ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 29th January 2019, 06:00 PM   #361
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,052
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
Generally, anything relating to children brings out tons of toxic femininity. The mom groups on Facebook are infamous. And heaven forbid you are a woman over 30 who hasn't popped out a kid. People often say that men have to prove masculinity more than women have to prove femininity, but I think this is a key counterargument.
Yes. I mentioned these people in one of the other threads about toxic masculinity and toxic femininity.



Quote:
A woman's worth is derived from appreciation from others. So we get the beauty industry, facetuning, body image issues, Instagram and social media obsession, etc. And also cheating and other self-destructive acts in order to get appreciation.
It's almost funny that the okcupid "rightswipe" data on how women act on dating apps was being brought up earlier to "prove" that women actually care about looks as much as men, when most women on the dating apps aren't even using them to try to find someone to hook up with at all, but are using it as way to validate their own sense of worth.
https://www.iol.co.za/lifestyle/love...dence-15098476

Quote:
But it appears that many women who use them are not actually hoping to find a date.

Instead, they use apps such as Tinder simply to boost their self-esteem, research suggests - proving to themselves that men find them attractive without intending to ever meet their potential suitors.
Quote:
Asked their motivation for using them, women rated "wanting to feel good" around 25 percent more highly than "when desiring sex" and "when wanting a committed relationship".

For men, the most popular reason was "when desiring sex".
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 06:08 PM   #362
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by Magrat View Post
I have not seen in any way this be established as a fact. It is an opinion masquerading as fact. furthermore, if it is a "fact" that women are lying to themselves about the "fact" they've settled for someone they didn't really want, how on earth could you prove that in a statistical manner? It is unprovable and very far from being an "observed fact", unpleasant or not.
If I may make a minor interjection.
"Settling" for someone, in the context of this discussion, does not necessarily mean "settling for someone you don't really want".
I am head over heels for my SO, but when I was first getting to know her There were women (most likely unattainable to me) whom I would have passed her up for.
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 06:08 PM   #363
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,052
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
I am highly, highly dubious of height standard apologetics (that is, women's height requirements are somehow more real or valid than other dating/attraction criteria). A man dating a woman who is heavier than he is makes the man feel less physically masculine, no?
I guess that would be true to some extent, too, although if the girl is really short and the guy really tall, his tallness would often "make up for" her plumpness in her mind, I'd imagine.

Is there any research on incidence of anorexia nervosa by height that you know of? If tall girls feel the pressure to be extrasuperskinny more than short girls, I think that would be telling.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 06:17 PM   #364
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,052
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
If I may make a minor interjection.
"Settling" for someone, in the context of this discussion, does not necessarily mean "settling for someone you don't really want".
No, the person who brought up the settling thing was saying exactly that.

He was talking about this theory:

Quote:
Hypergamy
A term borrowed from biology used to describe the phenomenon of females mating with males of higher status. MRAs and incels apply it to humans, arguing that women attempt to find men who are higher status than themselves. This gives birth to what they call the 80:20 rule: that the top 20% of men are being competed for by the top 80% of women, and the bottom 80% of men are competing for the bottom 20% of women. They back this up with evidence of various kinds, for example this "study on the sexual market of Tinder", where the author uses a small number of interviews conducted over Tinder to indicate the rate at which women swipe right on men.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 06:25 PM   #365
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
No, the person who brought up the settling thing was saying exactly that.

He was talking about this theory:
Not getting ones' first choice (even first several choices) does not necessarily mean that what one ends up with is "unwanted". I don't think the language of the post indicates otherwise.

Further, WRT your links that discuss women's' tinder habits as being about boosting their own egos. Why is swiping right (or left, not really certain) on attractive men more of an ego boost than doing the same for less attractive ones if appearance is not considered as the primary factor WRT status?
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.

Last edited by Distracted1; 29th January 2019 at 06:29 PM.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 06:28 PM   #366
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 15,025
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I guess that would be true to some extent, too, although if the girl is really short and the guy really tall, his tallness would often "make up for" her plumpness in her mind, I'd imagine.

