Consolidated Discussion - A man's/woman's height in the search for relationships

[sweetkiwi]

I am tiny but love big strong men. They are simply what I am attracted to. I have dated "shorter" guys as well. My first was barely 5'5", and he has been, by far, the most protective caring man I've ever known. He also is a taekwondo master. The biggest guy I've ever dated, 6'4", was emotionally then physically abusive. I held my own on that single occasion and donkey kicked his ass off of me.

[sweetkiwi]

You're not talking about a phrase that originated in early print magazines and romance novels are you?!

That's the one. And it certainly describes my personal "type".

[Southern Cal Dude]

You ever heard the phrase, "tall, dark, and handsome"?

 

Notice how that phrase doesn't read, "short, dark, and handsome"?

 

 

Facial aesthetics and height > muscles. I'm pretty lean(6'4" 180), but I have a symmetrical face and high cheekbones. Notice how male models have lean muscle, not a bodybuilder's frame.

[MrCastle]

You're not talking about a phrase that originated in early print magazines and romance novels are you?!

 

Or the 1941 film by Cesar Romero by the same name.

 

I refuse to believe the media created that phrase and stereotype. I'd like to believe the Universal Group Of Women (UGOW) is responsible for it.

[KungFuJoe]

Facial aesthetics and height > muscles. I'm pretty lean(6'4" 180), but I have a symmetrical face and high cheekbones. Notice how male models have lean muscle, not a bodybuilder's frame.

 

Not sure if you are agreeing with me or you hit reply to the wrong post.

 

Where did I say anything about being a bodybuilder?

[KungFuJoe]

You're not talking about a phrase that originated in early print magazines and romance novels are you?!

 

Ok...I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make, but if you're trying to imply that women, in general, don't have a preference regarding tall vs short, then I guess you'll tell me that penis size doesn't matter either.

[veggirl]

If it's NOT instinct, then can you explain why most women prefer bigger, taller men?

 

If it IS instinctual then why do men and women alike get up in arms over a man "instinctually" wanting a woman in the kitchen/home?

 

You'd be one of the first to jump on a man who thinks that is a woman's place. But why? It's instinctual. It's the way it's always been.

 

All I'm saying is it goes both ways. One doesn't get to cry "it's biology!" and then shame another group for the same thing.

[KungFuJoe]

If it IS instinctual then why do men and women alike get up in arms over a man "instinctually" wanting a woman in the kitchen/home?

 

You'd be one of the first to jump on a man who thinks that is a woman's place. But why? It's instinctual. It's the way it's always been.

 

All I'm saying is it goes both ways. One doesn't get to cry "it's biology!" and then shame another group for the same thing.

 

Umm...I don't know if you got me confused for another poster, but I would not judge a man who just wants a housewife to stay at home and cook and clean while he went out and made the big bucks.

 

Because it IS rooted in our DNA for men to go out and hunt and provide, where the women stay home and take care of domestic needs.

 

In fact, it's only been in the last couple generations that women have started to make a big impact in the workforce.

 

It's not biology...it's sociobiology.

[MrCastle]

Ok...I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make, but if you're trying to imply that women, in general, don't have a preference regarding tall vs short[/Quote]

 

I'm trying to say the biology argument is garbage. Why are short men and skinny women still here then if our ancestors instinctually only mated with tall dudes and kim k lookalikes?

 

Why are men 6 feet and above rare and considered above the norm? Why are we not taller as a species?

 

As someone who is a media major -- my assignments all revolve around reading watching and listening to books, magazines, television, movies, and songs. To determine trends, to determine what sells and what doesn't and why.

 

The media has propped up tall muscular men as it has done for skinny, mostly white, women.

 

There's a reason why whites are considered as being more attractive and more desired than other ethnicities and it's not because of biology.

 

then I guess you'll tell me that penis size doesn't matter either.

 

Dunno. I'm average (go figure, so are most men) You can call the ladies up and ask if they were satisfied.

[Mrlonelyone]

The truth is that among real hunter gathering groups, both men and women venture out. For millions of years there wasn't even a hut much less a house to be a wife in.

 

Men hunt big game and fish. Women hunt small game and gather. Women care for children Men care for the tribe.

[veggirl]

It's just so curious to me that on LS a man wanting a woman at home is basically destroyed, even though it's "instinctual".

[tbf]

If it IS instinctual then why do men and women alike get up in arms over a man "instinctually" wanting a woman in the kitchen/home?

 

You'd be one of the first to jump on a man who thinks that is a woman's place. But why? It's instinctual. It's the way it's always been.

This is inaccurate. In primitive society, men and women hunted and gathered. But in primitive society, the males were the protectors and warriors, since females bore young.

[MrCastle]

It's just so curious to me that on LS a man wanting a woman at home is basically destroyed, even though it's "instinctual".

 

This "instinctual" stuff is garbage on both sides.

 

I'd like to think we have progressed as a species in the couple of years our brains have evolved since the stone age.

 

People make decisions based on a variety of factors.

