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".
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
Notice that I didn't say anything about what was healthy or attractive. Just that weight is a very valid measure of attractiveness. Though, it's simply universally valid that obesity nor very skinny are healthy, though the former is probably worse.
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?
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.
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...
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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".