Post Race!

[Niya]

Anyways, thanks for trying to explain it to me but I don't think I'll ever grasp this concept or why its offensive some of the time. It is what it is I guess.

[szlamany]

Simply because women believe themselves to be objectified naturally first - at the get go. Although this is easily explained as "the inner workings of caveman male and female interaction" it's become POLITICALLY CORRECT to reject it.

I personally do not agree - my wife and I celebrate the organic part of our relationship.

Some people just take things too far.

[dday9]

I personally do not agree - my wife and I celebrate the organic part of our relationship.

Me and my wife too. We like things like tomatoes, green beans, etc.

[szlamany]

You see - I didn't want to go their. Now I'm picturing things I just shouldn't - TMI...

[Niya]

Simply because women believe themselves to be objectified naturally first - at the get go. Although this is easily explained as "the inner workings of caveman male and female interaction" it's become POLITICALLY CORRECT to reject it.

I personally do not agree - my wife and I celebrate the organic part of our relationship.

Some people just take things too far.

lol this flew straight over my head. What post are you responding to here ? And could you elaborate on what this is:-"the inner workings of caveman male and female interaction"

[Shaggy Hiker]

A lot of the images I posted were created by artists from nothing but their imaginations,

THAT was abundantly clear.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I do think it's cultural, and that the term "objectification" is largely a cover. We have long held the position that the value of a woman is her physical attributes. Naturally, this is offensive to lots of women, and so it has become more correct to say otherwise. In fact, nobody is free of this, and it works to the benefit of some and detriment of others. For example, it has been shown that even babies will spend more time looking at a face judged to be beautiful by society (mostly symmetry, as far as I can tell). Children judged to be attractive get more attention from their own parents, as well as from teachers. It's hard to say that doesn't have an impact on how people grow up.

Then, once we mature a bit (physically), there are other traits. The incidence of CEOs taller than 6 feet is FAR higher than the incidence of 6 foot tall men in society as a whole. Tall men are treated differently (better) than shorter men, and this translates into better average job advancement. Considering all the studies about this, it's kind of hard to doubt that physical attributes don't impact the whole life of a person. However, offences against a group that has historically suffered repression or discrimination are generally treated more harshly than offences against a not so disenfranchized group (average height men).

So, you get what you got. Perhaps it's an overreaction to slights of the past by society in general, perhaps not, but it is what it is. People are more likely to be offended by overtly sexual/physical portrayals of women than of men for a variety of reasons. I don't see it as a perversion, but an overcompensation for past infractions of society and current infractions by some segments of society. You just get to play by the rules in place.

[szlamany]

lol this flew straight over my head. What post are you responding to here ? And could you elaborate on what this is:-"the inner workings of caveman male and female interaction"

Kind of to both of the posts you had just prior to my post.

And elaborate - maybe later - in for dinner...

[dday9]

And elaborate - maybe later - in for dinner...

%97 of dinners lead to sex and %77 of statistics are made up.

[szlamany]

Square root of 69...

[szlamany]

Eight something...

[dday9]

Look at you all hip you old man!

JK!

[dday9]

Or JFK

[szlamany]

I was born months before he was shot...

[Witis]

I knew you'd come through with that, but I had already seen it.

I actually remember some of the stories of Baba Yaga from my childhood.

Really, which one(s) do you remember the most?

[Witis]

Apparently the depiction of attractive women in art is somehow offensive. Not his fault as he has to enforce the rules according to public taste as dictated by the culture of America. Maybe they won't find the depiction of strapping men in tight outfits so offensive which is perplexing to me but it is what it is. America is the weirdest place on Earth.

You are still in the post race Niya.

[Witis]

Well.....its art....of course it gonna be weird

Ok, now I have no idea what you are going to post next.

[Witis]

The US has an interesting variation on this theme, but it's universal to one extent or another. So many cultures have the repression of either women or sexualtiy, or both, as a core part of their values. What's really interesting about the US is both the fact that we are highly sexualized while being highly nutty about sexuality, and at the same time we are so utterly permissive about violence.

What do you mean when you said that the U.S. is "highly sexualized while being highly nutty about sexuality"?

[Niya]

You are still in the post race Niya.

Yep....just no more women. Don't worry, there's plenty of other kinds of pics. Males, landscapes, machines etc...

[Witis]

This is another nuance of American culture that I don't get. How can most the population of the most advanced nation on Earth misunderstand so completely the basic nature of human sexuality.

Correction, one of the most.

Men above all are attracted to female looks. A woman with nice perky breasts, a small waist and wider hips is generally attractive to a man. This is what drives the lust of men. A fine looking female body and face. Nothing more.

Although I like most of the outline you have drawn I have to add that it only applies to some men. Not all men are attracted to the same looks, some men lust after DD hooters, others absolutely love fatties - the bigger the better - it really just depends.

It is not the same with a woman. While a woman can appreciate a finely sculpted male, it is confidence and a winning attitude that is attractive to women, far more so than a man's looks.

An extremely good looking man will attract female attention no doubt but if she discovers that he is meek, lacks self-confidence and is socially inept, he will not be able to inspire even the tiniest bit of attraction or lust. An ugly guy with a larger than life attitude and bold disposition would win out every time. In contrast, an extremely attractive women could have a laundry list of personality problems but there will be no shortage of men trying to bed her. Obviously, if the men in question were considering long term companionship, they would take more into account than just her looks but looks is primary for men. Personality is primary for women.

Women respond more to attitude than to looks. A bold, no-nonsense, take the bull by the horns attitude is what attracts women. Good looks is only a small bonus.

You are focusing on the classic beauty and the beast scenario and that reminds me of the peanutty elephant seals.
That is a male elephant seal:


and that is a female elephant seal:


A colony of elephant seals has only a breeding male, a beachmaster, for every 50-100 females. Bachelors come in from the deep and challenge the beachmasters in an attempt to gain access to the females:


By the way I find women with ugly attitudes extremely repulsive regardless of how cute they look.

[Niya]

Although I like most of the outline you have drawn I have to add that it only applies to some men. Not all men are attracted to the same looks, some men lust after DD hooters, others absolutely love fatties - the bigger the better - it really just depends.

But it is looks nonetheless. A specific look might be more attractive to one male and not another but it is looks first and foremost. It doesn't matter what kind of person she is, what her accomplishments are or what her abilities are if she is not attractive in his eyes, i.e. she doesn't look good to him, he's never going to be interested.

[Niya]

By the way I find women with ugly attitudes extremely repulsive regardless of how cute they look.

This is why I added the caveat about long term companionship. If a man is looking for a friends with benefits type thing or a one night fling, he will overlook all manner ugliness in her personality provided she is attractive enough. In contrast, a woman can overlook a man's unattractiveness in looks if he is charismatic enough. No amount of charisma can make an unattractive looking woman attractive to a man as it can for a man looking to attract a woman. This is the basic difference between a man and a woman in the mating game.

[Witis]

Yep....just no more women. Don't worry, there's plenty of other kinds of pics. Males, landscapes, machines etc...

It's the post race!

[Witis]

But it is looks nonetheless. A specific look might be more attractive to one male and not another but it is looks first and foremost. It doesn't matter what kind of person she is, what her accomplishments are or what her abilities are if she is not attractive in his eyes, i.e. she doesn't look good to him, he's never going to be interested.

Are you sure? Some women are nice, some are just plain horrible. I maintain that it is a combination of looks and content that is ultimately attractive or repulsive to any particular man. As we get to see how women look before we get to know them looks are the first point of focus, and a physical match can last a few weeks or months, but for a relationship to last any longer it also necessitates an intellectual and emotional match. I envision that over time men will be willing to accept less than their perfect looking match to get their perfect intellectual and emotional match.

[Witis]

This is why I added the caveat about long term companionship. If a man is looking for a friends with benefits type thing or a one night fling, he will overlook all manner ugliness in her personality provided she is attractive enough.

For one night perhaps, but not much longer, at least if he is astute. Although I know a fellow who is really into nasty women.

In contrast, a woman can overlook a man's unattractiveness in looks if he is charismatic enough.

Also perhaps, but I think you are talking about a two way street.

No amount of charisma can make an unattractive looking woman attractive to a man as it can for a man looking to attract a woman. This is the basic difference between a man and a woman in the mating game.

I am not convinced Niya, I am not sure if the relationships you are talking about will actually last. If a couple is not matched physically, intellectually, and emotionally then I doubt it will last very long.

[Witis]

I do think it's cultural, and that the term "objectification" is largely a cover. We have long held the position that the value of a woman is her physical attributes.

What physical attributes do you value in a woman Sharky?

Then, once we mature a bit (physically), there are other traits. The incidence of CEOs taller than 6 feet is FAR higher than the incidence of 6 foot tall men in society as a whole. Tall men are treated differently (better) than shorter men, and this translates into better average job advancement. Considering all the studies about this, it's kind of hard to doubt that physical attributes don't impact the whole life of a person. However, offences against a group that has historically suffered repression or discrimination are generally treated more harshly than offences against a not so disenfranchized group (average height men).

Focusing on the biggest, tallest, and most overbearing man is a very primitive approach that many species of animal adhere to like the elephant seals I just mentioned. Further, I would view any companies actively discriminating against high calibre little men as quite dim, almost certainly unfriendly, and unlikely to progess further than achieving some sort of limited boyish success. Who wants to work for that type of company when you can work for a friendly and enlightened company that actually cares for its staff instead? 1337

[Shaggy Hiker]

Really, which one(s) do you remember the most?

We had some story book that featured her assisting some young girl as something of a mentor. I don't remember anything about the story other than that.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Focusing on the biggest, tallest, and most overbearing man is a very primitive approach that many species of animal adhere to like the elephant seals I just mentioned. Further, I would view any companies actively discriminating against high calibre little men as quite dim, almost certainly unfriendly, and unlikely to progess further than achieving some sort of limited boyish success. Who wants to work for that type of company when you can work for a friendly and enlightened company that actually cares for its staff instead? 1337

I doubt any company does that (outside of some professional sports leagues) directly. The fact that the average height of CEOs is FAR above the average height of the population at large doesn't mean that the company is actively discriminating against average or shorter people. It's not a random process that produces such a lopsided result, though. That doesn't mean its conscious, but it is happening.

[Shaggy Hiker]

But it is looks nonetheless. A specific look might be more attractive to one male and not another but it is looks first and foremost. It doesn't matter what kind of person she is, what her accomplishments are or what her abilities are if she is not attractive in his eyes, i.e. she doesn't look good to him, he's never going to be interested.

In general, I agree with you.....and then I go to Wal-Mart.....

[Witis]

I doubt any company does that (outside of some professional sports leagues) directly. The fact that the average height of CEOs is FAR above the average height of the population at large doesn't mean that the company is actively discriminating against average or shorter people. It's not a random process that produces such a lopsided result, though. That doesn't mean its conscious, but it is happening.

You said that "Tall men are treated differently (better) than shorter men, and this translates into better average job advancement" and that means you are saying that there is a lot of active discrimination against short men particularly in many companies where they preferentially promote taller men based only on their size and a larger than life attitude. I actually agree with you, I have met and witnessed many folks and companies who treat short men as inferior and designed only to serve their gigantic masters. I also found them to be very dim, if they were machines they would be dumb terminals, and also morally questionable, typically being consciously involved in some type of criminal activities. Even so short prime ministers and presidents are often elected to run the countries of the world, meaning there are also large segments of society that either do not see being little as a disadvantage or view it as preferable.

[Shaggy Hiker]

You said that "Tall men are treated differently (better) than shorter men, and this translates into better average job advancement" and that means you are saying that there is a lot of active discrimination against short men particularly in many companies where they preferentially promote taller men based only on their size and a larger than life attitude. I actually agree with you, I have met and witnessed many folks and companies who treat short men as inferior and designed only to serve their gigantic masters. I also found them to be very dim, if they were machines they would be dumb terminals, and also morally questionable, typically being consciously involved in some type of criminal activities. Even so short prime ministers and presidents are often elected to run the countries of the world, meaning there are also large segments of society that either do not see being little as a disadvantage or view it as preferable.

