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
Not to put too fine a point on it, but women’s preferences for taller men is no more a double standard than men’s preference for larger breasts and prettier faces. While I am sure that you have never rejected a woman because she was insufficiently endowed with looks or mammaries, I can assure you that some men do, and they can be quite as openly critical as the girls who turned down because of your height.
@ Miss Information
I just want to clarify. Are you saying that because some men objectify women, it is OK for women to objectify men? If that is the case, would you then think it OK that men objectify women because some women objectify men?
Not at all. Objectification is dehumanizing no matter who does it or why. I’m saying that some men can be just as rude and shallow as some women, and that the general preference for taller men does not fit the definition a double standard, because it’s rooted in biology, not socio-cultural norms and values.
Large breasts and a classic curvy figure are then equally rooted in biology. So, there should be no complaint about that preference either.
Miss Information, I believe that while the height bias may have its roots in biology, the strength of its expression is most certainly a socio-cultural phenomenon. As a shorter-than-average guy myself, I have found that I can either work twice as hard to get half as far with American women as my 6’2″ friends, or I can pursue women from other cultures. Such women may still prefer taller, but it’s just one factor that goes into the mix of attraction; American women tend to make it a quick pass/fail test.
And it does look like a double standard when you consider the vitriol directed at men who state (even courteously) that they prefer thin and/or in-shape women. (A preference which, arguably, has a basis in biology, too.)
I’m actually curious how many women do, indeed, have a preference for tall men. I don’t know any. I do know women who are afraid men have a height preference for short women. But again, I don’t know any man who actually does actively look for short women.
I don’t know, Heather. I did have a friend who was adamant that she had a height preference for taller men (over 6 foot) back in the day. Now she’s been dating a 5’7″ guy for over 4 years and is madly in love him. Go figure. Personally, I could care less. When there’s an attraction, there’s an attraction. The most conventionally hot girl I know is dating a guy who is shorter than she is.
HeatherN,
I think you need to go online and actually examine statistics. As the author noted, there are TONS of studies of this, and they all indicate the same finding: a preference for taller men.
The key here is to frame the question correctly. The question is not “Would you prefer taller men no matter what?” The question is “Would you like it if you current man was a few inches taller?”
The answer to the first question may be “no” for many of the same reasons that people are frequently dishonest with themselves about their preferences (with “I don’t discriminate!” being at the top of the list).
The answer to the second question is almost always “yes.” This reveals the true preference.
Indeed. Does anyone know of an ethnic group where the women are, on average, taller than the men?
Must be that all powerful patriarchy guiding women’s choices lololol.
Heather, out of curiosity, how do you know that they don’t have a preference? I’ve seen plenty of men and women who don’t consciously know their preferences, just that they never feel “that spark” with somebody who doesn’t fit them.
If it’s true, I’d be happy to hear it, because that would support my belief that the preference is a cultural phenomenon. That said, at least in the United States, men on the far low end of the bell curve find that it’s damn near universal. Reading through the “Looking for” section on dating sites, dating discussion forums and gossip media (about e.g. Kidman/Cruise or Sarkozy/Bruni) is instructive.
Also, there are lots of interesting links on the topic here: http://www.shortsupport.org/cgi-bin/news_list.cgi?category=Adult-Social-Dating
My goodness me, I said I was curious precisely because I didn’t know anyone with that preference. I wasn’t saying that because I didn’t know anyone with that preference I was denying that preference exists.
Anyway, I agree that the preference for taller men (however prevalent it is) is probably more cultural in origin. It’s also certainly connected to women feeling like they need to be shorter to be attractive, which is also cultural.
A woman I dated mentioned a preference for bigger men because she felt safe when engulfed in his arms. I’ve also known two women who have stated a preference for smaller men. One didn’t want a boyfriend who could just batter her and the other preferred effeminate men who were also Japanese. It might seem that my personal experience might refute the thesis, but I am a shorter guy 5′ 7″ so women may not feel comfortable telling me that I’m too short. I kind of remember a few girls in high school who were on the taller side worrying if they could find taller guys to go to prom with. The societal bias probably works against taller women as well.
Easy. Go to Craigslist or some other site and see how many adds specifically say ‘Tall’. I’m going to guess a good 1/3 at least. And the rest; reply,strike up a conversation and just before you meet say Oh btw I am 5-7. See how many cancel.
On the other hand go see how many men’s ads have a weight or size cut off.
If I understand you correctly, you’re being ruled out of the gene pool because you’re not a strong hunter, and you simultaneously are crying that this is not fair, and that it is exactly what we get from nature, as explained by Evolutionary Psychology (used to be called Social Darwinism). I don’t get what this has to do with slut-shaming at all, except that EP has an explanation for each.
Yeah, that’s kind of what I was thinking.
Justin,
I don’t think it’s right for you to say that Obsidian is “crying” that this is not fair.
