kanderior
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2023
- Posts
- 5,555
- Reputation
- 8,113
It is mostly accepted that women generally prefer men not just taller than them (man are taller than women on average), but men who are above average in their given population too. This is for evolutionary and social reasons. However, does that preference have a limit? For example, men generally like big boobs, also for dimorphic and evolutionary reasons, but most men would find this freakish, unappealing and gross:
A similar thing happens with muscle, e.g. women like an aesthetic gymmaxxed physique, but the freakish roidcel look has no appeal to them. Same with other dimorphic traits: a cutecel has no appeal to women in their 20s due to not being dimorphic enough, but neither does an ogre due to being too dimorphic. So it seems evolution drives people towards looking for optimals, not maximals. Similarly, a lot of studies indicate that there is a clear optimum, and a point where height actually decreases SMV noticeably. E.g., "The Height of Choosiness", from the US in 2013:
This would seem to indicate that past a certain height the female preference for tallness is overriden by whatever negatives they perceive with super tall heights (there might be other factors too, as these studies don't control for face or other factors which influence a man's desirability). However, there are arguments against the results of such studies being indicative of current reality: they are old, made when the modern OLD/social media era had just begun, they don't control for female virtue signalling, women are more hypergamous now, etc. On the other hand, if you look up photos of chad desirable celebs getting heightmogged by other celebs, women and normies don't really seem to notice. For example, 6'0.5 Henry Cavill vs 6'4.5 Armie Hammer:
6'0 Channing Tatum vs 6'5 Joe Manganiello
these celebs getting heightmogged does not seem to decrease their SMV in the eyes of women, or even whether they see them as tall, because they meet a threshold compared to the general male population. Yet using the strict evolutionary interpretation of the height pill, shouldn't women find them less attractive as a result?
So which is it: do women really want the most gigantic men possible because their evolutionary instincts tell them to find a man who can protect them, or is heightmogging male gaze and women are fine with a guy who just a few inches above average because they find a huge height difference more inconvenient than they find tallness desirable?
A similar thing happens with muscle, e.g. women like an aesthetic gymmaxxed physique, but the freakish roidcel look has no appeal to them. Same with other dimorphic traits: a cutecel has no appeal to women in their 20s due to not being dimorphic enough, but neither does an ogre due to being too dimorphic. So it seems evolution drives people towards looking for optimals, not maximals. Similarly, a lot of studies indicate that there is a clear optimum, and a point where height actually decreases SMV noticeably. E.g., "The Height of Choosiness", from the US in 2013:
This would seem to indicate that past a certain height the female preference for tallness is overriden by whatever negatives they perceive with super tall heights (there might be other factors too, as these studies don't control for face or other factors which influence a man's desirability). However, there are arguments against the results of such studies being indicative of current reality: they are old, made when the modern OLD/social media era had just begun, they don't control for female virtue signalling, women are more hypergamous now, etc. On the other hand, if you look up photos of chad desirable celebs getting heightmogged by other celebs, women and normies don't really seem to notice. For example, 6'0.5 Henry Cavill vs 6'4.5 Armie Hammer:
6'0 Channing Tatum vs 6'5 Joe Manganiello
these celebs getting heightmogged does not seem to decrease their SMV in the eyes of women, or even whether they see them as tall, because they meet a threshold compared to the general male population. Yet using the strict evolutionary interpretation of the height pill, shouldn't women find them less attractive as a result?
So which is it: do women really want the most gigantic men possible because their evolutionary instincts tell them to find a man who can protect them, or is heightmogging male gaze and women are fine with a guy who just a few inches above average because they find a huge height difference more inconvenient than they find tallness desirable?
Last edited:
