Online daters are less open-minded than their filters suggest
economist.com
economist.com
For example, in real estate try sorting by decreasing lot size, everything at the top of the search will be microscopic lots where they multiplied the acreage by 1000x or more.
On the dating apps I tried at one point, adding filters for a question filters out everyone that did not answer the question, which is not the desired result for many things, so I just removed the filter altogether and filter manually. So in that case its more of a function of shitty design of real estate and dating apps that caused it for me.
Meh…
I almost always set a really wide band on age on dating apps. The catch is that the folks at the extremes have to be exceptional in one or more ways in order to get a positive reaction from me.
Typically it’s:
- Really young people (I’m in the middle aged dating pool) have to show some maturity — I don’t want to date a kid, and I don’t want to date someone with a daddy complex.
- Older ladies need to show some youthfulness. Some people have clearly given up in middle age in terms of taking care of themselves and doing interesting things. I’m not interested in these folks — they seem like they have one foot in the grave to me.
For reference, my dating range has been -15 to +7, so I don’t think I’m being overly narrow in my band. That said, most of my dates are in the -5 to -10 range.
I think this is the crux of the issue - we don't have absolute, binary requirements, we have weighted preferences. "He's a bit older, but then again he looks youthful. OTOH he doesn't have any hobbies. But then again we're aligned politically. Okay, I'll chance it."
A better way would be to allow you to set these weights and have a scoring system, and then you can set a numerical threshold.
That would be great, but it won't work. Too many people will answer questions incorrectly or not at all, and almost no one will be able to even use the app effectively even if the app designers implemented it. And I have no confidence the app developers would even be able to implement it properly.
At this point the best I can do for ‘my type’ is weirdos who like me.
Great observation.
I’m basically a “look at profile, send a dm if interesting, schedule a meeting if they reply” type of guy.
The first few minutes of a “coffee date” tells me more about the person than any amount of detailed profile or DMing can.
You may think 4 years is plenty wide for most people, but as a 26 year old male I really only am interested in eg 24-26 or even 25-26. There is also an “Elo”/mmr aspect where even if you are ok with dating someone 27-28, the reality of dating is that those women users will reject you at much higher rates than in 25-26, so including them in your range will lower the frequency with which you’re presented even to women that you do want to date due to lowering your “MMR”.
Agreed with other commenters that there are weighted preferences. While I may be ok seeing 22 or 23 year olds and in principle open to dating people in that range, in practice the rate of people I want to date in that range is much lower (but not 0). Same with people older than me.
I’d say including people beyond your actually revealed preferences actually indicates that you are open minded, assuming there are at least some people in that cohort that you are actually interested in, because it shows that you are willing to go through a much higher reject rate to find people who you are interested in.
It's been a long time since I've used dating apps, but when I used them, you could set any arbitrary upper and lower age boundaries. Has this changed?
* race / ethnicity / religion
* weight / body type / body measurements
* height
* income / salary / net worth / debt
The problem with spreadsheet-style filtering of humans is that in the real world that's not how you fall in love with someone. Someone can be too short, too chubby, of the "wrong" religion or political affiliation, but you still fall in love with them because of their energy, their warmth, their selflessness, their consistency, their presence and so on.
In theory more knobs = more better, but in practice I suspect it backfires by going against the grain of an authentic human mating experience. I can't imagine anything good coming out of the self-commodification and self-objectification that apps push us towards, even as someone who has more than extensive experience playing that game.
Right, and then you get married to them, and then after years of constant fighting, you get divorced because you just weren't compatible in the first place, and those fundamental problems never went away despite all the feel-good emotions you had.
I'd love to see statistics showing how longitudinal life satisfaction compares between societies where marriages are arranged and where there is total freedom of marriage partner choice.
I know that some of these apps allow for minimum height requirements. People don't like it went you suggest apps add width requirements in response.
Even if it's not explicitly a metric on the app, many people will say they have a min. height req. in their profile.
> income / salary / net worth / debt
I also seem to remember okcupid having some kind of education requirement, or heavily emphasized education.
I suppose it’s a reflection of which side of the marketplace is much harder to retain.
The dates I've bought from Costco are usually people who are looking on their phones the whole time we're out. Why bother?
Also, not all dating apps require you to list your height, so you can omit it from your bio at the risk of a disappointed look upon first meet, but that's up to you to make up for with confidence.
