Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Dating Experiences  > We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Halcyon_Skies
Joined: 2/1/2009
Msg: 376
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)Page 16 of 25    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)


You are confusing a bias with a stereotype. A bias is a personal preference, like or dislike.


Wiki: "Stereotypes are standardized and simplified conceptions of groups based on some prior assumptions. Another name for stereotyping is bias." Your assumptions are based on your prior experience of the sample. The only difference is, a stereotype by default is thought to be popular, and yours is more of a personal stereotype. And it's not merely a personal preference of attraction -- you stated that they're more abusive (which leads to not being attracted), which is your bias -- your stereotype. It's one thing to say that you have a personal feeling/like/dislike based on a negative-association from experience, it's another to say that a group of people actually tend to Be a certain way.


First of all, I don't put much stock in Wiki definitions, just as another poster doesn't put much faith in google searches. A bias and a stereotype are often confused and used interchangably. If enough people have the same bias towards a group of people, preconceived stereotypes can develop---although a bias and stereotype are not the same thing. Secondly, I didn't state that short people were more abusive. Reread my original post.


Sally: "So do you want to give Tim your number?"
Barbara: "No, no, I don't date black people."
Sally: "Oh, that's cool - he's really really good looking, but I guess you don't find black guys physically attractive, that's cool..."
Barbara: "No, he is good looking. Black guys usually have low-self esteem and are more abusive, so I'm not into those people."
Sally: "What? You shouldn't stereotype black guys...taste for physical attraction is one thing, but..."
Tim: "Ummm, I'm standing right here, girls... fyi."
Barbara: "Oh, hi Tim. It's just from my experience with a few guys of your kind -- just a personal bias. I'm not stereotyping. I think Sally is confusing stereotype with my personal bias. So we're all good, right? (smile)"


Apples and oranges. I never said I wouldn't date short men. This would be a more accurate analogy to yours:

Sally: "So do you want to give Tim your number?"
Barbara: "No, no, I don't date black people."
Sally: "Oh, that's cool - he's really really good looking, but I guess you don't find black guys physically attractive, that's cool..."
Barbara: "You're right, I don't find black guys physically attractive, and I'm not into them."
Tim: "Ummm, I'm standing right here, girls... fyi.
Barbara: "Oh, hi Tim. I was just telling Sally that I don't find black guys attractive. No offense."
Tim: "Why is that?"
Barbara: "Ummm, well, I don't like the look or feel of their hair texture, or the look of their facial features, or skintone." (smile)

So I suppose the above example of telling someone you are not attracted to members of their group and the reasons why is going to be taken any less offensively than expressing a bias? Highly doubtful.



"I am not attracted to blue people because they have big nostrils" ... "I am not attracted to green people because they have little slanted eyes" ... Why would the above statements about lack of attraction be considered any more acceptable than my statement that the taller men I've dealt with tended to have more self-confidence, and were less likely to be abusive than the shorter ones?


Actually, it's less of a judgment because you're not judging they themselves as a person, you're making a judgment about whether blue people have noticeably big nostrils or green people having slanted eyes. And if you came across a blue person with small nostrils or a green person with nice round, big eyes, you wouldn't have that unattraction.


Not necessarily. Someone might have a much longer list of reasons why they aren't attracted to members of a group than just one physical feature, so it can sound like they're being majorly picked apart---not to mention the fact that it might be a feature that ALL members of their group have in common. What then?


If you were to say blue people tend to be more abusive and have low self esteem, you better have a lot of evidence, because you're calling them All out and making a judgment call about them as a people. If you were to say your experience with blue people is non-attractive, because you've dated a couple blue people and they were abusive and low self-esteem -- but don't think blue people necessarily were that way at all, but it's just a taste thing stemming from a negative association of experience -- that still may not be liked by many blue people, but it would be something different because you're not making a judgment call about them as a person.


