to eventually lose the facial hair sounds like a bad fit to me. Wouldn't that guy want a woman who loves it and thinks he looks great with his prized mustache like Magnum PI? I can see how this could be not exactly trivial because attraction is important. Or were we talking about a woman with facial hair?
:laugh:
Having done the long distance thing, I can certainly say that distance is more than just a shopping list item too. My last boyfriend was half the country away and it was just too expensive to maintain the relationship because of all the flights and we couldn't in the near future work out one of us moving. There is a major cost in terms of time when distance is a factor too and I just won't go there again.
We talked about the pets as deal-breakers in another thread and that is certainly one for me. I have many others too.
The laundry list items to me are things like hair and eye color, height and weight (to some extent), a person's job (with some exceptions - I can't see myself in a relationship with someone who has a dangerous job for my own sanity), their car, the shoes or watch he wears, astrological sign, some hobbies, etc. Other things, IMO, are integral to finding someone compatible. There are some things that to me are absolutes because of my choices for my lifestyle - for example, I will not date a smoker. I would rather live alone than with a smoker, so I will not ever consider a relationship with someone who smokes, no matter how passionate they are about quitting. I guess we need to determine for ourselves what is important and what is trivial and try to minimize excluding people for the trivial things where there's some flexibility. I think what's trivial for one person might be very important to another though.0 -
The length of your shopping list of items is directly correlated to how good looking you are (more so for women, but even relevant for men) and how much money you make (men). A perfect 10 woman who is 25 and childless can write her own ticket in a partner. A hot shot Wall Street investment banker can do the same. Also true of pro athletes, though pro athletes are often monogamy challenged.0
-
Everyone has their preferences. No problem with that. I have mine, too.
I have no problem with the statement, "I prefer to date women with no kids." Or "I prefer tall, muscular men," or whatever.
I do have issues with speaking in absolutes when it comes to relationships, especially when combined with a very cold, calculating approach to the entire filtering process. It seems to be overly superficial, and detached from reality.
For example, if you are terrible with kids, if you don't like kids, if you know you'll make a terrible parent, of course it's fine to say you would prefer to date a person with no kids, and who doesn't want kids, and there is almost no way you're going to change your mind on this. Makes perfect sense.
But to say, "I'll only date tan, fit women from 23 - 34 with no kids, although I'll adjust that to 30 - 40 and allow one kid under 5 years old if she is rich and has large breasts" strikes me as absurd. Is that how people think now?
Again, I'm wondering how much on-line dating - with its hard filtering process - is changing the way we think about relationships. Just note the stress here in deciding which body type to be on-line. We have reduced the infinite complexity of the individual to a check list of simplification and generalization. And now we're even thinking this way off-line when we look for mates. I think it's gone past what was typical 20 years ago. And I do believe it is changing us for the worse.
The world exists in analog. We have mapped it to digital. But what have we lost in the process?
--P
I was also thinking about how quickly online dating is forcing the evolutionary hand of partner choices. It's sort of terrifying in a lot of ways, and I wonder if there will turn out to be some kind of societal threshold. Yikes.Lets be honest about it though,saying something is a preference is often simply a distinction without a difference.
Example,many ladies here have declared that their preference in a man in 6 foot or taller.
Myself at 5'8"-9" (which is pretty average) misses the preference.
Now the reality is that some other trait or characteristic has to cancel that out which is an additional challenge over and above the normal relationship ones.
In short my chances realistically are just slightly north of zero depending on how strong the "preference" is.
Now add in a guy as competition that is 6'1" and my chances likely fall completely to zero all else being equal.
While a lot of women state a height preference, I'd suspect that it's nowhere nearly as strong as a woman's preference for personality qualities. I had never dated anyone under 6' until my ex husband (5' 7- 5'8"). Personally, and I'd venture to say that generally- women say they care about height a lot more than they actually do. Don't get discouraged! However, this is another area where it's super easy to discount people online. Ugh.0 -
That's not really what I said, or at least what I mean. I didn't say you should date somebody with the expectation of them to change. I said that things don't last forever. A guy with a mustache or a goatee could just be a phase. But all else being equal, but someone rejects them because of a little facial hair I would call that person a moron.I disagree with everything here as being nit-picky items.