I read his piece as saying that double standards pervade all sorts of social interactions and both men and women are prone to holding them.
Ordinarily, I would not accuse an author of being a noisy complainer, but in this case, he’s complaining of a double standard among women, while also claiming to be a believer in an ideology that puts him, in an evolutionarily appropriate manner, in the back of the line. He wants both for things to be made level and fair, and also to evangelize an ideology in which might makes right, while he’s not so mighty.
Justin, careful. Personal attacks are not permitted.
This last comment of mine does not contain a personal attack.
It absolutely does. Name calling (“noisy complainer”) is a violation of the commenting policy.
Slut shaming is a function of perceived behavior and so I think it actually has more validity than objectification due to height. The propriety of slut shaming aside, a woman has the ability to moderate her behavior. Height is a function of nature and not within a man’s control. I don’t see a direct relation either.
A more appropriate analogy would have been breast size to height objectification. There is certainly plenty of “crying” about objectification of women by breast size, so not allowing/shaming complaints of objectification of males by height, by labelling it with something like “crying”, is clearly a double standard.
You’re right. There is no corrollary between women objectifying men based on height and views of women who sleep around.
However, before DNA testing, if a female had sex with any and everyone, it was literally impossible for a male to know if a child was his or not. So, historically, there was reason to have concerns over women who had sex with large numbers of men.
That’s only necessarily true in societies that are patrilineal. Not all societies are quite as bothered about the biology of a person as we are.
Being patrilineal is not something relevant in modern families other than the rare few remaining royal families. So, that’s really not relevant here.
There are no societies (zero, none) where mothers and fathers don’t care who their offspring are. Thus, historically, women having sex with many men was historically a legitmate cause for concern.
Not true. Historically (and present day) there are some cultures where multiple sexual partners among men and women is common place and where child raring is communal because the single paternity of children were unknown
Exactly.
Name a society where neither mothers nor fathers care who their offspring are.
And then, name one where so-called “slut-shaming” is complained about.
Evolutionary history of partible paternity in lowland South America
Robert S. Walkera,1,
Mark V. Flinna, and
Kim R. Hillb
“Partible paternity, the conception belief that more than one man can
contribute to the formation of a fetus, is common in lowland South
America and characterized by nonexclusive mating relationships
and various institutionalized forms of recognition and investment
by multiple cofathers…Partible paternity
may have benefits for both sexes, especially in societies where essentially
all offspring are said to have multiple fathers. Despite a decrease
in paternity certainty, at least some men probably benefit
(or mitigate costs) by increasing their number of extramarital partners,
using sexual access to their wives to formalize male alliances,
and/or sharing paternity with close kin.”
As for your slut shaming comment, I’m sure its complained about in most if not all Western societies
It’s interesting you bring up partible paternity. The idea that individual paternity is important really hinges on the understanding that only one male’s sperm is used to create a fetus.
(Sorry, I apparently responded to a different comment. Here is what is already below)
Thanks, but this doesn’t answer the question and us largely irrelevant.
The question was, name a society where NEITHER mothers nor fathers care who their offspring are, and then, name one of THOSE where slut shaming is complained about. This reference answers neither request.
Ok I don’t even really understand the point that you’re trying to make. I can’t name a society where neither mothers nor fathers care who their offspring are (I honestly don’t think such a society exists), but I don’t see how that’s relevant to the overall point that you were initially trying to make. Your initial point was:
“However, before DNA testing, if a female had sex with any and everyone, it was literally impossible for a male to know if a child was his or not. So, historically, there was reason to have concerns over women who had sex with large numbers of men.”
In your post where you brought up the point about parents not caring who their offspring are, you concluded with:
“Thus, historically, women having sex with many men was historically a legitmate cause for concern.”
I provided a quote to counteract those specific points of your statements, as clearly there exists at least one society in the world (at least) where women having sex with many men is not a “legitimate cause for concern”, at least not in the sense that it is in most Western societies. I’m sure in those specific South American societies, there is no equivalent for the term “Slut Shaming” because that term is routed in our society, and it doesn’t seem like there is reason for that term to exist in those societies anyway.
So my quote was to challenge the general statements that you initially made about female “promiscuity”. If you meant that this was historically a cause for concern in North America, I’ll accept that, but only if you are referring to the historical European colonizers and the numerous other cultures that they influenced after putting down routes on this continent. I haven’t done enough research on our Aboriginal communities to stretch (or not stretch) this generalization to their historical communities
I think the point is that mothers will never have the dilemma of whether the offspring is theirs or not. In your example it seems there would also be slut shaming seeing the the men still extend some control over their wives sexuality. ex. “using sexual access to their wives to formalize male alliances,” While possibly not as widespread as western cultures i think in these cultures the control of a women’s sexuality was still evolutionary beneficial. I.E. Instead of a man keeping her for himself, he controls her for the benefit of the larger family. I need to read into historical matriarchal cultures.
