# Below average looks/height men, are the new women



## Xool Xecutioner (Jul 8, 2018)

Veggie said:


> Why do you even care what a Chadsexual Chewbacca thinks about you to begin with? They're only putting a dent on the dating/sexual market because you for some reason keep them there. Desperate?
> 
> That smells. Don't be smelly.



I mean, I didn't put them by me. I'm just a paperboy of what is happening, and Chadsexuals Chewbaccas are, well, newsworthy to me.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Xool Xecutioner said:


> I mean, I didn't put them by me. I'm just a paperboy of what is happening, and Chadsexuals Chewbaccas are, well, newsworthy to me.


A true journalist in a time of fake news! Well then nevermind.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

rohan89 said:


> Nope my face is average at least
> 
> Have been called handsome before, admittedly when I was leaner and face was more chiseled


Because face>body>weight>height is for women -- unless the male is a good weight. Then face>body>height>weight. "Average face" is still attractive to women but from another appeal - it is more masculine for males to be 'average' instead of overcompensating because then it just looks feminine. 

Idiot(s) saying that height is a make it or break it for anything but strippers is laughable. Also, most female specimen do not care about huge muscles in males so the "gym dude bros" are slow & mostly appealing to gay men.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

@Xool Xecutioner - Sorry, rereading that wasn't fair. You did say that you were just a paperboy. Don't shoot the messenger and all 

Still curious how these women would be putting a "dent" on the dating market tho, if they aren't deemed to be worthy of it.


----------



## rohan89 (Oct 15, 2016)

Funny thing is that you have mentioned 3 men that you have slept with or wanted to sleep with in your posts on my threads.

They are as follows 

-the guy with the dirty house that you 'only looked at because of his jawline and his 6'2 frame'

-the 6'4 pothead that you dated 

-the fat guy that also happened to be tall that you wanted to sleep with 


But height is no big deal TeeHee!!

Please tell me of the <5'10 men that you 'happened' to fall into bed with.



Catwalk said:


> rohan89 said:
> 
> 
> > Nope my face is average at least
> ...


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Xool Xecutioner said:


> While true that guys should go for their looksmatchs, there's quite a significant problem in between: many girls (right now) are delusional in thinking they deserve Chads (i.e highly attractive men) rightfully because they're "beautiful" chicks and average or ugly guys are incompatible with their aesthetic looks despite the facts they look like they slept on the wrong side of bed without makeup. Seriously, those Chadsexuals Beckys and female Chewbaccas are putting a huge dent on the dating/sexual market and devaluing their looksmatchs.


How are they delusional? The 'average' woman puts almost 8/10 into her appearance (i.e. skin care, hair, dress, fitness, makeup, et al) aside from niche group of low social inhibition internet NTP chicks.

She does not think she "deserves" attractive males, she gets them. Attractive males will fuck anything - that is why they are attractive. Average/below average males do not want to game women - nor appeal to them sexually -- they just want females to 'accept them as they are' .. Ashy feet and all.

Attractive men do not do this. The average female looks WAY better and does WAY more than the average male on a daily basis. She should absolutely date/fuck up.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Catwalk said:


> Because face>body>weight>height is for women -- unless the male is a good weight. Then face>body>height>weight. "Average face" is still attractive to women but from another appeal - it is more masculine for males to be 'average' instead of overcompensating because then it just looks feminine.
> 
> Idiot(s) saying that height is a make it or break it for anything but strippers is laughable. Also, most female specimen do not care about huge muscles in males so the "gym dude bros" are slow & mostly appealing to gay men.


I actually can't argue with your > breakdown. The only reason I tend to be attracted to taller men is because I'm also taller, and some guys have an issue with that.

I do kinda care about muscles tho. My exes have all lifted. I rate that above height for sure. (But not above face. I can't stand gym rats with bad genes who act like they're hot sh*t). Broad shoulders at least will do tho. lol.


----------



## rohan89 (Oct 15, 2016)

A very mediocre chubby chick can buy expensive boots and makeup to obfuscate her face and flab.

What sort of 'effort' do you actually think a short guy who doesn't have a broad frame can do to make himself look alot more attractive?


Catwalk said:


> Xool Xecutioner said:
> 
> 
> > While true that guys should go for their looksmatchs, there's quite a significant problem in between: many girls (right now) are delusional in thinking they deserve Chads (i.e highly attractive men) rightfully because they're "beautiful" chicks and average or ugly guys are incompatible with their aesthetic looks despite the facts they look like they slept on the wrong side of bed without makeup. Seriously, those Chadsexuals Beckys and female Chewbaccas are putting a huge dent on the dating/sexual market and devaluing their looksmatchs.
> ...


----------



## rohan89 (Oct 15, 2016)

And there we have it 
Genetics genetics genetics.

A woman gets actually angry at a man who was given a bad hand but works on himself and acts confident because of his work.

This is why there are so many basement dwellers in the west. Because they think 'no matter what I do, she will hate me because of genetics, so why try?'

And then there are so many fuckboys who end up leaving women feeling bitter and mistreated, because they think 'I can do whatever I want because of my genetics'

Men on the other hand tend to respect other men who outwork their genetics. 

Meanwhile there are a lot of women who are not genetically 'hot shit', procreating out there, who were very good at obfuscating it with make up.




Veggie said:


> I do kinda care about muscles tho. My exes have all lifted. I rate that above height for sure. (But not above face. I can't stand gym rats with bad genes who act like they're hot sh*t). Broad shoulders at least will do tho. lol.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

rohan89 said:


> A very mediocre chubby chick can buy expensive boots and makeup to obfuscate her face and flab.
> 
> What sort of 'effort' do you actually think a short guy who doesn't have a broad frame can do to make himself look alot more attractive?


Provide a party.

Sorry I keep interjecting myself.

I'm drunk and bored. Quarantine and stuff. That pandemic thing. 

Are you trying to get with Catwalk?

Trying to assert your worth?


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

rohan89 said:


> Funny thing is that you have mentioned 3 men that you have slept with or wanted to sleep with in your posts on my threads.
> 
> They are as follows
> 
> ...