Is there any research on incidence of anorexia nervosa by height that you know of? If tall girls feel the pressure to be extrasuperskinny more than short girls, I think that would be telling.
Generally, it is hard to say because most research shows shorter women have a higher incidence, but malnutrition from anorexia is a known causal factor. I did find one study that tried to control for onset and found there was still a short stature bias:

Quote:
This is the first study, to our knowledge, to explore the relationship between height and ED diagnosis in a large cohort of female subjects. This study found a significant relationship between the risk of having an ED, especially AN, and low stature. This relationship can be explained in three different ways: (a) the malnutrition associated with ED could be a cause of low stature; (b) having a low stature could increase the risk of developing an ED; c) low stature and ED could share one or more genetic or environmental risk factors.

In the previous studies, based on small, not controlled samples of early-onset AN, the first hypothesis is the most common.14–16 The present study confirmed that in AN cases with onset before the age of 16, an impairment of stature due to malnutrition can occur. Furthermore, the impairment is a direct function of the amount of weight loss and age of onset of AN. However, it is noteworthy that, when participants with early onset were excluded, the relationship between low height and AN was still significant. The effects of malnutrition after the age of 16 can have only a very marginal effect on stature, as demonstrated by the absence of correlation between stature and lowest BMI in this group.

For this reason, it is important to consider the role of the other two hypotheses.13 In general, short stature can be considered a condition of social disadvantage. Shorter individuals seem to be more likely to be in a low social class as adults.18 This hypothesis is unlikely to be satisfactory for ED, because low social class is not considered a risk factor for the development of these disorders.17 However, short stature could have an effect on body image and body weight, causing a greater use of hypocaloric diets and thus increasing the risk of developing an ED. In addition, short children have been described as more at risk of discrimination and stigmatization,18,19 increasing the risk of low self-esteem during adolescence. Receiving critical comments about weight/shape and low self-esteem are both considered risk factors for the development of ED.20

Finally, the third hypothesis is that other genetic and/or environmental factors may affect both the risk of developing an ED and that of having a low stature. Genes that have an effect on height might be located near genes that impact psychological health: this might determine some association between short stature and psychiatric illness. Many environmental factors may have an effect on growth (1) and, at the same time, increase the risk of developing a psychiatric illness (2): they include nutritional factors, psychological trauma, and stress in childhood and/or familial difficulties.21 Although the determination of height is multifactorial, adult stature is an indirect—but stable—index of fetal, infant, and childhood exposures.7 Among the environmental exposures, those linked to the prenatal period might be implicated in the relationship between psychiatric disorders and short stature.4,7 This is confirmed by the significant relationship between perinatal complications and adult height we have found in a subsample of subjects. According to some authors,7,22 adult height can be considered a proxy measure for insufficient fetal growth when it is possible to control for relatives’ height, parity, gestational age, and social factors. Although we cannot establish whether perinatal complications are the direct cause of low stature in ED, our findings might suggest that the higher prevalence of perinatal complications in ED in comparison to control subjects12 could explain, at least partially, the differences in height. Furthermore, perinatal factors are considered significant predictors of age at menarche,9 which has a significant effect on stature in all the diagnostic groups we studied and is considered a risk factor for the development of BN.20


Linky.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 06:28 PM   #367
Magrat
Mrs. Rincewind
 
Magrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Lancre Kingdom/Adirondack Mountain Region, NY
Posts: 4,181
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Y'all crazy. Short guys are hot!
I'm 5'9" and I approve this message.
__________________
Non ergo nothi tere vos usque.

Magrat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 06:34 PM   #368
Magrat
Mrs. Rincewind
 
Magrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Lancre Kingdom/Adirondack Mountain Region, NY
Posts: 4,181
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
If I may make a minor interjection.
"Settling" for someone, in the context of this discussion, does not necessarily mean "settling for someone you don't really want".
I am head over heels for my SO, but when I was first getting to know her There were women (most likely unattainable to me) whom I would have passed her up for.
I don't think that falls under "settling" so much as "satisfied". Like, if I want tacos and I go out seeking them, but I'm too hungry/broke/tired to get to Chipotle, I stop at Taco Bell. I settle for lava butt because reasons. But if I want tacos and I go to Chipotle, I'm not settling, I'm getting what I wanted, even though I could have stopped at Taco Bell and didn't.

