i welcome death by snu snu
For Americans who have the height mode of their brain stuck in “Freedom Units”:
Anna Smrek is roughly 6’ 9"
‘Short King’ is roughly 5’ 3"
…
For data nerds:
Going by total data for the whole globe, all people:
https://www.gigacalculator.com/calculators/height-percentile-calculator.php
Anna is … off the charts, one of if not the actual tallest adult women in the world, literally breaks the calculator.
Anna would be at… the 99.9(8/9)% percentile of men by height, which means that if you use 8.2 billion as a world population, there are at most approximately 1.6 million men as tall or taller than her.
EDIT: I forgor to divide by two, women vs men, so uh, 800k.
===
‘Short King’ is under the 1st percentile of men (0.77), he is shorter than 99.3%+ of adult men.
‘Short King’ would be at about the 25th percentile of women by height, which means he is actually still as tall or taller than 25% of women, approximately 2 billion.
EDIT: I did the same forgor /2, so, 1 billion, thanks to FundMECFSResearch for catching my error!
===
Average global male height ~= 178 cm / 5’ 10"
Average global female height ~= 165 cm / 5’ 5"
…
Possibly also relevant:
https://www.gotquestions.org/how-tall-was-Goliath.html
If you use a more reasonable and realistic measurement of cubits and spans, and go with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament/Torah…
Goliath, the mythical warrior felled by David and his sling, whose name is now just a common euphemism for ‘giant’…
Yeah he was only about 6’ 6", or about 198 cm.
So…Anna could probably roughly rest her nose on the top of Goliath’s head, without bending her neck (or at least not much).
…
Another fun addendum, for I guess dating data nerds?:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886913000020
(If someone can find a more recent study that specifically looks into this, I’d appreciate it!)
Broadly speaking, women prefer taller men more strongly than men prefer shorter women, by a factor of roughly 2.625x.
Women prefer, on average, a larger height difference between themselves and their partner (i.e. males being much taller than themselves) than men do. This effect is even more pronounced when examining satisfaction with actual partner height: women are most satisfied when their partner was 21 cm taller, whereas men are most satisfied when they were 8 cm taller than their partner.
In Freedom Units, thats roughly women being most satisfied with a man 8 inches taller than them, men being most satisfied with a woman about 3 inches shorter than them.
This means a 5’ 10" average guy will tend to be well satisfied with a 5’ 7" woman’s height, but she will tend to not be well satisfied with the man’s height, herself on average, ideally, looking for a 6’ 3" man.
Even if it was a 5’ 10" man and an [EDIT: Whoops, too many numbers, too fast, this would actually be a somewhat shorter than] average 5’ 3" woman, she’d still tend to ideally prefer a 5’ 11" man, on average.
So, to more accurately assess 'Short King’s realistic dating pool, we actually need to find women who are 8 inches shorter than him.
And that works out to women 4’ 7" or shorter.
Which is the 0.02 percentile… meaning that 'Short King’s realistic dating pool is at worst, just as small as the number of men who are as tall or taller than Anna.
Or, perhaps both Anna and Short King need to find partners who simply accept them and are satisfied by them via being uncommonly partner-height indifferent.
Good luck to both of them!
You’re doing gods work. I googled the tallest woman alive, and she is 7 foot tall almost exactly. So this girl really is close.
Autism is my superpower rofl.
Also good lord, 7 foot tall woman, sheesh.
I can only hope she doesn’t have some kind of debilitating form of gigantism, I know a lot the all time world record holders for height had all kinds of horrendous health problems and died fairly young.
I, for one, admire your superpower and an thankful to absorb your data dump in my short term memory!
Ahem.
Would you like to know more?
=P
Too bad! My brain hurts now, I am tired, lol.
Have a good nap, buddy!
She does have issues, I’m afraid. Here she is meeting the worlds shortest woman.
Damn, that’s too bad =[
This effect is even more pronounced when examining satisfaction with actual partner height: women are most satisfied when their partner was 21 cm taller, whereas men are most satisfied when they were 8 cm taller than their partner.
I don’t have access to the full article, but it sounds like they didn’t examine the sliding scale of height preferences, by one’s own height.
The article says that taller people have a taller ideal height for their partners. And it also says that on average women’s preference is a partner 21cm taller than themselves, and men had a preference for 8cm shorter. But from the publicly available text, it doesn’t seem to report on whether that preferred delta between one’s own height and the ideal partner height changed with the absolute height of themselves.