I've known some men who have sported a mustache forever - it's their personal style and form of self-expression. Don't we always say it's wrong to go into a relationship with the idea of changing someone? To date someone with the expectation that he will have to eventually lose the facial hair sounds like a bad fit to me. Wouldn't that guy want a woman who loves it and thinks he looks great with his prized mustache like Magnum PI?
Having done the long distance thing, I can certainly say that distance is more than just a shopping list item too. My last boyfriend was half the country away and it was just too expensive to maintain the relationship because of all the flights and we couldn't in the near future work out one of us moving. There is a major cost in terms of time when distance is a factor too and I just won't go there again.
We talked about the pets as deal-breakers in another thread and that is certainly one for me. I have many others too.
The laundry list items to me are things like hair and eye color, height and weight (to some extent), a person's job (with some exceptions - I can't see myself in a relationship with someone who has a dangerous job for my own sanity), their car, the shoes or watch he wears, astrological sign, some hobbies, etc. Other things, IMO, are integral to finding someone compatible. There are some things that to me are absolutes because of my choices for my lifestyle - for example, I will not date a smoker. I would rather live alone than with a smoker, so I will not ever consider a relationship with someone who smokes, no matter how passionate they are about quitting. I guess we need to determine for ourselves what is important and what is trivial and try to minimize excluding people for the trivial things where there's some flexibility. I think what's trivial for one person might be very important to another though.
And I didn't say to date someone half way across the country. I mainly meant if you had "within 30 miles" as a criteria on a dating site, you might want to reconsider. 35 miles is not that much farther away, but you wouldn't be matched up with them.
Pets die, but fair enough. I wouldn't suggest dog lovers to shack up with non-dog lovers. But just because one person has a pet doesn't mean they will have a pet forever. I don't really care for birds but I could deal with one for the right person.
Smoking is a personal opinion. I've dated plenty of non-smokers while I was a smoker and none of them really had a problem with it. I didn't smoke around them very often and didn't blow it in their face, tried to keep my breath fresh and they didn't complain. Some people are just more sensitive about it than others.
Look, I'm not saying to totally throw away your shopping list. Everyone will have their own deal breakers, that's what makes us all unique. You'll have some things you can't live without, and you'll have some things you THINK you can't live without. I'm just saying, a lot of people need to open their mind a little bit, not just with dating, with life. They make assumptions and jump to conclusions all the time. I had people in the lunchroom so grossed out because I was eating sushi yesterday. Some were appalled I was eating raw fish, some were appalled I was eating leftover raw fish, some had no idea what the hell it was. I was like, first of all sushi is delicious, don't knock it before you try it. Second of all, this is veggie sushi, there's no raw fish so chill.
Like Carl says, lots of women won't date anyone shorter than 6'. I'm 5'11", Carl is 5'8"-5'9", and sometimes I actually think that women believe that extra inch or two will lead to a lifetime of happiness. I can honestly say I'd date someone 6'5" and not be the least bit insecure about it. Apparently a lot of y'all need to refine your criteria, like "Must not be abusive, married, creepy, unemployed, cheating, lying, workaholic, drug addict, etc. etc." but everyone is so stuck on height it just kills me.0 -
Everyone has their preferences. No problem with that. I have mine, too.
I have no problem with the statement, "I prefer to date women with no kids." Or "I prefer tall, muscular men," or whatever.
I do have issues with speaking in absolutes when it comes to relationships, especially when combined with a very cold, calculating approach to the entire filtering process. It seems to be overly superficial, and detached from reality.
For example, if you are terrible with kids, if you don't like kids, if you know you'll make a terrible parent, of course it's fine to say you would prefer to date a person with no kids, and who doesn't want kids, and there is almost no way you're going to change your mind on this. Makes perfect sense.
But to say, "I'll only date tan, fit women from 23 - 34 with no kids, although I'll adjust that to 30 - 40 and allow one kid under 5 years old if she is rich and has large breasts" strikes me as absurd. Is that how people think now?
Again, I'm wondering how much on-line dating - with its hard filtering process - is changing the way we think about relationships. Just note the stress here in deciding which body type to be on-line. We have reduced the infinite complexity of the individual to a check list of simplification and generalization. And now we're even thinking this way off-line when we look for mates. I think it's gone past what was typical 20 years ago. And I do believe it is changing us for the worse.
The world exists in analog. We have mapped it to digital. But what have we lost in the process?
