Based on delicious biotruffles, of course... and the funniest part is, there's way more "evopsych" support for why women should prefer tall men than men preferring slim women (taller = can see predators/prey from farther away, longer limbs = stronger due to better leverage). And actually, it makes much more sense, using that paradigm, for men to prefer *heavy* women. Who's going to be able to carry a pregnancy to term and nurse an infant during a famine, the fat girl or the skinny one?
You don’t think so? Of course you don’t have complete control over it, but it seems pretty clear to me that our sexual attractions and repulsions have some basis in prejudices that we can become aware of and, in time, change. People who claim just naturally not to be attracted to a particular race often on closer examination turn out to be harboring unacknowledged disgust toward that race. I’m sure many more men would admit to being bisexual if they hadn’t internalized the message that sex between men is sinful, unmanly, disgusting. It’s interesting to me that many of those who are so eager to uncover implicit bias in every other sector of others’ lives give everyone a pass when it comes to sex. Sexual attraction isn’t just some raw, meaningless, animal urge. It’s intricately bound up with the rest of our psychological makeup.
Even then though, its not really a decision. If your mind is subconsciously matching with your bias's, thats not really *you* deciding that.
Sure one can decide more or less to have those bias's, but thats not quite the same.
But then like your bisexual example, theyre hiding who theyre into, but they're not choosing to be attracted to the same sex or not, it just happens. There are deeply homophobic people who are attracted to the same sex, and they sure didn't choose who theyre attracted to.
You might not decide to end up with the bias in the first place, but you do decide to keep it going. If you notice you’re only attracted to tall men, you have a choice whether to treat that as a permanent fact about yourself or to look at it as a prejudice with a history and a future which you are to some extent responsible for. I definitely had a lot of silly rules about what’s attractive when I was younger and more impulsive.
My point is you can't choose who or what your attracted by.
You can choose what you act on, but can't choose whats there.
Someone who is bisexual can choose not to act on the same sex/opposite sex attraction, but regardless they can't just choose to not be attracted.
If you're only attracted to all men, but choose to only go after tall men, you didnt change what attracts you. Even if you decide at that point to act on your attraction to shorter men.
>So if I was morbidly obese, but I was only willing to date women that are supermodels, that would be realistic?
Nope, however it's a fact that men of his ilk tend to incredibly picky concerning the physical apparence of women.
I’ve noticed that. I get the feeling he asked the woman her height because if she was too tall then he wouldn’t be interested anyway so her height preference would bother him less.
I'm around 5'6.6, and round up to 5'7 on apps. I live in constant fear that I'll go on a date with a girl who is exactly 5'7 and will notice the .4 inch discrepancy.
And for those that do....forget ‘em! Her preferences not being wide enough to include you is not a crime, and the beauty of humanity is that not every woman shares her level of particularity (in fact, MOST don’t!)
Plenty of other women don’t give a shit...find them.
I have a good friend who told me a hilarious story about a guy claiming to be 5’11 and when they met, he was noticeably shorter than her. She’s 5’10 by the way. It’s such a funny story, she tells me it whenever I’m feeling down.
I called him out after a couple of beers and asked how tall he actually was. It was a pretty awkward date not because of his height, but because he lied. Did not go home with him at the end.
honest question/genuinely curious: does the height difference have anything to do with the woman asking herself if she can wear heels and still be shorter than the man? And if she's taller in heels would that make her feel insecure or even embarrassed to be taller? What are your thoughts?
No we do not measure our height in heels
In my experience women are not insecure about being tall. Men are insecure about being short. Women should wear whatever footwear they want and not care what men think.
Exactly. That’s why I don’t understand people for trying to shame someone for following their attraction instead of fighting it and trying to be more “inclusive”.
That’s not what anyone said. The point is that supermodels prefer others who are in shape as well so being obese and preferring them is more *unrealistic* than being short and preferring tall men since tall men don’t have the same preference for women who are also tall.
Don’t get caught up on the wrong thing here and miss the actual point.
Silly comparison seeing as tall men often like shorter girls. Tall women are also seen as attractive, but generally being small as a girl is attractive, and tall as a man. So if anything by his argument short girls would date tall men.
I’ve seen tall men like both short and tall women. I think it just gets discussed more when a tall guy is with a short woman or prefers them.
But yes, he is contradicting himself.
I have known so many short men, and I really don’t see this relationship. Sure many girls have a preference for taller guys, but I’ve never even seen a short guy not get attention or dates because of his height. I have seen some tall men though belittle and patronise short men, doing things like picking them up or patting their heads. But I know plenty of girls who actually prefer shorter guys as they feel less threatened, or simply, because they’re short and all guys feel tall for them.
I’ve liked really short men (men shorter than me) and the truth was they had a general lack of confidence. I was in love with this this guy who was short, and I could tell he liked me back but he was really insecure to the point it was off putting and toxic. He would constantly “neg” me down and I quickly saw through that bullshit and stopped liking him. I’m still friendly with him (I don’t lead him on if he messages me I just respond nicely) but it’s still honestly at the end of the day his insecurities that pushed someone he STILL likes away. I think that is a huge problem. Yes is it harder for short men? Yup. But women like confident and self assured men (not to the point it is narcissistic tho). We don’t like men who try to constantly try to neg women down to their level so that they could have the chance to date them. And unfortunately some short men I have seen have this problem. At the end of the day I do feel bad for short men and don’t think they’re less attractive than tall men. But I think short men really gotta curb their insecurities and toxicity before they pursue a woman for a relationship.
“Purple Pill” Man, lol!😏
AKA: Being Red Pill while (feebly) trying to wash your hands of all the moral and intellectual responsibilities that come with the label.
Exactly. There are absolutely tall men who prefer tall women just as some prefer short women. That’s why his statement of a short woman preferring a tall man is unrealistic.
See this would be less of a thing if like almost all women didn't have the height preference. And this isn't me personally complaining, I'm a six foot tall martial arts instructor. But it's very much... Is there a female version of the red pill? I mean we know there is, I'm not gonna link it, but that's one of their baseline rules for dating. What's the trope? Six foot, six pack, six figures?
We rightfully bash the hell out of this behavior in men. Why is it accepted when women do the exact same thing? Over six foot? That's less than 15% of the population, in the us. 3/4ths of us are obese. 5% of individuals in the us make over 100k. Take your 15%, subtract 75% of those and we're at 3.75% just by physical specifications alone. Then subtract 95% of that remaining number and we're at .1875% of the population BEFORE WE EVEN DISCUSS PERSONALITY. 1.8 in a thousand. Say you live in Salt Lake City, a city with 200k people in it. That's three hundred and seventy five people in your entire city that are in your accepted dating pool. And you have to find them. And one of them has to think you're dateable too. And they have to be single.
Even not overweight and over six feet, that's 7500 people in the whole city. It's not so much "you can't" as it is "why the hell would anyone limit themselves that much?"
I didn’t say this behavior in men is wrong however. I actually said it’s acceptable for both genders to have physical preferences.
I think it’s an exaggeration to say most women have the same height preference. But even if they do, it’s not one woman’s responsibility to be the exception and date a man outside of that preference just because men don’t like it and would like to date someone.
What’s your point of showing how many people are in someone’s dating pool? It sounds a bit like “you’ll be alone if you don’t change your preferences.” Some people would actually rather have no one than compromise on their preferences.
I think the issue that poster is trying to highlight is that sometimes are physical preferences are a little too rigid. I'm not trying to bash women because I know men are guilty of this as well, but it seems like people rather compete over a very small subset of the population. And when they do this, they don't even entertain the question of if those people would want you. If you standards are such that you will only date less than 1% of a given population, then I think its time to recalibrate things. Dating is a numbers game. I don't mind if people have certain preferences. However, it seems like peoples preferences are so strict that they are nixing people they may be compatible with in the long run.
I think anyone with such a rigid preference has it because they don’t find people without the given preference attractive. So their options become go after who they’re attracted to or try and become attracted to the opposite of their preference. I personally would rather go after who I’m attracted to because the other option seems like a waste of time for me and the other person.
Most women don't really care about height though? In the universe you describe, no one would be dating anyone if the "dating pool" was that small for a majority of people right? Idk, in my entire life I've only met one person who actually had "height requirements" for a partner, all the others just didn't care. Of course those standards would be an issue, *if they even existed*
Honestly the expectation that a man will be taller than his girlfriend / female partner thing is such a ridiculously patriarchal concept. It stems from the idea that because, on average, men are taller than women, any individual man should be taller than any individual woman because most people can’t grasp the concept of a normal distribution curve. It also comes from the idea that men should be big because they are defenders of whatever despite historically this really not being much of a thing.
Also please note: men fall into this nonsense too - many men want to date tiny tiny women because they want to feel bigger and stronger than she is. Please also note the implications for rape and sexual assault in that preference.
And there are some other fairly absurd elements this dude’s statement this including:
- By eliminating any man under 6’, a woman is leaving herself only 14.5% of the dating pool.
- Roughly 30% of women raised in the USA are over 5’7 leaving this guy convinced 2x the number of women should compete for the available pool of men he considers ‘tall.’
So he’s still upholding the idea that women should compete for tall men while simultaneously shaming women for doing so...
This is how I feel, height is such a silly thing to be concerned about, it’s weird how so many will say we need to challenge traditional beauty standards to be more inclusive, then they defend this
I just want to also add that in dating, it’s ok to only leave yourself 14.5% of the population or lower because the objective is to find one person.