I am not speaking about myself, I am speaking on what most female specimens respond to in general --- which is comfort traits. Most females would not waste time with an emotionally stunted alcoholic -- I have long voiced my own sexual preference(s) for extremely masculine males.

Seductive short males will do fine - & males that aren't EXTREMELY vain & fixated on getting buff in the gym like a gaybro will do well with women.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

rohan89 said:


> And there we have it
> Genetics genetics genetics.
> 
> A woman gets actually angry at a man who was given a bad hand but works on himself and acts confident because of his works.
> ...


I have pretty good genes. 

Or maybe I'm trolling you and I look like Shrek at his eighth grade dance. Choose your own adventure.

I feel like the best "make up" for men is being funny with a lot of women, fwiw.


----------



## rohan89 (Oct 15, 2016)

Not gonna lie @Catwalk sounds like she'd be a crazy shag.

She had some persian/Arabic writing in her profile as well so if that is her origin, even better 




Veggie said:


> rohan89 said:
> 
> 
> > A very mediocre chubby chick can buy expensive boots and makeup to obfuscate her face and flab.
> ...


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

rohan89 said:


> Not gonna lie @Catwalk sounds like she'd be a crazy shag.
> 
> She had some persian/Arabic writing in her profile as well so if that is her origin, even better


Get it!
@Catwalk - give a man with a bone a bone.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Veggie said:


> I actually can't argue with your > breakdown. The only reason I tend to be attracted to taller men is because I'm also taller, and some guys have an issue with that.
> 
> I do kinda care about muscles tho. My exes have all lifted. I rate that above height for sure. (But not above face. I can't stand gym rats with bad genes who act like they're hot sh*t). Broad shoulders at least will do tho. lol.


 I agree personally. I love a hard jaw and muscles. If they are tall, they just happen to be tall. I have had many shorter meaty guys run a good game on me. They were hot, confident, & cleaned up well. Lul. It was nice while it lasted.

Most women are all about opposite - but I am not sure if it is a virtue signal when the question(s) are obviously asked by medicore men.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Catwalk said:


> I agree personally. I love a hard jaw and muscles. If they are tall, they just happen to be tall. I have had many shorter meaty guys run a good game on me. They were hot, confident, & cleaned up well. Lul. It was nice while it lasted.
> 
> Most women are all about opposite - but I am not sure if it is a virtue signal when the question(s) are obviously asked by medicore men.


Lol, no, I'm the same. I remember being in luv with Brian Litrell from the Backstreet Boys when I was younger. Not even that muscular, but that jaw made up for it. So it kinda supports your face first theory, lol. He's only 5'8". I knew it, I was (am) 5'9", but I was convinced our love could weather the storm, and it didn't matter.


----------



## Xool Xecutioner (Jul 8, 2018)

Catwalk said:


> How are they delusional? The 'average' woman puts almost 8/10 into her appearance (i.e. skin care, hair, dress, fitness, makeup, et al) aside from niche group of low social inhibition internet NTP chicks.


In that they're frauding for guys outta their league? I mean, if we're putting up double standards, then average/below average guys are left without chicks their appropriate looksmatchs because (and I quote): "The 'average' woman puts almost 8/10 into her appearance (i.e. skin care, hair, dress, fitness, makeup, et al)..."



> She does not think she "deserves" attractive males, she gets them. Attractive males will fuck anything - that is why they are attractive. Average/below average males do not want to game women - nor appeal to them sexually -- they just want females to 'accept them as they are' .. Ashy feet and all.


Attractive men have standards, and that anecdotally I don't see a lot of attractive men fucking fugly and landwhales, I don't think Chads will fuck nearly anything willingly. Lots of girls wanna fuck Chad: Chad wanna fuck something that is hot at least. 



> Attractive men do not do this. The average female looks WAY better and does WAY more than the average male on a daily basis. She should absolutely date/fuck up.


Because of makeup, which you admitted. Otherwise, they look like girl next door and nothing special, really. Guys can do fitness, skin care, hair, clothing and perhaps a variety of different but otherwise similar things, but what happens if a girl wants him to be a physical feature that can't be changed easily? The guy is screwed unless he wants to spend dineros on a (risky) surgery, or he is luckily compensated by something (e.g his frame and/or his face). Comparatively, girls are picky in terms of choices, and not all guys can't meet their deals.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

rohan89 said:


> A very mediocre chubby chick can buy expensive boots and makeup to obfuscate her face and flab.
> 
> What sort of 'effort' do you actually think a short guy who doesn't have a broad frame can do to make himself look alot more attractive?


Who cares if he's actually whatever - the point is he is convincing to women (even if he is lying). Charm, [*making her feel 'special/attractive']*, humor, 'style' - .. all seduces & disarms women. Female sexuality is always about her, not you. It does not matter if he is 5'8" or not or if your dick is hard for her.

Look at that (NF) Boomer that responded to my other post about "sex is easy" in your other thread with some poetic monologue 'the self' - all the women are going to like post.

Do you think 'Chad' males are not seductive? Admittedly, some of them aren't but a great deal talk a lot of sexy bullshit, especially to average/below average women -- but most males do not like 'lying and talking bullshit' and virtual signalling to women, so they have trouble with their league.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Veggie said:


> Lol, no, I'm the same. I remember being in luv with Brian Litrell from the Backstreet Boys when I was younger. Not even that muscular, but that jaw made up for it. So it kinda supports your face first theory, lol. He's only 5'8". I knew it, I was (am) 5'9", but I was convinced our love could weather the storm, and it didn't matter.


This part _made me laugh._ There is nothing but truth here. When younger, I remember males I were very attracted to were short-ish/medium height with a defined jaw and big eyes. Still even now, the first thing I 'study' on men is their faces. If he has the jaw, I am about 70% there already. Although I prefer smaller eyes on men now.


----------



## rohan89 (Oct 15, 2016)

Meanwhile in the last hour I paid a very attractive blonde chick from seeking arrangement (who looks kinda like girl who mistreated me today) $200 to send me 10 photos of her tits, pussy and ass(hole), as well as 3 short videos of her playing with herself


She put a good production on for me

Who said quarantine dating isn't fun?