You forgot that my version also had "in my experience". Your version is merely arranging words around in a flowery way and adding a qualifer to make them sound a little less offensive---but I think it's still likely to be construed no differently than my original statement.
 452
Joined: 11/1/2009
Msg: 377
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/6/2012 3:44:15 PM
Ahhh poor little short guys."NOT"! Try being an aging woman in our society.
 Paderic
Joined: 2/23/2010
Msg: 378
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/6/2012 3:49:07 PM
Ahhh poor little short guys."NOT"! Try being an aging woman in our society.


Are there women in our society who AREN'T aging?
 452
Joined: 11/1/2009
Msg: 379
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/6/2012 4:00:05 PM
Once you hit 28,30 at the most,your desirability goes down.Men do not experience this in any shape or form.Men become distinguised,women just get old.
 Behind-Blue-Eyes_53
Joined: 12/19/2011
Msg: 380
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/6/2012 6:01:27 PM
Some yes and some no. I know a lot of women who are much more beautiful in there late 30s up to their 60s than they were at 18-20.
 forums_gal
Joined: 1/30/2012
Msg: 381
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/6/2012 6:47:02 PM

I think you would prefer group A over B if it involved a trait/traits that you personally didn't find attractive or acceptable. For example, many women won't date separated men---not because they are still legally married, but because they believe the separated men are more apt to go back to their wives than a divorced man.

Maybe they had one or two bad experiences with a separated man. Rather than looking at each separated man on a case-by-case basis, they automatically exclude ALL separated men from their dating pool.

In contrast, I merely pointed out that it has been my experience that taller men often have more self-confidence and are less likely to have a chip on their shoulder and have a negative attitude towards women.


Suppose a person that cheated on me happened to be Asian or very tall or a doctor, I wouldn't stereotype or have a bias against these types of people because 1 or 2 of them had cheated on me. It's very possible the only thing in common the next person I date has with the person that cheated on me is race, height, or profession respectively.

I looked at some of the studies that you were referring to. Like another poster mentioned, these were professional opinions. Many times professional opinions about certain topics can vary. One study can support an idea/theory, a second study opposes an idea/theory, and the third study is inconclusive.
 Paderic
Joined: 2/23/2010
Msg: 382
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/6/2012 7:06:29 PM
I looked at some of the studies that you were referring to. Like another poster mentioned, these were professional opinions. Many times professional opinions about certain topics can vary. One study can support an idea/theory, a second study opposes an idea/theory, and the third study is inconclusive.


Did any of them publish their raw data, discuss their sampling methods, or disclose how they tested the statistical validity of their conclusions?

A lot of researchers really suck at analyzing data. And a lot of crap gets published that hasn't been through any kind of peer review.
 Halcyon_Skies
Joined: 2/1/2009
Msg: 383
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/6/2012 7:16:47 PM
Suppose a person that cheated on me happened to be Asian or very tall or a doctor, I wouldn't stereotype or have a bias against these types of people because 1 or 2 of them had cheated on me. It's very possible the only thing in common the next person I date has with the person that cheated on me is race, height, or profession respectively.


But let's say you were cheated on by a man whose profession already had a negative track record for infidelity---such as a rock star. The first rock star cheats on you, but you end up getting involved with a second one, and the same thing happens.

Maybe you're a die hard rock groupie and you get involved with a third rock star, only to have him cheat on you as well. Don't you think by then, you might start paying attention to the negative reputation these guys have for infidelity, and not get involved with a fourth one?
 forums_gal
Joined: 1/30/2012
Msg: 384
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/6/2012 7:47:24 PM
Did any of them publish their raw data, discuss their sampling methods, or disclose how they tested the statistical validity of their conclusions?

A lot of researchers really suck at analyzing data. And a lot of crap gets published that hasn't been through any kind of peer review.


A few of them did. But I didn't look at the data in detail though.


But let's say you were cheated on by a man whose profession already had a negative track record for infidelity---such as a rock star. The first rock star cheats on you, but you end up getting involved with a second one, and the same thing happens.

Maybe you're a die hard rock groupie and you get involved with a third rock star, only to have him cheat on you as well. Don't you think by then, you might start paying attention to the negative reputation these guys have for infidelity, and not get involved with a fourth one?