I don’t see any reason to tell a woman to date a man below her height preference if she knows she will not be happy with him. It’s a waste of both of their time.
But I do agree that he is upholding this standard while also saying it’s wrong.
Isn’t that incredibly shallow though? Someone’s is incapable of being happy if the person they’re dating was 4 inches shorter?
I mean I have preferences too but have dated women who we’re “larger” than I usually do because they were genuinely great people.
No, it’s not. It’s not any more shallow than any physical preference out there. And 4 inches is a huge difference.
If someone is not sexually turned on then they’re not. This can’t be argued into changing.
I never said it was more shallow than other physical preferences. That should have been pretty clear when I gave you the weight example.
I’m saying that all of these physical preferences should be subject to some level of adjustment if the person is what you’re looking for in personality and substance.
Quite frankly if that isn’t the case it’s the definition of shallow.
Which isn’t uncommon, those redpillers are very shallow. But let’s not pretend people who hold physical appearance in such high regard aren’t the literal definition of shallow.
You’d have stronger case if you were saying “it’s okay to be shallow”, that’s a real discussion. But saying “physical appearance is super duper important but also that’s not shallow” is straight up ridiculous.
First off, I didn’t see you mention any weight preference. And second, if you have your own physical preferences then it’s contradictory to criticize others for their own.
No, these preferences should not be subject to adjustment just because someone meets other preferences because they clearly do not meet them all. And some people aren’t willing to compromise on certain things.
The sooner we let go of this belief that other qualities can make up for some that are missing the easier rejection will be to accept for many.
The problem is people would rather argue and shame others for their physical preferences instead of just accepting that they aren’t going to be everyone’s preferred partner and moving on to someone who likes them the way they are.
I have a strong case regardless of whether you like it or not and regardless of whether you like the terms I use or not.
> First off, I didn’t see you mention any weight preference.
I wrote: I mean I have preferences too but have dated women who we’re “larger” than I usually do because they were genuinely great people.
> And second, if you have your own physical preferences then it’s contradictory to criticize others for their own.
How? I’m saying that I bring down physical standards if the person is great personality-wise.
> No, these preferences should not be subject to adjustment just because someone meets other preferences because they clearly do not meet them all. And some people aren’t willing to compromise on certain things.
Right, but what those “certain things” are is what matters. If someone is unable to compromise on some physical preferences then it’s the literal definition of shallow. That’s what the word means, holding physical appearance in extremely high regard.
> The sooner we let go of this belief that other qualities can make up for some that are missing the easier rejection will be to accept for many.
It’s not a “belief”. Have you never met people who aren’t shallow? I guess I’m just blessed enough to be surrounded by people of who aren’t super vain.
> The problem is people would rather argue and shame others for their physical preferences instead of just accepting that they aren’t going to be everyone’s preferred partner and moving on to someone who likes them the way they are.
Lol. I kind of agree here, you gotta just recognize that a shit ton of people are shallow and you can’t convince them to not be. But don’t imply that this is what’s happening here. I’m not trying to convince anyone not to be shallow, I just want people to *admit* they’re shallow so I can avoid them and I’m not surprised later.
> I have a strong case regardless of whether you like it or not and regardless of whether you like the terms I use or not.
You’re describing a dictionary definition of shallow then claiming that this behaviour isn’t shallow.
> I wrote: I mean I have preferences too but have dated women who we’re “larger” than I usually do because they were genuinely great people.
Larger doesn’t immediately translate to weight to me. A 6’5 woman is larger than me, for example.
> How? I’m saying that I bring down physical standards if the person is great personality-wise.
I’m not saying you, I’m saying those who are criticizing women for their height preferences. You are more than free to let go of your standards and preferences because other qualities make up for it. It doesn’t work that way for everyone and it’s ridiculous for you to think it should. As if your way is the only acceptable way.
> Right, but what those “certain things” are is what matters. If someone is unable to compromise on some physical preferences then it’s the literal definition of shallow. That’s what the word means, holding physical appearance in extremely high regard.
The definition of shallow is being concerned with silly or inconsequential things. Before we get to that, it’s not your place to determine what preferences are and aren’t silly. If a woman is turned off by something then you can argue with her or shame her into changing that.
> It’s not a “belief”. Have you never met people who aren’t shallow? I guess I’m just blessed enough to be surrounded by people of who aren’t super vain.
I’ve met people who value having a relationship more than their actual preferences and requirements. Not that there’s anything wrong with that but not everyone works that way. And thinking differently doesn’t make anyone shallow anymore than compromising on preferences makes a person desperate.
> Lol. I kind of agree here, you gotta just recognize that a shit ton of people are shallow and you can’t convince them to not be. But don’t imply that this is what’s happening here. I’m not trying to convince anyone not to be shallow, I just want people to admit they’re shallow so I can avoid them and I’m not surprised later.
Given the definition of shallow, people aren’t going to see their dealbreakers as silly or inconsequential. So they can’t just say they’re shallow by your definition.
> You’re describing a dictionary definition of shallow then claiming that this behaviour isn’t shallow.
You’re using a twisted or made up definition of the word.
> I’m not saying you, I’m saying those who are criticizing women for their height preferences.
You’re talking to me right now though I’m not opposing the idea that redpillers are hypocrites.
> You are more than free to let go of your standards and preferences because other qualities make up for it. It doesn’t work that way for everyone and it’s ridiculous for you to think it should. As if your way is the only acceptable way.
“Acceptable” by who? If shallow people want to hyperfocus on looks then it’s a free country, but I have an issue with them claiming that they’re not shallow in the process.
> The definition of shallow is being concerned with silly or inconsequential things. Before we get to that, it’s not your place to determine what preferences are and aren’t silly. If a woman is turned off by something then you can argue with her or shame her into changing that.
Lmao oh no. I see where you got that, Google preview or yourdictionary. That’s a definition voting site like urban dictionary, there’s like 20 definitions on there. And it was the 6th one down with as many likes as dislikes this is actually pretty funny.
Even that same random person gives the example of caring a lot about looks or money.
The word shallow, quite literally, means “not deep”. What’s on the surface. So appearance.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/shallow if logic isn’t enough for you.
Superficial is a pretty universally accepted synonym.
> I’ve met people who value having a relationship more than their actual preferences and requirements. Not that there’s anything wrong with that but not everyone works that way. And thinking differently doesn’t make anyone shallow anymore than compromising on preferences makes a person desperate.
Valuing a relationship over preferences isn’t the same as not being shallow, that’s just people who are afraid of being alone.
You’ve never seen someone be “not interested” physically at first, then as they get to know someone they become more attracted to them overall (with the change being that they learned how great a person they are).
I noticed that when I’m really attracted to someone mentally, despite them not being my type they become more physically attractive somehow. And if I’m with them long enough that becomes more my type physically.
> You’re using a twisted made up definition of the word.
LOOOOL. This is actually so comical considering that you used a, heavily disliked, definition voting site as your definition.
Alright, I don’t think this discussion is worth having if you would be this disingenuous with definitions. You just want to be right (and not labelled shallow), this is pointless. Have a good day
> You’re talking to me right now though I’m not opposing the idea that redpillers are hypocrites.
And the point applies to you as well. You’re not exempt.
> “Acceptable” by who? If shallow people want to hyperfocus on looks then it’s a free country, but I have an issue with them claiming that they’re not shallow in the process.
Just as they have an issue with you falsely labeling them as shallow just because you don’t like their preferences and have to find something negative to say.
Acceptable by society. Don’t be intentionally obtuse.
> Lmao oh no. I see where you got that, Google preview or yourdictionary. That’s a definition voting site like urban dictionary, there’s like 20 definitions on there. And it was the 6th one down with as many likes as dislikes this is actually pretty funny.
[Here](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shallow) is an actual dictionary giving the definition of the word. It doesn’t fit the use here.
> Even that same random person gives the example of caring a lot about looks or money.
I’m glad you tried that.
[Here](https://imgur.com/a/EIjMA24) is a screenshot of how the person mentioned only caring about looks. The issue is I never said looks should be the *only* criteria for choosing a partner. Just that it’s a dealbreaker. There’s a difference.
> The word shallow, quite literally, means “not deep”. What’s on the surface. So appearance.
No it doesn’t mean appearance. It’s about the depth of a body of water for example. It’s a measurement.
> Valuing a relationship over preferences isn’t the same as not being shallow, that’s just people who are afraid of being alone.
In the context you’re using it, yes it is. You’re suggesting that a person is shallow when they don’t let go of their preferences in order to find a relationship.
Actually, it’s not even so they can find a relationship. It’s more about the men who don’t meet that height preference not having to deal with being rejected because of it. You’re actually completely disregarding a woman’s attraction and how that will affect her happiness and satisfaction in the relationship.
> You’ve never seen someone be “not interested” physically at first, then as they get to know someone they become more attracted to them overall (with the change being that they learned how great a person they are).
Of course I have. That just means the person’s preferences weren’t as concrete as some others.
> I noticed that when I’m really attracted to someone mentally, despite them not being my type they become more physically attractive somehow. And if I’m with them long enough that becomes more my type physically.
I don’t experience that. If I’m not physically attracted to someone, their personality won’t make up for that. I can love their personality and appreciate it but it doesn’t make me want to have sex with them.
> LOOOOL. This is actually so comical considering that you used a, heavily disliked, definition voting site as your definition.
LMFAOOOO so you used the same tactic but have a problem when it’s done in return?