Anthony Hopkins himself could have proposed to me I would haven taken my husband because my husband is 100% the most perfect being on Earth. That's not settling, not on my side for sure.
__________________
Non ergo nothi tere vos usque.

Magrat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 06:40 PM   #369
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,052
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
Generally, it is hard to say because most research shows shorter women have a higher incidence, but malnutrition from anorexia is a known causal factor. I did find one study that tried to control for onset and found there was still a short stature bias:



Linky.
Interesting, and I guess I don't know, then. Anecdotally, I know of several couples where the girl is shorter and plumper, and the guy taller and thinner to a significant degree. I can't think of any where the girl is both plumper and taller.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 06:40 PM   #370
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by Magrat View Post
I don't think that falls under "settling" so much as "satisfied". Like, if I want tacos and I go out seeking them, but I'm too hungry/broke/tired to get to Chipotle, I stop at Taco Bell. I settle for lava butt because reasons. But if I want tacos and I go to Chipotle, I'm not settling, I'm getting what I wanted, even though I could have stopped at Taco Bell and didn't.

Anthony Hopkins himself could have proposed to me I would haven taken my husband because my husband is 100% the most perfect being on Earth. That's not settling, not on my side for sure.
Your husband is on this forum,no ?
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.

Last edited by Distracted1; 29th January 2019 at 06:43 PM.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 06:44 PM   #371
Magrat
Mrs. Rincewind
 
Magrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Lancre Kingdom/Adirondack Mountain Region, NY
Posts: 4,181
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
Your husband is on this forum,no ?
Yea but he knows I think he's perfect. He replies in his sexy accent that he isn't
__________________
Non ergo nothi tere vos usque.

Magrat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 06:45 PM   #372
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,052
Originally Posted by Magrat View Post
I'm 5'9" and I approve this message.
I'm not saying short guys aren't hot! I'm only saying that whenever I dated guys shorter than me, it always made me wish I was shorter, even more than I normally wished I was shorter.

I was just a teenager back then, tho, and was always plagued by all the over-the-top insecurities that accompany teenagerdom.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 07:12 PM   #373
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,711
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
The height thing is real, but it's completely different from all the other metrics that comprise "attractiveness". It (very often) makes the woman feel less physically feminine (part of "beautiful") herself when she's with a guy who's shorter than her. If the same girl were only 5'1" herself, she'd quite possibly find that same 5'4" man super desirable.
Uh-huh. That one's completely different because it's the one you're consciously aware of. It's almost funny.

While the vast majority of heterosexual women prefer a man at least as tall as themselves, a lot of relatively short women have a fixed height standard (e.g., at least six foot). This is not to say they're good at enforcing it, however, because someone five feet tall might struggle to tell the difference between 5'10" and 6', so often it's based on feeling. Since taller men are in more demand, which shorter women can more rigorously enforce a height standard? The ones who are physically attractive.

Quote:
It's almost funny that the okcupid "rightswipe" data on how women act on dating apps was being brought up earlier to "prove" that women actually care about looks as much as men, when most women on the dating apps aren't even using them to try to find someone to hook up with at all, but are using it as way to validate their own sense of worth.
https://www.iol.co.za/lifestyle/love...dence-15098476
So you're not shocked -- shocked -- that women seek validation by matching with physically attractive men rather than guys with "10/10" personalities? But why...

There are all these "uberhunks" who are feeling lonely while guys with fantastic personalities are in satisfying long-term relationships. (By the way, what's the number one thing Trump supporters report liking about the man? Yes, his personality.)
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 07:18 PM   #374
Magrat
Mrs. Rincewind
 
Magrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Lancre Kingdom/Adirondack Mountain Region, NY
Posts: 4,181
I read Cain's post through several times but all I got from it was:

__________________
Non ergo nothi tere vos usque.


Last edited by Magrat; 29th January 2019 at 07:19 PM.
Magrat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 07:27 PM   #375
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,052
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
While the vast majority of heterosexual women prefer a man at least as tall as themselves, a lot of relatively short women have a fixed height standard (e.g., at least six foot).
Where are you getting this from, that there are "a lot" of women around 5'3" (or whatever) who require a dude to be at least 6'?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.

