[MiXX]

^^

"girls are mentally lazy"

Ain't that the truth broda!!

Mixx

[Samseau]

(07-28-2011 11:18 AM)Moma Wrote:  

(07-28-2011 10:38 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

On a biological level for women, that would be a tall, strong looking man.

Height is a great deterrent in nature. How often does a giraffe get attacked?

This is debatable. If height were such an advantage for men, the planet of humans would be much taller as a result.


On the contrary, tall men are probably LESS likely to survive, for a variety of reasons:

1. Tall men are more likely to suffer health complications (i'm pretty sure this is true, and I should ask my doctor roommate why this is), require more food to survive, etc.
2. Tall men are easily singled out and attacked by other men (I bet this is the #1 reason men aren't tall)
3. In wars, being small is a genuine advantage, while being tall is a huge liability.


I think women prefer tall men because height, despite it's lower chances of survival, is still a major indicator of social status. And social status is what women are ultimately attracted to.

That's nonsense about health complications. Why would a tall man suffer more health complications? I've never heard that in my puff. I am talking about a man who is 6'2 here or maybe 6'1 not 7'8.
And being tall is not the same as being big. I know tall guys who eat like birds and then I know shorter guys who eat like trucks.
A guy 5'8 weighing 220 pounds of lean muscle will need more food than a 6'5 guy weighing 165 pounds of lean muscle.

It's not about social status. Height is intimidating. Put two men side by side with proportional bodies. The taller one will be more intimidating to attack than the shorter one.

Look at the evolution of man (if you believe in evolution). Men used to walk on all fours and began walking upright. It helps with foraging and finding food and it is also a deterrent to predators attacking something that is beyond eye level as opposed to something on eye level.

Again this is within reason. Being too tall can be a liability and being too short can also be a liability.

I haven't gotten a chance to discuss this with my roommate yet, but here are some preliminary findings:

Quote:

Shorter people of the same proportions as taller people have many physical advantages based on the laws of physics, and these advantages are supported by many researchers. Shorter people have faster reaction times, greater ability to accelerate body movements, stronger muscles in proportion to body weight, greater endurance, and the ability to rotate the body faster. They are also less likely to break bones in falling. As a consequence of these physical attributes, shorter people can excel as gymnasts, divers, skiers, martial artists, rock climbers, figure skaters, rodeo riders, soccer players and long distance runners. Within their weight classes they are excellent wrestlers, boxers, and weight lifters.
Shorter people are also less likely to require surgery for herniated spinal disks. In addition, shorter people are less likely to break a hip from falling. Another advantage of smaller people is that they are less likely to die in auto crashes. One study found that people weighing less than 132 pounds had the lowest risk of dying or suffering serious injuries compared to bigger people. Although height data weren't provided, it is known that height and weight tend to be correlated. Thus, lighter weight people are more likely to be shorter than heavier people. No adjustments for air bag deployment were made, although other studies have found them to negatively affect short people.

Quote:

An early paper illustrating the greater longevity of shorter people appeared in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization in 1992. Since then we have presented substantial findings showing that shorter, smaller people live longer. The reason for this is that bigger bodies have more cells and these cells are subject to replacement due to wear or damage. Hayflick pointed out many years ago that most human body cells have limited capacity for duplication. Since bigger people require a larger number of duplications to reach maturity, they have fewer potential cell doublings left to replace defective or dead cells. Thus, the functional capability of vital organs declines with advanced age because damaged cells can't be replaced. A new study also showed that oxidative damage to cells increases at a higher rate with increasing height; e.g., an 18% increase in height leads to an 83% increase in cellular damage. Current gerontological thinking is that oxidative damage leads to aging and death.
A few years ago, a comprehensive study of about 300 height and cancer papers, concluded that taller people had a 20 to 60% higher incidence of cancer compared to shorter people. More recently, breast, testicular, and prostate cancer studies found taller women and men suffered from substantially higher cancer rates.
Short people are not immune to death from heart disease, cancer, and other causes. Failure to control diet, physical inactivity, overweight, depression, and anger can lead to serious health problems. Therefore, poor health and mental practices can lead to reduced longevity for people of any height.

And, like I suspected about war being unfavorable for men, straight from Roosh's blog post today,

Quote:

“Survival often ran counter to expectation. The first to die were generally those who had been large and powerfully built. The small thin man always stood the best chances.”

This makes sense to me. Smaller men are far more brutal killers.

[Mighty Mouse]

(07-28-2011 09:57 AM)MiXX Wrote:  

Ha! Yup, that's exactly the order of importance for me on a woman. Funny how men and women are EXTREME OPPOSITES when it comes to height: women see it as extreme high value, while men see it as low value and could care less.