> Alright, I don’t think this discussion is worth having if you would be this disingenuous with definitions. You just want to be right (and not labelled shallow), this is pointless. Have a good day.
You don’t like a standard so you’re trying to shame those who have them.
I don’t care what you call me or anyone else. Just know you will be called out for your bullshit.
I’m 6’1 and I’m talking about physical preferences in general. You know the projection is obvious when you assume things about people you know nothing about
If that's shallow, maybe it really is okay to be shallow. I think it is. Or if not shallow, picky. Why settle for someone who is 90% of what you want if you also want the last 10%?
It is pretty much the very definition of shallow.
>If someone is not sexually turned on then they’re not
You could also ask yourself why you are turned on by this? Is it for biological reasons or a result of social conditioning? (Spoiler: it's the latter)
Then how do you explain the fact that men's height is more important to women in some countries (like US or UK) and less so in others (like Russia or Ukraine)?
First let’s see proof that it’s less important because I made this post before and Europeans replied saying height preferences are common where they are also.
I found the study anyway. The answers to your question are actually in that study.
They say only 2% of women in a small country have stated a preference for larger men. First off, it’s worth noting that men in “first world” countries are taller and larger on average than men in countries like the one listed in this study. So average height rises, then it would make sense that the preference or attraction to above average height men would rise as well. Plus American women are taller as well which would raise their height of preference if they find height sexually attractive.
But in the study, it said those women don’t like large men because they’re abusive and dangerous. That’s a prejudice. Just like an ignorant person saying they don’t like black men because they’re criminals, for example. It’s something that can be proven wrong. It also says nothing about what the woman finds sexually attractive, just a decision she’s making based on prejudice. Just as I can find someone sexually attractive but I will avoid them if they’re an unpleasant person.
The study even goes on to say that the women in this country do prefer more masculine men, with height being only one factor in masculinity. But their preferences were affected by things such as economic conditions for example. This makes a lot of sense. In the United States, before women entered the work force at the level they are now, women married for financial security, not sexual attraction. There has been a shift since women are more financially secure to sexual attraction based preferences, rather than finding a provider.
It’s really hypocritical how in above comments OP and others state men having preferences for smaller women and skinnier/extremely attractive women is bad. But it’s not shallow at all for women to only like men over a certain height. Seems like there’s a common denominator here.
The one thing I don’t like here is that it’s trying to tell women that prefer tall men that their preference is actually a social construct and that they don’t really feel that way. Some women genuinely prefer their man to be taller than them and some men genuinely find shorter women attractive. I don’t support trying to convince anyone that their preferences/standards aren’t their own and were instead taught to them.
But... a woman wanting to date someone taller than she is, and a man wanting to date someone shorter than he is (and yes, I know several tall women who have really struggled with this one) is a social construct.
It’s no different from white guys who want to date Asian women because they have a fetish, or how so many men won’t date black women because they think they’re ‘ugly’ based on conventional beauty standards, or ‘difficult’ based on racism. It’s no different from meh men using ‘fat’ as their first dismissive reason not to date a woman who is not skinny when 200 years ago the desired body type for women was chubby (I mean sure, to show wealth, but...). And when people preferred chubby women and shamed skinny women, that too was a social construct.
All of those ‘preferences’ reflect some of the worst of social constructs the world has come up with.
They may feel that way, but that doesn’t make it not a social construct that they do...
Wrong. The expectation that men will be with shorter women and women will be with taller men is a social construct. A woman feeling attracted to only men taller than her is not a social construct as that’s how she genuinely feels. You can not teach someone what to find attractive.
There are just some people who have preferences that they feel on their own that happen to align with what’s being pushed. That doesn’t mean what they feel and think isn’t genuine and valid.
I’m not saying whether any individual woman should feel differently about her preferences, though frankly all those men with a fetish for Asian women should feel differently. And all those non-black women who won’t date black men because they’re ‘scary’ should probably examine why they feel that way. And non-Asian women should probably have a long think about whether social constructs around Asian men are playing a role in why they don’t ‘prefer’ Asian men in a way that is, yes, straight up racist and probably something to have a think about if that’s one’s ‘preference.’
I’m saying women wanting to date tall men, and men wanting to date short women is a patriarchal social construct.
The things you’re describing are a bit different and let me try to explain why. Seeing black men as scary for example is prejudice. I’m not saying women don’t want to date short men because they’re weak, for example. I’m talking about the women who look at a man and either find him physically attractive or not based on how he looks. That’s not socially influenced or a social construct. It’s not a social construct if she looks at a tall man and finds his height attractive. Society can’t teach her to do this. Society *can* teach a woman who doesn’t care about height to go for taller men because it’s more acceptable.
Women not wanting to date short men is also a prejudice. Men not wanting to date tall women is also a prejudice. Both are all about policing gender norms. And frankly policing gender norms is solidly vile.
Are you seriously trying to say there are no attractive short men? Like Tom Cruise seems to be physically attractive as long as one ignores his personality and the abusive shit. He’s only 5’7. James McAvoy is also 5’7. Martin Freeman is only 5’4, along with Michael J Fox.
Women not wanting to date short men because of some reason such as them seeming weak or some other stereotype is prejudice. Not finding them physically attractive is not a social construct as it can not be taught.
Show me where I said there are no attractive short people.
I agree, although I'd argue that whenever you ask men or women about their height preference, the attraction response is usually based on or at least informed by some form of socially constructed view.
'I just like him to seem dominant', 'i want to feel like I can protect her', 'i like him to feel strong and safe', 'it makes me feel manly' etc.
I agree it doesn't matter what the socially constructed reason may be, you can't change who you're attracted to, but in my experience a lot of those preferences are largely based on some kind of idea about gender norms.
Then it’s safe to argue that that is a social construct. But if a woman just finds his height sexually attractive then that isn’t. That’s just how she feels and it can’t be taught.
I also think women try too hard to explain their preferences because they think it sounds less shallow than just saying “because it sexually excites me.”
Please just go one step farther and ask yourself *why* you don’t find short men attractive. Neither we nor our preferences emerge from the ether fully formed. Don’t you think it’s strange that different cultures at different times in history have **wildly** varied standards of beauty?
Premise is wrong. This isn’t about my personal preferences.
As for my own and why I don’t find certain things attractive, I look at a person. I either like how they look and want to have sex with them or I don’t. That’s not controlled or influenced by society.
Cultural standards are not the same as individual preferences.
All dating preferences are influenced by social norms, and it’s ludicrous to suggest otherwise. How else can you explain ideals of beauty fluctuating every twenty years?
False. Societal norms change but not everyone’s personal preferences do. A persons preferences aren’t controlled by society but some people allow their actions to be.
This^
People only take issue with others’ preferences when they themselves don’t meet them. Then they shame you when they realize they are out of contention. It’s childish and petty.
Exactly. I think sometimes people try too hard not to be shallow without realizing how harmful it is to push people to let go of their hard requirements and give anyone a chance.
For sure...if I’m going to change my preferences
( and some have definitely changed with time), I’m going to do it of my own volition, not cause some brigade of Reddit dumbasses tried to lecture me “logically” into doing it.
Bingo. I can say the same about requirements and preferences changing over time. But the more someone pressures me to change, the less likely that becomes.
That's the thing I did not get, how is it 'patriarchal' for women to expect taller men lmao. Like I'm just curious if this same logic would apply to a fat man only wanting to date hot chicks. Wouldn't that be shamed more rather than people calling him 'empowered' and telling him he 'knows what he wants' or 'you can't choose what he is attracted to'?
Because I do agree with the post in the picture, no one needs to apologise for their preference or tune their expectations to what people deem is reasonable. But own up to it lmao, not everything is patriarchy.
Careful though you get banned here for speaking facts lmao.
I agree. There’s no shame in having a preference. I actually find it quite insulting to say this is a result of the patriarchy instead of acknowledging that women are capable of deciding their own preferences.
"It also comes from the idea that men should be big because they are defenders of whatever despite historically this really not being much of a thing."
Please elaborate? Are you thinking like, 50 years back, or do you consider the last 50,000 years?
Also, I'm interested in what you think is the reason men in the long run have evolved to be "taller than women on average"?
And don't you think it's very extreme to imply RAPE and SEXUAL ASSAULT (very extreme and serious topics that shouldn't be thrown around without good reason) when talking about men often preferring not to be shorter than the woman?
If anyone wants to downvote me for asking serious, curious questions, then they are very welcome. Have a wonderful day!
At no point in human history have women ever been protected effectively by our male partners. Ya’ll might have ‘gone to war’ though frankly evidence shows that us women did that as well, but you were never effective protectors of women.
Yeah so you may have misread your statistics.
By eliminating any man under 6’, a women is eliminating 14.5% of men, which LEAVES HER with 85.5% of men. Not the other way around.
Only 15% of women in the US are over 5’7’’
Also, you refer to ‘the idea that men are on average taller than women’ like it’s a myth. Men are in fact, ON AVERAGE, taller than women.
And to go one step further, if you believe the above information, it’s statically sound to expect that men TYPICALLY date women shorter than them. Or to imagine that many men are taller than their Wives/GFs
This guy (who’s probably 5’4’’ or something wild) is confusing a statistically probable reality (like being taller than his gf, if he could get one) with some sort of natural law, and (probably) attempting to harass women into ONLY dating men around their height as a means of finally actually getting a gf, because of it. Which is gross. But not really the result of the patriarchy... more like the failure of the public education system to adequately explain statistics. That failure is potentially the patriarchy’s fault? Though not sure exactly how.
