nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Height requirements in dating

mr_fegelien

Why are people so strict on them? I'm a 5ft 5in man and a woman on Tinder told me I was cute but too short. Said most of her friends feel the same way.

She's definitely not alone as this is a sentiment shared by many women. In fact there was a study that showed the height of a partner is more important for women than men.

What are short men supposed to do?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Galwayguy35

Lots of women out there who aren't bothered about height, most people do find the right person in the end.

But the harsh reality is some will never have any success finding anyone for various reasons.

kowloon

TuringBot47 wrote: »

Penis size isn't on display, at least nowadays,

Making a big comeback now that phones have cameras.

[Deleted User]

Earthhorse wrote: »

Here's an article specifically relating to height (from a different author)

It's an article not a study though. So I dunno. I read a study today which said around 50% of women say they want to date "only taller men". Which is about what I would expect from an arbitrary attribute. Half of people care half don't. While I read another study which said that regardless of preferences stated in surveys - preferences are rarely reflected in actual pairings.

"We note, however, that compared to random mating the magnitude of these effects was generally low, suggesting that mating preferences were only partially realised. These results are in line with a recent study that showed that traits considered strongly related to attractiveness, such as height, are not necessarily strongly related to actual pairing"

Which is again kinda what I would expect. You could pick any attribute - like penis size for a random example - and you will get people citing their prefernces in surveys and large %s of people thinking it matters and large %s of people not giving a crap either way - but when looking at actual reality very little of this is seemingly realised there.

Theory and navel gazing is one thing - looking out the window at the actual world and what is happening there is another. And the world I see is the vast majority of people getting paired off - regardless of any one arbitrary attribute someone obsesses over.

Earthhorse wrote: »

But I’m sure there will be posters on this thread who still think it's all in people's heads.

It both is and it isn't. There are of course preferences and there are people who of course have been turned down for not meeting them. But if someone is rejected 2 or 3 times - or even 20 or 30 times - I do not think that grounds any fantastical extrapolations into generalisations about all men or all women - what they want - or their order of priorities as a whole as if they were some autonomous off the construction line clone set with a manual that all operate the same way

It is not that it is in people's heads. It is that people like me look at ourselves and our social circles and extended circles and we are simply not seeing the theory and navel gazing on the subject at all reflected in the reality around us anywhere. We are in fact seeing paired off short people. Paired off tall people. Paired off rich people. Paired off poor people. Paired off thing people. Paired off fat people. And more.

It certainly makes me an anomaly if the size thing is meant to be an issue. 5'4 and I have two fabulous looking girlfriends that many people pretty much literally drool over - one shorter than me and one taller and I have none of the other attributes that other people might assume I must have (I get comments about how I must have an enormous penis or bank account a lot - both of which are decidedly average

) to explain it away either.

I get the theory. I just do not see it bourne out anywhere. I think the reality of human romance and sex and love and relationships is simply too complex to make simplistic statements about single variables.

Thelonious Monk

You know what I call men under 6ft?
Friends.

riclad

I think women like someone who is smart. Funny
has a sense of humour, is well dressed polite, kind. Does personality not matter.
Maybe some women just go for men who are tall and handsome even if they are dull and not very smart.
And there's men who just date women who are attractive in a certain way.
I think middle class men go out with middle class women
Usually. Eg would a female doctor want to go out with a man who works in tesco.
I suppose there's women who would not find a man attractive if he is not tall.
Rich men never seem to have trouble finding a
wife even if the man is short and ugly
I think a short man can attract women by having
a nice personality and being funny and witty
It helps to be well dressed and have a cool job,
eg actor, dj, musician

Earthhorse

Earthhorse wrote: »

Here's an article specifically relating to height (from a different author):
https://medium.com/@SethUlinski/why-the-guys-who-own-the-internet-would-strike-out-on-okcupid-a3d9564b4516

Deleted User wrote: »

It's an article not a study though. So I dunno.

Yes, that’s why I called it an article. The article also refers to a study as I highlighted in my quote.

While I read another study which said that regardless of preferences stated in surveys - preferences are rarely reflected in actual pairings.

From the study:

We conclude that while preferences for partner height generally translate into actual pairing, they do so only modestly.