----------



## Six (Oct 14, 2019)

rohan89 said:


> As a man, I can admit that being a woman for most of history (and even today in a lot of the world), has been a thankless task.
> 
> They have had to serve away- be on point with their looks/weight. Cook for men, clean for men, not look at another man, do everything right. And all for very little reward. What could they get in return? Most likely a mediocre man to serve who would provide for them yet maybe boss them around- or in worse cases, beat and r*pe them.
> 
> ...


I'm going to say some things you may not like - and in fact probably things I don't like.

On the one hand I totally sympathise, one of my friends here in that photo is 5'7 and he's cool, theoretical, plays bass, surfs - he's got no ego, however life is different for him in terms of attractiveness because he's short(er).






It's just the like the guy equivalent of tits - a guy will react differently in terms of how much time or attention he gives a girl based on it, sad to say - however it's not the only factor in assessing physical attractiveness - although in some ways it is far more viciously cut-throat because girls can categorically say: You Can't Be Shorter Than Me, or I'll Need At Least 2 Inches Plus So I Can Wear Heels - I don't insult him by saying:

_"Oh just be more confident bro." _ - It's simply not how it works and it insults the reality of the situation. 

I'm actually sort of proud of how guys handle it however - all this vicious, brutal humor, the *Manlets, Will They Ever Learn?* stuff.

























It shows a desire not to hide from reality but to laugh at it - even if it's painful - they're not insisting "heightism" is a systemic, prevalent Evil in society (even though there are correlations to height and promotions / salary) or this notion of "body positivity" should include them or height be added under legislation as a protected characteristic - they just bear up, play the hand they're dealt and Life, Ah, *Finds* A Way... In part because they know all the shit about trying to re-engineer society is stuff which doesn't apply to them as men because they're the "baddies" in this scenario... we can't all be *victims* if we can't point to an *oppressor*.

However this is definitely not healthy:



> Sometimes you put up with some real shit though. Today a young woman who worked at a department store treated me like dog shit, and it was clear that she just doesn't like my looks.
> 
> In her mind, I committed the crime of walking up to her, asking where an electronic item was, and paying for it, all the while being a man below her looks/height standards.
> 
> The sour look she gave me, and the obnoxious way she talked to me (despite being an employee of the place) for meerely existing is something that average or below average men get increasingly now.


I in some sense respect poor service over happy, smiling service - _you're working in a department store, of course you're in a foul mood..._ if you're happy and cheery it seems either the mark of a liar or a moron...

However that said - as I'm often lying and have to pretend to be cheery or compassionate - I sometimes do take it as an affront to a common work ethic, so you can feel pissed at that I feel...

_Ha. Did they refund your money?_
*Who?*
_The charm school?_

However you mustn't elect to interpret such fleeting encounters as a yardstick on your physical appearance - that's a whole other human being you're speaking to who has a whole bunch of shit going on in their life you don't know about - it's not like you are the determining factor on how they appear to be behaving or why - you'll drive yourself nuts.

It's a weird thing I see in guys - I have an uncle who's a dentist and he had this fancy sports car for a while and I sat with him in it once as these two (very pretty) girls walked past and he says:

_"They love themselves don't they..."_

All resentful.

And I was looking at him sideways thinking - oh my days is this why you've bought this thing? You want women to look at you? It's not even a good car, and even if it were the sort of gold-plated maserati which turns heads - it's an unimaginative and totally unoriginal means of saying Look How Much Money I have - don't do it, you can turn heads still just as effectively for less money sitting on a motorbike with a gorilla costume, sir...









And that streak of resentment you see in guys doesn't seem to realise that girls are actually far more forgiving of your looks than guys are - you can still work to Become Something, guys don't generally give a damn whether a girl's just working in a coffee shop or not because they're so much more profoundly superficial - it's actually girls who get bound much more to the genetic dice and who don't get much opportunity to use Will or Choice to improve their stake - do consider that, you actually have the more meritocratic side of things in terms of what you can actually control or change to improve your stake...

I do still think dating apps have f-ed society up with infinite paradox of choice and I do admit that's a hardship if you're not creative enough to seek people outside of the internet - however don't be punished for that lack of creativity - you'll have to Do What Everyone Else Isn't Doing - there's plenty of opportunity out there if you're creative - *don't see it in terms of the Maserati, see it in terms of a motorbike in a gorilla suit...
*

I don't think that's helpful I admit - however I do think it insults you to pretend I can.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Xool Xecutioner said:


> Because of makeup, which you admitted. Otherwise, they look like girl next door and nothing special, really. Guys can do fitness, skin care, hair, clothing and perhaps a variety of different but otherwise similar things, but what happens if a girl wants him to be a physical feature that can't be changed easily? The guy is screwed unless he wants to spend dineros on a (risky) surgery, or he is luckily compensated by something (e.g his frame and/or his face). Comparatively, girls are picky in terms of choices, and not all guys can't meet their deals.


There are plenty of attractive men that'll fuck anything. If you're woman all you have to do is open up and say come get it. Not every 'attractive male' is some wealthy pink-short wearing Frat dude. In fact, this is mostly why I've been attracted less to those Frat/Jock types. I will take a masculine alcoholic with a good jawline over some "high status rich pretty boy" any day. Lul. Only attractive high status men tend to be reluctant to sleep & date with average/below average women. You will not find some intelligent sophisticated doctor scoping out a trailer park filled with meth addicts for a woman - the only exception is streetwalkers & strippers.

Have you considered that dudes just do not care? I am sorry but the ["she looks different in makeup] argument is laughable. Most males know what the women they are fucking consecutively looks like w/out make-up. No woman fucks with a full face of make-up or relaxes/sleeps with her dude wearing a pound of contour. So "fooling males" is laughable. He chooses to stay. He is attracted. It's only the niche group of sexless males that care to this degree about "aLl tHe FaKe WoMeN" as a coping tactic. 

I have never had a guy complain to me about my makeup with it, without it, nor obsess over my beauty regime. They only cared if I looked good or not. Most masculine males are not 'fooled' by anything -- they just fuck like rabbits so who cares. They do not care about make-up and girly stuff & being 'scammed'. That is a beta trait. Masculine males are actually must less discriminate.

