Does size really matter?

[satindesire]

I'm 5'10, all legs, with a pear shaped body. Anyone who peeked at my pic thread or is my myspace friend can attest that I am not a small woman in any respect.

That being said, I don't care if he's taller or shorter than me. As long as he's got dark skin and hair, and body hair that's at least dense enough for me to make patterns in with my tongue, I could care less about his height.

 

[kara24]

I am only slightly shy of 6 foot myself, and always go for taller guys. It makes me feel very uncomfortable to be looking down on a guy. Think this may be something to do with my submissive nature as I do like to feel that a guy is bigger, and stronger than me, and could pretty much over power me any time he wanted. Also go for guys that are not skinny, again like someone to have strength!
I dont think this is shallow, its not just about looks, it about how it makes me feel. If I was 5 foot tall, wouldnt have anything against a guy of 5 foot 2 or 3! Just so long as he is bigger than me.

 

[Homburg]

I dont think this is shallow, its not just about looks, it about how it makes me feel. If I was 5 foot tall, wouldnt have anything against a guy of 5 foot 2 or 3! Just so long as he is bigger than me.

I don't think it's shallow either. I think it is self-knowledge. You know what makes you feel how you want to feel. So you go for it. Why would that be shallow?

I think it is shallow if it is the *only* factor. If a person is with someone solely because of looks/size/money/etc, that is shallow. In those cases, it is not the person, but some individual non-personal aspect of them. If tall is all that matters, any tall guy will do. You (generic) aren't dating a given guy, you are just there because he's tall, or because she has a big ass, or whatever. Shallow.

Dominance can be a single factor like that, as can submission. I've seen more than one D/s relationship where the only reason they seemed to be together was the D or s. Admittedly, in this milieu, the objectification of such a single-factor relationship can be seen as a plus for some people.

 

[satindesire]

What I think is amusing is this whole "Looks don't matter" and if someone values a specific physical appearance, it's "shallow"...Okay, so the animal kingdom, who doesn't have enough brain power or opposable thumbs enough to make Cosmo magazines and the Playboy channel, is shallow? They don't have media, they don't have eating disorders, they don't have models...yet in the animal kingdom, a peacock can't get a mate unless his tail is big enough to hide a 747 jet.

What some people call shallow -I- call "survival of the fittest".

 

[wicked woman]

If you asked me for a preference, I'd say tall....being defined as taller than my 5'8". Having said that though, for some reason, most of the guys I've gone out with are my height or a bit shorter. Don't know why that is...just seems to be the case.


The preference for a taller man though is no different in my mind than my preference for brown eyes, dark hair and darker skin....it's a preference...what attracts me when the only thing we're talking about is physical attributes. It's not how I make my decisions about who I date or who I love or even who I'm physically attracted to in a relationship. Frankly, for the most part, I rarely get my preference and yet have no problem being physically attracted to the guy I'm in a relationship with.

I am however, bothered by men who dislike it if I'm taller than they are when I wear heels (max 2"). I don't want to live my life in flats!

I'm also bothered by men who say I'm fabulous, wonderful, the woman of their dream but because I'm not 5' 2" it's just not going to happen. hhmmm

I went out with a guy who was 6'4" and throughly enjoyed his height. I think it was something subconscious about feeling protected.

But height is just a preference, not a requirement.

 

[Netzach]

What I think is amusing is this whole "Looks don't matter" and if someone values a specific physical appearance, it's "shallow"...Okay, so the animal kingdom, who doesn't have enough brain power or opposable thumbs enough to make Cosmo magazines and the Playboy channel, is shallow? They don't have media, they don't have eating disorders, they don't have models...yet in the animal kingdom, a peacock can't get a mate unless his tail is big enough to hide a 747 jet.

What some people call shallow -I- call "survival of the fittest".

I think "fittest" = "genetic diversity" in humans.

I mean, some people are attracted by verbal sparring, some people are into really fat people, some people will only date members of another race, some people will only fuck their kitchen counter, some people prefer short over tall -

What makes one bird pick another bird is often totally invisible to researchers, but there'll be the one male everyone wants to mate with. In humans, that's not the case. There might be one that 35-85 percent of females will pick, but that's not exclusive necessarily and it's not everyone. Our closer cousins tend to not have herds and harems like walrus and elk, but sex lives that would make for a good soap.

This could be a large part of why cheetahs are in so much trouble.

 

[MisterSir]

What some people call shallow -I- call "survival of the fittest".