“I provided a quote to counteract those specific points of your statements, as clearly there exists at least one society in the world (at least) where women having sex with many men is not a “legitimate cause for concern”, at least not in the sense that it is in most Western societies. “
No, you didn’t – you didn’t show that in that remote society, there was any what you call “slut-shaming.” Furthermore, you didn’t show that neither mother NOR father cared who their biological childrenare.
“So my quote was to challenge the general statements that you initially made about female “promiscuity” because that one society doesn’t complain about so-called “slut-shaming.”
“If you meant that this was historically a cause for concern in North America, I’ll accept that, but only if you are referring to the historical European colonizers and the numerous other cultures that they influenced after putting down routes on this continent.”
Not just North America, there is no society where neither parent cares who a child belongs to.
“There are no societies (zero, none) where mothers and fathers don’t care who their offspring are. Thus, historically, women having sex with many men was historically a legitmate cause for concern.”
Cripes, our schools do an awful job of teaching history. This is not an argument, and certainly not a historical one. Indeed, “historically x” is *never* a legitimate argument, because historically y and z, not to mention a-w have also been true depending on where and when you are, and whom you ask.
But since you asked, kibbutzniks have, at various times, attempted, albeit disastrously, to raise children communally. Childless Romans, prior to their widespread conversion to Christianity, adopted children in order to ensure the continuity of their line/name. And, then there is the widespread practice of adopting foundlings, so there you go, parents who are more concerned with their children than with their children’s parentage.
“Cripes, our schools do an awful job of teaching history.”
That’s rude. But, I’m right and your own examples prove me right and you wrong. So, it’s okay.
Let’s recap:
I said:
“There are no societies (zero, none) where mothers and fathers don’t care who their offspring are.”
Ironically, you disputed that with examples that prove it. Thank you.
The kibbutzniks DID, in fact, know, track, and care who their biological children were and, for that reason, included them in their community. They knew who their biological children were. They named them. They usually slept in the apartments with their own parents. They tried to not care, to allow them to be raised by nurses, but it didn’t work. So, again, thanks for proving my point.
Even in this extreme communal living case, parents knew and cared who their biological children were.
Oh, and regarding adoption. You DO know that in our society, adoption is very common. If you’re trying to use that to prove that we live in a society where neither mothers nor fathers care who their biological children are, that’s even a worse example than your other one.
Regarding childless people adopting children, you do know that still happens, right? People who can’t have their own biological children, for whatever reason, adopt them. Unless you want to site our society as evidence of one where mothers and fathers don’t care who their biological children are.
The response is always, “that’s too bad, deal with it”. So predictable…
We got it a long time ago. We don’t have real problems, just whiny complaints.
The funny thing is these same individuals will complain about how society and the media cause young girls to have body issues because they create an unrealistic standard of beauty.
My issue with this article isn’t that it’s saying height issues are real…my issue is that it’s comparing height issues with slut shaming. Also, I’m not a fan of the EvoPsych explanations.
Why do you have a problem with that comparison? It seems he is using them more as examples of double standards. I don’t think they are on equal footing either, and I don’t think the author is saying that either. I could be wrong about that though. And I’m a big fan of the real EP, and not so much of the EP some people think it is
Nothing ever counts unless it can happen to her.
Being patrilineal has no relevance here. BOTH women and men, in general, throughout history have wanted to know who their children are and, in most cases raise them, forming the basic unit of society: the family.
However, based on biology, only women (until DNA testing) could know for sure if she had sex with many men. When people trace family trees, which I have done, BOTH mothers and fathers are shown, not just fathers.
I agree, the way to test someone’s belief is as follows: if paternity of a child is unimportant, then neither is maternity – so if a mother’s baby is swapped at a hospital and she takes home someone else’s infant, it shouldn’t matter to her.
Well Said Transhuman Well Said.
Here is a point to ponder for you along that same lines. Why is that if a man is duped by his wife (mother of child) into believing he is the childs father the legal system will not compensate him for his loss of money BUT if a hospital makes an honest mistake they are on the hook for millions.
If paternity doesn’t matter then neither does maternity: Except that society views paternity as the provider and maternity as the nurturer. In basic terms the nurturer costs society nothing but the provider costs a ton of money. that is why states like California doesn’t care much WHO is named as the father as long as someone is.
Obsidian: Is that really how evolutionary psychology explains women’s height requirements? I ask, because that doesn’t really make sense… I can’t work out how greater height categorically translates into being a better hunter and protector, i.e. greater fitness for survival. There are advantages to a shorter stature. For example, the Voyageurs (French fur-traders who operated in the wilderness to the north and west of Lake Superior) were on the whole shorter than the general population because short people have greater strength and endurance proportional to their size.