 

"Would he make a good father?"

 

"Is he a provider?"

 

"Is his personality nice?"

 

"Would she make a good mother?"

 

"Does her personality mesh with mine?"

 

The dating game is not a bunch of women being blindly led by their instinctual tingly vaginas to tall men, and men following their throbbing penis to women with significant curves to their breasts and asses.

 

It's people dating those they feel attracted to one a whole level, and that is far beyond just physical attraction. That's why people, no matter how they look, can all manage to get dates.

[KungFuJoe]

I'm trying to say the biology argument is garbage. Why are short men and skinny women still here then if our ancestors instinctually only mated with tall dudes and kim k lookalikes?

 

Why are men 6 feet and above rare and considered above the norm? Why are we not taller as a species?

 

As someone who is a media major -- my assignments all revolve around reading watching and listening to books, magazines, television, movies, and songs. To determine trends, to determine what sells and what doesn't and why.

 

The media has propped up tall muscular men as it has done for skinny, mostly white, women.

 

There's a reason why whites are considered as being more attractive and more desired than other ethnicities and it's not because of biology.

 

 

 

Dunno. I'm average (go figure, so are most men) You can call the ladies up and ask if they were satisfied.

 

There are still short people because even two tall partners can make a "short" baby. There's a wide variance of traits that come from an egg and sperm with no guarantees.

 

Also, the less "desired" weren't killed off or prevented from mating. They just ended up doing subserviant work and mating with other less desirables.

 

Anyways...I'm not making this up. It's pretty much an "accepted" theory by most anthropologists and sociologists. The term sociobiology describes this very concept.

 

Humans are attracted to what we consider the strongest, healthiest, and most fertile partners. Remember, the ONLY purpose any living species has is to maintain the survival of said species. It only makes sense that we would be predisposed to be attracted to features that help ensure survival.

[KungFuJoe]

This "instinctual" stuff is garbage on both sides.

 

I'd like to think we have progressed as a species in the couple of years our brains have evolved since the stone age.

 

People make decisions based on a variety of factors.

 

"Would he make a good father?"

 

"Is he a provider?"

 

"Is his personality nice?"

 

"Would she make a good mother?"

 

"Does her personality mesh with mine?"

 

The dating game is not a bunch of women being blindly led by their instinctual tingly vaginas to tall men, and men following their throbbing penis to women with significant curves to their breasts and asses.

 

It's people dating those they feel attracted to one a whole level, and that is far beyond just physical attraction. That's why people, no matter how they look, can all manage to get dates.

 

So you're saying you've never met someone and felt that instant spark..that instant attraction? Even though you know NOTHING about her personality, her ability to be a good mother, or if she is even a good person. That is your BIOLOGY taking over your brain.

 

Not every can manage to get dates on an equal "level'. Good looking people have it much easier. Because of sociobiology.

 

BTW, evolution is SLOW...and civilization/society have been around a short time in comparison to how long homosapiens have been around. Some would say since 8000BC for civilization yet homosapiens have been around for 250,000 years.

 

If you need an example of how long evolution takes to catch up, just keep in mind that wisdom teeth are proof of evolution "lag".

[MrCastle]

There are still short people because even two tall partners can make a "short" baby. There's a wide variance of traits that come from an egg and sperm with no guarantees.

 

Also, the less "desired" weren't killed off or prevented from mating. They just ended up doing subserviant work and mating with other less desirables.

 

Anyways...I'm not making this up. It's pretty much an "accepted" theory by most anthropologists and sociologists. The term sociobiology describes this very concept.

 

Humans are attracted to what we consider the strongest, healthiest, and most fertile partners. Remember, the ONLY purpose any living species has is to maintain the survival of said species. It only makes sense that we would be predisposed to be attracted to features that help ensure survival.

 

And that's fine. But I'm sure the women were mating with whoever protected them and/or brought dinner home. Regardless of his height. That's survival.

 

And let's say the only factors that determine strength and fertility are height and tits and asses -- we are in a stage of our evolution where brains win out.

 

Brains have defeated brawn in our evolution.

 

And connecting on an intellectual and emotional level will do more for you in dating and mating than anything else.

 

Unless those who are citing "well cavemen did it" as a reason for their attraction to height and busty curves want to associate themselves with primative thinking...

[MrCastle]

So you're saying you've never met someone and felt that instant spark..that instant attraction? Even though you know NOTHING about her personality, her ability to be a good mother, or if she is even a good person. That is your BIOLOGY taking over your brain.

 

Not every can manage to get dates on an equal "level'. Good looking people have it much easier. Because of sociobiology.

 

BTW, evolution is SLOW...and civilization/society have been around a short time in comparison to how long homosapiens have been around. Some would say since 8000BC for civilization yet homosapiens have been around for 250,000 years.

 

If you need an example of how long evolution takes to catch up, just keep in mind that wisdom teeth are proof of evolution "lag".

 

Of course I have felt that, and women for me. Spoiler alert -- I'm not tall.

