Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Height is an advantage; that's incontrovertible fact of life. But what baffles me is the asymmetries of mate-selection, where the very few enjoy the attention of the very many, while lots of candidates who themselves excel - who are notably above-average - find themselves to have no advantage over those at the bottom.
Personally, I am do not make wealth my deciding factor. (Although I am attracted some to it)
First of all, wealth to me says that he probably won't have enough time for me. (he has to have time to make all this wealth).
Second, I will probably be required to change myself and my lifestyle to fit that "rich" scene (and I don't like that, too many things required that I cannot do).
Thirdly, I think it's my lingering beliefs which make me feel guilty to have too much money while some people have nothing (I heard about the non-equal wealth distribution and it bothers me some).
The part that I am attracted to is having lots of fun and having no restrictions (when you have money, you can do stuff).
So it's a mixture, but the 3 above would win overall.
About the asymmetries - doesn't everyone want to get the best? The best is a matter of relativity. If a girl lives in a village and she has only 2 men to choose from, she will chose THE BEST of the two. If a girl lives in a big city and has 10 to choose from, she will chose THE BEST of the ten. I mean it sounds logical, right? Why settle for less when you can have THE BEST?
And once some choices are out, you try to get THE BEST out of the remaining choices.
Question to the OP: does it matter that a man be of at least equal height to her, in the sense of shorter men being at a disadvantage? Or is it a case of the taller the better, in the sense of even men of average stature being at a disadvantage? The question matters because the taller the specimen, the rarer the likelihood of finding such a one, especially if other qualities (personality, values,...) matter.
Has to be like me at LEAST. Then taller and taller. The level of attraction may depend on how much taller. But it has to be a proportionate figure. I wouldn't be attracted to someone who looks strange or off in proportions. I've seen an extremely tall guy (like really extreme) and that wasn't attractive.
Also mother nature mixes things up. Not good if everyone is the same. That can assure survival of the entire race - some with differences might survive whereas most others will not.
About mixing things up... well some women are attracted to dominant and controlling men because for some reason they like to submit. Maybe it's because they have no ability to make their own decisions and need someone else to make them?
I am full of my own decisions, but I need guidance, but I prefer that guiding person to agree with me most of the time. :-) So I don't like dominant or controlling. I like someone wise, who sees my point, who will have a most likely chance of agreeing to something reasonable. And I like someone who is not controlling because I would like to have the final say whenever it's possible. (Sometimes some situations call for a compromise)
While of course there are evolutionary pressures for such preferences, and in abstracted caveman terms the preference makes perfect sense, one does have to wonder about nature vs. nurture. Compare for example a muscular, broad-shouldered man of average height, vs. a lanky tall one. Anecdotal evidence gives the nod, in terms of mating-appeal, to the latter. Is this for reasons of nature, or nurture? In terms of nature, would not a muscular physique trump sheer height?
Since the body has to use logical steps to calculate a decision, and when it's stuck choosing between the two strengths (lanky tall one and short muscular one) who knows which guidelines it's using to determine who wins. I would have to be in that situation in order to see what my body decides, to know for sure.
But the feeling I am getting is that I will still be attracted to a tall guy, but feel safer hiding behind the shorter muscular one. And my attraction will be subconscious, but my hiding behind the muscular guy will be a conscious decision. So it's like my attraction is still coming from the old programming, but the conscious decision was resulting from recalculating the situation and realizing new information.
Maybe it takes some time (who knows how long) for the old programming to be modified. So while our body makes us attracted to what it needs, it's using the old information to calculate which things will fulfill their needs. So the body still thinks that height matters in terms of survival because it doesn't know yet that it doesn't need that anymore.
So I guess if we convince it somehow that there are other methods now to find protection, we will start to be attracted to a different type of a guy or maybe more types.
(Maybe guys are attracted to long legged women because it represented that they could run away faster from danger and therefore would last longer on earth).
Last edited by LoveWisdom; 11-22-2014 at 11:02 AM..
Define tall. Before they were PC prohibited, there was a discussion of height in men and it was obvious that most women like men to be taller than them but not very tall. I´m 6´6" so obviously my wife is attracted to very tall men...I watch closely when other tall men talk to her If it´s a short guy, no worries.
Define tall. Before they were PC prohibited, there was a discussion of height in men and it was obvious that most women like men to be taller than them but not very tall. I´m 6´6" so obviously my wife is attracted to very tall men...I watch closely when other tall men talk to her If it´s a short guy, no worries.
I don't know the numbers, didn't compare, thinking that maybe around 6.4, but it's stabbing in the dark. I am 5.8.
Interesting to observe our jealousy factor. The picture came to my mind is when an animal is protective of its property.... making its rounds, guarding it.... (hopefully that's not offensive, it's just what I saw in my head).
Is there a reason that people are attracted to certain types?
I am trying to figure out if this is just plain arbitrary inner programming (like throwing a dice and saying: ok, this person will be attracted to such and such)
OR is there a deeper reason?
For example, I like to feel safe. And I feel like I need protection. So I think that "tallness" represents "his ability to protect me" in the body's language. So whenever the body comes across a tall man, it's like it's saying: this is what you need, this is good for you, this one will keep you safe, so therefore, FEEL THE ATTRACTION! And I do.
(Kind of like some say that evolution makes women be attracted to strong men because mating with strong men will ensure survival of the species. Or men are programmed to want to mate with many women because it will ensure the survival of the species. And men are programmed to be attracted to young and beautiful looking women because it represents that they are healthy and prime for mating, which also will ensure the survival of the species.)
