makeouthill
Iron
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2021
- Posts
- 7
- Reputation
- 10
Here is why I don't believe in the face > height theory.
I am 167cm (5 foot and 6 inches) man with a good face and body. I won't claim that I'm a model because I'm not but I do mog most of the men that I come across in face and body yet my sex life is pathetic in comparison to my taller counterparts with less attractive faces and less attractive bodies. In fact, I'm still a virgin (21 years old as of now) despite women going out of their way to tell me that my face and body are attractive, go figure.
Whenever women are asked whether they prefer face or height, I am aware that most of them claim that they prefer face over height but this is because they assume that the lesser height in question isn't actually short. This leads to a bias that is in favour of face. When both of the men being compared are already of good height then height will, obviously, not hold a lot of weight. However, when women are questioned about this topic with specifics (i.e. 5'6'' and attractive vs 6'2'' and ugly), they prefer height over face. Women are willing to sacrifice facial attractiveness for height because height is more significant to them than face. As soon as you begin comparing already-accceptable heights to face whilst trying to examine face vs height then your study is already flawed.
I realise, too, that most of those who dismiss the importance of height over face are of average or taller height themselves which is comical. If you experienced what it is like to be height-mogged you'd realise how little a good face matters when height is actually being compared.
TLDR
Comparing height and face whilst using already-acceptable heights in your examples is biased towards face. You should be comparing lacking heights with good faces to acceptable heights with bad faces, this is a non-biased measurement of which matters more and when you do that you'll find that height is more important than face.
I am 167cm (5 foot and 6 inches) man with a good face and body. I won't claim that I'm a model because I'm not but I do mog most of the men that I come across in face and body yet my sex life is pathetic in comparison to my taller counterparts with less attractive faces and less attractive bodies. In fact, I'm still a virgin (21 years old as of now) despite women going out of their way to tell me that my face and body are attractive, go figure.
Whenever women are asked whether they prefer face or height, I am aware that most of them claim that they prefer face over height but this is because they assume that the lesser height in question isn't actually short. This leads to a bias that is in favour of face. When both of the men being compared are already of good height then height will, obviously, not hold a lot of weight. However, when women are questioned about this topic with specifics (i.e. 5'6'' and attractive vs 6'2'' and ugly), they prefer height over face. Women are willing to sacrifice facial attractiveness for height because height is more significant to them than face. As soon as you begin comparing already-accceptable heights to face whilst trying to examine face vs height then your study is already flawed.
I realise, too, that most of those who dismiss the importance of height over face are of average or taller height themselves which is comical. If you experienced what it is like to be height-mogged you'd realise how little a good face matters when height is actually being compared.
TLDR
Comparing height and face whilst using already-acceptable heights in your examples is biased towards face. You should be comparing lacking heights with good faces to acceptable heights with bad faces, this is a non-biased measurement of which matters more and when you do that you'll find that height is more important than face.
