Am I shallow?

[xxoo]

I want a woman that looks like a woman. Healthy weight, hair at least shoulder length, breasts at least average size. Face: roughly as attractive as I am, but in a feminine way. 5'0-5'8.

 

What is weird to me is that you seem to have decided that you couldn't fall for a woman under 5'0 or over 5'8, that you couldn't fall for a woman with chin length hair (or remain attracted if she cut her hair??), and that you couldn't fall for a woman with a cup breasts. The weight issue is in there, too, although "healthy weight" is vague and could be a large range.

 

When you fall for a person--these things will matter much less.

 

It is like a woman pre-deciding that she wants a man 5'8 or taller. How strange. How does she know that she couldn't fall head over heels for a guy who is shorter, and be super happy with him?

[wwwjd]

What's wrong with thinking that looks are the most important. Correct me if I'm wrong, nobody wants to be in a relationship with somebody they are not attracted to.

 

The only thing that MIGHT COULD POSSIBLY be wrong with that is, your best match may not be someone you are physically attracted to immediately. Some physical attraction is directly related to a deeper, (soul based?) connection that grows over time. People can PHYSICALLY become more attractive to you AFTER you get to know them better. Sounds crazy but it is true.

I doubt I can explain it right, but say after you get to know them deeply, your heart longs for them, visually they look more attractive to you, you suddenly desire intimacy with them because of feeling this connection. Heck sometimes, they even change their personal presentation during this time and things click.

[FitChick]

It's because people are telling me that I'm single because I'm 'shallow.'

 

Tell them "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me."

[Star Gazer]

No, SD. You're not shallow. Your preferences are totally reasonable.

 

I would suggest you NOT say things like this. Part of the reason you come across as shallow is because you say such socially awkward things. How would you feel if a girl said (and I've heard girls say such things and think it's equally gross as when you say such things) that she wanted a man who "looked like a man" and thus excluded short guys?

 

I don't think it makes him shallow to say what he did anymore than it would be for a woman to say she wants a man who "looks like a man."

 

I want a "manly man." TO ME, this includes several physical characteristics, one which does include height. (Most boys are short.)

 

It's a preference. We should all be entitled to our physical preferences without being called shallow.

[Warrior]

You are not shallow. Thats in the human nature to look for something beautiful or similiar to yourself. I think its some people excuse for getting fat and not getting laid because they are not fit to attract opposite gender, joking, but you know what i mean

[Els]

What's wrong with thinking that looks are the most important. Correct me if I'm wrong, nobody wants to be in a relationship with somebody they are not attracted to.

 

There is a huge difference between something being 'important', and being virtually 99% of someone's requirements. I'm sure you understand that. If that is not the only thing that 'matters', why do you constantly say that those are your 'only' requirements?

 

Also, attraction means different things to different people, and is not necessarily physical.

 

I'm only talking about physical. You did say height, but I know there is more than just that.

 

I'm pretty sure we're talking about 'shallow' criteria and equivalences between the genders, not just physical. The fact remains that many superficial women are attracted to men of wealth/status, far more so than superficial men are interested in a woman of wealth/status. I certainly consider that a superficial requirement.. unless you don't?

 

I do agree with you about me being below average, and that's completely dependent on my height, which of course is something I have zero control over. So all I can do is say "F you!" to my paternal grandfather and God who thought it would be a nice idea to curse me with this height.

 

Believe me, if there is something I could have done to get taller, I would have done it already. Surgery is an option, but I don't have $80,000 to blow on it right now.

 

*shrugs* If you want to play that game, as I said, plenty of other factors that are superficially appealing and may 'move you up'. Getting buff, styling your hair and clothes, getting rich and advancing in your career, learning 'the game'. Unfortunately height is a huge innate part of female superficiality, just as breast size is to some men. But it isn't the only thing.

 

Look, I don't think most of us are saying there's anything WRONG with having superficial requirements. I have them too, you know - I don't think hyperintelligence is a non-superficial trait, tbh. We're just saying, well, own that fact, accept the consequences, stop denying everything and deluding yourself. I'm not going to spend time defending my original 3 points, SD. You asked, I answered. What you do with those answers, and that of others, is up to you.