And no normal thinking man cares about getting some risky cosmetic surgery. That is a feminine trait & extremely unattractive to women. Even if he is ugly. He games chick(s) by being masculine/charming/personable/socially-skilled, et al. The only guys that have significant trouble are East Asians & Indians.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Catwalk said:


> This part _made me laugh._ There is nothing but truth here. When younger, I remember males I were very attracted to were short-ish/medium height with a defined jaw and big eyes. Still even now, the first thing I 'study' on men is their faces. If he has the jaw, I am about 70% there already. Although I prefer smaller eyes on men now.


Lol. I don't think I've ever really studied the size of a dude's eyes, honestly. Now I'm kinda curious about if I have a preference for eye size or not. 

I think I moreso just get a general vibe. I have dated outside of my type (tho serious relationships have sorta followed a pattern, not that they have to, but they have). I remember hanging out with this one dude, and, like, none of my girlfriends got it. lol. He was funny (guy make-up), and he had this cool edgy thing about him too. But I swear if he had starred in a movie, everyone would have been swooning over him, I did think he had a nice face. Actors are kinda funny like that. Like, Adam Driver? Really? (There is a sorta weird sexiness to him, in fairness). (Is it because we can tell he's 6'2"? LOL. I'll stop. Height has never really been a part of my pattern). 

But yea. I'm a sucker for a Neanderthal jaw.


----------



## rohan89 (Oct 15, 2016)

Hey man, thanks for such a detailed reply.
I love this post. Many truths in it.

Funny thing is I knew all this stuff back in college, that you could be someone/be attractive to women despite flaws etc.

Online dating combined with the new compulsion a lot of women/feminists have online these days to mock women because of their height/size etc has hit me hard.

I'm starting to come out of it though and relearn a lot of stuff.



Six said:


> I'm going to say some things you may not like - and in fact probably things I don't like.
> 
> On the one hand I totally sympathise, one of my friends here in that photo is 5'7 and he's cool, theoretical, plays bass, surfs - he's got no ego, however life is different for him in terms of attractiveness because he's short(er).
> 
> ...


----------



## rohan89 (Oct 15, 2016)

That's true, most men don't feel 'fooled' the way most women do.

Probably goes back to the fact that if a woman gets pregnant from a man, she had to carry a baby with his genetics in her for 9 months

Men (biologically) just dump a load and move on.


Catwalk said:


> Xool Xecutioner said:
> 
> 
> > Because of makeup, which you admitted. Otherwise, they look like girl next door and nothing special, really. Guys can do fitness, skin care, hair, clothing and perhaps a variety of different but otherwise similar things, but what happens if a girl wants him to be a physical feature that can't be changed easily? The guy is screwed unless he wants to spend dineros on a (risky) surgery, or he is luckily compensated by something (e.g his frame and/or his face). Comparatively, girls are picky in terms of choices, and not all guys can't meet their deals.
> ...


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

rohan89 said:


> That's true, most men don't feel 'fooled' the way most women do.
> 
> Probably goes back to the fact that if a woman gets pregnant from a man, she had to carry a baby with his genetics in her for 9 months
> 
> Men (biologically) just dump a load and move on.


I mean these "women in makeup" post(s) are hilarious. Women that wear makeup don't wear it like some tattoo around men all the time & even so, most males do not care. 

Funny thing about that in that contradicts though, lul. The first thing this guy I was dated complimented was my falsies/lashes. I ended up taking that shit off at his place because I was at bar/birthday party nearby. 

We did not have sex but he had seen me with & without makeup. He still destroys my phone w/ calls & texts. But males 'care' so much "being fooled"? Not in my experience.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

rohan89 said:


> Meanwhile in the last hour I paid a very attractive blonde chick from seeking arrangement (who looks kinda like girl who mistreated me today) $200 to send me 10 photos of her tits, pussy and ass(hole), as well as 3 short videos of her playing with herself
> 
> 
> She put a good production on for me
> ...


but that's not dating lol


----------



## Rascal01 (May 22, 2016)

You need an Asian holiday. For one thing, you will tower over nearly all the women. A second thing that will quickly become apparent is that you will likely be seen as exotic, and therefore desirable.

Be civil and polite, attentive to your grooming and manners, and dress decently. Do not be overly aggressive or loud, or drink to excess. You will be a hulk to most Asians and they can be intimidated by your size and presence. Always treat people decently and with respect.

Most Asians are wonderful people and I think you will find it easy to make friends. You may find yourself a focal point of attention and be in high demand. It may be necessary to juggle dates to keep your schedule straight.

Reread Fennel’s post. As a white male who lived in several Asian countries, I can tell you she is on the mark with her comments.

It sounds like your attitude is hindering your success with western women. Asia will provide an attitude adjustment and a lot of positive reenforcement. You will likely be seen as a trophy grade specimen.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Veggie said:


> Lol. I don't think I've ever really studied the size of a dude's eyes, honestly. Now I'm kinda curious about if I have a preference for eye size or not.
> 
> I think I moreso just get a general vibe. I have dated outside of my type (tho serious relationships have sorta followed a pattern, not that they have to, but they have). I remember hanging out with this one dude, and, like, none of my girlfriends got it. lol. He was funny (guy make-up), and he had this cool edgy thing about him too. But I swear if he had starred in a movie, everyone would have been swooning over him, I did think he had a nice face. Actors are kinda funny like that. Like, Adam Driver? Really? (There is a sorta weird sexiness to him, in fairness). (Is it because we can tell he's 6'2"? LOL. I'll stop. Height has never really been a part of my pattern).
> 
> But yea. I'm a sucker for a Neanderthal jaw.


I did not really notice my [preference] for smaller eyes until I saw a dude with grapefruit size eyes like Rami Malek. Even still his eyes are not _deal-breaking _-- just massively distracting lul. Outside of something I would normally like.

The Adam Driver scenario reminds me of when I had a huge thing for dorky looking Andy Samberg. Lul. He is 5'10". I did not even know his height either. It may have just been that jaw/chin. Who cares about his 'approximate height'? Some other things are going on.

