I am curious why is height important? Understandably, income affects the lifestyle and opportunities, but what does height affect? What changes if you are several inch taller or shorter? I cannot understand.
Also, why those who care about height so much do not go for basketball players?
Also, the picture with income graph says "household income", not "personal income".
> I am curious why is height important?
It's a common aesthetic preference, similar to liking large breasts.
> Also, why those who care about height so much do not go for basketball players?
Some of them certainly do. But there aren't very many professional basketball players.
> I am curious why is height important?
Isn't there simpler explanation in terms of evolution: taller men look more intimidating and can provide better safety for their offspring?
I think a lot of physical preferences (generally) have some kind of evolutionary roots to it, crude as they are in 2026.
I'm not sure how well researched this area is however, since it can be a bit controversial in the modern age.
> Isn't there simpler explanation in terms of evolution: taller men look more intimidating and can provide better safety for their offspring?
That is certainly a simpler explanation, but it doesn't mean that it's a correct explanation.
* "Looking intimidating" doesn't necessarily mean that they are better at providing safety
* Providing safety isn't necessarily the sole responsibility of a sexual partner
* Other factors may be more important than height in selecting a sexual partner
* Evolution selects for attributes other than mate suitability
Given the wide variety of preferences across the human species, I find it highly reductive when someone asserts a simplistic reason for such a human behavior, ignoring the many cases when humans do not follow that behavior.
Many commenters seem to be focusing on men having to be 'strong protectors' but I think it's more superficial than that.
For most hetero relationships, a tall/well built male partner helps to make you feel small/petite/attractive in comparison.
If I was physically larger than my boyfriend, I would probably be much more self-conscious of my weight/size.
Aesthetics and societal factors probably factor into this because I find that Americans in particular are absolutely obsessed with height. Yes, it's a factor in the beauty standard of most cultures, but it feels like no other Western country has as much staked on a person's height alone. Whenever I see posts about needing to hit a certain height barrier to be worthwhile, or people openly expressing disdain for short people, or idolizing being tall, you can almost guarantee the poster is from the US.
This is just my own observation, so it's probably biased. But if this correlation is real, that shows this is not just evolution. Subjectively, it feels like there's a lot of societal influence stacked on top of whatever is there initially.
So for example, a 6 feet tall nerdy-looking geek is better than 5' 6" athlete or celebrity? Doesn't seem logical to me.
Could be, depends on the woman and what she values. Celebrities are usually in a league of their own. The way you have to see it, is that women look for a certificate of potential for success (and many other things, but this is one of them). Since being tall is generally desirable in society, it acts as such a certificate. It is definitely not the only trait or circumstance that acts as such, but it is pretty much impossible to fake.
The reason why height is so important, is because it serves as a proxy for strength, potential for dominance, and protective capacity. Women feel safe from the world and other men, when they are with a tall man (assuming they also feel safe from him). The circular effect of this is that tall men are seen as a successful archetype from all the attention and resources they get, which inflates their true sexual value. Probably social media and internet has a big hand in this too.
No one claimed that height is the only or the most important metric; simply that it is a metric by which partners can be judged.
I’d prefer anyone else over an athlete or a celebrity, regardless of height. Humans are allowed to have different preferences.
Athletes and celebrities are famous people who have a lot of eyes on them and thus naturally get more attention.
What does weight affect? Breast size? Hair color?
Cultures create an archetype of attractiveness and then everyone feels like they come up short. Tale as old as time.
While cultures tend to have different standards of attractiveness, weight is most definitely, objectively related to health. If you care about having a healthy partner, you should probably care about their weight.
The same is true of long hair supposedly (hair displays a record of illness). Does someone's attractiveness inherently change after a crew cut?
I’d venture that attractiveness does change after a haircut, with the degree of change being subjective. Does anyone truly think your hairstyle and length is not tied to your appearance?
If you cant recognize the difference between weight and hair length as a reflection of health, I dont think we need to continue further
Now that's speed dating.
Yes but that means different things in different contexts.
