Consolidated Discussion: Height in Dating

[Veronica73]

I’m talking more about height than weight. And men and women both have been getting taller for awhile. 150 years according to this article:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-are-we-getting-taller/

 

But I agree with you about the getting fatter bit too. When I was a kid we spent a huge portion of our summers at the pool and having giant hide and go seek and capture the flag games. Or we’d be riding our bikes all over the place just to explore. It seems like I don’t see kids outside playing that much these days.

[basil67]

Eh....We grew up eating boxes of sugar laden cold cereal, Hostess junk, fast food, ice cream, yet you would be hard pressed to see one or two legitimately fat kids in the entire school..Boys at least...Maybe a few more girls were heavy, but not nearly the same as today...I drive my kid to school and it seems like half her schoolmates I would consider at least 20+ lbs overweight...

 

The other thing I don't get, is all kids now sleep like crazy....My own kid won't get up until at least 11am in the summer..I thought it was odd, until I found out pretty much all kids do this...That's nuts..

 

You can't burn any calories staring at an iPhone...And that's the life of most younger people, unfortunately...

 

TFY

 

I was a bookworm as a child. Sure, I rode my bike to visit friends and walked to school and in summer we swam in the river, but my life was just as sedentary as many modern kids. But I was not overweight. Mum simply gave us "real food". A chocolate bar was a treat so rare that we'd get excited when dad presented them.

 

As for kids these days, I used to read stats on childhood obesity and think they were wrong. The overwhelming majority of kids who go to our local school were healthy sizes, so it didn't make sense. Then we went on a holiday where there were a lot of low socio economic families. There were sooo many overweight kids. Living in a middle class or affluent bubble makes a huge difference to weight.

 

Governments here keep talking about putting more sport into schools to keep kids at a healthy weight. But I'm thinking that the real answer involves affordable healthy food combined with cooking and nutrition classes. No *reasonable* amount of physical exercise will overcome an appalling diet.

[Veronica73]

I was a bookworm as a child. Sure, I rode my bike to visit friends and walked to school and in summer we swam in the river, but my life was just as sedentary as many modern kids. But I was not overweight. Mum simply gave us "real food". A chocolate bar was a treat so rare that we'd get excited when dad presented them.

 

As for kids these days, I used to read stats on childhood obesity and think they were wrong. The overwhelming majority of kids who go to our local school were healthy sizes, so it didn't make sense. Then we went on a holiday where there were a lot of low socio economic families. There were sooo many overweight kids. Living in a middle class or affluent bubble makes a huge difference to weight.

 

Governments here keep talking about putting more sport into schools to keep kids at a healthy weight. But I'm thinking that the real answer involves affordable healthy food combined with cooking and nutrition classes. No *reasonable* amount of physical exercise will overcome an appalling diet.

 

Yeah, and a lot of very bad food is very cheap. I mean, you can consume a ton of calories without spending much money at McDonalds or Taco Bell. I know rice and beans are cheap, but it gets old after a bit. Plus back in the 50’s, there is a good chance only the dad was working so mom probably had a lot more time and energy to cook full meals.

[basil67]

Yeah, and a lot of very bad food is very cheap. I mean, you can consume a ton of calories without spending much money at McDonalds or Taco Bell. I know rice and beans are cheap, but it gets old after a bit. Plus back in the 50’s, there is a good chance only the dad was working so mom probably had a lot more time and energy to cook full meals.

 

A packet of oven fries goes a long way to fill empty stomachs.

[Veronica73]

Ramen noodles are probably even cheaper.

[Blanco]

Also to debunk waist to hip ratio myth, mine is pretty much perfect and I have been perma-single. In my experience, men largely prefer petite, skinny women and could care less if she has no waist, no butt and hips of a child. That's why Asian ladies are so popular.

 

Well those guys are morons. Hip-to-waist ratio is one of those things I don't actively think about until I see someone who's got the "ideal" ratio. At that point, I'm kind of like that wolf with his eyes popping out in those Tex Avery cartoons.

 

As a kid, watching old Batman reruns on TV, Julie Newmar's Catwoman always seemed inexplicably enticing. Only in later years when I finally heard about the hip-to-waist ratio was I able to look back and go, "Ohhh, that's why."

[nospam99]

Just another anecdote .... a Daily Match this morning: 5'3'' woman with a minimum seeking height of 5'10''. Incidentally this woman had appeared previously in my searches because other than the height thing, on paper, we're highly compatible.

 

And an Other Match (LOTS to swipe this morning): 5'5'' with minimum seeking height 6'.

Edited August 8, 2018 by nospam99

[Noproblem]

I am 5' 5 and I like a guy around 5' 8 or 5' 9 I think that is about the average.

 

but too tall doesn't attract me that much, I don't like them that much.

 

I think height is not the number 1 factor for me, he has to be my type.

 

Although to be honest, in almost all the romance novels and romance manga I read

the guy is tall, so they brainwash us this way I guess

 

 

but then again, the female lead is always so beautiful & slim, they also do that in novels and manga and movies

 

I guess, these things tend to affect the public opinion about what is attractive or not.

