fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3052 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3050 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

[Falcon Densetsu/F-Zero GP Legends]

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

(Stephen Paul Manderson aka Professor Green, Never Mind the Buzzcocks)

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

[Elysium]

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

[Jeremy Renner]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 020 secrets from Secret Submission Post #436.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

A lot of women defend this by saying it's the one physical requirement they're "allowed" to have. Otherwise, women are shamed and berated for having physical preferences, because they're supposed to be the not-shallow ones who like guys for who they are and what they accomplish rather than what they look like. Height is the one socially acceptable physical feature women "can" want without facing judgement.

It's not like there's not some truth to that, too.

That said, you're going about it wrong: nobody actually sees this and/or cares. All they see is the hypocrisy of judging men for a physical feature they can't change while railing against being judged on your appearance.

No way, women have vocally preferred body hair to no body hair, tattoos to no tattoos, muscular builds or skinnier, facial hair or no facial hair etc etc for ages. How are any of these not socially acceptable?

Height stands out among these as the one thing that nobody can change, which is why it gets fired at so much.

Some of those 'to's should be 'or's, I meant these are examples of preferences that lots of women vocally have which are accepted as normal.

I've heard men say, verbatim, that desirable women don't have physical preferences, only sluts do. Moreover, in almost every piece of media out there the hot girl is supposed to "see past" any unattractive male protagonist's physical faults for the real him, and this behavior is lionized for women (whereas male characters are never supposed to do the opposed; if a woman is ugly, ew, gross). It's bad for women to be shallow, and nice hot girls don't care about men's looks. Whereas men "can't help it" because it's "biology" or they're "visual."

I mean it's all bullshit; we're all visual, and we all have physical preferences, but the gist of the argument is that height is the "acceptable" physical preference because height = masculinity = dominance = something nice, good, desirable, feminine women should want. It's the sole weapon in the arsenal of any woman who wants to make a counter attack against the seemingly infinite ordnance men have to lob at them: too tall, too short, legs not long enough, ass not big enough, ass too big, breasts too small, breasts too big, breasts saggy, breasts fake, short-haired, brown-haired, dyed-haired, cellulite, too much muscle, not enough tone, too fat, not enough curves, any body hair whatsoever, body hair stubble from removing it, areolas too big, areolas too dark, vulva not the ideal shape, gunt, pooch, cankles, man abs, being any age over 21.... ....and so on, forever.

But yeah, the solution is to overturn the idea that we don't have visual preferences, and make people aware of how fucking shitty being judged for all the shit is all the time, as opposed to clutching desperately at the one retort available: HAH SHORT GUY.

...who says that? Women have all kinds of physical preferences. Weight, body type, hair color, basically everything a man has.

Somebody pretty much every time the subject comes up on sites where there are a lot of women, I've found.

I don't agree with them, but the argument is there.

So...someone is just saying it happens. I know lots of sites where they say Bigfoot is real, don't mean it is.

but bigfoot is real and he's my friend

I would check out her post above, it goes into more detail about the issue. But the big thing she points out really is the trope in media where "good" women like men for who they are, not what they look like.

And that actually reminds me... One of the stereotypes about men and women is that men are attracted more to looks and women are attracted more to personality.

Oh also, I've seen what she's talking about a lot. It's one of the big things guys who have trouble dating complain about, how women are all "shallow" and that's why they can't find anyone. Meanwhile, they'll turn around and refuse to date any woman who doesn't fit a physical type.

It's one of the big things guys who have trouble dating complain about, how women are all "shallow" and that's why they can't find anyone. Meanwhile, they'll turn around and refuse to date any woman who doesn't fit a physical type.

And then, if you point out the hypocrisy, say that it isn't really hypocrisy because it's "different" for men (visual! biology! fertility, even though they don't want kids! etc.). I'm not really sure how much double-think is required to wrap your head around "it doesn't matter that I'm old and ugly, people should see me for who I am, and if they don't they're dumb shallow sluts" while at the same time "I would never date someone old and ugly, which is perfectly fair, because I'm wired that way."

While I can see a certain "poetic justice" about holding men to impossible standards, same as women are held to, it's still not actually forgivable. And I certainly, just at a shallow glance, will look at more in a guy than height. Weight, how in shape they are, teeth, clear skin, shaved chest, etc.

I mean it's fine if they are preferences, but I also have to concede it's fine for a guy to have a preference for someone with a thin waist and big boobs or whatever.

That isn't what she was saying, though? She was saying it's socially acceptable for women to have a height requirement, not that it's objectively okay.

[ SECRET POST #3052 ]

Re: Double standards

Re: Double standards

Re: Double standards

Re: Double standards

Re: Double standards

Re: Double standards

Re: Double standards

Re: Double standards

Re: Double standards

Re: Double standards

Re: Double standards

Re: Double standards