[TaraMaiden]

No, you're not shallow, but you need to develop depth, too....

[Els]

I want a "manly man." TO ME, this includes several physical characteristics, one which does include height. (Most boys are short.)

 

Oh, I would not say something like that, personally. Not the 'manly man' bit, the part that a man has to be tall to be a 'manly man'.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Elswyth

[somedude81]

shallow is kind of a silly word and probably over used.

 

I don't like... no, I HATE green beans. Tastes like $#!t in MY mouth. Does that make me shallow?

God I hate green beans! I have horrible memories of my mother tying to force me to eat them.

 

Man I think she really screwed me up. She's a probably a big factor in how I relate to women, want love from them so much etc.

 

Maybe on that same lines, my body is NOT attracted by blond haired girls. Again, am I shallow?

 

Of course not. It is just preferences. Maybe even on a subliminal physical level.

 

MAYBE you even prefer a thinner body over a heavier one? Others CALLING YOU shallow is THEIR internal problem, not YOUR preference issue.

Shallow is relative and usually externally residing in others.

Are guys that prefer the heavier bodys also called shallow?

 

I won't apologize for hating green beans, and they can call me shallow, culinarily superficial, or a bean hater all they want.... won't change the fact it tastes like $#!t in MY mouth, and I don't have to change.

I completely agree.

No SD, you aren't shallow, none of the preferences you list are unreasonable in the least, and in a thread asking "am I shallow" it would be presumed that the preferences expressed would be mostly physical as opposed to intangible, so don't pay much attention to nitpickers on that.

 

You are simply an easy target here on LS due to your good nature and honesty. IMO the answer to your issues with women is in volume and building a rich social life for yourself. Building a social network and then starting to use those skills in the process of meeting women. Similar to what I think verhrzn's solution will involve.

Yeah I do feel that I am an easy target on this forum. The fact that I struggle just makes it even easier.

 

And yeah I do need a social network.

I would suggest you NOT say things like this. Part of the reason you come across as shallow is because you say such socially awkward things. How would you feel if a girl said (and I've heard girls say such things and think it's equally gross as when you say such things) that she wanted a man who "looked like a man" and thus excluded short guys?

Because a man who is a few inches shorter than average, still looks like a man.

 

What I meant to say is that I don't want a girl that can be mistaken for a man.

 

Also, too much fat warps the human body, doesn't matter if they are male or female.

 

 

So: Below average weight, long hair, average or above average breasts. Nothing too terribly picky, in theory, but the primary shallow areas a man fixates on if he's going to.

How the hell did you translate healthy weight, into below average?

 

And no, I don't care about what the stats say, I refuse to believe that overweight is now average.

 

I don't even know what that means, honestly. "As attractive as you are" is totally subjective. That's not a real measurement. Why even bother with it?

I'm not a super good looking guy. So I don't need a girl who is a beauty queen. I also don't want a troll.

So you have a height limitation too.

I mainly just want somebody in my height range, and 5'0 to 5'8 basically includes 98% of women.

I actually don't have a problem with the fact that you're shallow.

And I have a problem with you calling me shallow.

 

So far you haven't explained why you think I am.

 

As well as this. Summed up: You want your height to be irrelevant to your level but none of your requirements are irrelevant to someone else's level.

Uh, I already said that I don't care about a woman's ass, or what her hair color is, and I have an 8 inch range for height, while some guys only want tall girls or short girls.

What is weird to me is that you seem to have decided that you couldn't fall for a woman under 5'0 or over 5'8,

Girls below 5' are very rare. But I'm not saying I couldn't fall for one, but I imagine a 6 inch height different to make things a bit awkward. Though still completely manageable.

 

As for 5'8, I don't feel confident with women that much taller than me. There are several reasons why, but two inches taller is pretty much my max. I'm sure there will be exceptions. Thankfully women 5'9+ aren't that common.

 

that you couldn't fall for a woman with chin length hair (or remain attracted if she cut her hair??),

I've just never liked short hair on girls. My old crush used to have hair that went down to her bra strap area, then one day she cut it to just above shoulder length. Right away I noticed, and felt that it made her look less attractive. I almost felt sad that she did that. It's like drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa.

 

 

and that you couldn't fall for a woman with a cup breasts.

Breasts size is pretty much negligible, but I am phenomenally attracted to larger ones. I can fall for a girl with smaller than average, as long as she wasn't totally flat, but I would always notice and fixate on the bigger ones.

 

The weight issue is in there, too, although "healthy weight" is vague and could be a large range.

Not too skinny, not too fat.

 

When you fall for a person--these things will matter much less.

 

It is like a woman pre-deciding that she wants a man 5'8 or taller. How strange. How does she know that she couldn't fall head over heels for a guy who is shorter, and be super happy with him?

The one major difference between men and women pre-deciding, is that men are the pursuers. There has to be a reason for me to pursue a woman. I'm not going to go after I'm not attracted to and hope that she has something about her personality that I would want.

 

The only thing that MIGHT COULD POSSIBLY be wrong with that is, your best match may not be someone you are physically attracted to immediately. Some physical attraction is directly related to a deeper, (soul based?) connection that grows over time. People can PHYSICALLY become more attractive to you AFTER you get to know them better. Sounds crazy but it is true.

I doubt I can explain it right, but say after you get to know them deeply, your heart longs for them, visually they look more attractive to you, you suddenly desire intimacy with them because of feeling this connection. Heck sometimes, they even change their personal presentation during this time and things click.

Yeah I do agree that I can be more attracted to somebody when I get to know them more. But it's still important the minimums be met.

[ptp]

I hope this isn't piling on, but if you post on LS honestly, then yes you are shallow.

 

Or at least more shallow than I am.

[somedude81]

No, SD. You're not shallow. Your preferences are totally reasonable.

 

 

 

I don't think it makes him shallow to say what he did anymore than it would be for a woman to say she wants a man who "looks like a man."

 

I want a "manly man." TO ME, this includes several physical characteristics, one which does include height. (Most boys are short.)

 

It's a preference. We should all be entitled to our physical preferences without being called shallow.

Makes since, though I wonder what your height cut of is.

 

You are not shallow. Thats in the human nature to look for something beautiful or similiar to yourself. I think its some people excuse for getting fat and not getting laid because they are not fit to attract opposite gender, joking, but you know what i mean

Yeah, I do think it's human nature to want somebody similar to us. And it's stupid that people are calling me shallow for wanting just that.

I'm only talking about physical. You did say height, but I know there is more than just that.

 

I'm pretty sure we're talking about 'shallow' criteria and equivalences between the genders, not just physical.

El, it's kind of hard to have a discussion when you have your hands over year and ears and you saying La la la la.

I hope this isn't piling on, but if you post on LS honestly, then yes you are shallow.

 

Or at least more shallow than I am.

And how am I more shallow than you? I'm sure you have a few preferences.

[zengirl]

I don't think it makes him shallow to say what he did anymore than it would be for a woman to say she wants a man who "looks like a man."

 

I want a "manly man." TO ME, this includes several physical characteristics, one which does include height. (Most boys are short.)

 

It's a preference. We should all be entitled to our physical preferences without being called shallow.

 

I think everyone is entitled to their physical preferences. I think if they frequently spell out their physical preferences, analyze them, treat them like tick boxes, and fixate on them, they are being shallow. I also don't think there's anything wrong with being shallow, generally! It's not for me, but many people are shallow and materialistic, and they seem to do quite well with each other. *shrug*

 

I simply think there's a big difference between saying, "I want someone I'm attracted to" than trying to list and defend your attraction or non-attraction and make other people out to be "lesser" because they are lacking some physical quality YOU desire, especially if you complain that others view you as "lesser" for similar features.

 

Because a man who is a few inches shorter than average, still looks like a man.