Regardless of the profession, 3 is still a very small sample size. I would have to analyze the circumstances of the situation. There could have been other factors that contributed to them cheating that had nothing to do with profession.
 Paderic
Joined: 2/23/2010
Msg: 385
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/6/2012 8:23:37 PM
Let's think about something simple like flipping a coin. Heads is a good result, tails is a bad one. If you have a group of people flip a coin three times, about 12.5% of them will flip three heads in a row.

Is it reasonable for those that flipped three heads in a row to assume that every time somebody flips a coin, it's going to come up heads?
 DomG79
Joined: 3/12/2011
Msg: 386
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/7/2012 4:04:46 AM
452, obviously you missed the Super Bowl Halftime show. Madonna is probably older than you, still attractive. Besides, women are not old there whole life, but a shorter man was probably never tall, unless they lost some vertebrae or something. As far as age, you are only as old as you feel.
 DragonBits
Joined: 1/6/2012
Msg: 387
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/7/2012 4:43:10 AM
Dominic_Deville: You do know, the older you get the shorter you get?

You lose up to 2" when you get older, happy trails my friend, enjoy it while it lasts.
 Justcheckingfor1
Joined: 8/11/2011
Msg: 388
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/7/2012 4:59:36 AM
"Once you hit 28,30 at the most,your desirability goes down.Men do not experience this in any shape or form.Men become distinguised,women just get old."

^^^Actually I find women more attractive that are 28 years old and over, and they also seem to be a lot sweeter when they get into their 30's and 40's. The youngest woman I have ever dated was only a year younger than me, and I have dated some ladies that were 20 years older than me. Not too bad for a short guy like me. As I have said again and said before. My height has not kept me from finding nice ladies to date. Because of my juvenile sense of humor, and not being a serious person, it takes a special kind of woman to date me on my personality alone, my short stature has nothing to do with it. If a woman I am dating can handle my silliness, the last thing she is worried about is my height. One just has to meet the right ladies to date. That is all it is to it. Cheers.
 DomG79
Joined: 3/12/2011
Msg: 389
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/7/2012 5:20:39 AM
Dragonbits, I guess if we were so smart, we'd figure out how to grow taller, haha!
 good_catch77
Joined: 3/28/2007
Msg: 390
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/7/2012 8:32:12 AM

But let's say you were cheated on by a man whose profession already had a negative track record for infidelity---such as a rock star. The first rock star cheats on you, but you end up getting involved with a second one, and the same thing happens.

Maybe you're a die hard rock groupie and you get involved with a third rock star, only to have him cheat on you as well. Don't you think by then, you might start paying attention to the negative reputation these guys have for infidelity, and not get involved with a fourth one?


Nah I'd keep dating rock stars until one finally decides to settle down...unless she's Madonna lol. Seriously though I think its apples to oranges because you're talking about profession not height. Generally speaking rock stars and strippers don't have a great track record. But there are those diamonds in the rough that speak volumes. How long has Tim McGraw and Faith Hill been together? Also look at Dolly Parton a lot of people don't even know she's married because her husband don't want to be in the spotlight. So he isn't and she's been married for a long time now.

Even though I mentioned those few examples, any one in the public eye is not a good example. Not just the negative examples but the good ones as well. I don't want to live my life like on a soap opera. There are a few professions in the public eye that I would do in a heartbeat...in music and a sports analyst specifically NFL. But I would still be me. Still talk to people on the street and still claim everyone lol

But like I said comparing not dating a rock star, whom traditionally is known for infidelity is apples to oranges for someone that may not date someone based on a physical trait.
 DragonBits
Joined: 1/6/2012
Msg: 391
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/7/2012 8:44:49 AM
Dominic. I really haven't cared at all about my height in 25 years. I just know what some short men and some women think about it. My second longest relationship was with a women 3 inches taller than me.
 Halcyon_Skies
Joined: 2/1/2009
Msg: 392
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/7/2012 9:09:38 AM
But like I said comparing not dating a rock star, whom traditionally is known for infidelity is apples to oranges for someone that may not date someone based on a physical trait.


Agreed, a rock star is an exaggeration, and I wasn't going to bring up profession at all as an example in this discussion---but the poster in message 535 brought up profession, so I was basically responding to her.

Now, this is an interesting statement:


It would logically have to follow that if short men have fewer choices then they can't be players unless they are a rock star.


DragonBits, why would you say that short men have fewer choices and none of them can be players unless they're a rock star?

Don't you think you're just perpetuating the negative biases that already exist against short men---that they are less desirable to women? I think this just goes to show that everyone is guilty, perhaps subconsciously, of stereotyping---whether they realize it or not.
 ElDanio
Joined: 6/12/2011
Msg: 393
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/7/2012 10:57:14 AM
I've dated a tall woman (5'11") and am currently seeing a short woman (5'1"). I am 5'8".

From my experience, if you are attracted to and also attract down to earth woman ("down to earth" as in they have their priorities straight), your height should not matter as long as you are over 5'6". Under that and you could possibly be perceived as physically weaker than your partner... which is unfortunately not normally considered sexy (and can overpower other aspects of your personality, even for people that are less shallow). However, a short woman should be able to see past that.

The funny thing is that I have met very short women who have told me they would only date men above 6'0" tall. From my 5'1" to 5'8" relationship, I already find certain simple activities more awkward and I feel like I could easily throw my girlfriend across the room if I wanted to (I would never do it :p, I'm just saying she has no reason to not feel secure with me). So a girl that's 5'1"-5'5" exclusively wanting to date someone over 6'0" tall is just retarded. It's like purchasing a Loui Vuitton hand bag on a minimum wage salary (I’d be willing to bet these kinds of people would).

I personally could give less of a poop about height. I find most people get sucked into grossly inaccurate Darwinist theories to justify their superficial needs. The alpha male does not necessarily play sports nor does he necessarily own the sports team. The alpha male actually doesn't really exist; human social structure is way too complicated for that. Sure, there have been many that have tried to set standards of the kind (Hitler for example), but throughout history, those standards have always been challenged and defeated.

"I like a guy over 6' tall because he makes me feel safe..."

Safe from what? Do you live in a savage community where people physically attack one another for dominance?

"Well no, but I've been hardwired to think that way because of evolution. The tall guys were the best hunters and I am naturally attracted to them."

That's not how evolution works.... Anyways, women that were previously considered most desirable would be considered overweight and ugly now. Note that perceptions of beauty have in fact changed. It is actually the media that has sold you an idea of beauty, not nature. Therefore, you are an easily manipulated dumbass who deserves to be a contributing part of the 40% divorce rate. If you learned how to critically think, you’d realize that you are simply attracted to fantasies sold to you by cosmo...

"You're just an angsty "nice" boy who hates women!"

Are you kidding! I LOVE women! Especially intelligent women that can think for themselves and would never prioritize height in choosing a mate. A woman that understands Coach is just a brand with no actual implicit value and will purchase a nicer purse because of it (yeah... coach bags are ugly... they're covered in block letter Cs, I mean... C'mon). A woman who understands that typical Hollywood chick flicks can be entertaining, but are usually a bit convoluted. A woman who doesn't consider a diamond her best friend even though they're sparkly and expensive. A woman who doesn't call herself a **** as if it were a desirable trait. A woman that is strong without over compensation, opinionated without being obnoxious, driven without being self absorbed, confident without being****, and sweet without being fake. Yes, these people do exist... you just have to be patient to meet them.

"Well guys can be**** too!"

Don't get me wrong, all of the criticism I have voiced can be applied to boys as well. The point is that all these people suck and are the root cause for most of what is wrong with society... But we’re kind of stuck with them so we have to deal with it.

"Well wtv, shouldn’t you be working right now?”

Shit… you caught me…
 DragonBits
Joined: 1/6/2012
Msg: 394
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/7/2012 10:58:54 AM
Halcyon I will answer any question you care to ask if you first answer a question I have about you.

