Okay for women to reject short guys, not okay for guys to reject big girls

[Lizard]

*Originally posted by Manda JO *
**To put it a different way, I don’t think a woman (or anyone) should profit by raising expectations that she has no intention of fufilling.
**

This is what I have been trying to get at all along. Obviously I could be doing a better job of it.

**

I think that some women play dumb, but in reality a person usually knows after seeing someone socially three or four times what that person expects in general. If you have no interest and no potential interest in fufilling those expectations, you have to stop accepting the profits. **

Definitely. And you may be right about my provicialism, Manda JP, however much it pains me to admit it. When I think about it, I have known men who were willing to wait, etc. Of course, now I think those guys were the chumps. Maybe this says more about me than anything.

originally posted by yosemitebabe
**You said a woman “owed” a man “something sexual” after a few dates. That sounded a lot like the pact that a john makes with a prostitute - he gives her money, she gives (“owes”) him sex. I thought it was relevant to point out that you have actually participated in this sort of transaction, therefore you might have a different perspective.
**

And I stated very clearly that I did not think they were the same thing. I do not think any woman who dates a woman is the equivalent of a prostitute.
Buying sex from a hooker is like buying a lwanmower-you get what you pay for. But dating is like applying for a college grant. You hope you get something, but you really don’t know what is going to happen.

**

So a woman is not “entitled” to have old fashioned views and still date? …Why can’t she just find a guy who understand and respects her moral code? Maybe find a man who will love her enough to wait? Or find one that shares her moral code?
**

A woman is entitled to feel however she wants to feel. But if what she thinks in this regard is at odds with reality, she should be prepared for potential consquences. And this applies to men as well.

*Originally posted by dogsbody *
**I’m the one who brought up the trip to the prostitute, and it was not in a “weird attempt to discredit” you, Lizard, but as an example of one way in which men carry more power over women than vice versa.
**

Okay, but I still fail to understand how the existence of hookers proves male power. These women make hundreds or thousands of dollars for a few hours’ work. All it really proves is that men want more sex than they can get easily without paying for it. It’s not as if prostitutes (in the U.S.) are children incapable of deciding what they want to do with themselves. How does that pro-choice slogan go? “My Body, My Decision!”

Originally posted by StellaFantasia *
**Ladies, this argument right here is the best example I could ever give you for why we must ALWAYS PAY FOR OUR DRINKS, DINNERS, MOVIE TICKETS, or what-have-you. Not ALL men feel a sense of entitlement if they pay your way, but some do, & you don’t want to learn the hard way which kind you’re with.
**

I agree. Completely.

**

I really can’t swallow that domestic violence comes down as hard on men as it does on women. I’m a DV survivor, & in the years I saw my therapist at the DV clinic, the only men I ever saw there were undergoing court-ordered anger management therapy so they’d stop beating their SOs. Not one man went there because his wife or GF was abusive. **

I won’t try to argue this with you Stella because as a victim of DV yourself, I doubt your ability to be objective. (I don’t mean that as some kind of slam, either.) But I will say that what you personally saw is not necessarily indicative. I refer you to a book I mentioned earlier: “Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say” by Warren Farrell. He has a whole chapter on how domestic violence perpetrated by men has been dramatically overstated, while that perpetrated by women is virtually ignored.
I never actually said that doestic violence “comes down as hard on men as it does on women.” What I think is that it is a wild exaggeration to say that men are *far/i] more violent than women and engage in DV far more often than women do. That position simply can’t be proven using unbiased statistics.

[Darqangelle]

*Originally posted by yosemitebabe *
**

Lizard wrote:

No, I would say she owes him something sexual only after the second or third date. I guess you are one of those women who would be shocked. But you know what someone is called who just takes and never gives back? A user. No, I’m not equating this with prostitution, because she’s not getting the cash. But she’s definitely getting something. And nothing comes for free. Women in other countries know this (something I know from personal experience), why are American women so clueless?

Un-fricking-believable. What if the woman in question has strong moral/religious convictions, and feels she morally cannot “owe” the man she is dating “something sexual” after the second or third date? **

All right… then how about SHE buys the next meal. That would be fair, wouldn’t it? Or at least takes care of all the needs and resources for the next date (eg: Prepares a picnic lunch).

I’m surprised that more women don’t look at this option in the age of “fair play”.

[SisterCoyote]

Darque, did you not read Stella’s post above? Did you miss me agreeing with it?

Many women can and do offer to split the bill. Or pay the next time. Or whatever.