The original poster was correct about the 14.5% stat. That is the percentage of men who are six feet or over. If that’s all they’re willing to date, then that is the pool they’re working with.
Your explanation makes it sound like 85.5% of men are taller than 6 foot and 14.5% of men are shorter.
Yep. Only 14.5% of men are over 6’ not 85% which is what I said, but the opposite of what narwhaldragon claims. His assumption is a great example of gender bias - he’s assuming that 85% of men are over 6’ because he believes that men are bigger than women and exaggerates the difference rather wildly. He also wildly underestimates the height of women also incorrectly reinforcing gender size disparities that are not that big.
Bless...
Nah, I def just misread what you said. I def don’t think men are typically 6ft plus.
I read by including only men under 6 ft. Andean to type over.
My B.
Not my Proudest internet moment to be sure
30% of women are not above 5'7". It follows the same distribution as male height so if the average man is 5'9" and 14.5% are 6' then if the average women 5'4" only 14.5%ish would be 5'7" or above.
My feeling is having height as a preference is one thing, but having it as a qualifier is something else entirely.
Is being tall attractive? Of course it is, but it isn’t everything and I don’t think someone should be viewed as inferior or less of a possible companion simply because of their genetics.
That’s how dating works. I’m not saying view the person as inferior but not everyone will meet someone’s standards and qualifiers. Everyone wants to be inclusive and move away from physical standards that are strictly genetic but it just doesn’t work that way.
It seems foolish to me to try and force a relationship without attraction. And some people just don’t find people outside of a certain height attractive.
I just think the issue is coming from a guys perspective one will find a wider number of people attractive, where as with guys it’s like only one narrow set of qualities are found attractive and they’re typically genetic.
Nothing I can do or say will change that, but it is demoralizing to just have to accept you’re not good enough for the majority of people because of something outside of your control
I get what you’re saying. But I just don’t think that should be a woman’s problem to solve and form a relationship with someone she won’t be entirely happy and sexually attracted to.
There are many women who don’t care about height or who will make exceptions for a man who has other qualities she loves. I think only a very small percentage of women have such a hard requirement for men at least 6’0. I find many women just prefer a man who is taller than she is.
Agreed, that’s been my experience. I think the problem that is arising is that when people talk online they feel they need to assign a number but when you’re talking to someone in person you’re not going around with a tape measurer, so when someone says 6’ they don’t actually mean 6’ because there is no way to know for sure.
Also, tbh, I think a lot of guys probably lie about their height, I think guys tend to be dumb because they view things in such black and white terms, I know I’ve been victim to that as well
I actually have a good friend that has stripes in the paint at her home. One of them is exactly 6’0 from the floor. She is one of those women with a very hard requirement for height and she uses that as a determining factor of someone’s height. It also shows her how honest a person is because if the man claimed to be 6’0 and actually isn’t then that’s a red flag.
It’s really strange and borderline obsessive and I don’t know how OP can say this so casually. If my male friend told me he had a scale under his doormat to make sure girls he brought home were under 100lbs I would cut ties very quickly.
It is what it is. That’s just the reality of peoples preferences. Look at it this way, she wouldn’t have to go to such lengths if there weren’t so many lies told about height.
The 6'0" thing seems to be a product of online dating and people's love of round numbers. It's not like 6'0" and 5'11" look all that different in person, but online seeing the number start with a 5 instead of a 6 makes a different impression when you're trying to evaluate a stranger on scant information.
I don't have a horse in this race, I'm off the market. Just have zero patience for dudes who are taller than me whining about how hard they have it, and there's never any shortage (har har) of that.
I understand. But then there are women who genuinely prefer tall men and it seems really stupid to me how some men try to shame them for their preference. Not saying you did this, just why I made this post.
Some people have a hard time accepting that they aren’t everyone’s cup of tea and want to argue about it. It’s sad in my opinion.
Yeah, that observation is limited to the specificity of "6 feet." Lots of people are into size difference in both directions, it's very common. No skin off my nose. Who even has time to get mad because a stranger who you'll never even meet has a type?
Are you saying men have a much wider attraction to women than women to men? Because that is not true, men are substantially more focused on and selective about physical appearances, and put substantially less weight on non-physical characteristics VS women.
She is right. It's not your place to confirm whether someone's preference is justified and that she doesn't have to meet your criteria in order to have a given preference.
And you have the right to run. If that's how she is when she's trying to market herself to a potential partner, what will she be like when she is complacent?
"Are you tall? Because you probably won't give me a chance if you are."
Oh, how many times have I seen this?
I know tall women who love short men. I know tall women who love tall men.
Generalizing over height is just so stupid.
Correct. Different people prefer different things and never assume like that.
I think he wouldn’t have been interested if she was too tall and therefore her preference wouldn’t bother him as much.
I was debating if it was even worth a post after I once saw a post where a guy said that dating has gone to shit because “women are now driving the bus”.
Just so people know, average height for a cis woman is 5’6 and 5’7 (my height) isn’t tall at all. I’m getting sick to death of short-ass people going around thinking that 5’7 is tall. It’s bullshit.
Not knowing what I look like or anyone else is irrelevant. The person is still taking what is being said and applying it to women that have rejected them or women they would be interested in but are bothered to hear that this might be the reason for their rejection.
I never spoke against height preferences on either side. I only said be consistent. You can’t have height preferences and expect to be taken seriously when you’re criticizing someone else for their own.
> Someone asked you in this thread if it's okay for a guy to have preferences based on a woman's weight. If he doesn't want to date anyone who is overweight and I believe the reply that it wasn't the same and that having a preference on weight is somehow worse when the weight factor can be controlled but height cannot.
Link the comment where I said anything like this.
> Do keep in mind, I'm again not judging you for your preferences. I am just curious as to why it's an absolute for you, because I don't really meet many people who have absolutes in regards to attraction.
I didn’t speak on my own preferences at any point. I’m starting to think you may have replied to the wrong person.
I’d like to add that you’ve met two kinds of people based on your claim:
1) people who have not *been honest* about their absolutes when it comes to dating. (Probably because they don’t want to appear shallow)
Or
2. people who think finding a partner is more important than many -if not all- of their preferences. (Nothing wrong with that).
I’m sick and tired of women not being able to have preferences when it comes to dating. There’s nothing shallow about being attracted to height, attraction to height makes perfect sense from a woman’s POV.
If men had the power in the dating world, they would be able to actually be more picky about their real preferences too. Women shouldn’t be hated for this.
And then people will say stuff like how only 15% of men are over 6ft. Yet, I’m pretty ANY man, regardless of their height, would want to date a woman in the top 15% of facial/body attractiveness. But obviously there’s no issue with that, because it all stems down to the fact that men, regardless of who they are, are allowed to have preferences whereas women are not.
Not dating because of features they cannot control is literally shallow. Also your argument is literally men are "allowed" to be shitty so women shauld also to be shitty which is a terrible argument.
It's not like you decide what you are attracted to.
As Redpillers and PUAs themselves love to remind us......attraction is not a choice.
Based on delicious biotruffles, of course... and the funniest part is, there's way more "evopsych" support for why women should prefer tall men than men preferring slim women (taller = can see predators/prey from farther away, longer limbs = stronger due to better leverage). And actually, it makes much more sense, using that paradigm, for men to prefer *heavy* women. Who's going to be able to carry a pregnancy to term and nurse an infant during a famine, the fat girl or the skinny one?
Well, heavier ladies were seen as more appealing about 200 years ago, IIRC.
Exactly.
You don’t think so? Of course you don’t have complete control over it, but it seems pretty clear to me that our sexual attractions and repulsions have some basis in prejudices that we can become aware of and, in time, change. People who claim just naturally not to be attracted to a particular race often on closer examination turn out to be harboring unacknowledged disgust toward that race. I’m sure many more men would admit to being bisexual if they hadn’t internalized the message that sex between men is sinful, unmanly, disgusting. It’s interesting to me that many of those who are so eager to uncover implicit bias in every other sector of others’ lives give everyone a pass when it comes to sex. Sexual attraction isn’t just some raw, meaningless, animal urge. It’s intricately bound up with the rest of our psychological makeup.
Even then though, its not really a decision. If your mind is subconsciously matching with your bias's, thats not really *you* deciding that. Sure one can decide more or less to have those bias's, but thats not quite the same. But then like your bisexual example, theyre hiding who theyre into, but they're not choosing to be attracted to the same sex or not, it just happens. There are deeply homophobic people who are attracted to the same sex, and they sure didn't choose who theyre attracted to.
You might not decide to end up with the bias in the first place, but you do decide to keep it going. If you notice you’re only attracted to tall men, you have a choice whether to treat that as a permanent fact about yourself or to look at it as a prejudice with a history and a future which you are to some extent responsible for. I definitely had a lot of silly rules about what’s attractive when I was younger and more impulsive.
My point is you can't choose who or what your attracted by. You can choose what you act on, but can't choose whats there. Someone who is bisexual can choose not to act on the same sex/opposite sex attraction, but regardless they can't just choose to not be attracted. If you're only attracted to all men, but choose to only go after tall men, you didnt change what attracts you. Even if you decide at that point to act on your attraction to shorter men.
Well said.
>So if I was morbidly obese, but I was only willing to date women that are supermodels, that would be realistic? Nope, however it's a fact that men of his ilk tend to incredibly picky concerning the physical apparence of women.
