Why does height matter and should it?

[Terrywoodenpic]

Never forget to stand up for your woman. They love to be protected even from bad manners.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The tall man may have better luck with casual sex, but the very wealthy man will be better able to attract women looking for a relationship.

But even a tall or wealthy man must have other attractive qualities. I have been pursued by very wealthy men and have had no interest in them due to lack of physical attraction. For me there has to be both personality and attraction, but many women can 'become' physically attracted to a wealthy man.

I was listening to a podcast the other day - it was a panel Q & A following a lecture on the book "The Spirit Level". I don't have a direct link, but you can probably find it in iTunes or the like if you look under TVO Big Ideas.

One of the panelists - a psychologist whose name escapes me - mentioned something in a rather offhand way (since he was responding to a question about something else): in general, women tend to choose their mates "across" and "up" lines of status, while men tend to choose mates "across" and "down".

I don't know his support for this statement, since he quickly gave it and then moved on to something else, but I thought it might be relevant here.

 

[Songbird]

I was listening to a podcast the other day - it was a panel Q & A following a lecture on the book "The Spirit Level". I don't have a direct link, but you can probably find it in iTunes or the like if you look under TVO Big Ideas.

One of the panelists - a psychologist whose name escapes me - mentioned something in a rather offhand way (since he was responding to a question about something else): in general, women tend to choose their mates "across" and "up" lines of status, while men tend to choose mates "across" and "down".

I don't know his support for this statement, since he quickly gave it and then moved on to something else, but I thought it might be relevant here.

I've heard this too, and for the life of me I don't remember where. There was an article or interview talking about how men are often attracted to women of lower status, and he quoted the scenario of executives having affairs with their secretaries, nannies, etc. He expounded on the psychology or biology of it, but I can't remember what it entailed.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've heard this too, and for the life of me I don't remember where. There was an article or interview talking about how men are often attracted to women of lower status, and he quoted the scenario of executives having affairs with their secretaries, nannies, etc. He expounded on the psychology or biology of it, but I can't remember what it entailed.

Women of lower status would be easier to attract & impress.
Tis the low hanging fruit scenario.

 

[Songbird]

Women of lower status would be easier to attract & impress.
Tis the low hanging fruit scenario.

THAT'S why you like me.

 

[Revoltingest]

Revoltifarians are sometimes known as Lowstatusafarians.
There's no one we can look down upon.

 

[Acim]

There is hope for me yet.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm finding this discussion of female submissiveness interesting from the standpoint that several commentators seem to have decided that women are generally submissive creatures. But is it really as simple as they make it out to be?

For instance, a woman who submits to you in bed doesn't necessarily submit to you out of bed. And a woman who submits to you out of bed doesn't necessarily submit to you in all things. And a woman who submits to you in all things doesn't necessarily submit to anyone else. And even a woman who submits to everyone doesn't necessarily submit to everyone her entire life.

You can tell me what your rules are, but at 54, I've seen in life more exceptions to your rules than I've seen your rules.

 

[atanu]

I've been having sex since middle school, and I quickly learned that most women (not all, but most) enjoy being dominated to that extent. I only met one girl who didn't "mind" the behavior but found it a little funny. Granted there's different depths to how dominate one should be. I've been with women where I called them everything in the dictionary and left bruises on them and they wanted more. You have to read the other person.

Hey. Is it possible mis-read sometime and get Bobbitised?

 

[Mathematician]

I probably am drawn to women who prefer that type of encounter; I've had partners who much preferred other types of sex, and I enjoyed that too. I never, never initiate an action that will result in a bruise unless it's called for or the woman is doing the same to me.

But in general, my point was that a lot of women prefer to be, most of the time, submissive partners in sex. The man takes charge. I'm sorry that I'm bringing up sex; I just think most of what we find attractive results from sexual desires, which are tied to natural, beneficial properties.

 

[Penumbra]

I'm finding this discussion of female submissiveness interesting from the standpoint that several commentators seem to have decided that women are generally submissive creatures. But is it really as simple as they make it out to be?

