Don't you hate when SHORT women require TALL men???

[jobaba]

Maybe you should just give up. If it's a losing proposition and absolutely nothing can be done, then just let it go. Why carry the burden of caring about it? Aren't there other things in life that are meaningful? Monks seem to live ok. Guys in prison survive. You'll be ok, too. Find something else to occupy your thoughts so you don't have keep banging the same tired old drum.

 

Maybe, just maybe, guys in prison wasn't the best example.

 

In his case, he really wants it, so I'd say giving up isn't an option.

[johan]

I completely agree with you.

 

But how do you get that aggressiveness when all you've done is be kicked down your whole life? The spirit is already broken, no fight left.

 

You just have to stay down. Stop trying to get back up. Like you said, "no fight left." So stop fighting. No one here can do anything for you. Everything that could be said to you to encourage you has been said. Every strategy has bedn tried.

[johan]

Maybe, just maybe, guys in prison wasn't the best example.

 

In his case, he really wants it, so I'd say giving up isn't an option.

 

Not every guy in prison goes that way. My point is lifetime celibacy doesn't kill anyone. It won't kill somedude either.

[dasein]

with 0 admission of own fault in anything, ever

 

I freely admit a degree of hypocrisy in that respect.

 

Read thread much? (it's just a few posts up lawlz) Read forum much? This board is full of my admissions of general dating mistakes, attitudinal errors, rehashed in hopes that others don't repeat them. Admittedly they aren't as snidely phrased as the one above taken in its context, but considering the audience (and by that I mean -you- not women), that tone is 100% justified.

 

It isn't 'men' who have 2044 posts

 

Oh so now we are appealing to "post count?" Sure -you- want to go there?

 

"Plank in the eye" indeed.

 

You have promised on more than one occasion to put me on ignore. Please live up to your word, because frankly, your "responses" to my posts hurt my brain.

Edited March 25, 2012 by dasein

[johan]

In his case, he really wants it, so I'd say giving up isn't an option.

 

That's the problem though. He has tried absolutely everything. Read his posts. It is utterly hopeless. Women just don't like him.

 

What he wants and what he can have are two different things. And he has everyone here wanting it for him, too. You included.

[reallyhotguy]

Once more, calling out women who feel they are perpetually victimized by men, is not calling out "women." We've had to listen to that particular victimization bilge, and endure the accompanying social attitudes, the type that are everywhere on this board for instance, for 50 years now.

 

Don't like that we are beginning to respond in kind? Tough. Get used to it.

 

Feminism does not = women.

 

Hating feminism, and deriding its puerile, socially corrosive and dishonest core does not = misogyny.

 

As much as you and others would like it to.

 

Enough already, buddy. True to form, you ascribe my post to some kind of agenda I just don't have, paragraphs wasted on a point I never made. What you did demonstrate: endlless vitriol. You are a downer, man, a negative person at the least, and I would argue paranoiac, or at least, delusional. I don't know how you expect your espousal of your quite pointed political views is supposed to help V, but isn't that how you accuse "feminism" of operating? I feel as though you could replace "feminism" with "the Illuminati" and your post would carry the same level of sense. As a result I have no idea how to respond, so I guess I just, well, won't anymore....

[phineas]

Enough already, buddy. True to form, you ascribe my post to some kind of agenda I just don't have, paragraphs wasted on a point I never made. What you did demonstrate: endlless vitriol. You are a downer, man, a negative person at the least, and I would argue paranoiac, or at least, delusional. I don't know how you expect your espousal of your quite pointed political views is supposed to help V, but isn't that how you accuse "feminism" of operating? I feel as though you could replace "feminism" with "the Illuminati" and your post would carry the same level of sense. As a result I have no idea how to respond, so I guess I just, well, won't anymore....

 

We all have an agenda.

 

But it's those of us who claim they don't have an agenda when they constantly try to ram their views down your throat & get angry because you spit it back at them.

 

for the record "reallyhotguy" based on your posts on this forum I believe you are just a troll.

And have a vagina.

[phineas]

That's the problem though. He has tried absolutely everything. Read his posts. It is utterly hopeless. Women just don't like him.

 

What he wants and what he can have are two different things. And he has everyone here wanting it for him, too. You included.

 

I really don't know either.

 

I think maybe he does need a mentor or a woman FRIEND not friendzone that can just honestly tell him what he is doing to turn women off.

