Is height in men a form of “objectification” by women? Obsidian would like to start the discussion.
The recent controversy involving one Ms. Sandra Fluke and one Mr. Rush Limbaugh, opened yet another round in what seems to be a neverending debate concerning a “sexual double standard”– where men are lionized as sexual heroes for having a prodigious bedpost notch-count, while women who have (or are perceived to have) numerous lovers are scandalized and penalized.
The debate fascinates me; for one, it presumes that there only one such “double standard”; and second, it suggests that men are the ones that subject women to any such “double standards”. But this is personal to me as well, because I live on the other side of the “double standards” debate all the time. And from what I see, there is a “double standard” that adversely impacts the lives of men all the time; it is an objectification of men, if you will, and one that is rarely talked about openly – and that is height.
I focus on this one area because, it is perhaps the closest analog to the idea that a woman, deemed a “slut”, is then penalized; for men, it has been shown repeatedly in study after study, both those conducted under the strictest of academic conditions and the more “looser” internet online dating surveys taken by women, that they (women) would prefer a taller man to a shorter one, all other factors being equal of course. Indeed, it has been shown that, even if the shorter man has solid educational credentials and earning potential, that women would prefer a taller man who was a felon. One reality tv show that seeks to pair up couples meeting “cold” showed as its season-ending climatic episode, a woman deciding to leave the compound where all the putative couples stayed, rather than remain with her “soulmate”, who turned out to be short in stature when she could finally meet him face to face. As one might imagine, he was crushed.
I can most certainly relate to what that man on the tv show was going through, and here is where it is my hope that my personal testimony will humanize and broaden the discussion about sexual double standards – because I am myself, a short(er) man. At five feet eight inches (the tallest I’ve ever been in my entire life), I fall two inches shorter than the American national average for male height (which is 5’10″) – and I can assure anyone reading this, that the dating life has been no crystal stair, to borrow a well-known phrase. I have known firsthand what it is like to be rejected for consideration as a date for the evening, or a prom date in high school and so forth, purely on the basis of my height, or the lack thereof – and by “rejected” I mean, being told, flat out, “you’re too short!” in the most harshest of ways. This hurt. Deeply. Not because I lacked a basic compatibility with those who I sought out as potential mates; or because I wasn’t smart or curious or well read enough; or because I was a slacker and wouldn’t hit a lick if my life depended on it; but simply because of something I had absolutely no control over. I was indeed (negatively) objectified in a way that the Wikipedia entry on the term aptly sums up: “Objectification is an attitude that regards a person as a commodity or as an object for use, with little or no regard for a person’s personality or sentience.” I have known, for years, that it was just as possible for women to objectify men, as it was for the other way around. Yet, this fact is never discussed, no matter what the quarter, no matter what the venue or forum, no matter what the circle.
♦◊♦
When I look towards the tendency of men like Limbaugh to lambaste women like Fluke as “sluts” –and the tendency of women to desire taller men as mates – I also look towards explanations by the discipline known as Evolutionary Psychology. In both instances, so the science goes, these tendencies are the result of human male and female evolutionary adaptations to the ancestral environment on Earth many hundreds of thousands of years ago; so, in the case of the “slut” appellation, it came about as an attempt to control the sexual activity of women to ensure what evolutionary psychologists refer to as “paternity certainty”; and in the case of the women preferring to choose taller to shorter men, this came about as a simple fact that, in matters of the hunt and war, Size Matters. A larger man had a decided advantage over a shorter one in the ancestral environment; and it was in a woman’s interest to go with the larger man to ensure her survival, and that of any offspring she would have with said larger man. Both of these patterns have engrained themselves on our brains over hundreds of thousands of years to give us what we have today in terms of our (mating) behavior.
Contrary to what some of EvoPsych’s critics say however, it is indeed possible for one or even a group of individuals to alter their behavioral patterns, no matter how engrained; for example, as the Harvard cognitive scientist Steven Pinker has so aptly demonstrated in his work “The Better Angels of Our Nature”, we as a species have been able to put a collar on violence (which was far and away more prevalent in the ancestral environment), of all kinds — and that includes sexual violence. It’s been a long and arduous process over many centuries, yes — one filled with fits and starts, without a doubt — but, as Pinker shows, we have made progress.