As a man, would you filter out taller women if you are casually dating? I think the preferences also depends on what you are looking for.
Of course woe to the man who expresses equivalent arbitrary requirements on fixed physical attributes in their selection criteria.
Most people would rather just hear 'I'm not attracted to you because of an immutable physical characteristic' than some wishy-washy and nebulous dig on their personality.
Of course, I guess you could argue that people like this really shouldn't be in relationships to begin with, so it's better if they maintain their preferences and standards and refuse to budge, effectively self-opting out of the dating pool.
The only way someone else’s standards become a problem for you is when you feel entitled to that person’s attraction (“I’m a 7 and she’s a 6, therefore she should give me a chance. But she only talks to 9s, the nerve!”). But you’re not actually entitled to anyone’s attraction, so that’s on you, not on them.
Did you read my 2nd paragraph?
>The only way someone else’s standards become a problem for you
For me personally, that's right. For society as a whole, suppose that everyone suddenly decided they would only date model-beautiful people. Pretty soon, everyone is terminally single, no one forms families or has children, and society dies out within a couple of generations (unless a different way of raising children is found, such as keeping them all in government-run institutions, but this still entails a radical change to society).
I don't deny some people aren't attracted to people their size or shorter AND short men tend to have insecurities that manifest themselves sometimes negatively AND it's become a fad/meme for women to go for tall guys.
The kind of hate that's been going around recently about short men isn't all that different from the bald man hate in the 80s and 90s IMO.
There's a reason that men are, on average, significantly taller than women (5'9" va 5'4" according to google). The preference dates back forever.
There's also a factor that people don't like to talk about: overweight women like tall men because it makes them feel "petite".
Similar here, I tend to filter by age on these apps not because that's what I'm strictly into but because in my limited experience older ladies tend to be more thirsty/desperate and that makes it difficult for me... I know I can meet a person above set age limit who will tick required boxes but chance of memorably awkward date seems too high.
Older ladies are frequently downright desperate, but yes, generally only interested in something long-term.
It's your responsibility to not let your negative experiences poison your soul. I have never personally filtered out short men but I've also seen enough of them with this nasty incel-lite attitude about why no one wants to date them that I understand why someone would.
You stated a hard preference on why you don't like short men here:
> The real reason to filter out short men is they tend to have exactly this sort of complex about it.
It's 100% fine to have your preference, and even more reasonable to not want to be around people who have aggressive attitudes. But don't be surprised when that group looks terrible when your viewpoint is nothing but that negativity you associated with them.
The reason I started doing this is because there are too many tagging errors, and setting filters wide reduces the accidental omission of relevant items.
Also, as you mentioned, setting the loosest possible filter allows for serendipitous discoveries.
But most folks have an 'exclusion list' instead - I don't want side-scrollers for instance.
So game publishers have learned to tag the absolute minimum. Because every further tag reduces the eyeballs your game gets under.
Also, when I exhausted my search results in a metro region of 5million+ in a few weeks, I didn’t trust that the filters were working the way I wanted.
Agree that some profiles filled out the absolute minimum, but I quickly noticed that they weren’t active (or matching with me) and wouldn’t have made good dates anyway.
You have touched on one the biggest issues with online dating, woman getting overwhelmed with matches resulting in having to be picky about things that perhaps they would be less concerned with if they met in real life.
I've read stories about how some woman have unenthusiastically swiped right on a guy based on their profile, but after meeting they ended up hitting off.
The next successful iteration of a dating app is either none at all or one that figures out how to detoxify the online dating process.
(example: if you meet someone at a college, you ALREADY have tons in common simply from the fact that you're at the same college, and colleges also incidentally filter for a bunch of other things, too)
Also: in real life, you don't have to ask someone's height/weight because well... you are already seeing them and finding them attractive or not
On a college campus: If a dude wants a woman with FFFs, and the population is mostly Bs, he's going to have to come to reality, otherwise he's going to be lonely. That doesn't happen on online dating when you're inundated with a large population.
Meeting outside of designated online dating systems encourages you to encounter the other as a person first, instead of a database entry.
When you meet people IRL you have some context for them and want they like to do. For example, I met my wife as she was the roommate of a new male friend I'd made. Because of our shared friend, I was pretty confident when she said she liked biking or hiking, that it was at the same level I did, because that's something that friend group was in to.
