Topic: What is the female equivalent of height in female attractivness? (Read 10421 times)

ReadRothbard · « **on:** February 17, 2015, 07:20:28 PM »

I've been wondering this for a while. Some say it is weight, but I'm skeptical, as there are literally no fat female Hollywood sex symbols while there are some short male Hollywood sex symbols. There are no successful fat female strippers, while there are some 5'5-5'8 male strippers that are wildly successful. So, what trait is the female equivalent of height?

NewHeights · « **Reply #1 on:** February 17, 2015, 07:38:55 PM »

I don't think there is a clear equivalent, but the closest is probably body shape (low fat, good curves)

Overdozer · « **Reply #2 on:** February 17, 2015, 07:54:55 PM »

Female height equivalent in attractiveness is... height. But considering it doesn't matter for them to the same extent as to males, I'd say they have none. Weight is a thing for both sexes, so is facial attractiveness. It's just a bonus for us, and so is penile size, which I believe mainly matters to the extent of increasing someone's confidence and that's it. Also status is more of a thing for males, though it's starting to change now.

KiloKAHN · « **Reply #3 on:** February 17, 2015, 08:19:08 PM »

I don't believe there is a perfect equivalent.

ReadRothbard · « **Reply #4 on:** February 17, 2015, 09:32:24 PM »

Quote from: KiloKAHN on February 17, 2015, 08:19:08 PM

I don't believe there is a perfect equivalent.

Neither do I, really.

Only thing I can possibly think of is waist-to-hip ratio being equivalent to height, but then there are always girls with big breasts and horrible waist to hip ratios that are crazy hot to guys, yet not too many 5'3-5'5 guys who can pull that off.

KrP1 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 17, 2015, 10:33:46 PM »

there is no equivalent. The only thing that could be similar is if the girl is really short, like 145cm or less

ReadRothbard · « **Reply #6 on:** February 17, 2015, 10:45:28 PM »

Quote from: KirP1 on February 17, 2015, 10:33:46 PM

there is no equivalent. The only thing that could be similar is if the girl is really short, like 145cm or less

Maybe a short guy is like a really tall girl? Except I don't really care how tall a girl is as long as she is hot (and we are physically capable of having sex).

KrP1 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 17, 2015, 10:49:12 PM »

Quote from: ReadRothbard on February 17, 2015, 10:45:28 PM

Maybe a short guy is like a really tall girl? Except I don't really care how tall a girl is as long as she is hot (and we are physically capable of having sex).

maybe a 185cm girl could be similar to a 165cm boy , cant know what is more accurate this or the 145cm.

KrP1 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 17, 2015, 11:46:59 PM »

i dont think that weight is an female is a good equivalent to height in males. Weight could be changed by exercise/diet , height cant be changed except by LL, so i find more exact the super tall women or the super short one. Weight is also important in males as over weight ones are negatively judged .

Society is more exigent with male physic than womans physic.

Male:

-Tall
-Beautifull face
-muscular ripped body (in some cases these bodys need to use anabolic steroids to be reached)

Girl:

-normal face
-big tits or big boot
-Slim

what is more difficult to be? who will date more ?

Medium Drink Of Water · « **Reply #9 on:** February 18, 2015, 12:19:22 AM »

Quote from: ReadRothbard on February 17, 2015, 07:20:28 PM

I've been wondering this for a while. Some say it is weight, but I'm skeptical, as there are literally no fat female Hollywood sex symbols while there are some short male Hollywood sex symbols. There are no successful fat female strippers, while there are some 5'5-5'8 male strippers that are wildly successful. So, what trait is the female equivalent of height?

I think it is weight. The fact that short guys can succeed in Hollywood doesn't matter. Tom Cruise had to stand on a platform in Top Gun to do scenes with Kelly McGillis, but nobody saw that. Few people actually see him in person much less stand next to him. As for male strippers, I bet the customers would prefer a tall stripper all else being equal.

In terms of being invisible to the opposite sex based on physical features, I think it is indeed height for men and weight for women.

KrP1 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 18, 2015, 12:25:08 AM »

Quote from: musicmaker on February 18, 2015, 12:09:24 AM

It's true that weight can be more easily modified than height and that fat men are also negatively judged, but I don't think society is more exigent with male appearance than with female appearance. Evidence suggests that the contrary is true. Many males compensate their lack of physical attributes with wealth and status, whereas this is not possible for women. Women must always be slim, beautiful and young, because, if they aren't, their man, given the choice, will replace them sooner of later by another one who fulfills all these requirements. This is very sad, but happens very often.

status is much more difficult to have than to be Slim. So society is much more exigent with mans than with womans.

KrP1 · « **Reply #11 on:** February 18, 2015, 12:42:03 AM »

also mans need to have some physic qualitys not only status, unless their status is really hight

Disobedient · « **Reply #12 on:** February 18, 2015, 12:48:37 AM »

Quote from: KirP1 on February 17, 2015, 11:46:59 PM

i dont think that weight is an female is a good equivalent to height in males. Weight could be changed by exercise/diet , height cant be changed except by LL, so i find more exact the super tall women or the super short one. Weight is also important in males as over weight ones are negatively judged .

Society is more exigent with male physic than womans physic.

Male:

-Tall
-Beautifull face
-muscular ripped body (in some cases these bodys need to use anabolic steroids to be reached)

Girl:

-normal face
-big tits or big boot
-Slim

what is more difficult to be? who will date more ?

funnily enough ,in the last 25 yrs the standards of women beauty, are the only thing that in constant change ..
10 yrs ago big breast or butt wasn't sign of beauty .. today there are !..
everything change , the ideal cheek bone structure, the ideal face feature , etc ..
and it seems that everything tend to be BIG these days.

while I think the ideal body of man never changed like in 100 yrs ..

so really I wonder who is under real pressure ..?

ReadRothbard · « **Reply #13 on:** February 18, 2015, 12:50:35 AM »

Quote from: Medium Drink Of Water on February 18, 2015, 12:19:22 AM

I think it is weight. The fact that short guys can succeed in Hollywood doesn't matter. Tom Cruise had to stand on a platform in Top Gun to do scenes with Kelly McGillis, but nobody saw that. Few people actually see him in person much less stand next to him. As for male strippers, I bet the customers would prefer a tall stripper all else being equal.

In terms of being invisible to the opposite sex based on physical features, I think it is indeed height for men and weight for women.

I understand what you are saying, but the fact that there are short male sex symbols or short male stripper at all makes me dispute the height = weight claim. After all, even the plus sized models mentioned above aren't mainstream sex symbols--they're niche.

KrP1 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 18, 2015, 01:04:39 AM »

Quote from: Disobedient on February 18, 2015, 12:48:37 AM

funnily enough ,in the last 25 yrs the standards of women beauty, are the only thing that in constant change ..
10 yrs ago big breast or butt wasn't sign of beauty .. today there are !..
everything change , the ideal cheek bone structure, the ideal face feature , etc ..
and it seems that everything tend to be BIG these days.

while I think the ideal body of man never changed like in 100 yrs ..

so really I wonder who is under real pressure ..?

In mans it change too. Do you know metrosexual. Lumbersexual? etc. Is changing for both mans and womans. But for mans is more exigent. You could add penis size to the ecuation i posted before.

Shor7Guy · « **Reply #15 on:** February 18, 2015, 01:22:57 AM »

whatever it is its extremely important, and about women having a harder time thats not true IMO, men arent picky at all and most women are the opposite..

Puertoricanwasp123 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 18, 2015, 02:17:40 AM »

The harsh reality is that every female body type has its fanbase but not all male body types are seen as hot only some. The equivalent is also height mostly, if you ask a man if he could choose a woman they would date short ( but they have little choice since women are the ones who choose ). Things like @ss or t@ts are split fanbases with almost half of the men preferring one and the other half preferring the other.

ItsMyLife · « **Reply #17 on:** February 18, 2015, 04:52:55 AM »

I think a short guy = a fat woman. Less people like them (sexually), but I must admit, there would be some who are OK with them or like them. For friends, I don't mind a short guy or a fat lady.

YellowSpike · « **Reply #18 on:** February 21, 2015, 03:07:17 PM »

Quote from: Medium Drink Of Water on February 18, 2015, 12:19:22 AM

I think it is weight. The fact that short guys can succeed in Hollywood doesn't matter. Tom Cruise had to stand on a platform in Top Gun to do scenes with Kelly McGillis, but nobody saw that. Few people actually see him in person much less stand next to him. As for male strippers, I bet the customers would prefer a tall stripper all else being equal.

In terms of being invisible to the opposite sex based on physical features, I think it is indeed height for men and weight for women.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

And this, in my opinion, is one of the reasons that women have it easier in dating. Fat girls can stop being fat. Short men have one EXTREMELY DIFFICULT AND EXPENSIVE way to get taller. So, on average, women have it much easier.

But ugly women (regardless of weight) have it the hardest, because a generally-ugly woman really can't compensate with anything (I, for one, don't give a crap how rich or "confident" she is, even though looks aren't everything). Ugly men (even short ugly men, although those are two major strikes) can at least compensate with money/status and confidence, to a degree.

ItsMyLife · « **Reply #19 on:** February 21, 2015, 03:24:16 PM »

Quote from: YellowSpike on February 21, 2015, 03:07:17 PM

I couldn't have said it better myself.

And this, in my opinion, is one of the reasons that women have it easier in dating. Fat girls can stop being fat. Short men have one EXTREMELY DIFFICULT AND EXPENSIVE way to get taller. So, on average, women have it much easier.

But ugly women (regardless of weight) have it the hardest, because a generally-ugly woman really can't compensate with anything (I, for one, don't give a crap how rich or "confident" she is, even though looks aren't everything). Ugly men (even short ugly men, although those are two major strikes) can at least compensate with money/status and confidence, to a degree.

if fat women lost weight, they are healthier..
if short men get taller, they sacrifice some health

ForcedPuberty · « **Reply #20 on:** February 21, 2015, 03:28:14 PM »

Quote

if fat women lost weight, they are healthier..
if short men get taller, they sacrifice some health

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/relationships/man-woman/Having-better-sex-life-helps-you-live-longer/articleshow/26585137.cms

Quote

Having better sex life helps you live longer

Quote

The sexually frustrated flies lived shorter lives.

after LL you get more sex, health problem neutralized

ItsMyLife · « **Reply #21 on:** February 21, 2015, 03:43:17 PM »

Quote from: ForcedPuberty on February 21, 2015, 03:28:14 PM

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/relationships/man-woman/Having-better-sex-life-helps-you-live-longer/articleshow/26585137.cms

after LL you get more sex, health problem neutralized

but I wasn't having trouble finding sex earlier. though I do think I will get more sex (maybe.. as now I am so afraid of oncovirus)

Overdozer · « **Reply #22 on:** February 21, 2015, 03:51:11 PM »

Fat women are the worst. Just how fking hard it is to just STOP eating and start moving your fat ass just a little bit, burning that callories? Oh yes, I'll never know and you'll have a VERY hard time explaining that to me, considering what I've had to go through and still what there is left for me. The thing with fat women is that they aren't only ugly, that is - physically disgusting, but it's also their rotten personalities that prevent them from losing weight. They're all universally dumb, lazy and weak willed. And all the 'fat positive' movements are only there to prove my point.

YellowSpike · « **Reply #23 on:** February 21, 2015, 04:00:23 PM »

Quote from: exclide on February 21, 2015, 03:51:11 PM

Fat women are the worst. Just how fking hard it is to just STOP eating and start moving your fat ass just a little bit, burning that callories? Oh yes, I'll never know and you'll have a VERY hard time explaining that to me, considering what I've had to go through and still what there is left for me. The thing with fat women is that they aren't only ugly, that is - physically disgusting, but it's also their rotten personalities that prevent them from losing weight. They're all universally dumb, lazy and weak willed. And all the 'fat positive' movements are only there to prove my point.

Yeah I agree. I could never date a fat girl. I just don't see any reason for them to be fat, unless they are truly in the small percentage that have serious problems loosing weight and keeping it off. Fat women to me are just lazy and disgusting...if they don't care about themselves, how can I? I'm too into fitness and maintaining my looks/body (can't wait to get back to the gym) to date an unfit woman.

And it annoyed me to no end how (at least, how I felt) my height could possibly force me to settle, even though I take such good care of myself. Why should a short man have to settle for a fat girl? Because, in today's society...fat/ugly girl = short man.

ItsMyLife · « **Reply #24 on:** February 21, 2015, 04:34:17 PM »

Quote from: YellowSpike on February 21, 2015, 04:00:23 PM

Yeah I agree. I could never date a fat girl. I just don't see any reason for them to be fat, unless they are truly in the small percentage that have serious problems loosing weight and keeping it off. Fat women to me are just lazy and disgusting...if they don't care about themselves, how can I? I'm too into fitness and maintaining my looks/body (can't wait to get back to the gym) to date an unfit woman.

And it annoyed me to no end how (at least, how I felt) my height could possibly force me to settle, even though I take such good care of myself. Why should a short man have to settle for a fat girl? Because, in today's society...fat/ugly girl = short man.

true its actually diff. u cant really change your height as easily as a fat girl but some of them claim they eat very little and exercise (who knows?)

KrP1 · « **Reply #25 on:** February 21, 2015, 04:40:05 PM »

Quote from: exclide on February 21, 2015, 03:51:11 PM

Fat women are the worst. Just how fking hard it is to just STOP eating and start moving your fat ass just a little bit, burning that callories? Oh yes, I'll never know and you'll have a VERY hard time explaining that to me, considering what I've had to go through and still what there is left for me. The thing with fat women is that they aren't only ugly, that is - physically disgusting, but it's also their rotten personalities that prevent them from losing weight. They're all universally dumb, lazy and weak willed. And all the 'fat positive' movements are only there to prove my point.

I agree with you. they havent got willpower to go to the gym and do a diet

Limb Lengthening Forum

Author Topic: What is the female equivalent of height in female attractivness? (Read 10421 times)