Board index › Coping in life › Love and Dating

What type of girl do you not want?

Page 16 of 20 [ 317 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Evy7
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 20 Apr 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 244

06 Sep 2012, 2:11 am

I used to think I was attracted to guys my height or a little bit above it. I didn't really care. Tall guys were kind of scary and creepy to me. I still think they kind of are... But there was a guy that I grew to like for his personality and he was taller than usual (I'm 5'4 he was like 5'8) than what I'm used to and I was surprised that it really turned me on to look up at him. He just seemed more manly, more like he can protect me kind of thing. It was then that I kind of understood girls that like tall guys. My bf right now is just a bit taller than me, but I still love him and am attracted to him with other ways too(He's an aspie, I'm NT)



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,043
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

06 Sep 2012, 2:15 am

hyperlexian wrote:
DogsWithoutHorses wrote:
Tim_Tex wrote:
What is it about tall guys that makes them attractive?


what is it men find attractive about women being shorter than them?

most straight couples conform to the stereotype of the man being taller than the woman

if height is a survival advantage shouldn't it be universally attractive?

hahaha good point! a taller woman would signify health and would be better able to protect offspring from predators.


But a pregnant tall woman is still vulnerable.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

06 Sep 2012, 2:49 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
DogsWithoutHorses wrote:
Tim_Tex wrote:
What is it about tall guys that makes them attractive?


what is it men find attractive about women being shorter than them?

most straight couples conform to the stereotype of the man being taller than the woman

if height is a survival advantage shouldn't it be universally attractive?

hahaha good point! a taller woman would signify health and would be better able to protect offspring from predators.


But a pregnant tall woman is still vulnerable.

but that is comparing men to women, as opposed to women to women. if a tall man is considered better than a short man, a tall woman should be considered better than a short woman by the same notion.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


BlueMax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,285

06 Sep 2012, 3:38 am

hyperlexian wrote:
but that is comparing men to women, as opposed to women to women. if a tall man is considered better than a short man, a tall woman should be considered better than a short woman by the same notion.

As much as some may want it, there's no such thing as true equality... our genders our different and the differences should be celebrated rather than erased in an attempt to make humans genderless or androgynous.

As the French say, "Viva la difference!"



spongy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,055
Location: Patiently waiting for the seventh wave

06 Sep 2012, 4:13 am

BlueMax wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
but that is comparing men to women, as opposed to women to women. if a tall man is considered better than a short man, a tall woman should be considered better than a short woman by the same notion.

As much as some may want it, there's no such thing as true equality... our genders our different and the differences should be celebrated rather than erased in an attempt to make humans genderless or androgynous.

As the French say, "Viva la difference!"

Both genders arent equal thats a fact.

However if we are saying that something can be explained by evolution it´d need to apply to both genders(survival of the fittest makes no distinction on gender)



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

06 Sep 2012, 4:23 am

BlueMax wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
but that is comparing men to women, as opposed to women to women. if a tall man is considered better than a short man, a tall woman should be considered better than a short woman by the same notion.

As much as some may want it, there's no such thing as true equality... our genders our different and the differences should be celebrated rather than erased in an attempt to make humans genderless or androgynous.

As the French say, "Viva la difference!"

a majority of the supposed differences can be explained by the fact that our society enculturates and perpetuates divergent roles. there are some physical differences between the sexes, but behaviour isn't necessarily driven by those. but that doesn't really relate to why height would be an evolutionary advantage to one gender but not the other in mate selection.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,043
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

06 Sep 2012, 6:07 am

hyperlexian wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
DogsWithoutHorses wrote:
Tim_Tex wrote:
What is it about tall guys that makes them attractive?


what is it men find attractive about women being shorter than them?

most straight couples conform to the stereotype of the man being taller than the woman

if height is a survival advantage shouldn't it be universally attractive?

hahaha good point! a taller woman would signify health and would be better able to protect offspring from predators.


But a pregnant tall woman is still vulnerable.

but that is comparing men to women, as opposed to women to women. if a tall man is considered better than a short man, a tall woman should be considered better than a short woman by the same notion.