Not sure I would consider "rare" a fair substitute for "modest".

Which is again kinda what I would expect. You could pick any attribute - like penis size for a random example - and you will get people citing their prefernces in surveys and large %s of people thinking it matters and large %s of people not giving a crap either way - but when looking at actual reality very little of this is seemingly realised there.

Would you? I don’t know. And I also don’t know how anyone would discriminate for penis size in advance whereas you can for height (dick pics not withstanding which may convince a woman to discriminate for a different reason).

It is not that it is in people's heads. It is that people like me look at ourselves and our social circles and extended circles and we are simply not seeing the theory and navel gazing on the subject at all reflected in the reality around us anywhere.

That’s just your experience though and there’s enough counter examples in this thread alone to that. Which is why the studies are important.

I get the theory. I just do not see it bourne out anywhere. I think the reality of human romance and sex and love and relationships is simply too complex to make simplistic statements about single variables.

We can of course make simplistic statements about single variables. That doesn’t make them true. Nor does it mean that that is all there is to the broader subject being discussed.

Figel Narage

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

You know what I call men under 6ft?
Friends.

Haha, I remember some famous Brazilian model said "Any man under 6"5 is just a friend"

Badly Drunk Boy

Mad_maxx wrote: »

the " how is the weather up there " jokes dont bother me at all , i joke about my own height to other people but you do get tired of it being brought up all of the time , given the chance id much prefer be 5 ft 11 , there is no advantage to being very tall no matter what anyone outside the NBA tells you and countless disadvantages . add to that , i never found tall girls anymore attractive in the first place

I don't mind any of the comments either (although it's not as if I found them entertaining), and I joke about it too. I'm happy enough being 6'5" and I wouldn't change it, but I think the ideal height would be about 6'2". You'd still be fairly tall but not a freak.

The main disadvantages are the reduced selection of clothes, especially footwear, and also banging yer head in doorways.

With regards to females, I've nothing against tall women either, as they can be very impressive in stature, but most of my girlfriends have been around 5'4".

Leg End Reject

I prefer a man to be a few inches taller than me. I don't know if that's an innate preference, social conditioning or both.

Austria!

I'm a short guy myself, but I'm not concerned about my height and dating because there's going to be very realistic sex robots in the future.

[Deleted User]

Classic Mr F thread. 7 posts, 14 pages.

Blush_01

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Why are people so strict on them? I'm a 5ft 5in man and a woman on Tinder told me I was cute but too short. Said most of her friends feel the same way.

She's definitely not alone as this is a sentiment shared by many women. In fact there was a study that showed the height of a partner is more important for women than men.

What are short men supposed to do?

Their insecurities are why height is so important to them. When lockdown lifts, get off Tinder.

Online dating is a pox.

kowloon

Leg End Reject wrote: »

I prefer a man to be a few inches taller than me. I don't know if that's an innate preference, social conditioning or both.

If you're small that's not a problem, if you're 6' 8" it might be a little unrealistic.

Also, never mix up the feet and the inches.

[Deleted User]

Earthhorse wrote: »

Yes, that’s why I called it an article. The article also refers to a study as I highlighted in my quote. From the study: Not sure I would consider "rare" a fair substitute for "modest". Would you? I don’t know. And I also don’t know how anyone would discriminate for penis size in advance whereas you can for height (dick pics not withstanding which may convince a woman to discriminate for a different reason).

I love when threads like this send me down a rabbit hole of research I might never in my life otherwise have looked into

I do not see it as unfair. I quoted directly from the study myself too. I can repeat that: "We note, however, that compared to random mating the magnitude of these effects was generally low, suggesting that mating preferences were only partially realised. These results are in line with a recent study that showed that traits considered strongly related to attractiveness, such as height, are not necessarily strongly related to actual pairing"

This was confirmed while talking about another study when one researcher noted: “These findings confirm that height is relevant on the mating market. However, the relatively limited variation in sex partner number for men across much of the height continuum is difficult to explain.". The study itself is another that in it's conclusion notes that the theory once again does not map onto the reality very well.

Again - they are saying that their own study and another both find that the theory on preferences is not reflected strongly in the realities. And that is pretty much what I would expect from my own experience of life directly and vicariously. Any random attribute I can think of where people tend to express preferences rarely seems to translate to actual pairings I see. And this is reflected in the studies.