I’ve heard a different explanation, which sounds much more plausible to me: It’s by now well-known that the quality of nutrition a person gets, especially in the first two years of life, determines whether that person reaches the full height that their genetics allows. (That’s why populations around the world have grown taller as their society becomes wealthier.) A tall man probably had access to good nutrition through-out his life, and therefore likely comes from a family with some wealth.
I find the nutrition/wealth hypothesis for women’s height bias more plausible because it’s of cultural origin, rather than an innate drive. And indeed, in some human cultures, a man’s height is much less important, and in a few, it’s not important at all.
Right, and evo psych doesn’t explain why some people are actually attracted to different body types.
Randomness in attraction is key to diversifying the gene pool I’d guess. It might help dilute the gene pool to avoid everyone having the same hereditary problems?
So then the evo psych stuff isn’t accurate, otherwise no one would find that range of heights etc attractive…
Evo psych could just mean the majority of people, such as the majority of people are heterosexual, majority may like certain hip-to-waist ratio, majority may like larger breasts vs smaller, majority may like tall vs short. It’s not an exact thing though, it’s not like we’re all the same and like the same stuff.
Evo Psych could theoretically explain the diversity of sexual attraction, but usually the popular versions of it are used simplistically, as if “Nature” prefers one simple, solitary reason for anything. Evolutionary psychology could explain diversity if it saw diversity as a real product of natural selection instead of an illusion.
It makes more sense to me to argue that human survival is a product of diversity, not of simple forces. Here’s a theory: Homo sapiens has been so adaptable precisely BECAUSE we are attracted to all sorts of different people. There is no one-size-fits all, and perhaps that’s a natural offshoot of having such weird, imaginative, symbolic, pleasure-seeking brains. Maybe our sexual psychology is “supposed to be” complex and variable and not bound by universal absolutes.
Julie,
To understand the EP theories, you have to think about them the same way we think about the idea of “privilege.”
Not every male is actually “privileged.” Some have had very hard lives. However, in the broadest sense, and looking at averages, people who are men tend to experience certain benefits that people who are women do not experience.
EP is little different. Sure, not EVERY woman will want a man with characteristic X. However, in the broadest sense, and looking at the averages, there will be an overall tendency towards a preference for characteristic X.
As I mentioned up thread, the way to measure this is with the questions “Would you prefer it if your current man were a few inches taller? Conversely, would you prefer it if he were a few inches shorter?”
On average, most women will answer “yes” to the first question and “no” to the second. This reveals the preference.
I prefer them the way I like them. I’ll be offline away for the next week, but take care.
There was a tv show once that showed cuddle fish mating practices and opened my eyes up to how complicated this can get (wish i could find it). It showed a very large male protecting the female he had mated with from other males/predators. (like squid, cuddle fish can actively reject sperm) A smaller male approached the defensive male, showing female colors and was accepted and proceeded to mate with the female and was accepted as the fertilizer for the females eggs.The female ended up staying with the larger male. Maybe one day we will have computers that can take into account the zillion variables that go into this.
5′ 8″ is considered short?
Right? I’ve met some exceptionally sexy men who are under 5’9″
Anyone else for Seth Green?
I’ve always wondered how George Clooney made the sexiest man list.
5-8 would require you to make $120,000 more then a 6′ tall man and on average you’ earn 10% less then one. Meaning you’d have to be one successful man so yeah 5-8 is short. Written by a 5-7 man.
I’ve heard that statistic about men making more money per year for every inch of height over 6 feet. I’m over six feet, but I have yet to receive a bonus check for that. Is there a government agency where I apply for the height benefit? Is there an account in my name somewhere I don’t know about? I think I’m being cheated.
All, I have to say is, I’m 5’8″ and as a “tall-ish” woman, I do like tall guys, or guys a little taller than me, BUT…I have dated short guys and in fact my ex-husband was 5’7″. Obsidian, I’d date you. You look cute and you are smart. You think deeply. Good qualities. Yup, I’d date you.
Hi ms id date you,
Thanks so much for the kind thoughts. Deeply and much appreciated!
O.
Does anyone else feel that the parallel Obsidian draws is a bit odd? I’d argue that the better comparison for height bias (which I’m very familiar with) is weight bias, or build bias as miss information brings up. I’m not sure why he chose to ignore that analogy in favour of one that’s frankly a bit tortured, but I guess figuring that choice of his out is an exercise for the reader.
Actually, a parallel would be something genetic outside the person’s control, a physical characteristic that can’t be changed without surgery or other extraordinary measures. So, weight wouldn’t fit. Breast size or (as you say) “build” (e.g. large breasts) would be a better example.
As a tall girl (5’9″), I have a slight bias for men who are at least my height or taller. It’s really been a tough issue for me because I have a complex from being teased mercilessly about my height in grade school. On the other hand, I have a friend who is my height and she is married to a Little Person (person with dwarfism). So you never know!