And, Lizard, I can only again point you to the site I cited (heh) above. But since you don’t seem interested in looking into the issue, and are insistant on believing that the woman is keeping all the money, I think it’s pretty clear that I’m not going to change your mind on this. Which is fine. It was a minor point, in my mind at least, anyway.

BTW, to clarify one thing. I did not read the threads wherein you talked about your visit to the hooker. I just noticed them. Ergo, I am admitting that I do not have all the facts about your visit, and probably should not have brought it up without them. Fair enough?

[Darqangelle]

*Originally posted by dogsbody *
Darque, did you not read Stella’s post above? Did you miss me agreeing with it?

No, db, didn’t miss it at all… But I never quoted you or replied directly to any statement you made.

The quotes I took were Yosemitebabe’s and Lizard’s.

Can you watch where you’re pointing that thing and put the safety back on, please?

[Darqangelle]

Sorry about the bold… didn’t mean to yell

BTW, how did we get so far off topic?

[yosemite]

**

*Originally posted by Manda JO *
**To put it a different way, I don’t think a woman (or anyone) should profit by raising expectations that she has no intention of fufilling. **
**

Lizard replied:
This is what I have been trying to get at all along. Obviously I could be doing a better job of it.

Obviously. I think several of us have tried to explain that we do not support or excuse a woman who strings a guy along, going on dates with him, when she has no feelings for him.

originally posted by yosemitebabe
**You said a woman “owed” a man “something sexual” after a few dates. That sounded a lot like the pact that a john makes with a prostitute - he gives her money, she gives (“owes”) him sex.
**
Lizard replied
And I stated very clearly that I did not think they were the same thing. I do not think any woman who dates a woman is the equivalent of a prostitute.

Well, you may have not thought it was the same thing, but I saw a simularity because of some of the statements you made. And in the way you phrased things.

As far as dogsbody (and then me) bringing up your encounter with the prostitute - I am not sure what your beef here is. We only know about it because you TOLD everyone about it. You were not at all shy about telling us about it, and you claim you feel no regret over the encounter. If you didn’t want people to know about that private part of your life, and have them mention it later, DON’T START A THREAD ABOUT IT. It would be one thing if we were always bringing up this incident in any old random thread (like a Napster topic or something.) You might feel justified in being irritated and wonder what prompted us to mention it there. But this thread is about sex and dating/relationships. And whether you think it is relevant or not, the chance exists that people will think of your interesting encounter with the prostitute when such discussions of sex/relationships come up. You may not agree with then when they make reference to it, it may ruffle your feathers. But, as I said before, the genie’s out of the bottle. If it bothers you now that people mention it, too late.

Buying sex from a hooker is like buying a lwanmower-you get what you pay for. But dating is like applying for a college grant. You hope you get something, but you really don’t know what is going to happen.

Then why the “owe” bullshit? Where did all that come from? If you go on a date, you go on it to find out more about the person. Nothing more. They do not OWE you anything, other than (we all would hope) the understanding that they won’t keep seeing you if they don’t give a damn about you.

A woman is entitled to feel however she wants to feel. But if what she thinks in this regard is at odds with reality, she should be prepared for potential consquences. And this applies to men as well.

What “reality”? Everyone’s “reality” is different. Some men want lots of sex right away. Fine. Other men will wait, or prefer to wait. Some people are have moral reasons for waitng until marriage. A woman who wants to wait for sex shouldn’t be wasting her time with a guy who going out with her because he is chomping at the bit to get laid as soon as possible. Same goes for guys. That’s what this “dating” custom is all about. To find out more about the person.

Originally posted by StellaFantasia *
Ladies, this argument right here is the best example I could ever give you for why we must ALWAYS PAY FOR OUR DRINKS, DINNERS, MOVIE TICKETS, or what-have-you.

Lisard replied:
I agree. Completely.
[/quote]

I agree too. But I am confused here - if a couple goes dutch, doesn’t the guy (and woman) still wonder what the romantic expectations are? Like, “when am I going to get laid” or “Maybe he’s The One.” If you are going on dutch dates with a woman, will you not be thinking about, and expecting something romantic to happen eventually?

[Darqangelle]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by yosemitebabe *
**

if a couple goes dutch, doesn’t the guy (and woman) still wonder what the romantic expectations are? Like, “when am I going to get laid” or “Maybe he’s The One.” If you are going on dutch dates with a woman, will you not be thinking about, and expecting something romantic to happen eventually? **

Yep. But then it more genuine ‘hope’, instead of the old-fashioned (man buys, woman reciprocates) ‘expectation’. The playing field is a little more even. A better position for all, dontchathink?

Heck, a woman who at least offers to go dutch (or pay for the next meal) gets points from me, and a significant raise of my interest.

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by Darqangelle *
Yep. But then it more genuine ‘hope’, instead of the old-fashioned (man buys, woman reciprocates) ‘expectation’. The playing field is a little more even. A better position for all, dontchathink?

Certainly, especially since some guys (apparently) “expect” sex after paying for a few meals.

I think my point was and question was this: Lizard has been, in part, bitching about women not forkiing out the sex soon enough when they are dating a man. (Even though, of course, he concedes that women are “entitled” to not have sex if they don’t want to.) The sex element would still exist, dutch or no. If a guy is going dutch with a woman for a few weeks/months, and he still hasn’t gotten laid, would he be a “chump” in Lizard’s mind?

[EFBailey]

Having read every post on this thus far, it seems to me a bit like there are some miscommunications in effect. Posters, correct me if I’m wrong here, but it seems like Lizard said:

A woman owes a man sex after two or three dates if the man is paying

when what he MEANT to say was much more like

Many women continue to go out with men they have no real romantic/sexual interest in just to get the free drinks/meals/movie tickets/whatever and that they should NOT do this.

Is this it, Lizard? If so, I think the majority of people here, even those who have used some harsh words, would have no argument with the above. If this what you intended to convey, consider that I believe when you said women “owe” sex someone they’ve had X many dates with, most people on this board thought you meant to convey that

** A woman should be in some way obligated (morally, socially or otherwise) to have sexual relations with a man, even if she is not attracted to him or interested, after letting him pay for x many dates, because this is what he expected.**

You would probably agree with me that this is plain wrong. Some people even took this as an argument that implied rape was justifiable in such cases. (Rape is never justifyable, just for the record). I’m not trying to put words in anyone’s mouth, or to change someone’s comments to make them more palatable. I think that this is more or less what every post marked “Lizard” has been trying to clarify after that first inflamatory remark. If I thought someone here was saying anything like the latter, I would not let him/her off the hook so easilly, to be sure.
I’m just thinking this is not an issue-issue, but a semantic issue, and that we could peacefully get on with the original discussion with a little clarification from the OPs involved. Someone stop me if my revised version of what was said was what you were reacting to to begin with, or equally offensive to you.

Before going I’ll say for myself that while woman CAN choose to treat someone badly --ie, use them for free meals by leading them on when they know someone is trying to win their love (or even their sex) it isn’t particularly nice. Same goes if a woman is treating a man to something. However, if a man is just pretending to be interested in a woman as a person, and, as has been suggested, has only sex on his mind, I would say he is on equal moral ground with the woman who is pretending she is interested in him and is in fact only interested in dinner.

Male or female, it’s all people exploiting people – right?

[Stella_Fantasia]

*Originally posted by yosemitebabe *
<snip>
I agree too. But I am confused here - if a couple goes dutch, doesn’t the guy (and woman) still wonder what the romantic expectations are? Like, “when am I going to get laid” or “Maybe he’s The One.” If you are going on dutch dates with a woman, will you not be thinking about, and expecting something romantic to happen eventually?
**

2 thoughts on this one:

1. Because I like to start the sexual side of a relationship sooner rather than later (the longest I’ve ever waited was the third date…), I feel as though it is important to set up the idea that I’m doing it because I want to & not because he bought me dinner. I don’t know about “expecting something romantic to happen eventually”, because I don’t wait for “eventually”. Whether or not someone who does wait for “eventually” is a sucker is a decision that s/he will have to make for him/herself. I will not make that call.

2. The concept of “The One” makes me wanna hurl. (I have this theory, which I cannot prove, that it was invented in an attempt to restrain female sexuality. I haven’t yet decided if it was invented by men who are afraid of powerful, sexual women, or by old, dried-up women who don’t want anyone else to have any fun.) But that’s another topic for another thread, one which should probably be in the Pit…

[h_thur]

Originally posted by StellaFantasia *
**
2. The concept of “The One” makes me wanna hurl. (I have this theory, which I cannot prove, that it was invented in an attempt to restrain female sexuality. I haven’t yet decided if it was invented by men who are afraid of powerful, sexual women, or by old, dried-up women who don’t want anyone else to have any fun.) But that’s another topic for another thread, one which should probably be in the Pit…
**

My “The One” turned out to be gay (after feigning bi) and only wanted his door of our so-called “open relationship” to be open. I am polyamorous. The one time I was actually in a monogamous relationship, I got pregnant and he became abusive, so I split.

