To take part in discussions on talkSFU, please apply for membership (SFU email id required).
To the ladies...
Would you date a guy who was 5'9 over a guy who was 6'2 if the 5'9 guy was slightly better looking?
I can't belive at 5'9 how much crap I get for being short. I'll be sitting at a bar, like today, and a girl says I'm cute and starts flirting. She's decent looking, but not a super model. When I stand up, she says, "oh well, I wish you were taller." Huh? Isn't Tom cruise 5'7????
Honestly, I can understand not wanting to go out with losers, fatties, pimple faced uglies, or even guys shorter than yourself. But since when did 5'9=too short to hook up with? I never really gave it much thought till this year, but I think I might just develop a Napoleon Complex.
I can't belive at 5'9 how much crap I get for being short. I'll be sitting at a bar, like today, and a girl says I'm cute and starts flirting. She's decent looking, but not a super model. When I stand up, she says, "oh well, I wish you were taller." Huh? Isn't Tom cruise 5'7????
Honestly, I can understand not wanting to go out with losers, fatties, pimple faced uglies, or even guys shorter than yourself. But since when did 5'9=too short to hook up with? I never really gave it much thought till this year, but I think I might just develop a Napoleon Complex.
Comments
Look at Colin Farrell, he drinks and smokes like a madman yet the SAME women that say "smoking and excessive drinking is bad" love him and say "he's so hawt I'd do him lol."
Women are paradoxes. It'll always be that way.
;_;
Just get rich and you'll be fine. Buy a wife. After all, women don't really love men for who they are but rather for what they have.
and no da_prodigy 5'9 is not too short to hook up with.. there's just this six foot craze going with the girls nowadays.. you hear it all the time.. and it's quality that counts not the height..
but i think what ladies look for in a man (serious relationship ) is not necessarily wealth, but one with ambition and potential towards success, not some drop out with no plans. wealth is just an indicator of this such quality.
So, either I'm not like some girls or that girl you talked to was a bitch (the latter sounds more likely)
and, how tall was this girl? don't get all huffed up about, she's not worth the time.
i wish i was taller sure, but more so because i could play basketball better!! hah
girls like me regardless ;)
Height has never, ever, factored into my choice of boyfriend. It has absolutely nothing to do with the stuff that matters like attitude, intelligence and ambition.
Don't worry about it. That girl was a loser.
Men pick the women who is fairest of them all. So if you're concerned about your height, then find a woman who is not so fair and I'll guarentee she won't care about your height.
someone always have it worse than you. You can be 5'3-5'6. Too tall to be cute and well, too short...
Nobody cares how tall u are.
seriously, what does height have anything to do wid anything?
There aren't many girls that really care about ur height, but if u come across them often, then u gota change up where u meet ppl.... because obviously ur looking for us [ ;) ] in the wrongg places, and i duno, maybe these types of superficial girls like to concentrate in certain places in the universe, i duno.
anywayss...... i don't know what ur complaining about in the first place because 5 9' isn't even short.
toodles..
I agree and disagree that beauty doesn't wither. if external beauty was all there is, then a lot of marriages would have no chance of lasting, let alone relationships. I agree there has to be some physical chemistry between two people, but there HAS to be something intangible that binds them together, and that's something that even Botox can't do.
Yet I don't think beauty necessarily withers over time, depending on how you see beauty. For me, I think some people become more beautiful as they grow older, but I don't know...that's just me.
Here's some food for thought: nine out of ten domestic disputes (with a man hitting a woman) that get reported to the police end up with the woman insisting that nothing serious be done to her man and that the man not be arrested or charged. Why? Because she ultimately needs him. I'm not saying that he can do without her; merely, these are traits rooted in things we cannot have control over--our biological predispositions.
Of course a guy has to treat a woman right, but many women are willing to significantly overlook this (and the guy's looks and perhaps personality) simply for the sake of having that financial support from a man.
Things such as height, intellect, and status are supposed to be indicators of the man's wealth. However, being tall and smart does not always mean you will be rich as a man. Hence, these indicators are merely artificial.
Sure you can say that in a progressive society such as Canada's, the feminist movement and all that jazz, these things are not as characteristic of our society. I say that that may be true to a minute degree; overwhelmingly, however, what I stated above about wealth and attractiveness is axiomatic.
P.S.: I know I'll get a lot of heat for saying what I said and perhaps some will say that I'm a male chauvinist or that I'm overly conservative; in any case, I'm prepared to take it. But please, rather than taking this personally and making judgements about my worth as an individual, I ask you to merely assess the validity of what I said objectively and nothing more.
P.P.S.: Height is at best modestly relevant to attractiveness . . . . . stop thinking about height and start thinking about wealth and success and how to make it in this world. However, all other things being equal, height does make a difference.
And yes, I agree with the principle you stated.
I know it's not fair. For me, it is weird that a 40 year old guy can date a 18 year old girl. But, it's is much more weird when i see a 40 year old lady is dating a 18 year old guy. O.o
To be honest, I don't think that women and men make drastically different choices when looking for partners. I just think that women are better at disguising their lust, and men are better at disguising their need for support.
There may be women who choose men primarily for emotional support, but this is certainly not in the majority of cases.
As for disguising, you make a fair point. Would you, however, say that women have the same amount of lust as men? Alternatively do men have the same amount of need for financial support as women? Are any differences negligible?
Since I AM a woman, I would say that women in general have just as much lust as men do. However, due to hormonal differences (as well as cultural ones), they are not as aggressive with their desires. Believe me, many women date very hot guys who are idiots and broke. And others will talk about men simply in the "I'd sure like to fuck that" category, just as men do. Think about it: a man who gets lots of chicks is a stud, while a woman who gets lots of guys is a slut. It's no wonder women playdown their sexuality.
As far as men being needy, I was referring to both financial and emotional support. I'm sure there are other girls who can agree with me that there have been boyfriends who have cried when you relationships have ended. And I've had male friends in physically and emotionally abusive relationships who stayed because he "loves her". And men need financial support too. I just read the other day that more and more men are choosing to stay home with their children, while the mother works. Judging from conversations with my male friends, this is a switch that a lot of men are looking forward to! I think it's great to have the opportunity to work it out within your own family how you would like to organize your lives instead of just conforming to outdated social norms. So there ARE men who would like to find a woman who can support them financially, just as you give in your response to older rich women dating younger guys.
As far as saying what is the "majority of cases", what's your basis? Friends, the media, psychological studies? It seems like the media wants us to think that men and women fit into these neat (and separate) boxes, which I don't think is accurate at all.
And like anything pertaining to human nature, it's probably waaay more complicated than we know, and it's difficult to pin down with definite answers. Isn't psychology fun? :wink:
I'll certainly agree that there are women who work and men who stay home and take care of the kids (i.e. non-traditional roles). However, such instances are still in the minority. Perhaps the unconventional may be proliferating, but we are still in a society with moderately traditional gender-roles. Or at the very least, the gender roles considered traditional are still dominant enough to be traditional. It's certainly far more complicated than I'd like, but that's a fact of life we'll have to deal with. There are no definite answers and a theory (one that is based on general trends) will never be able to accommodate for every instance. We humans are not always so simple to categorized under one theory.
Psychology has the potential for being fun, but many classes certainly are not.
I don't disagree with anything you said in that latest post. Cheers for the mini-debate! :wink:
And if you're curious, here's a link for the article on stay-at-home-dads.
Sounds fun already....