So I’m curious: does the data support the conclusion that a 5’ (1.52m) woman would prefer a 5’8" (1.73m) partner, and that a 5’8" (1.73m) woman would also still prefer that 21cm/8 inch difference, looking for a 6’4" (1.94) partner? Or is there a sliding scale where already tall people aren’t exactly looking for excessively unusual outliers, and that the preference of tall women is something smaller than 21cm, such that the overall average might be that very short women prefer a big height difference but very tall women prefer a small height difference?
I am a 5’9" woman and prefer guys around my height, anecdotally all the women I know who want tall guys are themselves short.
It’s a weak preference but yeah I think since I go through life being around the same height as most guys I meet I don’t have such a strong association with height as a sex difference, if that makes sense.
That puts your ideal partner height roughly 1.8 SDs from the mean of acceptable male partner heights for all women your height…
Which works out to something like at least 70% of women your height disagreeing with your preference, or not having anything close to that preference range themselves.
Uh, ok, dropping out of math brain:
Yeah I totally get that as an explanation, and that it… just isn’t really something that important to you.
But!
This is less odd for me because I am a dude, and as the study shows, being ok with a roughly close height match, guy a little on the taller side, is the widespread ideal for guys, whereas women generally tend to hate this kind of setup, or uh, prefer it the least out if all possible partner height matchups.
So uh, all that being said:
So, if you’re single… well I uh, happen to be just an inch taller than you, I’ve uh, mentioned my uh, ideals, you’ve mentioned yours… would you happen to be into data-dumping autists as well?
=P
Ha! I am probably old enough to be your mom and unfortunately for you my two straight daughters have partners. But worry not, medium height man of numbers. The benefit of being able to kiss without throwing my neck out, never having to move the seat in the car, I’m sure you can sell the benefits of same-height relationships to someone.
Hahaha!
Well, you miss 100% of the shots you don’t take, and either way, pleasure talking with you, hah!
I suspect I am older than you think I am, but I appreciate an honest answer to that, all the same.
Yeah, I have been able to uh, ‘sell’ a similar height pairing in the past, it was good for a time, but I guess you could say she and I both had to ramble on, different desired life paths… and perhaps oddly, that’s happened to me with a few gals, something like a one to three year relationship, and then a split, sometimes mutual and amicable, sometimes very … not that.
C’est la vie.
Thank you for induldging my data-nerdiness enough to give an interesting, and honest, data oriented reply.
=D
I don’t have access to the full article, but it sounds like they didn’t examine the sliding scale of height preferences, by one’s own height.
The 21cm vs 8cm is the mean, and their sample size was large enough to be statistically valid.
I did specifically quote the part that includes ‘best satisfied’.
Ie, the ‘ideal’ partner height.
Many people often choose partners that are … close enough to many ideal traits, weighting them in different and complex ways, often not even entirely fully concsious of the nature of how they weight or order their preferences, but thats all way outside of the scope of this paper.
Yep, its possible the uh preference differential changes as you approach extreme ends of height, but the problem is that, being a statistically representative sample, it doesn’t include many people who are very short, or very tall.
Anyway:
https://annas-archive.org/md5/50413a744e4887cff238a542b59b19b2
Here’s the whole paper!
But from the publicly available text, it doesn’t seem to report on whether that preferred delta between one’s own height and the ideal partner height changed with the absolute height of themselves.
Yeah, that seems to be my take away as well, they don’t go into precisely that in the paper.
Or is there a sliding scale where already tall people aren’t exactly looking for excessively unusual outliers, and that the preference of tall women is something smaller than 21cm, such that the overall average might be that very short women prefer a big height difference but very tall women prefer a small height difference?
Apologies for shit tier resolution, I am on mobile:
‘Female’ meaning, the male-preferred height of a female partner, ‘Male’ meaning the female-prefered height of a male partner, so that… may be backwards depending on your inution for reading graphs.
Also these are 2 SD bounds, 95% CI, I kinda cropped out half the text that explains that, whoops.
So, yes, this effect you mention does exist… but they do not seem to focus on it in the paper.
Unfortunately, I am not seeing a visualization that or equation that more specifically and precisely answers your question of whether or not very tall or short men or women are less uh, height-choosy.
Perhaps I am missing it?
…
Here’s another way they visualize their data:
Now, here, ‘Men’ means men, ‘Women’ means women, and the x axis is [male height - female height].
So, very broadly, yeah you see that the sort of mutual sweet spot of both partners being decently satisfied with the height difference is roughly a man being 13ish cm, roughly 5 inches taller than a woman.
So, from that, maybe ‘Short King’ has a realistic shot with 4’10" women, not 4’ 7"?
???