 

We of course are attracted to the physical. I'm not saying otherwise. I'm saying we are all attracted to different body types.

 

The way you phrase it, it's as if you put me in a competition with a taller, muscular man, I will lose out every time. But remember I am not here competing against just men my height and body type, but all men, of all types, and have done well for myself. As have skinny women competing with bustier counterparts.

 

Attraction is more than that.

[KungFuJoe]

And that's fine. But I'm sure the women were mating with whoever protected them and/or brought dinner home. Regardless of his height. That's survival.

 

And let's say the only factors that determine strength and fertility are height and tits and asses -- we are in a stage of our evolution where brains win out.

 

Brains have defeated brawn in our evolution.

 

And connecting on an intellectual and emotional level will do more for you in dating and mating than anything else.

 

Unless those who are citing "well cavemen did it" as a reason for their attraction to height and busty curves want to associate themselves with primative thinking...

 

Ok...again I'm not sure what "point" you are trying to argue.

 

No one is saying that you SHOULD refer to caveman theory as the right way to pick a mate? Hell no.

 

I'm just saying that "old habits die hard".

 

Society provides men AND women with a lot of the "assurances" that weren't possible in the caveman days. But, given the small fraction of the homosapien timeline that society has been available, it's understandable that evolution hasn't caught up yet.

 

Look up Paternity Certainty. That's another example.

[Woggle]

Evo psych to me is just a bunch of crap for people both men and women to justify their own behaviors. It's funny how it's proponents pick and choose whatever suits their agenda but get mad at what doesn't. Somehow humans have managed to make all these brilliant creations and discoveries yet we can't manage to break out of our caveman ways.

[Woggle]

Most people would not last a week if we really had to live like they did in primitive times. After Hurricane Sandy some people were freaking out over losing power for a week but we are supposed to be just like the cavemen. I will believe that when I see people hunting for their food and building tools out of rocks.

[MrCastle]

Most people would not last a week if we really had to live like they did in primitive times. After Hurricane Sandy some people were freaking out over losing power for a week but we are supposed to be just like the cavemen. I will believe that when I see people hunting for their food and building tools out of rocks.

 

Right. Our brain evolved in every possible capacity -- from our creative brain that has helped us make more complicated art and musical instruments, our logical brains that have propelled us to massive advancements in math, science, and technology -- except for the sexual triggers in our brain which are still stuck at "mmm, tall guy good", and "mmm, big boobs good".

[Woggle]

For the record I think that men who want a housewife who waits on them hand and foot are idiots themselves. I married because I was genuinely in love and I wanted a partner. I can cook and clean for myself and if we ever change our minds and have kids we will share the parenting duties. The only thing that is all her is actually carrying the kid and giving birth but I will help her in whatever way I can.

 

I wish people would just be honest about their preferences instead of blaming the cavemen.

[MrCastle]

The media definitely plays a role. I never meant to imply that what we are attracted to is ONLY defined by caveman theory. But, I still say that caveman theory has a stronger "grip" on primal attraction.

 

How often do you hear women say, "I want a big, strong man, with big hands" vs "I want a small, weak, little guy with tiny hands".

 

The reverse is true for men. We want small women vs larger women because we had to "keep our women in check" back in the caveman days.

 

Again, this is generally speaking...of course there are going to be women that prefer a more "petite" man and a man who will prefer a larger, thicker woman.

 

I don't know why small immediately means "weak", but, regardless, we all want strong partners. But strength is not determined by size. Maybe it was at a time? Certainly not now.

 

I will take 5'7 Floyd Mayweather over 6 foot plus you in a fight, any day.

 

And again, if primal was still the "in" thing, I would be absolutely nowhere in my dating life.

 

But here I am, one of the last girls was 5'10 without heels, and her ex was a 6'2 (now professional) baseball player.

 

You like who you like. People are more complex now. There is more to attraction than "can he wrestle a bear cub or protect me from a mountain lion?" -- Personality, connection, that "it" factor you can't describe; those trump the physical.

 

And I would think if you are a proponent, as I am, of improving the morale of the bitter, women hating unsuccessful men, you'd stop basically saying that they are biologically weaker beings and thus will struggle to get women.

 

I think we should both agree any man, any woman, can get a mate, because we now take more into account than physical stature.

[KungFuJoe]

But would you put 5'8" Mayweather up against 6'7" Vitali Klitschko?

 

There is a reason why there are weight classes in boxing. Bigger = stronger...and typically more physically dominant.

 

That's great that you feel your small stature doesn't impede you in any or doesn't make you weaker. I'm a huge Manny Pacquiao fan and he's a midget compared to me (I took a picture with him in Vegas) but you couldn't pay me to fight him. Well...I guess I'd do it for 250K.

 

Anyways...we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

But I do think the amount of threads on LS about height and attraction shows that it's a pretty dominant subject when it comes to dating and finding partners.

[Woggle]

I really don't think this is as big a deal offline as people think. I see plenty of short men with women and plenty of big women with men.