Yea, this one is still unclear, smaller women are even more likely to die in childbirth.



Stalk
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jul 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,136

06 Sep 2012, 6:19 am

Maybe they just like someone that can get something from the top of shelve without having to get out the ladder... You know the usefulness of being taller. Picking fruit from trees that are fresh instead of the fallen type. Able to see further. Or the strength to be dragged by their hair into the cave? :D



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

06 Sep 2012, 12:43 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
a majority of the supposed differences can be explained by the fact that our society enculturates and perpetuates divergent roles. there are some physical differences between the sexes, but behaviour isn't necessarily driven by those. but that doesn't really relate to why height would be an evolutionary advantage to one gender but not the other in mate selection.


Being taller means having a higher basal metabolic rate, which means that in a situation where calories are harder to come by, a smaller women will need less to keep herself alive and thus there is more to spare to support getting pregnant and bearing children. It also means it will be harder to maintain the body fat requirements in order to menstruate.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

06 Sep 2012, 1:02 pm

TM wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
a majority of the supposed differences can be explained by the fact that our society enculturates and perpetuates divergent roles. there are some physical differences between the sexes, but behaviour isn't necessarily driven by those. but that doesn't really relate to why height would be an evolutionary advantage to one gender but not the other in mate selection.


Being taller means having a higher basal metabolic rate, which means that in a situation where calories are harder to come by, a smaller women will need less to keep herself alive and thus there is more to spare to support getting pregnant and bearing children. It also means it will be harder to maintain the body fat requirements in order to menstruate.

a smaller man would also need less calories to stay alive. men already need more calories to maintain their metabolisms, so it would be advantageous for women to go after shorter men.

perhaps it doesn't involve instinct at all, but it a culturally perpetuated preference.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


1000Knives
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,036
Location: CT, USA

06 Sep 2012, 1:08 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
TM wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
a majority of the supposed differences can be explained by the fact that our society enculturates and perpetuates divergent roles. there are some physical differences between the sexes, but behaviour isn't necessarily driven by those. but that doesn't really relate to why height would be an evolutionary advantage to one gender but not the other in mate selection.


Being taller means having a higher basal metabolic rate, which means that in a situation where calories are harder to come by, a smaller women will need less to keep herself alive and thus there is more to spare to support getting pregnant and bearing children. It also means it will be harder to maintain the body fat requirements in order to menstruate.

a smaller man would also need less calories to stay alive. men already need more calories to maintain their metabolisms, so it would be advantageous for women to go after shorter men.

perhaps it doesn't involve instinct at all, but it a culturally perpetuated preference.


Or it's just because men are naturally taller than women.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

06 Sep 2012, 1:19 pm

1000Knives wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
TM wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
a majority of the supposed differences can be explained by the fact that our society enculturates and perpetuates divergent roles. there are some physical differences between the sexes, but behaviour isn't necessarily driven by those. but that doesn't really relate to why height would be an evolutionary advantage to one gender but not the other in mate selection.


Being taller means having a higher basal metabolic rate, which means that in a situation where calories are harder to come by, a smaller women will need less to keep herself alive and thus there is more to spare to support getting pregnant and bearing children. It also means it will be harder to maintain the body fat requirements in order to menstruate.

a smaller man would also need less calories to stay alive. men already need more calories to maintain their metabolisms, so it would be advantageous for women to go after shorter men.

perhaps it doesn't involve instinct at all, but it a culturally perpetuated preference.


Or it's just because men are naturally taller than women.

since there is already a height disparity, then why date someone who is MUCH taller or MUCH shorter? it doesn't follow.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

06 Sep 2012, 1:20 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
TM wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
a majority of the supposed differences can be explained by the fact that our society enculturates and perpetuates divergent roles. there are some physical differences between the sexes, but behaviour isn't necessarily driven by those. but that doesn't really relate to why height would be an evolutionary advantage to one gender but not the other in mate selection.


Being taller means having a higher basal metabolic rate, which means that in a situation where calories are harder to come by, a smaller women will need less to keep herself alive and thus there is more to spare to support getting pregnant and bearing children. It also means it will be harder to maintain the body fat requirements in order to menstruate.

a smaller man would also need less calories to stay alive. men already need more calories to maintain their metabolisms, so it would be advantageous for women to go after shorter men.

perhaps it doesn't involve instinct at all, but it a culturally perpetuated preference.


A shorter man would need less calories himself, thus leaving more for the woman and offspring which would be beneficial. But he would also be less able to defend the woman and the offspring due to having less muscle mass, leverage and such than a shorter man.

However, since we also know that height is affected by nutrition, perhaps male height is viewed as a sign of health, much in the same way certain physical characteristics in women are viewed as signs of health.

A trait needs to have an evolutionary benefit in order to be passed on, just because something is beneficial to one gender does not mean its beneficial to both genders given the vast differences between males and females in early times of human existence.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

06 Sep 2012, 1:26 pm

TM wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
TM wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
a majority of the supposed differences can be explained by the fact that our society enculturates and perpetuates divergent roles. there are some physical differences between the sexes, but behaviour isn't necessarily driven by those. but that doesn't really relate to why height would be an evolutionary advantage to one gender but not the other in mate selection.


Being taller means having a higher basal metabolic rate, which means that in a situation where calories are harder to come by, a smaller women will need less to keep herself alive and thus there is more to spare to support getting pregnant and bearing children. It also means it will be harder to maintain the body fat requirements in order to menstruate.

a smaller man would also need less calories to stay alive. men already need more calories to maintain their metabolisms, so it would be advantageous for women to go after shorter men.

perhaps it doesn't involve instinct at all, but it a culturally perpetuated preference.


A shorter man would need less calories himself, thus leaving more for the woman and offspring which would be beneficial. But he would also be less able to defend the woman and the offspring due to having less muscle mass, leverage and such than a shorter man.

However, since we also know that height is affected by nutrition, perhaps male height is viewed as a sign of health, much in the same way certain physical characteristics in women are viewed as signs of health.

A trait needs to have an evolutionary benefit in order to be passed on, just because something is beneficial to one gender does not mean its beneficial to both genders given the vast differences between males and females in early times of human existence.

women don't really need that much defence, and in fact if we accept the model that men would be away hunting for any significant amount of time then her own height would be more advantageous in defending her children.

it is equally possible that it has a negligible effect on survival, but has been selected for in dating regardless. something that men and women choose over and over again will crop up in the descendants. we don't actually know if either male height or female height was advantageous, we only know that men and women have different average heights.

EDIT: i should add that many animals sport traits that are disadvantageous for survival because these traits are attractants to the opposite sex anyways. it isn't always logical.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

06 Sep 2012, 1:35 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
women don't really need that much defence, and in fact if we accept the model that men would be away hunting for any significant amount of time then her own height would be more advantageous in defending her children.


Not if it at the same time meant that the calories required to maintain her physique would either result in less calories for the children or a deterioration of her own health. To use an example of teeth, someone may have genes for very strong teeth, but with a limited amount of calcium available, that would mean that they would be weaker in another calcium heavy part of the body.

Quote:
it is equally possible that it has a negligible effect on survival, but has been selected for in dating regardless. something that men and women choose over and over again will crop up in the descendants. we don't actually know if either male height or female height was advantageous, we only know that men and women have different average heights.

EDIT: i should add that many animals sport traits that are disadvantageous for survival because these traits are attractants to the opposite sex anyways. it isn't always logical.


That's entirely possible, height could have a small impact on health yet have been attributed much higher value in a time where it was hard to measure health.

All though, I did see a study at one point where they discovered that if you have genes for being short, but got ample nutrition, you would end up at average height, if you had genes for being tall, yet got insufficient nutrition, you would end up average or below average height. So with that in mind, a tall male, would most likely if the former premise hold true, appear as a more stable provider with higher social status due to being able to get enough calories to be tall.



BlueMax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,285

06 Sep 2012, 2:01 pm

Thread successfully derailed. Congratulations!
Image