One hand you have the: Standards and practices of the site you have their standards of your preferences. I.e. Don't like trans people and have bad/ignorant opinions or stances about them? You could get easily removed and restricted from the site. (That is not my stance.. but it causes people to hide what their preferences are and it causes you bad experiences with people who you don't click with) In Chicago and a trumper? You're going to have a bad time stating your preference/likewise for the opposite in the biblebelt.
Another: You have encourage groups of people who put little effort or intent in maintaining a profile
Another: You have to know what your audience who you don't know yet wants and how they want to be approached.
Another: Scammers not taken care of quickly.
Online dating is a garbage place.
What if you're dating to have (biological) kids?
That's not even what the parent comment was talking about.
I have a feeling someone is going to reply with a hostile response, but my root stance at an OLD is to support people being who they are and help people get together consensually to get it on.
As for the lack of existence of societal support for 'disadvantaged' individuals, have you seen the practically modern slave labour in prisons ?
Have you seen the homelessness and opioid epidemics that nothing is being done for ?
I would much rather help these folks before helping social media addicted upper middle class kids. They have enough help already.
Don't use American services then? Unless I'm missing something, you don't have to use any online dating platform at all, more so not one that is based in the United States.
I would say that most Americans want nothing to do with that in their bedrooms, but when we have to deal with that from our platforms we have to.
Can you point to anything substantial that supports this idea? The majority of Americans support same-sex marriage [1], and almost three-quarters of Americans (71%) said that being gay is morally acceptable [2].
Most Americans are liberal, which is why platforms move to ban hate mongers and extremists. Instagram doesn't care in the slightest about protecting LGBTQ folks. They just understand that most people don't want to participate in a hateful cesspit.
There is a reason that Truth Social and whatever right-wing trash app comes next will never gain any sort of mainstream traction, most people support deplatforming hate mongers.
[1]https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/11/15/about-six-i... [2]https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx
The site might not even capture a variable that's important. E.G. it isn't mandatory to answer if someone enjoys kelp basket weaving; which might be someone's favorite hobby. However that's extremely niche and people in the data set would probably outright skip over that question entirely as well as related questions that might composite towards a value in that field. Or maybe it's like gardening but there's so much ambiguity about the scale and seriousness that asking a question doesn't provide good results outside of an interactive conversation.
That's a major positive compared to someone that "is a pam looking for her sam" or whatever that guys name is.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110113034228/http://blog.okcup...
The original nerds who started the site did a bunch of data analysis. Summary: men wildly outnumber women, women feel overwhelmed, men inevitably become desperate, and stated preferences don't reflect actual evidence at all. For example, I recall them saying that women would say they would never date a guy who posted a shirtless photo, but every shirtless-photo-posting guy who looked even slightly decent got way more matches. Also, the data on racial preference was pretty sad.
Average woman in the US is 5'4", and if a guy pads their 5'9" to 6'0", she might not notice unless she is specifically paying attention. However, to the 5'10" woman, there’s a big perceptual difference between talking to someone who’s 2" taller than you and someone who is 1" shorter than you, and it’s not something you even pretend to not notice. (I was a bit shocked to learn that some 5'9" men had the audacity to put 6'0" on dating profiles. Like, 5'9" is average. It’s not even short, to begin with.)
I'm more interested in finding someone I'm compatible with than getting the most possible matches.
I agree it's stupid, but I suppose the name of the game from the male perspective is to (at least appear to) be above average.
Honesty is the best policy, but I can't help but be curious about what online dating would be like if everyone was in fact honest? Most people are average, by definition, yet selective pressure in dating is for everyone to seek out those that are better than average, even though they themselves may not meet that lofty goal.
I can be sympathetic to the reasoning where men feel like that’s the name of the game, but (as the saying goes) it’s a stupid game, and if you play it, you win stupid prizes.
Someone who lies about their height to puff themselves up, to a typical observer, will appear to be insecure. Like, that’s the kind of insecurity you’d see exaggerated in a sitcom to make people laugh! My observation is that people who build build good relationships don’t ask for this kind of external validation, they don’t try to appear impressive to complete strangers, instead, they meet somebody and leave the platform. If your goal on Tindr is to “win Tindr” (which seems to be some people’s goal), your behavior is going to keep landing you back on the platform, where you “win”, instead of landing you in a relationship.