…
We can also see that women’s satisfaction with a male partner’s height uh, nose dives as a women is asked about a man who is going from 13 cm taller than them, to the same height as them… but then does rebound once the heights are just inverted.
This is also the only situation where the man is less satisfied with the pairing than the woman, on average, (untill you get to men being about 18cm taller than the woman, then its roughly the same gap as the height difference increases) but the men have huge CI intervals in this instance, indicating many men actually don’t mind this much, and some men mind it extremely.
Meanwhile, women generally dislike being taller than their man, with a yes, expanded CI range, but far less than that of the man, indicating that this is a less variable and more common … anti-preference for most women, in general, than it is for men.
…
Somewhat oddly, to me at least, we also have this pattern:
The maximum gap in partner height satisfaction between men and women seems to be around a man being just about 3cm, or about 1 inch, taller than the woman.
For women broadly, this is the least desirable possible pairing, while for men, it would basically be nice if they were about 2 inches or about 5cm taller…, but its not that big a deal to them, they are not that far from their maximum satisfaction.
Meanwhile, this situation is the lowest scoring situation for women.
It is actually worse than the woman being taller than the man.
In case you have not guesed, I am a guy, and I find this … fairly confusing/interesting.
Basically this means there is a huge mismatch where guys are generally pretty ok with being just a bit taller than their gal, but women find this to be the worst, the lowest possible score they would broadly assign to a partner height difference situation, to such an extent that they’d actually be on average happier if her man was just actually shorter than her.
…
But anyway, yeah, unless I am missing something, it doesn’t look like this paper actually answers your question precisely.
What you mention, the uh, height-choosyness tapering off for tall women and very short men does occur to some extent, but we… don’t really seem to have that detailed to us, I am not seeing a way to mathematically compare the magnitude.
Also again worth noting, my ‘Short King’ scenario was kind of a worst case scenario, as it assumes all women would only go for their ideal partner scenario.
Some women do do this, but obviously not all, and some men also do this, but obviously not all… and numbers on the absolute or relative prevalence of that do not seem to be in this paper.
My question (do taller women have a preference for less height difference compared to shorter women) was actually answered by the graph, because the slope of the line is less than 1.
A 1.6m woman seems to most prefer a 1.78m partner (18cm taller), whereas a 1.8m woman seems to prefer a 1.89m partner (9cm taller). I other words, it’s not that they’re less choosy, it’s just that they expect a smaller delta when they themselves are tall.
Of course, the thick line in that graph doesn’t correspond with the headline numbers mentioned (21cm), but I also notice that the thick line isn’t the center of the acceptable range. That is, women seem to be more forgiving of people who are taller than their ideal than they are of people who are shorter than their ideal. That’s an interesting finding, too.
My question (do taller women have a preference for less height difference compared to shorter women) was actually answered by the graph, because the slope of the line is less than 1.
Wot.If the slope of the line was less than one, it would point downward, descend, as it moves to the right.None of the lines in graph 1 do this.???I am dumb, I described a slope of 0, not 1.
Derp.
That being said… every line on graph 1 has a slope less than 1, so this is not a meaningful evaluation to determine anything, in and of itself.
A 1.6m woman seems to most prefer a 1.78m partner (18cm taller), whereas a 1.8m woman seems to prefer a 1.89m partner (9cm taller). I other words, it’s not that they’re less choosy, it’s just that they expect a smaller delta when they themselves are tall.
Its not a delta, its a variance range. Delta typically refers to change over time.
Also, I am using ‘height-choosy’ as a colloquial way of saying that that variance range expands or contracts.
If the variance narrows, this is more height-choosy, if it expands, this is less height-choosy.
Also also, graph 1 shows the mean of the acceptable height range of a partner.
Not the ideal.
That’s graph 2.
More on that later.
…
Anyway, from graph 1, we can see that women actually get more height-choosy the shorter they are, as graph 1 shows the variance range for acceptable male heights contracting as the woman is shorter.
It also seems to contract more sharply for women than men, ie, the CI lines for preferred male height would intersect closer to the average height of women, than the CI lines for the preffered height of females intersect as compared to average male height.
…
But, there are not exact figures on that kind of math, this is what I meant by the paper not specifically going into detail about this, such thst we could get another single number that could be used as a ratio.
…
Basically, women get more height-choosy as they are themselves shorter, than men get height-choosy as they themselves are taller.
Shorter women height discriminate more than taller men do… is another way you could say that.
This bodes poorly for our Short King.
Of course, the thick line in that graph doesn’t correspond with the headline numbers mentioned (21cm), but I also notice that the thick line isn’t the center of the acceptable range.
