Girls: Height preference is ok. Men: If you have weight as a preference you're a pig

[Rudderless]

Now lets discuss why it is so big issue for women.

 

It just seems to me that being good in "fistfight" or FIGHT (hunting and protection included) was such a big issue for women they cant get rid of it now. And I dont blame them. As I said world is still a dangerous place and few years of relative peace can't change the way people think and rightly so, because peace and prosperity is fragile.

To answer your question, the keyword is prejudice. The few years of relative peace you talk about is laughable when you're referring to an advantage that's been negated since the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans.

 

In primitive societies, physical power was in fact a useful feature of one's body. However, taller height was not essential in more recent human history based on the achievements of the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans who were relatively short males at about 167 cm (5 '6") or less. Yet, they were impressive athletes and warriors. In the modern world where survival and success depends on knowledge, intellect, communication ability, social skills and creativity, one's physical height and weight do not appear to confer a real advantage in the absence of prejudice. Thus, success should be size independent unless height has a substantial impact on performance, such as in basketball.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Rudderless

[DanielMadr]

To answer your question, the keyword is prejudice. The few years of relative peace you talk about is laughable when you're referring to an advantage that's been negated since the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans.

 

First, greeks and romans were no dwarves. People back then tend to be smaller in general.

 

Second, a woman is not marrying the whole civilization where height and other evolutionary advantages are not important because of cooperation, technology etc. but she is marrying only one man not the whole civilisation.

 

Third, 5000 years bc + 2000 years ad = 7000years is nothing compared to 50 000 years and maybe more when when height mattered more.

 

Forth, being small has its advantages like everything but attracting women is not one of them. Everything has its pluses and minuses. Short guys have trouble picking up women but live longer, their back doesnt hurt so much and they can become figure skaters. Be happy.

[Rudderless]

First, greeks and romans were no dwarves. People back then tend to be smaller in general.

 

Second, a woman is not marrying the whole civilization where height and other evolutionary advantages are not important because of cooperation, technology etc. but she is marrying only one man not the whole civilisation.

Third, 5000 years bc + 2000 years ad = 7000years is nothing compared to 50 000 years and maybe more when when height mattered more.

 

Forth, being small has its advantages like everything but attracting women is not one of them. Everything has its pluses and minuses. Short guys have trouble picking up women but live longer, their back doesnt hurt so much and they can become figure skaters. Be happy.

 

I don't even know why you bothered entering in this argument. I've just shown you what the scientific consensus is, but you seem to keep coming up with these nonsensical arguments. We're discussing the same thing from two different angles. My opinion is informed, backed up by evidence I can refer to and a sound framework for logical reasoning. Yours is being made up as you go along with no framework or external reference which makes it impossible to have any form of sensible debate on the topic.

 

In the bold part above you've just invented your own way of deciding what a statistically significant period is in evolution based on what exactly? Do you realise how ridiculous it is to pull these things from the top of your head and what it suggests about your level of education? If you're genuinely interested in finding answers instead of making them up, why don't you go away and read that book I pointed you to instead of wasting time here rambling away?

 

I made it clear that social bias is the reason for many things in respect to height including attraction. I've no idea whether you've finally given up the ghost on trying to go against evidence in the scientific community that it's not genetic or evolutionary because frankly most of what you write is totally incoherent.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Rudderless

[DanielMadr]

I don't even know why you bothered entering in this argument. I've just shown you what the scientific consensus is, but you seem to keep coming up with these nonsensical arguments.

 

I made it clear that social bias is the reason for many things in respect to height including attraction. I've no idea whether you've finally given up the ghost on trying to go against evidence in the scientific community that it's not genetic or evolutionary because frankly most of what you write is totally incoherent. I'm just getting the impression you're quite a bored guy that has to write nonsense on internet forums to get his frustrations out.

 

Could you discuss facts not my imaginary motives? Btw your scientific proof is one book which has some obvious points like height is not everything and shortness has its advantages too but totally lacks to prove or disprove why is being tall attractive thing for women.

 

All you keep repeating that it is social bias and totally not cool and we all make mistake when we advocate positives of being tall even in todays world.

 

We give you common sense proves why is it, height is a factor even today and you come up with a fascist prognosis that tall people are goning to die out because of more compact space.

