I live in an area where there is a high number of short men. Despite this, the local women on match.com and other sites all seem to demand that men be 6′ tall. Even women who are 5′ 0″ will post a minimum height of 6′ (I’m not exaggerating this).

I know these woman are not being honest, because it really isn’t hard for a short guy to get a date. I’m short, and I do just fine. But I never know who I can respond to on dating sites, because I don’t know who seriously only dates tall guys, and who is being overly unrealistic.

The numbers of women on match.com who say they will date short guys is next to zero. I’m not talking about dating shorter than their own height. They say they won’t date guys who are 4, 5, or 6 inches taller than they are.

I’m not a match.com member, because I feel like I would not be matched with anyone, so why bother? But face to face, I do just fine.

So women, tell the truth here. Why rule out us short guys, then date us when you happen to meet us?

submitted by not-suicidal [link] [4 comments]

In the thread about whether or not women preferred a man with chest hair or not, many ladies were voicing their complaints about men who shaved/waxed their chests reminded them of little boys. They said hair was a sign of a man and that a hairless chest made them feel awkward or turned off.

Now I realize that there are tons of women who disagree and love a shaved chest, but I was wondering why I never really see much of an uproar about women with shaved pussies reminding them of prepubescent girls.

Usually in a hair vs. no hair debate, I hear a lot of hate for the bush. I just want to know… why? If hair on a man’s chest is a sign of manhood, why isn’t hair on a girl’s vagina a sign of womanhood?

tl;dr Men with chest hair are manly but women with bushes are unkempt heathens WTFWHY.

submitted by gutenberg [link] [12 comments]

I’