It's just kind of funny to me when I observe my reactions to guys. I see a short guy and immediately I feel like I am not attracted (even if he is really cute). I feel like I am his mother and he is my child (because he is shorter than me and I guess my body associates shorter ones with being kids or something).
I see a tall guy and I feel the attraction even if he is not that good looking. I think I feel a tiny bit intimidated too, kind of like being shy.
But that's not all of course. Just tallness itself has to be combined with something else I like (at least as much of it as I can "see" or perceive from looks only). I have to perceive him to be a person with an ability to be reasonable and not be cruel.
I really wish there was some way to know what you need versus what you like and know the reasons behind them all.
We are so far off in our abilities to find a good match. I guess proof is in the pudding. All the divorces and the break ups show that we have no clue just yet.
I have the same thing with women with dark hair. Practically every woman I have been strongly attracted to has dark hair, whether they are hispanic, black, asian, etc. Even when I see a blonde woman with a gorgeous face, something in me still finds the brunette standing next to her even more attractive despite having a more conventionally average face..if those are the right words. I wonder myself how many men have this strong hair preference as a barometer for who they want to meet and put it at the top of their list for physical attributes they prefer.
About the asymmetries - doesn't everyone want to get the best? The best is a matter of relativity. If a girl lives in a village and she has only 2 men to choose from, she will chose THE BEST of the two. If a girl lives in a big city and has 10 to choose from, she will chose THE BEST of the ten. I mean it sounds logical, right? Why settle for less when you can have THE BEST?
And once some choices are out, you try to get THE BEST out of the remaining choices.
This is a complicated and multifaceted issue. Suppose that you select "the best" candidate from the available pool, and said candidate chooses you. All is well. But why if you yourself aren't "the best"? Then said candidate might grow restless and dissatisfied. The long-term stability of the relationship is at risk, because now the asymmetry is working against you. The same risk is operative for men chasing after the most beautiful women. Such women would feel entitled to attention, becoming demanding and high-maintenance. This isn't necessarily so, but is a reasonable likelihood, for if life hands us easy victory in the genetic lottery, we're bound to regard our gifts as entitlement. So even if a man can secure the affections of the most beautiful woman, such choice is fraught with risk.
But first comes the question of initial attraction and competition for mates. My point isn't that it's stupid or immoral to optimize our choice, but rather, that we're optimizing excessively. If men all descend upon the most beautiful woman in the room, other women - who are also pretty, but not quite as pretty - would be ignored. They'd fare no better than the homely and unappealing women. Not only will good candidates go unselected, but amongst the men in competition with each other, only one will attain his objective. And it might be less than one, for the woman enjoying such attention might be so bolstered by enjoyment of favor, that she'd forego the available options, waiting for something better, and leaving all of the present men disappointed.
Therefore I prefer to intentionally eschew "the best" and to aim for the second-best or third-best. I'd rather suboptimize. This isn't a new theory. I'm just baffled why it's not more broadly accepted.
I think daddy's girls tend to love taller men. Girls that relate better to their mother's (in my experience) don't seem as particular outside of wanting him to at least be an inch or two taller.
It is a good question posted by an earlier poster. If a woman has to chose between a well-built, strong but shorter guy (think young Mike Tyson) versus a taller but less physically imposing man....I think a lot of girls would pick the tall guy. It may also come down to assertiveness. Shorter men seem to be more assertive and dominant in their personalities while taller men are more passive since they're height affords them that opportunity. People notice them no matter what.
This is a complicated and multifaceted issue. Suppose that you select "the best" candidate from the available pool, and said candidate chooses you. All is well. But why if you yourself aren't "the best"? Then said candidate might grow restless and dissatisfied. The long-term stability of the relationship is at risk, because now the asymmetry is working against you. The same risk is operative for men chasing after the most beautiful women. Such women would feel entitled to attention, becoming demanding and high-maintenance. This isn't necessarily so, but is a reasonable likelihood, for if life hands us easy victory in the genetic lottery, we're bound to regard our gifts as entitlement. So even if a man can secure the affections of the most beautiful woman, such choice is fraught with risk.
But first comes the question of initial attraction and competition for mates. My point isn't that it's stupid or immoral to optimize our choice, but rather, that we're optimizing excessively. If men all descend upon the most beautiful woman in the room, other women - who are also pretty, but not quite as pretty - would be ignored. They'd fare no better than the homely and unappealing women. Not only will good candidates go unselected, but amongst the men in competition with each other, only one will attain his objective. And it might be less than one, for the woman enjoying such attention might be so bolstered by enjoyment of favor, that she'd forego the available options, waiting for something better, and leaving all of the present men disappointed.
Therefore I prefer to intentionally eschew "the best" and to aim for the second-best or third-best. I'd rather suboptimize. This isn't a new theory. I'm just baffled why it's not more broadly accepted.
Good points!
I think excess or out-of-control ego often times deludes people into feeling a false sense of security or into assuming a false sense of superiority. The woman who seeks the best available man is not always the best available woman. And vice versa. You can crave something and desire something all you want, but those cravings and desires don't automatically place you atop the heap of the best available candidates. The girl wants the most attractive and successful guy, and the guy wants the same thing on the female side. And both guy and girl have to possess enough ego (and often times arrogance) to believe that they are entitled to that which they seek.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If it´s a short guy, no worries.