This should fill the hearts of those who wish to change the hearts and minds of men like Limbaugh on the “slut question” with hope, because, if history is any guide, such views can and will change with time. Indeed, the much publicized “Slut Walks” of last year, to say nothing of the dozens of advertisers of Mr. Limbaugh’s nationally syndicated radio show deciding to distance themselves from Mr. Limbaugh last month, are clear and present proofs that despite our “hardwiring”, we can change for the better.
And that brings me back to the topic at hand–examining one aspect of the other side of the “double standard” debate. If it can be proven that men can change in their attitudes–in this case, their sexual attitudes– towards women–it stands to reason that women themselves, can change their attitudes towards men (and their height) as well.
But in order to do that, we have to be willing to acknowledge that we have these tendencies to begin with; and we have to be willing to talk about them. That means that men cannot do it alone; women have to be along for the ride.
About Obsidian
The double standard isn’t in the fact the women prefer height; it is that women prefer height while bemoaning or denying men’s own preferences.
” If it can be proven that men can change in their attitudes–in this case, their sexual attitudes– towards women–it stands to reason that women themselves, can change their attitudes towards men (and their height) as well.”
Who wants anyone to change their biological preferences. Look I am 5-7, and it has never been an issue. Some women date me ‘despite’t this, some don’t care in the first place, some would date be but won’t because of my height, and some would never consider me because of my height. Some who would in person won’t online. To me it makes perfect sense; part of the male/female dynamic includes that feeling of feeling protected and feminine which many women equate with height/size. I don’t bitch about it, that is just how the woman in question feels. And I am fine with that as long as I don’t have to deal with crap when I like certain ages/body types/looks. Generally that is not the case; the same women who ‘get’ why a 5-7 friend who won’t date me because she ‘likes to wear heels’ (i.e. it is an axiom that men should be taller) gret pissed if prefer slimmer younger women. *That* of course signals some lack in me; some ‘inability’ to ‘handle’ smart women strong women real women.
The same women who say the want a big guy to feel ‘feminine’ get mad if I date a younger girl and say ‘oh you need a young girl to look up to you to feel like a man’.
I think we (and I mean mostly women but include eveyrone) should stop trying to bully and legislate attraction; clearly women prefer taller men and richer more powerful men. Clearly men prefer younger prettier women. Somehow we all seem to get dates, partners, love and sex.
If you are a short guy the best thing you can do to even your odds is just be confident and not care. I generally date shorter women because a) I like the way that feels better and b) they like me better but i’ve dated women as tall or taller, one girlfriend was probably 6 feet in heels. It didn’t bother me and didn’t bother her. So please let’s not try to guilt women into feeling it is a doubles-standard they should get rid of and short circuit them in the process. It is annoying enough when they do it to us.
Dude I’m 5’9 and even short chicks won’t give me the time of day if there are tall dudes around. Do you have any idea how much fucking game I have to kick to get some love?
I mean it’s like every single woman wants a 6 foot 6 blonde-haired blue-eyed genius who banks 7 figures and drives a Benz, and you gotta trick em into being interested in you, Joe six-pack.
I am 6’6, I don’t have women approaching me so tall isn’t the end-all be-all.
Ditto (bar one instance but she was a little bigger than average).
I think they find me more intimidating but that could be my unconscious body language.
I rarely see women approach men. I’ve seen women desperate and lonely as hell that won’t “lower themselves” to approach a guy. They just dance alone lol
Your article almost had a good point… until you tried to equate being rejected for being short as having anything to do with calling women sluts…. (!!!)
Not. The. Same. Thing.
You’d have done better to stick with objectification double standards — women complain about men only wanting to date women with huge breasts…
You could also have spoken about the media pressure to fit conventional standards of “beauty” and right now for that women that means being slim with large breasts. For men, that means being tall and buff. Neither conventional form of beauty is “correct” or “right” and this is what should be challenging.
Your argument lost credibility when trying to equate being short to being called a slut. Which is a shame because it could have been a really interesting, challenging article…
The “slut-shaming vs. male height” is definitely a weak argument.
Slut-shaming is just what the word says, a way of shaming–usually girls & women–about their sexuality. Many times the term is used in contempt or in a vengeful, gossipy manner. For example, guys use this tactic to punish women who show no interest in them or who refuse to sleep with them. Women also use slut-shaming against each other. This shaming goes on pretty regularly in high school & college.
On the other hand, height is about the gene pool you happen to be born into. And one’s height is not usually targeted as a means to attack in a vicious, debasing way.
¨And one’s height is not usually targeted as a means to attack in a vicious, debasing way.¨
What planet do you live on?
yawn. . .
so I get the “point” of the article — comparing double standards and seeing how these affect the way we treat other people.
However I’m gonna reiterate 2 points.
1) Evolutionary psychology is a BAD explanation for cultural beauty standards. Like really. Back in the day, women like the Venus of Willendorf were considered the attractive norm — now we prefer women who look like flappers, boyish builds with small all around.
True human biology dictates that we hetero men and hetero women find respective man parts and lady parts attractive. But that doesn’t say anything about the details of said part — height, width, girth, color, contrast, tone, whatever. Using evopsych as a basis for cultural norms and explanations thereof is going to, naturally, miss the mark by a large margin, because as even the OP noted we’re not bound by certain rules besides those we choose to accept.
2) I think the comparison is a little off. Obviously short men face forms of sexual & social discrimination that is both conscious and unconscious. That said, it’s erroneous to compare it with slut-shaming because height is a concrete thing we can measure, whereas a person’s “sluttiness” is something immeasureable, something culturally defined and culturally explained. One person’s slut is another person’s prude, basically.
It would’ve been a more effective comparison if we used fat women compared to short men. Especially since both face prejudice and discrimination, both traits can be measured objectively (whether or not the measurement is considered ideal/not ideal), and both are physical characteristics we use in deciding attractiveness, instead of promiscuity.
Overall though, this is one of Obsidian’s better articles. Though I will admit it’s not high praise.
Overall though, this is one of Obsidian’s better articles. Though I will admit it’s not high praise.
We ask that you keep comments to the topic and not make personal comments about the author. Thanks.
Fair enough.
Hi Zek,
Long time, no hear! How are you? Thanks for stopping by and taking the time out. My replies are below:
“so I get the “point” of the article — comparing double standards and seeing how these affect the way we treat other people.”
O: Kinda; the point of my piece was to point out that in no way do men have the lock or corner or market on sexual or sex-based double standards; women can engage in such things, too.
“However I’m gonna reiterate 2 points.”
O: OK; proceed!
“1) Evolutionary psychology is a BAD explanation for cultural beauty standards.”
O: Why? You haven’t actually provided any sources or data to support your contentions; all you’ve said is EvoPsych is whacked. Come on Zek, you know me better than that; if you have a beef, you should be able to back said beef up with actual facts and data. You don’t do that here. Shame on you.
“Like really. Back in the day, women like the Venus of Willendorf were considered the attractive norm — now we prefer women who look like flappers, boyish builds with small all around.”
O: Actually, and this is documented, in the Black community, heavier women are still favored over the “flapper” look. Moreover, EvoPsych doesn’t argue such things – which renders your point a serious non-sequitur.
What EvoPsych DOES say, is the following:
1. Men prefer and select for youth and beauty first and foremost in women.
2. The desired waist to hip ratio in women on the part of men, has remained constant throughout human history and in all cultures.
3. That there is no human society that has shown its men to desire notably older women to younger, and notably more homely women to pretty ones. And yes, “pretty” is objective: clear/bright skin, larger eyes, symetrical (and smaller, in comparison to men) facial features, and long(er) hair.
All of these things hold constant, whether we’re taking SWPL, or Goth, or Urban Black or Polynesian males into account, in terms of what they desire and select for most in women.
I’ll have more to say about this in future articles. Stay tuned!
“True human biology dictates that we hetero men and hetero women find respective man parts and lady parts attractive. But that doesn’t say anything about the details of said part — height, width, girth, color, contrast, tone, whatever.”
O: Please see above.
“Using evopsych as a basis for cultural norms and explanations thereof is going to, naturally, miss the mark by a large margin, because as even the OP noted we’re not bound by certain rules besides those we choose to accept.”
O: Sure, you or I could, in theory, mate with a post-menupasal woman – but the simple fact of the matter is, that neither of us are attracted to such women. EvoPsych provides a reason for that. And again, this is something that holds constant throughout human history. Simply put Zek, men don’t find women old enough to be their grandmas sexually attractive. It is, what it is.
“2) I think the comparison is a little off. Obviously short men face forms of sexual & social discrimination that is both conscious and unconscious. That said, it’s erroneous to compare it with slut-shaming because height is a concrete thing we can measure, whereas a person’s “sluttiness” is something immeasureable, something culturally defined and culturally explained. One person’s slut is another person’s prude, basically.”
O: Again, my point was that both sexes engage in discriminatory practices that include sex-based double standards – not an attempt to find a perfect one-to-one analog. That no woman yet, has admitted that what I was saying was essentially correct, tells us a lot more about them than any of us are willing to admit.
“It would’ve been a more effective comparison if we used fat women compared to short men. Especially since both face prejudice and discrimination, both traits can be measured objectively (whether or not the measurement is considered ideal/not ideal), and both are physical characteristics we use in deciding attractiveness, instead of promiscuity.”
O: Yes, but evopsych studies have shown that fat women don’t suffer as much out on the SMP as do short(er) men; fat women still get the chance to mate, by and large. Short men, not so much.
“Overall though, this is one of Obsidian’s better articles. Though I will admit it’s not high praise.”
O: I’ll take whatever I can get; thanks – I think…?
O.
Obsidian,
O: Why? You haven’t actually provided any sources or data to support your contentions; all you’ve said is EvoPsych is whacked. Come on Zek, you know me better than that; if you have a beef, you should be able to back said beef up with actual facts and data. You don’t do that here. Shame on you
No beef. Just reality. I’ve given you proof before in other venues, but I can do so again, briefly.
1. Evopsych is not testable. That is, the traits it describes are impossible or nearly impossible to test — such as attractiveness or assertiveness, which are culturally defined traits — and thus it’s not much of an empirical science. Unfortunately, Evopsych’s tendency to pursue these traits from a biological standpoint often lead to “Just-so Stories” that rely solely upon internal logic. Noam Chomsky talks about this a little.
2. Evopsych is horribly marred by ethnocentrism. It elevates unique values to the realm of universal without first proving that they are truly universal to all humans everywhere. Sadly, most of their theories are unique solely to the culture/subculture in which they are created in. But even then they tend to miss the mark in more diverse societies, such as ours.
3. Evopsych engages in reductionism and determinism by presupposing that our psychology is fundamentally based on our biology, when in fact such connections are far more complex. Psych often influences bio, and sometimes they work in harmony, and sometimes they work in disharmony. By imposing biological determinism upon humans, evopsych posits flawed relationships that make for poor models in explaining human behavior. Lewontin, Rose, and Kamin all discuss this in their work.
4. Perhaps the worst part of evopsych is that it engages in “ought” instead of “is” science. Essentially, it describes humans in order to prescribe what they should do. This often leads to the above flaws, particularly in evopsych using inductive reasoning to make an observation make sense instead of using deductive reasoning in order to understand how the observation occurs and thus understand it.
Check out the work of neurobiologist Steven Rose, or anthropologists Johnathan Marks, Tim Ingold, and Marshall Sahlins, or philosophers of science such as Robert C. Richardson and Brendan Wallace. They’re great resources on the subject. But suffice to say, mainstream science rejects evopsych and anyone purporting it as “real science” are being somewhat disingenuous. (Not pointing fingers.)
EvoPsych doesn’t argue such things – which renders your point a serious non-sequitur. What EvoPsych DOES say, is the following: 1. Men prefer and select for youth and beauty first and foremost in women. 2. The desired waist to hip ratio in women on the part of men, has remained constant throughout human history and in all cultures. 3. That there is no human society that has shown its men to desire notably older women to younger, and notably more homely women to pretty ones. And yes, “pretty” is objective: clear/bright skin, larger eyes, symetrical (and smaller, in comparison to men) facial features, and long(er) hair.
Actually Obsidian, evopsych does just that! My point isn’t a non-sequitur, sorry! =P
Thank you for making my point for me. All those points you outlined are actually more culturally based than biologically based. Beauty standards, for instance, are FAMOUSLY misconstrued as being inherent in biology when in fact they’re determined by our culture. You can see this quite easily in interviews with non-western cultures, particularly indigenous cultures, and how they describe beauty. Like the Yanomamo, or the Nuer.
See, “pretty” and “youthful looking” are not objective. They’re clearly delineated by cultural tropes, and it’s only through hegemonic changes in the world that western ideals of beauty have come to dominate over non-western ones. But even western standards of beauty are not uniform — skinny has become the standard when originally curvier women were preferred up until about the early mid 20th century.
That said, attempting to exaggerate and disprove the point by talking about grandmas is kinda off the mark, haha. I mean, look at cougars and how men react to them nowadays. Mrs. Robinson is as equally valid as any other standard of beauty — because none of them are rooted in biology for the most part beyond basic reproductive needs and differences.
Again, my point was that both sexes engage in discriminatory practices that include sex-based double standards – not an attempt to find a perfect one-to-one analog. That no woman yet, has admitted that what I was saying was essentially correct, tells us a lot more about them than any of us are willing to admit.
Fair enough, but not wanting to find a perfect analogy is a bit of a cop-out isn’t it? And either way, you’re not right just because women won’t agree with you! Oy vey… Nor does it tell us anything about them, since they haven’t said much.
Yes, but evopsych studies have shown that fat women don’t suffer as much out on the SMP as do short(er) men; fat women still get the chance to mate, by and large. Short men, not so much.
C’mon Obsidian… Even as a man involved in Game you should know overweight women get laid, whether they’re used for it or whether they have to settle for a less attractive partner varies. Short men still get laid as well. They just don’t get to be as picky.
Anyhoo, I’d be interested in more back & forth but frankly I know how your comments get. Long, very long, and incredibly nit-picky without any actual development.
I appreciate your response, but I’ll pass the continuance. I just wanted to contribute to the discussion. Let others read what I’ve got and make up their own minds.
“See, “pretty” and “youthful looking” are not objective.”
What I’ve found interesting is that I’ve actually begun to associate obvious plastic surgery with being old…because in our culture so many older people get plastic surgery. So when Meg Ryan started to show obvious signs of plastic surgery, she put on like a decade to me.
Anyway, that’s neither here nor there when it comes to this article, except that I’m agreeing standards of beauty and youth are culturally informed.
“No beef. Just reality. I’ve given you proof before in other venues, but I can do so again, briefly.”
O: No, what you’ve given is your opinions. But I’m willing to be entertained…
“1. Evopsych is not testable. That is, the traits it describes are impossible or nearly impossible to test — such as attractiveness or assertiveness, which are culturally defined traits — and thus it’s not much of an empirical science. Unfortunately, Evopsych’s tendency to pursue these traits from a biological standpoint often lead to “Just-so Stories” that rely solely upon internal logic. Noam Chomsky talks about this a little.”
O: Clearly you have not read Buss’ books, and that’s just a starting point. I recommend you checkout The Evolution of Desire, and Evolutionary Psychology, Third Edition.
