« Top 10 country acts | Main | For class war »

May 20, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Well, Shorty, buy 'lifts' for your shoes. They did wonders for the Loathsome Wee Twat.


significant numbers of employers are looking for second row recruits for their rugby club.

Mike Woodhouse

No arguments here, it all seems entirely reasonable

(6' 3.5")


So why are some of the most famous people in history on the short side? Napoleon, Charlie Chaplin, Churchill... I could go on. I know both Chaplin and Napoleon were good lovers, but I'm not too sure about Churchill.....


Just ask Stephen Lewis..aka Blakey from the on the buses. Daft and stupid but in the better paid job than the more intelligent and enterprising Stan and Arthur.


Your Maj, it's the power of a festering resentment.


Robr - that may be true, but Stan and Arthur were unmistakably " on the make" - and I would suggest did rather better over all than Blakey.
dearieme- perhaps - but it might also be an overwhelming belief in oneself. A similar thing happens with eldest children( especially boys). As someone remarked ( I think Freud) any first born boy who has been the cynosure of his mother's eyes has already won the lottery of life.

Miller 2.0

"This means that, for men in their 30s and 40s, the pay-off to 6 inches more height is equivalent to around a third of a university degree (pdf)."

Hmm. I reckon roughly a third of a degree buys you an extra 6 inches by your 40s. Comes from not having to carry stuff. :op

Bob B

"and - yes Megan - better in bed"

By chance, I came across this among recent press reports:

"The security services can expect a full mailbag from S&M enthusiasts volunteering to be the victims of their next sting operation. . . "

Being naturally curious about such matters, I wondered whether our Chris had considered career opportunities with the security services . . .


Taller men better in bed? Don't you know its not the size its what you do with it that counts.

Jim Donovan

I find this third explanation the most compelling, as must the BBC, who wrote about similar Polish findings in 2000. However, She-who-must-be-obeyed, standing at under 5ft, might have different opinions to which I will of course defer. I also totally understood the proposition that CEOs would rather be tall and bald than short and hirsute, and that got short shrift from SWMBO too. Ouch! No dear, I wasn’t trying to be funny; honest.

James G.

I seem to recall that something like 95% of flag officers in the US Navy in the 90s (back when I was in) were over 6'1" in height.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad