Spoony the Pussy One: Life is in the Render Queue

[Guest]

No, it isn't. How many couples do you see where the guy is shorter?

You're asking the wrong question. You should be asking how women you see that are over 6 foot.
Probably the vast majority of supermodels are at the tall end for women. Statuesque women are seen as highly desirable.
For you to list 'tall' as a negative suggest to me that you're some 5'4 manlet

[Kugelfisch]

Most models are also spooky scary skeletons.
>lol u must be a manlet
Predictable but mistaken.
Being over 6 foot tall as a woman is a negative for the vast majority of men. It's the exact inverse of how it is for men.

[Guest]

> people arguing over whether being tall makes Rachel a 0 or a 0.1

DAMMIT SPOONY DO SOMETHING

Imagine Rachel yelling FEE FI FO FUM as she squirts in your mouth.

[Guest]

Being over 6 foot tall as a woman is a negative for the vast majority of men.

Let's do it this way, then.
Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion?

[rabidtictac]

Do you have any evidence to back the assertion that it's seen as a negative (by women) for a man to be short?

Just because you can't pull a peer-reviewed study out of your ass on cue doesn't mean you're wrong to say manlets are undesirable to most women. Or, shall we say, less desirable? Because any man could be potentially desirable to a woman if he has enough of the other attributes (sex appeal, money, material possessions that indicate success, charm etc.) to compensate.

[Kugelfisch]

Being over 6 foot tall as a woman is a negative for the vast majority of men.

Let's do it this way, then.
Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion?

Look, Mr. 6'5 hill giant, I get you don't want a woman that's short. I once had a girlfriend that was a little under chest height and that's just annoying. But would you want a woman that is even taller than you?

Go ahead and call me a manlet all you want. In practise, the only guys that are okay with that are manlets for a lack of options and because they are happy to get any woman at all, considering their unfortunate state.

[Guest]

Just because you can't pull a peer-reviewed study out of your ass on cue doesn't mean you're wrong to say manlets are undesirable to most women

You're comparing apples with oranges. Men and women look for different things in a partner.

But would you want a woman that is even taller than you?

I really wouldn't care, so long as she's hot

Look, Maria Sharapova's 6'2. Are you trying to tell me there aren't guys lining up to fuck her?

Your assertion is that there aren't many guys with tall girls because most guys are intimidated by tall women. I'm saying that, while that might be true of some men, the real reason is that tall women (meaning tall by male standards and not just tall for a woman tall) are uncommon. The reason for this is basic sexual dimorphism. A man can continue to grow until his twenties, whereas a woman has pretty much stopped growing once she has her first period. Most women start their period by the time they turn twelve which is why most women are about the 5'3 range.

In any case, all of this is getting away from my initial point that it doesn't matter how tall Warthog is. She could be a 3'9 dwarf or an 8'11 giantess and she'd still be tremendously unfuckable.

[rabidtictac]

Basic sexual dimorphism is the reason there are fewer tall women. But men also prefer less tall women because those better conform to the statistical norm of what a healthy adult woman is supposed to look like. The two are not in opposition at all. It's the same reason neither sex is attracted to fatasses and most people are physically repulsed when they look at sickness.

[Guest]

But you see, unlike fatness or sickness, being tall for a woman is not a sign of unhealthiness. In fact it can be just the opposite. If a woman is tall she's probably well fed and if she's got long legs she's probably more adept at fleeing from danger than a shorter woman. These are things a man would be processing in his lizard brain when choosing a mate.

I suppose it all comes down to personal preference. But there's a reason we pick tall girls to be supermodels, why we create mythologies like the Amazons, and all sorts of other stuff to do with tall women.

[Kugelfisch]

>intimidated
There's that faggot talk again.
>tall for a woman
Yeah, that's what we're talking about. I think it's well established that being tall isn't a detriment for men on the dating market.

But it is for a woman. It's a negative trait. You can spin this shit all day long and pursue intellectual dishonesty all you want.
"Oh", you say, "what about [insert famous tall woman] that is otherwise gorgeous and rich?", like a daft git, pretending that I said tall alone would be a complete deal breaker.
It isn't. But it's a negative one only ignores if the other stuff balances it out.
More guys would be willing to have a fat chick around if at least the tits are big than would be willing to deal with a woman that is one head taller than them. Trust!
If a woman is 2m or over, she better be the catch to end all catches on all other levels. Otherwise, she will have a damn bad time.

You are just being an obtuse faggot about it, really. You can take any of those detriments I mentioned and a woman can have any of them and still be desirable to most men. But she can only have one.

She can be dumb, fat, useless, ugly or even tall but never more than one of those things. My point was that the warthog is all of them.