I’ve often had shorter men ask me out and I always wonder why that is. It seems like they would want to pursue shorter women. Be that as it may, most of my serious relationships have been with men around 5’10″, for whatever reason. Used to bug me in high school when I saw the basketball players alwsys dating the petite cheerleaders.
“I’ve often had shorter men ask me out and I always wonder why that is.”
Think of it like this. I’m 5′ 7″ tall. Women wear high heels. Shorter women have shorter legs and seem to wear higher heels to lengthen them. I dated a woman I thought was 5′ 6″ or 5′ 7″ and found out she was 5′ 2″ when she took her shoes off. If I dated only women who looked visibly shorter than I in public, I’d only date women under 5 feet tall. That doesn’t leave many options.
You don’t notice that a woman’s wearing 3 or 4 inch heels?
Actually, what I’ve wondered is why men who are noticeably shorter than me (say, 5’7″ or shorter) have asked me out. The questions that go through my mind are — wouldn’t they feel weird about having a taller girlfriend? Would things like kissing be awkward (I’ll always have to lean over to kiss them)? What if I want to wear heels? If I wear 3″ heels, I’m 6′ tall. Will they feel strange to be with me in public? Will people look at us and think we look odd together? This has nothing to do with whether or not I find them attractive. I’ve known shorter men who are very attractive. Some of this comes from my own psychological complex, as I mentioned, about being “too tall.”
I briefly dated a woman who was a couple inches taller than I. It did feel a little weird, but I told her that she was with me and no one would laugh at her. Her concerns brought out the protective instinct in me and made me defiant. Kissing goodnight was a bit awkward, but as long as we were sitting, I could lean her back and or lean over her and kiss her in a downward angle. The one advantage I remember was slow dancing. I don’t like to dance at all, but I will slow dance from time to time. I’m sure having my face in her bosom was awkward for her, but I didn’t mind at all .
Someday I’ll get the hang of the smiley face
.
“’I’ve often had shorter men ask me out and I always wonder why that is. It seems like they would want to pursue shorter women”
Because you believe it is axiomatic men should be taller and bigger. Any analogy I could think of would be offensive.
But do MEN want to be with a woman who is taller and bigger than them? Wouldn’t that feel emasculating? I’m not defending these attitudes, but they can be very engrained. Personally I don’t feel very sexy if I’m feeling like a giant.
As far as you feeling sexy, I don’t know how to help. The only thing I could say is that the guy you’re with had to have seen something in you. Part of feeling sexy is how the other person treats you. You don’t have to restrict discussing your likes and dislikes to the bedroom. What makes you feel special, a guy holding open a door or a call out of the blue telling you how pretty you are? If you feel special, you’ll feel beautiful, giant or no.
Some men may feel emasculated or intimidated when they are in the presence of bigger guys. Other guys like me aren’t. That may be why I personally don’t have an issue with dating bigger women. Even now, I’ll meet a woman who is smaller, but into martial arts. They tend to be more skilled. It is my experience that even women with the same belt as a man will be technically superior. I think guys often rely on strength and sometimes get lazy with technique. Most of these women had higher belts than I. I found it cute that they believed they would beat me in a fight. When they suggested sparing, I would just smile and defer. It depends on the confidence level of the individual guy, but then again, have you ever considered that you may be worth it? You might be all he needs to feel a man.
The evolutionary argument fails for me in that I am very short (5″6) but built stockily and muscular, so much so that my skinny friend who is 6″2 will not wrestle me because he is at a significant weight disadvantage and knows he will lose. In fact, almost all of my friends who are just tall, and not particularly broad, will not wrestle me because they know I am stronger. Even the ones who have similar weights to me are wary, because they know that my upper body is stronger. Every male in my family is short, but we have survived for generations fighting people taller than us, and winning. I was able to turn into a credible pass-rusher against taller people just because of my frame. So in fact, I’d venture to say that I’d be a much better asset in the wild than my taller friends, yet they are more attractive. At this point, I think its more cultural then anything else.
Being 5′ 7″ and a former kick boxer, it’s not just weight and power. Your height gives you a lower center of gravity and better balance.
Hence the winning at wrestling and pass rushing. It’s all about getting low. The lowest man wins.
Yeah, and if we’re talking about some kind of “man the hunter” evolution, it’s sure easier to run through the woods when you don’t have to duck so many branches….
There is another interesting thing about fighting and size. In boxing there is something known as optimal punching range. It’s basically the length of your arm minus the length of your fist. When your opponent is that distance away, you can fully extend your arm and keep your shoulder and elbow in tight to your ribs. When you move closer to your target, your shoulder and elbow fly out and you lose power. You might have heard the term getting inside his hands. A shorter opponent with shorter arms can outslug a larger taller opponent with longer arms if he were to get inside his hands.
Wow, what a big surprise looking at the comments here.