--P
I was also thinking about how quickly online dating is forcing the evolutionary hand of partner choices. It's sort of terrifying in a lot of ways, and I wonder if there will turn out to be some kind of societal threshold. Yikes.Lets be honest about it though,saying something is a preference is often simply a distinction without a difference.
Example,many ladies here have declared that their preference in a man in 6 foot or taller.
Myself at 5'8"-9" (which is pretty average) misses the preference.
Now the reality is that some other trait or characteristic has to cancel that out which is an additional challenge over and above the normal relationship ones.
In short my chances realistically are just slightly north of zero depending on how strong the "preference" is.
Now add in a guy as competition that is 6'1" and my chances likely fall completely to zero all else being equal.
While a lot of women state a height preference, I'd suspect that it's nowhere nearly as strong as a woman's preference for personality qualities. I had never dated anyone under 6' until my ex husband (5' 7- 5'8"). Personally, and I'd venture to say that generally- women say they care about height a lot more than they actually do. Don't get discouraged! However, this is another area where it's super easy to discount people online. Ugh.
Oh heavens no,it just made for an easy example to illustrate my point that a lot of people say they have a "preference" when in reality it is an absolute in affect.
I could say that my preference for a lady is she is between age x and y or a weight between this and that but open for other possibilities.
Sounds good but my reality is that anyone outside the preference stands really no chance,it is a diplomatic way of saying it is all.0 -
While a lot of women state a height preference, I'd suspect that it's nowhere nearly as strong as a woman's preference for personality qualities. I had never dated anyone under 6' until my ex husband (5' 7- 5'8"). Personally, and I'd venture to say that generally- women say they care about height a lot more than they actually do. Don't get discouraged!
This. I'd prefer to be with someone who is taller than I am, when I'm wearing a decent pair of heels, but if I meet someone who I really like, have a lot of fun with, and feel we're compatible, the fact they're a bit shorter isn't going to faze me at all (unless they're actually 5'1" and I tower over them, at which point, I regret to say I probably wouldn't see them as a potential romantic partner, because I would feel too self-conscious all the time - more to do with my issues than their height, really). Extremes aside, height's nowhere near as important to me as many other qualities. My impression is that the majority of women would agree with me on this.0 -
sometimes I actually think that women believe that extra inch or two will lead to a lifetime of happiness.
Well... I mean... it CAN.0 -
sometimes I actually think that women believe that extra inch or two will lead to a lifetime of happiness.
Well... I mean... it CAN.
Are we still talking height?
0 -
sometimes I actually think that women believe that extra inch or two will lead to a lifetime of happiness.
Well... I mean... it CAN.
Are we still talking height?
Of course we are! I am a respectable lady! I don't swear and I cross my ankles while sipping tea (ladies drink tea, right?).
Why? COULD it be referencing something else?0 -
:laugh:sometimes I actually think that women believe that extra inch or two will lead to a lifetime of happiness.
Well... I mean... it CAN.0 -
sometimes I actually think that women believe that extra inch or two will lead to a lifetime of happiness.
Well... I mean... it CAN.
Are we still talking height?
Of course we are! I am a respectable lady! I don't swear and I cross my ankles while sipping tea (ladies drink tea, right?).
Why? COULD it be referencing something else?
Of course not.
0 -
I'm 4'8... My ex (before my single time) was 6'4 but obviously height is not an issue for me. Not many guys are shorter than me!0
-
Do women really use a certain height as a basis for elimination? Of course, I'm using myself by comparison, but I PREFER someone 6' approximately. There is something about a guy slightly towering over me that gives a false but enjoyable sense of security.
I went on a date with someone who said they were 5'7", which turned out to be 5'3" truthfully. I enjoyed his company so while it was a little weird kissing someone shorter, it didn't STOP me. Now, the fact that he later turned out to have a girlfriend... that stopped me, haha :laugh:0 -
Do women really use a certain height as a basis for elimination?
I'm tall for a woman at 5'10" and while I would prefer someone who is the same height or taller, it is just that, a preference. It isn't the sole reason I would eliminate anyone or I wouldn't have much of a dating pool based on something very trivial!0 -
Do women really use a certain height as a basis for elimination? Of course, I'm using myself by comparison, but I PREFER someone 6' approximately. There is something about a guy slightly towering over me that gives a false but enjoyable sense of security.