My solution: I don’t date - I have sexual partners to satisfy that urge - our meetings are strictly sexual. They don’t involve dinner & a movie and each wondering whether tonight will be the lucky night we get laid. When I go out with friends, whether they be male or female, we go dutch.

My take on the tall/fat thing: My only requirement in a sexual partner is that he can hold his own in the bedroom - and that means that he has to be able to keep up with me (physically & mentally), and that we should be able to our enjoy our bodies without having to go to the chiropractor afterwards. I am a big woman, and I prefer a man that is my size or larger, but I have been with smaller men - though not so much of a height/weight difference between us that it is problematic. I don’t want a man that can pick me up and sling me across the room either, though.

I think larger women tend to prefer taller men, because it makes them feel smaller. Why short, petite women would prefer a very tall man, I have no idea other than personal preference.

If a man doesn’t like my size, that’s fine with me. I just don’t want to hear about how smart, funny, pretty, etc. I am, and how perfect I would be if I would lose weight. I’ve heard that from my mother since I was 9 - I don’t need to hear it from a man too, thank you.

[Pammipoo]

My best friend (male) is probably around 5"6 or so. He’s cute, funny, a great listener, fun to be with, and an all around awesome guy. Any girl would be lucky to get him, but most reject him because he’s relatively short, for a guy anyways.
My ex-boyfriend was 6"2, pretty cute, and decent at times. But for the most part, he’s an asshole. Wanna take a bet at who gets more girls?
I think it’s unfair to judge anyone based only on their looks, men or women. If I lived in the same city as my friend, I’d snatch him up in a second. Seeing as I’m not, I have to listen to him be lonely and miserable because of his dating life.
Me? I’m chubby. I’ve accepted that, I can deal with it. If you’re not gonna like me for who I am inside, then I don’t need you around to begin with. If that means I don’t ever go on another date in my life, fine, I’ll renew my Blockbuster membership I’d rather be by myself and happy than with someone who doesn’t love me for who I am, and miserable.

[BlackKnight]

Here’s a few articles that might be of interest:

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_161933.html

http://www.massnews.com/0101violent.htm

http://www.times-news.com/op/1999/letter99/let736.htm

http://www.backlash.com/book/domv.html

And this page has a plethora of information about male victims of domestic violence:

http://www.vix.com/menmag/battered.htm

[tracer]

Yeah, but wives hitting their husbands isn’t quite as bad, 'cause they hit like a girl.

<ducking and running>

[SpoilerVirgin]

*Originally posted by elmwood *
**It’s perfectly acceptable for a woman to reject a man as a potential mate because he is shorter than she is (or even just an inch or two taller, but not “tall enough”), or because he doesn’t have a high income. It’s called “Darwinism in action,” acting out the instinct to seek out a “protector.” However, it’s considered unacceptable for a man to find himself unattracted to a woman who weighs more than he does. He’s considered “superficial,” “sizeist” or “picky.” ***(bolding mine)
*

I’m quoting the OP because I wanted to respond to elmwood and address something (as indicated by the bolding) that I don’t think was ever discussed in this long, meandering thread.

I think that the issue here boils down to “perfectly acceptable” (or unacceptable) to whom?

I think that elmwood’s point was that society judges the acceptability of partner choices in this way. And I also think that that is categorically wrong.

As so many posters said on the first page of this thread, people have different preferences. Anyone, male or female, has a right to be attracted to whomever he or she wants. The problem arises when “friends” or “society” starts telling you that your choices are unacceptable.

I have no problem with a man saying that he doesn’t want to date big women (however he defines “big”) or with a woman saying that she doesn’t want to date short men. I do have a problem with someone’s friends, or a magazine article, or “society” then telling that man or woman that he or she is “wrong” in his or her choice of partners, or in using a particular criterion for making that choice.

Is there a double standard here? I don’t really think so. Almost every male-to-female personal ad I’ve ever seen has stressed “fit” (read weight) as a criterion. And I haven’t seen too many men getting beat up for that. I have occasionally seen people taking grief for wanting to date someone of their own race/religion (or sometimes for wanting to date someone not of their own race/religion. My attitude is the same in all cases – barring the use of ridiculous stereotypes (“I want to date a Venusian because they’re all sex maniacs”), be attracted to whomever you feel attracted to, and no one has a right to judge you for it.

So the bottom line is that it’s irrelevant whether there’s a double standard, because any judging of other people’s reasons for being attracted is out of line.

[Kimstu]

Lizard remarked: When I went to Latin America and Mexico I soon found that it was useless to attempt to engage strange women in idle conversation. Down there, women are careful who they show any kind of interest in, because they know what it means or can lead to. Maybe saying American women are “clueless” is a little harsh. I just think they should be a little more pragmatic and honest, both with themselves and with men.