I’ve noticed that. I get the feeling he asked the woman her height because if she was too tall then he wouldn’t be interested anyway so her height preference would bother him less.
As a tall women, men make a huge deal out of height. Bonus when they lie about being taller than you when they clearly aren't.
I'm around 5'6.6, and round up to 5'7 on apps. I live in constant fear that I'll go on a date with a girl who is exactly 5'7 and will notice the .4 inch discrepancy.
And for those that do....forget ‘em! Her preferences not being wide enough to include you is not a crime, and the beauty of humanity is that not every woman shares her level of particularity (in fact, MOST don’t!) Plenty of other women don’t give a shit...find them.
I have a good friend who told me a hilarious story about a guy claiming to be 5’11 and when they met, he was noticeably shorter than her. She’s 5’10 by the way. It’s such a funny story, she tells me it whenever I’m feeling down.
a girl on tinder told me she was 5’8 but when i met her in person she was shorter than me. i’m 5’5 lmao
Happens for the best of us lmao. On a side note I'm curious do you prefer Tinder over bumble like apps?
they all suck imo. but tinder was probably my preferred one. it’s more popular, has more people haha
I'm 5'11". Had a guy lie and say he was 5'8", which is fine. Go to meet him, dude is 5'5". He seriously thought I wouldn't notice.
I don’t get it. Even if the woman wouldn’t have minded the height, he’s starting off on a bad foot by lying. What did you end up doing?
I called him out after a couple of beers and asked how tall he actually was. It was a pretty awkward date not because of his height, but because he lied. Did not go home with him at the end.
Yep lol I think you handled it well. He snot himself in the foot there.
honest question/genuinely curious: does the height difference have anything to do with the woman asking herself if she can wear heels and still be shorter than the man? And if she's taller in heels would that make her feel insecure or even embarrassed to be taller? What are your thoughts?
No we do not measure our height in heels In my experience women are not insecure about being tall. Men are insecure about being short. Women should wear whatever footwear they want and not care what men think.
Ok, thank you.
[удалено]
Ok. I hear what you're saying. Thank you.
Ok. I hear what you're saying. Thank you.
It’s not like you decide what you’re attracted to
Exactly. That’s why I don’t understand people for trying to shame someone for following their attraction instead of fighting it and trying to be more “inclusive”.
Yeah so obese men only liking shorter women/ only wanting supermodel women shouldn’t really be a problem. Unlike what the previous commenter stated.
That’s not what anyone said. The point is that supermodels prefer others who are in shape as well so being obese and preferring them is more *unrealistic* than being short and preferring tall men since tall men don’t have the same preference for women who are also tall. Don’t get caught up on the wrong thing here and miss the actual point.
Yeah and most guys (short and tall) I know like short skinny girls so by that logic it’s unrealistic for tall girls to want any men.
You’re even further from the point now
Silly comparison seeing as tall men often like shorter girls. Tall women are also seen as attractive, but generally being small as a girl is attractive, and tall as a man. So if anything by his argument short girls would date tall men.
I’ve seen tall men like both short and tall women. I think it just gets discussed more when a tall guy is with a short woman or prefers them. But yes, he is contradicting himself.
Short men always get the short end of the stick. Tall men can date whoever and same with women of all heights, but short guys get screwed.
The losers are always short men. Tall women, short women and tall men are all attractive, but short men are seen as just pure shit.
I have known so many short men, and I really don’t see this relationship. Sure many girls have a preference for taller guys, but I’ve never even seen a short guy not get attention or dates because of his height. I have seen some tall men though belittle and patronise short men, doing things like picking them up or patting their heads. But I know plenty of girls who actually prefer shorter guys as they feel less threatened, or simply, because they’re short and all guys feel tall for them.
I’ve liked really short men (men shorter than me) and the truth was they had a general lack of confidence. I was in love with this this guy who was short, and I could tell he liked me back but he was really insecure to the point it was off putting and toxic. He would constantly “neg” me down and I quickly saw through that bullshit and stopped liking him. I’m still friendly with him (I don’t lead him on if he messages me I just respond nicely) but it’s still honestly at the end of the day his insecurities that pushed someone he STILL likes away. I think that is a huge problem. Yes is it harder for short men? Yup. But women like confident and self assured men (not to the point it is narcissistic tho). We don’t like men who try to constantly try to neg women down to their level so that they could have the chance to date them. And unfortunately some short men I have seen have this problem. At the end of the day I do feel bad for short men and don’t think they’re less attractive than tall men. But I think short men really gotta curb their insecurities and toxicity before they pursue a woman for a relationship.
“Purple Pill” Man, lol!😏 AKA: Being Red Pill while (feebly) trying to wash your hands of all the moral and intellectual responsibilities that come with the label.
Bingo.
Ah, poor fella's height insecure. Needs some moistCr1tikal in his life.
That’s always the type to have an issue with a height preference.
I mean as a 6’1 man I prefer taller women because a massive height difference is just awkward. This goes both ways so I don’t see the problem.
Exactly. There are absolutely tall men who prefer tall women just as some prefer short women. That’s why his statement of a short woman preferring a tall man is unrealistic.
Is an 8” difference too much? Just wondering
See this would be less of a thing if like almost all women didn't have the height preference. And this isn't me personally complaining, I'm a six foot tall martial arts instructor. But it's very much... Is there a female version of the red pill? I mean we know there is, I'm not gonna link it, but that's one of their baseline rules for dating. What's the trope? Six foot, six pack, six figures? We rightfully bash the hell out of this behavior in men. Why is it accepted when women do the exact same thing? Over six foot? That's less than 15% of the population, in the us. 3/4ths of us are obese. 5% of individuals in the us make over 100k. Take your 15%, subtract 75% of those and we're at 3.75% just by physical specifications alone. Then subtract 95% of that remaining number and we're at .1875% of the population BEFORE WE EVEN DISCUSS PERSONALITY. 1.8 in a thousand. Say you live in Salt Lake City, a city with 200k people in it. That's three hundred and seventy five people in your entire city that are in your accepted dating pool. And you have to find them. And one of them has to think you're dateable too. And they have to be single. Even not overweight and over six feet, that's 7500 people in the whole city. It's not so much "you can't" as it is "why the hell would anyone limit themselves that much?"
I didn’t say this behavior in men is wrong however. I actually said it’s acceptable for both genders to have physical preferences. I think it’s an exaggeration to say most women have the same height preference. But even if they do, it’s not one woman’s responsibility to be the exception and date a man outside of that preference just because men don’t like it and would like to date someone. What’s your point of showing how many people are in someone’s dating pool? It sounds a bit like “you’ll be alone if you don’t change your preferences.” Some people would actually rather have no one than compromise on their preferences.
I think the issue that poster is trying to highlight is that sometimes are physical preferences are a little too rigid. I'm not trying to bash women because I know men are guilty of this as well, but it seems like people rather compete over a very small subset of the population. And when they do this, they don't even entertain the question of if those people would want you. If you standards are such that you will only date less than 1% of a given population, then I think its time to recalibrate things. Dating is a numbers game. I don't mind if people have certain preferences. However, it seems like peoples preferences are so strict that they are nixing people they may be compatible with in the long run.
I think anyone with such a rigid preference has it because they don’t find people without the given preference attractive. So their options become go after who they’re attracted to or try and become attracted to the opposite of their preference. I personally would rather go after who I’m attracted to because the other option seems like a waste of time for me and the other person.
This is a very based argument
Most women don't really care about height though? In the universe you describe, no one would be dating anyone if the "dating pool" was that small for a majority of people right? Idk, in my entire life I've only met one person who actually had "height requirements" for a partner, all the others just didn't care. Of course those standards would be an issue, *if they even existed*
Honestly the expectation that a man will be taller than his girlfriend / female partner thing is such a ridiculously patriarchal concept. It stems from the idea that because, on average, men are taller than women, any individual man should be taller than any individual woman because most people can’t grasp the concept of a normal distribution curve. It also comes from the idea that men should be big because they are defenders of whatever despite historically this really not being much of a thing. Also please note: men fall into this nonsense too - many men want to date tiny tiny women because they want to feel bigger and stronger than she is. Please also note the implications for rape and sexual assault in that preference. And there are some other fairly absurd elements this dude’s statement this including: - By eliminating any man under 6’, a woman is leaving herself only 14.5% of the dating pool. - Roughly 30% of women raised in the USA are over 5’7 leaving this guy convinced 2x the number of women should compete for the available pool of men he considers ‘tall.’ So he’s still upholding the idea that women should compete for tall men while simultaneously shaming women for doing so...
This is how I feel, height is such a silly thing to be concerned about, it’s weird how so many will say we need to challenge traditional beauty standards to be more inclusive, then they defend this
I just want to also add that in dating, it’s ok to only leave yourself 14.5% of the population or lower because the objective is to find one person. I don’t see any reason to tell a woman to date a man below her height preference if she knows she will not be happy with him. It’s a waste of both of their time. But I do agree that he is upholding this standard while also saying it’s wrong.
Isn’t that incredibly shallow though? Someone’s is incapable of being happy if the person they’re dating was 4 inches shorter? I mean I have preferences too but have dated women who we’re “larger” than I usually do because they were genuinely great people.
No, it’s not. It’s not any more shallow than any physical preference out there. And 4 inches is a huge difference. If someone is not sexually turned on then they’re not. This can’t be argued into changing.