I went on a date with someone who said they were 5'7", which turned out to be 5'3" truthfully. I enjoyed his company so while it was a little weird kissing someone shorter, it didn't STOP me. Now, the fact that he later turned out to have a girlfriend... that stopped me, haha :laugh:
When the question was asked here long ago the overwhelming majority of ladies said that the guy had to be taller then them and preferably in the 6 foot range.0 -
Do women really use a certain height as a basis for elimination? Of course, I'm using myself by comparison, but I PREFER someone 6' approximately. There is something about a guy slightly towering over me that gives a false but enjoyable sense of security.
I went on a date with someone who said they were 5'7", which turned out to be 5'3" truthfully. I enjoyed his company so while it was a little weird kissing someone shorter, it didn't STOP me. Now, the fact that he later turned out to have a girlfriend... that stopped me, haha :laugh:
When the question was asked here long ago the overwhelming majority of ladies said that the guy had to be taller then them and preferably in the 6 foot range.
Woah there Carl. No one said "had". Just that it's what is sought out/preferred (okay, well I did in the shopping list thread but I thought it was clear that was a joke). I think every lady here agrees if there were other redeeming qualities height is the least of their concerns. It's like when you go to buy a car - there are a bunch of things you want and you can check off the ones that are the most important, but there are going to be things you're willing to compromise on (Color, leather interior, maybe not as powerful, how much you put down up front) to get the month to month payment you're looking for. Depending on the car you might hate it and trade it in within a year, or you pay it off and keep it for 20 years because you adore it even if it's not everything you ever wanted.
I did stop seeing a guy who claimed he was 5'10" but in reality was 5'6" simply because
1) He lied. Ultimate deal breaker for me.
2) If you lie about something physical it's usually due to low self esteem and I'm not looking for a project.0 -
Do women really use a certain height as a basis for elimination? Of course, I'm using myself by comparison, but I PREFER someone 6' approximately. There is something about a guy slightly towering over me that gives a false but enjoyable sense of security.
I went on a date with someone who said they were 5'7", which turned out to be 5'3" truthfully. I enjoyed his company so while it was a little weird kissing someone shorter, it didn't STOP me. Now, the fact that he later turned out to have a girlfriend... that stopped me, haha :laugh:
When the question was asked here long ago the overwhelming majority of ladies said that the guy had to be taller then them and preferably in the 6 foot range.
Woah there Carl. No one said "had". Just that it's what is sought out/preferred (okay, well I did in the shopping list thread but I thought it was clear that was a joke). I think every lady here agrees if there were other redeeming qualities height is the least of their concerns. It's like when you go to buy a car - there are a bunch of things you want and you can check off the ones that are the most important, but there are going to be things you're willing to compromise on (Color, leather interior, maybe not as powerful, how much you put down up front) to get the month to month payment you're looking for. Depending on the car you might hate it and trade it in within a year, or you pay it off and keep it for 20 years because you adore it even if it's not everything you ever wanted.
I did stop seeing a guy who claimed he was 5'10" but in reality was 5'6" simply because
1) He lied. Ultimate deal breaker for me.
2) If you lie about something physical it's usually due to low self esteem and I'm not looking for a project.
The "had to" part was taller then them,the preferred part named a figure.
This goes back to a thread here from months,probably close to a year ago.0 -
When the question was asked here long ago the overwhelming majority of ladies said that the guy had to be taller then them and preferably in the 6 foot range.
Absolutely Carl. What you are hearing in this forum is also valid outside this forum. There's a distinct notion that 6'0" is the minimum preferred height. I'm just under that height, and while I am taller than the majority of women, I still get the sense that I'd be more desirable if I were two inches taller.
@TheKitsune-How tall are you?0 -
Do women really use a certain height as a basis for elimination? Of course, I'm using myself by comparison, but I PREFER someone 6' approximately. There is something about a guy slightly towering over me that gives a false but enjoyable sense of security.
I went on a date with someone who said they were 5'7", which turned out to be 5'3" truthfully. I enjoyed his company so while it was a little weird kissing someone shorter, it didn't STOP me. Now, the fact that he later turned out to have a girlfriend... that stopped me, haha :laugh:
When the question was asked here long ago the overwhelming majority of ladies said that the guy had to be taller then them and preferably in the 6 foot range.
