"a 2006 study on online dating found that a man who is 5'6'' needs an additional $175,000 to be as desirable as a man who is approximately 6' tall and only makes $62,500 a year."
I guess I appreciate the brutal honesty. Wealth and height. And not to forget social status, as one woman in the linked article explained how she broke up with a short guy because of what others (might) think of it.
Not a word is wasted on actual love. The stereotype that women barely ever date "below" them, in wealth, height, status, remains true. Your character still matters, but only after checking the above boxes. Men are selected by utility, with disastrous consequences for those that get left behind, as there's no mercy for them.
You can't explain the harsh "be 6' or keep moving" requirement or the open ridiculing of short men on evolutionary selection alone. It's a US-dominant cultural trend. In many other countries no woman would have such exact and absolute demands. It might be a soft unspoken preference at best. Making it a "do or die" requirement is cultural.
Similarly, wealth is not an evolutionary selector for the simple reason that wealth didn't exist until 10K years ago. You could make the point though that wealth is a representation of security, in an indirect way.
In any case, I just find it disturbing how superficial the matchmaking is. When you use a criteria, it's supposed to increase your chance of success, meaning a "happily ever after" story. None of these criteria do that. Beauty fades and none of us are beautiful in the morning. Wealth doesn't buy love. Height does absolutely nothing for a relationship. And yet women insist on it.
The female version is equally disturbing but different. I've never met or talked to a man that finds fake boobs, duck lips, botox, fake bums, fake tans, an inch of makeup in any remote way attractive, or a "selector". So the depressing reality is that women largely do this in a competition towards other women, and this perverted rat race knows many victims.
For the cynics that may think that I'm coping, I'm not. I'm 6"4 and in a loving long term relationship. That doesn't stop me from caring about the perverted mate selection dynamics of today that are downright cruel and throws good people aside as if trash.
> Not a word is wasted on actual love.
>
> For the cynics that may think that I'm coping, I'm not. I'm 6"4 and in a loving long term relationship.
As a 5'5" Asian man (statistically one of the lowest rate of matches in online dating), I find it personally demeaning that you feel like you need to be morally outraged for me, because trust me, I sure as shit don't need it.
People are attracted to attractive people. That fact has been true for all of history. Not only do attractive people get more dates, they're more likely to rise to higher positions in business and society, and earn more money. Height is only one factor in attractiveness. Are you going to be morally outraged about attractive people next? Are you going to shake your hand at the sky and ask "what about love?!?" next time you see two tall attractive people on a date?
Also, citation needed on your claim that height selection is US-only. My anecdotal experience is that foreign-born women also have height preferences.
Your assertion on female plastic surgery is equally ridiculous, and dare I say, downright ignorant. No, you haven't met a man who is attracted to plastic surgery, but you've definitely met men attracted to the results of plastic surgery. You've also probably met hundreds of women who have done some form of plastic surgery, you just haven't noticed because it's tastefully done. I'd dare claim the ridiculous plastic surgery is the exception, not the rule. Your idea that women do this to compete against other women in a broken society, and not because men are attracted to certain features, is laughable.
Yes people are attracted to attractive people, but people can also do things to make themselves more attractive. I personally go to the gym, try to wear fashionable clothes, and groom myself. Are you going to gasp in shock and "but you shouldn't have to do that because of love!!!" Note that this is not a cynical take. I would say "the world is going to hell because some women put '6 foot only' on Tinder and get plastic surgery" is more cynical.
If you had bothered to read my post with care, you'd perhaps noticed the nuance where I said height can be a soft unspoken preference, which indeed is widespread.
I objected specifically against this preference becoming a rock hard criteria at some weird absolute point, say 6". That is a societal trend. It's culture, not biology. It's the hardening of a criteria that has led to the guy in the article being so desperate to do a ridiculously dangerous, painful and expensive surgery to "grow" a few inches. If you think it's normal that society sorts people into attractive or unattractive based on 4 inches, I don't know what to say to you.
As for the citation you requested, I come from the land featuring the tallest men in the world: the Netherlands. My 6"4 means absolutely nothing here. There's tons of people towering an additional head above me.
Even in this perfect shopping mall for women as it comes to height, I've never once heard a single woman turn it into a hard demand. There's plenty of short men here too, several of my friends are, they're all doing fine in dating. So no, it's not a thing here from my anecdotal experience. Preferences may still exist, but not in the sickening way where you completely filter out people based on such superficial and useless "quality".
I don't think I said that the world is falling apart, that escalation is on you. In all your rage you're missing the forest for the trees.
But do double down on your superficial attractiveness. You might get a foot in the door, after which true selection begins. Good luck, young one.
The rock hard criterion still exists in other places but it's expressed in metric. In France it is usually 180cm (~5'11"), in Japan I've heard 170cm (~5'7") so it seems that people mostly like round numbers rather than 6ft specifically.
