You need a fact that absolutely no one can reject. You need a fact that every single person knows to be true. You need a fact that shows up every single day in real life that absolutely no one can deny. And this fact must then lead somewhat directly into the relevant discussion.
Unfortunately, I can't think of a particular fact for race realism, though this chart sufficiently undermines the culture argument. But for gender realism, particularly the notion that what women say they want is actually what they want, I have a rather simple one I use often.
The common conception of female sexual attraction is summed up as follows:
"I want a nice guy who will treat me right, listen to me when I need to talk, who's always there when I need him, who shares my interests, and understands me emotionally."Basically, society believes women want an equal partner who tends to their needs and supports them at all times. Of course, a quick gander at HotChickswithDoucheBags should disabuse you of that fallacy. But how to convince someone of the primary premise of gender sexual realism: that women actually want a dominant male partner.
Simple: essentially no woman will date a man shorter than her. Physical dominance is a very reliable proxy for social dominance. Thus, if women really wanted a supportive and equal partner, they wouldn't be so enamored with tall men and would more frequently date men of the same stature.
29 comments:
This isn't THAT good, though, since it's the big exception to the "Game" precept that women care more about a man's personality than his looks.
So in that sense it's actually a point in favor of an "equalist" assumption that both sexes base attraction on physical appearance.
A woman's preference for height is actually much stronger than that. Simply being taller than her isn't enough, you must meet her minimum height. Also, I'm quite certain that on average a 5'2" woman's height standards are not materially shorter her 5'6" counterpart's.
If she goes to clubs, her view of height is further skewed by the fact that there are, essentially, no short men at clubs. A short man has enough trouble attracting women without foolishly permitting immediate and direct comparison.
HA! With good game, anything can be overcome. At five feet four inches (yes, 5' 4") lots of women refuse to give me a second look -- at first.
But I've never dated a girl less than five eight, and I once dated a female athlete (attractive) who was six two.
Note: this anecdote does not alter your point, which of course is true.
Women want men who are superior to them in size, status, intelligence and accomplishments.
Men want women who are superior to them in beauty, youth, and virtue.
Women typically want other than what they say they want. It is frequently known that women date up and men date down. Compare the women who state wanting to date custodians and those who want to date Richard Branson. Richard Branson wins out every time, and he should because not many people have accomplished as much as he has. People earning billions of dollars are ipso facto very productive and make outstanding contributions. While not all women can have a Richard Branson, not every man could have a Kate Middleton either.
Gender may be very real on one level, but much of what constitute gender roles are actually social constructs.
So in that sense it's actually a point in favor of an "equalist" assumption that both sexes base attraction on physical appearance.
Implicit to this statement is the notion that physical height is an aspect of physical attractiveness. That would only be true given female desire for a dominant partner.
"But how to convince someone of the primary premise of gender sexual realism: that women actually want a dominant male partner.
Simple: essentially no woman will date a man shorter than her. Physical dominance is a very reliable proxy for social dominance"
Simple, yes, but weak. I know too many women who will, in fact, date shorter guys (myself included).
I've got a more reliable indicator.
In all my years spent on Gone With the Wind messageboards, I am the only woman who's ever expressed an honest preference for Ashley Wilkes over Rhett Butler.
Never mind that Rhett was a duty-dodging profiteer, a murderer (killed a black man in peace time), a serial adulterer and all-round blackguard. And never mind that Ashley, though tempted, stayed faithful to his wife, did his duty by the Confederacy and refused to profit from the misery and penury of others. Go to any GWTW. messageboard and you'll find women making the case for Rhett being a great husband, lover and all-around good guy and Ashley for being a weakling who almost(!) cheated on his wife.
I wish you would call it sex realism instead of gender realism. Sex is a physiological term; gender is a grammatical term that's been appropriated by radfems because it makes sex differences sound like a social construct.
Also, my best friend is 5'7 and often dates women who are the same height or taller than he is. He gets by on personality and balls.
I like Kylie's idea a lot, although I'd guess that many younger people (under-30s) aren't familiar with GWTW.
"I'd guess that many younger people (under-30s) aren't familiar with GWTW."
Of course there's no way to tell who's who on a messageboard. But judging from the comments, most of the commenters are considerably younger than I am. (I'm 55.) You might be surprised at what a market there is among young women in their teens and twenties for seemingly old-fashioned romantic fare like GWTW. Remember, that's a genre in which men were men, which is definitely pertinent to this discussion. And in terms of male/female relations, GWTW seen as fairly modern. The younger women not only like Rhett's dominance, they like Scarlett's independence.
I just checked out the reviews of it on Netflix and the fourth one was by a 13 y/o who loved it.
If GWTW is too old-fashioned, why not ask how many women would prefer Philip Seymour Hoffman to George Clooney? The former is an Oscar-winning actor of imposing talents and also in a long-term relationship with the mother of his children. By contrast, Clooney is a lightweight in the talent department and a perennial bachelor, which used to be automatically suspect. Yet I'm guessing most women would prefer Clooney to Hoffman.
Anyway, my point is that a comparison like this would be far more effective than the height criterion.
