Proving HEIGHT>>>FACE once and for all.

[mightbecooked123]

I see what you're saying, and I agree with a few points, but I think the argument needs some nuance.

First, about height being a multiplier: sure, it increases the pool of women who might consider you, but the dominance and physical presence height brings isn’t just additive; it’s foundational.

Here's a study by St Andrews that shows height is directly tied to perceptions of masculinity and dominance, which women are biologically wired to find attractive. It’s less about tall guys being "too intimidating"; it’s about height creating an initial "baseline appeal" that face alone can’t replicate.

Okay, so now the 2006 study, a 33% difference in matches between 5’9 and 6’6 is actually massive when you think about it, these are both tall-ish guys compared to the real struggles of men under 5’7. 5'9 would merely be about average, not truly short.
That gap isn’t just a "halo effect" being overstated; it’s height acting as a dealbreaker for many women on apps. Here's an article on height bias in dating that supports this, a lot of short men often don’t even get a chance to compete.

But I get your point about tall and ugly guys being intimidating, but that’s an edge case. The majority of tall men still benefit from height, even if their face isn’t great. Height amplifies other traits, but it can also stand on its own in a way that face can’t.

Now, about Johnny Depp: his looks definitely helped, but you’re overlooking the fact that his fame and status fundamentally skew the argument. Regular guys don’t have access to those "multipliers." His success isn’t about his height or even just his face; it’s about access and fame, which are outliers in normal dating dynamics.

TLDR: height isn’t just a multiplier, it’s often the foundation. A short guy with a great face will still struggle compared to a tall, average-looking guy because height signals dominance and protection in a way that face can’t.

I think I agree with you on the point that it is foundational. But the problem tbh is that girls also desire prettyboys and one could argue that too is foundational and that height cant create that appeal. I would say its 50/50. 50% of girls prefer a relationship with a tall average guy and 50% prefer a relationship with a prettyboy but dont mind so much about height.

6'6 vs 5'8

I would personally say height matters more to older roasties who tend to care more about dimorphism and masculinity like you said. Because I think they dont like seeing a man that looks more youthful and attractive than them as it reminds them of something that they no longer possess. I dont neccesarily think dimorphism and masculinity is that much of a positive trait for younger foids. An average amount of dimorphism is ideal and there are attractive guys at all ends of the dimorphism spectrum for face. OFC for height its a massive boost and multiplier.

Now for the 33%. Look what we are doing is essentially comparing a completely average height to a chad height. Now the 33% may LOOK massive but if you think about it. Would an MTN face only recieve 33% less dates than a chad face? I do not think so personally. Because this would settle the main argument that height is more important than face completely.

Imagine if these two men were both 5'9. Do you think the one on the left would only receive 33% more dates? If no then this illustrates that face is a bigger boost than height.

Yeah ofc height does a create a stand alone halo but tbh a turbo manlet chad would also have a halo in the same way. And he could quite easily boost his height with lifts to get to only below average height. And he would still have more appeal tbh as again the demographic for short petite foids which can be found in southern europe easily that want a handsome guy is much higher than for the ones that demand a tall ugly ogre.

But I get what your saying. I do agree to a large extent that outside of dating height is a massive boost. It creates dominance that is required in the workplace to tell other guys to back off basically like the st andrews study stated. So I agree that it is better to be tall if your talking about male competition for fields such as a career.

Also height is VERY softmaxxable tbh. 2 inch lifts can be very easily used and I have even seen 7 inch boots that you could probably get away with if you used some long baggy trousers HGF. Its more difficult to softmaxx face because unless your using makeup you need to stick to a routine for a long time which requires more effort.

The point about john depp that im trying is that he come from nothing right. His parents worked completely normal middle class jobs. What im saying is, that reason why he got to that level is because he appeared in smaller movies first. Girls thirsted for him and that is why he got future roles. And im saying that this is completely unachievable if your a tall average like will poulter. Yes ofc provided halos afterwards but im saying he only got to the place to get halos in the first place is because of his face.

And its not really fair to say "A short guy with a great face will still struggle compared to a tall, average-looking guy because height signals dominance and protection in a way that face can’t." Obviously thats not a fair comparison HGFF. Tall average vs average height chad would be a more fair comparison because your taking one thing from a rare point of the normal distribution spectrum and one thing that is average is. And I would have to say the chad would 100% slay way more than the tall average guy theres not even any way that someone like damian kater would slay less than someone like will poulter.