I come from a country where 6 ft.+ is considered pretty tall so I totally believe that this type of metric is not universal. In fact, there is no real analogue there and I have never heard of a female mentioning a specific height as a preference.
It was a total culture shock to me how big of a deal your height as a number is in parts of the US culture which frankly I find vacuous and sickening.
I mainly blame this on the toxic culture on the "dating" apps. (Also perhaps the imperial measurement system? lol). I guess those who knowingly participate in it have accepted the terms of use.
Not to mention the money part. Forgive me for I've been out of the dating scene for quite a while now, but this....
"a 2006 study on online dating found that a man who is 5'6'' needs an additional $175,000 to be as desirable as a man who is approximately 6' tall and only makes $62,500 a year."
How exactly does this work in modern dating? See, when I was dating, I've not once had a woman ask me about my net worth or income. Never. You'll eventually find out, but not during the dating phase. A complete taboo and red flag to bring it up. One could only guess, or decipher it from somebody's job.
Is it now normalized to throw around these numbers in online dating? You fill it out on a profile and people filter for it? Please tell me that's not true. Culture shock indeed.
And those inches are quite expensive. A 175K extra for 4 inches. Takes a lot to build that wealth, after which you're supposed to hand it over to a woman that trades a lack of height for wealth. Quite a prize.
> You've also probably met hundreds of women who have done some form of plastic surgery, you just haven't noticed because it's tastefully done
The grandparent poster clearly said "fake boobs, duck lips, botox, fake bums, fake tans, an inch of makeup", so they're clearly not talking about women who did any sort of "tasteful" (to use your word) surgery, natural tanning or regular makeup.
> The stereotype that women barely ever date "below" them, in wealth, height, status, remains true. Your character still matters, but only after checking the above boxes. Men are selected by utility, with disastrous consequences for those that get left behind, as there's no mercy for them. You can't explain the harsh "be 6' or keep moving" requirement or the open ridiculing of short men on evolutionary selection alone.
If it was this cut-and-dry, 80% of American women would just be single at any given point in time, or they'd all be in polyamorous relationships, or dating their own gender. Only 20% of American men are 6'0".
I'm assuming that it's not this cut-and-dry, and that most American women are willing to date the other 80% of men.
Fair enough, I'd then rephrase that women generally attempt to select at equal or higher level (in wealth, status, strength) and will at times settle for the closest match to that ambition. Men are far more lax in their criteria.
We could just accept that as "the way it is", but modern developments in this dynamic create horrendous imbalances. There was an excellent article about it a while ago, but I don't have the link, so I'll try to reproduce the gist of it.
Assume the behavior that women select "above" them. Now add the trend where women are rapidly rising in their economic status. The logical outcome is that a growing number of women are basically selecting for a "super man", that are in very short supply. They need to be even more economically successful than before, and of course easy on the eyes and able to do male chores. And emotionally mature/advanced. And....and.....and....and.
This dynamic is often confirmed by research on dating sites where the vast majority of female attention goes to the "top" 10% of men, whilst everybody else is pretty much ignored. This in turn creates a counter-reaction where the ignored men basically just use a drag net, posting many low effort messages (any love is good love) that confirm to the women that those men are of a poor quality.
For sure, a lot of settlement and compromises will happen to match more than just 10%, but the point of the article was that the elevated criteria leaves behind an enormous group of men, in the US running into the millions.
These men might be low wage workers with average looks, and not much else going for them. This used to be enough, but it isn't anymore. They get no match. Ever. Many run into depression, start drinking, end up on the streets, kill themselves.
The reason I'm mentioning this is because it's worthy to know this, it's a fairly new development that few talk about. And I say it to highlight how cruel our society is towards men at the bottom. If as a man you don't make it on your own, there's zero empathy.
I'll be hated for saying it, but women play a decisive role in this dynamic. Whilst for sure they can date whoever they want, the stubborn refusal to even consider vast groups of men based on their wealth or height is inhumane. I find it particularly hypocritical in light of modern feminism where it's often expressed how household and childcare tasks should be more equally divided.
These men would be an ideal fit. They'd have the less important job, thus more ability to do it. I'm sure that amidst millions of such men, one can find a nice guy with reasonable looks.
But no. They're not even considered. I guess the point wasn't equality after all. The patriarchy is powered by women.
For every 1 match a man gets, the average women gets somewhere around 150 matches*. You simply can’t evaluate on anything but looks and basic surface-level traits (how each person responds to 3 random prompts).
How many short men interact with women regularly in-person and still have trouble getting dates?
* Seriously, google it. The ratio of accounts is around 10 men per woman, but lots of men swipe everyone and some men buy unlimited swipes, which is how it’s this bad. The average man gets something like 4 matches per week, while the average woman gets hundreds.
>The female version is equally disturbing but different. I've never met or talked to a man that finds fake boobs, duck lips, botox, fake bums, fake tans, an inch of makeup in any remote way attractive, or a "selector". So the depressing reality is that women largely do this in a competition towards other women, and this perverted rat race knows many victims.
