This is something that I've been saying for years. Recent research has shown that, in the past, short men did no worse than tall men in mating. I personally believe that this is a societal creation, as opposed to an evolutionary one.Right now, many men incorrectly believe that women want a taller man for evolutionary reasons-to protect us and our offspring. But if you ask women, it's about feeling feminine.
That's some of the silliest nonsense I've ever heard. Research consistently shows mating preferences and marriage tend to favor a 4" height difference. I'm 5'11" and have dated women between 4'11" and 5'10" but the majority were around 5'8". I've never felt my height was a problem in dating, but many men seem to have this obsession with "I'm not 6'4" I'll never find love!" It's quite frankly stupid and all in their heads. Being taller makes more women shorter than you and opens your options, but the benefit peaks around 6' tall. The difference in total sexual partners and unsolicited messages received is statistically no different for men that are between 5'11 and 6'5". Look at the last couple of charts on this list, for instance:Bane wrote:6'1, tallest I've dated was 5'11, which is nice, because most girls prefer the 6" rule (the man must be at least 6" taller than the woman) Dating really tall girls isn't as difficult as it seems, because once you get to around 5'11-6' for a girl, they tend to realize (some later rather than sooner, of course) that using the 6" rule might not be feasible, unless they have direct access to an NBA locker room, so a lot of women at that height will make exceptions. A lot will even date lower than their height. In NYC, I see multiple examples couples where the woman is a solid 5'10-5'11, and their men are around 5'8-5'9". However, NYC is a bit more progressive in that regard than the rest of the country.
Ironically, I've been turned down by women who are 5'4, saying that they needed to have a man who was at least 6" taller than them WHILE they were wearing their 6" heels, which would give them a MINIMUM height requirement of 6'4". Incredible.
Calm down, bro. I was merely mentioning ONE experience I had with some crazy chick back in college. One crazy chick does not an entire trend make. As far as the 6" rule goes, yeah, it's stupid and nonsensical as hell. But a lot of western women utilize it, whether it's rational or not.HouseMD wrote:That's some of the silliest nonsense I've ever heard. Research consistently shows mating preferences and marriage tend to favor a 4" height difference. I'm 5'11" and have dated women between 4'11" and 5'10" but the majority were around 5'8". I've never felt my height was a problem in dating, but many men seem to have this obsession with "I'm not 6'4" I'll never find love!" It's quite frankly stupid and all in their heads. Being taller makes more women shorter than you and opens your options, but the benefit peaks around 6' tall. The difference in total sexual partners and unsolicited messages received is statistically no different for men that are between 5'11 and 6'5". Look at the last couple of charts on this list, for instance:Bane wrote:6'1, tallest I've dated was 5'11, which is nice, because most girls prefer the 6" rule (the man must be at least 6" taller than the woman) Dating really tall girls isn't as difficult as it seems, because once you get to around 5'11-6' for a girl, they tend to realize (some later rather than sooner, of course) that using the 6" rule might not be feasible, unless they have direct access to an NBA locker room, so a lot of women at that height will make exceptions. A lot will even date lower than their height. In NYC, I see multiple examples couples where the woman is a solid 5'10-5'11, and their men are around 5'8-5'9". However, NYC is a bit more progressive in that regard than the rest of the country.
Ironically, I've been turned down by women who are 5'4, saying that they needed to have a man who was at least 6" taller than them WHILE they were wearing their 6" heels, which would give them a MINIMUM height requirement of 6'4". Incredible.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mattortile/sex- ... pid-charts
6" rule, lol. Where you find women that do this shit is beyond me.
I find it interesting that a considerable portion of the taller side of the graph is also underrepresented. Looks like less people opt for the weird pairings in favor of the median I guess.Bane wrote:Here are some interesting stats:
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archiv ... nd/272585/
Note the second chart below. At least 50% of all married couples in 2009 have a husband who is at least 5 in taller than the wife. If you look further into the article, a lot of this difference is due to basic biology (men tending to be taller naturally) but if shorter men were seen as more desirable, upwards of 28% of wives could have shorter husbands, instead of the 3.8% that is observed. Even if left to random chance, shorter husband couples should be around 7.8%, close to double what we actually see.
I understand. For me it's awkward to kiss a short woman, at least when we're both standing up. I have to spread my legs apart to move my head down closer to herstre wrote: 5'1" is really as short as I'd ever want to go as 4'11" was just difficult in a few ways...lol.
Also, short legs aren't attractive on women.To be fair, I don't think anybody is denying that height is an advantage.Bane wrote:Here are some interesting stats:
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archiv ... nd/272585/
Note the second chart below. At least 50% of all married couples in 2009 have a husband who is at least 5 in taller than the wife. If you look further into the article, a lot of this difference is due to basic biology (men tending to be taller naturally) but if shorter men were seen as more desirable, upwards of 28% of wives could have shorter husbands, instead of the 3.8% that is observed. Even if left to random chance, shorter husband couples should be around 7.8%, close to double what we actually see.
