Even in Lilliput, Winners Get Big Checks, Big Chicks
CNN has a story about injecting children with growth hormone. For their own good.
The video is brief, but compelling. Parents, seeking the best for their sons, look to chemistry to grow their small children. Opponents say it's wrong for a variety of reasons you might guess without watching; a diminutive adult says he'd do it even now if he could because being small (5'3" in his case) just sucks so bad.
I guess the story resonated with me as a new father, who's still settling into the role of example-setter and role model. If my son seemed to be tracking toward tiny, would I turn to hormones to grow him? Would the pain and possible side-effects, not to mention gambling that the treatment's completely ineffective, outweigh a small height gain?
Even if I could get insurance to cover it- as the parents profiled did, which seems just this side of miraculous- I don't think I would.
Those parents' ultimate concern is for their sons' self-esteem, allowing for a well-adjusted adult and one that, as a man who fell within "normal" height range, would be that much less challenged in the quest for jobs, careers, and chicks. Their contention is that short men are more challenged, more limited, than "tall" men, and due to no fault of their own.
I think though that self esteem is more rightly rooted in achievement than physical stature. A guy who's 6'4 but spends his days collecting empty cans is not a winner. A man who's 5'6 and a blackbelt in tae-kwon-do is a winner. I'm 6' even, mebbe 6'1 in boots; I've known tons of men taller than me, and tons shorter than me. And with very few exceptions, I've worked for the ones shorter than me. And I'm not exactly setting the world on fire with my scary finances and swinging career possibilities. At the end of the day, I find some satisfaction in writing projects or other activities that have nothing to do with my job, my family, or, of all things, my height. It's those sorts of things, challenges that I've overcome, that allow me to look men in the eye. It has nothing to do with my physical stature. And I try to block out the stuff that I've utterly failed at.
One point that was overlooked in the CNN piece was that the taller you get, the harder alot of mundane tasks become. Again, I have to apply my own experiences, in this cae with continual back pain. Every so often, if I'm not very careful with my body mechanics, it can cause excruciating pain for days, if not weeks- we're talking painkillers for 3 meals a day.
And it's as someone who must be so careful with how he moves that I realize how much of our world is built for people who are about 5'7. See how far you have to bend over to do anything in the bathroom- lift the seat, flush, reach soap or anything else on the sink, turn faucets, wash your hands, take a shower- a dozen little things we do that are perfectly normal and routine but tough for a bigger person trying to keep his back straight. I joke about raising everything about 3" once I'm in charge, just so I can reach it without having to squat. Seriously, a typical bathroom sink barely comes up to about my crotch. Picking something up off the floor can be an adventure in pain management. Cars that sit 2" off the ground- which these days seems like all of them- are completely out of the question; folding myself into a sporty car is unthinkable. And let me emphasize that I'm hardly Shaq, here.
All of which just points out that being an average-sized man is not so flipping terrific either.
Look, people get gigs for alot reasons- talent, effort, luck, nepotism- but I am skeptical that someone ever got a job because he was tall. Money I think works similarly; I've never gotten a check due to my height. And chicks? Hey, different women go for different men. But most of all, chicks dig winners- short or tall.
I think the Li'lest Lethal will probably end up about my height, as his mother's about 5'8/9 herself, but I'm certainly not going to encourage him to let his physical dimensions- whatever they may be later- to be the basis for his self worth. I hope that if I can encourage, support, and guide my son toward achieving goals that are important to him, he can be a big winner in the end- even if he's not big.
on
| § 6
§ 6 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
From my Olympian heights of 6
From my Olympian heights of 6'4", it is hard for me to guess what it's like being short. But, one of my greatest friends in the world was 5'2", and it purely sucked for him. Not so much job wise - he's a successful engineering type, has done well for himself and lives in Battery Park in an expensive and tastefully decorated condo. What was a real problem for him, was chicks. Women don't, it seems, dig dating a guy who is significantly shorter than them.