 

To whom? Some women might disagree. Are they entitled to their preferences as well?

 

What I meant to say is that I don't want a girl that can be mistaken for a man.

 

Also, too much fat warps the human body, doesn't matter if they are male or female.

 

Why do you need to say things like this? Why do you feel the need to justify non-attraction to someone in a blanket way, as though no one is attracted to them or they don't look like a woman or are too fat for anyone or whatnot.

 

How the hell did you translate healthy weight, into below average?

 

Average weight in the U.S. is a dress size 14. That's higher than your stated preferred weight class in general. I'm going based on averages. You want someone who is below the average weight. (I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing -- I'm just trying to be factual.) The average U.S. woman is 162.2 pounds and 5'4'' with B cup breasts and wears a size 14 --- that's not obese, but it's very much not thin and I think you would likely consider such women overweight. Am I wrong?

 

And I have a problem with you calling me shallow.

 

So far you haven't explained why you think I am.

 

Yes, I have. You fixate on looks. You make tick marks on qualities you think a partner needs to have, physically. You list very few, if any, deeper qualities you want in a woman or relationship. You fixate on your own looks, particularly height. You think that what you look like mostly dictates what you "deserve" in dating. I could go on, but even ONE of those reasons would be enough to call someone a bit shallow. That's A LOT of shallow behaviors, IMO.

 

I've just never liked short hair on girls. My old crush used to have hair that went down to her bra strap area, then one day she cut it to just above shoulder length. Right away I noticed, and felt that it made her look less attractive. I almost felt sad that she did that. It's like drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa.

 

Oh, goodness, that's not even that short of hair, so stricter than I thought. A hair cut could literally make you lose attraction to a woman? I hope that would not hold true if you were actually in a R. That's by far the most shallow thing I've heard you say yet, SD.

 

The one major difference between men and women pre-deciding, is that men are the pursuers. There has to be a reason for me to pursue a woman. I'm not going to go after I'm not attracted to and hope that she has something about her personality that I would want.

 

I would never suggest you go after someone you're not attracted to, btw. What I would suggest is you stop trying to deconstruct attraction and beauty and defend why you're not attracted to people you're not attracted to, as though there's some sort of valid/invalid line, and THAT would make you far less shallow. Just think about and fixate on looks less, also open yourself up to other criteria, and allow yourself to find things aesthetically pleasing without constant analysis. Additionally, stop picking at it like, "Well, I just want Y and Z and S, and that's more valid than wanting X and B because I have A and C." That's not how attraction generally works. There is no "what you deserve."

[xxoo]

And how am I more shallow than you? I'm sure you have a few preferences.

 

I have preferences, mostly reflecting the physical appearance of the one I love, but not requirements.

 

I prefer a certain height, but have had crushes on guys from 5'3--6'3 (I don't prefer either extreme)

 

I prefer dark eyes/hair, but have been attracted to other.

 

I prefer olive skin, but have been attracted to very fair and very dark.

 

I prefer strong, but have been attracted to skinny.

 

I prefer fit, but have been attracted to fat.

 

It's about the essence of the man, not his stats.

[Els]

El, it's kind of hard to have a discussion when you have your hands over year and ears and you saying La la la la.

 

ROFL are you stoned?

 

You clearly did not make this thread to listen to differing opinions, SD. You made it with the hope of getting people to tell you 'no, you're not shallow'. Mission accomplished, no? I've no intention of arguing with someone who isn't interested in helping himself. Til next thread.

[ptp]

And how am I more shallow than you? I'm sure you have a few preferences.

 

There have been multiple times when I have read your posts and thought to myself "that just isn't right".

 

One that immediately comes to mind was where you said something along the lines of: If you were in a relationship with a woman who had small breasts you would try to convince her to get implants.

 

Preferences are fine, everybody has preferences. Saying that you would want a woman who are you are in a relationship with to go under the knife, just so you can be with a girl with big boobs....

 

That is shallow and not right in my book, but I understand people have different definitions and views on the matter.