Actually a third study on the matter found a strong correlation in pairings between a chosen partners height and ones own height. "The genetic correlation between height and the preference for a partner with similar height is 0.89, which indicates that genes affecting individual preferences for height and one’s own height are largely shared."

A few of the studies I read yesterday also showed the preferences - and their relative importance to each other - shift over time too. But it is strangely difficult. Of all the subjects I have ever sat down and researched for boards.ie like this - for some reason _this_ subject appears to have a uniquely high number of studies behind paywalls. Perhaps studies on human mate selection sell well and are profitable? No idea.

Earthhorse wrote: »

That’s just your experience though and there’s enough counter examples in this thread alone to that. Which is why the studies are important.

My point exactly - and that is why I cited two of them directly - and now even more above - rather than an article about them - and one of them directly refers to another. And they all find - like I do based on personal experience and anecdote - that the theory and the reality are not all that strongly aligned.

Earthhorse wrote: »

We can of course make simplistic statements about single variables. That doesn’t make them true.

Again - my point exactly. Which is why I do not make simplistic statements about single variables and expect them to be true like some people on the thread. Quite the opposite. I think the whole area of human relationships to be vastly complex and beyond any single variable.

But I _can_ understand why _some_ people might latch onto single variables - especially variables beyond their control - to explain away not getting what they want out of life. There are some personality types that appear to want to think they are doomed before they even try. I used to be one of them myself. And from reading many of his posts - my suspicion is the OP is very much one too.

Look - I do not think anyone is saying no one actually cares about any variable. Including height. Clearly the study I cited shows half of women do. But half don't too. So it is not the doom and gloom that incels feeling angry and disenfranchised want to imagine it is. Especially as the second study - and my follow on links - on actual pairings show that things like a preference for height is just that. A _preference_ not a rule.

But I speak mostly of the "real" world here too - which is an important caveat. I am relatively ignorant about the workings of online dating. Where - due to the existence of actual set filters - preferences are likely to translate more into actuality because they will filter out the people who do not meet them and reduce the chances the "full package" will be considered. So if angry and disillusioned incels are going to go there - I admit they are much more likely to have their paranoia about single variables strongly realised.

Thankfully I at 5'4 never had to use online dating. And never would. I would prefer to stay single forever than even try to be honest. But when I got off my ass - started bettering myself a little in a few ways - and then got out in the real world - well that is why I am where I am now.

Homelander

I mean, it's just another preference. Some women won't like men with beards, who are bald, wear glasses, are out of shape, or whatever. If you're on the shorter side, it's no barrier to meeting someone at all.

When it gets to the point someone is blaming their height for their lack of success, it's not their height.

Mister Vain

I'm 5'7 but my height is the least of my problems. I think women are more turned off by my duck feet and bogger accent.

Bobblehats

I don’t know there’s some big strapping lads going around but with heads like dwarves. Or with what appear dementia inducingly small heads, particularly when they’ve hands like shovels and I always feel in such instances less would be more.

Having said that there’s some smaller lads that look like they probably should be taller but all this coming from somebody who prioritises face (and race) over any particular body shape or dimensions. There may even be a personality in there too but the anomnity of a simple satisfactory silhouette doesn’t cut it for me that’s just shallow man

-sorry; woman. Just to clarify that’d be my other preference but I mean we’ve all got one of those. When we don’t upload a profile pic ..

Mister Vain

Bobblehats wrote: »

I don’t know there’s some big strapping lads going around but with heads like dwarves. Or with what appear dementia inducingly small heads, particularly when they’ve hands like shovels and I always feel in such instances less would be more.

Having said that there’s some smaller lads that look like they probably should be taller but all this coming from somebody who prioritises face (and race) over any particular body shape or dimensions. There may even be a personality in there too but the anomnity of a simple satisfactory silhouette doesn’t cut it for me that’s just shallow man

-sorry; woman. Just to clarify that’d be my other preference but I mean we’ve all got one of those. When we don’t upload a profile pic ..

Or the lads with skinny legs and shoulders wider than a pub television.

saabsaab

Mister Vain wrote: »

Or the lads with skinny legs and shoulders wider than a pub television.

