Why can't girls ignore my height, looks & appearance and just give me a chance?

[John John]

Please, I honestly believe this goes both ways. The guys complaining here, would you be willing to ignore women's looks & appearances & any physical issues and just give them a chance? Have you?

 

 

I'm not complaining. I'm just stating what I have seen and heard (both from personal experience and the experience of people I know well). I'm only a little on the short side personally and have never struggled with dating. And as I said, I do not believe that ALL women have height requirements/preferences, but many of them do.

 

As I also said, everyone is perfectly entitled to their dealbreakers. My main physical dealbreaker, for instance, would be if a woman were very heavy (but that's partially because I, perhaps unfairly, associate that with a less than healthy lifestyle). I have a healthy and active lifestyle and would like to attract the same. Height is one of those things that can't be changed, and unfortunately for the OP, preferences for this are shared among a great of women (whereas other things like hair color, body type etc might be less "universal")

 

Journey, I have definitely not ignored your comments. I know that you don't have a height preference. I mean there's another woman on here who actually prefers shorter men. But unfortunately you ladies aren't the norm, and OP is at a height that ,while surely not impossible, will be tough.

[journeynow]

I'm not complaining.

 

OK, maybe not, but you said "a good amount of men struggle with dating. Women definitely have more power in many areas" and I think you are talking about SOME women who meet certain physical standards. Not all women have this "power" in the dating world. Some remain ignored.

[TMifune]

Not me. But I think my comments have been overlooked.

 

You are correct, that statement was too general.....even if it's greater than 50% it doesn't mean all.

 

I'm sorry for lumping everyone together.

 

It is largely the ones who are vocal about a height requirement who defend the height requirement. I have no idea where this stands as a percentage but, on a small study size scale:

 

The study, “Does Height Matter? An Examination of Height Preferences in Romantic Coupling,” was conducted in two parts. Part one, which used data from the Yahoo! personal dating advertisements of 455 males (average height of 5 feet 8 inches and average age of 36 years) and 470 females (average height of 5 feet 4 inches and average age of 35 years) from throughout the U.S., found that 13.5 percent of the men wanted to date only women shorter than they are. In contrast, nearly half of the women – 48.9 percent – wanted to date only men taller than they are.

 

link removed

[TMifune]

And everyone is entitled to their preferences.

 

But see how quickly it gets muddied. Earlier you were saying it's basically a sub-conscious requirement and now we're back to calling it a preference. Preference is having a choice and saying "I prefer the red one". Requirements are having only an orange one to choose from and saying..."No, I'd rather do without than have orange."

 

And I think that's part of the problem....the women with the height requirement would actually rather be alone and complain all the time about how they can't find a good man than give a short guy a chance. Imagine how crappy that makes the short guy who overhears them feel?

[John John]

But see how quickly it gets muddied. Earlier you were saying it's basically a sub-conscious requirement and now we're back to calling it a preference. Preference is having a choice and saying "I prefer the red one". Requirements are having only an orange one to choose from and saying..."No, I'd rather do without than have orange."

 

I think if there were a continuum between "preference" and "Pre-requisite," I would wager that for the women who do care about height (which isn't all of them, but a great deal of them), many of them would place it (whether consciously or sub-consciously) closer to a "Pre-requisite" on the continuum.

[John John]

OK, maybe not, but you said "a good amount of men struggle with dating. Women definitely have more power in many areas" and I think you are talking about SOME women who meet certain physical standards. Not all women have this "power" in the dating world. Some remain ignored.

 

I wasn't talking about the power to reject. I was talking about more power in general (equal salaries and career opportunities, for instance). I agree that not all women have power like you refer to in the dating world.

[Rosti87]

I think you have a point about the change of women's roles and how that is negotiated within relationships. I don't know if height is a direct translation of that, but I can see why men today can feel 'lost' in this area in a general sense.

[Rosti87]

It think different people have different ways of loving/showing affection. I don't think there is a 'standard' way to select a mate or conduct a relationship. Some people are romantics and measure a relationship by how many times someone tells them they love them. Others could care less for that but want gifts or being taken care of. Still others see love when someone is doing things for them. There are all kinds/types of love and the criteria for choosing people are based upon those values.