Woah there Carl. No one said "had". Just that it's what is sought out/preferred (okay, well I did in the shopping list thread but I thought it was clear that was a joke). I think every lady here agrees if there were other redeeming qualities height is the least of their concerns. It's like when you go to buy a car - there are a bunch of things you want and you can check off the ones that are the most important, but there are going to be things you're willing to compromise on (Color, leather interior, maybe not as powerful, how much you put down up front) to get the month to month payment you're looking for. Depending on the car you might hate it and trade it in within a year, or you pay it off and keep it for 20 years because you adore it even if it's not everything you ever wanted.
I did stop seeing a guy who claimed he was 5'10" but in reality was 5'6" simply because
1) He lied. Ultimate deal breaker for me.
2) If you lie about something physical it's usually due to low self esteem and I'm not looking for a project.
The "had to" part was taller then them,the preferred part named a figure.
This goes back to a thread here from months,probably close to a year ago.
I was one of those "had to" be taller then me people. I remember the thread too Carl. But like I said Mr. Nice Guy is my hieght if not a smidge shorter that I. So even though it was one of my requirements that I had firmly set in my mind. Somehow something about him made that go out the window. And no (for my cynical friends) hes not rich doesnt drive some super expenssive car or have a huge house. Hes actually a musicain that goes to collage and work and livies with his elderly parents.
But we click and we have fun. I dont think Im his normal type of female either.0 -
When the question was asked here long ago the overwhelming majority of ladies said that the guy had to be taller then them and preferably in the 6 foot range.
Absolutely Carl. What you are hearing in this forum is also valid outside this forum. There's a distinct notion that 6'0" is the minimum preferred height. I'm just under that height, and while I am taller than the majority of women, I still get the sense that I'd be more desirable if I were two inches taller.
Oh and I'm Kinda tall for a girl lol. 5'8.50 -
Do women really use a certain height as a basis for elimination? Of course, I'm using myself by comparison, but I PREFER someone 6' approximately. There is something about a guy slightly towering over me that gives a false but enjoyable sense of security.
I went on a date with someone who said they were 5'7", which turned out to be 5'3" truthfully. I enjoyed his company so while it was a little weird kissing someone shorter, it didn't STOP me. Now, the fact that he later turned out to have a girlfriend... that stopped me, haha :laugh:
When the question was asked here long ago the overwhelming majority of ladies said that the guy had to be taller then them and preferably in the 6 foot range.
Woah there Carl. No one said "had". Just that it's what is sought out/preferred (okay, well I did in the shopping list thread but I thought it was clear that was a joke). I think every lady here agrees if there were other redeeming qualities height is the least of their concerns. It's like when you go to buy a car - there are a bunch of things you want and you can check off the ones that are the most important, but there are going to be things you're willing to compromise on (Color, leather interior, maybe not as powerful, how much you put down up front) to get the month to month payment you're looking for. Depending on the car you might hate it and trade it in within a year, or you pay it off and keep it for 20 years because you adore it even if it's not everything you ever wanted.
I did stop seeing a guy who claimed he was 5'10" but in reality was 5'6" simply because
1) He lied. Ultimate deal breaker for me.
2) If you lie about something physical it's usually due to low self esteem and I'm not looking for a project.
The "had to" part was taller then them,the preferred part named a figure.
This goes back to a thread here from months,probably close to a year ago.
I was one of those "had to" be taller then me people. I remember the thread too Carl. But like I said Mr. Nice Guy is my hieght if not a smidge shorter that I. So even though it was one of my requirements that I had firmly set in my mind. Somehow something about him made that go out the window. And no (for my cynical friends) hes not rich doesnt drive some super expenssive car or have a huge house. Hes actually a musicain that goes to collage and work and livies with his elderly parents.
But we click and we have fun. I dont think Im his normal type of female either.
I was also one of theose "had to" be taller than me people, and my guy is my height...definitely not taller, but since we click in so many other ways, that "dealbreaker" went out the window
He is also older than my "normal",......... 0 -
My height is something that really holds me back. I'm 5'10", but I would love to be 6'2". Height is just one of those hereditary traits, either you have it or you don't.
If there was a very common medical procedure to fix this, like there is with a woman chest size, I'd do it in a heartbeat.0 -
Do women really use a certain height as a basis for elimination? Of course, I'm using myself by comparison, but I PREFER someone 6' approximately. There is something about a guy slightly towering over me that gives a false but enjoyable sense of security.