But, wow, the audacity to claim a 3"+ difference? That's ballsy.
My sister is a tall (6’) woman. It’s really difficult. Shorter men find her intimidating, assholes consider her fat, and insecure 6-6’4” guys get weird about heels and other things.
Men and women are picky about different things. I’m a guy and am really tall, and didn’t really care about height of a partner. Other attributes mattered more or less to me. These things are some combo of hardwired instincts, social pressures/norms, and personal preferences.
I’m glad that I missed modern online dating though.
Hear, hear. I feel like I was lucky enough to go through the best of online dating, when it was a little quirky and more honest all around, than whatever it is now.
Going back to hiking as an example, you can weed out unfit people without having to actively filter them out, as they'll see your profile and your like of "hiking" and self select out. People do this with a lot of things on their profile, they don't seriously care about whatever that thing is just what it represents.
Really soured me on that category.
There's a reason that outdoor boots are divided into "hiking boots" and "backpacking boots". The two are significantly different.
- God/faith in the first line of profile - credit score - homeowner status - have a job/career - vaccine status - political party (and demands for the partner’s party affiliation) - FlatEartherism and other outlier conspiracy theories - the “three sixes club” - Dan Savage’s “GGG”
I need to figure out if this dataset is available somewhere for analysis because an equivalence of 11 inches of height is somewhat shocking to me. It's a much bigger effect size than I expected, but maybe that just means I have to update my worldview. It may also have to do with the demographics of the daters interested in women using the League app.
Also, if I'm reading the first graph correctly, the penalty at the filtering stage for being a women 5'6"-5'7" or taller is worse than being a man between 5'2" - 5'3". Just not what I expected.
___
You have to look at it on the Economist and not the archive.vn mirror. Y axis is Height (or whatever you've set in the "Show by drop down" and X axis is the title of the graph, "Share of possible matches removed via filters, %". Hover over a point and the graph becomes much easier to understand.
E.g. one point shows
> Hispanic men, 25-29 years old, 6'0"-6'1". Filtered out by 9% of possible matches
Each of the circles represents a group that is defined by a permutation of Race/Gender/Age/Height. I think size of circle represents size of that population in the dataset. In the case of my example, the circle for "Hispanic men, 25-20 years old, 6ft-6ft1in" was small, so there probably aren't many men fitting that specific combination in the data set. You also see intuitively that the circles for men 5'5" or shorter are small and the circles for women 6'0" or taller are smaller, corresponding to our intuitions that men that short or women that tall are less common in the overall population.
Change the "Show by" filter and make sure the second option changes to the corresponding Age/Height/Race filter
Observations ============
1. First option Age: If you are 29 or younger, you are more likely to be filtered out if you are a man than a woman. If you are 30 or older, you are more likely to be filtered out if you are a woman than a man. This corresponds to my expectations.
2. First option Height: Similar, with the cutoff being 5'5" or 5'6". This roughly makes sense I guess, but I would have thought that women 5'8"-5'9" would be less prone to being filtered out on the first pass.
3. First option Race: For every race but one, you are more likely to be filtered out as a woman than as a man. This was surprising to me. Unsurprising is that the one category this flips is Asian - Asian women are less likely to be filtered out, Asian men are more likely to be filtered out. "Everyone" is open to dating White, Other, Hispanic, None Given, with relative penalties for being Black, Indian, Asian.
[edited for clarity and to better reflect the graphs I was looking at]
Make sure to apply "All Filters".
Observations ============
1. filter out rates rise significantly compared to just looking at a single Age Filter/Race Filter/Height filter. This makes sense and the change between "[specific] filter" and "all filters" is most apparent for height and race. My intuition is that people are more likely to set up age filters than other types of filters.
2. Show by Race: Men are filtered out less frequently than women for every race. There are way more white users of the app than any other ethnic group.
3. Show by Height: Men don't get filtered out more than women until they are 5'1" and under. Apparently, as a 5'3" man you are less likely to be filtered out than a 5'3" woman. This is very surprising to me.
4. Show by Age: Men from 35-49 are the least likely overall to be filtered out. For every age group, you are more likely to be filtered out as a woman than as a man. This is again surprising to me, especially in the younger brackets.
