Woman disliking because of height!

Post Reply New Topic

Jamsey, do you mean discount rather than dislike? If so it seems justifiable, we're not duty-bound to feel attracted to everyone.

Jamesy, I am almost a foot taller than you and back when I was single would have traded places with you in an instant. Heck, I probably would even today as that would bring me almost eye level with the Mrs as it sucks having a height discrepancy with your spouse. I have never known a short man to EVER have trouble getting a date and in most couples I know the woman is the roughly the same height or slightly taller. When you are tall that's literally all people can see at first and they generally can't see past the stereotypes (NO, I DO NOT PLAY BASKETBALL!!)

You mention that tall men are the "jackpot" yet here I was 28 before even going on my first date and in hindsight it was the textbook definition of a 'pity date so you don't murder me'. Granted I was and am oblivious but if I was that much of a prize like you claim at least one sexually aggressive woman would have been all over me. I'm certainly far from ugly, wear decent clothes and shower regularly. Never happened, not even once.

I feel like the main problem is the bar milieu.

I don't think you're "worthless trash not worthy of time or love" and if all that matters is what women think then I must be right

"Dislike"? No, not particularly, but people will dislike others for any number of frivolous reasons, some of which they probably do not consciously understand.

"Reject"? Yes, absolutely. If a woman is looking for "Tall, Dark, and Handsome", and you are short, pale, and somewhat average-looking, then she has every right and reason to reject you.[/color]

Stop being a doormat in the bar. Or stop going to the bar altogether.

I’ve been a doormat in my life...so I know what’s going on.

Drunk punks looking to mock somebody like it’s high school again. That’s frequently the “bar scene.”

women can be a lot more choosey than men cant they? why do you think this is?

Overall, no. Women may be more choosy when it comes to economics, but men may be more choosy when it comes to appearances.Evolution. A healthy-looking female is more likely to give birth to healthy offspring, while a man of material wealth can well provide for those offspring (and the woman).

Where are you located? I ask, because I am in the DC area. It is extremely liberal, everyone seems cold, and people are more focused on their phones than what is in front of them. When I go outside of DC, I see people that wave hi to strangers as they pass by them, hold the doors open for each other, and seem content with life. Social mores and attitudes fluctuate, but we are still a long way from Societal Dystopia.

Uh, Fnord --- wow, that's a heck of a generalization. Is that your opinion or are you passing along social mores? As the minority for which that does not apply, I am going to spew. It assumes that the woman herself will not produce the wealth. As I previously mentioned that is far from the truth for myself and close female friends. From a generational perspective, in the case of my grandmother, mother and myself --- we look for men that can nurture our children --- we were equipped to provide the income. This has worked out well for me b/c society is more accepting (the discrimination is subtle); it worked not so well for my mom whom was pushed out of the workforce when she had kids (she found proof of blatant discrimination) and it didn't work at all for my grandmother (who was institutionalized in part for not caring for her children as a proper woman should).

By the way, I am healthy-looking and infertile, but I persevere!! !! (and families are formed all ways)

Yes, that's exactly what it is, a generalization based on a generalized evolutionary theory.

Back in the Dark Ages (before The Pill, before Women's Suffrage, and before Germ Theory), the general idea was that older, wealthier men would marry younger, healthier women (look up King Henry VIII, for example) in order to produce healthy male heirs. This was not always the case, however, but the general trend.

The custom has held over to the present day -- very rarely (if ever) does a healthy, wealthy woman seek a mate from among the men of Skid Row, and very rarely (if ever) does a healthy wealthy man marry a woman who would not pass for beauty-pageant contestant.

You may feel insulted at this generalization, but take a good look around at all the "May-December" marriages in the news, and even in your own neighborhood.

I think it is important to remember that for most people preferences are not set in stone. Long run many other traits will prove to be much more important than any preferences that may exist on height. If someone is worried their height is a turn off, they will probably get their best dating results by allowing women to get to know them through shared friends or social groups before seeking to date.

Average height for a male in England is 5ft9 according to the internet. Though in looking that up, I also found an article that sas 5ft8 is an ideal height. So you probably have nothing to worry about in the height department.

For the young generation who are in there early 20s 5ft10 is now the average height from what I heard.

Back to topic (tabloid like): https://www.themodestman.com/famous-tall-women

How do you figure? O.o