Last edited by kellyb; 29th January 2019 at 07:48 PM. Reason: You knew what I meant, dude. lol
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 07:31 PM   #376
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,052
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
So you're not shocked -- shocked -- that women seek validation by matching with physically attractive men rather than guys with "10/10" personalities? But why...
I'd imagine the validation they're seeking when doing that is validation that they're pretty, and a guy who is objectively "very handsome" wanting to connect with them seems to them like the surest verification that they have it going on in the looks department.

Men want pretty. Women want to be pretty.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 07:35 PM   #377
Distracted1
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I'd imagine the validation they're seeking when doing that is validation that they're pretty, and a guy who is objectively "very handsome" wanting to connect with them seems to them like the surest verification that they have it going on in the looks department.

Men want pretty. Women want to be pretty.
Are less than "very handsome" men unable to recognize that they are pretty?
__________________
The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.
Distracted1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 07:38 PM   #378
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,711
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Where are you getting this from, that there are "a lot" of women around 5'3" (or whatever) who require a dude to be at least 6"?
Yes. At least six inches.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.

Last edited by Cain; 29th January 2019 at 07:40 PM.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 07:39 PM   #379
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,711
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I'd imagine the validation they're seeking when doing that is validation that they're pretty, and a guy who is objectively "very handsome" wanting to connect with them seems to them like the surest verification that they have it going on in the looks department.

Men want pretty. Women want to be pretty.
Well, now you're sort of getting it.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 07:46 PM   #380
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,052
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Yes. At least six inches.
Let me ask again with different words.

What is your source for these figures? Aka, "Can I get a link?"
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 08:07 PM   #381
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 15,025
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Interesting, and I guess I don't know, then. Anecdotally, I know of several couples where the girl is shorter and plumper, and the guy taller and thinner to a significant degree. I can't think of any where the girl is both plumper and taller.
Well, anorexia is an extreme case. I don't have any data that cross tabs BMI and height. For general weight, I would hazard a guess that couples share food and meals. At the same activity level, eating 2500 calories would be maintenance for a 6'2 male at 175 lbs and a BMI 22.5, but for a 5'4 woman it would be maintenance for 245 lbs and a BMI of 42.1.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 08:23 PM   #382
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,052
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
Well, anorexia is an extreme case. I don't have any data that cross tabs BMI and height. For general weight, I would hazard a guess that couples share food and meals. At the same activity level, eating 2500 calories would be maintenance for a 6'2 male at 175 lbs and a BMI 22.5, but for a 5'4 woman it would be maintenance for 245 lbs and a BMI of 42.1.
I was thinking of the way they looked when they first got together.

I wish I could find an album of random, real newlywed couples. LOL
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 08:24 PM   #383
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 7,814
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
While the vast majority of heterosexual women prefer a man at least as tall as themselves, a lot of relatively short women have a fixed height standard (e.g., at least six foot).
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Where are you getting this from, that there are "a lot" of women around 5'3" (or whatever) who require a dude to be at least 6'?
"e.g." means "for example". That was an example of a height requirement. Not all height requirements would necessarily be the same. The assertion was only that such requirements exist, not that they must all be any particular number.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 08:35 PM   #384
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,052
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
"e.g." means "for example". That was an example of a height requirement. Not all height requirements would necessarily be the same. The assertion was only that such requirements exist, not that they must all be any particular number.
The way it was worded implied that the subset of "relatively short women" who "have a fixed height standard" was somehow not just redundant and restating the fact that "the majority of heterosexual women prefer a man at least as tall as themselves".
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 08:41 PM   #385
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 7,814
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
The way it was worded implied that the subset of "relatively short women" who "have a fixed height standard" was somehow not just redundant and restating the fact that "the majority of heterosexual women prefer a man at least as tall as themselves".
In other words, that the minimum is typically not the woman's own height but something higher than that? Yes, but that still doesn't specify how big that gap must be as you acted like it did.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 08:45 PM   #386
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,052
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
In other words, that the minimum is typically not the woman's own height but something higher than that? Yes, but that still doesn't specify how big that gap must be as you acted like it did.
The only data on that stuff which I know of isn't very clear. The overall impression I got looking at it was that women generally strongly prefer a man at least her own height, kinda prefer one at least "a bit" taller, and after that it's hard to say.