 

Some people don't look for the 'soul' of others. Some do.

[John John]

I think you have a point about the change of women's roles and how that is negotiated within relationships. I don't know if height is a direct translation of that, but I can see why men today can feel 'lost' in this area in a general sense.

 

Agreed. I'm not sure if the obsession with height is a direct correlation of this, but it could be. The lines are being blurred between women and men. My cousin flat out said a few weeks ago "women are the new men." As powerful and as more equal as women have become, perhaps they are looking for that classic, tall, muscular cave man archetype to make them feel "feminine." Who knows?

 

It could just boil down to physical attraction in many cases too. But this just seems like so much more a dealbreaker when compared to other physical preferences that people might have (hence why this can almost seem a "pre-requisite" at times).

[Rosti87]

Agreed. I'm not sure if the obsession with height is a direct correlation of this, but it could be. The lines are being blurred between women and men. My cousin flat out said a few weeks ago "women are the new men." As powerful and as more equal as women have become, perhaps they are looking for that classic, tall, muscular cave man archetype to make them feel "feminine." Who knows?

 

It could just boil down to physical attraction in many cases too. But this just seems like so much more a dealbreaker when compared to other physical preferences that people might have (hence why this can almost seem a "pre-requisite" at times).

 

I think both genders are 'lost' in some ways. There appears to be a social change that is occurring and I think we are in the midst of that change. It has not been fully defined yet. I see this change because the last time I dated was a generation ago. Now that I'm out here I can see the change and that it is definitely in flux. Expectations between genders are all over the map.

 

I know women who have successful careers but still want to be catered to all the way to women with careers who carry their men and everything in between. I see men who want to be traditional with their approach to women to men that expect the women to step in and everything in between.

 

Twenty odd years ago this was not the case. It was a great deal more defined and obvious. It may take another decade before we really see how this period of change pans out.

[Hermes]

Sigh. How on earth did our parents and grandparents ever manage to meet and marry!

 

Never mind that....how did I meet and marry, lol I was introduced to him btw, in 3D, and, well yes, it did so happen he was 6 ft tall. So at least I got a look at him face to face and not on a computer screen.

I don't think anyone I know, family and otherwise, met their spouse/long term on a "dating site". Can't even imagine it anyhow.

[TMifune]

It think different people have different ways of loving/showing affection. I don't think there is a 'standard' way to select a mate or conduct a relationship. Some people are romantics and measure a relationship by how many times someone tells them they love them. Others could care less for that but want gifts or being taken care of. Still others see love when someone is doing things for them. There are all kinds/types of love and the criteria for choosing people are based upon those values.

 

Some people don't look for the 'soul' of others. Some do.

 

If soul carries religious overtones you could substitute character.

 

But for many looks is the gateway to giving someone an opportunity to show you what their "love style is" as well as showing them what yours is. Many are effectively saying "I'd rather not be loved than be loved by someone who doesn't meet my physical selection criteria." I don't see how calling that shallow is inaccurate. Isn't valuing people more for physical / superficial traits the definition of shallow?

 

If you break apart the 5 love languages right:

 

Acts of Service.....creepy if you're not on a romantic path.

Gifts.......creepy if you're not on a romantic path.

Words of Affirmation.....creepy if they express romantic feelings when you're not on the romantic path.

Physical touch.....creepy and inappropriate if you're not on the romantic path.

Quality Time......maybe acceptable when you're not on the romantic path.

 

But that means with the exception of quality time, you have to already be on the romantic path to start exploring the ways in which people show love, how they measure relationships. We're not really talking about why people stay with the people they've dated, we're talking about how people even choose to give another person a chance at dating.

 

Effectively we're talking about how to step foot on the romantic path, not where that path ultimately leads. Guys like OP can't even get on the path, so there's not a lot of point in talking about relationship styles until he can get a woman to be okay with him expressing desire to be on that path with them. Granted we only have his personal bias to go by, but what he's saying is he doesn't even have access to the road because women determine he's not viable based on his height.

[Rosti87]

Sigh. How on earth did our parents and grandparents ever manage to meet and marry!