 

It isn't his looks, height, weight ect.

 

His attitude?

If he's anything ln person like he is here on a date that would def. be it.

But I can't imagine someone acting like that around women.

[gaius]

I thought we were talking about height?

That along with income level, feminism, prison sex, somedude and trolls.

[dasein]

Enough already, buddy. True to form, you ascribe my post to some kind of agenda I just don't have, paragraphs wasted on a point I never made. What you did demonstrate: endlless vitriol. You are a downer, man, a negative person at the least, and I would argue paranoiac, or at least, delusional. I don't know how you expect your espousal of your quite pointed political views is supposed to help V, but isn't that how you accuse "feminism" of operating? I feel as though you could replace "feminism" with "the Illuminati" and your post would carry the same level of sense. As a result I have no idea how to respond, so I guess I just, well, won't anymore....

 

Well, then, "buddy," how about responding to the actual things I post instead of distorting them? No agenda, lawlz.

 

Call me paranoiac, or delusional, or a conspiracy nut some more, or whatever lazy thing passes for discussion in your neck of the woods.

 

Or maybe just make a logo depicting the supposed sorry state of my humanity, or whatever other group of posters your "non agenda" decides to target next. Can't wait to see it.

[PlumPrincess]

The guys I'm thinking of actually barely try. They don't go to bars and hit on girls, don't do online dating, and if they meet a woman that is a possibility, don't really try and put the 'moves and swag' on her ... just kind of ask her out and hope for the best. So they don't really face that much rejection. One of the guys never even talks about women (or men). He's kind of content being asexual.

 

Me, on the other hand ... I'm more like you. I've been rejected probably over 200 times. And I've gotten lucky a few times, had a few girlfriends. But I've had to face rejection killing my self esteem and a few times had my heart majorly ripped out of me, just like with you and the last woman. Unrequited love has inflicted major pain on my life.

 

Which situation is better?

 

I don't know.

Well, I think it's great you have the courage to pursue what you want.

[TheBigQuestion]

For me, an important factor is whether the person is criticising feminism or making it a scapegoat for all ills. Criticism of any ideology, philosophy or theory is valid....but when the scapegoating ("everything wrong in the western world/every conflict between men and women is caused by feminism") then it starts to sound pretty crazy...and I think anybody preaching that is probably going to find themselves either ignored or under attack.

 

I don't know how much coverage there was in the US of the Anders Breivik atrocity in Norway last year.

 

Anders Behring Breivik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

He killed 69 people, mainly teenagers, in a shooting spree. In the lead-up to this he had written some sort of manifesto attacking marxism, feminism, multiculturalism etc. Basically holding these things responsible for all evils in the world. This guy was a prolific internet poster, with his postings being analysed for evidence of links to various groups.

 

There seems to be some debate amongst psychiatrists as to whether he's a paranoid schizophrenic or simply personality disordered. One thing you can count on, however, is that he does not regard any disorder within himself as playing a role in what he did. There's not a shortage of voices on the internet to enable that kind of thinking (though I'm sure none of them anticipated the tragic outcome he was working towards).

 

I'm not sure what "not feminist" is supposed to look like. If it's possible for a woman to function competently as a person, to hold her own beliefs and opinions and to maintain any awareness of issues that affect women more than men (and therefore equip herself to deal with those issues) without at some point being labelled as a feminist.

 

It's a label quite a lot of men will pin on women for no reason other than that they dislike her or are in conflict with her. Those personal dislikes and conflicts can't be eliminated from a society. Neither can the madness of people like Sodini or Breivik or the woman who wrote the Scum Manifesto and tried to shoot Andy Warhol.

 

As individuals, do you think there's much any of us can do about it other than strive for balance and fairness in our own relationships? To acknowledge that other people's behaviour can sometimes be annoying, hypocritical or self-serving at times (as can our own), without getting too embroiled in perceiving it all as symptomatic of societal rot that we must take up weapons against?

 

I'm really not sure what you were trying to do here. Were you attempting to equate dasein or the way he expresses his thoughts to being akin to that of a mass murderer? Yes, I think the degree to which he is preoccupied with criticizing feminism is a bit loony, but I fail to see how your comparisons demonstrate anything.

 

He's already spoken for himself, but it's a fact that in the context of this thread, he answered V's question in a reasonable manner, regardless of if I agree with his conclusion or not.

 

I think that we as individuals owe it to ourselves, our partners and society as a whole to think globally but act locally. So you're basically right. The problem is that you can't really strive for fairness in your own relationships without at least occasionally addressing what impact feminism has had on both the male and female psyches. I personally would never be able to date a woman who labels herself a feminist because most of the time, you need to walk on eggshells around said women so as to not offend them. Why is that? Because they've bought into the female victimization idea hook, line and sinker. From a very early age, I was essentially taught that I as a male am inherently dangerous and that women on the other hand are the likely victims of just about every horrible crime imaginable at the hands of men. Women internalize this message to varying degrees, but many many ads or educational videos I've watched in school from elementary school all the way up to college reinforce two ideas: (1) I, as a man, am to be feared by women, because I'm a nefarious GHB-toting date-rapist, and (2) Men in general are consciously, systematically holding women down because they're scared of being upstaged.

 

 

Feminism's impact on society has been pervasive. When it went beyond just treating people equally under the law, when it began to demand/work towards equality of results rather than just equality of opportunity... that's when it became a self-serving ideology rather than the benevolent philosophy most people think it is.

 

Many health and cultural issues that disproportionately affect men do not even get a fraction of the publicity that women's issues do. Men are far, far more likely to fall victim to a violent crime than women are, yet all one ever hears about is how common rape, sexual assault, and workplace sexual harassment are. Examples of this sort of treatment are practically endless.

 

The individual action that you propose is necessary and important, but a voice critical of feminism that isn't made up of Rush Limbaugh soundbites or Mens' Rights Activist beta males needs to emerge as well.

[johan]

I really don't know either.

 

I think maybe he does need a mentor or a woman FRIEND not friendzone that can just honestly tell him what he is doing to turn women off.

 

It isn't his looks, height, weight ect.

 

His attitude?

If he's anything ln person like he is here on a date that would def. be it.

But I can't imagine someone acting like that around women.

 

He needs a group of guy friends to hang around with who will make fun of him for saying dumb things and challenge him to get off his high ego horse.

 

I get the impression that he learned during childhood that acting like a sad sack and moping around would bring mom running to say and do soothing things and bring the world back into line. He's frustrated and repeats himself a lot here because wants the same kind of thing.

 

But he has adult problems now. Childhood solutions don't work anymore. It hasn't registered with him yet that no one here or anywhere else can actually say anything that will help. It hasn't registered yet that no amount of pity anyone can offer here (and he's gotten a ton) actually changes anything about how he feels. Because we're all struggling with our own hangups. in one way or another, we're all just as stuck.

 

Solutions exist, but as long as he rules them all out, he does have the failsafe option: stop wanting.

[MrCastle]

I've found this is only a problem when it comes to online dating. I mean most sites now you can edit your search criteria not just by age but also income, ethnicity, etc. Or some women flat out say in their profiles you need to meet a certain height requirement. It's like picking from a menu. It is what it is. You can't be physically attractive to everyone you meet. Yes it is shallow on one hand, but on the other it's a matter of preference. There is a line between the two, at least for me.

 

If you're a great person and you meet every other requirement except for height, and you're still rejected, she's shallow and you wouldn't want to be with her anyway. However if she PREFERS the man to be a certain height, but keeps her options open to men who, although aren't her ideal height but have everything else, that's fine.

 

I "prefer" my women to have kim kardashian's body (especially her lower half), will I reject women who don't meet it? Of course not.

 

Which is why this goes back to why I feel this is more a problem with online dating than real life interaction. In real life, the person gets a feel for who you truly are, and natural attraction takes its course. We cannot help who we're attracted to. Online, you post a few pictures, and your stats, like a baseball card, and people decide whether or not they want to talk to you.

 

I've had women say stuff like "you're usually not my type, but..."--it's because I was given a chance (in real life) to prove myself in other areas and she couldn't help but be attracted.

Edited March 25, 2012 by MrCastle

[reallyhotguy]

Well, then, "buddy," how about responding to the actual things I post instead of distorting them? No agenda, lawlz.

 

Call me paranoiac, or delusional, or a conspiracy nut some more, or whatever lazy thing passes for discussion in your neck of the woods.

 

Or maybe just make a logo depicting the supposed sorry state of my humanity, or whatever other group of posters your "non agenda" decides to target next. Can't wait to see it.

 

Are you insinuating that I am the new persona for the poster welikeincrowds? You flatter me. That guy was extremely funny and likeable and also a genius.

[Taramere]

I'm really not sure what you were trying to do here. Were you attempting to equate dasein or the way he expresses his thoughts to being akin to that of a mass murderer? Yes, I think the degree to which he is preoccupied with criticizing feminism is a bit loony, but I fail to see how your comparisons demonstrate anything.

 

Breivik's philosophy was an extreme version of a kind of thinking that is quite common on the internet. That is, that feminism and marxism are destroying the West. The place that thinking led him to is the part that's something else entirely...but the philosophy itself isn't an uncommon one.

 

Again, I don't know how much coverage there was about it in the US...but in the wake of it there was a lot of commentary along the lines of "I don't agree with what he did of course, but...". It was a real focus for the European press that a lot of this guy's views are not uncommon.

 

The uncommon (and horrible) part of it is obviously the tragic outcome. Also the obsessive aspect to it all culminating in an enormous manifesto that he wrote. MRA groups were coming out to say "this is nothing to do with us." In the same way, if a radical feminist went on a shooting spree one would expect feminist groups to say the same thing.

 

You can't pin one lunatic's shooting spree on a group just because their ideology is similar. However, it's the nature of activism that part of it is about getting other people to be angry about the things you feel angry about...and I think there's a responsibility attached to that. A responsibility to be measured in approaching activism. To keep some sense of proportion and encourage others to do the same.

 

 

I think that we as individuals owe it to ourselves, our partners and society as a whole to think globally but act locally. So you're basically right. The problem is that you can't really strive for fairness in your own relationships without at least occasionally addressing what impact feminism has had on both the male and female psyches. I personally would never be able to date a woman who labels herself a feminist because most of the time, you need to walk on eggshells around said women so as to not offend them. Why is that? Because they've bought into the female victimization idea hook, line and sinker. From a very early age, I was essentially taught that I as a male am inherently dangerous and that women on the other hand are the likely victims of just about every horrible crime imaginable at the hands of men. Women internalize this message to varying degrees, but many many ads or educational videos I've watched in school from elementary school all the way up to college reinforce two ideas: (1) I, as a man, am to be feared by women, because I'm a nefarious GHB-toting date-rapist, and (2) Men in general are consciously, systematically holding women down because they're scared of being upstaged.

 

I can understand what you're saying. It relates to that responsibility to guide children in keeping themselves safe without encouraging paranoia in them. People don't always get the balance right. In the case of sexual behaviour, encouraging men to maintain good communication with a new partner so that they can be sure they have consent, without labelling them as rapists.

 

Feminism's impact on society has been pervasive. When it went beyond just treating people equally under the law, when it began to demand/work towards equality of results rather than just equality of opportunity... that's when it became a self-serving ideology rather than the benevolent philosophy most people think it is.

 

Many health and cultural issues that disproportionately affect men do not even get a fraction of the publicity that women's issues do. Men are far, far more likely to fall victim to a violent crime than women are, yet all one ever hears about is how common rape, sexual assault, and workplace sexual harassment are. Examples of this sort of treatment are practically endless.

 

You see, this is where I believe that there is a place for something you could call masculism or whatever else you would want to label it as. Men's issues, perhaps? I can remember mentioning this before, and being absolutely harangued for it by a male poster who was one of the most frequent raisers of men's issues (this was a while back). Something along the lines of "we're not pathetic like women. We don't need something like that." I'm telling you, it was a pretty aggresssive response.

 

I'd try to find it, but there seems to be a bit of a problem in the search function just now (eg when you try to click on links). I remember thinking at the time "By God, this guy is even angrier when I'm making arguments for men's rights than he is when I'm making arguments for women's rights."

 

You know that when you're getting those kinds of responses to such a suggestion, from the same men who are complaining about women's issues getting attention, you're never going to get anywhere. I can make these suggestions to you, because it's possible to have a reasonable discussion with you even if we don't agree on everything. What we can agree on is...

 

The individual action that you propose is necessary and important, but a voice critical of feminism that isn't made up of Rush Limbaugh soundbites or Mens' Rights Activist beta males needs to emerge as well.

 

Does it have to be all about being critical of feminism, would you say? Is it not possible that what is needed is more advocacy in respect of men's issues? I think this might connect with the argument that was levelled against me in that other thread when I spoke about men's rights. As I recall that thread was specifically about violence against men (men being at higher risk of violence when they go out)

 

Essentially the person who provided an angry response showed they were not so much concerned with raising awareness of men's issues as with attacking measures that raise awareness of women's issues.

 

One example I've commonly seen is that too much attention is paid to breast cancer, not enough to prostate cancer. The obvious answer there is that people who feel that way should start campaigning for greater awareness of/funding in respect of prostate cancer. I just don't see why it always has to be this negative "let's discourage focus on women's issues" rather than "let's encourage more focus on issues that affect men." It shouldn't be a bitter competition.

 

God, sorry for the length (and off topic nature)

[EmpoweredWoman]

Taramere is evoking the age old Jewish scare-mongering debate tactic.

 

Criticize Feminism: YOU'RE THE NEXT SODINI!

 

Criticize Jewish domination of finance, media and academia: YOU WANT TO KILL 6 MILLION JEWS

 

Criticize unbridled immigration: VIOLENT RACIST LIKE BREIVIK

 

Just ignore Taramere when she begins to use this tactic, it leaves political trolls like her completely powerless. In the modern world, where Jews and feminists control the narrative almost unchallenged, there are a few labels the cultural Marxist left throws at free thinkers and critics meant to silence them and let the agenda advance unchallenged: "racist", "nazi", "sexist", "homophobe".

 

If you laugh those labels off, it really throws them off guard and completely takes away their Mass Man arguments that depend solely on the emotion and pre-instructed outrage of people involved and watching.

[dasein]

That guy was extremely funny and likeable and also a genius.

 

Apparently, the powers that be here on LS didn't agree with your assessment. Awwww.

[dasein]

Breivik's philosophy was an extreme version of a kind of thinking that is quite common on the internet.

 

What "kind of thinking" is not "quite common on the internet?"

 

It's interesting when the "kind of thinking" that leads to becoming a murderous sociopath tends to also be that "kind of thinking" that disagrees with one's own "kind of thinking" isn't it?

 

How many times have you injected the name "Sodini" into discussions here on LS in the past? Would it be safe to assume that you will be injecting "Breivik" with equal frequency into discussions here going forward? Maybe just use the abbreviation "S&B" going forward as shorthand for "anyone who disagrees with a feminist or leftist POV has criminal, murderous tendencies." Would save you lots and lots of typing.

[EmpoweredWoman]

I can't wait for the Taramere's of the world to start calling for censorship on the internet. In Europe, they already are.

 

This is really the last bastion of true freedom of speech and it shows that even though people in real life fear being black listed by jewish liberal Taramere-types and losing their job/reputation, they go on the internet and show that they atleast haven't lost common sense. It's frankly mind blowing how quickly the internet pulverizes the lies of the Jewish media, in a matter of hours.

 

The Jews on TV have been pushing for racial strife, agitating blacks against whites over the murder of a black hoodlum (by a guy who wasn't even white, btw). On TV, they show Trayvon as a little boy with a look of innocence on his face, yet hours later on the internet circulated some more recent photos of Trayvon LOL! : http://www.davidduke.com/images/Trayvon_thug_photos2.jpg

[EmpoweredWoman]

When somebody evokes Sodini, The Nazis, Breivik, "Hate", all the other codewords for "shut up, you're destroying my agenda with facts", simply wear it happily.

 

Recently in my class, the professor said how Modern Art crap like Jackson Pollok was the highest evolution in human expression. When I responded that it wasn't even art, much less beautiful (since beautiful = harmony, which "moder art" completely lacks as it represents nothing), the Jewish professor said "Oy, that's what the NAZIS used to say". Then I responded : "So?", his face dropped, and he no longer discussed it, as he knew my argument was more powerful and he would lose without the "N-word" trump card.

 

If the Nazis believed something, we're supposed to instinctually believe the opposite, even if the Nazis believed the sky was blue and the grass was green. Indirect programming/brainwashing, and its working.

[somedude81]

Guys.

 

Drop the insecurity and stop worrying about your height. You will not change women and what they are attracted to by telling them they are wrong. You will only frustrate yourself and get angrier and angrier. You will not change women.

 

Do you want to be more attractive to women?

 

Then drop your insecurity about your height and stop thinking about it. It only makes them feel less attraction for you?

 

If you let go of your insecurity about your height you will automatically become more attractive. If that's what you want, then this is what you should do.

I'm reading over this thread and I saw this post.

 

And it made me

 

How would, letting go of my insecurity, make me automatically more attractive?

[udolipixie]

But which one is the majority?

 

If 90% of women are shallow like udolipixie then I'm screwed. The number of quality girls that can look past something as trivial as height seem to be a small minority. And even then they will describe me as, "He's short, but..."

 

More than likely there are factors other than your height that some gals will exclude you from.

 

More than likely you have standards yourself and are thus shallow as attraction tends to be shallow.

 

There's probably standards of yours that some gals and guys will see as trivial and that you should overlook to be a quality guy.

 

You have standards yourself probably best suited not to begrudge those have them as well.

 

As for it being a small minority of gals that will overlook height if that were the case then it wouldn't be common to see guys of different sizes in a relationship or married.

 

Why is the even then of "He's short but" important to you? Are you hoping to be your partner's ideal in every way?

[somedude81]

More than likely there are factors other than your height that some gals will exclude you from.

The way I see it, it basically breaks down like this.

 

Women need to be physically attracted to a guy before she will date him.

 

A man's height is part of his attractiveness. Tall men get a plus. Short men get a neutral and in the worst scenario, they are seen as unattractive because of their height. You are the perfect example of somebody who would be turned off of me just because of my height, which is something that I have no control over whatsoever.

 

Getting back, most women either see my height as neutral or a bad thing, and we all know that women are not attracted to neutral. There has to be something else about the guy that physically excites her. Other than height, it usually comes down to a good looking face and or a very fit body. Of which I have neither. I'm definitely not ugly nor am I fat or skinny but I'm just average which isn't enough to get a woman hot for me.

 

When a woman isn't physically attracted to a guy, he still might have a chance if he's rich, has game, something he excels at (sports, music, acting) he's very funny, or has a very high level of confidence for any other reason. None of those apply to me.

 

So not being physically attractive or having any of the things I just mentions, perfectly explains why women are excluding me from being anything more than their friend.

More than likely you have standards yourself and are thus shallow as attraction tends to be shallow.

 

There's probably standards of yours that some gals and guys will see as trivial and that you should overlook to be a quality guy.

 

You have standards yourself probably best suited not to begrudge those have them as well.

I strongly believe that my standards are not shallow. I want an average looking girl who has a healthy weight. Yes I would prefer a pretty girl with big boobs, but it is hardly a requirement.

 

The only things that actually turn me off of women is, if her hair is very short to the point of being like a man's, she's very fat or she has the chest of a prepubescent girl. Basically I want a woman, who looks like a woman.

 

As for it being a small minority of gals that will overlook height if that were the case then it wouldn't be common to see guys of different sizes in a relationship or married.

IMO, I don't think it's that common to see women with short guys in relationships. I'll need to pay more attention to it.

 

Why is the even then of "He's short but" important to you? Are you hoping to be your partner's ideal in every way?

Would you want a partner to describe you as, "She's slow but pretty."

 

Nobody wants a negative word to be the first thing used as a description of themselves.

[udolipixie]

@sumedude81

There are lots of turn off factors that are uncontrollable with the exception of surgery such as the face and facial features.

 

A gal can easily turn you down for your face. She can also easily turn you down for various other factors it's not just height that may work against you as you can't please everyone.

 

You could be at a negative for some women, neutral for others, or bit above for some. It probably doesn't break down at short so I'm neutral to most.

 

The excelling at something, confidence, self esteem, charm, wit, and etc you can work on having those apply to you. Self improvement and personal development tends to do wonders.

 

To me attraction is shallow so standards, preferences, and/or requirements are shallow. It's not superficial to me until one overlooks bad qualities to get that attraction.

 

Try looking around more often at couples and you tend to see a mix of variety when it comes to who women pair up with.

 

I'm not intot he whole partner or relationship thing and couldn't care less what people label men. Concerning the whole slow bit I have IQ tests attesting to my intelligence so.

 

Nobody may want a negative word to be the first thing used as a description of themselves however wasn't your bit on the number of quality girls that can look past something as trivial as height? So you want the gal not to overlook height but to consider height as trivial to attraction as you do?