The 21 cm vs 8 cm thing comes from the ideal height difference for each sex/gender, ie, the highest score on the second graph, graph 2 in my post.
Men, black dot, get their highest score at being 8cm taller, women, white dot, get their highest score at being 21cm shorter.
Ideal != mean of acceptable height ranges.
If you read the paper, you can find more explanation and a more detailed version of the 8 vs 21 ideal metric, with its own CI and SD and such.
I use 8 and 21 as rounded figures, so I don’t have to make things potentially even more overcomplicated, and also the authors themselves did this in their abstract.
That is, women seem to be more forgiving of people who are taller than their ideal than they are of people who are shorter than their ideal. That’s an interesting finding, too.
You’re still mixing up ‘ideal’ with ‘mean of acceptable range’.
But, if you make that replacement, then yes this is correct, this is a good point to make, unfrotunately this also bodes poorly for our Short King.
Not only does the mean of the acceptable male height drop more quickly as a woman is shorter, than the same for men as they get taller…
Yeah, the upper bound is further from the mean than the lower bound, ie, womens preferences generally skew toward accepting taller men, more than accepting shorter men.
every line on graph 1 has a slope less than 1, so this is not a meaningful evaluation to determine anything, in and of itself.
It’s meaningful to the only question I’ve asked, whether tall women prefer as large of an absolute height difference as short women do. The answer is no. Tall women prefer taller partners than short women prefer, but they prefer a smaller gap between themselves and their partners. According to the graph you posted (fig 1, which says it’s the confidence intervals for “preferred partner height”). As the paper explains:
We found that male height was positively correlated (r = .69; p < .001; N = 188) and that female height was negatively correlated with preferred partner height difference (r = .49; p < .001; N = 461; ESM Table 2). Thus, taller men and shorter women preferred larger height differences, i.e. the male partner being much taller, whereas shorter men and taller women preferred smaller height differences, i.e. the male partner being only slightly taller (in line with Pawlowski (2003)).
So I think I’m reading that graph correctly and you’re not. Your discussion of fig 2 seems to be talking about the part of the paper on people’s satisfaction with their partner heights, which is a different metric than preferred partner height.
Everything else you’re talking about is not particularly interesting to me, and wasn’t what I was asking about.
Delta typically refers to change over time.
Delta just means difference. A change over time is the delta of that variable over delta t.
Man I enjoyed every bit of your info dump. Thank you.
Thanks for all that. Kind of misleading picture tbh, because i thought that guy was a normal male height. 6’9 is obviously tall as shit, but when compared to someone whose like 5"2’ it’s gonna look way more ridiculous.
If he was the average male height of 5’ 10"… she would be uh…
about 7’ 6".
Which would make her the tallest woman in the world, by half a foot, as per uh, ColeSloth elsewhere in this thread showing that the tallest currently alive woman being 7’ tall.
there is no way in fuck the global average height for men is 178cm.
~= means approximately equal.
https://www.gigacalculator.com/calculators/height-percentile-calculator.php
Going by this, and using 25 as the age, which is my guesstimate for the ages in the OP image, it seems to more precisely be … 178.4cm.
Do you have an alternate dataset you find to be more accurate?
there’s confusing and contradicting language there but it seems to be based on US data.
here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_human_height_by_country
… populations of China and India alone are around 170cm on average. I’m too lazy to do the math for the entire world but the two most populous countries by far is a good indicator that the world average should be lower
here https://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/average-height-for-men.htm
it says the world average is about 171cm
The source I am using has options for ‘The World’ and over 100 countries.
They have a whole section summarzing their data sets, if you scroll down.
In the gigacalculator dataset, the US and World populations do not have the same mean, which indicates they are differentiating between them.
If you are too lazy to do the math yourself, you have no grounds to criticize the source I am using, who are themselves using many, many datasets, who actually have done the math.
Your source, howstuffworks, says its about 171cm, but they also say this varies widely, and the source they use, worlddata.info, does not actually provide a 171cm global mean adult male height anywhere.
Go, click the about to get to howstuffworks’ source. There are no given global means at all, they are per country and region.
than 25% of women, approximately 2 billion.
I think you mean 1 billion there aren’t 8 billion women on earth.
Derp!
Yep, whoops, take those figures and divide by two, I forgot to, damnit.
You forgot to factor in the hollow earth Mole Women. Or are they not considered ‘people’ now?
thats what they want you to think
Thank you, kind human, for all the effort.
Or even better, they defy expectations and pair up.
deleted by creator
The burger people never go the extra mile to translate their freedom units to something reasonable, so neither should we.