 

Never mind that....how did I meet and marry, lol I was introduced to him btw, in 3D, and, well yes, it did so happen he was 6 ft tall. So at least I got a look at him face to face and not on a computer screen.

I don't think anyone I know, family and otherwise, met their spouse/long term on a "dating site". Can't even imagine it anyhow.

 

As I stated above the gender roles a generation ago and earlier were more defined (for better or worse). They are in flux now so it is a bit more challenging. People have to be a bit more responsible for their choices and views in order to be successful.

 

I think people building stronger personal values and knowing what they want and don't and adhering to then instead of holding onto a principle that may or may not be practical today is probably a better way to go. I think trying to impose possibly dated notions of gender or imposing 'newer' notions of gender on others who are not there yet is a waste of energy and produces nothing at the end of the day.

[Hermes]

Look. I've met and know so-called "good lookers" (can someone here maybe define "good-looking"? who are absolute jerks and berks, and who had the personality of a turnip, equally some good-lookers who are great people. Likewise, with persons who might not be deemed "good-lookers" (by whatever standard is the "norm", and if there IS a norm).

 

There are people, not necessarily "good-looking" (that word again!), but who have pzazz, sex-appeal and "it" in sackfuls. Something undefinable, but it sort of comes off them like waves when in their presence or when you meet them. One of these would knock the 6' 2" "handsome" air-head into oblivion....

[Rosti87]

I know this is off the track slightly, BUT.... The thing is did he have a better chance 20-odd years ago? 50 years ago? 100 years ago? I would fathom it may have been even more competitive back then because in previous generations particularly from the mid-20th century back to the beginning of man physical strength, financial success and power were MORE important than they are today. Forget looks as a criteria. Surviving was of the essence. Smaller men unless they had money or power probably stood less of a chance than today.

 

I think today despite its flaws it is probably easier for men on the fringes to get a mate than in the day when totally masculine traits were preferred. I doubt a guy who likes comics and plays video games for leisure would be appealing to women of the first half of the 20th century. They would think he was Johnny the Lad and pass. If a man was short and another man was taller and there was no other element to differentiate they would take the taller. Even more so back then because people were more in a survival mode.

 

On the same token I'm with MCJD that the gender expectations are skewed and expectations are just not compatible or matching as much as in the past.

[Hermes]

I know what you are saying, Rosti. But we can't generalize about earlier generations either. Example: my mother (a career woman) didn't marry till she was almost 34, and my father almost 40, both for first time. And she worked after their marriage, because she wanted to. (Geeze, they made a great looking couple in their wedding photo!!)

They weren't the exception either, in that other couples, including friends of theirs, followed the same pattern.

 

Muchas as it does nowadays, I suppose it depends on place, socio-economic factors......what do you think?

[Rosti87]

I know what you are saying, Rosti. But we can't generalize about earlier generations either. Example: my mother (a career woman) didn't marry till she was almost 34, and my father almost 40, both for first time. And she worked after their marriage, because she wanted to. (Geeze, they made a great looking couple in their wedding photo!!)

They weren't the exception either, in that other couples, including friends of theirs, followed the same pattern.

 

Muchas as it does nowadays, I suppose it depends on place, socio-economic factors......what do you think?

 

I'm not generalizing. That was the reality of history. There were less choices generations ago. It was a simpler time because there were less choices. I'm talking about HISTORY that has been documented for centuries.

 

Also socio economics does play into this. The American middle class did not become prolific until the mid to late 60's. Before that most people had to hustle. Their whole lives. They chose mates based on more physical aspects than abstract ones because it was a matter of living or not living.

[Hermes]

No argument here, Rosti.

 

Although if there are more "choices" now, it certainly doesn't seem to have improved matters much lol.

 

Also, I am not in America, and not all that familiar with American history. Is every single American family in the history books, with details of how s/he met and/or married the spouse? I dare say there were differences in how encounters and meetings took place.

[TMifune]

Their whole lives. They chose mates based on more physical aspects than abstract ones because it was a matter of living or not living.

 

That might be true in the 30's and 40's, but for most of human history marriages were arranged to create family alliances. Women were valued for their looks, or sometimes for a particular skill, while men were valued for their ability to provide necessities for the woman in question. In more desperate cases men were valued for their ability to "take a daughter off the parents' hands". (Think Pride and Prejudice).

