Search Results: need time

I noticed over the years that women bring up height excessively more then men do. They not only talk about height in romantic scenarios but with platonic / professional interactions with men as well.

But every time women mentions a man being short, it’s almost always a negative connotation. Even if they like the short guy they will say something like “well he’s not very tall but he’s really cute or funny” or something.

But if a girl doesn’t something else about the short guy (his personality, looks, etc.) they virtually always bring up his height. Especially if they reject the man romantically.

But at the same time guys are less prone to say “well she’s really sweet & cool despite being overweight” out loud. We might be thinking that but we are not allowed by modern culture to say that because it’s “too mean” or something.

I am 6ft so fortunately height isn’t an issue for me. Like anyone I notice other people’s heights in most situations but I don’t immediately factor that into my judgment of people.

I once dated a girl who was 5’ 11’’. Despite my favorite female body type being cute, petite and athletic, her being tall and skinny was virtually a non issue for me. It did make things slightly more complex in bed (shorter girls are more versatile) But I didn’t really care that much. It was like factor number 37 out of 50 for me.

Also I don’t notice height at all in platonic and professional interactions with women or men. I don’t asume a really short guy or a really tall girl might have a negative personality right away. Some short guys do have napoleon syndromes. I’ve met a few short loud mouthed dbags. But overall that stereotype is often exaggerated.

I guess height judgment is evolutionary for females. But women need to understand that men have no control over their height whatsoever.

If you are more attracted to taller men then fine. But if you don’t like a shorter guy than don’t throw out his height as one of his “faults” like he had a choice in the matter.

1, first thanks for apology, but be responsible , BEFORE telling your fans, the lies that they savor!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/rosie-o-donnell-apologizes-falsely-024702208.html

2, "Attacks on U. S. CHURCHES have risen significantly since 2021". MANY attacks before, hundreds!, but now even more.

280 Attacked in 4 years 2018 through 2021, average 70 per year, but since 2021, even more, in just 3 years, 2022 Through 2024 1,100 attacks! average 360 EACH year, (198 + 485 + 415) is FIVE times more!

so churches need it but let's handle (dispense) the simple parts: many churches got attacked, therefore

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/attacks-us-churches-risen-significantly-120002104.html

Obviously, it SHOULD be obvious... only those getting attacked, churches get funded for security, because other religions are not attacked as often! Not "equal funds" because not need.

Obviously government COULD... because

3, Security is not religion lessons, so "separation of state" is not relevant, it is like giving MILK to religious schools!

the cause is security, so just those that need security now, churches, and the cause is security, so no problem fund, and same for that reason only churches who need security. So government can but should it?