[zengirl]

I would also say that too often, on this site, people confuse "shallow" with "picky." You can be shallow and not picky, picky and not shallow, neither, or both at once. Easily. The two are not really related.

 

Shallow - fixation on outer appearances or material things, lacking in greater depth

 

Picky - having a laundry list of sorts, wanting a very high quality, etc.

 

I wouldn't say SD is terribly picky in general, per se. I would say his attitude is very shallow.

[Star Gazer]

Makes since, though I wonder what your height cut of is.

 

I'd say 5'9'' but in reality I'm not usually attracted to guys shorter than 5'10''.

[Els]

I would also say that too often, on this site, people confuse "shallow" with "picky." You can be shallow and not picky, picky and not shallow, neither, or both at once. Easily. The two are not really related.

 

Shallow - fixation on outer appearances or material things, lacking in greater depth

 

Picky - having a laundry list of sorts, wanting a very high quality, etc.

 

I wouldn't say SD is terribly picky in general, per se. I would say his attitude is very shallow.

 

Very good distinction, IMO. That was so much more eloquent than the words I was struggling with.

 

Sadly, I doubt it'll make any difference to the OP.

[zengirl]

Very good distinction, IMO. That was so much more eloquent than the words I was struggling with.

 

Sadly, I doubt it'll make any difference to the OP.

 

Thanks. It's funny because I would say I'm VERY picky, though my only physical 'requirements' were: *Someone I'm attracted to, *Someone who's in decent physical health that does not impede his daily life (ironically, Hubby does have a disease that impacts this one a bit). But my list was VERY long. It just wasn't long in physical or income requirements. It was long in more compatibility-based requirements, with depth, and thus not shallow. But very, very picky. Some people have a problem with someone who is picky, and they have a right to that opinion --- and I don't care if I'm called picky. *shrug*

 

I don't get why someone who fixates on the physical wouldn't just own that and accept that he/she was shallow.

[Star Gazer]

I think everyone is entitled to their physical preferences. I think if they frequently spell out their physical preferences, analyze them, treat them like tick boxes, and fixate on them, they are being shallow. I also don't think there's anything wrong with being shallow, generally! It's not for me, but many people are shallow and materialistic, and they seem to do quite well with each other. *shrug*

 

I simply think there's a big difference between saying, "I want someone I'm attracted to" than trying to list and defend your attraction or non-attraction and make other people out to be "lesser" because they are lacking some physical quality YOU desire, especially if you complain that others view you as "lesser" for similar features.

 

What's wrong with knowing what you are and are not physically attracted to and looking for the things that you are attracted to? How is that any different than having a list or having tick boxes?

 

SD is listing his preferences here simply to illustrate what his physical preferences are, and asking whether those physical preferences make him shallow. We'd all do the same thing if asked to list what our physical preferences are.

 

I also wholly disagree that in listing what he finds physically attracting that he's trying to "make other people out to be lesser because they are lacking a quality he desires." I think it's grossly unfair to paint SD in that box.

 

Plenty of people here, every single day, say things like, "I like women with small boobs" or "I like a man with a clean shaven/baby face," or whatever. How are they not shallow for listing that preference? How are they not trying to make other people out to be lesser because they are lacking a quality listed?

[somedude81]

Just want to focus on this for now, and I'll address the rest later.

Average weight in the U.S. is a dress size 14. That's higher than your stated preferred weight class in general. I'm going based on averages. You want someone who is below the average weight. (I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing -- I'm just trying to be factual.) The average U.S. woman is 162.2 pounds and 5'4'' with B cup breasts and wears a size 14 --- that's not obese, but it's very much not thin and I think you would likely consider such women overweight. Am I wrong?

5'4 162 lbs.

 

First off all. I'm 5'6, 152 lbs and male. I'm also hardly underweight. Much of my weight is muscle. Any woman who is my height or shorter and my weight or heavier, is overweight. There is no arguing with that.

 

Then we have this

Body Mass Index calculator you'll like

 

Punch in 5'4, 162 lbs, age 20-29 and what BMI do you get? What classification? What percentile?

 

Frankly, I don't know where you are getting your stats from.

[Mme. Chaucer]

One example of why you come off as shallow:

 

Originally Posted by somedude81

The only thing that I feel excluded on is when a girl refuses to date men under 5'10. And it seems really stupid when she's under 5'4 herself. I just want somebody roughly equal to myself.

 

Yet … you are qualified to reject and accept based on bra cup size. THAT seems stupid to me, coming from a guy who deems a girl's height requirement as "stupid."

 

One more:

 

You ALWAYS say that ANY girl with the "list" of attributes you have posted here will do just fine.

 

That is shallow, because hair length, body type, bra size and hobbies are just a minuscule fraction of what makes up a person.

 

Finally: You don't ever talk about "inner life" of any kind. Only external things.

 

There are many more examples.

 

Why did you post this thread, anyway? People have explained to you infinite times over the years why you seem to be truly shallow. You have asked us to tell you again - and you are arguing with every single example.

 

Here's the bottom line, sd. I don't mean to be harsh, and I actually do feel for you because it was hard enough getting started dating during the typical years for that - it must be truly hellish to try at 30. Adult women, even young ones, are going to have much different expectations that young teenagers (and you) do. But there are reasons you are in this predicament, and they begin and end with YOU and YOU ALONE, now that you are a grown up man.

 

So either bite the bullet and work on yourself, including honestly evaluating your shortcomings and become willing to change - especially to do some serious emotional maturing - or get really comfortable staying as you are now.

[xxoo]

Then we have this

Body Mass Index calculator you'll like

 

Punch in 5'4, 162 lbs, age 20-29 and what BMI do you get? What classification? What percentile?

 

Frankly, I don't know where you are getting your stats from.

 

I used age 29 (which is closer to your age). 162# was 62nd percentile, I think.

 

I tweaked it to find 50th percentile: 148#, 5'4", 29 yo, is 50th percentile. AND is classified "overweight". So the average 20 yo woman is overweight according to this BMI calculator.

[zengirl]

Just want to focus on this for now, and I'll address the rest later.

 

5'4 162 lbs.

 

First off all. I'm 5'6, 152 lbs and male. I'm also hardly underweight. Much of my weight is muscle. Any woman who is my height or shorter and my weight or heavier, is overweight. There is no arguing with that.

 

Then we have this

Body Mass Index calculator you'll like

 

Punch in 5'4, 162 lbs, age 20-29 and what BMI do you get? What classification? What percentile?

 

Frankly, I don't know where you are getting your stats from.

 

It's probably risen since 2006, but

 

Americans Getting Taller, Bigger, Fatter, Says CDC

 

Meanwhile, the average weight for men aged 20-74 years rose dramatically from 166.3 pounds in 1960 to 191 pounds in 2002, while the average weight for women the same age increased from 140.2 pounds in 1960 to 164.3 pounds in 2002.

 

While older men tend to be the fattest, women's weight increased more at younger levels. So, it wouldn't be skewed older likely for women, though obesity is not a problem for young men as it is for old men.

 

Full report: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad347.pdf

[Els]

What's wrong with knowing what you are and are not physically attracted to and looking for the things that you are attracted to? How is that any different than having a list or having tick boxes?

 

SD is listing his preferences here simply to illustrate what his physical preferences are, and asking whether those physical preferences make him shallow. We'd all do the same thing if asked to list what our physical preferences are.

 

I also wholly disagree that in listing what he finds physically attracting that he's trying to "make other people out to be lesser because they are lacking a quality he desires." I think it's grossly unfair to paint SD in that box.

 

Plenty of people here, every single day, say things like, "I like women with small boobs" or "I like a man with a clean shaven/baby face," or whatever. How are they not shallow for listing that preference? How are they not trying to make other people out to be lesser because they are lacking a quality listed?

 

I think the major thing that invalidates your post is that SD himself, in the very recent past, calls a woman's requirements for men 5'10" and above 'stupid and shallow'.