Edited August 14, 2018 by Noproblem

[JuneL]

What waist to hip ratio is supposed to be perfect? 0.65??

[thefooloftheyear]

What waist to hip ratio is supposed to be perfect? 0.65??

 

 

Not really sure....but id say something like this.....:laugh:

 

 

 

TFY

[alphamale]

Not really sure....but id say something like this.....:laugh:

 

 

 

TFY

 

Gawwwwd! I just shot my wad

[brigit87]

Not really sure....but id say something like this.....:laugh:

 

 

 

TFY

 

Well that woman's chest is as big as my butt and that's just weird.

 

And nobody is looking at her waist or hips.

 

Also, that has nothing to do with great male bodies unless she's a transvestite.

Edited August 15, 2018 by brigit87

[Garlend]

I'm 5' 10" and 170#.

 

Perfection or not, I have:

 

46" Shoulders

42" Chest

32" Waist

37" Hips

 

If you want me to prove it with a pic, I'll post a link.

[nospam99]

And nobody is looking at her waist or hips.

 

Also, that has nothing to do with great male bodies unless she's a transvestite.

 

I'm the OP and I'm looking at her waist AND her hips. Both are attractive, though her butt is a bit 'over'. Quite frankly, though her chest may be considered 'attractive' too, to me it is (or they are ) 'too much of a good thing'.

 

Also, agreed that she has nothing to do with great MALE bodies.

[dream of me]

Height is impressive... for some seconds that is. It doesn't really matter after that. As long as he's same height or taller than me (I'm 5'.4").

[basil67]

Just another anecdote .... a Daily Match this morning: 5'3'' woman with a minimum seeking height of 5'10''. Incidentally this woman had appeared previously in my searches because other than the height thing, on paper, we're highly compatible.

 

And an Other Match (LOTS to swipe this morning): 5'5'' with minimum seeking height 6'.

 

With such limited options for themselves, I sure hope they don't come crying here about there being no good men.

[losangelena]

Well, most of my best sexual partners have been short men (that is, my height or shorter), and I'm a big old fatty. So I think there's the solution to the problem. Just let all the otherwise undesirables f*** each other. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Lilkilgore]

Well, most of my best sexual partners have been short men (that is, my height or shorter), and I'm a big old fatty. So I think there's the solution to the problem. Just let all the otherwise undesirables f*** each other. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Why do u say you’re undesirable?

[losangelena]

Why do u say you’re undesirable?

 

I don't think I'm undesirable. I was being facetious.

[nospam99]

With such limited options for themselves, I sure hope they don't come crying here about there being no good men.

 

LOL. I doubt they will. To be fair, there are plenty of men 5'10" or taller (including all three of my sons). I was posting my anecdotes to illustrate the generalization about the importance of a man's height as a filter/selection criteria being used by 'many' women. Incidentally I was reading a woman's OLD profile this morning because she lives nearby and has a good Mutual Match percentage (a match.com thing) with me ... 5'2" seeking 5'10" or taller.

[JuneL]

LOL. I doubt they will. To be fair, there are plenty of men 5'10" or taller (including all three of my sons). I was posting my anecdotes to illustrate the generalization about the importance of a man's height as a filter/selection criteria being used by 'many' women. Incidentally I was reading a woman's OLD profile this morning because she lives nearby and has a good Mutual Match percentage (a match.com thing) with me ... 5'2" seeking 5'10" or taller.

 

Something I have noticed in your posts is that you seem to take the % match in their algorithm way too seriously. I was on Match for like 3 weeks and was never bothered with those figures. They probably computed these things based on the few superficial parameters you entered (perhaps as well as how much you interacted with certain groups of individuals on the site).

 

I think it’s okay to try if you’re only a couple inches shorter than their desired range. When I was on Match, I put my upper limit to be 5 years older, but I would not dismiss someone 7-8 years older if his profile and message were otherwise impressive. In fact, my current boyfriend is almost 7 years older (we met in real life though).

Edited August 17, 2018 by JuneL

[nospam99]

Something I have noticed in your posts is that you seem to take the % match in their algorithm way too seriously. I was on Match for like 3 weeks and was never bothered with those figures. They probably computed these things based on the few superficial parameters you entered (perhaps as well as how much you interacted with certain groups of individuals on the site).

 

I think it’s okay to try if you’re only a couple inches shorter than their desired range. When I was on Match, I put my upper limit to be 5 years older, but I would not dismiss someone 7-8 years older if his profile and message were otherwise impressive. In fact, my current boyfriend is almost 7 years older (we met in real life though).

 

Getting off topic a bit here. But since your comments seem to be directed to me, I'll respond.

