Dating: If you're short, you better make $$$$$$$

[onthebutton]

El D,

My surprise was that it apparently matters so much. Sure, everyone knew it was a factor, but a $35k/inch/year factor? But, maybe my surprise is greater than most people because I'm taller than most people. I don't know....just still seems like a lot to me!

[Klompy]

tuq,

It's a good question because I don't think it would be that bad to be a short guy, but it would SUCK to be a fat chick. What makes it interesting is that if the fat girl didn't suck at life she could become a normal person within a year prob, but the short guy can't really change what he has.

I'd say it sucks more to be a fat girl, even though they did it to themself.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Height
Attractiveness
Power
Money
Physical Fitness
Humor
Intelligence
Uniqueness/Edge

[/ QUOTE ]

Ladder theory says otherwise! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I think the points to the thread are that height is baked into attractiveness, not a separate category, and also that height can actually be a deal-breaker for women.

Meaning, on a first-level look, if you are in a bar, some category of men are excluded as an option based on height alone. And as fluffpop pointed out, even from more serious type relationships.

We do it to fat chicks, they do it to short guys. Seems fair. However because women are not as superficial, the stature issue is easier to overcome (vs. being a fat chick). That's prolly not fair, but whatever.

-Al

[/ QUOTE ]

They're at least as superficial. A huge part of their potential mates are commonly excluded instantly because of money, while absolute super-trolls get plenty of attention if they have a few bucks behind them. This is hard to see if you're the one with the bucks, and not flattering to admit, because it would be nicer to claim many of those victories for one's charm, wit, or good looks.

[tuq]

Klompy,

I'm just surprised the pole results are so skewed. Genetics plays a huge part in people's physical makeup so some fat chicks can't do too much about it, but what I was trying to get at is which is easier to overcome? Most fat chicks could lose a lot of weight if they put their mind to it, whereas little guys will never get big, and have to make $35K/year/inch more to compensate. To me that seems harder.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW I say short guy since it's probably the harder one to overcome, but being a fat chick would really suck hard too.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a lot easier to say "it's not my fault that I'm short" than to try to claim that it's not your fault being fat. Overweight women have it pretty rough in our society.

-McGee

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. Lots of guys like them. Lots of Mexicans absolutely love them. And let's face it, plenty of guys will f*ck anything that moves.

I don't think height disqualifies men in the same way that fat disqualifies women, because they are not the same category of desirability to the opposite sex. A fairer comparison would be fat chicks vs. broke guys.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
El D,

My surprise was that it apparently matters so much. Sure, everyone knew it was a factor, but a $35k/inch/year factor? But, maybe my surprise is greater than most people because I'm taller than most people. I don't know....just still seems like a lot to me!

[/ QUOTE ]

It might also have to do with dating outside one's race. Maybe some women will be more likely to date a Mexican if he has money. Mexicans tend to be a lot shorter than white Americans. Same with Asians. Asian guys famously talk about how white chicks pass them by. I'm sure a few bucks makes a persuasive argument for many of them to reconsider. Otherwise, stick with whitey.

[Klompy]

tuq,

the poll looks to be getting closer, "over the huge sample size of like 10" but I still think that anybody voting short guy is stupid. If you're a fat chick you're instantly f'ed because nobody wants to get with you. I have a hard time believeing that being short is that bad.

[Jon1000]

I haven't posted in a long time, but saw El D's response and had a couple questions. I'm a 5'7" guy, am Chinese, am not particularly attractive, and have pretty mediocre game. That being said, I generally don't have any kind of problem bringing women home, and when they're not asian, they're usually taller than me.

I live in SF, and wanted to ask 2+2ers if they thought city guys have an advantage simply because the pick up pool is larger than average. Also El D, I don't know what kind of crowd you hang around with, but I do find that I have to work a LOT harder when I hang out with my white yuppie friends to pick up women as opposed to when a more mixed group heads SoM or hipster bar hopping or the like. I'm not really sure what I'm trying to ask, but it boils down to something like, I know the height and race cards play into picking women up as the two often relate to women's attractiveness scales, but to what degree do you think the race card plays into everything? I ask, b/c i generally feel more constrained by race than I've ever felt by height. Also, do you think you could have a long term relationship w/ a taller woman, b/c I think that would be much more difficult than bringing one home for the night or dating one for a month. I don't care about height when I'm trying to pick women up, but if I were to date a noticeably taller one for an extended period of time, i think it would get to me.

[Blarg]

I don't think being short is that bad, but I have my doubts that many women truly find it impossible to get laid. I've seen every kind of beast you can think of with boyfriends and husbands. Guys are too horny to leave that many women unf*cked. Even if you may not want the fat chick, or the fat chick may want guys way out of her league, someone will want most of them. She just has to decide if whoever shows up is better than celibacy.

[Klompy]

[ QUOTE ]
I live in SF, and wanted to ask 2+2ers if they thought city guys have an advantage simply because the pick up pool is larger than average.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, big time. (coming from a small town iowan)