so... does height really matter?
I've always held a pretty firm view that the guy should be over 5'11 as I'm 5'8 in my socks and, like most females like wearing heels. Your legs look longer, which is very definitely an advantage in our stumpy legged family, your bum perter (no comment) and you are forced to walk in a feminine manner. All good so far.
However I am beginning to realise how dramatically this reduces the number of contenders. Specifically, on one of my dating sites (oh yes there are many), there were only 184 men over 5'11 compared to 278 men over 5'9. [No, sorry, I am still not going to consider those under that, like one chap who wrote to me, who was 5'3, but said "I can be 5'6 in shoes". Crikey.] That's 100 guys I am automatically excluding on the basis that they're not tall enough. Does it matter that much? Would I really mind? Surely other things like personality, intelligence, humour, kindness etc matter more?
Logically speaking I'm open to the idea of liking and dating shorter individuals. But the practice is rather different - attraction isn't necessarily a logical thing (if it were, I would have been married years ago). I am attracted to manly men. Men whose clothes would be comically large on me. Men who could carry me (I hasten to add I mean in an "English Patient" style crisis rather than in a "I'm tired, carry me" type situation). Men who can lift stuff I can't. Men who would weigh more than me even if I was nine months pregnant.
I realise this sounds rather pathetic in this modern day - men should be admirable for many other qualities other than just caveman strength - but I think it's just one of those things. Having never been petite (who am I kidding?), I enjoy being next to someone who makes me feel slim/small/attractive/feminine. If my thighs are bigger than theirs then, well, with the best will in the world, I don't think I'll be able to encourage myself to fancy them.
Of course the easiest answer to this would be for me to lose 2 stone and then almost blokes would be larger than me. But I'd be a miserable whiney cow. And therefore even more single.
I can't help wondering about the 100 guys I'm discounting though...
However I am beginning to realise how dramatically this reduces the number of contenders. Specifically, on one of my dating sites (oh yes there are many), there were only 184 men over 5'11 compared to 278 men over 5'9. [No, sorry, I am still not going to consider those under that, like one chap who wrote to me, who was 5'3, but said "I can be 5'6 in shoes". Crikey.] That's 100 guys I am automatically excluding on the basis that they're not tall enough. Does it matter that much? Would I really mind? Surely other things like personality, intelligence, humour, kindness etc matter more?
Logically speaking I'm open to the idea of liking and dating shorter individuals. But the practice is rather different - attraction isn't necessarily a logical thing (if it were, I would have been married years ago). I am attracted to manly men. Men whose clothes would be comically large on me. Men who could carry me (I hasten to add I mean in an "English Patient" style crisis rather than in a "I'm tired, carry me" type situation). Men who can lift stuff I can't. Men who would weigh more than me even if I was nine months pregnant.
I realise this sounds rather pathetic in this modern day - men should be admirable for many other qualities other than just caveman strength - but I think it's just one of those things. Having never been petite (who am I kidding?), I enjoy being next to someone who makes me feel slim/small/attractive/feminine. If my thighs are bigger than theirs then, well, with the best will in the world, I don't think I'll be able to encourage myself to fancy them.
Of course the easiest answer to this would be for me to lose 2 stone and then almost blokes would be larger than me. But I'd be a miserable whiney cow. And therefore even more single.
I can't help wondering about the 100 guys I'm discounting though...
posted by londongirl at Wednesday, July 26, 2006
6 comments