“2. Evopsych is horribly marred by ethnocentrism. It elevates unique values to the realm of universal without first proving that they are truly universal to all humans everywhere. Sadly, most of their theories are unique solely to the culture/subculture in which they are created in. But even then they tend to miss the mark in more diverse societies, such as ours.”
O: No, they do not. Buss has famously conducted studies of some 37 cultures, and finds amazingly similar results. A good example is the waist-to-hip ratio; this has held constant no matter what culture you consider. You were saying?
“3. Evopsych engages in reductionism and determinism by presupposing that our psychology is fundamentally based on our biology, when in fact such connections are far more complex. Psych often influences bio, and sometimes they work in harmony, and sometimes they work in disharmony. By imposing biological determinism upon humans, evopsych posits flawed relationships that make for poor models in explaining human behavior. Lewontin, Rose, and Kamin all discuss this in their work.”
O: This remark by you proves that you don’t know what you’re talking about. In both of the books I referenced by Buss, he makes it clear that one, human sexuality is incredibly complex and is heavily dependent upon context; and that nothing in EvoPsych should be taken to mean that we are slaves to our nature – the fact is in fact far from it. You really should read his book(s). You’ll learn a lot.
“4. Perhaps the worst part of evopsych is that it engages in “ought” instead of “is” science. Essentially, it describes humans in order to prescribe what they should do. This often leads to the above flaws, particularly in evopsych using inductive reasoning to make an observation make sense instead of using deductive reasoning in order to understand how the observation occurs and thus understand it.”
O: EvoPsych uses a number of means to work out testable theories that have to have predictable results; you just don’t like the conclusions EP comes to, hence your commentary.
“Check out the work of neurobiologist Steven Rose, or anthropologists Johnathan Marks, Tim Ingold, and Marshall Sahlins, or philosophers of science such as Robert C. Richardson and Brendan Wallace. They’re great resources on the subject. But suffice to say, mainstream science rejects evopsych and anyone purporting it as “real science” are being somewhat disingenuous. (Not pointing fingers.)”
O: I don’t think anyone, including myself, has said that EvoPsych is a science; what I am saying, and others who agree with its propositions, is that it provides a unified theory that explains our behavior – in this case, along sexual lines. What you have yet to do, is to offer a counterveiling theory, that explains otherwise. I await such a theory, Zek, that explains why, all throughout human history, men don’t select older women as sexual mates. I’ll wait…
EvoPsych doesn’t argue such things – which renders your point a serious non-sequitur. What EvoPsych DOES say, is the following: 1. Men prefer and select for youth and beauty first and foremost in women. 2. The desired waist to hip ratio in women on the part of men, has remained constant throughout human history and in all cultures. 3. That there is no human society that has shown its men to desire notably older women to younger, and notably more homely women to pretty ones. And yes, “pretty” is objective: clear/bright skin, larger eyes, symetrical (and smaller, in comparison to men) facial features, and long(er) hair.
“Actually Obsidian, evopsych does just that! My point isn’t a non-sequitur, sorry! =P”
O: YES, it is; please name the evopsych type of any repute, who spends any time on the weight thing? I’ll wait…
“Thank you for making my point for me. All those points you outlined are actually more culturally based than biologically based. Beauty standards, for instance, are FAMOUSLY misconstrued as being inherent in biology when in fact they’re determined by our culture. You can see this quite easily in interviews with non-western cultures, particularly indigenous cultures, and how they describe beauty. Like the Yanomamo, or the Nuer.”
O: Yes, Prof. Buss has studied in-depth some 37 cultures around the world; again, I repeat: nowhere in the world are older women who are asymetrical in their facial features, more desired by the men of any given culture, than the younger, more symetrical ones. NONE.
You were saying?
“See, “pretty” and “youthful looking” are not objective.”
O: Yes, they are. Again: clear skin, smaller features relative to men, bigger eyes, etc. ALL of these things are objective, Zek. They simply are.