In some contexts a healthy weight is stocky with extra body fat that can carry a person through a cold winter or a famine.
In other contexts a healthy weight is leaner with less body fat to better handle a hot climate or chase down an animal.
There is nowhere in the known universe where the average woman is taller than the average man.
Therefore, women will tend to select mates who are taller than themselves.
It’s not a cultural phenomenon, it’s universal.
A gas station while a bus of women basketball players stops for snacks.
taking it a step further, sexual dimorphism is incredibly common for vertebrates.
not just universal for humans, but pretty common in general.
Counterpoint: Anglerfish
Wonder if there any guys who are therians and identify as male anglerfish:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therian_subculture
[flagged]
People will use the most outlandish claims to make them and others feel better about themselves and expect you to go along to not shatter there carefully created painting of reality
Weight varies much more than height (there is 3x-4x ratio between extreme values) and is instantly noticeable unlike height, so I think this is a bad comparison.
Ok but it's still a really basic evolutionary signal, taller is better, especially for the hunting/fighting gender. Some dogs get up on their hind legs to piss higher on trees.
You don’t instantly notice how tall someone is?
Unless they are very tall or very short, probably no.
There was a service called Baller Alert (the name seems to be ungooglable now) that would stalk basketball players and send announcements whenever they were spotted in clubs/bars just so the women could try to flirt with them. https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=baller+alert+30+for+30+brok...
seems similar to the big millionaire/billionare trackers in China that are big with the "find me a rich husband" crowd
I feel bad for Paul Simon—probably never got laid.
There’s solid humor in here, being that he once married Carrie Fisher - the sex symbol for a generation of nerds.
In my country there is a saying: height is half of beauty.
A tall person moving around a social setting naturally attracts more eyes, gets more noticed, attracts more attention. She literally “stands out”.
For both male and females I’d say. Then societal complexes pressure some people into the shorter gal taller guy couple stereotype, but the height itself is just a physical thing that brings more attention.
That's the male equivalent of women asking why men care about boobs and body count. The answer is "evolved intuition", like it or not.
I would liken it more to the male equivalent of facial beauty or weight: most men have a general level of facial beauty and weight they expect in a partner. And if not met, there is really nothing else that can help bind the attraction. For women, that is height. But yes, it is "evolved intuition."
>And if not met, there is really nothing else that can help bind the attraction
I can not count the number of times i have seen average and above men go out with below average women simply because they where friendly to them and gave them attention.
For multiple decades now any women could just pull up there phone and be overwhelmed with attention and dates on the level as only the top 20% of men.
Possibly, but not necessarily.
Your argument is that it's just more attractive. That might be true. That would also mean there's an underlying reason for females finding this attractive. This could be due to taller males being able to protect their offspring from other males, hence more of us are descended from taller males and females that found taller males attractive.
But being taller could also give other advantages like perceived or actual dominance over other males which is, in itself, an attractive quality.
You’re going to need some serious sources to back that up man because that flies in the face of our understanding of socially constructed beauty/physical/etc. standards. What we consider “attractive” has historically been incredibly varied and heavily determined by society, class, etc.
> The answer is "evolved intuition", like it or not.
Maybe. A lot of what we assume are innate sexual preferences are actually determined socially.
No one was talking about "body count" (at least not publicly) ten years ago.
These days, a full-figure on a woman is considered attractive, but in the 1990s, being skinny was in vogue.
Insofar as an attractive partner is a status symbol, the definition of "attractive" changes with fashion.
>These days, a full-figure on a woman is considered attractive, but in the 1990s, being skinny was in vogue.
This is usually based on a selective and wishful interpretation of historical data. The best argument I've found is here - https://www.jsanilac.com/dispelling-beauty-lies/
> This is usually based on a selective and wishful interpretation of historical data
My lived experience says they're right. In the 90s one didn't have a "phat ass", one was just a "fatass".
> The best argument I've found is here
I was alive in the 1990s. "Heroic chic" was definitely a thing.
I'm also alive now. It's not hard to find big butts being idolized.