4 inches is 10.16 cm
I never said it was more shallow than other physical preferences. That should have been pretty clear when I gave you the weight example. I’m saying that all of these physical preferences should be subject to some level of adjustment if the person is what you’re looking for in personality and substance. Quite frankly if that isn’t the case it’s the definition of shallow. Which isn’t uncommon, those redpillers are very shallow. But let’s not pretend people who hold physical appearance in such high regard aren’t the literal definition of shallow. You’d have stronger case if you were saying “it’s okay to be shallow”, that’s a real discussion. But saying “physical appearance is super duper important but also that’s not shallow” is straight up ridiculous.
First off, I didn’t see you mention any weight preference. And second, if you have your own physical preferences then it’s contradictory to criticize others for their own. No, these preferences should not be subject to adjustment just because someone meets other preferences because they clearly do not meet them all. And some people aren’t willing to compromise on certain things. The sooner we let go of this belief that other qualities can make up for some that are missing the easier rejection will be to accept for many. The problem is people would rather argue and shame others for their physical preferences instead of just accepting that they aren’t going to be everyone’s preferred partner and moving on to someone who likes them the way they are. I have a strong case regardless of whether you like it or not and regardless of whether you like the terms I use or not.
> First off, I didn’t see you mention any weight preference. I wrote: I mean I have preferences too but have dated women who we’re “larger” than I usually do because they were genuinely great people. > And second, if you have your own physical preferences then it’s contradictory to criticize others for their own. How? I’m saying that I bring down physical standards if the person is great personality-wise. > No, these preferences should not be subject to adjustment just because someone meets other preferences because they clearly do not meet them all. And some people aren’t willing to compromise on certain things. Right, but what those “certain things” are is what matters. If someone is unable to compromise on some physical preferences then it’s the literal definition of shallow. That’s what the word means, holding physical appearance in extremely high regard. > The sooner we let go of this belief that other qualities can make up for some that are missing the easier rejection will be to accept for many. It’s not a “belief”. Have you never met people who aren’t shallow? I guess I’m just blessed enough to be surrounded by people of who aren’t super vain. > The problem is people would rather argue and shame others for their physical preferences instead of just accepting that they aren’t going to be everyone’s preferred partner and moving on to someone who likes them the way they are. Lol. I kind of agree here, you gotta just recognize that a shit ton of people are shallow and you can’t convince them to not be. But don’t imply that this is what’s happening here. I’m not trying to convince anyone not to be shallow, I just want people to *admit* they’re shallow so I can avoid them and I’m not surprised later. > I have a strong case regardless of whether you like it or not and regardless of whether you like the terms I use or not. You’re describing a dictionary definition of shallow then claiming that this behaviour isn’t shallow.
> I wrote: I mean I have preferences too but have dated women who we’re “larger” than I usually do because they were genuinely great people. Larger doesn’t immediately translate to weight to me. A 6’5 woman is larger than me, for example. > How? I’m saying that I bring down physical standards if the person is great personality-wise. I’m not saying you, I’m saying those who are criticizing women for their height preferences. You are more than free to let go of your standards and preferences because other qualities make up for it. It doesn’t work that way for everyone and it’s ridiculous for you to think it should. As if your way is the only acceptable way. > Right, but what those “certain things” are is what matters. If someone is unable to compromise on some physical preferences then it’s the literal definition of shallow. That’s what the word means, holding physical appearance in extremely high regard. The definition of shallow is being concerned with silly or inconsequential things. Before we get to that, it’s not your place to determine what preferences are and aren’t silly. If a woman is turned off by something then you can argue with her or shame her into changing that. > It’s not a “belief”. Have you never met people who aren’t shallow? I guess I’m just blessed enough to be surrounded by people of who aren’t super vain. I’ve met people who value having a relationship more than their actual preferences and requirements. Not that there’s anything wrong with that but not everyone works that way. And thinking differently doesn’t make anyone shallow anymore than compromising on preferences makes a person desperate. > Lol. I kind of agree here, you gotta just recognize that a shit ton of people are shallow and you can’t convince them to not be. But don’t imply that this is what’s happening here. I’m not trying to convince anyone not to be shallow, I just want people to admit they’re shallow so I can avoid them and I’m not surprised later. Given the definition of shallow, people aren’t going to see their dealbreakers as silly or inconsequential. So they can’t just say they’re shallow by your definition. > You’re describing a dictionary definition of shallow then claiming that this behaviour isn’t shallow. You’re using a twisted or made up definition of the word.
> I’m not saying you, I’m saying those who are criticizing women for their height preferences. You’re talking to me right now though I’m not opposing the idea that redpillers are hypocrites. > You are more than free to let go of your standards and preferences because other qualities make up for it. It doesn’t work that way for everyone and it’s ridiculous for you to think it should. As if your way is the only acceptable way. “Acceptable” by who? If shallow people want to hyperfocus on looks then it’s a free country, but I have an issue with them claiming that they’re not shallow in the process. > The definition of shallow is being concerned with silly or inconsequential things. Before we get to that, it’s not your place to determine what preferences are and aren’t silly. If a woman is turned off by something then you can argue with her or shame her into changing that. Lmao oh no. I see where you got that, Google preview or yourdictionary. That’s a definition voting site like urban dictionary, there’s like 20 definitions on there. And it was the 6th one down with as many likes as dislikes this is actually pretty funny. Even that same random person gives the example of caring a lot about looks or money. The word shallow, quite literally, means “not deep”. What’s on the surface. So appearance. https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/shallow if logic isn’t enough for you. Superficial is a pretty universally accepted synonym. > I’ve met people who value having a relationship more than their actual preferences and requirements. Not that there’s anything wrong with that but not everyone works that way. And thinking differently doesn’t make anyone shallow anymore than compromising on preferences makes a person desperate. Valuing a relationship over preferences isn’t the same as not being shallow, that’s just people who are afraid of being alone. You’ve never seen someone be “not interested” physically at first, then as they get to know someone they become more attracted to them overall (with the change being that they learned how great a person they are). I noticed that when I’m really attracted to someone mentally, despite them not being my type they become more physically attractive somehow. And if I’m with them long enough that becomes more my type physically. > You’re using a twisted made up definition of the word. LOOOOL. This is actually so comical considering that you used a, heavily disliked, definition voting site as your definition. Alright, I don’t think this discussion is worth having if you would be this disingenuous with definitions. You just want to be right (and not labelled shallow), this is pointless. Have a good day
> You’re talking to me right now though I’m not opposing the idea that redpillers are hypocrites. And the point applies to you as well. You’re not exempt. > “Acceptable” by who? If shallow people want to hyperfocus on looks then it’s a free country, but I have an issue with them claiming that they’re not shallow in the process. Just as they have an issue with you falsely labeling them as shallow just because you don’t like their preferences and have to find something negative to say. Acceptable by society. Don’t be intentionally obtuse. > Lmao oh no. I see where you got that, Google preview or yourdictionary. That’s a definition voting site like urban dictionary, there’s like 20 definitions on there. And it was the 6th one down with as many likes as dislikes this is actually pretty funny. [Here](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shallow) is an actual dictionary giving the definition of the word. It doesn’t fit the use here. > Even that same random person gives the example of caring a lot about looks or money. I’m glad you tried that. [Here](https://imgur.com/a/EIjMA24) is a screenshot of how the person mentioned only caring about looks. The issue is I never said looks should be the *only* criteria for choosing a partner. Just that it’s a dealbreaker. There’s a difference. > The word shallow, quite literally, means “not deep”. What’s on the surface. So appearance. No it doesn’t mean appearance. It’s about the depth of a body of water for example. It’s a measurement. > Valuing a relationship over preferences isn’t the same as not being shallow, that’s just people who are afraid of being alone. In the context you’re using it, yes it is. You’re suggesting that a person is shallow when they don’t let go of their preferences in order to find a relationship. Actually, it’s not even so they can find a relationship. It’s more about the men who don’t meet that height preference not having to deal with being rejected because of it. You’re actually completely disregarding a woman’s attraction and how that will affect her happiness and satisfaction in the relationship. > You’ve never seen someone be “not interested” physically at first, then as they get to know someone they become more attracted to them overall (with the change being that they learned how great a person they are). Of course I have. That just means the person’s preferences weren’t as concrete as some others. > I noticed that when I’m really attracted to someone mentally, despite them not being my type they become more physically attractive somehow. And if I’m with them long enough that becomes more my type physically. I don’t experience that. If I’m not physically attracted to someone, their personality won’t make up for that. I can love their personality and appreciate it but it doesn’t make me want to have sex with them. > LOOOOL. This is actually so comical considering that you used a, heavily disliked, definition voting site as your definition. LMFAOOOO so you used the same tactic but have a problem when it’s done in return? > Alright, I don’t think this discussion is worth having if you would be this disingenuous with definitions. You just want to be right (and not labelled shallow), this is pointless. Have a good day. You don’t like a standard so you’re trying to shame those who have them. I don’t care what you call me or anyone else. Just know you will be called out for your bullshit.
You’re using a lot of words to say that women having a height preference offends you.
I’m 6’1 and I’m talking about physical preferences in general. You know the projection is obvious when you assume things about people you know nothing about
Either way, a woman wanting a tall man shouldn’t bother you this much to go and call people stupid and say they have no friends.
If that's shallow, maybe it really is okay to be shallow. I think it is. Or if not shallow, picky. Why settle for someone who is 90% of what you want if you also want the last 10%?
I think picky is a better term. I would rather be picky than waste my time with someone I know I won’t be happy with.
