<p>Once again you miss the point.</p>
<p>Good features w/o symmetry can only take one so far.</p>
<p>A person w/ good features and symmetry is going to be seen as more attractive.</p>
<p>Thus, one can't reach the "near perfect" level of physical beauty w/o symmetry.</p>
<p>Plus, a person in certain parts of the world (not exposed to Western media) may likely have different views w/ regard to what are regarded as attractive features.</p>
<p>Russell's right here people. There's no study which conclusively, or even attempts to claim symmetry is the most important characteristic. It's simply the easiest feature to test for.</p>
<p>*Once again you miss the point.</p>
<p>Good features w/o symmetry can only take one so far.</p>
<p>A person w/ good features and symmetry is going to be seen as more attractive.</p>
<p>Thus, one can't reach the "near perfect" level of physical beauty w/o symmetry.</p>
<p>Plus, a person in certain parts of the world (not exposed to Western media) may likely have different views w/ regard to what are regarded as attractive features.*</p>
<p>And symmetry without good features doesn't get you hardly anywhere. I've been saying that symmetry is a factor this whole time; you've been the one that isn't listening. I'm saying that I've studied this area extensively and that I've never found a study that indicated symmetry being even close to the most important factor. You said that it was the most important, which is what I'm arguing.</p>
<p>For your information, the celebrity that I based most of my psych. study around was Jake Gyllenhaal. He was the 'asymmetric face' that I used to question the significance of symmetry. I also photoshopped his face to be more symmetric and had people say which one was more attractive and by how much.</p>
<p>I also used Colin Farrell, who has an eyebrow that is higher and bigger and an eye that is bigger, and an asymmetric hairline. Although his asymmetry isn't as bad as Jake's.</p>
<p>^^^dude i agree with you 100%! Being 5'8'' i see your frustrations... oh well if a girl doesn't want to date me because of my height, then she doesn't deserve me in the first place. that's how i see it :)</p>
<p>oh and btw people, im NOT getting mad at the women who doesn't want anyone shorter then them, im getting mad at the 5'6'' women refusing to date anyone shorter than 5'10''!</p>
<p>Thirded! The American Media does do this to girls, it teaches them to be very superficial.</p>
<p>Fourth one to agree. Girls are more shallow than men. Judging a woman's weight is at least justified as it is indicative of lifestyle and choices. Weight (for the most part) can be controlled. Height is indicative of how chromosomes played out. It can't be controlled.</p>
<p>I don't even get the obsession with super tall men. They look lanky, have worse posture, have big feet, smaller choice of clothes and sometimes arrogant attitudes.</p>
<p>Fifth'ing that.</p>
<p>Some girls need to see a a measuring stick. Some don't have any idea what 6'0" even looks like, let alone 6'4". </p>
<p>I can see wanting someone taller than you, but wanting what you think is 6'4" is hard to sympathize with. I can see a 6'0" girl wanting someone 6'4", but don't try to tell me a girl around 5'5" even has an idea of what 6'4" looks like, let alone 6'0".</p>
<p>Girls don't know anything about height looked like. I have been called short and estimated at 5'6 or 5'7". Funny last I checked I was about 5'10". My 6'0" friends have been called 5'8" or 5'9" by girls. Guys are usually underestimated in terms of height.</p>
<p>Why is a 4 inch difference even attractive? I have heard many adult women say a 1-2 inch difference is the most comfortable. No tippy toing for her and no bending down for him. These couples are also the most photogenic. Btw 5'10" to 5'11" produces the optimal posture and even oxygen delivery to the brain. The high heels argument is a weak case because dress shoes add about 1.5" to a man's height in some cases.</p>
<p>Heh, actually girls and guys both tend to overestimate my height. I'm not entirely sure why, not complaining. It's not so much just about height though, it's just the generation's entitlement attitude: Women's edition. Men have to be this, that and the other. Then again, there's the male version of that too.</p>
<p>It's called physical attraction for a reason. Are you shallow if you're not attracted to severely obese women, or little people, or people of a certain ethnicity? Yes, height its uncontrollable, but that doesn't mean people should be forced into liking yours. Whining about it will only make you 80x less attractive. So what if a girl doesn't want to bone you because you're short...move on to one of the other million women who live in your city and grow up. Trying to take people to task for their preferences will only leave you frustrated because attraction is largely illogical. You have to love the "women are more shallow" line, as if women aren't constantly judged for their appearance.</p>
<p>I have never felt disadvantaged by my height, and I don't have a problem with many girls being shallow. I simply don't date them, though hook-ups are a different story. Men are shallow too, but women are generally more demanding of the whole package and dissatisfied with anything less. I'm including traits outside of appearance.</p>
<p>Higher standards does not shallow make.</p>
<p>It is shallow when guys who are 5'10 to 6'0" get turned down by 5'0" girls who want someone who is 6'4" or higher. And I have seen this many times.</p>
<p>but women are generally more demanding of the whole package and dissatisfied with anything less. I'm including traits outside of appearance.</p>
<p>I agree Synergy. But it should be the other way around as the population of men is lower than the population of women. But this is mostly (no doubt influenced by princess movies) an American thing. Girls in other parts of the world are just as demanding as the guys but not overly so. You should demand what you are and nothing more. But then again guys in America can be just as bad such as the short balding ones who think they are entitled to models.</p>
<p>Yeah that's true, I think the shorter girls are more likely to do that though. Something about a napoleon complex for women.</p>
<p>Kindly - I was talking about two different things. I said women are more demanding of the whole package, including personality traits. Now that I read it, my post could've been easily interpreted the wrong way.</p>
<p>KindlyCuddly you are very dumb... and arrogant. how can ANYONE not call a 5'5'' women refusing ANYONE shorter then 6'2'' NOT shallow? Having standards is something... but only wanting men 8'' taller then you while you are short yourself is something else... god why doesn't anyone see the difference?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are you shallow if you're not attracted to severely obese women, or little people?
[/quote]
wow, those are extremes! there is a huge difference between not wanting an obese/midget person and not wanting someone that is 4'' taller then you...</p>
<p>
[quote]
You should demand what you are and nothing more
[/quote]
greatly said collegehopeful78! If you are obese, you shouldn't have model standards. If you are very unintelligent, you shouldn't have genius standards. and if you are 5'3'', you shouldn't have 6'+ standards! (not saying a 5'3'' shouldn't date someone taller then 6 feet, just saying that shouldn't be her standards).</p>
<p>I don't really care if people have standards above their own appearance. As long as they acknowledge that they are shooting above their 'league.' People have more to offer than looks and in the end, most couples are fairly equal when considering all factors (looks, money, personality, etc.).</p>
<p>Thanks everyone, you guys make me feel so insecure. JK! Well, everyone have their standard, but they always overestiminate it. Beside everyone look fine the way they are. Look at that way :)</p>
<p>^ thank you</p>