For instance, a woman who submits to you in bed doesn't necessarily submit to you out of bed. And a woman who submits to you out of bed doesn't necessarily submit to you in all things. And a woman who submits to you in all things doesn't necessarily submit to anyone else. And even a woman who submits to everyone doesn't necessarily submit to everyone her entire life.

You can tell me what your rules are, but at 54, I've seen in life more exceptions to your rules than I've seen your rules.

That's pretty much how it works for me. I'm rather dominant and assertive in my day to day life, even compared to many males, but for me it doesn't apply to sexuality, and more often than not, I take on a more submissive role in that area. I'm not sure submissive is the right word, but it is close. It's not always the same, and sometimes we sort of switch a bit, but one way feels more towards our personal innate inclinations than the other. In the rest of life, I tend to have very specific goals and preferences, tend to be rather intentional in all things that I do, and more often than not, people in my life tend to conform more to my lifestyle than I conform to theirs. But with sexuality, I prefer not to take the lead most of the time, although I do set certain guidelines.

This isn't a sexuality forum so I won't say too much regarding that. Seems rather natural to me, though, as men are larger, stronger, harder, typically more assertive, might have a bigger part of their brain dedicated to pursuit of a female, more prone to observing and defending against threats, etc. While women on average are smaller, physically weaker, softer, and often have better capability to understand emotions and are sometimes more inclined towards being nurturing, and generally seem to play the role of attracting the male rather than pursuing him. I wouldn't be surprised if more often than not, men take a lead in bed, but there are certainly tons of exceptions.

I think in some areas of life, masculinity is sort of discouraged. A man sitting in a cubicle farm at work probably doesn't satisfy some his needs in the hunter-gatherer sense of the word. Certain things like sports or maintaining and protecting a house might touch on some of the roots, but maybe not enough. Depends on the guy, though.

Sexuality is a realm where people can have sort of fun with their views on masculinity and femininity, and where the differences (as they see and interpret them) can be celebrated. It's an area where I give him a lot of positive feedback and encouragement for his assertiveness, confidence, dominance, desire, passion, and general masculinity, along with sensitivity and compassion.

So I definitely think it's true that people can be and are dominant/submissive to different degrees in different parts of their lives.

 

[atanu]

I probably am drawn to women who prefer that type of encounter; I've had partners who much preferred other types of sex, and I enjoyed that too. I never, never initiate an action that will result in a bruise unless it's called for or the woman is doing the same to me.

But in general, my point was that a lot of women prefer to be, most of the time, submissive partners in sex. The man takes charge. I'm sorry that I'm bringing up sex; I just think most of what we find attractive results from sexual desires, which are tied to natural, beneficial properties.

That is a good post and I agree in general to the blue highlighted part -- but possibly from a different perspective.

 

[Acim]

I'm finding this discussion of female submissiveness interesting from the standpoint that several commentators seem to have decided that women are generally submissive creatures. But is it really as simple as they make it out to be?

As you can tell already, it is mostly a sexual thing, not a 'complete person' thing.

For instance, a woman who submits to you in bed doesn't necessarily submit to you out of bed. And a woman who submits to you out of bed doesn't necessarily submit to you in all things. And a woman who submits to you in all things doesn't necessarily submit to anyone else. And even a woman who submits to everyone doesn't necessarily submit to everyone her entire life.

Exactly and agreed. In many ways, it is sexier if the submissive one, in bed, isn't all around submissive.

You can tell me what your rules are, but at 54, I've seen in life more exceptions to your rules than I've seen your rules.

To me, the 'rule' is along the lines that while we have the energy that drives sexuality within us, that impulse isn't always originally a physical impulse. Many ways to put what I'm referencing, but within context of this thread, it is perhaps easier to keep it as simple as, impulse to simply 'be' with someone. Be yourself in relation to that tall, dark, and handsome someone. Even what they look like doesn't really compare to the drive to simply be who you are. But given years of 'training' to not be ourselves and to rely on physical senses to get by, we live in a world where 'cool people' (those in the know) have what appears like similar impulse and it is physical urge to burn some passion with person we are attracted to.

