8 ms·

I am curious why is height important? Understandably, income affects the lifestyle and opportunities, but what does height affect? What changes if you are sever

• vovavili 1mo ago
  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.
  • hackyhacky 1mo ago
    > 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.
    • red-iron-pine 1mo ago
      body count was definitely a topic in the early 2000s
    • vovavili 1mo ago
      >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/ https://www.jsanilac.com/dispelling-beauty-lies/
      • armenarmen 1mo ago
        Evil Vizier’s work on the topic is fascinating
      • hackyhacky 1mo ago
        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.
        • vovavili 1mo ago
          >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.
          • hackyhacky 1mo ago
            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).
            • vovavili 1mo ago
              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%27t%20Trust%20Me%0A%0ASome%20claim%20the%20author%20is%20a%20tasteless%20scoundrel%20who%20can%27t%20be%20trusted.%20As%20it%20happens%2C%20the%20author%20doesn%27t%20want%20to%20be%20trusted.%20Instead%2C%20examine%20the%20evidence%20and%20reasoning.%20Don%27t%20take%20anything%20you%20read%20on%20faith. https://www.jsanilac.com/dispelling-beauty-lies/#:~:text=Don...
    • rhrhfjfjjr44 1mo ago
      >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.
      • quickthrowman 1mo ago
        > 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.
        • deleted 1mo ago
          [deleted]
        • rhrhfjfjjr44 1mo ago
          [flagged]
          • hackyhacky 1mo ago
            > 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.
            • codedokode 1mo ago
              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.
              • 1mo ago
    • perpetuallunch 1mo ago
      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.
    • Lio 1mo ago
      > 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.
      • hackyhacky 1mo ago
        > 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.
        • Lio 1mo ago
          Of course. “Body count” is a poor proxy for fidelity. That doesn’t mean it hasn’t historically been used for that purpose.
        • deleted 1mo ago
          [deleted]
      • vintermann 1mo ago
        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.
  • brettgriffin 1mo ago
    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."
    • akimbostrawman 1mo ago
      >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.
  • Forgeties79 1mo ago
    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.
  • globular-toast 1mo ago
    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.
• hackyhacky 1mo ago
  > 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.
  • codedokode 1mo ago
    So for example, a 6 feet tall nerdy-looking geek is better than 5' 6" athlete or celebrity? Doesn't seem logical to me.
    • hackyhacky 1mo ago
      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.
    • orangepanda 1mo ago
      I’d prefer anyone else over an athlete or a celebrity, regardless of height. Humans are allowed to have different preferences.
    • alberto467 1mo ago
      Athletes and celebrities are famous people who have a lot of eyes on them and thus naturally get more attention.
    • Archer6621 1mo ago
      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.
• tclancy 1mo ago
  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.
  • codedokode 1mo ago
    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.
    • nixon_why69 1mo ago
      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.
    • perpetuallunch 1mo ago
      You don’t instantly notice how tall someone is?
      • codedokode 1mo ago
        Unless they are very tall or very short, probably no.
  • nchmy 1mo ago
    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.
    • tclancy 1mo ago
      The same is true of long hair supposedly (hair displays a record of illness). Does someone's attractiveness inherently change after a crew cut?
• lo_zamoyski 1mo ago
  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.
  • Archer6621 1mo ago
    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".
• swolios 1mo ago
  because in nature a bigger male = stronger and better to protect me...
• panny 1mo ago
  >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.
• alberto467 1mo ago
  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.
• JKCalhoun 1mo ago
  I feel bad for Paul Simon—probably never got laid.
  • mathgeek 1mo ago
    There’s solid humor in here, being that he once married Carrie Fisher - the sex symbol for a generation of nerds.
• fhdkweig 1mo ago
  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+broke&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=baller+alert+30+for+30+brok...
  • red-iron-pine 1mo ago
    seems similar to the big millionaire/billionare trackers in China that are big with the "find me a rich husband" crowd
• deleted 1mo ago
  [deleted]