I mean, when I am talking to a non burgeroid on lemmy who makes it clear, or at least seems likely that they don’t know Freedom Units, I try to go out of my way to do the conversions, present both measurement systems.
But uh yeah, the vast majority of us don’t, and I do think that is rude of us.
There’s also this picture
and this one
Nice how the metric system of the images says its either 206cm or 207cm and the imperial system is like maybe 6’9’’ maybe 6’11’'.
she’s yuuuuge!
I have only wholesome thought seeing that picture.
What’s funny is they seem to have the same size feet.
After copulation, the female eats the male to gain energy for her offspring.
Please🥺
Down bad
Or, you know, just sits on my face. Like, anytime she wants…
I don’t know you, but she’d kill me if that happens. She’s over 100kg in weight.
Yeah I’d sniff her farts too.
I do not envy the headache you will have when you awake. In the meantime, rest well and dream of large women.
Does sniffing large lady farts cause headaches?
Username checks out i guess, tho have to dissapoint that a cumfart is just air trapped usually mixed with, of course, cum
Vore-lleyball
Death by snu-snu
She can eat me
GOOD thing she isn’t Trans! OTHERWISE she would have an Unfair Advantage! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!
Death by SNU SNU?
Would!
Holy cow. I thought this comment section would be filled with light hearted jokes. Some of yall need get your chronically online asses outside.
The is the most reddit esque comment section I’ve seen on lemmy and it’s gross
There are plenty of reasonable comments. Most have more upvotes than the sexualizing ones. That said, look closely at what she is wearing in the pic. If she put shorts on, the sides of that thing would still be above the shorts. The image was designed to have sexual appeal. She is showing more skin than most people have. So of course some people are going to go in that direction. Men in general haven’t evolved enough not to.
With an image designed to have sexual appeal, is it wrong to see the sexual appeal?
Nope, never said it was. I was saying that with such an image, one should expect sexualized comments.
I am sorry if I misunderstood you. Would you mind explaining the line about evolving? It seemed to imply to me that there is a possible (better?) future state of things?
ah yes. Seeing it is fine. Saying what your thinking… not so much. But I wasn’t trying to imply that I am more evolved… I am litterally saying that man (and women really) haven’t evolved enough to not think about sex and screwing when we see an image like that. And anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. Some have been trained or learned not to say what they are thinking, but most are thinking it all the same. I am sure there are exceptions of course.
I said nothing about sex appeal. She’s hot, and he’s hot but that’s not what im talking about
Not sure I said you said anything about sexual appeal.
That’s a light-hearted take. Why do some people like to work themselves into a froth with their imaginary scenarios?
Lemmy is pretty great compared to reddit so long as the topics stay away from anything to do with feminism or women’s rights. Otherwise it starts to feel like the reddit cesspit is leaking, and it’s depressing. Anyone remember the few days when “the bear” discussion took over the fediverse? Those were dark times. Or any time someone even mentions the word “mansplaining”, even if it’s satirical.
She should be using Linux instead.
how dare people react normally!!
Nah, this is about what I expected… why else would it get 600 upvotes?
Lemmy is full of the worst reddit bullshit. I was genuinely surprised at first, primarily because I thought it was going to be a bit of a refuge from bottom of the barrel idiocy. Instead, it’s the worst of it.
The unbelievably pathetic trash is why I am still looking for a good reddit alternative. Seeing all of the problems we solved on reddit years ago is honestly kind of sad.
Seeing all of the problems we solved on reddit years ago is honestly kind of sad.
How were they solved?
Banning bottom of the barrel lowbar zero effort trash like images of text, non funny showerthoughts posts that say “this water is hot”, stuff like that.
Lemmy is designed to solve only one of Reddit’s problems, and by solve, I mean make it so it does not require complete abandonment of the platform when things go bad. The things you’re complaining about exists because Lemmy works very similar to Reddit in a lot of things, so the discourse will also go down the same path eventually.
The same thing will happen if you look for other Reddit alternatives unless it is not only specifically designed to avoid them but also succeed in doing so.
I just thought that not only would people be used to not being worthless, but that the rules would train them to be baseline. Stepping up moderation is clearly a major requirement and I’m sad that’s the case.
deleted by creator
I’m not disagreeing with you but try using a period now and again they don’t cost any money
.
We need more humanitarians on the ground like you, selflessly distributing punctuation in war-torn regions.
Irony.
Can’t tell if sarcasm or dumbfuck.
Why not both?
G.o.f.u.c.k.y.o.u.r.s.e.l.f. I use proper punctuation in my work emails and thats about it. This is the best youll get
Please don’t give me new fetishes
do you know how hard it is to have a fetish for women being bigger and taller than you, when you are over 6 and a half feet tall?