It's an average. That doesn't mean that EVERY CEO is tall, just that they are taller than the average for the society. There are short prime ministers and presidents, but is the average prime minister or president at the average height for their society? Once again, Google provides:

The average height of the presidents is 5' 11". The average height for men in US society is just under 5'8", but that is just for current society, We have gotten taller as our diet and health improved, so one might expect that the average for US presidents was even further abover the average for society in the 1776-1900 range. Here's an article that shows the heights and more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights..._United_States

Note that since the age of television, the shortest presidents were Truman, then Carter, and they are neither is in the bottom quarter of height. Note that the article goes on to say that the taller candidate doesn't always win, but they won about two thirds of the time, and that also shows that the average height of candidates is higher than the average for society. In fact, of the main contenders for the presidency, there are only a few that were shorter than the modern average male height in this society. The vast majority are above average in height.

[Witis]

It's an average. That doesn't mean that EVERY CEO is tall, just that they are taller than the average for the society. There are short prime ministers and presidents, but is the average prime minister or president at the average height for their society? Once again, Google provides:

The average height of the presidents is 5' 11". The average height for men in US society is just under 5'8"

You have your average heights a bit off there Sharky, Wiki says that it is 176.3 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in) for All American males 20+, and 178.9 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in) for White Americans 20–39 (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templa...ound_the_world). Although I am not convinced that Wiki bases its numbers on census data.

Also that articles outlines that "The overall average height of U.S. presidents is roughly 5’9″, which is also the average height of American males.":

http://www.themodestman.com/the-shor...-s-presidents/

To double check I calculated that the 43 presidents listed had a total collective height of 7536cm or an average of 175cm (5 ft 9 inches). I can't double check the average height data for the rest of society but I have to assume it is approximately correct, meaning that the average height of the presidents in the U.S. roughly parallels the average height in the rest of society.

The article I cited also indicates that:
'You’ve probably heard the “statistic” about the role of height in presidential elections. It goes something like this:

“Since the advent of the televised debate, the taller of two major-party presidential candidates usually wins the election.” '

'When you look at the actual statistics, it turns out that the taller candidate has [only] won 53% of all U.S. elections.' meaning that height is a very unreliable or meaningless predictor of presidential success.

I also noticed that in many cases when the taller man won there was only 0.5 to 1 inch difference essentially making any conclusions regarding height meaningless.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Well Bambi, you looked at different web sites than I did. I suppose I should have linked to whatever census information site I got those numbers from, but I didn't, and don't feel like going looking for it again. It's all crap anyways. Height hasn't stayed the same over time. As populations eat better, their average height increases. In grad school I stayed in a dorm built in the 1800's. The doorway to my room was shorter than I am by a few inches. That was good enough for most people, at the time, and I suppose it is still good enough for most people, but you don't find doorways that short anymore (it was 6 to 6-2" and not exactly level due to some settling of the foundation over the century).

So, comparing the average height of people today to the average height of presidents over the last couple centuries is kind of innacurate. A better measure would be to compare the average heigh of each president to the average height of the male population at the time, but I wasn't able to find that information.

By the way, here's the site I used for the average height of the presidents:

http://www.presidenstory.com/stat_tal.php

You can check those stats, as well, but it still doesn't matter if you compare them to the modern average height of US men. The 10 shortest presidents were all from the 1800s and earlier. The jump in height may have been since 1910, or later.

[dday9]

I missed the chance for a foque joke.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Oh really? You're into foque humor?

[Witis]

Height hasn't stayed the same over time. As populations eat better, their average height increases.

Without having the data in front of me I can only suggest that the average heights in various countries of the world have increased and decreased overtime for a variety of reasons, and that stunted growth due to malnutrition is only one of those factors that only impacts the average height when a large proportion of the country are effected.

As height and weight varies over time the next issue is trying to determine the optimal average height and weight.
Getting too small, like the Vatican City, may result in a strange mouse like outcome due to insufficient capacity


while trying to grow ever larger like a fish, gator, or snake generates a desire and motive to take over the universe.

Thus the West may be in danger of growing too large, shifting towards a focus on the largest continent, and turning silver. Some have even begun to call the U.S. Chimerica.

So, comparing the average height of people today to the average height of presidents over the last couple centuries is kind of innacurate. A better measure would be to compare the average heigh of each president to the average height of the male population at the time, but I wasn't able to find that information.

Without any further data I was only able to conclude that the average height of the U.S. presidents roughly matches (or is slightly less) than the average height of U.S. males.