There is no pattern for height or physical features too much for me, rather they just have to 'fit' together & mixed properly, with good amount of masculinity.


----------



## Queen of Cups (Feb 26, 2010)

Veggie said:


> Lol, no, I'm the same. I remember being in luv with Brian Litrell from the Backstreet Boys when I was younger. Not even that muscular, but that jaw made up for it. So it kinda supports your face first theory, lol. He's only 5'8". I knew it, I was (am) 5'9", but I was convinced our love could weather the storm, and it didn't matter.


And, see I think 5'8" give or take an inch is the perfect height for me.

Being short myself (just over 5 foot), I remember thinking certain dudes were too tall vs too short.

First thing I noticed about my husband was the shape of his lips and how his cocky little grin was the sexiest thing I'd ever seen.


----------



## rohan89 (Oct 15, 2016)

My friend, I have slept with more Asian girls than Bill Gates can count.

I went on an Asian holiday last year (the purpose of it was more spiritual/sight seeing) and got a lay, had another one in tow but logistics prevented it. Oh, and a chick from tinder showed up to my hotel who turned out to be a trans.

I am more of a Mediterranean look (not fully white). Pass as much in Asia as white though, everyone thinks I'm Greek or Italian.

Truth be told I'm no longer that excited by Asian women.

Latin America would be ideal for me I think.

You're right in that my attitude is not right. I don't know what I want

I think I just want to be Chad, for whom anything and everything is possible. It must be such a wonderful way to be.

I have always had a Don Juan like fascination with women, and am hurt that that fascination will never be returned- can never be returned, due to my physical limitations.

One woman isn't enough for me (hell, I have a nice 5 foot tall Indian girl wanting to date me these days). I want the options that a true player has.




Rascal01 said:


> You need an Asian holiday. For one thing, you will tower over nearly all the women. A second thing that will quickly become apparent is that you will likely be seen as exotic, and therefore desirable.
> 
> Be civil and polite, attentive to your grooming and manners, and dress decently. Do not be overly aggressive or loud, or drink to excess. You will be a hulk to most Asians and they can be intimidated by your size and presence. Always treat people decently and with respect.
> 
> ...


----------



## rohan89 (Oct 15, 2016)

.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

rohan89 said:


> .


Did you quote me and delete me my friend?

I got the notification. Talk to me. I'm going out of my mind. Didn't sleep all night and just found out that someone very close to me lost their job.


----------



## rohan89 (Oct 15, 2016)

Haha, my deleted post was me saying to lady of light 'can we clone you' in regard to her saying she sees 5'8 men as ideal.

Sounded a bit sappy so I deleted it.

Unfortunate about the job, I'm afraid that might be a very common thing in the next few months 


Veggie said:


> rohan89 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


----------



## rohan89 (Oct 15, 2016)

I hope not, I would ideally want more if I took someone out for a $200 meal lol 



Red Panda said:


> rohan89 said:
> 
> 
> > Meanwhile in the last hour I paid a very attractive blonde chick from seeking arrangement (who looks kinda like girl who mistreated me today) $200 to send me 10 photos of her tits, pussy and ass(hole), as well as 3 short videos of her playing with herself
> ...


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

And I thought that height doesn't really matter unless you are midget (somewhere below 150cm).


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

rohan89 said:


> I hope not, I would ideally want more if I took someone out for a $200 meal lol


so, dates for you are solicitation?


----------



## Queen of Cups (Feb 26, 2010)

Red Panda said:


> so, dates for you are solicitation?


This attitude is why I was always more comfortable going dutch.


----------



## rohan89 (Oct 15, 2016)

Was a light hearted joke buddy 



Red Panda said:


> rohan89 said:
> 
> 
> > I hope not, I would ideally want more if I took someone out for a $200 meal lol
> ...


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

rohan89 said:


> Was a light hearted joke buddy


I sure hope so for your own good


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

The only humans who want to get intimate with a sexual partner that fears rejection are actually intending to use this to hurt or control them. 

If you fear rejection then either keep doing that shit and attract all the sadists around, 

or stop doing that shit so that people won't avoid you like the plague. Because you are the plague.

What kind of idiot would stick with someone who cannot be satisfied unless they're attractive to every single specimen of the opposite sex? What doo womeen wanntt, what iff ONNEE womeen rejeectts meeee. I mean, shut the fuck up, it'll help.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

IDontThinkSo said:


> The only humans who want to get intimate with a sexual partner that fears rejection are actually intending to use this to hurt or control them.
> 
> If you fear rejection then either keep doing that shit and attract all the sadists around,
> 
> ...


Thank you.




Alice Alipheese said:


> women don't know what they want (to give advice to men OR men giving advice to women) .


Tired of this bullshit line, we know what *we* want, just not what all women on the planet want because there is no consensus on desire. This also applies to men. 

Maybe stop infantilizing the people you're trying to get to know with reductionist generalizations like this one and you'll make "progress".


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Inside Job said:


> You make a good point here. I find it much easier to coordinate body movements with someone of a similar height. Some sex positions are impossible, or at least very uncomfortable if your partner is a foot shorter or taller than you are.


That's seems like an unimaginative response for a 7. When there's a will, there's a way. :tongue:


----------



## Alice Alipheese (Aug 16, 2019)

Necrofantasia said:


> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That was for both sexes, and im talking about the unconcious things each sex likes but cant admit to themselves for one reason or another.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Alice Alipheese said:


> That was for both sexes, and im talking about the unconcious things each sex likes but cant admit to themselves for one reason or another.


What @Necrofantasia said still stands. Each sex is not a single entity.


----------



## MonarK (Jul 27, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> What @Necrofantasia said still stands. Each sex is not a single entity.


No, what @Necrofantasia said wouldn't stand. By its very nature, the unconscious is the least individualistic part of the human psyche and is the staging ground for most natural impulses--those that are hormonal, genetic, or otherwise physiological. There's also the matter of the unconscious participating in the phenomenon of the collective unconscious, a repository of archetypal characters that a person taps into. As we all possess this collective unconscious and use its facets to varying degrees, it does shape which interests and tendencies we are predisposed to at the moment. This results in little consensus, but there are trends. Traditionally feminine archetypes, which females are most drawn to due to the overarching nature of the unconscious and how it is influenced, are less geared towards certainty of self, or more individuality in expression--but probably not preference.

There's an important reason why we use generalizations. It's because we need to describe the trends that members of a given group tend towards. Bearing that in mind, @Alice Alipheese was on to something when they mentioned that most people don't really know what they want. It's very universal at the core of the human psyche, but it's the expression of these interests that consequently differ when we add the subconscious and conscious levels.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

MonarK said:


> No, what @Necrofantasia said wouldn't stand. By its very nature, the unconscious is the least individualistic part of the human psyche and is the staging ground for most natural impulses--those that are hormonal, genetic, or otherwise physiological. There's also the matter of the unconscious participating in the phenomenon of the collective unconscious, a repository of archetypal characters that a person taps into. As we all possess this collective unconscious and use its facets to varying degrees, it does shape which interests and tendencies we are predisposed to at the moment. This results in little consensus, but there are trends. Traditionally feminine archetypes, which females are most drawn to due to the overarching nature of the unconscious and how it is influenced, are less geared towards certainty of self, or more individuality in expression--but probably not preference.
> 
> There's an important reason why we use generalizations. It's because we need to describe the trends that members of a given group tend towards. Bearing that in mind, @Alice Alipheese was on to something when they mentioned that most people don't really know what they want. It's very universal at the core of the human psyche, but it's the expression of these interests that consequently differ when we add the subconscious and conscious levels.


I disagree that one can generalize to the level they did and still make sense. There are groups of prefeences depending on individual similarities but "all men/women" is absurd. Even one exception means the principle does not stand. And seeking advice just on the basis of gender does not necessarily make sense either, if someone seeks to marry it's absurd to ask a player how to sleep with many women because the women attracted to those behaviors will prob not be suitable to achieve his goal, and even that is a generalization cause who knows what kind of person they may meet. I find such mindsets peculiar, almost like they seek to generalize so much so they can oversimplify things, not sure why but it kinda seems like a method to avoid uncertainty or self-questioning.


----------



## MonarK (Jul 27, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> I disagree that one can generalize to the level they did and still make sense. There are groups of prefeences depending on individual similarities but "all men/women" is absurd. Even one exception means the principle does not stand. And seeking advice just on the basis of gender does not necessarily make sense either, if someone seeks to marry it's absurd to ask a player how to sleep with many women because the women attracted to those behaviors will prob not be suitable to achieve his goal, and even that is a generalization cause who knows what kind of person they may meet. I find such mindsets peculiar, almost like they seek to generalize so much so they can oversimplify things, not sure why but it kinda seems like a method to avoid uncertainty or self-questioning.


 @Red Panda, there's a reason as to why I gave a tiered response--one that in part agrees with you an individuality. What you're positing though isn't so off from an exception fallacy. The exception is not the rule, and at times even reinforces the rule. The problem is that even with the example you raised, the two individuals being: Party A who sleeps with a high volume of women is asked by Party B for advice--they are seeking two different expressions to the same, unconscious impulse, whether it be through monogamy or polyamory. What's more, the "exception" you provided is further flawed because Party B is asking about seduction, and not about game (pickup artistry) overall. The common goal being between the two parties is to provide a satisfactory experience to themselves and their partner(s), affirming my cross-section of the human psyche, and the unconscious directive/individualized expression dynamic that I posited earlier.

Again, the magic of the concept of generalizations is "tend", meaning that constituents of a given group would prefer, not that absolutely all members will act to a certain end. I'm finding this disconnect peculiar, almost as though this mindset is unsure of themselves and others. It almost seems as though its a strategy to avoid questioning and learning about the world around them--and most importantly, their relation to others.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

MonarK said:


> @Red Panda, there's a reason as to why I gave a tiered response--one that in part agrees with you an individuality. What you're positing though isn't so off from an exception fallacy. The exception is not the rule, and at times even reinforces the rule. The problem is that even with the example you raised, the two individuals being: Party A who sleeps with a high volume of women is asked by Party B for advice--they are seeking two different expressions to the same, unconscious impulse, whether it be through monogamy or polyamory. What's more, the "exception" you provided is further flawed because Party B is asking about seduction, and not about game (pickup artistry) overall. The common goal being between the two parties is to provide a satisfactory experience to themselves and their partner(s), affirming my cross-section of the human psyche, and the unconscious directive/individualized expression dynamic that I posited earlier.


I don't think it makes any sense that an exception can reinforce a rule...
I think how you analyzed this example is very reductionist, misses the whole nuance in the end. So what if we all seek pleasure, for example, there may be 100 different factors between us that would create a huge qualitative difference in how we act to get pleasure and what consequences it creates. A sadistic murderer and a compassionate doctor both have a pleasure factor on some level.



> Again, the magic of the concept of generalizations is "tend", meaning that constituents of a given group would prefer, not that absolutely all members will act to a certain end. I'm finding this disconnect peculiar, almost as though this mindset is unsure of themselves and others. It almost seems as though its a strategy to avoid questioning and learning about the world around them--and most importantly, their relation to others.


Yes I agree, which is the opposite of what that person claimed since they spoke in absolutes not tendencies, probabilities and otherwise room for realistic variance.


----------



## MonarK (Jul 27, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> I don't think it makes any sense that an exception can reinforce a rule...
> I think how you analyzed this example is very reductionist, misses the whole nuance in the end. So what if we all seek pleasure, for example, there may be 100 different factors between us that would create a huge qualitative difference in how we act to get pleasure and what consequences it creates. A sadistic murderer and a compassionate doctor both have a pleasure factor on some level.


Your analysis of my analysis missed the greater principle at play, forget nuance. The analogy between the doctor and the serial killer that you made are two very different instances, and while satisfaction is the end, the types of gratification that they are going for is extremely, extremely different. This is where nuance is important. Even you conceded that the doctor is benevolent; his actions are of a higher, goodwilled imperative--one towards vocational fulfillment as well among other things. This is important.