[edit:formatting/linebreaks]
> Hispanic men, 25-29 years old, 6'0"-6'1". Filtered out by 9% of possible matches
This was a misquote. Actually instead of saying "Filtered out by 9%", the article says "Filtered out 9%". So Hispanic men in this age and height bracket created height filters that reduced the size of the overall candidates available to them by 9% of the population. It is NOT that they are rejected by 9% of the population.
Correcting the above 2 posts based on this new understanding:
============================================================
"[Specific Filter]" Observations ============
1. First option Age: Among those aged 30 or older, age filters are more restrictive among women than men. Men aged 35-49 have the most permissive age filters, with my guess being because they are more willing to see matches from younger women. Among those aged 20-24, men set up age filters that reduce the candidate pool more than the age filters set up by women in the same age bracket.
2. First option Height: Among those 5'6" or higher, women set up much more restrictive height filters than do men. This is not surprising and corresponds to the observation that women often want a man who is not a lot shorter than they are. Among those 5'5" and shorter, men set up more restrictive height filters than do women. This makes sense under a general understanding that short men may feel emasculated by dating a much taller woman, or alternatively that they would be comfortable in such a relationship but are trying to improve the success rate of their matches since their experience is they will be rejected by much taller women.
3. First option Race: For every race but one, women set up more restrictive racial dating filters than do men. I was somewhat surprised about this, and that black women apparently set up comparatively restrictive racial filters when compared to any other racial/gender demographic. Note that this restrictiveness reduces when you look at "All filters", suggesting that black women are therefore comparatively less restrictive in their filters with respect to age/height. The one place where this flips is Asians, which has a completely different implication than what I had thought under the old misunderstanding of the data. This means that Asian men set up more restrictive race filters than do Asian women. Perhaps this is a strategy to attempt to increase their successes with people who do get shown their profile? I.e. a similar approach to that taken by men 5'5" and shorter?
============================================================
"All Filters" Observations ============
1. filter out rates rise significantly compared to just looking at a single Age Filter/Race Filter/Height filter. As before, this makes sense but the implications are different following my updated understanding of the graphs. If you add the effect of more filters, of course you reject more of the potential population. What changes is the implication of the observation that the change between "[specific] filter" and "all filters" is most apparent for height and race. This means that actually people do not set up very restrictive age filters, but do set up more restrictive height/race filters. The "restrictiveness" of the age filters may have more to do with the age demographics of the population using League.
2. Show by Race: Race does not have a very strong effect on the distribution of filter restrictiveness, but there are some exceptions. For example, among men, Indian men appear to set up the most restrictive filters and Hispanic men appear to set up the least restrictive filters.
3. Show by Height: This basically shows the same relationship as for the "Height Filter" graph. Comparing the "Height Filter" and the "All Filters" version, two interesting results stand out. Men from 5'2"-5'5" have overall filters set up that produce similar levels of restriction as taller men. This suggests that men in this height range are attempting to broaden their dating parameters in race/age to "make up" for their height disadvantage. Men 5'1" and under may be doing the same thing, but still cut out a much larger portion of the population than their taller peers. Women 6'2" move very little on this graph when you switch "Height Filter" and "All Filter". This means that most of their "filtering power" can be accounted for by their height filter and they may have relatively broader race/age filters.
4. Show by Age: Men from 35-49 have the least restrictive filters overall. This isn't that surprising. Among women, those aged from 25-34 have the least restrictive filters. Also not very surprising.
I suppose not using the filter gives a chance for someone very special to slip through. Even if that never happens in practice.
I'm shocked that for women being black reduces match potential similar to nearly a foot of height in men! Wowza.
Height is such an intense, open, discriminator for men (as judged by women). How tall are you can easily be in the first 3 questions a woman asks.
https://www.propublica.org/article/addressing-rape-in-four-m...
You can report anything to the police. The fact that it didn't lead to charges is suspicious. How do you as a company take a random person's words who makes a severe accusation against another indiviudal that isn't backed up with another authority?
Stated preferences are what someone wants you to think-they-think. They are incredibly misleading. As someone who tends to be both an acquired taste and a revealed preference, dating sites and apps are a waste of time and probably deeply psychologically harmful. Slot machines that pay out in coins are heavily regulated because they are considered socially harmful, but ones that pay out in dates are somehow empowering. If I didn't know better I'd say they were a conspiracy of pet food manufacturers.