The people complaining about the article seem to primarily not want to believe in Evolutionary Psychology simply because it is Evolutionary Psychology.
HeatherN is honest about this in one comment.
Justin Cascio is more devious, claiming that EP “used to be” Social Darwinism (sorry Justin, you fundamentally misunderstand EP or Social Darwinism if you believe this to be true, though it’s difficult from you comment to determine which you are misunderstanding).
This is particularly problematic because opinions on this site are usually based in “sciences” that are not based on empirical evidence. We regularly see ideas from Gender Studies, Ethnic Studies, and the Critical or Post Modern schools of Sociology, all fields that eschew empirical evidence. These are rarely criticized, mostly because they seem to reflect ideas that “progressive” types want to believe (nothing is anyone’s fault, unless you are a rich white man, and then everything is your fault).
But the moment you reach for Evolutionary Psychology it’s going to be attacked as “lacking rigor” or a “smokescreen” for a belief system.
If you cannot see the hypocrisy here, I can’t help you, but if you’re ignoring arguments because you don’t like their conclusions, you may need to challenge yourself to widen your point of view.
We’re talking about height preferences, and therefore whether Obsidian gets a date on Friday night. He’s couching it in terms of Evolutionary Psychology, and I can’t help but notice that the exact same outcomes, for the same reasons, would be deduced by a Social Darwinist. In both cases, they explain that height is a visible and accurate-enough signifier of better survival qualities to justify discrimination on its basis.
The rest of your comment, Mike L, is casting broad aspersions on the entire site and which kinds of science we accept and which we don’t. That is outside what is permitted by our commenting guidelines. Restrict your comments to what is said here, and be specific about what you’re responding to.
Justin,
Social Darwinism was about consciously ordering society to achieve certain outcomes by guaranteeing some groups success and others failure.
This has NOTHING to do with Evolutionary Psychology.
I’d also point out that your own comment contained a fairly offensive claim that the author was “crying” about something – a claim you attempted to “clarify” when someone else called you out on it.
I would strongly suggest that you examine your own comments before lecturing others about the commenting policy.
The term “social Darwinism” was coined by Hofstadter, though the idea predates his coinage, and used as means to dismiss ideas by Thomas Malthus and others like him. It has nothing to do with EP or evolution theory. Today, it is used as a pejorative by some who really don’t understand evolution, or EP for that matter.
Mike L:
Just wanted to say that your comments have been spot-on; bravo!
O.
Right, he should stick to labeling individual writers “crying, noisy complainers” because THAT fits with the commenting guidelines.
5’8″ isn’t that short. This is anecdotal, but of my friends, the biggest ex-player (he’s in a committed relationship today) is 5’7″. And another one of my friends is 6’1″ and has never had a girlfriend, and he’s in his mid-40s. I know it’s a bore hearing this, but it mostly boils down to attitude, energy, and a few other things like not being strikingly hideous and being at least marginally employed.
You can condemn people for liking what they like, but it won’t get you anywhere. Women will give you all sorts of reasons for turning you down, and frequently not even a truthful one, but the best response is to recognize that it’s a no-go, abort the mission, and move on – easier said than done I know.
Thanks, but this doesn’t answer the question and us largely irrelevant.
The question was, name a society where NEITHER mothers nor fathers care who their offspring are, and then, name one of THOSE where slut shaming is complained about. This reference answers neither request.
Nope, sorry. A preference for thin/fit women has no roots in biology, it’s socio-cultural. It does nothing for your genes, and is not evident across all socio-cultural boundaries, just look at Victorian illustrations or the Venus of Willendorf. Symmetrical faces, gynoid fat (boobs and hips) and a 7.0 waist-to-hip ratio for women, height and square jaws for men indicate health and greater fertility. These preferences are biological, and can be traced across social and cultural boundaries, although I imagine that the ideal height and cup-size vary in relation to the norm. To put it bluntly, personal experiences and preferences are not grounds for making sweeping generalizations about human behaviour. (What? You thought the handle was just a pun? Dude…)
Men are no more and no less entitled to their preferences than women are. Members of both genders can sometimes be unreasonable in their expectations, and impolite in stating them. Maybe we can all try to be a little kinder and a little less judge-y? We all live in glass houses.*
*For the record, I prefer shorter men. I’ve never told a man that we wasn’t enough anything to merit my company, although I admit that I have told the overly persistent, who are usually under 20 or over 60, that I’m too old for them.
I agree with what you say here, with one caveat about the “Venus” figurines.
It’s very hard to tell in isolation whether those female figures truly represent a kind of “beauty” ideal to the people who made them. If the figures were totems to represent female spiritual beings, that does not necessarily mean that they were meant to be the embodiment of feminine beauty. (Not every goddess is the goddess of beauty. Goddesses can be just as “ugly” as gods. They can also be sublimely grotesque, just like other spirits.) Whoever first called them Venus figures may have been jumping to conclusions. I’m not saying she wasn’t considered beautifu, just that it’s hard to say one way or the other.
