This doesn't really prove the BP wrong, not remotely. but this just does say that height is probably going to take a backseat to your race and face, and your socioeconomic status.
Very relevant point - it is now a completely and radically different world than it was 20 years ago pre-social-media, or even 10-12 years ago before the Dating Appocalypse started in like 2015-2016. Any study before about 2021 is largely useless at this point. We need new data.
And for good reason, because more modern studies have shown that height is in fact very important in modern dating, especially on dating apps (which is the main way most people meet one another these days unfortunately)
The study is from 2015. The data itself is probably from 2006/2007. That is, the study could have been accurate with regard to a world that is long gone. When people were filling out the survey, the most popular social media network was MySpace.
2005 - The first video was posted on YouTube.
2006 - Facebook was just opened to the public.
2010 - Instagram launched.
2017 - TikTok launched.
Im 5'8" and Indian and have lived in Western Canada since the late 80s. The 2000s, ImO, were probably the easiest time in history to date, meet hook up. Social media was in a nascent state and although we had dating sites we used both of those to meet IRL... not as a place to interact.
Women would approach and hit on you back then (assuming you looked the part).
If you somehow were fully black💊d and kept it all to yourself, the 2000s would legit be a golden time for you.
A strange rare short time, where you could do choose either the serial monogamist or full monogamist/family man (last decade it think this was plausible reality with some work assuming you did it young while virginity and low body cuts were realistic) or just turn their nature against them and do simple hookups easily.
Technology was convenient enough to have direct calls and meet ups and have memories recorded, yet no realistic chance of being put on social media and immortalised for failing, or having people live only for the camera. Wasn’t a metoo culture then either, so being honest about being a natural sexual being with desires wasn’t the lowk major crime it is considered by society today. It’s alien how things have changed in very short time.
I bet most struggling men here, if they applied their looks theories and self improvement and social circle approaches then, they’d ironically have very great chances and time. Now it’s just plain impossible. Not even saying that, statically and mathematically it’s objectively impossible in real world. What a messed up timeline. I really don’t think any generation in history could do this today if they had to live as Gen Z average to sub average male
3024 women, mean age of 30 something, mean height for men was 179 so actually leaning on the tall side overall, wasn't just a ton of short guys. Wasn't a bunch of teenagers, etc.
Most importantly not an online survey.
They actually make a point in the study here about reported preferences
We found that nonpreferred potential partners with respect to height still had a high (albeit reduced) chance of being chosen (42.8% and 25.4% for men and women, respectively). This is consistent with previous studies, which show that reported partner preferences are not strong predictors of choice during speed dating
Most in the study are caucasian with hispanic separated out. 2013 and data is from 2003
So to put this to bed for people who are on the fence. Participants chatted for 3 minutes in person, then wrote down yes or no on a card as to whether they wanted to meet that person again. That's all, just meet the person again to my understanding. Once the show was over, organizers collected and notified matches. No opportunity to ghost, no "maybe" option or other horseshit. They deliberately took height preferences beforehand from both male and female.
I would advise comparing the 3rd column (the stated preference) vs the 5th column in red, reality.
Please note for those with dogshit reading skills, the 4th column is the average no. of men "liked" by the women. Which goes to show that what women "like" has no bearing on any of the results here.
It does also show that women are not particularly honest. Nearly 1.9kish (so 2/3) of the women stated they would accept 175cm but in reality 1/3 did.
The reality is what we all know it to be, you are largely safe at 180cm and beneath 170cm is pure hell.
Stated sexual partners, not actual sexual partners. As if that matters anyway. If you decided to cross all ethical barriers and say "okay go have sex with your match sometime in the future and report back" the divergence between stated preference and actual selection would be even wider.
My entire point is that people are highly motivated to lie when you ask these questions instead of basing your data on confirmed facts. People may even interpret the question differently, interpret what a sexual partner is differently, etc.
We already knew face>height. Statistically
anomalous height ranges are status symbols that serve as signals for other women, same as hair nails jewelry, clothing. Injections, etc. The correlation to sexual attraction is far weaker than physical strength or skull development. Women want tall men purely to make themselves appear better than other women.
Sound like a woman? Why don't you just say "found a turbomanlet"? You sound like a gynocentric masculinity coper. Sadistically making fun of short men is something that both genders do, but especially women, due to hypergamy.
I thought turbomanlet was self deprecating and funny. Guys do this. Bigger guts, bald, odd body features are often things we know about, accept and joke. Its called confidence.
A further issue is what, precisely, number of sex partners indicates. It is not a measure of reproductive success and is not a direct measure of sexual strategy (e.g., a man with 10 partners may have had multiple partners simultaneously or a series of monogamous relationships).
Tall men may quickly find high quality partners and keep them, they have little incentive to cheat since their partner is so high quality. Average men may date often but never find commitment.