Simple: essentially no woman will date a man shorter than her.
This is clearly not true. You're getting into "Whiskey" territory with your categorical and incorrect comments about women.
I don't know about this dating thing but I can give you one indisputable fact about women: upon entering a bookstore, 99% will head straight for the celebrity mags. I've been visiting magazine racks for 25 yrs. now and I can truthfully say that I have never seen a single woman reading any article that was not about fashion or celebrity. I actually didn't expect my low estimation of women to be confirmed to anywhere near this extent.
This is clearly not true.
"Essentially no" doesn't mean "all". Statistically speaking, women dating men shorter than themselves, or ever only as tall as themselves, don't exist. You could spend all day in a major mall and not see one. Now, I've met one of those women. One. In 5 years. And she was about 5'6". I've never seen a tall woman (say 5'9" and above) date a guy shorter than her. They always go for 6'+ guys.
The problem with gender realism is that liberalism has been attacking the social, natural and spiritual order OneSTDV. It's better of for you to attack liberal concepts since most (+80%) of modern people are liberals.
Randian, there's a morning radio sidekick in S.F. who's 5'5" with a six-foot tall wife. The star frequently comments on the air about how secure the guy must be.
Women just don't like taller men, they tend to like men that are much taller than them. As Randian said, many women want guys over 6 feet, even when they are way under that height range.
When I did some internet dating, I used to run into women's profiles that had 6 feet as their height minimum even when they were only 5 feet tall themselves. I even saw a 4'7" midget once that had 6'2" as her minimum height.
No woman will date a man shorter than her Rock Granite, if she has any other options, and the guy is equal status. Meanwhile, a tall guy can let almost everything else slide based on his height.
Is the height preference model predictive about 95% of the time? Certainly! Because in real life few short guys have mondo social/financial success. Most of that goes to taller guys in the first place. There will be a very occasional rock star or so forth, but how many guys the Average Jane can meet will be rock stars?
Meanwhile, take the height rule to extremes. How many women would date, even though he's a celebrity, and rich, Verne Troyer? Now how many would date, even though his English is limited, Yao Ming?
I'll play Devil's Advocate here, OneSTDV. It's arguable that girls do want those traits in their men, except they're failing to mention the insane amount of disclaimers and qualifications to such a preference. I'm pretty sure that whenever a chick is listing these romantic behaviors, she's imagining (or assuming) this hypothetical man-of-her-dreams is also already maximally dominant and manly outside of his relationship with her, to everyone else, especially other competitive females (who, naturally, make overt attempts to steal him away, thus vindicating the puppy traits).
This excessively charitable interpretation would comport with the apparent fact that girls only seem to have eyes for, or even remember, "beta" guys. Hence, they're incorrigibly convinced that all men are careless, cheating pigs, despite that such a characterization is probably only accurate for the 20% (I bet still less) or so of men who can afford to behave as such.
As far as the height issue goes: it's undeniable that girls strongly prefer tall men. To those citing cases of short dudes with girls over 5'9: I'll venture to say that girls become more available with every extra inch past a certain ideal female height.
Guys like shorter girls more than taller ones, no? I don't think tons of guys are chasing after 6 footers unless she's got redeeming beauty to outweigh it. The taller she is, the higher the odds she's settling. I'd be more likely to give up my conviction that chicks dig tall dudes based on cases of a decent 5'2-5'6 female settling down with a 5'5 man who's got a normal personality. And what's with this ridiculous notion that short girls [if you haven't noticed, I reserve 'lady'/'woman' for proven exceptions] shouldn't desire the same height for men as taller ones do? An ideal is an ideal; and not many men are turned off by short stature...
Randian, there's a morning radio sidekick in S.F. who's 5'5" with a six-foot tall wife.
I never said there are no such women, only that they are irrelevant when speaking about female height preferences.
Guys like shorter girls more than taller ones, no? I don't think tons of guys are chasing after 6 footers unless she's got redeeming beauty to outweigh it.
I think you have your causation reversed. We know women want men who are taller than they are. This preference does not depend on how tall the woman is. Why would the majority of men, who are less than 6' tall, bother with a 6' tall woman when they know in advance she's going to shoot them down?
Men don't actually prefer shorter women so much as accept that owing to female preferences, the only women they're going to attract are shorter than they are. I think most men who claim to desire shorter women are simply making a virtue out of necessity.
"I think you have your causation reversed."
You may be right. However, I don't think the answer is as clear as you suggest, and much of it may just hinge on the precise extent of influence males' sexual selection has had on our evolved preferences. Someone like Satoshi Kanazawa would downplay the role of male choice; and so he'd be more likely to assign a more reactionary status to our aversion toward Amazon women, explained more by our more fundamental distaste for unavailability.
I know Roissy (not an evo-biologist, but hey), on the other hand, would take issue with Kanazawa on that. I believe he thinks male selection is substantial. A related question is whether men are dominant and prefer submissive females, because we're just naturally dominant -- and, say, prefer that which better conforms to our will -- or because women selected for that.