😭
Very hard?
not as hard as he is right now.
Don’t know and don’t need to.
… and long…
Thats as much a fantasy as finding a 9 foot tall woman to pat me on the head and say she is proud of me.
Yeah. Good luck finding a woman that is proud of you
There is a lot to unpack in that sentence.
I am an entire warehouse, filled with pods, which themselves are full of issues, trauma, and baggage.
and I have had 2 therapists be completely dumbfounded and shocked at how well adjusted I am for all of it, lol.
its rarely a good thing when you shock a therapist.
We all are, to varying degrees. Some are just more aware of it than others.
But I didn’t approach your last remark by the harsher side. All the images coming to mind as I read it were censorable out of being plain stupid and childish.
Therapists can easily suffer of professional bias. I’ve done therapy as well and it came to a point when I felt my therapists were overly concerned and trying to victimize me. It is their role to help us be aware of things that may be lacking or holding us back but their trainning can make them view things as so damaging that a person being to cope and manage trauma by themselves and lead a somewhat balanced life is an impossible concept.
Yeah dont tell me im six foot which is the average where i live but women are just so much shorter… for me it actually helps that im 100kg with a pretty muscular build because I only care abou the height and from my experience taller women tend to like wider men. Idk. Still its hard out here lol
That’s a funny comment, but yeah - I’m the average height of men in my area, and like to be outmassed. I do like guys to be bigger than me in some dimension, and it hasn’t ever been height (tall guys here all seem to date short women). I have been about the same height as the guys of all my 3 serious relationships (not unusual since that’s the most common guy height) but have been the more slender of us always.
Too late
I wonder if we will ever evolve to the point where we can talk about women online without some mad lad needing to sexualise them.
Oh noes! They’re talking about s-e-x? Gross! We’re not supposed to talk about that! That’s naughty - we should be reading our bibles instead!
That’s awfully presumptuous of you, perhaps the comment was made by a woman who is sexualizing short men
You are telling me that a woman practically naked from waist below is not sexual? You might be gay.
I think the guy is showing more skin, so you might be heterosexual.
Do you have sisters? Do you ever go to the beach? No, it’s really not normal to find yourself reduced to base sexual impulses, and type them out on your computer just because you can see someone’s body.
It’s athletic long legs. Chill, person, it’s absolutely partnof human nature and not disrespectful in any way to appreciate that that is sexy.
Yes, I am sane enough to not have sexual urges about relatives. Everyone else is fair game.
Nope.
She would have to put pants on, at least.
So when you go to the beach, you are purving on every woman in a swimsuit or bikini?
Yes
Also yes.
I’d be satisfied if women got to openly sexualize men and talk about it. That would level out the playing field and, hopefully, reduce the unnecessary sexualizing of trivial things.
As a man, I’d be all about this
That is literally the opposite of evolution, we evolve to procreate that means more sex and sexualizing.
TLDR: if you don’t sexualize women on the Internet you are an affront to evolution and a sin against nature.
Unfortunately for your genes, attitudes like these will mean they don’t have much chance of spreading.
You do realize there is a difference between sexualizing someone and finding them sexy right?
If people stopped treating others like objects this instant, people would still be attracted to each other and still want to have sex and procreate.
Your statement is wrongheaded and ignorant. Do better.
Doesn’t matter, evolution is a tendency as in we tend twords things that cause us to reproduce including finding potentially valid breading partners as literal sexual objects.
sex is also a base emotion as in has a higher priority than most other emotions so we will always view things as sexy before we take any other emotions into account or at least evolution will always tend towards sexualization.
But more importantly it is not an insult, saying someone is a potentially good mate on a subconscious level is a complement and I don’t actually care what a bunch of puritanical virgins think, this is the exact reasoning that causes the birth rate to plummet in developed countries people that think they are to good for sex.
Doesn’t matter
It does matter Stupid (you don’t mind if I call you by your first name do you?).
Evolution is not ‘a tendency’. Evolution is the change in a genome over successive generations. There are many different factors that play into evolution, such as fitness, genetic drift, and sexual selection. In human beings we are less controlled by such forces because we have consciousness and knowledge of how genetics works, so we can choose who we procreate and thus are able to direct our own evolution.