At five and change, he was noticeably shorter than most women. Same height, no real problem, but he was out of the market for most women. And he hated that. I hated it to, because he's a fantastic guy who scores high on most measures of worth, save only height.
I know he would have wanted his parents to inject him with anything short of Drano if it had a chance of getting him up into the normal range.
B,
B,
I don't doubt that men in that position would want that. I would too. But I think they might expect greater results than what they would likely get.
I mean, starting the treatment as a little boy, we're talking maybe 3" at mature height. OK, so he's not 5'2, he's 5'5. If the primary point is to get big to land more chicks, 5'5 ain't gonna do it.
But there's another angle I was trying to get, whether as a parent I would subject my son to daily injections, investing alot of his hope in the process, to gamble on being 3" taller in 15-odd years.
I just don't know if I could do it.
The skinny end of the bell
The skinny end of the bell curve being what it is, 3" at that height could make a difference. now, 5'5" to 5'8" would probably be less of a positive change. The risk for three inches is probably unacceptable. If it was for a six inch change, that'd probably be worth it to a lot of kids.
Of course, you'd have parents giving their kid the juck to get them from 6'4" to 6'10" to improve their chances in the NBA. These issues will be ever more common in the very near future.
B,
B,
But yet another dimension here is that instead of treating little boys to make slightly taller men, why aren't they tailoring a treatment that makes our cocks bigger?
I mean, that's the kind of research that every man, short or tall, could get behind. And not to get too Freud-y about it, but isn't cock size central to male perceptions of strength and virility across all cultures? Following it through, it seems an unassailable cornerstone of a healthy self image would be a porno-sized wang.
But a short guy can't walk
But a short guy can't walk down the street with his porno-sized wang hanging out as a testament to his confidence and self-worth. I guess he could wear tight pants though.
Career-wise being short is not such a problem, I think, unless you want to be president (I read somewhere that the taller candidate has always won the presidential election). But Buckethead is right, they can't get chicks. I mean, I think really really short chicks wouldn't care because a short guy is at least usually a little than a short girl. I'm sure some women don't have a problem with short guys, or maybe even like them, but on the whole, most girls would rather not be taller than their dates. Girls want to feel delicate and petite and there's nothing that makes you feel like a hulking oaf more than being bigger than your man. So I think the whole girls-not-dating-short-guys thing is not so much about short guys being unattractive, but more about what the girl thinks she looks like when she stands next to him. Girls are vain. If all dating were done in private short guys would have much better chances. Walking down the street next to one kinda sucks.
I dated a short guy. He was probably 5'7. I'm 5'9 and in a good pair of heels I can be 6'. He was sweet, articulate, owned his own very successful consulting firm, always opened doors for me, nice house, nice car, nice suits, etc. etc. We got along great and were very compatible. Except that he wanted to get married and have kids and I didn't. But I think I would have overlooked that and kept dating him if he were taller, or even maybe just stockier. But he was short and thin. And I just couldn't get into it. I didn't enjoy stooping over to kiss him goodnight. Didn't enjoy holding hands with a hand the same size as mine. He had a very handsome face but I had to look down at it. I dated him for a few months hoping I could learn to be attracted to him but it didn't work. He really liked me, and I felt awful and shallow for breaking up with him and of course didn't tell him the real reason (said I wasn't ready to get married, which was also true). But how can you be in a relationship with someone you're not attracted to? I can't. It sucks though because in a different body he could have been a really good match for me. He is now married (happily, I think) to a fat chick with a pretty face. They are expecting their first baby this winter.
So . . . maybe Lethal's right and it's all about the goals you decide you want to achieve. But I know that despite all his success in school, later in terms of $$$, and even now with a wife and baby on the way, his self-esteem is pretty low, and he has kind of a stuttering problem sometimes. He got picked on as a kid. Because he was short.
Erm, let's clear up Carolyn's
Erm, let's clear up Carolyn's antecedent deficiency in her last paragraph. She's refering to her ex, and not me.
I was the fat kid, not the short kid. And I never stuttered.