Your linked article is not very scientific. For example, it cites porn-store purchasing preference as evidence of actual male taste in partner selection.
I was alive in 1992, "Baby Got Back" hit number one on the charts.
>Your linked article is not very scientific.
That's the whole point. Due to the touchiness of the subject matter, these kinds of topics would be quite difficult to discuss frankly in a politicized institution guarded by a peer review process.
I didn't mention peer review. The bare minimum for scientific analysis is conclusion drawn from observations based on data points. This article is more like a rant occasionally augmented by pictures of anime boobs. There is no attempt at scientific rigor. A serious presentation could have maintained the rigor even outside the peer-review process (which, despite your assertion, would likely have no objection to the subject matter).
I think what you're trying to say is that this article isn't at the highest level of epistemic certainty. That's not surprising for a given subject matter. The author explicitly acknowledges that -https://www.jsanilac.com/dispelling-beauty-lies/#:~:text=Don...
The article is too long. Judging about beauty standards by using sex dolls as an example is not very smart, first, because they are targeted to a small niche audience with specific tastes, second, they do not look especially attractive in the photos in the article. Also the font is awful and a pain to read.
Evil Vizier’s work on the topic is fascinating
> No one was talking about "body count" (at least not publicly) ten years ago.
People have been talking about virginity and monogamy for 1000s of years. Men want to know that the children they raise are their own.
It might have blipped a bit since the invention of the pill but women cuckolding their partners has been frowned upon world wide for a very long time.
Sex before monogamous marriage has historically been a big thing.
There's even songs, sagas and religious books that make virtue of it.
Of course it's been a big deal, but I got into genealogy. Found my 7th great grandfather in direct paternal line. Found another descendant in direct paternal line from my 7th great (from a different son). Did Y-DNA testing.
Turns out, yeah, every one of those men's father was who they thought he was. Our Y DNA was the same, minus the mutations you'd expect over 400 years on separate branches.
That humans make a big deal about parentage and infidelity, doesn't mean humans aren't faithful. Apparently we're the most faithful of pair-bonding species by a big margin.
> Men want to know that the children they raise are their own.
You realize that the number (>0) of prior sexual partners has nothing to do with the parentage of one's children, right? You can marry a virgin and still be a cuckold; or you can marry a prostitute and sire a large family.
Of course. “Body count” is a poor proxy for fidelity. That doesn’t mean it hasn’t historically been used for that purpose.
body count was definitely a topic in the early 2000s
Women, the world over, are, on average, shorter than men.
Therefore women will, on average, select mates who are taller than them.
Cultural relativism has fallen out of fashion, universal truths are back in.
>No one was talking about "body count" (at least not publicly) ten years ago.
Why do you think that is? Our great grandfathers were practically guaranteed to be marrying virgins, while today's young men seem to consider themselves lucky if their girl is still in single figures. Things have changed, people are talking about it.
> Our great grandfathers were practically guaranteed to be marrying virgins,
Is that what your great-grandma told you?
Cultural prohibitions on discussing sexual matters didn't actual limit in pursuing sexual matters.
> Our great grandfathers were practically guaranteed to be marrying virgins
They also walked ten miles uphill (both ways) to school every day.
[flagged]
> was as ran through as your typical young woman you'll find on the apps nowadays?
I'm not saying you are one, but using this kind of language really makes you sound like a full on incel misogynist, who has sublimated his sexual frustration into antiquated paternalistic views of women's sexuality. But I'm sure that's not accurate.
I wonder if there is a word for this strategy of "he said a word I didn't like therefore I will hyper-fixate on this one word, completely ignoring his entire argument while adopting an outraged and righteous tone".
I could do the same for "antiquated paternalistic views of women's sexuality". Is that your way of shaming men for preferring virgins? You're fighting a losing battle there. It's innate. You can't change it. Morally weak and sexually desperate men will pretend it doesn't affect their perception of a woman but it does. It's in our DNA. The males who genuinely didn't care were killed off by natural selection.