Sure, but we're not animals. We have higher reasoning skills (supposedly), so for us to still by governed by these more animalistic desires doesn't make sense. We're no longer at the evolutionary stage where a smaller person legitimately has less of a chance of protecting or providing for their families than a bigger person, so "survival of the fittest" doesn't hold. To clarify, because people have been reading things in my posts that are not there, while I think the preference for tall over short is silly because of the above, I'm not calling it shallow.

 

[satindesire]

I think "fittest" = "genetic diversity" in humans.

I mean, some people are attracted by verbal sparring, some people are into really fat people, some people will only date members of another race, some people will only fuck their kitchen counter, some people prefer short over tall -

What makes one bird pick another bird is often totally invisible to researchers, but there'll be the one male everyone wants to mate with. In humans, that's not the case. There might be one that 35-85 percent of females will pick, but that's not exclusive necessarily and it's not everyone.

This could be a large part of why cheetahs are in so much trouble.

Absolutely, genetic diversity counts! I'm not saying there's not going to be someone attracted to everyone out there. My point is that I think people who say people who have a type are shallow is narrow-sighted and mean spirited.

Sure, but we're not animals. We have higher reasoning skills (supposedly), so for us to still by governed by these more animalistic desires doesn't make sense. We're no longer at the evolutionary stage where a smaller person legitimately has less of a chance of protecting or providing for their families than a bigger person, so "survival of the fittest" doesn't hold.

If survival of the fittest didn't hold today, we wouldn't have rockstars, athletes, supermodels, actors, scientists, wealthy people or alcohol.

 

[Netzach]

Absolutely, genetic diversity counts! I'm not saying there's not going to be someone attracted to everyone out there. My point is that I think people who say people who have a type are shallow is narrow-sighted and mean spirited.

It's generally bitter. People who spend more time on people who dare to have attractions that they don't fit, rather than moving on. There are billions of us and we're very diverse. I had a crush on a girl who saw anyone my height as too short to top her.

I didn't spend a huge amount of energy on convincing her to get it on.

 

[MisterSir]

If survival of the fittest didn't hold today, we wouldn't have rockstars, athletes, supermodels, actors, scientists, wealthy people or alcohol.

I don't know whether this is meant as tongue-in-cheek or not, so I'll just say that that's not true.

 

[satindesire]

It's generally bitter. People who spend more time on people who dare to have attractions that they don't fit, rather than moving on. There are billions of us and we're very diverse. I had a crush on a girl who saw anyone my height as too short to top her.

I didn't spend a huge amount of energy on convincing her to get it on.

I agree. And life is too beautiful to be bitter about someone not being attracted to them. People should get over themselves and just concentrate on finding a person who is, instead of judging someone whose not.

 

[JMohegan]

I have known a few men with short man's complex and that is a serious turn off.

This is the most important point to be made, on a thread about height and men.

For every Sarkozy and Cruise one can point to, I've known average guys whose confidence and self-respect won them attractive, taller partners.

The absence of confidence and self-respect is a huge honking turnoff for pretty much everybody.

The problem for guys with "short man's complex" is not other people, it's them.

 

[Homburg]

Sure, but we're not animals. We have higher reasoning skills (supposedly), so for us to still by governed by these more animalistic desires doesn't make sense. We're no longer at the evolutionary stage where a smaller person legitimately has less of a chance of protecting or providing for their families than a bigger person, so "survival of the fittest" doesn't hold. To clarify, because people have been reading things in my posts that are not there, while I think the preference for tall over short is silly because of the above, I'm not calling it shallow.

No, "survival of the fittest" still holds just as powerfully today as it did nine thousand years ago. It just has a few different traits associated with it. While size is not an absolute predictor of success, it does have various evolutionary advantages, and a theoretical advantage in the area of protecting mate and offspring is one of those. While it may seem less important these days, it is still a valid concern.

Providing is where the difference comes in. Today, the weedy git of a man can still provide stupendously well for his family. Bill Gates is an excellent example. He's a dink physically, but he brings in the money, and his wife and kids are very well . This concept bears out on lower income levels as well, which leads to, as stated above, different traits.

So, no, survival of the fittest is not quite so inextricably linked to physical size these days. The size of one's bankroll can substitute.

 

[Netzach]

This is the most important point to be made, on a thread about height and men.

For every Sarkozy and Cruise one can point to, I've known average guys whose confidence and self-respect won them attractive, taller partners.

The absence of confidence and self-respect is a huge honking turnoff for pretty much everybody.

The problem for guys with "short man's complex" is not other people, it's them.