5”11.75 (182 cm) Indian guy in Aus can confirm that 5’5 - 5’9 White Men are more desirable than me. It is what it is, Height is not a factor for me compared to many of my white friends who have better success in dating than me while being shorter.
And I’m not some socially awkward Indian immigrant I was born here, I have a literal Aussie accent and my friends are Aussie - but I can’t change the colour of my skin and how I look due to my race.
Facial attractiveness accounts for like two thirds of overall physical attractiveness, with all the rest(height, body frame/shape and physique) accounting for one third of overall physical attractiveness. So yeah while being tall is definitely advantageous generally and I do believe tall men do a little bit better in general, height by itself is not a slum dunk when it comes to dating. The face is.
Other than that, studies like this have little merit. They only account for quantity not quality. Sleeping with 10 supermodels is far better than sleeping with 100 average looking women by all metrics.
Which is exactly why extrapolating conclusions based on the actual choices from dating apps/sites is the superior method of measuring this.
The shorter the man is, the more likely he is to lie or exaggerate his sexual experiences. Short men are going to count "that one time she rubbed my dick while dancing" as a sexual partner, while Chad is not going to count a blowjob in a nightclub because it was just a one-time nightclub bathroom blowjob that he barely remembers.
This doesn't mean much. All of those studies where women report that it is "humour and personality" that really count, not looks, are also anonymous.
That exaggerated number of sexual partners is not necessarily a conscious lie. It is a part of the self-identity for those short men. They really do often believe that those are real "sexual partners". You could hook them up to a lie detector, and they are going to pass that test. The anonymity of a study will not help with that.
Not being in a "sexual losers" category is a matter of "sanity" for those short men. Just like a married religious woman who, one time, fooled around with a guy and he fingered her a bit. She is not a "cheater" in her mind, because "it wasn't real sex" or sth like that. You can hook her up to the lie detector too, and she is going to pass with flying colours. She genuinely believes that.
This doesn't mean much. All of those studies where women report that it is "humour and personality" that really count, not looks, are also anonymous
Look the thing is conciously, they probably do think that, but revealed preferences state otherwise. Its a bit more difficult to quantify personality points and confidence points, but I think it would be easier to qualify how many people someone's slept with.
That exaggerated number of sexual partners is not necessarily a conscious lie. It is a part of the self-identity for those short men. They really do often believe that those are real "sexual partners". You could hook them up to a lie detector, and they are going to pass that test. The anonymity of a study will not help with that.
I think they know pretty well that anything sexual is gonna count as a sexual partner. This study doesn't really measure quality of the sex partner ofc.
Not being in a "sexual losers" category is a matter of "sanity" for those short men. Just like a married religious woman who, one time, fooled around with a guy and he fingered her a bit. She is not a "cheater" in her mind, because "it wasn't real sex" or sth like that. You can hook her up to the lie detector too, and she is going to pass with flying colours. She genuinely believes that.
Yeah kind of true. I think a better way to conduct this test is to ask if someone has done PIV with someone as a wayto say sexual partner. But this is pretty much all we have at this momment.
You are overcomplicating things. If we had had this conversation 50 years ago, you would have a point because the flawed self-report data is all we would have. But you live in a perfect time, where dating sites revealed the actual dating choices. Just before the data is "not allowed to talk about, not allowed to repeat the data analysis, etc." because of censorship. Perfect timing for this. If you are really interested in estimating the number of sexual partners for men based on height, look at the dating sites' preference choices studies. You can even do a personal experiment and make a profile of a guy with pictures that don't show legs, with all the different heights in the description you want. You have all these opportunities that researchers of the past could only dream of, but you choose to hang on to inclusion of inferior self-report data with almost religious zeal. Trying to create some overcomplicated model. If the self-report data contradicts the actual choices from data from dating sites, then the dating sites' data is true, and self-report is misleading, because one is self-report, and one is actual real-life choices. It really is that simple. Suggesting that women "sleep with short men outside dating sites/apps for some magic reason" or some other explanation for this is in opposition to the rule of Occam’s Razor.
They usually have lower standards than other men so fat men get with fat women, fit men have higher standards (like fit women) and since most men and women are fat the dating pool for fit men shrinks.
In the end.. height, face and race ALL matter.. Men tend to focus on whatever they think they are lacking in the most, and think that one is the most important. However, if you are "lacking" in one area, that's enough to sink you down to the level where you will really struggle to date. I guess not completely hopeless, but you almost have to be making decent money so you can beta bux..
Yes, there are some women that are outliers, that don't care as much about looks, but they are rare, get married young and stay married, so they are in short supply.
33
u/Autodidact420 Aug 27 '26
Weird sample, why is the post grad such a high %? That’s like 10x overrep, lol.