“They’re clearly delineated by cultural tropes, and it’s only through hegemonic changes in the world that western ideals of beauty have come to dominate over non-western ones. But even western standards of beauty are not uniform — skinny has become the standard when originally curvier women were preferred up until about the early mid 20th century.”
O: On ce again you’re arguing a strawman. No evopsych type argues the weight thing. You are being disengenuous because you don’t have any actual counterargument to deal with what I’ve actually said, which is actually based on what real evopsych types, like Prof. Buss, has actually presented in their works. He’s conducted studies in some 37 cultures around the world, and in all of them, what men desire most in women sexually has held constant – youth, and beauty. Both are objective – if anyone knows this, it’s women themselves, who spend billions (in the Black community’s case, Sistas spend HALF A TRILLION a year), attempting to look younger and prettier, because this is what men desire – a clear outgrowth and manifestation of their evolved sexual psychology.
“That said, attempting to exaggerate and disprove the point by talking about grandmas is kinda off the mark, haha.”
O: No, it’s not – what’s off the mark is your attempt to put into the mouths of evolutionary psychologists things they never said. I happen to own quite a few volumes written by top names in the field, and NONE of them discuss weight issues and the like. What they DO discuss, is the FACT that men DO NOT WANT OLD WOMEN as sexual mates. If you’re going to discuss EvoPsych with me, please do so on the basis of what its adherents actually say – not what you want them to say?
“I mean, look at cougars and how men react to them nowadays. Mrs. Robinson is as equally valid as any other standard of beauty — because none of them are rooted in biology for the most part beyond basic reproductive needs and differences.”
O: NO, they’re not. A good example of this is in the NeoSoul world, where D’Angelo got with Angie Stone. His cache – AMONG WOMEN – plummeted.
And yes, let’s look at the hotness of cougars – let’s discuss Demi Moore, for starters. How’d her marriage to the much younger Ashton Kutcher work out? To ask the question, is to answer it – in EvoPsych terms, that is…
“Fair enough, but not wanting to find a perfect analogy is a bit of a cop-out isn’t it?”
O: No it’s not, because of the point of my piece, which was to prove, that women are just as likely to engage in sex-based double standards. Again, the very fact that people, including you, refuse to simply admit what we can all see with one good eye, says just how steeped in sociopolitical ideological denial we really are.
“And either way, you’re not right just because women won’t agree with you!”
O: Yes, I am, because the evidence – both academic and anecdotal – are on my side.
“Oy vey… Nor does it tell us anything about them, since they haven’t said much.”
O: Again – yes, it does. Please review all of the comments of this article?
“C’mon Obsidian… Even as a man involved in Game you should know overweight women get laid, whether they’re used for it or whether they have to settle for a less attractive partner varies. Short men still get laid as well. They just don’t get to be as picky.”
O: Not true. Human history records the fact that most males don’t mate, and this holds constant throughout most if not all of the rest of the animal kingdom on the planet. Being a bigger woman doesn’t preclude her from getting laid; being a shorter man most definitely can.
“Anyhoo, I’d be interested in more back & forth but frankly I know how your comments get. Long, very long, and incredibly nit-picky without any actual development.”
O: That sounds incredibly disengenuous of you, with all due respect – if you’re not actually willing to engage in an actual discussion, one where the author gets to actually respond to your comments, then perhaps it might be a good idea not to comment at all. At least it’s fair.
“I appreciate your response, but I’ll pass the continuance. I just wanted to contribute to the discussion. Let others read what I’ve got and make up their own minds.”
O: For the most part, I have; I just wanted to respond to YOU, because what you had to say was so strident.
O.
Hi Guys,
Just a friendly reminder that we try to keep the comments a bit shorter in length. Perhaps breaking them up into multiple comments could help. Also, we ask that you all keep this discussion focused on the topic, and not venture into making assumptions about each other. Thanks.
No worries Mod,
Obsidian and I know each other from way back on other blogs debating the merits (or lack thereof) of HBD and race realism.
That said, no need to tell me twice. I just wanted to throw my two cents.
Obsidian,
Enjoy the floor!