There's really nothing as tiresome as being thought/assumed to have rejected someone over something, when you didn't, because of fragile egos. Every woman I wasn't into enough is such because I'm not really bisexual apparently.

No it's not your height, it's that you have no common interests with me whatthefuckever. No, I am into women, it's that you're an overpossessive clinging nutjob I need to avoid.

A smart person will assume I have reasons that aren't necessarily sinister, and might even get set up with one of my friends if they're not a bitter fuck and are fun.

 

[Homburg]

For every Sarkozy and Cruise one can point to, I've known average guys whose confidence and self-respect won them attractive, taller partners.

Sarkozy is ~5'5". That's short, but he's not a midget. Putin is 5'7" (supposedly, though some say he wears lifts) and no one comments on that. Course this is probably because Putin looks like he could rip your arm off and grill it for dinner, but he's still no giant. Ahmenijad is another smallish guy at 5'4", but I've seen no recurring mention of that either. Yet I've seen multiple articles mentioning how short Sarkozy is. Makes me wonder why the press keeps poking him for that.

Wow, Obama dwarfed him though.

 

[Shalrath]

Sure, but we're not animals. We have higher reasoning skills (supposedly), so for us to still by governed by these more animalistic desires doesn't make sense. We're no longer at the evolutionary stage where a smaller person legitimately has less of a chance of protecting or providing for their families than a bigger person, so "survival of the fittest" doesn't hold. To clarify, because people have been reading things in my posts that are not there, while I think the preference for tall over short is silly because of the above, I'm not calling it shallow.

^^^^ This.

It's not shallow, it's a deeply ingrained animal thing. What is curious is that it's still there when so many others aren't.

I think there's also a bit of confusion here on this forum, with people prefering a taller man because they appear, or indeed are, more dominating. That's less of the animal instinct preference and more of the dom/sub kink preference. Which is nice .

 

[intothewoods]

Sarkozy is ~5'5". That's short, but he's not a midget. Putin is 5'7" (supposedly, though some say he wears lifts) and no one comments on that. Course this is probably because Putin looks like he could rip your arm off and grill it for dinner, but he's still no giant. Ahmenijad is another smallish guy at 5'4", but I've seen no recurring mention of that either. Yet I've seen multiple articles mentioning how short Sarkozy is. Makes me wonder why the press keeps poking him for that.

Wow, Obama dwarfed him though.

Well his wife is hawt and he's the President of France. I think he's doing all right.

 

[intothewoods]

Sure, but we're not animals. We have higher reasoning skills (supposedly), so for us to still by governed by these more animalistic desires doesn't make sense. We're no longer at the evolutionary stage where a smaller person legitimately has less of a chance of protecting or providing for their families than a bigger person, so "survival of the fittest" doesn't hold. To clarify, because people have been reading things in my posts that are not there, while I think the preference for tall over short is silly because of the above, I'm not calling it shallow.

To echo what Homburg said...so much is determined by biological drive and genetics. I'm in awe of it, really.

 

[midwestyankee]

FWIW, I seem to be most comfortable with a woman who is shorter than I am, but it seems that I've often ended up with ones who were a tad taller than I am. But then, I'm hardly an NBA candidate at 5' 7" and a hair.

 

[Homburg]

Well his wife is hawt and he's the President of France. I think he's doing all right.

I think he's doing great. I'm just wondering why the japes? It's kind of dickheaded. I think the only leadery types I've seen that's fielded more short comments is Kim Jong-Il, and he's what, 4'3"? An oompah-loompah could kick his ass.

 

[Netzach]

I think he's doing great. I'm just wondering why the japes? It's kind of dickheaded. I think the only leadery types I've seen that's fielded more short comments is Kim Jong-Il, and he's what, 4'3"? An oompah-loompah could kick his ass.

Napoleanic precedent?

 

[Homburg]

Napoleanic precedent?

Sarkozy is no Napoleon.

That thought scares me, so I post my denial above. The world does not need another Napoleon.

 

[Netzach]

Sarkozy is no Napoleon.

That thought scares me, so I post my denial above. The world does not need another Napoleon.

Well exactly. I think that fear is being elicited subconsciously by the comparison.

 

[Homburg]

Well exactly. I think that fear is being elicited subconsciously by the comparison.

Interesting. Would the press be that savvy though? Is there a need for an emasculated France?

I am asking the wrong person about a need for emasculation, aren't I?

 

[satindesire]

Did you know that Napoleon was scared of kitty cats?

/end random/