Shakira is only 4'11 in height (1.5m). But I don't think that would stop any man from hittin' it!

While I respect the preference of other men, height in a women is a major turn-on for me.

In order to get a 8/10 (or better) on my personal looks scale, she must be about 5ft9/175 at least. Three out of the last four girls I had dates with were in the 5ft10/5ft11 (177-180) range (myself being 5ft10/178). I LOVE long legs. So elegant!

I would not hit on Shakira, because I don't find her desireable on an erotic level (for many reasons: face, body type, height etc.).

Just my personal taste. I respect it when other guys have a different taste.

I don't care about a girl's ass as long as this part of her body isn't fat.

[Excelsior]

(07-30-2011 06:15 AM)Mighty Mouse Wrote:  

While I respect the preference of other men, height in a women is a major turn-on for me.

In order to get a 8/10 (or better) on my personal looks scale, she must be about 5ft9/175 at least. Three out of the last four girls I had dates with were in the 5ft10/5ft11 (177-180) range (myself being 5ft10/178). I LOVE long legs. So elegant!

I would not hit on Shakira, because I don't find her desireable on an erotic level (for many reasons: face, body type, height etc.).

Just my personal taste. I respect it when other guys have a different taste.

Just to illustrate some diversity within the board members here, I'm pretty much the exact opposite of you (and I suspect most other guys, since dudes generally seem to prefer leggy models when crafting their ideal women).

I'm also a little over 5'10, but I tend to prefer shorter girls for some reason. Anything 5'3" or less is a plus. Girls in that 4'11"-5'2" range in particular get an enhanced reaction from me. I'm not turned off by taller women(so long as they are under 5'9" and thus cannot ignite my Napoleon complex), but I do prefer them smaller.

To keep it simple, I suppose you could say that I just like spinners.

[Tuthmosis]

(07-30-2011 06:41 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

I'm also a little over 5'10, but I tend to prefer shorter girls for some reason. Anything 5'3" or less is a plus. Girls in that 4'11"-5'2" range in particular get an enhanced reaction from me. I'm not turned off by taller women(so long as they are under 5'9" and thus cannot ignite my Napoleon complex), but I do prefer them smaller.

I have similar view. I find that, while tall girls might "photograph" better so to speak--and be hotter on paper--smaller girls look better in person, in actuality. The proportions just work. I don't dislike tall girls either, but I find that even the ones that are attractive tend to have a slight horse-face or other manly feature(s) (e.g., veiny arms with large hands, big feet, large backs). Another thing is a tendency toward the cavernous pussy. There's a reason tall girls are insecure about their height. It's not as feminine.

I definitely chase after a little thing a lot quicker than a tall, statuesque girl, that may look perfect from a few yards away, but then lanky and large up close.

[CupCake]

I just finished a book about the height issue and one interesting thing the researchers pointed out is why some species have large size differences between males and females while others don't. Turns out that if you don't have to physically fight off males to get access to females, size really doesn't matter that much.

People aren't elephant seals. We don't knock each other around for access to chicks. Height and strength matter, but not that much. Human beings have complicated social structures that don't require physical strength to dominate. Stop worrying about your ass and get better access to social resources, dummy!

Smaller chicks with fat asses FTW, btw.

[Gmac]

I've been told I have a nice ass but I don't think it's major factor at all. I've heard girls talk about guys with flat asses but it didn't seem to be a deal-breaker by any means.

Personally, I like perky, round asses with just enough to grab onto. Anything bigger and it's a turn off.

[Moma]

(07-31-2011 02:51 PM)CupCake Wrote:  

I just finished a book about the height issue and one interesting thing the researchers pointed out is why some species have large size differences between males and females while others don't. Turns out that if you don't have to physically fight off males to get access to females, size really doesn't matter that much.

People aren't elephant seals. We don't knock each other around for access to chicks. Height and strength matter, but not that much. Human beings have complicated social structures that don't require physical strength to dominate. Stop worrying about your ass and get better access to social resources, dummy!

Smaller chicks with fat asses FTW, btw.

If we have complicated social structures that compensate for size then why do we have wars based on power? Why are you intiimidated by a man 6'5 260lbs if size doesn't matter? Where do you think this instinct comes from?

You need to look at history. Not the pretense of recent development.

Truthfully, in terms of gaming lizards, size doesn't really play too much of a factor but if you are tall and you can put on muscle, it helps with game.

The same way having a nice car, nice place and the ability to put food in your fridge helps with gaming.

A bummy homeless man can game lizards for sure but he will probably struggle more than a guy with bank like Trump.

Let's call an apple an apple.

However, neither of us are in either extremes so it doesn't matter. Brush your teeth, comb your hair and get out on the field.

Averages will take care of themselves.