For what it's worth, I'm 6 feet, I have no knowledge of my height ever limiting my options, yet I would start preferring shorter once a girl hits 5'8 (avg.=5'4). More than a few chicks 5'8+ have liked me, so I don't weigh availability into the pref. I would say it's more related to the simple fact petite is feminine while larger size is masculine. I like my women feminine, i.e., not just significantly shorter than me, but also lighter (as well as less imposing, assertive, aggressive, loud, competitive, etc...). We're attracted to the clearest exemplifications of what differentiates the opposite sex. (But what caused those differentiations?! Yeah, yeah.)
"Thus, if women really wanted a supportive and equal partner, they wouldn't be so enamored with tall men and would more frequently date men of the same stature. "
The problem I see is that women will lie about this just like they do with everything else concerning their sexual preferences.
If you confront a feminist girl with the observation that she prefers taller men, she will likely just deny it and insist that she would date a short man if the right one came along.
If she turns down a short man and you ask her why, she will give you some excuse which she herself believes.
Or she will say that just because she prefers a man who is big and strong doesn't mean they should not be social equals.
"I don't know about this dating thing but I can give you one indisputable fact about women: upon entering a bookstore, 99% will head straight for the celebrity mags. I've been visiting magazine racks for 25 yrs. now and I can truthfully say that I have never seen a single woman reading any article that was not about fashion or celebrity. I actually didn't expect my low estimation of women to be confirmed to anywhere near this extent."
Lol....what bookstores do you go to, or where do you live. Women read more fiction than men, so I have a hard time believing that upon entering, say, Barnes and Nobles, that all women make a bee-line for the celebrity magazine rack. In fact this is pretty much totally contrary with anything I've ever seen. And if you wanted to read celebrity mags why the heck would you go to a bookstore to do that...the sort of women that are obsessed with those probably don't even go to bookstores that often, I'd wager. Young women seem to stick around the anime/vampire/teen "gossip girl" lit/paranormal sections. Adult women like romance novels and just regular fiction to a lesser extent. There are usually a fair amount of younger women in the fantasy/sci-fi aisles too, but it obviously isn't nearly as popular as the "vampire" section haha.
I want a nice guy who will treat me right, listen to me when I need to talk, who's always there when I need him, who shares my interests, and understands me emotionally.
It's simple: women say these qualities are what they want because these are the qualities the guys they are most attracted to (and are actually dating) do not possess.
Excellent point! The thing is, I think the way it works is a woman finds a guy tall, good looking, etc, and then convinces herself, more or less immediately, that he's also sensitive, and thoughtful and intelligent, etc.
Unattractive beta dudes with no game aren't going to be given the chance to show how sensitive they are.
You are very right in that men understand their superficial desires are superficial.
Previous Anonymous has a point. Women tend to turn amoral characteristics (height, wealth, etc.) into moral characteristics in their heads. Rich? Generous. Cute? Sweet.
Most women, I'd wager, would never date a shorter man. Some women will, though still have a strong preference for taller men.
With regards to male preference in height, there was a study which tried to point to a dollar value of certain characteristics. The baseline height was 5'2", if memory serves. Being shorter was no disadvantage for women while being taller was.
Do any feminists ever address this? I'm not sure how to formulate a good hypothesis here. Why short guys get the diss? It's a pretty common preference. Rich guys, along seem to do pretty well too..
I've seen feminists dismiss beta types as bitter and all...
I've yet to see any evidence that disputes what Roissy says on this matter.
One might as well be a douche then. If it gets you laid, man up and be so.
One might as well be a douche then. If it gets you laid, man up and be so.
Roissy doesn't actually say be a douche. He does say being an asshole is better than being a nice guy. But many / most people new to game misunderstand what is meant by "asshole" in the game community.
What it really means is acting superior to the girl and dominant. There are many different styles of doing this that work, or work with different subsets of hot girls. There's cocky bitingly funny; there's aloof social proofing; there's social leader guy pushing the fun, party vibe; there's edgy risk taking showoff; more downscale there's leading tough guy; and so on. It all involves high testosterone and social / femal dominance.
Regarding the Gone with the Wind, that's a fair idea, here's a better comparison:
Gossip Girl, with Chuck Bass vs. Nate Archibald. Archibald looks far more handsome, to this straight male at least.
And yet every female fan of the show is in love with Chuck Bass, who attempts date rape, or something like it, on the pilot episode. And he is never apologetic.
But according to Roissy height doesn't matter that much because back in the ancestral environment shorter guys were better dancers or some shit.
Re: Actors and rock stars. Actors are notoriously short, but as Ari Gold observes, "On the big screen Tom Cruise looks like Yao Ming." Same goes for rock stars up on stage. Females' first impressions of those people are strongly positive. It's not JUST the fame working wonders.
Women fundamentally seek security. Even "social proof" is a form of security ("this guy will not trap me in his rape dungeon"). Size helps promote basic physical security (protection from other men who WILL trap you in their rape caves). I remember this Asian comedian (short guy) -- definitely got a _Game_ reading vibe -- who complained girls like tall guys. He said that when talking about their boyfriends girls emphasize how tall he is. "He's nice, funny, taaaaaaaaall."
Post a Comment