Do you like men with High-Pitched Voices {Ladies Only!}

Post Reply New Topic

I'm knocking off an old thread of mine
which will be resurrected in a fw minutes.

So ladies, elaborate.

Last edited by AnonymousAnonymous on 22 Jul 2008, 2:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

What exactly are you asking about "Men with High-Pitched Voices "?

Are we afraid of them? Attracted to them? Suspicious that they might actually be women?

Please re-state your poll question in a more specific manner.

It has been re-stated.

I like deep voices better, gravelly voices are especially sexy.

You should hear my Barry White impersonation.

I have a need to feel feminine with a guy, so he needs to be more masculine than me.. deeper voice, stronger, all of that. Of course if I found the man I'd spend the rest of my life with and he had a high pitched voice, so be it. But I like deep voices better

I agree with Nekowotsit (sorry, can't remember the last part) in principle because as I've said in another thread, a high level of chemistry overcomes any obstacles, physical non-ideals included; we simply ignore the downsides and compensate by concentrating on those qualities in the man that we especially adore.

Saying that, however, I would imagine that once the honeymoon period had worn off, I personally would find it somewhat grating. Then again, since tone of voice is usually a very important contributory factor to mutual attractability, I doubt that a female who found the mere idea of that trait annoying would be attracted to any high-pitched bloke in the first place.

It also depends upon just HOW high-pitched you mean. If he sounds like Minnie Mouse then, clearly, you'll need a heck of a lot of chemistry to get over that one! (...And should that be the happy case, then one upside would be - he'd come in very handy for pretending to be your mother when phoning your boss to tell him you're too ill to come into work! xoxo

I am always amused when I read such slightly hypocritical statement (no offense).

For example: He needs(must) to have the Trait X (in order to love him) but(and this is the hypocritical "but") if I find the love of my life then I'd spend the rest of my life with him even if he has the opposite trait of X which is Y (weird,but few words back he NEEDS to have trait X in order to like him), But (and this is the truth But) I like guys with the Trait X.


Many people here make such nonsense self-hypocritical statements.

I lied - despite being female I voted the 3rd option, because I don't really have an opinion, but I wanted to see the answers.

Frankly, I've never thought about it.

I am always amused when I read such slightly hypocritical statement (no offense).

For example: He needs(must) to have the Trait X (in order to love him) but(and this is the hypocritical "but") if I find the love of my life then I'd spend the rest of my life with him even if he has the opposite trait of X which is Y (weird,but few words back he NEEDS to have trait X in order to like him), But (and this is the truth But) I like guys with the Trait X.


Many people here make such nonsense self-hypocritical statements.[/quote]

It's what I feel I need. But I can always be proven wrong. Or, I might be wrong, and in fact need something completely different, I'm just unaware of it.

Suffering Syntax, Batman!! ! - Well spotted! I wondered if anyone else would notice that. Nice to meet a like-minded individual (beyond AS, I mean) Have you studied NLP? If not, you should consider doing so because you clearly have that very type of analytical bent.

Anyhoo - flattery over (and that'll be £10 please).

This is a particularly common hypocracy amongst all humans. We are all intrinsically egotistical (which is vital for survival) and, due to experiencing control over certain aspects of life, tend to be under-discriminatory between those things that are controllable and those that aren't. We seem to delude ourselves that pair-bonding is a matter of conscious choice when, in fact, we are all largely at the mercy of chemistry (which itself is merely a signal of genetic compatibility for the purposes of healthy and successful procreation). Thus, we paint ourselves a 'mugshot' of our future 'ideal' partner. Rarely do we end up with 'him/her'. (Anyway - in most cases, getting what you need is far better than getting what you think you want...to the point where you realise that what you needed was actually what you should have wanted in the first place!).

Other than basic chemistry, the only choices we make between one person of a chemically-compatible type and another likewise compatible partner, are down to aims that suit us at the time. Take me, for instance: Just going through a divorce with a highly fearful and inadequate "man" (= control-freak) who, instead of making allowances for my wider boundaries and under-demanding nature and/or feeling more, shall we say, 'charitable' because of them, instead took advantage of them left/right/centre (i.e. I was Giver, he Taker - constantly). He was three years my senior - the youngest man I'd ever dated. Now, suddenly, my ne'er-broken, emphatic rule of Never Date A Younger Man has just been broken...and easily so ("how did THAT happen?!"): I'm with a 'new' man who is more perfect for me than I could hope for (he has a touch of AS himself), and we've been dating very successfully for nearly 10 months, on avg 3 times/week....and yet he is a whole 5 years my junior (shock, horror!! !).

Why is this pertinent: well, clearly I needed a ready-made 'advantage' to prevent being controllable/controlled negatively in the same way and to the same extent as with my ex2b (b also for B*****d!). What better preventative measure than to have an in-built level of 'superiority' (or at least equality) by default of being slightly older and more experienced than him? Talk about a slightly unfair advantage should rank ever need to be pulled!

It may not even affect anything of any significance in interactional application (in fact, it doesn't) but the important point is that it made me FEEL safer and less exploitable. (This wasn't a conscious decision at the time but was a retrospective analysis that was proven to be 100% correct via the huge, thereby conclusive, mental Ping! at the point of its conscious consideration).

So, in other words - chemical compatibility dictates the size/type of potential mates but sub-conscious aims/fears influence your choice of whom specifically he will be from within that group...and then compromises in terms of 'superficial' qualities/traits, made both sub- and fully-consciously, will be made from there (e.g. a Minnie Mouse voice tolerated for the sake of an XL you-know-what! ) (only kidding, chaps) (not) (am) (not)... xoxo

What I mean to say is that while I feel it's something I need, if I were to meet someone that had a high pitched voice I would not immediately turn him down because of it. Yes I worded it wrong. Sheesh.

Sorry - wasn't picking on you, I in fact was trying to defend your 'hypocracy' by pointing out that it's inherent in everyone (myself included) and is in fact simply a non-connectivity between the conscious and sub-conscious mind.

Unless your 'sheesh' was directed at Prince Wotsit rather than myself? In which case - "yeah!! !... leave 'er alone you pedantic b*gger!" xoxo

PS: I'm orf to beddie-byes now (it's 1am in Blighty and I've got the dentist's tomorrow (they're going to wire my mouth shut!)). Talk about me whilst I'm gone, woncha

I have a high-pitched voice. Most people hearing me on the phone think I am a woman. Combine this with my fanatic make-up usage and you see why some people wrongly think I'm gay. I am proud of my feminin side though and despite being straight, I like androgyny, so my voice doesn't bother me at all.

I tend to think women are more shallow and superficial than men in these sorts of things. Due to biology, women get pregnent so the stakes are higher in choosing a mate.

Like always you are better off judging someone for who they are rather than choosing someone for shallow and superficial reasons.

I really think that men with high pitched voices are really masculine. Dawn