The serial killer, on the other hand, has darker origins in his pursuit of gratification. The common thread between the doctor and the serial killer is that they both have anger, they've both craved vengeance. No doubt at some point, the serial killer has also dome something benevolent and as a child aspired to be great, no person is an absolute incarnation of good or evil. The absolute lies in the palette of human desires and impulses and its how we all act on them that fall into the subconscious and conscious levels. The doctor merely acts on his savage impulses less often, and the serial killer has given in to his inherent depravity.

QUOTE=Red Panda;43863479]Yes I agree, which is the opposite of what that person claimed since they spoke in absolutes not tendencies, probabilities and otherwise room for realistic variance.[/QUOTE]

Please reread my prior posts. Again, I'll clarify that the tendency is in the expression--the action. The absolute is in the unconscious. The tiering system of the human psyche is very nuanced, @Red Panda, and to call it a contradiction is extremely reductionist.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

MonarK said:


> Your analysis of my analysis missed the greater principle at play, forget nuance. The analogy between the doctor and the serial killer that you made are two very different instances, and while satisfaction is the end, the types of gratification that they are going for is extremely, extremely different. This is where nuance is important. Even you conceded that the doctor is benevolent; his actions are of a higher, goodwilled imperative--one towards vocational fulfillment as well among other things. This is important.
> 
> The serial killer, on the other hand, has darker origins in his pursuit of gratification. The common thread between the doctor and the serial killer is that they both have anger, they've both craved vengeance. No doubt at some point, the serial killer has also dome something benevolent and as a child aspired to be great, no person is an absolute incarnation of good or evil. The absolute lies in the palette of human desires and impulses and its how we all act on them that fall into the subconscious and conscious levels. The doctor merely acts on his savage impulses less often, and the serial killer has given in to his inherent depravity.


They are two different instances tied together by shared impulses, same as two women/men who both want sexual pleasure yet have completely different life preferences to achieve them. Simply acknowledging the pleasure factor shared by these types does not teaches us much of anything if we're to talk about the complexities of personality and why "all men/women" doesn't work well, which was my issue with your post and why I think it was reductive. If you find my example reductive it was exactly my point, as I merely took your thinking one step further, reductio ad absurdum.



> Please reread my prior posts. Again, I'll clarify that the tendency is in the expression--the action. The absolute is in the unconscious. The tiering system of the human psyche is very nuanced, @Red Panda, and to call it a contradiction is extremely reductionist.


I wasn't talking about your post but the other person's. The unconscious is not the least individualistic part, in fact Jung talked about the _personal_ and _collective _unconscious and the former is the harder to get in touch with and where most of personality intricacies lie. Also as far as I remember, the collective unconscious tends to be something introverts rely on a lot more.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

MonarK said:


> No, what @Necrofantasia said wouldn't stand. By its very nature, the unconscious is the least individualistic part of the human psyche and is the staging ground for most natural impulses--those that are hormonal, genetic, or otherwise physiological. There's also the matter of the unconscious participating in the phenomenon of the collective unconscious, a repository of archetypal characters that a person taps into. As we all possess this collective unconscious and use its facets to varying degrees, it does shape which interests and tendencies we are predisposed to at the moment. This results in little consensus, but there are trends. Traditionally feminine archetypes, which females are most drawn to due to the overarching nature of the unconscious and how it is influenced, are less geared towards certainty of self, or more individuality in expression--but probably not preference.


Archetypal theory really has no place outside of storywriting. You can use it to try and explain dynamics in a metaphorical way, but it is an obsolete, debunked framework in psychology and not factual *In Any Way*. 

And it *Definitely* does not hold more weight than personal accounts. 
Jesus Christ, this fucking forum.


----------



## MonarK (Jul 27, 2018)

Red Panda said:


> They are two different instances tied together by shared impulses, same as two women/men who both want sexual pleasure yet have completely different life preferences to achieve them. Simply acknowledging the pleasure factor shared by these types does not teaches us much of anything if we're to talk about the complexities of personality and why "all men/women" doesn't work well, which was my issue with your post and why I think it was reductive. If you find my example reductive it was exactly my point, as I merely took your thinking one step further, reductio ad absurdum.
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about your post but the other person's. The unconscious is not the least individualistic part, in fact Jung talked about the _personal_ and _collective _unconscious and the former is the harder to get in touch with and where most of personality intricacies lie. Also as far as I remember, the collective unconscious tends to be something introverts rely on a lot more.


The problem with your reduction to absurdity (reductio ad absurdum) is that the step that you took "further" was really a step backward, and had me further clarifying the various impulses within us and the differing types of satisfaction that we all seek. The problem is that to label both the doctor and the serial killer as deriving the same sort of pleasure IS reductionist, and therefore necessitates a distinction, lest we fall into the absurdity that the doctor and serial killer are both acting in either malicious, bloodthirsty intent, or goodwill, and not opening up the possibility that maybe they both share a trait of humanity and have acted upon their impulses differently with the higher levels of their psyche, then attuning them to more drastic expressions.

I've already addressed the personal unconscious and it's attunement to "genetic, hormonal, physiological, experiential, etc.." information, and it is this that in turn that acts as a staging ground for our participation in the collective unconscious. It also illustrates through experiences and actions our likelihood of living through some of the archetypes. In living a complete life, an individual is more privy to having lived through each archetype, it's just that our preferences in the collective unconscious are determined through the personal unconscious.

To illustrate this, I'll take you up on your point of men/women's sexual interest. I'm giving the origin of these different sources of sexual pleasure through the personal unconscious, used in determining an archetype (collective unconscious), which then informs the individual of how to act to attain such ends, and it is the higher levels of the psyche that attempt to either live out or possibly deny this chain in the form of expression.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

MonarK said:


> The problem with your reduction to absurdity (reductio ad absurdum) is that the step that you took "further" was really a step backward, and had me further clarifying the various impulses within us and the differing types of satisfaction that we all seek. The problem is that to label both the doctor and the serial killer as deriving the same sort of pleasure IS reductionist, and therefore necessitates a distinction, lest we fall into the absurdity that the doctor and serial killer are both acting in either malicious, bloodthirsty intent, or goodwill, and not opening up the possibility that maybe they both share a trait of humanity and have acted upon their impulses differently with the higher levels of their psyche, then attuning them to more drastic expressions.