I find everything on that list extremely unattractive, minus that last one: what's wrong with makeup? If it's not used excessively, it can look attractive. (I often tend to prefer how people look without makeup or with only light makeup, but some who are very good at makeup sometimes look better with it, in my opinion.)
A lot of men who say they don't like makeup actually do like it without knowing. They just know so little about the makeup world that they don't recognize the "natural" look (while still preferring it). So I would take statements like "I don't like makeup" with a grain of salt, and parse them as "I like the natural look but don't like strong makeup" (what you said basically). Which isn't an uncommon preference at all.
It's pretty sly when you think about it, because these men are being lied to about what "no makeup" looks like. Who could tell what the real preferences are for someone lied to in such a way? The social experiments we are running on each other are utterly corrupted.
> these men are being lied to about what "no makeup" looks like.
or the women knows what men are after - which is naturally good looks, and using any and all methods to achieve that look. They are so successful that the men don't notice it is artificial.
So can you argue that it is the fault of men for wanting "natural beauty"? Or the fault of the women for trying?
Personally I still prefer the "natural" makeup look over other makeup styles (or nothing) even if I know that it's artificial, and it's likely that the men oblivious to natural makeup existing would react the same, instead of being upset that they were misled.
Similarly, I think women don't do it in order to mislead men but because men just prefer it that way.
I wouldn't call it a lie if it's clearly visible to other people who invested the time to figure it out, like most women and some men.
> The female version is equally disturbing but different. I've never met or talked to a man that finds fake boobs, duck lips, botox, fake bums, fake tans, an inch of makeup in any remote way attractive, or a "selector"
Tall women face exactly the same issue as short men. HN is overwhelmingly made, though, and has failed to make that connection.
> Tall women face exactly the same issue as short men.
i highly doubt so. Tall women might face _some_ discrimination from men who don't want a partner taller than him, but those men don't deride tall women at all. And i think a tall women stand a better chance at initiating a date with a shorter man, than the reverse.
>I've never met or talked to a man that finds fake boobs
Hang on homie. There are some boob jobs that are AMAZING. Not the California two oranges taped to a rake style, but that’s not everything out there.
Off the top of my head (with only the tiniest bit of shame because she is drop dead gorgeous), Kirara Asuka has an amazing/best boob job. And if you can look at her and not find her attractive, you’re probably lying almost certainly lying.
And while talking about plastic surgery and unwelcome societal preferences, look up the percentage of Asian people that get blepharoplasty in some form. It’s nuts. So imagine your eye lids being added to the list of things to fret over.
That's been true for eternity. Men are attracted by youth and beauty, women by height and wealth. Is everyone in this thread an orphan raised by disney/media. Nobody had mothers, sisters, aunts, female cousins, friends, etc?
> That doesn't stop me from caring about the perverted mate selection dynamics of today that are downright cruel and throws good people aside as if trash.
Nobody gets thrown aside. Women may prefer tall/wealthy and men may prefer young/beautiful, but at the end of the day, everyone settles. Most short and/or poor men marry as do older and/or ugly women. Everybody wants to date the hot cheerleader but everybody can't. So they just accept reality and date someone else instead.
I guess I appreciate the brutal honesty. Wealth and height. And not to forget social status, as one woman in the linked article explained how she broke up with a short guy because of what others (might) think of it.
Not a word is wasted on actual love. The stereotype that women barely ever date "below" them, in wealth, height, status, remains true. Your character still matters, but only after checking the above boxes. Men are selected by utility, with disastrous consequences for those that get left behind, as there's no mercy for them.
You can't explain the harsh "be 6' or keep moving" requirement or the open ridiculing of short men on evolutionary selection alone. It's a US-dominant cultural trend. In many other countries no woman would have such exact and absolute demands. It might be a soft unspoken preference at best. Making it a "do or die" requirement is cultural.
Similarly, wealth is not an evolutionary selector for the simple reason that wealth didn't exist until 10K years ago. You could make the point though that wealth is a representation of security, in an indirect way.
In any case, I just find it disturbing how superficial the matchmaking is. When you use a criteria, it's supposed to increase your chance of success, meaning a "happily ever after" story. None of these criteria do that. Beauty fades and none of us are beautiful in the morning. Wealth doesn't buy love. Height does absolutely nothing for a relationship. And yet women insist on it.
The female version is equally disturbing but different. I've never met or talked to a man that finds fake boobs, duck lips, botox, fake bums, fake tans, an inch of makeup in any remote way attractive, or a "selector". So the depressing reality is that women largely do this in a competition towards other women, and this perverted rat race knows many victims.
For the cynics that may think that I'm coping, I'm not. I'm 6"4 and in a loving long term relationship. That doesn't stop me from caring about the perverted mate selection dynamics of today that are downright cruel and throws good people aside as if trash.