By the way, here's the site I used for the average height of the presidents:

http://www.presidenstory.com/stat_tal.php

You can check those stats, as well, but it still doesn't matter if you compare them to the modern average height of US men. The 10 shortest presidents were all from the 1800s and earlier. The jump in height may have been since 1910, or later.

That site doesn't provide the data to check the calculations, and if the Wiki page re the presidential heights is correct then those numbers are clearly incorrect and ostensibly designed to generate a false myth regarding presidential height. The true average height of all U.S. presidents is slightly less than 5'9.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Without any further data I was only able to conclude that the average height of the U.S. presidents roughly matches (or is slightly less) than the average height of U.S. males.

Or slightly less? So, two sources disagree with you, and you have concluded that presidents are shorter than the US?

That site doesn't provide the data to check the calculations, and if the Wiki page re the presidential heights is correct then those numbers are clearly incorrect and ostensibly designed to generate a false myth regarding presidential height. The true average height of all U.S. presidents is slightly less than 5'9.

In other words, you have decided which of the data points is right and which is wrong and are comparing that to the current US average male height, right?

[Shaggy Hiker]

By the way, your source in 56835 is incorrect. The average height of the presidents isn't 'about 5' 9"', according to both of the sites I linked to, both of which shows the heights of the presidents, the average height is 5' 11" over all time, which at over 179cm is taller than the average US male in your own figures.

I don't know where you got the figures you said you checked, but you calculated the values wrong.

[Witis]

Without any further data I was only able to conclude that the average height of the U.S. presidents roughly matches (or is slightly less) than the average height of U.S. males.

Or slightly less? So, two sources disagree with you, and you have concluded that presidents are shorter than the US?

So far you have only provided one source Sharky that says the average height of U.S. presidents is 180cm (5'11):

http://www.presidenstory.com/stat_tal.php

However as I already outlined, that article does not provide the source data for the average height calculation meaning the reader has to simply believe and trust that the writer is correct and is not artificially inflating the figure. I have already manually calculated the average height of all the U.S. presidents provided by Wiki here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height..._United_States

I originally calculated that the 43 presidents listed had a total collective height of 7536cm or an average of 175cm.
However, I just redid the calculations, to double check my own work, and found that I didn't include one of the presidents to get that number.
So my revised numbers are 7729 cms for the 43 presidents which is an average of 179.74 cms or 5 feet and 10.76 inches.

I found the average height of men in the U.S. here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templa...ound_the_world

The average male height for all Americans 20+ is 176.3 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
White Americans males 20–39 have an average height of 178.9 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)

Which means that the average height of the U.S. presidents is about the average height of white males in the U.S.

By the way, your source in 56835 is incorrect. The average height of the presidents isn't 'about 5' 9"', according to both of the sites I linked to, both of which shows the heights of the presidents, the average height is 5' 11" over all time, which at over 179cm is taller than the average US male in your own figures.

I don't know where you got the figures you said you checked, but you calculated the values wrong.

Hmmm in this case you are right, after double checking my numbers I did locate an error.

[Witis]

However, what is the optimal average height and weight?

According to Wiki the average human weighs 62kg,
but in the U.S. the average male weighs 88.3 kg (194.7 lb) and the average female weighs 74.7 kg (164.7 lb).
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_weight

By comparison:
"The adult cheetah weighs from 21 to 72 kg (46 to 159 lb)" - Wiki
Wild male gorillas weigh 135 to 180 kg - Wiki
"The size of adult lions varies across their range with those from the southern African populations in Rhodesia, Kalahari and Kruger Park averaging around 189.6 kg (418 lb) and 126.9 kg (280 lb) in males and females respectively compared to 174.9 kg (386 lb) and 119.5 kg (263 lb) of male and female lions from East Africa." - Wiki
"Most adult female grizzlies weigh 130–200 kg (290–440 lb), while adult males weigh on average 180–360 kg (400–790 lb)." - Wiki
"Adult male spotted hyenas in the Serengeti weigh 40.5—55.0 kg (89—121 lb), while females weigh 44.5—63.9 kg (98—141 lb). Spotted hyenas in Zambia tend to be heavier, with males weighing on average 67.6 kg (149 lb), and females 69.2 kg (153 lb)." - Wiki