But you can apply the same reasoning to comparing different men or women in terms of sexual pleasure, because there are several different nuances for each and not a single impulse. You are just choosing which impulses to follow in each case to try and separate them but really if we're talking about impulses it's all the same and thus absurd to use them. There are people whose sexual pleasure is tied to a sense of power, sadism, rape, submission, humiliation, etc. or just people wanting sex with no strings VS sex with love, so their pleasure impulses are not necessarily the same exact thing, and so it makes no sense to simply listen to someone's advice just because of their gender without factoring in other variables.



> I've already addressed the personal unconscious and it's attunement to "genetic, hormonal, physiological, experiential, etc.." information, and it is this that in turn that acts as a staging ground for our participation in the collective unconscious. It also illustrates through experiences and actions our likelihood of living through some of the archetypes. In living a complete life, an individual is more privy to having lived through each archetype, it's just that our preferences in the collective unconscious are determined through the personal unconscious.
> 
> To illustrate this, I'll take you up on your point of men/women's sexual interest. I'm giving the origin of these different sources of sexual pleasure through the personal unconscious, used in determining an archetype (collective unconscious), which then informs the individual of how to act to attain such ends, and it is the higher levels of the psyche that attempt to either live out or possibly deny this chain in the form of expression.


And I'm curious after all this, how do you really agree with what AliceAlipheese said?


----------



## Steelight (Mar 15, 2017)

I'm not a historian so I can't speak to the rest of history. But currently, if you're an attractive woman in America, ESPECIALLY an attractive white woman (not race-baiting, just being real), you're playing life on easy mode. Men are already breaking their backs to please attractive women, and white women tend to be more sought after than other races, at least here. As an attractive woman, you take your pick of the hundreds of men constantly coming after you. The less attractive you are, the fewer men there are chasing you typically, but unless you're horrendously ugly, you've still got a big pot to choose from. Meanwhile, men have to do all the work and it's a special occasion worthy of marking on the calendar and considering it a holiday every year if a woman, especially an even reasonably attractive woman, hits on a man. So when it comes to dating, yes, women currently have it WAY easier, especially since we live in an era and society where women are literally a protected class. If a woman doesn't want to stay with a man, there's usually nothing stopping her from leaving other than her own willingness to do so. If you're an ugly woman...well....life is hard, at least in dating. And probably with everything else too.

As a man, in this society, you're automatically playing life AT LEAST on medium difficulty. All the pressure's on you when it comes to dating, marriage, responsibilities. You have to make the first move in almost all dating scenarios. And if you're not seen as someone of HIGH social value, your difficulty level immediately goes to high, because social value is ultimately what women are attracted to. Luckily, for men, there are so many things that can contribute to your value, that even if you're short and not super attractive, you still have a fighting chance at happiness...keyword here is FIGHTING. You're gonna have to fight harder for everything you want, not just women and dating, but job opportunities and everything else. Contrary to what some wish to believe, we live in a pretty superficial society.

Now, if you're SUPER ugly, man or woman, you're playing life on Legendary mode. I mean, who knows, with enough money and power, you can be an ugly man and still have a happy life. But if you're an ugly woman....well, I'd estimate that ~85% of a woman's perceived value in society comes from her looks, at least when she's younger. So if 85% of what people notice about you is that bad....there's no hope hunny.

That being said, struggle can happen to anyone under and circumstances and some people do just get lucky. But I'm generalizing with everything I said.

Attractive Women: Easy Mode
Okay Women: Medium
Attractive Man: Medium
Barely Bangable Woman: Hard
Reasonably Attractive Man: Hard
Barely Bangable Man: Heroic
Ugly Man or Woman: Legendary

That's mostly humor but...not necessarily inaccurate


----------



## Alice Alipheese (Aug 16, 2019)

Steelight said:


> I'm not a historian so I can't speak to the rest of history. But currently, if you're an attractive woman in America, ESPECIALLY an attractive white woman (not race-baiting, just being real), you're playing life on easy mode. Men are already breaking their backs to please attractive women, and white women tend to be more sought after than other races, at least here. As an attractive woman, you take your pick of the hundreds of men constantly coming after you. The less attractive you are, the fewer men there are chasing you typically, but unless you're horrendously ugly, you've still got a big pot to choose from. Meanwhile, men have to do all the work and it's a special occasion worthy of marking on the calendar and considering it a holiday every year if a woman, especially an even reasonably attractive woman, hits on a man. So when it comes to dating, yes, women currently have it WAY easier, especially since we live in an era and society where women are literally a protected class. If a woman doesn't want to stay with a man, there's usually nothing stopping her from leaving other than her own willingness to do so. If you're an ugly woman...well....life is hard, at least in dating. And probably with everything else too.
> 
> As a man, in this society, you're automatically playing life AT LEAST on medium difficulty. All the pressure's on you when it comes to dating, marriage, responsibilities. You have to make the first move in almost all dating scenarios. And if you're not seen as someone of HIGH social value, your difficulty level immediately goes to high, because social value is ultimately what women are attracted to. Luckily, for men, there are so many things that can contribute to your value, that even if you're short and not super attractive, you still have a fighting chance at happiness...keyword here is FIGHTING. You're gonna have to fight harder for everything you want, not just women and dating, but job opportunities and everything else. Contrary to what some wish to believe, we live in a pretty superficial society.
> 
> ...


... How do you change difficulty? Asking for a friend


----------



## Pretender (Apr 27, 2016)

Alice Alipheese said:


> ... How do you change difficulty? Asking for a friend


Get something that other people desire. Like money, for example.


----------



## Hexigoon (Mar 12, 2018)

Apparently it's all about dat jawline.


----------



## Gossip Goat (Nov 19, 2013)

It's not worth anything to anyone, but the most wonderful guy I've ever met has been 5'4. I've had a crush on him for years.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

tanstaafl28 said:


> That's seems like an unimaginative response for a 7. When there's a will, there's a way. :tongue:


My sense of humour is on life support at the moment. All I will say is that pleasure is my operating principle, and sex ceases to be an enjoyable experience if I find the mechanics laborious.


----------