I went on a date with someone who said they were 5'7", which turned out to be 5'3" truthfully. I enjoyed his company so while it was a little weird kissing someone shorter, it didn't STOP me. Now, the fact that he later turned out to have a girlfriend... that stopped me, haha :laugh:
When the question was asked here long ago the overwhelming majority of ladies said that the guy had to be taller then them and preferably in the 6 foot range.
Woah there Carl. No one said "had". Just that it's what is sought out/preferred (okay, well I did in the shopping list thread but I thought it was clear that was a joke). I think every lady here agrees if there were other redeeming qualities height is the least of their concerns. It's like when you go to buy a car - there are a bunch of things you want and you can check off the ones that are the most important, but there are going to be things you're willing to compromise on (Color, leather interior, maybe not as powerful, how much you put down up front) to get the month to month payment you're looking for. Depending on the car you might hate it and trade it in within a year, or you pay it off and keep it for 20 years because you adore it even if it's not everything you ever wanted.
I did stop seeing a guy who claimed he was 5'10" but in reality was 5'6" simply because
1) He lied. Ultimate deal breaker for me.
2) If you lie about something physical it's usually due to low self esteem and I'm not looking for a project.
I do think it more of a preference but I'm 5'7" and have dated guys from 5'5" to 6'2". Granted I prefer a guy to be my height or taller but it's definitely not a deal breaker. Yeah the lying thing would be a deal breaker.0 -
Do women really use a certain height as a basis for elimination? Of course, I'm using myself by comparison, but I PREFER someone 6' approximately. There is something about a guy slightly towering over me that gives a false but enjoyable sense of security.
I went on a date with someone who said they were 5'7", which turned out to be 5'3" truthfully. I enjoyed his company so while it was a little weird kissing someone shorter, it didn't STOP me. Now, the fact that he later turned out to have a girlfriend... that stopped me, haha :laugh:
When the question was asked here long ago the overwhelming majority of ladies said that the guy had to be taller then them and preferably in the 6 foot range.
I don't see that as an issue though. I would answer that same way but also shown that I'm open. It's a preference! The average woman is only 5'4" so most men will be taller than us!0 -
I'm 5'11 1/2. I prefer my man to be the same height as me in 2 inch heels. That doesn't mean the guy is a better man. It just means that's what I prefer. But in my experience, taller men prefer shorter women. Older men prefer women in their 20's. So, for someone who is TALL and in her 30's, my dating pool is SMALL...
I have a friend who's 5'2 if she's lucky and she won't even respond to guys online dating profile if he's under 6'0. That's a bit unreasonable if you ask me...0 -
I'm 5'11 1/2. I prefer my man to be the same height as me in 2 inch heels. That doesn't mean the guy is a better man. It just means that's what I prefer. But in my experience, taller men prefer shorter women. Older men prefer women in their 20's. So, for someone who is TALL and in her 30's, my dating pool is SMALL...
I have a friend who's 5'2 if she's lucky and she won't even respond to guys online dating profile if he's under 6'0. That's a bit unreasonable if you ask me...
Unreasonable totally depends on the person. If you're a high roller, you can blow off guys who are under 6'2", make under 150k, and aren't built like a Greek God. But, I have yet to even see anyone like that who does online dating (though there are some pretty girls that do it).
All in all, there's nothing wrong with having discriminating taste when it comes to some things.0 -
When the question was asked here long ago the overwhelming majority of ladies said that the guy had to be taller then them and preferably in the 6 foot range.
Absolutely Carl. What you are hearing in this forum is also valid outside this forum. There's a distinct notion that 6'0" is the minimum preferred height. I'm just under that height, and while I am taller than the majority of women, I still get the sense that I'd be more desirable if I were two inches taller.
@TheKitsune-How tall are you?
I am 5'6" (I think) why?0 -
When the question was asked here long ago the overwhelming majority of ladies said that the guy had to be taller then them and preferably in the 6 foot range.
Absolutely Carl. What you are hearing in this forum is also valid outside this forum. There's a distinct notion that 6'0" is the minimum preferred height. I'm just under that height, and while I am taller than the majority of women, I still get the sense that I'd be more desirable if I were two inches taller.
@TheKitsune-How tall are you?
I am 5'6" (I think) why?
I thought I saw elsewhere or on this thread that you were looking for men 6'4" and up and that was non-negotiable. Maybe that was I joke and I missed it. If you were 6'1" or 6'2", looking for men 6'4" is par for the course. 0