If the Venus figurines really were idealized images of feminine beauty, I’m guessing those images were extremely hard to achieve, so exaggerated as to be impossible in that context. Given their food supply, I suspect it would be extremely difficult for the average hunter-gatherer to ever achieve that percentage of body fat even if she tried, if modern h/g groups are any indication.
Agreed.
Some students I knew went on a missionary trip to South America, I think it was Guatemala. One of the things they said that stuck with me was that many of the people they met thought that it was mice that they were on the heavy side because they were thought of as being healthier. There was so little food that the two other things they told me, which stuck out was that they were eating fish at a diner type place and there was a small boy just waiting inside. When they had finished, he asked them if they were done. They thought that he wanted the lemon wedge that they got with the fish, but when they said yes, he started nibbling at the bones. When they left to return to the states, the entire group elected to leave all their things like clothing behind for the village they were working in. The poverty was so great their consciences wouldn’t let them take it home. If fat is associated with health and I guess an ability to acquire resources, then why does our culture idolize the thin?
“If fat is associated with health and I guess an ability to acquire resources, then why does our culture idolize the thin?”
Because in our culture fat is associated with gluttony/greed, BAD health, lazyness, increased risk of heart disease, diabetes etc, and other negative associations.
That’s true. I was wondering more along the lines of that evo psych stuff.
I think the Evo Psych explanation is a noteworthy possibility, but it has some real limitations. If the argument is that women are “naturally” drawn to taller men because bigger men are better protection, better hunters, better providers, etc., in some “biological” sense, then there are some major holes in that theory.
Leaving aside the role of cultural difference for the moment, the fact is that selecting for larger men is NOT necessarily best for the long-term survival of a community or the whole species. Larger men also use up more resources, and perhaps lose more heat than more compact men. In a famine situation, taller men may die before shorter men do. (And men before women.) Larger men are not necessarily better hunters than smaller men. Stealth and speed are more important in hunting than size is, and large size could even get in the way of that. Besides, _if_ strength were absolutely crucial, taller men are not necessarily stronger than other men, so selecting based on height is a little independent of strength. At the very least, there are upper bounds to selecting for taller over shorter.
I am also wondering how universal this really is. Among the Mbuti forest people (formerly called “pygmies”), do women prefer taller men to shorter men? If they do, then obviously it’s a highly relative preference for “tall,” whatever that means in any case. Among some groups in the Sudan, being 7’ tall is pretty common. Do those women find you unattractive if you’re “only” 6 ‘3?
I perused a lot of personal ads years and years ago when I was single. All I have is anecdotal information, and personals may not be a good representation of women’s preferences. But, I don’t remember any women-seeking-men ads stating a preference for “short” men. Most of them listed no preference, but quite a few for “tall” or even gave a specific minimum. Probably 99% had unspecified height or “tall.” Sounds like an expressed preference to me.
“Objectification” is a magic word. It means “I’m getting judged on something and I don’t like it.” It never means “I’m judging others and applying unfair standards.” It means whatever the victim-of-the-moment wants it to mean, and as such, is a useless term.
(Please read all of it before commenting)
So what are we trying to say folks?! Men are evolutionarilly excused from calling women sluts while women are terrible for wanting to let “only” tall men between their legs? …….lol! Actually, it does kinda ring as a similar trope doesn’t it?
Think about it… Casting women is a negative light because “many” women want a tall man for sex (compared to) casting women in a negative light for having lots of sex with “other men except you”. In a way it seems to boil down to a similar issue: some men are upset because many of the women they want won’t have sex with them. From this angle, it’s all about men getting laid and getting upset when they can’t get the “lay” that they want. …….but what about going from a different angle?
New Angle: Why don’t we all grow up and drop the fighting and accept that people are gonna want what they want. Why don’t we grow up and learn to walk away from people who won’t take us for who and what we are. Let’s let go of “trying to figure it out”! Let’s stop taking our past hurts out on each other!!
I’m an hour-glass with some extra flesh. I love my curves and my softness…I CHOOSE men who appreciate ME… I’ve dated shorter and taller, slim and non-slim, bookworm and jock…but I refuse ANY man who won’t have me as I am.
To the author: You are some kind of wonderful irregardless of size
Hi dee,
Thanks for the comments and especially the kind parting shot! Much appreciated.
O.
Well,
I saw a completely different (I think)double standard at work in the Limbaugh-Fluke controversy.
Would a male law student, whether married or single, have been taken seriously by ANYONE had he gone before a legislative committee and asserted that he had spent X amount for birth control and that he would like his insurance(or whoever) to pay for it? Or would he have been treated to comments that either a) his sex life wasn’t active enough subsidizing; or b) he should be spending more time studying. Ha ha ha. And I don’t think such a male student would have gotten much public support , unlike Ms Fluke, no matter which accusation was leveled at him.
