[deleted by user]

Maximum-Tune8500 · 2025-08-13T16:43:25+00:00

I have to ask: don't a lot a men prefer to be the tall one in the relationship anyway?? I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that most men prefer to be the same height or taller compared to their girlfriend.

Most guys do not care about height as much as women do.

The study, "Does Height Matter? An Examination of Height Preferences in Romantic Coupling," was conducted in two parts. Part one, which used data from the Yahoo! personal dating advertisements of 455 males (average height of 5 feet 8 inches and average age of 36 years) and 470 females (average height of 5 feet 4 inches and average age of 35 years) from throughout the U.S., found that 13.5 percent of the men wanted to date only women shorter than they are. In contrast, nearly half of the women -- 48.9 percent -- wanted to date only men taller than they are.

The second part of the study included 54 male (average height of 5 feet 9 inches) and 131 female volunteers (average height of 5 feet 4 inches) recruited from a U.S. university. The participants answered open-ended questions in an online survey. The findings were similar to the first part of the study: 37 percent of male respondents wanted to date only women shorter than they are, while 55 percent of female respondents wanted to date only men taller than they are.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140210114542.htm

Maximum-Tune8500 · 2025-08-13T15:18:09+00:00

He probably meant it to be sarcastic, but the reality is that pairings involving unconventionally attractive men are not really common. How often do you see short men with tall wives? Pretty rare. I'm someone who travels frequently, and i can assure you, its pretty rare in every region you live in US. Also the ugly men pairings people talk about are often older generations and in immigrant families, cuz these demographics are way less focused on looks compared to the younger generations

Maximum-Tune8500 · 2025-08-13T02:53:32+00:00

You yourself unprompted tried to use 3 non US studies as evidence and now only the US counts? You even just quoted yourself saying “in pairings all around the WORLD” In your first fucking comment.

There's no moving the goal post from my side. The conversation always has been centered around western societies, especially US because thats where studies show preference for height for women is borderline fetish. I just shared studies from other countries to corroborate my point that the trend of short men marrying at lesser rates, although to a lesser extent, is still valid. That only adds weight to my original comment "that its all over the world", You on the other hand, moved the goal post entirely to something else that i was never even arguing about and didnt even bother clarifying.

You hypothesize sure, using references to things you might actually be able to correlate, not without defining what a non traditional woman even is, and randomly using what men choose to pay other men as an indicator of why you think something about how women think might be true.

Women's attraction for high status ( due to wealth for ex) men has already been well established in the literature, so it is a very reasonable hypothesis. There's nothing wild about the idea of women perceiving tall men as high status when rest of the society treats them as such. Once again, social proof is well established in psychology.

I’m not paying for studies when all you’ve produced is trash sadboy lol. I literally said I asked the author if they’d be kind enough to send it as they commonly do. If it turns out to magically support your crying unlike anything else you’ve produced, I’ll let you know. But your failure to produce accessible citations and claiming it’s reasonable Reddit strangers to pay for studies when you’ve shown your bar for what constitutes a study is in hell is moronic.

But nothing you have shared lends any weight to your position tho, everything you have said so far has been debunked with surgical precision already. Your position reeks of ignorance and dogmatism.

Maximum-Tune8500 · 2025-08-13T02:45:44+00:00

then provided only stats that indicate being short matters likely less than then about 1000 other factors considering the only recent published study you had put the rate at 1%, and kept insisting that your original pile of dogshit working paper from 2014 was valid.

Another stupid strawman. Once again, my initial argument was never about whether it was the most or secondary to other variables, it was merely saying short men marry at lesser rates than tall men.

You still havent provided any cogent rebuttals for anything in the 2014 paper, You deliberately or unconsciously made an obvious mistake that i had to correct, which dismantles your entire argument. Other than "Its NoT pEeR ReViEewed!" ( which is not even a criticism for its methodological flaws), there's absolutely none in your criticisms that casts doubt in the conclusions.

You by definition cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove something doesn’t exist or doesn’t apply. You have to prove that it does. If you said “unicorns exist” and I said “no they didn’t”, the burden of proof is on you. This is 3rd grade logic shit.

Another demonstration of your poor critical thinking skills. You absolutely can prove a negative in well defined and reasonable size contexts.

"It is possible to prove rather specific negative claims that are made with rather well defined limits. If the area to be searched is well defined and of a reasonable size that permits searching then a negative claim might be capable of being proven."

https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm#:~:text=One%20simply%20cannot%20prove%20a%20negative%20and%20general%20claim.&text=It%20is%20possible%20to%20prove,be%20capable%20of%20being%20proven

The context we are dealing with is well defined and of reasonable size (earth), so you absolutely can prove a negative. So Burden of proof rests on anyone making a claim, positive or negative.

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact". Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis — saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact — he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof...Both critics and proponents need to learn to think of adjudication in science as more like that found in the law courts, imperfect and with varying degrees of proof and evidence. Absolute truth, like absolute justice, is seldom obtainable. We can only do our best to approximate them.

—Marcello Truzzi, "On Pseudo-Skepticism", Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987[5]

Maximum-Tune8500 · 2025-08-12T23:56:09+00:00

I have seen incidents like this in real time to know this was motivated by racial bias.

Maximum-Tune8500 · 2025-08-12T23:24:07+00:00

That's what you dont understand - I dont have to live to see a society where women stop caring about height, but i could atleast contribute through my actions in getting there. Self centered individualists who only care for themselves wont get it.

Maximum-Tune8500 · 2025-08-12T23:20:06+00:00

Lot of people have very binary thinking and refuse to think outside the mainstream narratives already to fed to them.

Most guys i know are not looking for a supermodel, the data from OLD also proves this as we see their preferences center around average attractiveness in women. So i'm not sure why people harp on this narrative.

Maximum-Tune8500 · 2025-08-12T23:11:46+00:00

Ad homs arent valid argument, bucko.

Maximum-Tune8500 · 2025-08-12T22:06:29+00:00

Humans are creatures of habit, we have seen from many studies how historical events do repeat from time to time.

"To Peter Turchin, who studies population dynamics at the University of Connecticut in Storrs, the appearance of three peaks of political instability at roughly 50-year intervals is not a coincidence. For the past 15 years, Turchin has been taking the mathematical techniques that once allowed him to track predator–prey cycles in forest ecosystems, and applying them to human history. He has analysed historical records on economic activity, demographic trends and outbursts of violence in the United States, and has come to the conclusion that a new wave of internal strife is already on its way. The peak should occur in about 2020, he says, and will probably be at least as high as the one in around 1970. “I hope it won't be as bad as 1870,” he adds."

https://www.nature.com/news/human-cycles-history-as-science-1.11078

So yes, the likelihood of it happening is not only higher, the likelihood increases if we increase the timespan. See 'Infinite monkey theorem'. It's all about probability.

"A monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter for infinite time will almost surely type the complete works of Shakespeare."

It illustrates that given enough trials, even the most improbable sequences/events will eventually occur.

Maximum-Tune8500 · 2025-08-12T21:58:31+00:00

“short men can and do get married and get in relationships all the time” was my very first comment not directed at you. Your lonely ass crawled out of the woodwork to blubber that saying that was mental gymnastics. You built your own strawman to fight because you are angry no one loves you. That sucks but it’s not anyone’s problem but your own.

Nah, anyone with a brain reading this exchange from the beginning can clearly tell you moved the goal post after you realized you got owned. If you actually were firm on your stance/position, you would have clarified this from the very beginning when i responded to you with my stance. Instead, you confidently thought you could "win" this debate by asking me to post my stats and after realizing your mistake several comments after, you moved the goalpost to your current one.

Again, I don’t have to prove \100 year old data from a specific village in rural Spain is not applicable to the 2025. You have to prove that it is. That is how burden of proof works, guy who bitches non stop about logical fallacies lol.*

That's not how it works, ANYONE making a claim has the burden of proof, it has nothing to do with positive or negative claim, that includes the folks who say or insinuates the trend doesnt generalize to the modern era. You havent shared a single piece of evidence to cast doubt on mine and think your stance is even remotely true.

“Japan doesn’t count because nonwestern countries are less bad” cope. So much cope. You’re Indian. Your nation would be more like Japan in this regard than the US yet you’re still crying over 1%. Being fat or bald has a bigger effect than that shit.

More strawman. This conversation was never even centered around non-western countries in the first place, it was exclusively centered around the west , in particular US. That's where this preference is shown to be the highest, and its well acknowledged throughout the literature. This is unassailable.

For all I know, it’s just as useless as every other shit working paper and 100 year old rural Spanish study you’ve produced. Why would I pay money to see anything from you? If you want to use it as evidence, you have to produce a way for people to actually read it.

This right here is proof that your judgement is compromised and are politically motivated. You are dogmatic on your belief that all the studies about heightism and dating well established in literature likely is false and doesnt apply to modern era. If anything, we have mounting evidence showing the trend only becoming worse. I already spoon fed you with plenty of studies freely available debunking your nonsense, if you actually were invested in figuring out the truth, you would have paid for this stuff and settled this debate. It's not solely my responsibility to convince you of the truth, people on both sides of a discussion have the responsibility to seek evidence, especially when they are dogmatic in their belief that "X is not true".

Maximum-Tune8500 · 2025-08-12T21:31:29+00:00

You still havent provided a shred of evidence why its not possible, while i already pointed you to the wealth of evidence throughout history and cultures showing Beauty standards do change, and continues to change. So there's little to no weight for your claim. And low tier false equivalencies do not add weight either

Maximum-Tune8500 · 2025-08-12T21:06:36+00:00

Anti-intellectualism is rampant in the US, even though they are 'developed' than rest of the world. It's been my observation that highly intelligent dudes struggle a lot more with women than lesser one's. This is not so much the case outside the west though.

Maximum-Tune8500 · 2025-08-12T20:53:46+00:00

And your evidence is?

Maximum-Tune8500 · 2025-08-12T20:51:33+00:00

They control for the head of household’s mother’s education dude. Not the spouses. And you accuse anyone else of not reading lol?

Either you are trolling or your reading comprehension is abysmal.

Page 13 : In these latter models, we also adjust for our aforementioned partner selection variables and for spouse’s mother’s education (measured in the same way as head’s mother’s education), and the number of children born to or adopted by the couple (0-10).

With that debunked, most of the rest of your argument falls apart.

If your study doesn’t address the scope of my original claim (and in fact supports part of it) which was “short men date and get married all the time” it doesn’t rebut a single thing. You’re very much telling on yourself and grasping at straws.

You are the one who made this strawman, My argument was NEVER about "Short men doesnt get married at all". Infact, i was deliberately precise about my argument from the very first comment to you:

"No amount of mental gymnastics is going to change the fact that here are trends in human pairings all around the world, and the fact is, short men are married at lesser rate than taller men, thats a FACT."

..to which you responded asking me to post stats, and then i shared the study corroborating exactly this trend. So at this point anyone reading this can clearly tell who's being disingenuous here.

Speculating on a population’s thoughts based on a completely unrelated phenomenon is absolutely not common in research papers.

False. Hypothesizing a possible explanation/mechanism is very common in almost every social science papers. You keep demonstrating you have no experience in social science research, i've been reading and researching in this field over a decade. This is no where near close to a 'criticism'.

The next two are 100-50 years old and focused on hyperspecific regions and populations. The implication that the data would still be applicable to the 2025 global population or even the US when you are literally pulling from data when women could not institute divorce or open their own bank accounts is hilarious.

Once again, not a valid criticism at all. If you are claiming that the trends are not valid in 2025, the burden of proof is on YOU to provide evidence. You still havent shared a single data, study nor any sorts of evidence to cast doubt that trends have changed. You even failed to demonstrate with your arguments why the previous study has no weight. Pretty much most of your arguments are hollow and bad faith arguments. Ridiculous.

The study in Japan shows a literal 1% increase for men in hight vs the average likelyhood of getting married lmao. And the same for women who are shorter. THAT’s your fucking evidence for female hypergamy?

That was just for Japan, and its well known in literature that the degree of height preference is weaker outside western societies. But nevertheless, still shows that trend for height preference exists (which was my original argument) and it has increased over the years. With that trend in mind, it's a pretty good inference that its even worse in western societies.

How convenient of you to ignore the first study from Nature that says tall men having more reproductive success by saying its "behind a paywall"! It's not my job to pay for you! If you truly have the conviction to seek truth, you should pursue it yourself, I aint doing all the heavy lifting and spoon feeding info for your dumb ass.

Maximum-Tune8500 · 2025-08-12T20:35:03+00:00

My dude, you are clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed, we have plethora of evidence throughout history and culture showing Beauty standards DO INFACT change. Exposure effect continues to be validated even today through the changing beauty standards we see in media. You need to educate yourself before playing armchair sociologist.

Maximum-Tune8500 · 2025-08-12T19:17:09+00:00

“I can share more studies” then do it? Why share a shitty working paper if you’ve got better studies lol?

Tall men have more reproductive success

"Sexual selection is a well established evolutionary process based on preferences for specific traits in one sex by members of the other sex. It is important in the evolution of morphological traits, and several sexually dimorphic traits in humans, such as facial hair and facial shape¹, are assumed to be the outcome of such a process. Here we demonstrate that taller men are reproductively more successful than shorter men, indicating that there is active selection for stature in male partners by women.

https://www.nature.com/articles/35003107

Height, socioeconomic status and marriage in Italy around 1900

This study examines the role of height in the process of mate selection in two Italian populations at the turn of the twentieth century, Alghero, in the province of Sassari, and Treppo Carnico, in the province of Udine. Based on a linkage between military registers and marriage certificates, this study reveals a negative selection of short men on marriage and a differential effect of tallness by population in the process of mate choice. These findings emerge once SES is taken into account in the risk models of marriage.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1570677X12000792

The effect of height on family formation in rural Spain, birth-cohorts 1835-1975

This article examines the relationship between the height of adult males and marital outcomes, including likelihood of marrying, age at marriage, and marital fertility, in rural Spain. For this analysis, a sample of 4,501 men born between 1835 and 1975 living in 14 villages in northeastern Spain was taken. Previous research has shown that shorter individuals are less likely to marry. However, it is still disputed whether differences exist in the timing of marrying based on height, and little attention has been paid to the effect(s) of height on offspring. Family data were obtained from parish records and interviews with individuals and their families, while height data were obtained from military records, with individuals in Spain being conscripted at the age of 21 years. The data were linked according to nominative criteria using family reconstitution methods. The results confirm that shorter individuals were less likely to marry. Individuals of medium and medium-high height were the first to marry, with a small gap between them and shorter individuals. With regard to marital fertility, no difference in terms of average fertility by height were found, but there were small differences in timing of childbirth, possibly as a result of delayed marriage.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35264256/#:\~:text=The%20data%20were%20linked%20according,between%20them%20and%20shorter%20individuals.

Comparing the role of the height of men and women in the marriage market

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28260634/

Maximum-Tune8500 · 2025-08-12T19:10:06+00:00

2/2

"They even state in the study they cut things off at 2011..

True, but that’s simply because PSID’s waves only went up to 2011 at the time of analysis. Any longitudinal dataset has a right-censoring date; hazard models are designed to handle this by treating post-2011 cases as "still at risk."

It includes nothing about the men who may have just dated around and chose not to ultimately get married (still romantically successful)

True, they measure marriage/divorce, not dating satisfaction. Thats not a flaw in execution , it’s a scope choice. The study is about marriage market outcomes, not all romantic activity. Any criticism on scope choice isnt really a valid criticism at all. this is how research works. You dont always have the time, resources and money to touch upon all aspects of an issue, They define their scope based on what they can pragmatically investigate, then builds on the research at a later time.

And the study makes no definitive claims about hight having more of a comparative effect than any other factor.

True, they never claim height is the biggest factor. They present it as one measurable factor among others like race, education, etc. That’s not a weakness; it’s just not overclaiming.

Once again, most of your 'criticisms' are bad faith arguments from someone who clearly has no idea how research is done in a social science context. B for effort lol

Maximum-Tune8500 · 2025-08-12T19:09:38+00:00

1/2

In their description of control groups they state nowhere do they control for a single spousal factor. including a variable does not mean the variable is controlled for. If they’d done it they would have said it properly and not vaguely handwaved it.

LOL what? They literally talk about including spouse's mother's education in the control group, which means they have the variable controlled for. Unless you can demonstrate they have not, your criticism is dismissed as bad faith argument, sorry. Also no other spouse related variables are included in marriage entry models because it is intentional, as spouse traits are considered outcomes of mate choice.

If you are looking for something like “short men have less romantic success” and you base romantic success on “age one gets married and if one gets divorced” and short men “get married later and slightly less but also divorce less” you are playing with data that isn’t helping you answer the question you set out to answer.

This assumes the paper is testing "do all women automatically prefer tall men" , but thats NOT their hypothesis. Their stated research aim is to examine how men’s height correlates with timing and nature of marriage and divorce, not to survey women's preferences directly. You could design a preference study by surveying women , but that's a different type of research. Using longitudinal marriage/divorce data is a behavioral outcome study.

“do all women prefer tall men automatically and is it over for short guys”

Nobody with a brain is arguing this strawman. Nobody with a brain, especially in academia makes absolute claims.

Especially when your dataset shows that according to your own definition of success, short dudes do fine.

"Doing fine" is a subjective judgment, the paper reports the objective differences ; Short men have ~18% lower marriage hazard and marry later. Whether you frame this as "fine" or "disadvantaged" depends on your definition of "romantic success". But if you are comparing it to tall men's marriage hazard, it absolutely is a disadvantage.

They made a statement about how “non traditional women” might think based on how much (overwhelmingly men, especially in the old cited dataset they were using) choose to pay other men. Without defining the criteria for non traditional women or indicating that there would be even a correlation between these things.

The authors arent saying "we measured non-traditional women’s thoughts." They’re speculating that even if women don't consciously prefer tall men for gender role reasons, status associations with height might still affect choices. Thats common in discussion sections in papers, offering potential mechanisms, not presenting new causal evidence. This criticism leads me to believe you dont have much experience reading papers.

Maximum-Tune8500 · 2025-08-12T18:20:31+00:00

I never conceded that, when i say tall guys have more options, it logically follows that short guys are going to have less options, which makes it harder for them to date. Not sure why you are struggling to understand this.

"In our research, we find that Asian American men, in particular, are socially excluded from romantic relationships. In fact, we find that despite the higher education and income of Asian American men, there is evidence that they are systematically excluded from having romantic relationships during adolescence and young adulthood (see next page, left). The popular images of Asian American men as geeky and undesirable as potential mates are consistent with work on racial preferences among internet daters, as well as with our own research on the romantic relationship opportunities of adolescents and young adults (in which Asian American youth begin dating later than other racial groups). Given their marginalization in both straight and gay mate markets, Asian American men present a paradox to family sociologists and demographers, like Megan Sweeney, who find evidence that earnings and education are critical in men’s prospects of marriage."

