Would you rather be 5 ft 3 or 6 ft 8? (men only)

Post Reply New Topic

I'm surprised so many people are saying 5'3", short people are probably one of the last groups that you can open discriminate and have open prejudice against this country and as a kid it sucks being way smaller than your peers. I'm 5'7" and I thank god every day I'm not shorter, I could do 6'8" easy. I have a cousin that's about 6'7" or 6'8" is built like a lineman, I was the oldest brother in tough neighborhood so having that weight to throw around would of been nice. I would of been fine with 7', I love basketball anyways!

There are quite a few tough guys that are your height. Italian guys are that height a lot of time. It's hard to find a tougher guy than a tough Italian guy, no matter what his height. It's not guns that make them that way either, so even without being heavy you can handle your business if you have to. I dare you to walk into Brooklyn and diss one of the shorter Italian guys there lol. Everybody knows thats not a good idea. Even without a gun, your ass would be grass if you did that. So yeah, you can be tough and be shorter.

I'm half Italian and my dad was one of the freakishly tall Italians. His family was Sicilian actually, and he was like 6-5 or something. I only met him once, as an adult, so I don't know the exact stats. He was an engineer. But, because of him I'm tall.

One of the most badass guys I ever met, who wasn't a criminal or anything like that, was a short dude. His name was Billy Ray and he was shorter than me even when he wore his cowboy boots with lifts and a heel and his cowboy hat. I would not f**k with this guy and most people who knew him wouldn't either, and those who did found out real fast how they had understimated him. He was real short, yeah. He also had the boots, the hat, and the huge monster truck. Yeah, I know. But he pulled it off and backed up what he wanted his image to be. He had all the women he wanted, and he was literally called "Big Bag Billy Ray" partly as a joke from his friends on his being short, but also as an acknowledgment of his ass kicking skills.

So, you can't really estimate badass ability based on height. My husband is 6 feet tall and not at all a badass, despite being a muscular guy, strong, in shape, and a construction worker. He can't and doesn't fight. He was taught not do and bought that crap from his parents. That might fly up north where they are from, but not for a blue collar guy down here. He's big, he's intimidating, and he's learned from me how to talk a good game. He's rarely called out on it either, and he's not one that goes around being an ass to people or pushing them around. I've had to jump in and defend him, only twice, but I did. Once when a guy hit him who we worked with and tried to start s**t up in front of my kids with him, and once when a guy he was working with punched him and knocked him down. Both times those guys got a knife pressed to their gut real fast by me and told that they need to chill or I'd gut them like a deer. Everything was copacetic after that. So, big guys aren't always that badass either. If my husband got in the first punch on somebody who can't take a punch, or a lucky one on somebody who could, the guy would go down. He's got a hell of a punch on him, he just doesn't know where to place it. Otherwise, he'd end up on the receiving end of an ass whooping.

So don't think size matters when it comes to being tough.

For men, its always better to be tall than to be short. The ideal height is between 5 ft 10 to 6 ft 4. Professional athletes are also more likely to be taller. Theres plenty of sports where tall stature gives you an advantage but theres very few sports where being tall gives you a disadvantage. In dating, women always prefer someone who is taller and many prefer men who are at least 5 ft 10 or taller. No mom wants their kids to be short. That's why you see moms bringing their sons to endocrinologists because they're 5 ft 5. No one's bringing their kids to a doctor if they're 6 ft 2. Finally, there is a study that the shortest of the short (men 5 ft 4 and under) are more likely to get and die from heart disease. For men, taller is always better. In fact there is no clear advantages of being really short but there are plenty of advantages to being really tall.


For women, your stature doesn't matter as much. Being short isn't as bad in woman because short stature is seen as a feminine trait and won't affect your dating potential. In fact many guys prefer short women. Tall stature isn't bad either because theres plenty of men who like tall girls as well. It's far better to be a short woman than it is to be a short man.


Take it from me, as a short man. Am I completely screwed? Heck no. Theres far worse things in life you can have than being a shorty. If being short is all of the problems you have, then that isn't so bad. But in terms of height, being tall is almost always better.

How tall are you? I'm just asking. It doesn't matter either way to me, I'm just curious now.

I don't think I'd like being shorter, even though it is a feminine trait. While I'm a straight woman and I do wear dresses and makeup and do like to be pretty, I'm really not all that feminine. If you haven't notice I cuss like a sailor and I totally refuse to take s**t from anybody, and I can and will back myself up on the no s**t taking philosophy when and if I have to. I also like cars, can drink an Irishman on St Pats Day under the table, and can completely identify with a lot of feelings that guys have. I can shoot the s**t with guys and talk in a group of guys without expecting them to change anything because I'm there, and I rarely get offended about the s**t most girls do. I'm far from feminine and I can pull that off better being my height than I could if I was a short girl. Nobody would take me seriously about some things if I was short, and that would drive me insane.