@AnonymousDog:
Very good point! Hadnt thought about that one…
O.
I guess feelings of being tall are all relative. I’m just shy of 6′ and feel quite short. I often joke that I’m the tallest person in the world with a Napoleon complex. My father was 6’6″ and I was a freakishly tall child. Unfortunately, I never had a growth spurt during puberty, and I ended well below what was considered to be my projected height. For me, it is all relative. Yes, I am taller than the average person and most people that I see on the street are shorter than I am; however, I FEEL short because I am short compared to where I should be and where I was told my entire life I would be. If you had asked anyone as a child if I’d be under 6′ tall as an adult, not a single person would say that I would be, yet here I am. I was over 5′ at the age of 8.
Interesting perspective, Collin, thank you for sharing. I guess it’s like being a part of a family with a long line of scientists and ending up the creative type. Despite the fact that you’re decent at math, you still feel inadequate. You have too many insecurities for someone who seems like such a great guy.
I can fairly state that I’m insecure about everything. Even things that are so demonstrably true like my intelligence I feel insecure about, though that has more to do with not having gone to college than not being incredibly intelligent. Great is, apparently, in the eye of the beholder. I have yet to find someone who finds me acceptable much less great, but thank you.
My father got his doctorate at 37. My mother reminds me of that fairly often. My oldest brother got a full ride academic scholarship in high school and college. He got his masters in his 20s. I’m 44 and three classes and an internship away from my masters, but am seriously considering quitting. I’ve been considering quitting for the last two or three quarters. I didn’t think I’d get through the first class going back to school after 12 years, but I’m still there.
There were 46 people who enrolled when I did. We’re down to about 30 and I’m one of a few to still have a straight A average, which will probably change after this class, but hey. Dude, we all have fears. We all have doubts. We’re all insecure at some point. The measure of a person is how we face them. Before you sell yourself short, consider this. You’re on a GMP topic thread. This isn’t like other sites where you post a comment and no one replies. People here dialogue. Most people on this site on pretty knowledgeable and opinionated. I warn people if you come here, bring your A game. I’m also guessing you’re using your real name and that’s your picture. That tells me more.
Mike L, in response to the comments saying that every woman would wish her man be a little taller:
Dee said it best:
“I CHOOSE men who appreciate ME… I’ve dated shorter and taller, slim and non-slim, bookworm and jock…but I refuse ANY man who won’t have me as I am.”
I’m sick of people telling me that I do or should have a preference for a specific body type, height, history, etc. I’ve spent most of my sexually active and dating life crushing on, having relationships, and having sex with a very wide variety of people. I can’t put any pattern on it other than that the spark has been felt with and that I’ve had access to their company (so I guess the pattern has been people my age with something in common). It doesn’t mean that I like everyone (I’m certainly not attracted to every person I meet, far from it), just that certain things don’t really matter when it comes to emotional and sexual compatibility.
When I’ve been really into a man, I start to love every part of his body as it is, from the toes to the hair to the smells to the sexual bits to the clothes to the perfections to the imperfections. Sure, if he starts to feel unhealthy or unhappy in his skin, I will support him in a healthier lifestyle (I know that I feel ‘off’ if I gain or lose too much weight, and I expect the same from him).
I could NOT date a guy who feels that there’s something off about my body, or that I’m too tall, as many have said. I’m medium-tall height (somewhere between 5’7″ and 5’8″) and I like wearing heels. I don’t give a crap if the guy is shorter than I am, as long as he doesn’t give me crap that I’m taller or ask me to not wear heels if they make me feel hotter and more confident. A guy who appreciates my body the way I appreciate his is a much better catch than a guy whose inches fall into some ‘perfect’ range. Apparently surveys don’t mention this, but like Heather N said, in my personal life, that’s how I’ve found it to be, even among the most beautiful women with the most choices. Sure, that doesn’t count for much, but it’s something.
Aya,
Great for you. But you are not what this comment is about.
How often have you read a piece that complains of the objectification of women by men? Is the inevitable male response of “I don’t objectify, so objectification must not happen!” ever comforting? Is it ever true that if a one particular man doesn’t objectifiy that objectification doesn’t happen in general?
The answer to the final question is an obvious “no.”
This isn’t about the preferences of any particular woman, any more than complaints about the objectification of women deal with the attitudes of any particular man.
Why is this so hard to recognize?
On the other hand it’s refreshing to see people talk about their likes especially when it doesn’t follow the typical stereotypes. Look at the article on small breasts, plenty of men were shouting it from the top of a hill how much they loved small breasts as opposed to big ones that are stereotypically meant to be the best.
If anyone wonders if this preference is real – go to any dating website and check out 100 women’s profiles, which includes their height. And, then note that as a rule, they list their preference as a taller man.