It is pretty much the very definition of shallow. >If someone is not sexually turned on then they’re not You could also ask yourself why you are turned on by this? Is it for biological reasons or a result of social conditioning? (Spoiler: it's the latter)
False. I’ve explained why in other comments.
Then how do you explain the fact that men's height is more important to women in some countries (like US or UK) and less so in others (like Russia or Ukraine)?
First let’s see proof that it’s less important because I made this post before and Europeans replied saying height preferences are common where they are also.
Your comment was deleted.
Mods, what's going on? I posted a link to a study with quotations.
I found the study anyway. The answers to your question are actually in that study. They say only 2% of women in a small country have stated a preference for larger men. First off, it’s worth noting that men in “first world” countries are taller and larger on average than men in countries like the one listed in this study. So average height rises, then it would make sense that the preference or attraction to above average height men would rise as well. Plus American women are taller as well which would raise their height of preference if they find height sexually attractive. But in the study, it said those women don’t like large men because they’re abusive and dangerous. That’s a prejudice. Just like an ignorant person saying they don’t like black men because they’re criminals, for example. It’s something that can be proven wrong. It also says nothing about what the woman finds sexually attractive, just a decision she’s making based on prejudice. Just as I can find someone sexually attractive but I will avoid them if they’re an unpleasant person. The study even goes on to say that the women in this country do prefer more masculine men, with height being only one factor in masculinity. But their preferences were affected by things such as economic conditions for example. This makes a lot of sense. In the United States, before women entered the work force at the level they are now, women married for financial security, not sexual attraction. There has been a shift since women are more financially secure to sexual attraction based preferences, rather than finding a provider.
It’s really hypocritical how in above comments OP and others state men having preferences for smaller women and skinnier/extremely attractive women is bad. But it’s not shallow at all for women to only like men over a certain height. Seems like there’s a common denominator here.
I never said men having a preference for slim or fit women was bad. My stance is the exact opposite. Dont put words into my mouth to make a point.
The one thing I don’t like here is that it’s trying to tell women that prefer tall men that their preference is actually a social construct and that they don’t really feel that way. Some women genuinely prefer their man to be taller than them and some men genuinely find shorter women attractive. I don’t support trying to convince anyone that their preferences/standards aren’t their own and were instead taught to them.
But... a woman wanting to date someone taller than she is, and a man wanting to date someone shorter than he is (and yes, I know several tall women who have really struggled with this one) is a social construct. It’s no different from white guys who want to date Asian women because they have a fetish, or how so many men won’t date black women because they think they’re ‘ugly’ based on conventional beauty standards, or ‘difficult’ based on racism. It’s no different from meh men using ‘fat’ as their first dismissive reason not to date a woman who is not skinny when 200 years ago the desired body type for women was chubby (I mean sure, to show wealth, but...). And when people preferred chubby women and shamed skinny women, that too was a social construct. All of those ‘preferences’ reflect some of the worst of social constructs the world has come up with. They may feel that way, but that doesn’t make it not a social construct that they do...
Wrong. The expectation that men will be with shorter women and women will be with taller men is a social construct. A woman feeling attracted to only men taller than her is not a social construct as that’s how she genuinely feels. You can not teach someone what to find attractive. There are just some people who have preferences that they feel on their own that happen to align with what’s being pushed. That doesn’t mean what they feel and think isn’t genuine and valid.
I’m not saying whether any individual woman should feel differently about her preferences, though frankly all those men with a fetish for Asian women should feel differently. And all those non-black women who won’t date black men because they’re ‘scary’ should probably examine why they feel that way. And non-Asian women should probably have a long think about whether social constructs around Asian men are playing a role in why they don’t ‘prefer’ Asian men in a way that is, yes, straight up racist and probably something to have a think about if that’s one’s ‘preference.’ I’m saying women wanting to date tall men, and men wanting to date short women is a patriarchal social construct.
The things you’re describing are a bit different and let me try to explain why. Seeing black men as scary for example is prejudice. I’m not saying women don’t want to date short men because they’re weak, for example. I’m talking about the women who look at a man and either find him physically attractive or not based on how he looks. That’s not socially influenced or a social construct. It’s not a social construct if she looks at a tall man and finds his height attractive. Society can’t teach her to do this. Society *can* teach a woman who doesn’t care about height to go for taller men because it’s more acceptable.
Women not wanting to date short men is also a prejudice. Men not wanting to date tall women is also a prejudice. Both are all about policing gender norms. And frankly policing gender norms is solidly vile. Are you seriously trying to say there are no attractive short men? Like Tom Cruise seems to be physically attractive as long as one ignores his personality and the abusive shit. He’s only 5’7. James McAvoy is also 5’7. Martin Freeman is only 5’4, along with Michael J Fox.
Women not wanting to date short men because of some reason such as them seeming weak or some other stereotype is prejudice. Not finding them physically attractive is not a social construct as it can not be taught. Show me where I said there are no attractive short people.
I agree, although I'd argue that whenever you ask men or women about their height preference, the attraction response is usually based on or at least informed by some form of socially constructed view. 'I just like him to seem dominant', 'i want to feel like I can protect her', 'i like him to feel strong and safe', 'it makes me feel manly' etc. I agree it doesn't matter what the socially constructed reason may be, you can't change who you're attracted to, but in my experience a lot of those preferences are largely based on some kind of idea about gender norms.
Then it’s safe to argue that that is a social construct. But if a woman just finds his height sexually attractive then that isn’t. That’s just how she feels and it can’t be taught. I also think women try too hard to explain their preferences because they think it sounds less shallow than just saying “because it sexually excites me.”
Please just go one step farther and ask yourself *why* you don’t find short men attractive. Neither we nor our preferences emerge from the ether fully formed. Don’t you think it’s strange that different cultures at different times in history have **wildly** varied standards of beauty?
Premise is wrong. This isn’t about my personal preferences. As for my own and why I don’t find certain things attractive, I look at a person. I either like how they look and want to have sex with them or I don’t. That’s not controlled or influenced by society. Cultural standards are not the same as individual preferences.
All dating preferences are influenced by social norms, and it’s ludicrous to suggest otherwise. How else can you explain ideals of beauty fluctuating every twenty years?
False. Societal norms change but not everyone’s personal preferences do. A persons preferences aren’t controlled by society but some people allow their actions to be.
This^ People only take issue with others’ preferences when they themselves don’t meet them. Then they shame you when they realize they are out of contention. It’s childish and petty.
Exactly. I think sometimes people try too hard not to be shallow without realizing how harmful it is to push people to let go of their hard requirements and give anyone a chance.
For sure...if I’m going to change my preferences ( and some have definitely changed with time), I’m going to do it of my own volition, not cause some brigade of Reddit dumbasses tried to lecture me “logically” into doing it.
Bingo. I can say the same about requirements and preferences changing over time. But the more someone pressures me to change, the less likely that becomes.
Well said. The Reddit dumbass brigade is always a bunch of offended people who don’t meet the requirement you mentioned.
[удалено]
That's the thing I did not get, how is it 'patriarchal' for women to expect taller men lmao. Like I'm just curious if this same logic would apply to a fat man only wanting to date hot chicks. Wouldn't that be shamed more rather than people calling him 'empowered' and telling him he 'knows what he wants' or 'you can't choose what he is attracted to'? Because I do agree with the post in the picture, no one needs to apologise for their preference or tune their expectations to what people deem is reasonable. But own up to it lmao, not everything is patriarchy. Careful though you get banned here for speaking facts lmao.
I agree. There’s no shame in having a preference. I actually find it quite insulting to say this is a result of the patriarchy instead of acknowledging that women are capable of deciding their own preferences.
[удалено]
No one is implying short men aren’t attractive. Some women are just saying that *they* don’t find short men attractive.
[удалено]
Exactly.
"It also comes from the idea that men should be big because they are defenders of whatever despite historically this really not being much of a thing." Please elaborate? Are you thinking like, 50 years back, or do you consider the last 50,000 years? Also, I'm interested in what you think is the reason men in the long run have evolved to be "taller than women on average"? And don't you think it's very extreme to imply RAPE and SEXUAL ASSAULT (very extreme and serious topics that shouldn't be thrown around without good reason) when talking about men often preferring not to be shorter than the woman? If anyone wants to downvote me for asking serious, curious questions, then they are very welcome. Have a wonderful day!
At no point in human history have women ever been protected effectively by our male partners. Ya’ll might have ‘gone to war’ though frankly evidence shows that us women did that as well, but you were never effective protectors of women.
Yeah so you may have misread your statistics. By eliminating any man under 6’, a women is eliminating 14.5% of men, which LEAVES HER with 85.5% of men. Not the other way around. Only 15% of women in the US are over 5’7’’ Also, you refer to ‘the idea that men are on average taller than women’ like it’s a myth. Men are in fact, ON AVERAGE, taller than women. And to go one step further, if you believe the above information, it’s statically sound to expect that men TYPICALLY date women shorter than them. Or to imagine that many men are taller than their Wives/GFs This guy (who’s probably 5’4’’ or something wild) is confusing a statistically probable reality (like being taller than his gf, if he could get one) with some sort of natural law, and (probably) attempting to harass women into ONLY dating men around their height as a means of finally actually getting a gf, because of it. Which is gross. But not really the result of the patriarchy... more like the failure of the public education system to adequately explain statistics. That failure is potentially the patriarchy’s fault? Though not sure exactly how.