 

OK. Start to misquote me again and call yourself much smarter ...go on. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Im quitting this thread.

[Rudderless]

Could you discuss facts not my imaginary motives? Btw your scientific proof is one book which has some obvious points like height is not everything and shortness has its advantages too but totally lacks to prove or disprove why is being tall attractive thing for women.

 

All you keep repeating that it is social bias and totally not cool and we all make mistake when we advocate positives of being tall even in todays world.

 

We give you common sense proves why is it, height is a factor even today and you come up with a fascist prognosis that tall people are goning to die out because of more compact space. OK. Start to misquote me again and call yourself much smarter ...go on. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Im quitting this thread.

 

You've just misrepresented my position. I've never said tall people are going to die out, how ridiculous. I've made it clear that tall people, like short people are essential to the adaptation of the species. I've also given you a reference to suggest why the population would get smaller as an evolutionary advantage to it's survival as an entity, which is an interesting scientific argument and one several papers have been written on. If you can't actually comprehend what you're reading what can you actually contribute to this debate?

 

All I've debated is that height is largely social bias (which explains attraction for the hard of reading) as opposed to genetic or evolutionary, once again a scientific argument. "Common sense proves it" only someone arguing from a position of ignorance would state something like that. Finally, I'm glad you're quitting because frankly you're just coming across as a wind up merchant.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Rudderless

[Sam Spade]

I think it's instinctual for women to want taller men. Women want the best survival genese for their kids, hence why so many women go for thuggish men, because they are tough, and likely to survive. They do however want a "nice guy" to raise the kid, but want to have the kid with a thug.

 

this may be true, but if so, only proves that women have very bad analytical skills . A thuggish man is likely to either be shot or go to prison and then be assraped by his new buddies. Very masculine indeed .

 

It is not hard to combine features of the thug and the nice guy. All it takes is to not wear your pants too long and call her (and anybody else) on their bull**** every time she (or anybody else) misbehaves.

[aerogurl87]

I have a height and a weight preference in guys. He has to be at least my height but preferrably in the range of 5'8-6'0 (I hate dating guys over 6'0). And he can't be super buff (like a work out/gym junkie) or extremely overweight. I like a guy with some meat on his bones or kinda tall and lanky, preferring someone who is average usually.

[AD1980]

I have a height and a weight preference in guys. He has to be at least my height but preferrably in the range of 5'8-6'0

 

Is 5'7 1/2 too short?

[betamanlet]

this may be true, but if so, only proves that women have very bad analytical skills . A thuggish man is likely to either be shot or go to prison and then be assraped by his new buddies. Very masculine indeed .

 

It is not hard to combine features of the thug and the nice guy. All it takes is to not wear your pants too long and call her (and anybody else) on their bull**** every time she (or anybody else) misbehaves.

 

It takes more than calling out bull**** to satisfy their need from drama. I would tell my ex gf off all the time and let her know I will not tolerate certain things... still wasn't enough drama for her. She literally has to think I'm seeing women on the side or something for her to be entertained enough and to think that I'm desirable because other women want me.

[AD1980]

and to think that I'm desirable because other women want me.

 

That is a weird thin allot of women want everyone else to think her s/o is attractive as if shes needs validity from people

[Johnny M]

That is a weird thin allot of women want everyone else to think her s/o is attractive as if shes needs validity from people

Men are guilty of that as much as women. Again, this is perfectly logical from the standpoint of evolutionary theory. Men and women look at how others respond to their s/o in order to evaluate their choice of mate. Physical attraction is a relative concept, not an absolute one (for instance, a woman who is a 8 or 9 in America would likely by a 5 or 6 in, say, Sweden or Russia). Since people are prone to making mistakes, social validation is just another tool for ensuring you don't mix your genes with a suboptimal candidate.

[C-i-C-u]

First, greeks and romans were no dwarves. People back then tend to be smaller in general.

 

Second, a woman is not marrying the whole civilization where height and other evolutionary advantages are not important because of cooperation, technology etc. but she is marrying only one man not the whole civilisation.

 

Third, 5000 years bc + 2000 years ad = 7000years is nothing compared to 50 000 years and maybe more when when height mattered more.

Forth, being small has its advantages like everything but attracting women is not one of them. Everything has its pluses and minuses. Short guys have trouble picking up women but live longer, their back doesnt hurt so much and they can become figure skaters. Be happy.

You are aware that back then even the weakest female was strong enough to easily beat the crap out of the toughest most strongest male we have today? There is no comparison between humans of today or humans of 50 000 yrs. None, they were stronger, bigger, better senses, we on the other hand are weaker so weak that height does not indicate physical strength anymore because a male standing at 5'5 who exercises regularly could easily beat the crap out of a 6'3 couch potato male. If you want to know what has changed is our level of intelligence. We keep on getting smarter and smaller and weaker. But its ok because we are making it up with our intelligence.

[aerogurl87]

Is 5'7 1/2 too short?

 

My boyfriend is 5'6 so no 5'7 1/2 isn't too short, lol. As long as he treats me right and I can find myself wanting to have sex with him, then I will be happy.

[DanielMadr]

You are aware that back then even the weakest female was strong enough to easily beat the crap out of the toughest most strongest male we have today? There is no comparison between humans of today or humans of 50 000 yrs.

Thats probably right. Nevertheless we are not THAT different and we carry in our genes some of their insticts. Which I believe one of them is to prefer stronger males.

 

None, they were stronger, bigger, better senses, we on the other hand are weaker so weak that height does not indicate physical strength anymore because a male standing at 5'5 who exercises regularly could easily beat the crap out of a 6'3 couch potato male.

That is right. But 6'3 couch potato easily beats 5'5 couch potato. Thats the thing. Your argument is therefore irrelevant. You cant compare two samples based on their height and then equip one with training:rolleyes: You could say a 4' kid can easily beat up 7' guy when he is in coma.

 

If you want to know what has changed is our level of intelligence. We keep on getting smarter and smaller and weaker. But its ok because we are making it up with our intelligence.

I don't agree. Give todays baby to a Hatzebe tribe and there is a chance he wont be smarter then them. I dont believe homo sapiens sapiens got much more intelligent. Look around you.

 

We are not getting smaller. Thanks to better nutrition we are getting taller in general. At least the civilised world.

 

Get over it guys. Taller guys are generally stronger, more intimidating, more confident and pull chicks more easily. There is an evolutionary reason for it and people wont start to worship 5' nerds just because they haven't seen a bear for a while. HOWG. Good night

[TheLoneSock]

You are aware that back then even the weakest female was strong enough to easily beat the crap out of the toughest most strongest male we have today? There is no comparison between humans of today or humans of 50 000 yrs. None, they were stronger, bigger, better senses, we on the other hand are weaker so weak that height does not indicate physical strength anymore because a male standing at 5'5 who exercises regularly could easily beat the crap out of a 6'3 couch potato male. If you want to know what has changed is our level of intelligence. We keep on getting smarter and smaller and weaker. But its ok because we are making it up with our intelligence.

 

That was a whole lot of scientific claim without a single document, study, or link to back any of it up.

 

Are your eyes brown?

[AD1980]

My boyfriend is 5'6 so no 5'7 1/2 isn't too short, lol. As long as he treats me right and I can find myself wanting to have sex with him, then I will be happy.

 

Do u think most women are like that where if theyre attracted to his face as long as the guys talelr then thme theyll give him a chance or are msot girls you know strict with height where the guy has to be tallre in 5 inche heles and things llike that??

[C-i-C-u]

That was a whole lot of scientific claim without a single document, study, or link to back any of it up.

 

Are your eyes brown?

No, are your stools brown?

 

I can pull you the scientific article if you are too stupid to look it up for yourself.

[pacific84]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2009/1016/1224256777500.html

 

How modern man became a wuss

 

Softened by technology, and weaker and slower than our prehistoric forebears, modern men are ‘the sorriest cohort’ of males in history, according to a new book.

 

Some of his observations are that any Neanderthal woman could have shamed Arnold Schwarzenegger in an arm wrestle and that prehistoric Australian aboriginals could have beaten world record holder Usain Bolt in a sprint. He bases his assessment of the speed of our ancestors on a set of 20,000-year-old footprints of six men chasing prey. By analysing one of the prints, McAllister is able to demonstrate that the man, known as T8, reached speeds of 37kph on what was soft ground. The world champion, Bolt, reached speeds of 42kph when setting his world 100 metres record at last year’s Beijing Olympics, with the benefit of hard ground and spiked running shoes.

 

Comparing the two speeds, McAllister says: “But if they can do that speed of 37kph on very soft ground, I suspect there is a strong chance they would have outdone Usain Bolt if they had all the advantages that he does.”

 

Many prehistoric men, he believes, could have run the same speeds. “We have to remember too how incredibly rare these fossilisations are. What are the odds that you would get the fastest runner in Australia at that particular time in that particular place, in such a way that was going to be preserved?”

 

 

Turning to Neanderthal woman, McAllister believes they had 10 per cent more physical bulk than modern man. Therefore, she would have reached 90 per cent of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s bulk at his peak. “But because of the quirk of her physiology, with a much shorter lower arm, she would slam him to the table without a problem,” he says.

 

So modern man is slower, weaker and less agile than our fossilised forebears. McAllister reinforces his claims with other examples, including: Roman soldiers could finish more than a marathon and a half in a day, while carrying more than half their body weight in equipment; rowers employed in ancient Athens could exceed the exertions of modern oarsmen; Australian aboriginals could throw a spear 110 metres, easily beating the current world javelin record of 98.48 metres.

 

I don't think prehistoric man was taller, but he was definitely stronger and faster.

[Johnny M]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2009/1016/1224256777500.html

 

How modern man became a wuss

Funny....I thought the modern man became a wuss when he started complaining on the Internet about chicks not liking him for being too short/too nice/too shy/too whatever

[TheLoneSock]

No, are your stools brown?

 

I can pull you the scientific article if you are too stupid to look it up for yourself.

 

Lol what a brilliant response!

 

Translation: I'm too lazy and unwilling to actually prove my claims so I'll call you names for not doing it for me.

[aerogurl87]

Do u think most women are like that where if theyre attracted to his face as long as the guys talelr then thme theyll give him a chance or are msot girls you know strict with height where the guy has to be tallre in 5 inche heles and things llike that??

 

Well to be honest I used to be like that. If a guy wasn't at least my height in 3 inch heels (because I love wearing heels ) I wouldn't give him the time of day. Then my boyfriend came along and slid under the radar. So the only reason my perspective has changed is because of him. Sometimes it takes that one person to change a girl's mind indefinitely, just one.

[TheLoneSock]

Well to be honest I used to be like that. If a guy wasn't at least my height in 3 inch heels (because I love wearing heels ) I wouldn't give him the time of day. Then my boyfriend came along and slid under the radar. So the only reason my perspective has changed is because of him. Sometimes it takes that one person to change a girl's mind indefinitely, just one.

 

Three inches is not asking much anyway. I'm not sure of the exact numbers so don't quote me, but the average height of a guy in America is around 3-4 inches taller than the average height of a gal in America- if the numbers are 5'8"/5'4", so that's not outside the box anyway as far as preferences go.

 

I personally like to be around 4-6 inches taller than the girl I'm with, so I would consider a girl that is like 5'6" ideal. But overall it doesn't matter that much. Guys have height preferences too, it just isn't a deal breaker.

[pacific84]

Funny....I thought the modern man became a wuss when he started complaining on the Internet about chicks not liking him for being too short/too nice/too shy/too whatever

 

Don't put words in my mouth, I'm not a complainer. I'm at peace with the reality that being taller is a social advantage with women. This thread became about a lot more than that.

[sedgwick]

To negate the idea that women don't find short men sexy, I submit to you the massive number of women (myself included) who think Jon Stewart is hot as f*ck.

Edited November 11, 2009 by sedgwick

[mbeewood]

I have a height and a weight preference in guys. He has to be at least my height but preferrably in the range of 5'8-6'0 (I hate dating guys over 6'0). And he can't be super buff (like a work out/gym junkie) or extremely overweight. I like a guy with some meat on his bones or kinda tall and lanky, preferring someone who is average usually.

 

This, proof womens tastes in men are not biological or evolutionary or whatever. Why would one want a "tall" (which according to women meant better protector in the best) and "lanky" (which pretty much means lack of much muscle). It's a complete contradiction. Women are screwed up.