 

% match is a match.com thing. I'll plead 'guilty' (with explanation below) to taking it seriously. Looking at the women who have 'higher' percent matches, it appears to me that shared common interests are a major factor in the algorithm. match.com reports % match from 100 down to 81. Nothing lower than 81 is reported. I use it as a ranking filter, assuming the higher the % the more likely the woman and I will 'hit it off'. I also assume a difference of 10% or more is significant in predicted compatibility. From a practical standpoint there are lots of women 88% or higher and I'm more likely to contact them.

 

For the height thing, I'm 5'8''. Keep in mind that the women's profiles specify a height range and I'm filtering on their low end sought height. They usually range up high into the 6-footers. I'll contact a woman who says she's seeking 5'9'' and up but I rarely 'go up' to a sought 5'10''. The couple of times I contacted a woman in spite of 'falling short', they've responded that unlike their age filter, their height is a 'hard' requirement, usually citing not wanting to 'look down' when wearing their beloved 6'' stilettos. Also keep in mind I'm talking about OLD in my anecdotes so I don't have the option of being able to play the (dubious) 'in person I'm Prince Charming' card.

[thefooloftheyear]

Getting off topic a bit here. But since your comments seem to be directed to me, I'll respond.

 

% match is a match.com thing. I'll plead 'guilty' (with explanation below) to taking it seriously. Looking at the women who have 'higher' percent matches, it appears to me that shared common interests are a major factor in the algorithm. match.com reports % match from 100 down to 81. Nothing lower than 81 is reported. I use it as a ranking filter, assuming the higher the % the more likely the woman and I will 'hit it off'. I also assume a difference of 10% or more is significant in predicted compatibility. From a practical standpoint there are lots of women 88% or higher and I'm more likely to contact them.

 

For the height thing, I'm 5'8''. Keep in mind that the women's profiles specify a height range and I'm filtering on their low end sought height. They usually range up high into the 6-footers. I'll contact a woman who says she's seeking 5'9'' and up but I rarely 'go up' to a sought 5'10''. The couple of times I contacted a woman in spite of 'falling short', they've responded that unlike their age filter, their height is a 'hard' requirement, usually citing not wanting to 'look down' when wearing their beloved 6'' stilettos. Also keep in mind I'm talking about OLD in my anecdotes so I don't have the option of being able to play the (dubious) 'in person I'm Prince Charming' card.

 

IME, only women in the really top tier have "hard requirements" ..Y'know, the drop dead knockouts, that have practically every guy going after them..So they can conveniently be selective...I have zero doubt that the one's you contacted likely turned you down because of other reasons, but then pulled out the height issue as their convenient out...No disrespect, bud, but that's my thought...

 

Now, bear in mind that I have no experience in this venue, just citing personal experience.....If they are being rigid, my only guess is that these "regular Susan's", are just thinking that all the exposure will allow them to find their romance novel type of guy...What's been relayed to me, is that sure, they may find them, get pumped and dumped a bunch of times, then resort to plan B...

 

I would listen to June...She's giving you the scoop...

 

TFY

[nospam99]

IME, only women in the really top tier have ''hard requirements'' ..

 

LOL. So rather than turning this (my) thread into OLD coaching for ME, let's 'try' to get it back on the general topic of men contacting women on OLD in spite of various degrees of 'vertical challenge' ...

 

What are people's ideas about how high above their actual height should men on OLD contact women with 'higher stated requirements'? How much does that depend on the woman's own height e.g. how much less 'cred' does a 5'2''woman who says she wants to date no shorter than 5'10'' have compared to the 5'10'' woman with the same criteria?

Edited August 17, 2018 by nospam99

[JuneL]

Interesting they actually replied to tell you that you don’t fit their hard height requirements I thought that, on OLD, it’s almost an unwritten rule that women just don’t reply to any first messages if they are not interested. I can imagine them replying with generic rejection messages like “Sorry I don’t think we are a good match. I wish you luck.”

 

Perhaps you can gently let them know that wearing 6'' stilettos often is not good for their body

 

Getting off topic a bit here. But since your comments seem to be directed to me, I'll respond.

 

% match is a match.com thing. I'll plead 'guilty' (with explanation below) to taking it seriously. Looking at the women who have 'higher' percent matches, it appears to me that shared common interests are a major factor in the algorithm. match.com reports % match from 100 down to 81. Nothing lower than 81 is reported. I use it as a ranking filter, assuming the higher the % the more likely the woman and I will 'hit it off'. I also assume a difference of 10% or more is significant in predicted compatibility. From a practical standpoint there are lots of women 88% or higher and I'm more likely to contact them.

 

For the height thing, I'm 5'8''. Keep in mind that the women's profiles specify a height range and I'm filtering on their low end sought height. They usually range up high into the 6-footers. I'll contact a woman who says she's seeking 5'9'' and up but I rarely 'go up' to a sought 5'10''. The couple of times I contacted a woman in spite of 'falling short', they've responded that unlike their age filter, their height is a 'hard' requirement, usually citing not wanting to 'look down' when wearing their beloved 6'' stilettos. Also keep in mind I'm talking about OLD in my anecdotes so I don't have the option of being able to play the (dubious) 'in person I'm Prince Charming' card.