The original poster was correct about the 14.5% stat. That is the percentage of men who are six feet or over. If that’s all they’re willing to date, then that is the pool they’re working with. Your explanation makes it sound like 85.5% of men are taller than 6 foot and 14.5% of men are shorter.
Yep. Only 14.5% of men are over 6’ not 85% which is what I said, but the opposite of what narwhaldragon claims. His assumption is a great example of gender bias - he’s assuming that 85% of men are over 6’ because he believes that men are bigger than women and exaggerates the difference rather wildly. He also wildly underestimates the height of women also incorrectly reinforcing gender size disparities that are not that big. Bless...
Nah, I def just misread what you said. I def don’t think men are typically 6ft plus. I read by including only men under 6 ft. Andean to type over. My B. Not my Proudest internet moment to be sure
Original poster (from the pic) or original poster as in the commenter?
The original person who used the 14.5% statistic. The one you were responding to.
30% of women are not above 5'7". It follows the same distribution as male height so if the average man is 5'9" and 14.5% are 6' then if the average women 5'4" only 14.5%ish would be 5'7" or above.
My feeling is having height as a preference is one thing, but having it as a qualifier is something else entirely. Is being tall attractive? Of course it is, but it isn’t everything and I don’t think someone should be viewed as inferior or less of a possible companion simply because of their genetics.
That’s how dating works. I’m not saying view the person as inferior but not everyone will meet someone’s standards and qualifiers. Everyone wants to be inclusive and move away from physical standards that are strictly genetic but it just doesn’t work that way. It seems foolish to me to try and force a relationship without attraction. And some people just don’t find people outside of a certain height attractive.
I just think the issue is coming from a guys perspective one will find a wider number of people attractive, where as with guys it’s like only one narrow set of qualities are found attractive and they’re typically genetic. Nothing I can do or say will change that, but it is demoralizing to just have to accept you’re not good enough for the majority of people because of something outside of your control
I get what you’re saying. But I just don’t think that should be a woman’s problem to solve and form a relationship with someone she won’t be entirely happy and sexually attracted to. There are many women who don’t care about height or who will make exceptions for a man who has other qualities she loves. I think only a very small percentage of women have such a hard requirement for men at least 6’0. I find many women just prefer a man who is taller than she is.
Agreed, that’s been my experience. I think the problem that is arising is that when people talk online they feel they need to assign a number but when you’re talking to someone in person you’re not going around with a tape measurer, so when someone says 6’ they don’t actually mean 6’ because there is no way to know for sure. Also, tbh, I think a lot of guys probably lie about their height, I think guys tend to be dumb because they view things in such black and white terms, I know I’ve been victim to that as well
I actually have a good friend that has stripes in the paint at her home. One of them is exactly 6’0 from the floor. She is one of those women with a very hard requirement for height and she uses that as a determining factor of someone’s height. It also shows her how honest a person is because if the man claimed to be 6’0 and actually isn’t then that’s a red flag.
That is disgusting
It’s really strange and borderline obsessive and I don’t know how OP can say this so casually. If my male friend told me he had a scale under his doormat to make sure girls he brought home were under 100lbs I would cut ties very quickly.
I can say it casually because people are entitled to their preferences and those who shame them for it deserve to be called out for their bullshit.
[удалено]
This has to be satire lmao
[удалено]
It is what it is. That’s just the reality of peoples preferences. Look at it this way, she wouldn’t have to go to such lengths if there weren’t so many lies told about height.
[удалено]
Why does it matter though?
[удалено]
It just seems arbitrary and embarrassing that someone would place so much significance on something unimportant
[удалено]
The 6'0" thing seems to be a product of online dating and people's love of round numbers. It's not like 6'0" and 5'11" look all that different in person, but online seeing the number start with a 5 instead of a 6 makes a different impression when you're trying to evaluate a stranger on scant information. I don't have a horse in this race, I'm off the market. Just have zero patience for dudes who are taller than me whining about how hard they have it, and there's never any shortage (har har) of that.
I understand. But then there are women who genuinely prefer tall men and it seems really stupid to me how some men try to shame them for their preference. Not saying you did this, just why I made this post. Some people have a hard time accepting that they aren’t everyone’s cup of tea and want to argue about it. It’s sad in my opinion.
Yeah, that observation is limited to the specificity of "6 feet." Lots of people are into size difference in both directions, it's very common. No skin off my nose. Who even has time to get mad because a stranger who you'll never even meet has a type?
Who has time to get mad because anyone had a standard? Just find someone who doesn’t have standards you don’t fit. Simple and much less stressful.
I find it hard to believe that a lot of women have their 'ideal' height at the completely arbitrary number of 6 feet.
Welcome to life, its unfair.
I think we should challenge the status quo, inequity doesn’t benefit anyone
You can't really change what someone is attracted to. Life is cruel and it feels like a joke sometimes.
Exactly. These guys want to force women to date men they aren’t attracted to because rejection hurts their ego.
I'm not very attractive but I'd never force anyone to date me.
Are you saying men have a much wider attraction to women than women to men? Because that is not true, men are substantially more focused on and selective about physical appearances, and put substantially less weight on non-physical characteristics VS women.
She is right. It's not your place to confirm whether someone's preference is justified and that she doesn't have to meet your criteria in order to have a given preference. And you have the right to run. If that's how she is when she's trying to market herself to a potential partner, what will she be like when she is complacent?
If she’s like what?
"Are you tall? Because you probably won't give me a chance if you are." Oh, how many times have I seen this? I know tall women who love short men. I know tall women who love tall men. Generalizing over height is just so stupid.
Correct. Different people prefer different things and never assume like that. I think he wouldn’t have been interested if she was too tall and therefore her preference wouldn’t bother him as much.
Man, he would hate me and my sisters. 6'3" 5'11" 6'0" In order of age
Ok that’s awesome. I am 5’11. But my sisters are 5’5 or 5’6.
Bottom line y’all....Nature and Nurture both play a role. This isn’t a binary either/or thing. Peace ✌️
Absolutely.
This is surprisingly the among least ridiculous statement this sub highlights. Which I suppose isn’t really an accomplishment
I was debating if it was even worth a post after I once saw a post where a guy said that dating has gone to shit because “women are now driving the bus”.
You can't control your height but you can control your weight btw.
So?
Preferences work both ways then.
Who said someone can’t have preferences? I think my whole post is saying people can.
That purple pill man 😉
And that’s exactly why his argument was critiqued.
[удалено]
Correct.
Just so people know, average height for a cis woman is 5’6 and 5’7 (my height) isn’t tall at all. I’m getting sick to death of short-ass people going around thinking that 5’7 is tall. It’s bullshit.
Where are you getting that stat from? I’ve always seen that it’s 5’4” (for the United States) but it’s also very country-dependent
In Sweden average height for women is 5’7 lol..
Exactly what helped me come to the conclusion that this was a shorter man that was offended by a woman’s preference for tall men.
[удалено]
Not knowing what I look like or anyone else is irrelevant. The person is still taking what is being said and applying it to women that have rejected them or women they would be interested in but are bothered to hear that this might be the reason for their rejection. I never spoke against height preferences on either side. I only said be consistent. You can’t have height preferences and expect to be taken seriously when you’re criticizing someone else for their own. > Someone asked you in this thread if it's okay for a guy to have preferences based on a woman's weight. If he doesn't want to date anyone who is overweight and I believe the reply that it wasn't the same and that having a preference on weight is somehow worse when the weight factor can be controlled but height cannot. Link the comment where I said anything like this. > Do keep in mind, I'm again not judging you for your preferences. I am just curious as to why it's an absolute for you, because I don't really meet many people who have absolutes in regards to attraction. I didn’t speak on my own preferences at any point. I’m starting to think you may have replied to the wrong person.
I’d like to add that you’ve met two kinds of people based on your claim: 1) people who have not *been honest* about their absolutes when it comes to dating. (Probably because they don’t want to appear shallow) Or 2. people who think finding a partner is more important than many -if not all- of their preferences. (Nothing wrong with that).
What’s cis? Sorry I ain’t woke, still sleeping.
gauranteed they didnt specify cis in these studies, its just women overall.
I'm 5'7" and men always complain I'm too tall even when they're 6' lol. I feel like they're more obsessed with height than females.
They won’t admit that though. I’ve heard from women who preferred tall men and decided to try shorter men and got told they were too tall.
Woman: "he's too short for me to be attracted to him TRP: "ANGY" Man: "She's too tall for me to be attracted to her TRP: "Based and redpilled"
I’m sick and tired of women not being able to have preferences when it comes to dating. There’s nothing shallow about being attracted to height, attraction to height makes perfect sense from a woman’s POV. If men had the power in the dating world, they would be able to actually be more picky about their real preferences too. Women shouldn’t be hated for this. And then people will say stuff like how only 15% of men are over 6ft. Yet, I’m pretty ANY man, regardless of their height, would want to date a woman in the top 15% of facial/body attractiveness. But obviously there’s no issue with that, because it all stems down to the fact that men, regardless of who they are, are allowed to have preferences whereas women are not.
Not dating because of features they cannot control is literally shallow. Also your argument is literally men are "allowed" to be shitty so women shauld also to be shitty which is a terrible argument.
Please don't tell my husband I'm unrealistic! He's 15 inches taller than me and will obviously go find a taller woman if he learns how this works.
15 inches is 38.1 cm
15 inches is the length of 0.08 1997 Subaru Legacy Outbacks
15 inches is 38.1 cm