> completely ignoring his entire argument
You didn't make an "argument." All I heard from you is whining about how you're upset that women have sex that doesn't involve you. You're allowed to be upset about that, but it's a silly thing to be upset about.
> Is that your way of shaming men for preferring virgins?
Yes, it is. Also for generally being misogynistic by holding women to a different standard that you hold yourself.
> It's in our DNA.
Lots of things in our DNA are not part of civilized society.
> The males who genuinely didn't care were killed off by natural selection.
Cool. I'll just go and have lots of children with a series of non-virgins, while you can cry yourself to sleep alone in an onanistic frenzy.
>I'll just go and have lots of children with a series of non-virgins
God bless you. Taking one for the team. Maybe you'll get lucky and some of them will even be biologically yours (not that you would care).
[dead]
> I'm not saying you are one
I'll say it.
> Our great grandfathers were practically guaranteed to be marrying virgins
Lol yeah, and fetishes were invented in the 1950s. Very few people in history made it to marriage as virgins.
[flagged]
> that would still make them a unicorn in the dating market nowadays.
Are you having trouble in the dating market? Perhaps you're frustrated by frequently meeting women who are experienced enough to recognize your inadequacy.
The solution is to improve yourself, not to shame women.
Yes, everyone is. The stats don't lie. A huge (and growing) proportion of men are even completely checking out because there just isn't really any point any more. Most are seeing the game for what it is and taking commitment off the table, dating only for casual sex. But men don't really want that, and neither do women. It's not good for anyone.
I'm tall, rich, fit and White. I've had my fair share of women in the sack. There's no shortage of promiscuous young women, but there are so few wives nowadays that it all feels rather pointless.
Yes, dating is fucked. Yes, I'm very frustrated by how "experienced" women are.
> There's no shortage of promiscuous young women, but there are so few wives nowadays that it all feels rather pointless.
Do you know the definition of "wife"? It's a married woman. There are plenty of women who are willing to be married, but one of two things is preventing that: (a) you are disqualifying them for silly and capricious reasons, or (b) they are disqualifying you because you're a misogynist who thinks you're entitled to dictate what women do with their bodies before they've even met you.
> Yes, everyone is.
Plainly false.
> I've had my fair share of women in the sack.
The more I listen to you, the more clear it is to me why you can't find a partner.
But aren't you also "count-shaming" parent comment for preferring women with specific number of previous partners? Maybe they are not the only one frustrated.
Also, in Muslim countries and regions it is typically expected for a woman to have zero previous partners to get married, or at least having relationship only within a marriage.
> But aren't you also "count-shaming" parent comment
I prefer the term "misogyny-shaming."
> Also, in Muslim countries
Really, Muslim countries? Muslim countries that are world-famous for denying women even basic legal rights? Muslim countries that treat women strictly as men's property? You're telling me that those same countries have strong cultural norms about controlling women's sexuality? I am truly shocked.
because in nature a bigger male = stronger and better to protect me...
For one, because it's an indicator of health and healthy development, which are in turn related to other desirable features. Analogous things can be said for women.
You also can't ignore assortive mating. We're not all in the same mating pool, as it were. Women prefer men taller than they are, but that doesn't mean that a woman of 1.25m will pair with a man of 2m. The typical height difference between husband and wife is about 10-15cm, regardless of the absolute height of either spouse.
I've seen plenty of evidence that goes against this. From what I have seen, short women will absolutely prefer a man who is taller than other men, regardless of their own height, so something does not add up. In fact, I've seen it often be the other way around; a man will sometimes prefer a woman who is not a midget compared to himself, purely for practical reasons (unless of course he falls in love).
I will go as far as to say that assortative mating is likely a side-effect of people ending up in the same or similar socioeconomic circles, but that is just me reaching. In reality I would guess that it's a bit of that, and being used to people from a certain "class".
>I am curious why is height important?
Height coorelates with lots of things. Taller means longer feet. Taller people have larger heads as well. A large head means larger cranial capacity and therefore, likely higher IQ. Mostly, it's just our monkey brain which says taller is more formidible.