JayB

Actually, Jay, most short guys, like most tall guys, want to date women shorter than themselves. Take a look at the personals sometime---you'll find a gazillion men in search of a "petite" woman and maybe one looking for a tall one. And that dude will be 6'5". Again, that's just the way it is. And sure, all other things being equal, tall is nice, but all other things are never equal, so I don't worry about it. Well, of course things are never equal, but when you limit your answers to real scenarios sort of defeats the purpose of the exercise. No fun! This has definitely been an interesting thread. As things stand, my wife makes a bit more than I do now, but in around three years she'll be making three or four times the maximum salary that I could reasonably hope to achieve unless I change careers. The paradoxical thing about my marriage is that while I'm confident that if my foremost goal in life was to be wealthy, I could have gone down the typical path that leads to a position as an equity analyst or in investment banking - but I'm equally confident that if aquiring acquiring wealth was the central focus of my life, my wife would not have been interested me. Not sure what would have happened if I said that I was persuing a GED and ringing-up McValue meals when we met...

We had to weave through the carnage on I-70 after a day of climbing at Vail a few years ago. We were tired and really just wanted a relaxing ride home after helping evacuate a climber who took a full-on Acaulpoco-style fall from the top of Pitkin Falls, but on the highway all the new snow made it like "Apocalypse Pow." Big vehicles spinning all over the place, knocking into-one another - like one of those frictionless plane demo's in high-school physics. The last thing I rember is seeing the Land Cruiser that had just passed us breaking loose and hitting the median, and pulling a 180 before stopping a few feet in front of us. Thankfully the only casualties were their shades and hairdo's, both of which got seriously mangled by the air-bag deployment....

Yeah - thankfully it does't look like anyone got hurt too badly, and from what I can tell from the video the guy doing the bullying is the one who got beat-down. Wasn't expecting to see the slow-mo with the goggles and hat flying-off after the surprise first-swing at the end of the video.

The Battle Continues... http://img.livingwithstyle.com/videos/fights/snowboardfight.wmv

Yea - didn't want to force it by putting the word in quotes though... I'm just glad I successfully steered this topic away from men with advanced hair-loss....

? Her description of herself just sounded like something out of a "Short Man's Fantasy Personals" compilation.

How is it possible that someone has passed up this opportunity to ridicule Uncage the Soul until now?

I can't remember if they are the Cold- Play or the Cold-Fusion. Whichever is made from the WB-400 is the kind I've got.

I can't say that they've ever been too warm for winter-activities - and I've done most of the usual stuff in them - skinning up-hill with a heavy pack on, WI, etc. When it's really cold out I wear a layer of polypro under them, otherwise I just wear the pants. Both the fit and the workmanship were top-notch. I think that these are definitely a winter-pant though - before mid-November and after mid-march I usually wear something lighter.

In college there was a girl who apparently really liked me, but wouldn't date me because I was too short - only about an inch shorter than her. Lame, eh? Not that all girls are like that. Most men I know wouldn't go out with a woman that outweighed them.

I'm 5'9", shortest guy I've dated was 5'6" (though I knew a 5'4" guy a couple of years ago who I would have dated in a second if he had showed any interest). At least one of the guys I dated had to point out that he was an inch shorter than me; I hadn't noticed. Interesting. My unscientific conclusion is that you are very atypical. I'd also be willing to postulate that if you were to disclose your identity, and that you are at least average looking, you'd never be short of a date again ever in your life. All things being equal, and you can either choose between two completely identical versions of the same guy - one of whom is at least your height, and one is 5'4", you'd just as soon flip a coin as make the choice yourself?

The underlying assumption in the last statement is that women are looking for socioeconomic gain. What I propose is that this assumption is no longer as predominant as it used to be. The reason for that is obvious: women had not yet won the freedom to work in lucrative fields, and therefore had to depend on a man to be financially secure. This is no longer true. So change the fucking assumption. Actually most women that I've talked to about this have said something to the effect that it's the drive, initiative, intelligence, industriousness, charisma, etc that result in a high socio-economic status that are attractive - not necessarily the money, fame, or whatever. Sort of like the impressive-plumage-as-proxy-for-good-genes dynamic at work in bird mating, etc imo.

Just out of curiousity - how much shorter, and how tall are you? If you check in at 6"4 then that's probably just applied statistics at work. Most of the women engaged in the particular conversation that I mentioned said that being with a man that was significantly shorter than them would make them feel less femine, and would generally result in a creepy "dancing with your little brother" vibe, and that, combined with the fact that most men were as tall or taller than them anyway - put the kibosh on the height inversion. I'm 5'10" - and even at this average height there aren't that many women taller than myself - maybe 10%? I think if all of the other ingredients were in place, and I weren't already married - I'd probably go up to 6'. Any taller than that and the thought of having to deal with a lifetime of lame jokes, etc would probably preclude any interaction that would lead to dating.