eta:
and I didn't "act like" anything. Cain's the one who started alluding to specifics such as "relatively short women" and "6 feet tall, for example". I was asking for his source.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.

Last edited by kellyb; 29th January 2019 at 08:47 PM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 09:33 PM   #387
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 15,025
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I was thinking of the way they looked when they first got together.

I wish I could find an album of random, real newlywed couples. LOL
I've found some data. It is 1992-2011 and from England, but it's the closest I've found to the question.

Quote:
Main finding of this study
Height is inversely associated with BMI in adults. This relationship is larger in women and has generally increased with age. We established this with data from the Health Surveys for England (1992–2011) and analysis of the relationship between BMI and height for adults (aged 16–75) using regressions with log(weight) as the response and log(height) as the predictor, with age, gender and calendar time as additional predictors, allowing for interactions and non-linear terms, and exploring the influence of smoking and other potential confounders.

What is already known on this topic
BMI is a popular approximation of body fatness, purporting to correct for the relationship between weight and height. However, in pre-pubertal children, there is a positive association between BMI and height (taller = higher BMI),15,16 while in adults, there is a negative association between BMI and height, particularly in women.14 The relationship between BMI and height has been studied in detail in children;20–23 for adults, it is not clear how the BMI–height association relates to age, or whether it has changed over time.
Linky.

So taking any (relative to their own sex) taller man and shorter woman, odds are the man will be thinner. The article doesn't discuss cause, but I would still guess it is socially normalized portion sizes.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 10:00 PM   #388
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,052
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
I've found some data. It is 1992-2011 and from England, but it's the closest I've found to the question.



Linky.

So taking any (relative to their own sex) taller man and shorter woman, odds are the man will be thinner. The article doesn't discuss cause, but I would still guess it is socially normalized portion sizes.
Interesting, and thanks!
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 10:08 PM   #389
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,711
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Let me ask again with different words.

What is your source for these figures? Aka, "Can I get a link?"
As noted, I'm giving examples, not figures. The vast majority of women strongly prefer men taller than themselves, but they also prefer tall men in general. There's a problem, however: Not everyone can have a tall man (at least not all the time). That's the nature of positional goods.

You can look at the search criteria women enter into dating sites. You can also find out what short men have to say about even shorter girls (but brace yourself). Maybe you've overheard a tall woman watch a petite female with a towering man and sigh, "They took another one off the market. I understand dating someone taller, but she doesn't need someone that tall..."

I do recall a study where women tended to be happiest when their male partner was much taller. Here's a link that mentions it:

Quote:
Men were most satisfied with women slightly shorter than them (about 3 in.), but women were most satisfied when they were much shorter than their male partners (about 8 in.).
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...-want-tall-men

This is not true for beauty though. The most stable relationships feature women who are slightly prettier than their husbands. Womp, womp, sorry "uberhunk." You lose again.

And the point is not that being good looking is the be-all-end-all. It's not. Women (generally) want to be desired by a desirable man. A famously talented and diminutive musician can attract a lot of female attention. But that's because he's famous.

In other news, I just saw an article about people complaining Ted Bundy/Zach short guy Efron is too sexy in a new movie titled, Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile. I'm confused. How could women find a serial killer sexy? He raped and murdered women...
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 10:14 PM   #390
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,711
Originally Posted by Magrat View Post
I read Cain's post through several times but all I got from it was:

https://media.giphy.com/media/19tv1q...Chn/200w_d.gif
I feel slightly embarrassed. For you.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2019, 11:00 PM   #391
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,093
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
... I'm claiming women are more similar to men than often assumed. Appearance is important to men, and it's important to women. ...
You're preaching to the choir.

Originally Posted by Cain View Post
...Instead of confronting this point, critics are reduced to attempting to frame me as suggesting women are scheming bitchez...
No. The critics are actually wondering where you're going with this thread since you kicked it off with toxic femininity and have now decided (apparently) to talk about how male and females are alike.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2019, 06:48 AM   #392
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 7,814
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
As noted, I'm giving examples, not figures. The vast majority of women strongly prefer men taller than themselves, but they also prefer tall men in general... You can look at the search criteria women enter into dating sites...
Back when those sites were a new thing and they still allowed browsing profiles without creating a new profile of your own just to browse, I know they also included height parameters you could put in for what kind of person you're looking for. I don't know that they still do or don't anymore, now that all you can see without signing up is a sign-up page.

What made this particularly interesting was that it wasn't just a single number for a central target height; it was two numbers, for the shortest and tallest you could imagine accepting. I never found even one women whose minimum was was either blank, or filled in with any height less than her own plus 3". Most demanded a larger gap than that, for an average that seemed to be around 5". The largest gap I saw was 13". Remember, this isn't the maximum or even some kind of medium target point; it's the minimum. The maximums were often not even filled in, but those that were filled in always equated to a gap of over a foot, sometimes closer to two. And another pattern was also clear: the shorter they were, the bigger gap they demanded. Some even commented on exactly that relationship in their own text, saying things like "I'm short so I want someone tall" (no explaining the cause & effect, just throwing it out like that cause & effect is obviously to be expected) and "just because I'm short doesn't mean I want a short guy". So the way the standards were determined was apparently how a hypothetical match's height would compare with both her own and other men's; no matter how short she is, she can't have someone whose height is too close to hers if that means also being less than too many other men's.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2019, 07:08 AM   #393
Lithrael
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,463
Weird. I don’t know where that comes from. I’m 5’2 and when I noticed my guy (don’t know how tall he was but a bit taller than me) was hella short in a crowd, it just made me think, “my gosh! How short am I? I must be pocket sized!”

I love meeting people shorter than me cause it doesn’t happen very often. Lol

Not doubting your stats, just personally baffled.
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2019, 07:42 AM   #394
Wirelight
Thinker
 
Wirelight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 234
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Back when those sites were a new thing and they still allowed browsing profiles without creating a new profile of your own just to browse, I know they also included height parameters you could put in for what kind of person you're looking for. I don't know that they still do or don't anymore, now that all you can see without signing up is a sign-up page.
And it was perfectly ok for this to happen. Where was the male equivalent? You know, a "weight-o-meter"? Didn't exist because that would just be cruel. Poor empowered cupcakes.

Just one of the hundreds of double standards that women & feminism bring to the table.

Last edited by Wirelight; 30th January 2019 at 07:43 AM.
Wirelight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2019, 08:18 AM   #395
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,289
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Anecdotally, I know of several couples where the girl is shorter and plumper, and the guy taller and thinner to a significant degree. I can't think of any where the girl is both plumper and taller.

I'm betting this is due more to evolution than to any social bias/convention. Women in general are shorter than men, and also tend to have a higher percentage of body fat (better long-term endurance, and fat is correlated to fertility).

That said, I've dated women fairly close to that. I"m a tall-ish biological male, 6', so it's hard to find women taller than I am (have only personally met three in my entire life that I can recall), but I've dated two women who were quite tall, only one inch shorter than me, and both of them were larger (I was always a skinny bastard), one of them rather substantially so.

I also know at least two hetero couples (well, one may no longer be a couple, it's been a while) where the woman was taller than the man, in both cases they were both about the same degree of plump. And both couples are Jewish, oddly enough.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2019, 08:35 AM   #396
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,289
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
Weird. I don’t know where that comes from. I’m 5’2 and when I noticed my guy (don’t know how tall he was but a bit taller than me) was hella short in a crowd, it just made me think, “my gosh! How short am I? I must be pocket sized!”

I love meeting people shorter than me cause it doesn’t happen very often. Lol

Not doubting your stats, just personally baffled.

There's definitely a cultural element to it; which can vary considerably. When I was still young and dating, I ended up dating a lot of very short women. I wasn't conventionally very "handsome", and certainly wasn't a big tan beefy hunk. I was a tall, pale, skinny-bordering-on-emaciated geek (6' 140lbs); which in the Goth scene seems to be considered the ideal of dark beauty for men (being a femme-leaning transperson definitely did not hurt at all either). Not much attention from women in mainstream culture, but a quite a bit from Goth girls of all sizes and shapes.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2019, 08:41 AM   #397
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 15,289
Originally Posted by Wirelight View Post
And it was perfectly ok for this to happen. Where was the male equivalent? You know, a "weight-o-meter"? Didn't exist because that would just be cruel. Poor empowered cupcakes.

Just one of the hundreds of double standards that women & feminism bring to the table.

Wow, that simultaneously managed to be profoundly wrong, profoundly ignorant, profoundly sexist, and profoundly stupid all at the same time.

In fact, on all the dating sites I checked out back in the day, there was definitely a "build" body-size filter that applied to women (and often but not always to men). They didn't generally have the same numerical specificity that height did (although I think there was one, if I recall correctly); but were some variation of "petite/athletic/average/above-average/plus-sized" categories.

You really should make a bit of effort to actually learn something before spouting off, you'll sound less ridiculous if you do.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2019, 08:50 AM   #398
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,711
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
You're preaching to the choir.

No. The critics are actually wondering where you're going with this thread since you kicked it off with toxic femininity and have now decided (apparently) to talk about how male and females are alike.
Threads drift. I can't say I'm responsible for initiating it.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2019, 08:52 AM   #399
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,052
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
I'm betting this is due more to evolution than to any social bias/convention. Women in general are shorter than men, and also tend to have a higher percentage of body fat (better long-term endurance, and fat is correlated to fertility).
I think short girls just also have a bit more leeway with being able to still be "really cute" with considerably more meat on their bones.

A tall girl has to be really thin to be any sort of "dainty".
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2019, 09:09 AM   #400
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,711
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Back when those sites were a new thing and they still allowed browsing profiles without creating a new profile of your own just to browse, I know they also included height parameters you could put in for what kind of person you're looking for. I don't know that they still do or don't anymore, now that all you can see without signing up is a sign-up page.

What made this particularly interesting was that it wasn't just a single number for a central target height; it was two numbers, for the shortest and tallest you could imagine accepting. I never found even one women whose minimum was was either blank, or filled in with any height less than her own plus 3". Most demanded a larger gap than that, for an average that seemed to be around 5". The largest gap I saw was 13". Remember, this isn't the maximum or even some kind of medium target point; it's the minimum. The maximums were often not even filled in, but those that were filled in always equated to a gap of over a foot, sometimes closer to two. And another pattern was also clear: the shorter they were, the bigger gap they demanded. Some even commented on exactly that relationship in their own text, saying things like "I'm short so I want someone tall" (no explaining the cause & effect, just throwing it out like that cause & effect is obviously to be expected) and "just because I'm short doesn't mean I want a short guy". So the way the standards were determined was apparently how a hypothetical match's height would compare with both her own and other men's; no matter how short she is, she can't have someone whose height is too close to hers if that means also being less than too many other men's.
I remember this as well. I want to say it was Match.com, but perhaps that's mistaken. The site would allow a range. I recall a non-trivial percentage of women would enter 3'0" to 8'11" (the absolute minimum and maximum), but most, as you say, entered minimums several inches taller than themselves. What always stuck out to me is how oddly specific some women were. I understand a range of 6'0" to 7'0", but occasionally someone would set their upper limit to 6'8", and it's not like they themselves were 5'8". I always found it perplexing. You're 5'5", but you want date anyone over 6'8"? Is the real upper-limit 6'5", but you don't want to miss out on potentially great guys who are just a couple inches taller?

Someone posted a comic strip a few years ago of a woman being carried by a super-hero. She exclaims, "You can fly??"
He grins, "Yep."
"Wait a sec, how tall are you?"
"5'7""
"OK, put me down..."
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:24 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.