So, I don't think we are 'naturally' submissive to fellow humans, but is a role we are acting out, from not knowing any better. And it is a fun, sexy, generally harmless role with those who understand a thing or two about a thing or two.

 

[Kathryn]

I have all sorts of authority and power in my own life. Any submission that I offer in an intimate relationship is for mutual enjoyment and common goals.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm not sure submissive is the right word

Maybe you're looking for "surrender"?

 

[atanu]

As you can tell already, it is mostly a sexual thing, not a 'complete person' thing.

Exactly and agreed. In many ways, it is sexier if the submissive one, in bed, isn't all around submissive.

To me, the 'rule' is along the lines that while we have the energy that drives sexuality within us, that impulse isn't always originally a physical impulse. Many ways to put what I'm referencing, but within context of this thread, it is perhaps easier to keep it as simple as, impulse to simply 'be' with someone. Be yourself in relation to that tall, dark, and handsome someone. Even what they look like doesn't really compare to the drive to simply be who you are. But given years of 'training' to not be ourselves and to rely on physical senses to get by, we live in a world where 'cool people' (those in the know) have what appears like similar impulse and it is physical urge to burn some passion with person we are attracted to.

So, I don't think we are 'naturally' submissive to fellow humans, but is a role we are acting out, from not knowing any better. And it is a fun, sexy, generally harmless role with those who understand a thing or two about a thing or two.

I have felt that keeping up an ego is the most painful part of the existence. Most of our energies are wasted in maintenance of the status of the ego.

Men are more notoriously foolish here. Good relationships, I think, offer this opportunity to lower down guards and enjoy all possibilities, without having to maintain a facade. And women, I feel, being wiser, take this opportunity more than men.

It is said that men are born to surpass one another --- and that means (to me): killing each other off eventually. Women have the job of protecting the unseen. (No doubt, many women also think that that is a demeaning male chauvisnistic role assigned to them by male chauvinists). But if one carefully observes, one will find that women can put cooling balm on the bruised ego of men and also lead them to higher understanding.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Submission that isn't voluntary and in the context of mutually accepted complimentary roles is basically just abuse.

 

[dawny0826]

Generally speaking, women are attracted to a powerful mate- power represents security. Being enveloped in a hug by a man is a fantastic feeling- short and petite males aren't going to give that kind of protective hug unless their partner is proportionately tiny.

Having said that, being tall isn't a necessity in order to attract women. If a male is powerful in a different aspect, they can be very attractive. A very confident or intelligent short guy might be just as attractive as a tall guy.

I never used to care about the height of my mate, but my tastes change from time to time. These days I like a tall and buff(ish) guy- really masculine! (ie/ Alexander Skarsgard)
However, for years I much preferred the sweet geeky types (ie/ Elijah Wood)

But yes, tall is symbolic of power/security, and that power/security is what attracts girls. But height is only one characteristic that is symbolic of power, so a short guy just needs to find his own strength.

I don't equate height to "power" status at all and I never have. People are naturally attracted to certain characteristics and that's okay but height is just that to me...a physical characteristic. It's okay to prefer taller men but I can't personally see being attracted to someone taller or shorter for that matter, because they hold an air of more or less strength or power.

Physical compatibility is one thing of course and I know where you're coming from in terms of sense of security in a hug/embrace but I don't find men of less than average height to be any less capable of providing that.

I don't need a man's height to determine my security factor when I'm close to him. That comes from deeper connection.

 

[Kathryn]

It would be great if we evaluated people, including potential mates, by the content of their character but obviously that's far from the general rule.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Martin Luther King, Jr.

We can replace the words "the color of their skin" with "race, creed, religion, sex, age, sexual orientation, abilities and disabilities, and physical characteristics" and do a lot better, individually and as a society, than we do now.​