Also, why those who care about height so much do not go for basketball players?
Also, the picture with income graph says "household income", not "personal income".
It's a common aesthetic preference, similar to liking large breasts.
> Also, why those who care about height so much do not go for basketball players?
Some of them certainly do. But there aren't very many professional basketball players.
The reason why height is so important, is because it serves as a proxy for strength, potential for dominance, and protective capacity. Women feel safe from the world and other men, when they are with a tall man (assuming they also feel safe from him). The circular effect of this is that tall men are seen as a successful archetype from all the attention and resources they get, which inflates their true sexual value. Probably social media and internet has a big hand in this too.
Isn't there simpler explanation in terms of evolution: taller men look more intimidating and can provide better safety for their offspring?
I think a lot of physical preferences (generally) have some kind of evolutionary roots to it, crude as they are in 2026.
I'm not sure how well researched this area is however, since it can be a bit controversial in the modern age.
This is just my own observation, so it's probably biased. But if this correlation is real, that shows this is not just evolution. Subjectively, it feels like there's a lot of societal influence stacked on top of whatever is there initially.
That is certainly a simpler explanation, but it doesn't mean that it's a correct explanation.
* "Looking intimidating" doesn't necessarily mean that they are better at providing safety
* Providing safety isn't necessarily the sole responsibility of a sexual partner
* Other factors may be more important than height in selecting a sexual partner
* Evolution selects for attributes other than mate suitability
Given the wide variety of preferences across the human species, I find it highly reductive when someone asserts a simplistic reason for such a human behavior, ignoring the many cases when humans do not follow that behavior.
For most hetero relationships, a tall/well built male partner helps to make you feel small/petite/attractive in comparison.
If I was physically larger than my boyfriend, I would probably be much more self-conscious of my weight/size.
Cultures create an archetype of attractiveness and then everyone feels like they come up short. Tale as old as time.
In some contexts a healthy weight is stocky with extra body fat that can carry a person through a cold winter or a famine.
In other contexts a healthy weight is leaner with less body fat to better handle a hot climate or chase down an animal.
Therefore, women will tend to select mates who are taller than themselves.
It’s not a cultural phenomenon, it’s universal.
not just universal for humans, but pretty common in general.
Obesity is strongly associated with several health problems.
You also can't ignore assortive mating. We're not all in the same mating pool, as it were. Women prefer men taller than they are, but that doesn't mean that a woman of 1.25m will pair with a man of 2m. The typical height difference between husband and wife is about 10-15cm, regardless of the absolute height of either spouse.
I will go as far as to say that assortative mating is likely a side-effect of people ending up in the same or similar socioeconomic circles, but that is just me reaching. In reality I would guess that it's a bit of that, and being used to people from a certain "class".
A tall person moving around a social setting naturally attracts more eyes, gets more noticed, attracts more attention. She literally “stands out”.
For both male and females I’d say. Then societal complexes pressure some people into the shorter gal taller guy couple stereotype, but the height itself is just a physical thing that brings more attention.
Maybe. A lot of what we assume are innate sexual preferences are actually determined socially.
No one was talking about "body count" (at least not publicly) ten years ago.
These days, a full-figure on a woman is considered attractive, but in the 1990s, being skinny was in vogue.
Insofar as an attractive partner is a status symbol, the definition of "attractive" changes with fashion.
This is usually based on a selective and wishful interpretation of historical data. The best argument I've found is here - https://www.jsanilac.com/dispelling-beauty-lies/
I'm also alive now. It's not hard to find big butts being idolized.
Your linked article is not very scientific. For example, it cites porn-store purchasing preference as evidence of actual male taste in partner selection.
That's the whole point. Due to the touchiness of the subject matter, these kinds of topics would be quite difficult to discuss frankly in a politicized institution guarded by a peer review process.
My lived experience says they're right. In the 90s one didn't have a "phat ass", one was just a "fatass".
> The best argument I've found is here
Why do you think that is? Our great grandfathers were practically guaranteed to be marrying virgins, while today's young men seem to consider themselves lucky if their girl is still in single figures. Things have changed, people are talking about it.
Lol yeah, and fetishes were invented in the 1950s. Very few people in history made it to marriage as virgins.
They also walked ten miles uphill (both ways) to school every day.
Is that what your great-grandma told you?
Cultural prohibitions on discussing sexual matters didn't actual limit in pursuing sexual matters.
Therefore women will, on average, select mates who are taller than them.
Cultural relativism has fallen out of fashion, universal truths are back in.
People have been talking about virginity and monogamy for 1000s of years. Men want to know that the children they raise are their own.
It might have blipped a bit since the invention of the pill but women cuckolding their partners has been frowned upon world wide for a very long time.
Sex before monogamous marriage has historically been a big thing.
There's even songs, sagas and religious books that make virtue of it.
You realize that the number (>0) of prior sexual partners has nothing to do with the parentage of one's children, right? You can marry a virgin and still be a cuckold; or you can marry a prostitute and sire a large family.
Turns out, yeah, every one of those men's father was who they thought he was. Our Y DNA was the same, minus the mutations you'd expect over 400 years on separate branches.
That humans make a big deal about parentage and infidelity, doesn't mean humans aren't faithful. Apparently we're the most faithful of pair-bonding species by a big margin.
I can not count the number of times i have seen average and above men go out with below average women simply because they where friendly to them and gave them attention.
For multiple decades now any women could just pull up there phone and be overwhelmed with attention and dates on the level as only the top 20% of men.
Your argument is that it's just more attractive. That might be true. That would also mean there's an underlying reason for females finding this attractive. This could be due to taller males being able to protect their offspring from other males, hence more of us are descended from taller males and females that found taller males attractive.
But being taller could also give other advantages like perceived or actual dominance over other males which is, in itself, an attractive quality.
Height coorelates with lots of things. Taller means longer feet. Taller people have larger heads as well. A large head means larger cranial capacity and therefore, likely higher IQ. Mostly, it's just our monkey brain which says taller is more formidible.