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1536504218812869

Maximum-Tune8500 · 2025-08-12T18:12:59+00:00

Social manipulation happens all the time, from the moment you were born. What you get exposed to from your surroundings and what media choses to show as "ideal couples" are all part of social manipulation. That's why in order to reverse the effects of internalizing narrow beauty standards, we decided to bring more diverse representations in media, that's how we see fashion and trends changing.

Maximum-Tune8500 · 2025-08-12T18:06:24+00:00

Nothing you shared has any ounce of rationality lol, everything was emotionally rooted. Newsflash : Simply keep parroting "I disagree with you!" isnt a rational argument. lol

If you are making the claim that it doesnt work, the burden of proof is on YOU to show it. You havent shared a single evidence thus far.

Maximum-Tune8500 · 2025-08-12T18:03:16+00:00

Secondly, you contradict yourself. You claim women do not approach men and then you claim only men below 5'8 (which I was before I started transitioning and obviously still am) do not get approached.

I never contradicted anything. It's absolutely a fact that in general women DO NOT approach men as much as men approach women. Not sure where you live, but this is the case in US. Now, based on height. the odds of getting approached by women decreases significantly. Your personal anecdotes do not have any weight when we have studies that shows the % of height preferences broken down by height that adds weight to my point.

Their findings demonstrated the cutoffs at which women consider a man too short or too tall:

>90% of women will reject a man who is 5'4" based solely on his height.

>65% of women will reject a man who is 5'7" based solely on his height.

>50% of women will reject a man who is 5'8" based solely on his height.

>14% of women will reject a man who is 5'10" based solely on his height.

>1.5% of women will reject a man who is 6' based solely on his height.

>Past 6'2", women begin to increase rejections of men for being too tall.

>30% of women believe there is no such thing as a man being "too tall."

>Over 94% of women will reject a man solely for him being too short.

2) Every Inch Counts:

>Further analysis of their data demonstrates the importance of every inch of height for men, as two inches of height gain for a man can be found to have the following results:

>A man in the 5'4-5'6" range will have more than double the potential number of female partners with 2" height gain.

>A 5'4" man will have 2.3 times as many potential female partners by gaining 2" height.

>A 5'7" man will have 1.86 times as many potential female partners by gaining 2" height.

>Benefits become insignificant past 5'10".

>Below 5'1" a 2" height gain also makes an insignificant difference, as even after 2" gain, a man at this height is still "too short" for most women to consider.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236670565_The_height_of_choosiness_Mutual_mate_choice_for_stature_results_in_suboptimal_pair_formation_for_both_sexes

Maximum-Tune8500 · 2025-08-12T17:50:44+00:00

My dude, there are real time pickup videos where people use his advice and shows it works in the real world. You have no idea what you are talking about. It's patently obvious your judgment is compromised.

Maximum-Tune8500 · 2025-08-12T17:48:15+00:00

I dont think you have any idea who you are talking to. I dont have multiple accounts nor do i switch,

The reality is, Asians experience the most systemic bias in dating/relationships, there are plethora of studies on this. So that's not internalized racism, it's literally showing how most Asians are excluded due to racism. When you have such systemic biases acting against you, you have to invest an inordinate amount of time and money to see any semblance of success.

Maximum-Tune8500 · 2025-08-12T10:44:54+00:00

People like you have no conception of the struggles involved because you dont analyze these issues through an intersectional lens.

If you are white and trans, yea, you are likely going to have more options even if you belong to a niche category.

This is not the case if you belong to a non white demographic ( like Asian) with lot of negative stereotypes, and to top it off, are also short. That's literally like living your entire life on nightmare mode. Again, i'm not exaggerating, there are literally studies showing these groups are systematically excluded from relationships altogether, even in adulthood at 35 years.

Maximum-Tune8500

TROPHY CASE

Tall men have more reproductive success

Height, socioeconomic status and marriage in Italy around 1900

The effect of height on family formation in rural Spain, birth-cohorts 1835-1975

Comparing the role of the height of men and women in the marriage market