So, assuming that you live in a country that doesn’t have arranged marriages- you will have to try and get a partner based on your personality, looks, intelligence etc. If you go around treating women like objects and making stupid ass remarks- you are actually less likely to procreate, not more.
sex is also a base emotion
Sex is not an emotion. It is an activity. One whose evolutionary purpose was to procreate, but now is used for many other purposes.
we will always view things as sexy before we take any other emotions into account
That may or may not be true, but what is true is you have the ability to control your behavior. So for example let’s say you were to view a picture of a tall and beautiful woman on the internet and you find her sexually attractive, you don’t have to come on to a post that really has nothing to do with sex and make it known to everyone how much you would like to bang her.
Now I know you are stupid, but are you stupid enough to think there is even a remote possibility that Anna Smrek would A) See this thread. B) See your comment and respond by DM’ing you to meet up so that she can have your baby? Because if you are not that stupid then your biological urges, evolution, procreation and whatever other lame excuse you want to say for getting on here and sexualizimg her does not matter in the slightest. It doesn’t serve any purpose other than to spread your toxic and childish view of women. And that is entirely your choice. ‘Evolution’ didn’t force you to act like a chud.
Did you ever stop to think that the other heterosexual males who don’t treat women like objects are the product of evolution just like you are? We probably have similar responses to seeing beautiful women as you do, but we are able to control ourselves and not act like misogynistic assholes because we are adults and in control of our emotions.
But more importantly it is not an insult
See Stupid, this is what I’m talking about. Women have been saying for years that hey want to be treated like human beings and not JO material for man-babies, but because YOU can’t comprehend why they would feel that way- you conclude that their feelings don’t matter. Perhaps if you were a sexually desirable creature, and women treated “men” the way you treat them, you might understand why being treated like a piece of meat is annoying and gross. But you are not and they are not. The problem comes when you are unable to look beyond your own base instincts and put yourself in other peoples shoes.
this is the exact reasoning that causes the birth rate to plummet in developed countries people that think they are to good for sex.
LMFAO, you kill me son. Every time I think you can’t possibly get any stupider, you type another sentence. 🤣
I started reading this but then I remembered I don’t care what you think and this is definitely AI generated so I definitely don’t care, goodbye.
Proud to remain ignorant. Let me guess, Trump supporter right?
“When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”
Technically evolution is an emergent phenomenon from the reproduction of organisms. If you were to clone yourself with slight mutations it would still allow evolution to happen with zero inherent need for sex or sexuality whatsoever
Regardless of that, sexualizing women typically leads one to be an incel not a successfully mating male which means it would be the opposite of evolution by your reasoning.
It’s also interesting that your premise is generic but your conclusion is specific. “Sex is to be encouraged for evolution; that’s why we should sexualize women specifically” If you aren’t a misogynist, you might want to switch your TL;DR to “sexualize people” not specifically “women”
Sexualizing women does not “typically lead to being an incel”, that’s just crazy. Blaming women for failure to succeed in finding a sexual partner is what leads to that.
It’s not inherently bad to see people in a sexual light, what matters is when and how you act on those feelings, and respecting that people are also more than sexual objects.
It’s not inherently bad to see people in a sexual light, what matters is when and how you act on those feelings, and respecting that people are also more than sexual objects.
You are confusing ‘sexualizing’ someone with finding them sexy. When people talk about sexualizing women they are referring to treating them as sexual objects.
The secret lies in the balance - if i don’t sexualize women at least a little bit, i would probably don’t have a sexual preference for women.
The important thing is being able to keep it in check - I can talk with every woman without hitting on them, even if i might have sexual thoughts about them in secret, just like women will probably sexualize their preferred gender and still be able to behave decently towards men.
There’s a time and place for everything. If it were any other way, humanity would have probably died out by now - either by being primarily asexual or by being disgusted by the opposite sex and their inappropriate behavior.
P.S.: My hypothesis is that since most people are alone while posting, they are mentally in a space where such thoughts are not suppressed as much, which leads to a higher occurrence of horny remarks than in real life. A minuscule amount of people of those who can’t stop themselves from expressing their adoration of those legs would be like that when meeting her. And yes, those legs are sexy as hell, and i’m pretty sure she knows it, or this photo would not exist.
It’s amazing how many hoops you’ll jump through to make a literal scientific fact sound bad but in any case I was obviously speaking in hyperbole to piss people off.
Legs forever mmmm-mmm
HER DAD’S TALLER. HOLY SHIT.
genetics, right? at least one of her parents had to be similarly tall.
I once knew a married couple with the husband at 6’8" and the wife at 4’10". For years, we all joked about them having kids, and either would quip “logistics”. I was part of the family gathering during the birth of their first child, and a caesarian was essential. 🙃
You might be surprised! My uncle is 170 cm tall, his wife about 165, and two of their sons are about 170. Their third son is nearly 195 cm. Yes, he’s their biological child - we’ve checked!