I won't argue the social status point, but would point out that social status and financial status are not the same thing. Hence, essentially homeless dudes who climb super hard and ski patrollers who live in yurts on public land can get girlfriends. In other circles, being a pastor, a writer, or the lead singer in a garage band might confer social status, without conferring any wealth whatsoever. I'd agree that wealth is just a proxy for overall social status. Different riff on the same theme - do ugly female rock-stars have groupies?

No one is claiming that these things are true for everyone, but to claim that they have no basis in reality at all is just as silly. I recommend that anyone who doubts these things are true at a population level take a male-model's headhshot, and create two different profiles on two different online dating sites that cater to the average single person. Make one an MD, the other a grill-tender at BK and tabulate the results. Random side note - I was a party and chatting with a group that was 90% women, all of whom were loudly bemoaning the shallowness of men and congratulating themselves for their depth and sincerity. They cared about the whole person, etc, etc, etc. Then I said surely if this is the case, then something as superficial as a man's height plays no role in who you're attracted to and who you've dated - and you'd be just as likely to date a guy that's 5 inches shorter than you as a guy that's 5 inches taller than you. None had ever dated a shorter guy (one or two were 5'10"), and all of them admitted that they wouldn't be attracted to someone significantly shorter than they were. They also agreed that, even with this concession, men were still the much shallower sex.

Speaking of insecurities, it seems like there are quite a few people who aren't able to differentiate between conversations that pertain to differences that exist at a global, population level an their own characteristics. Say something like - on the average, men are larger and physically stronger than women - and you get a shrill denunciation and the anecdote about the chick down the street who used to be a member of the East German powerlifting team that still cleans 300. Exeption that proves the rule. Not true everyone, not true for you, yup. Not true at all - not so sure. Effects of Potential Partners' Physical Attractiveness and Socioeconomic Status on Sexuality and Partner Selection." Archives of Sexual Behavior 19:149-164. " Brief Summary: John Marshall Townsend, professor of anthropology at the Maxwell School at Syracuse University showed a group of female medical students, law students and professionals pictures of men dressed in different ways — wearing, for instance, a fast-food uniform or a designer suit and Rolex watch. He also gave participants descriptions of each man's social status. The results were decisive. "Here's Mr. Hottie, but if he's in the wrong costume, and given the wrong status description, then she won't go out with him, much less go to bed with him or marry him," said Townsend. "You could put Cary Grant in a Burger King outfit, and he looks dorky." If women do occasionally date "down" in terms of social status, Townsend said, "that would be out of desperation." By contrast, he says, men are likely to date any physically attractive woman. When it comes to marriage, "guys are not completely insensitive to social class," but, he said, they're "not looking for socioeconomic gain."

I was actually talking about the asians and East Indians here in the US/Canada. I suspect that if I went kayaking in Hudson Bay my comments about never seeing any eskimos out boating would no longer apply either.

One side note is that the prosperous and educated bit doesn't explain the relative absence of asians or east indians in the mountains...

Shhh. He'd prefer to mock something so he doesn't have to confront potentially disturbing thoughts such as "perhaps a free-market doesn't cure all ills" Yes - tell me how it is in the hood, brother.

I know the article that AlpineK is talking about, and participated in the last discussion that we had about this issue on the site. Maybe someone can look that one up. On the class front, I'd say that if your job involves physical hardships and/or risk or both in the outdoors, the odds are that you won't want to spend your spare time engaged in activities that involve either. If you couldn't motivate yourself to set difficult goals and achieve them in your personal or professional life - the odds are pretty good that you aren't going to engage in recreation that requires either. If you come from a culture or situation where going without food or heat is something that happends when you run out of money, the odds are good that you aren't going to engage in activities that involve either for fun. Edit - found the Outside article. http://outside.away.com/outside/magazine/1297/9712solo.html

Ditto for the absence of whites in Low-Rider/Super-Modified Import circles.

While we are at it we should examine the dearth of college degrees amongst the ranks of those who participate in motorsports. Should be quite compelling.

I have yet to see an eskimo on the river while kayaking. Someone needs to address this.

I think we should have a "Spot the 77 Kinds of Oppression and Inequality that Manifest Themselves in the Demographics of Outdoor Sports" thread as a follow-up on the music thing.