I actually think that the straight dating pool over about the age of 30 is not large at all, and that the advertising style of the apps hampers any instinctual "stopping problem" sorting, where you really just become addicted to the potential like a slot machine. I'd even argue that fake profiles on dating sites that create opportunity costs against finding a real partner sabotoge individuals reproductive opportunities and will be remembered as being on the wrong side of history.
Having said that, a quick google for any comparable data set doesn't seem available. So while the limitations are important to keep in mind, for now, this is the only data set that I'm aware of. My approach is to take it with a grain of salt, but not to completely ignore it.
I've long since sworn them off. Like social media, they present a case for being useful but to the extent they were it is greatly outpaced by the damage they do to people and society.
Y axis is Height (or whatever you've set in the "Show by drop down" and X axis is the title of the graph, "Share of possible matches removed via filters, %". Hover over a point and the graph becomes much easier to understand.
E.g. one point shows
> Hispanic men, 25-29 years old, 6'0"-6'1". Filtered out by 9% of possible matches
Each of the circles represents a group that is defined by a permutation of Race/Gender/Age/Height. I think size of circle represents size of that population in the dataset. In the case of my example, the circle for "Hispanic men, 25-20 years old, 6ft-6ft1in" was small, so there probably aren't many men fitting that specific combination in the data set. You also see intuitively that the circles for men 5'5" or shorter are small and the circles for women 6'0" or taller are smaller, corresponding to our intuitions that men that short or women that tall are less common in the overall population.
In a setting with a small selection, I find I naturally look for qualities - things I like about someone I'm around. If someone has a couple of nice qualities, that's enough to enjoy their company.
In a setting with a large selection, I try to narrow the difficulty of the choice by looking for disqualifiers - things I don't like about people.
I wonder how this relates to happiness.
I would guess people on dating sites are using the same logic. If I can’t trust the filters, just give me everything and I’ll sort from there. When the stakes are as high as finding a life-parter, or even someone you can trust to be intimate with, the cost of a missed opportunity is just too high.
In reality, racial or social/cultural differences involve many attributes which group together. For example, some racial groups may be much more family oriented, rarely gathering or moving about without multiple family members.
One might be open to the idea of dating someone from a very different background (or "race" (skin color)), but that person may also still be selecting for potential partners who they think will live a similar life.
No matter what supposed race, the environment and background one grows up in tends to shape behavior and mentality. And beyond initial outward appearance, these behaviors may be obvious and visible. And when such a behavior is very different from your own, you may choose to pass on that person based on what you believe will be behavioral differences. So you may be open to dating someone of that "race", but you may want someone who is still more similar in lifestyle and thinking.
These are interesting things to think about, but it's all just a distraction from the bigger issue. The bigger issue is that dating sites, or any type of intentional dating search, is probably a wrong approach to finding a partner or mate.
In normal life, especially before the internet, people would go places somewhat regularly - the same grocery store, a particular church, an office, or some recurring social activity. In the normal course of their routine, they would see some of the same people frequently. And perhaps they would have a conversation with some of them; and some subset would be fascinating or attractive. Maybe they would find friends, and maybe some of those friends would become closer and additional feelings would develop.
But with intentional dating, especially with sites like OkCupid (which initially was much better than it is today), you might be tempted to believe you had found the perfect match! The other person was attractive, and they had answered so many questions with almost identical answers to you that they _must_ be the perfect person for you. That sets up an incredibly high expectation.
In reality, there is more that matters... and some of what matters is not visible for some time. Instead of a cautious courting process (aka old school going out, the step before "dating"), two people think they are a good match and want to race toward the goal. Unfortunately, it is possible to both be so fixated on the apparent perfection of the match that much time passes before there is a realization that neither truly knows or understands the other.
Maybe AI can help here :P. I joke, but at this point I think it might be as or more effective than current online dating in terms of finding a good partner for a given goal. And still, it would be worse than the organic process that existed for 99.999% of human existence.
If you set your filter to 5'0", you can say you consider shorter people. And you can say it's for some other reason that you don't date them. As you obviously don't mind, because you don't filter them out explicitly. But it's odd that nobody under 5'6" fits any of your other criteria.
We want to be seen as people who are non-biased, non-discriminatory, and all that. However, when there are real consequences, we tend to reveal ourselves.