Both my aunt and uncle had tall fathers and very short mothers. Height is polygenic (multiple genes are responsible), so my cousin won the height allele lottery and inherited a higher proportion of the height increasing traits both parents carried, making him a height outlier.
I’m 201 cm both my parents are both over 6ft
My cousin is 211cm, both his parents are under 6ft.
That cousin isn’t even related to the taller side of my family. He’s sort of a freak outlier.
I am 197 cm and taller than both my parents or really anyone in my family
Do your family pictures also look photoshopped?
Same boat. I’m 20cm taller than my dad. Do grandparents come into play? I’m really bad at biology
Height is about 80% genetics, 20% environment (nutrition and general health). Grandparent’s genetics are a factor since that is where the parents inherited their genes.
A child inherits two copies of every gene from their parents, one copy from each. Your family could be like mine, where my grandfather was quite tall and my grandmother was unusually short, suggesting my grandfather had double pairs of genes for height and my grandmother had double pairs of genes for… not height. Their children, my mother and her siblings, then had an even assortment of tall and short genes.
Her brother married a woman whose parents followed the same tall father/short mother pattern and they had three sons: two of about the same height as the parents (even tall/short gene mix) and one who is about 20 cm taller than the rest (few or no short genes).
Thank you for the detailed explanation. And yep, that’s the situation. One of my grandparents was tall, the other grandparent was short.
I mean not neccesarily. Both my parents are at least 15cm shorter than me. My mum is quite tall (looking at averages she falls in the 20th percentile but still is around 175cm) but my dad is average height at 48th percentile. And yet I fall in the 1st to 2nd percentile.
Both my brothers are about as tall as my dad and the only one even close to my height is one of my mother’s cousins.
I was complaining that I thought my kids would all be my height or a little taller because my ex was a little bit taller than me, so should they not be the average of our heights?
My kid who did genetics in school says no, the average result is add mom and dads heights, divide by 2 but then add 10cm for boys, subtract 10cm for girls. So if I wanted girls my height I would need a man taller than me. And boy children would likely end up taller than either of us.
Obviously it’s not an unbreakable rule, but a likely result.
If I do your formula I would be around 186cm tall. I am in fact around 196. My brothers do fall more in line with one being 184 and the other 182.
My parents had a big height gap, mom 163 in cm, dad 193. So the average is 178. My sister is 178cm, I am 175. I guess that’s why I expected my daughters to be the average of our heights. My brothers are 188 cm. So all of us are in between the heights of the parents but there’s a lot of “in between”.
My mom’s parents were actually both quite tall though, her mom my height, which for back then was really tall, she (my mom) told me she kept expecting to get taller than her mom like the rest of her friends and it never happened.
And my dad’s parents were both quite short, about 165cm and all their kids as tall as my dad, so obviously there are other factors. I have no idea why my dad and his brothers were so tall. Like nearly a whole foot taller than both their parents.
He played 7 seasons in the NBA, was kinda a journeyman playing backup center for a bunch of different teams.
That’s cool but I feel like it would be a nightmare being that tall.
The back problems will kick in early.
Knees go quicker, especially for athletes
This is part of the reason I chose marching band over football and basketball.
Now I just have back problems.
Why? Height doesn’t automatically equate to back problems. Uneven weight distribution (belly, boobs, etc.), poor stretching habits, lack of excerise, bad posture/form/lifting, or injury equate to back problems at ANY height.
Its mostly because we gotta use the kitchen sink, bath sink, toilet chairs, bed, couch etc for mini people. So having to crouch all the time would do your back in quick.
I have a friend that is 5’7.5" and that really is the threshold. Because after that, you’re taller than a standard door frame and have to duck to go in or out of anywhere.
What tiny standards for doorframes do you have???
The Shire
Is your friend 5’7.5 or 6’7.5? 6’8" doors are really common, so I’m guessing the latter.
Being much closer to her height than his I can confidently say that’s just not true, short of your feet literally hanging off the end of a bed. You just have bad posture, bad form, and don’t stretch.
How old are you?
Old enough to know what the Internet sounds like and to have actually made mixtapes on tape.
I have one nephew at 6’10” and another that is 7’1”. They both cope well enough even when challenged with size obstacles. They are young and generally positively motivated which helps.
Oh yeah, being young would be great. I’d dunk on everyone.
I will clarify that being in my forties there’s no way that would be a good time.
I actually know someone who is that tall and he has a daughter who is tiny. It’s really awkward talking to both of them at the same time because he stands at a normal distance which really feels far too close because of how tall he is, but if you step back you feel like you’re about half a mile away from his daughter.