Quote: "I'm 50 years old and if I were single I wouldn't date anyone younger than 40. Or older than 60. Does that make me an ageist?"

Yep.

No, it makes me ageist if I wouldn't hire someone in those age brackets. It makes me ageist if I tell the emergency room I don't want the 20 year old resident working on me, I want the 45 year old attending (unless it's about residency vs attending).

If I'm an "ist" of any sort, then I'm discriminating against those people on the basis of age. For dating purposes, I'm simply squicked out by a huge age difference, so it's an attraction and preference issue, not a discriminatory issue.

If it's an ist issue when someone doesn't find a particular type attractive or suitable for dating then everybody is an ist of some sort.

I'm hardly an ist because I'd feel horrible being romantic with somebody 20 years my junior and am just not attracted to men who are that much older than me. The idea of it is what does it for me, more than the person. I would be more willing to make an exception for dating the older guy than the younger one, as some older guys don't look and seem their age so it wouldn't seem so bad to me. From the time I was in my teens I felt that being hit on by older guys made them dirty old men. I still haven't lost that feeling. I wouldn't have to have somebody my age, but I would have to have somebody in my age group. That doesn't make me an "ageist", it makes me a lady with a preference for what men she would date.

How do you justify calling me an ageist when age wouldn't be a factor for me in anything else?

Ageism is the stereotyping or discrimination of a person or group of people because of their age.

I'll say it again. That doesn't apply to whether or not you are attracted to them. Just because I think someone is nice looking doesn't mean I am attracted to them. I am simply not attracted to people in age groups that far from mine. That doesn't make me an ageist, it makes me someone who has certain parameters for who she is attracted to. I wouldn't turn somebody down for a years difference or anything like that, it's just the overall feeling of a big age difference that is a turn off to me.

Take Channing Tatum for example. Cute as he can be, very, VERY hot, and VERY attractive to me. Be's entirely too young for me though. If he were to somehow show up at my house for some reason, I'd of course be all aflutter and over the moon, but if he were to flirt with me or ask me out, I would just say "Oh honey, no. I hate myself for it, but not. As hot as you are, I really just want to bring you a plate of food and make sure you eat instead of throwing you down and having my way with you". Because he's too young for me and it just doesn't feel right. I'd probably feel that way about guys who were my age but LOOKED too young too. Johnny Depp for example. He's a year older than me but looks 20 years younger. I'd know that he wasn't too young for me, but it would just feel wrong. He would feel too young to me. It's not a decision based on anything other than attraction. I'm attracted to guys who are in (and or look like they are in) that particular age group. I can drool over the rest of them all I want, I just would never be willing to do anything about it, because of how it would feel. Also, none of those guys I mentioned are blind so there's no chance of them going for me

"ist" determinations do not apply to romantic attractions. They apply to things like hiring, housing, how you treat others on a daily basis. They do not apply to being attracted to people. If they did apply to who you were attracted to then every single straight person who wouldn't date someone of the same sex is homophobic. Every single gay person who wouldn't date someone of the opposite sex is heterophobic. People who prefer to date people of their same race are racist then, no matter whether or not they are black, white, Asian or Latino. It doesn't matter if they have friends of different races, they are racist for not being attracted to those outside their race. Also, those who only want to date those of other races are racist, but against their own race. Teenage girls who won't date the divorced 55 year old dad of their best friend because he's too old are ageist by your standard.

Using your logic, then unless you are willing to date anyone at all, no matter what differences there may be between you, you are not only an 'ist" but also a hypocrite for saying that I'm an ageist.

How exactly do you fit ageism into whether or not you are romantically attracted to someone else? Exactly how?

I like to think I can scrap myself but being 5'7" 150lbs and not a trained martial artist you have to know your limitations too. It's just a fact that if you had me or my cousin that goes like 6'8" 300lb to victimize, you're going to pick me but now if you knew our personalities maybe you'd go him but appearance means a lot. I like to think I don't have any complex about being short, it aint cool but I don't feel I have to overcompensate and that's what most tough little guys are or at least thought of as being. I think being that big you can walk away from conflict and not ever be bothered in the first place whereas with me it was either fight or be punked out some guy. There really is no advantage to being short as a guy, there just isn't. I'm not getting any taller tho so you just gotta deal, whatever. The downside to being tall is what? People ask you how tall you are a lot? You need to look harder for pants that fit?(you also have to when you're short btw, you're not going to find an inseam shorter 30" too often which would be pretty long legged for a 5'3" guy I would think. Sounds a lot better being discriminated against(be it in employment/dating/whatever) or be potentially victimized like you can be when you're a short guy.

I also don't stereotype them. I said I would feel like a dirty old lady dating a younger man so that stereotyped myself, not them. I would feel that a guy over a certain age who wanted to date me was a dirty old man even if I knew he wasn't a dirty old man, because aversion to much older men wanting to date me is something that has hung on for me since my teen years.