Called a 'prison body' due to gym work but no walking, running swimming etc to develop the lower half.

Minime2.5

saabsaab wrote: »

Called a 'prison body' due to gym work but no walking, running swimming etc to develop the lower half.

NewsFlash . Legs get developed in gym the same way the upper body does

Dial Hard

Minime2.5 wrote: »

NewsFlash . Legs get developed in gym the same way the upper body does

Not if you don't work on them, they don't. Plenty of serial leg-day skippers around.

Mister Vain

Yeah I believe they use "prison squats."

Minime2.5

Dial Hard wrote: »

Not if you don't work on them, they don't. Plenty of serial leg-day skippers around.

True . But that's not why I corrected him . He didn't say that

Figel Narage

Ah lads who cares about legs really. I was blessed with large tree trunk legs but a weedy upper body that I struggle to balance out, I wish it was the other way around haha

Mister Vain

When I pee it comes out in 2 different directions.

[Deleted User]

Mister Vain wrote: »

When I pee it comes out in 2 different directions.

Have you considered an anal plug?:P

saabsaab

Minime2.5 wrote: »

NewsFlash . Legs get developed in gym the same way the upper body does

I didn't invent the term but that is what it is. Must be most don't do much leg work in prisons.

Homelander

saabsaab wrote: »

I didn't invent the term but that is what it is. Must be most don't do much leg work in prisons.

I think he was pointing out the fact that the reason they're like that is because they don't work their lower body in the gym.

Nothing to do with walking, running or swimming as you said.

Minime2.5

Oaps

Potential-Monke

purifol0 wrote: »

gallows humour.

That's the problem. A lot of people don't get gallows humour, as they've never had to lean on it for support.

SusieBlue wrote: »

I wonder if the people complaining about women having too much choice in the dating world would themselves go for a 3/10 if they could have their pick of the 10/10’s. I highly doubt they would.

Obviously no, but therein lies the problem. Men under a certain height are most likely going to be in the lower half of that table, so won't get a look in anyway.

In my experience, 5'6" (i'm tempted to say 7, but it depends on the shoes) and it definitely affects your chances imo. It has been said to me numerous times. I somehow can manage to get women to tell me things they wouldn't normally say (I like to call it, bringing out their true selves) and the vast majority will agree that they will automatically look at the taller ones first, online or in real life.

A quick Google shows that about 49% of women won't date someone smaller than them. Average height of women in Ireland is 5'5". Put on heels and that goes up a couple of inches, so you'd need to be 5'7" at a minimum. Throw on that a lot of women believe that men lie about their height on dating sites, so even if you're telling the truth about being 5'6", some assume that's taller than what you actually are.

As someone else said above, it's grand to say "Well you can't change it, so stop worrying about it and move on", but when it's another factor that makes you feel down, it can add up. I don't know what I'm doing wrong, but I've never been successful on dating apps, regardless of telling the truth, lieing, or otherwise. I guess I just don't have a nice face, but I still managed 2 x 7-year relationships with women "out of my league" as my friends used to tell me. They were beautiful (to me at least). Then when I see what they ended up with after me, I get a small confidence boost, until I realise I'm still single and no matter what I do I can't change that.

I also don't want kids, and that's another major turn off. And of those 2 women, the first was when we were 15-22 and the second was when I was 23 and she had literally no interest in me, but as I started kissing her on my perception of the first date (which actually turned out to be me crashing an invite only party (thought I was invited)) she didn't want to lose face in front of her friends so pretended she wanted to. It wasn't until 3 years later she told me this. When asked why she kept answering my texts and calls, she said she was horny and I was, ahem, filling that void at the time, and she slowly began to like me.

So I've hermitised, and not all that bothered anymore, I've accepted the single life, which has many benefits by the way. I'm now testing the "If it's meant for you, it won't pass you by" approach, but I can't see how being a hermit at 37 and into gaming and anime make me any way attractive, but I'm not changing again for anyone, this is me and if it means I'll be single for the rest of my days, so be it. I've more put offs than ons.

Yet another unintended long post where I add absolutely nothing to the conversation, and certainly no help to the OP. But that's my experience of it.