Why does a 5.7 women who is looking for men taller than 5.10 spend countless hours debating these issues on a thread mostly populated by short men that express there feeling about this issue?
 Justcheckingfor1
Joined: 8/11/2011
Msg: 395
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/7/2012 11:17:32 AM
Post msg:547 has awesome points in it. Funny way, way back then women with very wide hips were considered more desirable, because of their ability to produce more offspring to make sure the tribe survived. Also in the 1800's and up to mid 1900's extremely overweight males were considered more desirable to the women, because if you were fat it meant that you could afford to eat and probably afford to keep your family from starving.

Funny how times have changed. Also being tall does not mean one is going to survive. I think all of those short in stature folks that are still living in the rain forests are doing just fine with not being tall. Heck, they don't even see the need in hardly wearing any clothes. If one of us so called civilized folks tall or short(which would be tall by their standards) went out there and tried their hand at living that way would probably not survive the being bitten by skeeters, other bugs and such within a few hours.
 Halcyon_Skies
Joined: 2/1/2009
Msg: 396
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/7/2012 11:30:30 AM

Halcyon I will answer any question you care to ask if you first answer a question I have about you.

Why does a 5.7 women who is looking for men taller than 5.10 spend countless hours debating these issues on a thread mostly populated by short men that express there feeling about this issue?


1) I'm a forum junkie.
2) I'm on the computer all day anyway due to my profession---it breaks up the monotony of my day.
3) I enjoy a good debate.
4) My ex was 5'7".

Your turn.
 DragonBits
Joined: 1/6/2012
Msg: 397
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/7/2012 11:42:29 AM
unfortunately I also enjoy debate, but the type of work I do requires more attention to what is happening min by min. But a deal is a deal.

I believe in the following from Wikip.



Yet, the stereotype that stereotypes are inaccurate, resistant to change, overgeneralized, exaggerated, and destructive is not founded on empirical social science research, which instead shows that stereotypes are often accurate and that people do not rely on stereotypes when relevant personal information is available.[13] Indeed, Jussim et al. comment that ethnic and gender stereotypes are surprisingly accurate, while stereotypes concerning political affiliation and nationality [14] are much less accurate; the stereotypes assessed for accuracy concerned intelligence, behavior, personality, and economic status


I don't pay a lot of attention to stereotypes in my relationships, and prefer to gather "relevant personal information". But I would be a fool not to recognize that stereotypes are real and influence behaviour. If this gives me a problem, my solution is to change the pool where I am fishing out of.
 ElDanio
Joined: 6/12/2011
Msg: 398
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/7/2012 12:09:41 PM
Wow. Judgmental much?


Yes it is, I know it's an assumption... I consider it bet worthy because I believe the two are related.


Clearly.


I don't care about height and gave no indication that I did. I am bothered by people who I feel are superficially attracted to height as I believe it to be unfairly exclusionary. Exclusion has been the catalyst for most of humanities worst actions and it fosters inequality/abuse.


You are quite correct. Coach is cheap and nasty. I would never wear anything less than Chloe or Mulberry


The point I was trying to make is that while I understand we are human and enjoy rewarding ourselves with tangible goods (like a nice watch for a guy or a cute purse for a girl), I think it's silly to purchase a product that is no different from cheaper products excepting the brand name.
 DomG79
Joined: 3/12/2011
Msg: 399
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/7/2012 12:10:31 PM
I wonder if these women who are around 5 foot even have King Kong fantasies about men since they prefer the ones over 6 foot.
 inthepalemoonlight
Joined: 1/15/2012
Msg: 400
view profile
History
We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)
Posted: 2/7/2012 12:25:17 PM
i dont remember talking about weight... i remember some women posting how rude it is for men to not accept their weight and that some overweight people want their partner to be in shape even if theyre not...

same goes for girls who are very short and wont date a man whose short... but preference is preference...

i am happy to be 6`0 and enjoy laughing at men who are shorter who try to over compensate and can revel in the fact that women wont reject me due to height.

i probably wouldnt date a girl whose too short or a girl thats taller.
Show ALL Forums  > Dating Experiences  > We talked about weight, well, what about height? :-)