How did I stereotype them? I never said that I thought anyone else actually was a dirty old man, I would just feel like they were.

If you mean discrimination on them based on age, because I wouldn't date them because of it, that brings me back to how is it discrimination to not date someone you aren't attracted to romantically? If I were to meet and fall for a guy outside those limits, I would date them, but I don't see it happening. My aversion to romantic relationships that far from my own age is too strong. Is my aversion to it discrimination? Because it's not a conscious choice, it's a feeling. I didn't like to date blonde guys either, am I discriminating against them either. I wasn't ever attracted to blonde guys.

Also, please address my other examples of ism's and ists about dating.

I'm not trying to blow off the problems you have had by being short nor say that it's great or doesn't matter that you are. Yeah, it'll matter to some. f**k them, there's tons of people. Some people really aren't attracted to others except within very narrow parameters, and that's just how they are. Others are just douchebags.

Also, don't think you have to be a martial artist to fight well. I took Tang So Do back when I was way into Highlander, but that was only to learn sword fighting. I've seen so many guys with upper level belts get beat down by your average redneck that it's not funny. Yes, martial arts can work well, if you are very, very skilled at using it vs regular fighting, but that isn't what you are taught really and you have to pursue that differently. It works great against other guys using it against you, but unless you have an advanced belt or are into MMA then it won't do you much good at all in an actual fight. Sure, you might could use a few moves to get somebody off you, and it can work in a short term physical conflict but it's usually defense and if you get into a for real fight with a hardhitter, and you are only using defensive tactics, you are gonna lose and lose fast. In a fight you not only defend yourself but you have to hurt and or incapacitate the other person to the point where they will stop. You don't get much of a chance to use those martial arts moves in something that you'd encounter in your average barroom.

ETA; An example of this is this one guy I dated who was a higher level black belt in Kung Fu. He was really good at it and won lots of competitions. He was that one movie star good looking guy I dated in my teens, right before I married my first husband. He was taller than me, built like a Greek God carved out of marble, had a face that should have been on the big screen, was head over heels in love with me, and had a motorcycle. He was also very, very dumb, very rednecks and had a pecker the size of my ring finger. It did not work. After I left him and started dating my ex husband, he kept coming around and my ex husband, who was a couple inches shorter than me but had been in and out of juvie all his life and is now waiting to be executed by another state, beat the crap out of that boy. The hot guy squared off and got in a couple good kicks and punches and my ex went down, got up and just went psycho redneck on him. All sorts of limbs at once. Martial arts doesn't prepare you for psychotic redneck fights, and thats the kind you get down here.

Cognitive dissonance?

I don't know. I'm 5'9" and I'm a woman. I don't think I'd want to be 5'3". 6'8" is a bit extreme, but I could be taller and be fine with it. It's a little presumptuous to assume that women want/need to be short or that women are, on average, short. Depends entirely on the country or origin, race, preference, etc. I don't really dictate my life by "conventional gender roles" either. I've dated both men and woman, shorter and taller than me, and they've commented on my height in both positive and negative ways. Mostly, they've wanted me to be taller. Go fig.

And many studies have shown that height is linked to the mother's height. So, breed with tall women.

Once again, I really don't see where words like "always prefer" and "best for men/women" belong in this conversation. Height is purely relative when it comes to mating. There's no biological construct that determines health, based on height.

Yes, if someone is 12 and 6'9", they may have heart issues, because they're built like a giraffe (figuratively). If they're 50 and 3'2", they're probably inflicted with a pituitary issue that has caused them not to grow, or they are some variation of little person. It doesn't mean they are BAD or that someone doesn't want them. Someone, somewhere, male or female, wants the pants off of them. This conversation is too general and generalizations are what put us into tiny boxes.

And let us remember why we are all in these forums. Because we are different, not less. No matter how many, or few, inches we have. In proportion or not.

It doesn't make a person some kind of "ist" if they have certain preferences in dating.
If they don't feel attraction towards short, fat, tall, skinny, younger than 40, older than 60, etc, then they don't feel attraction and are unlikely to date someone without some kind of feeling of attraction.

I was going to say "technically yes", but after reading more of your posting and seeing how you go about making judgments, I say absolutely yes, and in the worst possible way.

How is it an issue? Because the majority of causal reasoning is completely abandoned in the process.
What you think you personally find attractive is not arguable at all.
However, your stated reasoning suggests that your preference is much more a function of group-think than it is the individual decision that you see it to be.
It's also possible that the only way that you could see this is if you had a removed perspective, such as if you had come from a very different society. Someone from a different society could just as easily call your attraction criteria fetishes.

We are all living beings. We do not get to choose the type of shell that we inhabit, nor our chronological age.
Nobody is saying that you aren't allowed to be ageist, or whatever.
It is still very acceptable in our society to be both ageist and heightist.