Actually Liz, I think that the scenario you describe there for South/Central America is kind of sad and pathetic. Having the freedom to engage in “idle conversation” with or show some kind of “interest” in strangers, without its implying a social obligation to fuck them, is one of the good things about a free and gender-egalitarian society. I certainly don’t want to go back to the days when “respectable” women couldn’t be pleasant and sociable with whomever they pleased without having it assumed that they were sexually available. If that’s what you call clueless, then hooray for cluelessness and I think we all need more of it. Sure, when you’re not in a rigid sexuality-regulating (what I think you call “pragmatic and honest”) culture, there are ambiguous situations where some people get their sexual hopes up only to be disappointed, but I for one think that’s far preferable to the kind of constant sexual bargaining and obligation that you seem to be advocating.

On the other hand, I completely agree with (pretty much everything that Manda JO said on this thread, plus) the comment that women should not mooch off of men they’re not interested in. In fact, I absolutely side with Stella’s position that women shouldn’t be accepting financial favors from any men socially, unless they know and trust each other well. Yes, women do still have significantly less money than men on average, but even if that makes it somewhat regressive to pay our date expenses, we should just all undertake to do it and stamp out this stupid inequality once and for all. Ladies, that means we have to make a fuss about demanding to pay our share of the check. Gentlemen, that means you have to help out by (1) not assuming that if a woman doesn’t let you pay for her, it must mean she doesn’t like you and is protecting herself from future sexual demands; and (2) not grabbing the check and refusing to let her pay for herself (you can attempt to pay for her if you don’t know her views and don’t want to seem cheap, but if she objects, don’t make her argue with you about it, okay? just take the damn money). If we replace this silly, confusing, unequal system that we’ve got now with the straightforward assumption that all people go on dates or out with friends because they want to be there and pay for their own food, drink, and entertainment—while still accepting that people who already know and like each other can treat or be treated by mutual agreement whenever they please—we will all be so much better off, even if people like Lizard think it’s clueless of us.

And just to weigh in on the OP, I would like to add my voice to the apparent consensus that 1) people are not responsible for whom they happen to be attracted to, 2) people who complain publicly about the unattractiveness of the people they don’t happen to be attracted to are basically begging to be chastised for shallowness and prejudice, and 3) it is not any more or less shallow or prejudiced for women to reject short (or bald, or chubby, or hirsute, or whatever) guys than it is for guys to reject overweight (or tall, or flatchested, or whatever) women.

And personally, I like short guys (and don’t mind bald or chubby ones either. Hirsute is a definite plus). I know that many women have a preference, sometimes amounting to exclusivity, for tall men, but I have never understood it (and I’m not sure I buy this “protector” stuff, I need more evidence on that one).

(And not to worry jshore, I’m not convinced that elm’s experience is necessarily a guide for what yours would be. I’ve known short guys from Colorado, and they never seemed to complain of having hard luck with the wimmin.)

[dude]

Its ok for anyone to use whatever criteria they wish. Those with ‘good’ criteria will have more children, so says darwin. Lifes not fair, get used to it. I am short ( 5 '4 ) and in a happy relationship so whats the problem ? I have taller friends who have had less luck with women than me so its obviously not the only critieria. My advice is ask out shorter women, people generally end up with someone who is more like them than unlike them so go with that.

You can’t do anything about being short, you can exercise and work out for a better bod, you can work harder and study for a better job, you can work at being a nice person, treating people well etc.

Alls fair in love and war, everyone is battling for the best genes for our kids says darwin BUT remember people don’t think in darwinian terms, ok those who are most aligned with those ideas do breed more but its usually not a conscious decision.

[fatherjohn]

*Originally posted by dude *
**
Alls fair in love and war, everyone is battling for the best genes for our kids says darwin BUT remember people don’t think in darwinian terms, ok those who are most aligned with those ideas do breed more but its usually not a conscious decision.

**

:rolleyes:

So, dude, it’s ok to murder your romantic rivals? Alls fair in love and war, right? NOT

[dude]

Not exactly what I meant, men and women both choose. We have all said NO to someone who has asked us out and we have all had NO said to us. Its a free choice.

Like I wrote, people usually end up with someone more like them than unlike them, the research backs me up on this, well ok, the people who stay together are usually similiar, you could still be with someone totally different for a while.

[fatherjohn]

*Originally posted by dude *
**Its a free choice.

**

:rolleyes:
As if anyone would ever be prosecuted for saying “No.”
Sheesh