 

I do agree with you that gender roles seem to be in flux. Worse there often seems to be a complete schism between what people say they want and what their behaviors would indicate they want.

[Hermes]

TM. Well not in my family they weren't - arranged, I mean.

 

Let's even go back to my grand-parents. My grandmothers (actually both grand-mothers) married the man of their choice, and by all accounts were most adamant about it! It had to be "him" and no other, a love match. In both cases both ladies did not marry men from within their immediate locality.

 

Certainly, some match-making went on, and "introductions", probably the generations ago version of OLD. Heh heh.

[Helpexpressme]

Well mate, maybe your not marketing yourself to your full potential. If u can't get chicks on height or looks u must sell yourself on your personality.

[Rosti87]

No argument here, Rosti.

 

Although if there are more "choices" now, it certainly doesn't seem to have improved matters much lol.

 

Also, I am not in America, and not all that familiar with American history. Is every single American family in the history books, with details of how s/he met and/or married the spouse? I dare say there were differences in how encounters and meetings took place.

 

There is an old adage "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."? My mother told me that there is power in understanding your history and the DYNAMICS of it. How it affected the people of the tine and how it influences the future. I'm speaking in social dynamics, not literally, house by house. There were realities that people have to deal with in every era of society. The reality is that the middle class as we know it today is fairly recent and all these choices in life have not been for the many (as opposed to the privileged) until the last 20 to 30 years.

 

The digital age is still in its infancy and in flux. People don't know what to do with all their choices. Some are unrealistic (thinking they can be as picky as they want) and others are holding onto the past and applying them to the present and having expectations around it. Everyone is all over the place and many people are unhappy as a result.

 

If you think I'm generalizing then so be it. But that is certainly not my intent. I simply am trying to encourage people to think outside their boxes a bit and see that we are all party to this in some ways and that some of us have not come to terms with the changes in our society yet. I think we are all to hard on each other.

[Hermes]

As I say Rosti, I am not here to argue. I think I have a reasonable understanding of history, but as I remarked, not of American history. I'll have to brush up on that!

 

Certainly in some socio-economic groups there was hardship in the past - and still even in the present day.

 

I agree with you fully that an awful lot of people have incredibly unrealistic expectations, all too many don't even know WHO they are themselves, let alone work out who someone else they meet is. I wonder do they really have "choices" at all, even though they might think they do, when in reality they are being led by the noses by whatever digital wonder is the flavour of the month. I fear that individualism, the ability to think for oneself, is in all too many cases, floundering.

[Rosti87]

As I say Rosti, I am not here to argue. I think I have a reasonable understanding of history, but as I remarked, not of American history. I'll have to brush up on that!

 

Certainly in some socio-economic groups there was hardship in the past - and still even in the present day.

 

I agree with you fully that an awful lot of people have incredibly unrealistic expectations, all too many don't even know WHO they are themselves, let alone work out who someone else they meet is. I wonder do they really have "choices" at all, even though they might think they do, when in reality they are being led by the noses by whatever digital wonder is the flavour of the month. I fear that individualism, the ability to think for oneself, is in all too many cases, floundering.

 

I think in America individualism came quite a few generations before most European cultures. So they are more into self determination and choices than maybe other cultures. Most Americans expect to have choices these days. The digital age has merely magnified it. It has also helped to confuse the expectations as well. Thus people on here that feel that looks are used too much in screening people when I think that may have always existed its just that the digital age has merely amplified it to 11.

 

I agree with you that people need to know themselves well. Even more so now than in the past or these dating tools whatever they are will squirrel them to death. There is so much to distract people from working on who they are first before they start reaching out to others looking for whatever.

[Hermes]

Oh, we all like to have choices, Rosti. I assure you. And always have. We Europeans are an individualistic bunch!

 

The question is: a choice between which and what.

 

Sifting through internet photos as if shuffling a deck of cards.....sounds obsessive to me. Also, the photos may not even a) be real, as in, of the person him or herself, and b) probably air-brushed and doctored. L.

 

Anyhow, I would still prefer to take my chances in 3D. Always did.