Quote from: IwannaBeTaller on May 10, 2018, 10:37:21 AMIMO, there is no such thing as a guy who is hot to all women on the planet. Disagree with me, but women's attraction works a little different than men's. Even with male models or tall, well-built famous actors, there will be a proportion of women who won't feel it with the guy, and a large number of women will admit "he just doesn't do it for me". (side note, I have experienced the same thing with myself - there are "hot" women who do nothing for me, like Megan Fox) One the other hand, a lot of men, even really short dudes, can be attractive to a lot of women if they tick the right boxes. Probably not the majority of women, but a lot of them.
True.
In Japan and SE Asia, a lot of guys under 170cm are considered attractive because of their other physical aspects.
QuoteTo take some actors as an example, Dustin Hoffman is like 5'6'' and my dad's girlfriend once called him cute or hot or something like that. He's from a past generation, but the point still stands I would say.
Tom Cruise is about 5'7'' and he receives a lot of mocking for his height (probably because he's said to wear lifts and is thus deemed as insecure).
Downey Jr. is 5'8'' and I've never heard him being mocked for his height, even though he also wears lifts. That is, mocked by women. I've also heard women describe him as attractive.
Tom Hardy is 5'9'' and plays a lot of traditionally masculine roles. I've never seen or heard women mocking him for his height, only men.
Daniel Craig is 5'10'' and also plays masculine, "hunk" roles. Same with Hardy, I've never witnessed his height being mentioned by women. Only some men attacked him for his height.
In short, ignore trolls on the internet. How can one take anyone mocking Daniel Craig seriously?
Quotebut it gets a lot easier to be attractive with every inch past 5'6''-5'7'' or so.
I don't agree. There are some tall guys out there without "masculine" proportions at all. Some are due to genetic conditions. Weak shoulders, stick silhouette, below average faces.
If you're talking about being easier to be attractive to women who are near your height with every inch past that, then yeah, studies show there's a correlation. A hot 5'7 guy will generally not be considered as hot to a 5'7 woman as to a 5'4 woman.
What's the minimum height in your opinion to be a hot guy?
Quote from: myloginacct on May 10, 2018, 12:34:08 AMWorldwide male average is ~170cm, or 5'7, so how you want to view yourself is entirely up to you.
I do get that 5'8 is short in the US. Zac Efron short, but "short".
Oh no, I don't really consider myself short anymore. I consider myself "low average." For the most part, I think I blend in with the crowd really well now. And I very rarely meet women who are taller than me without heels, and honestly, I've never cared for super tall women, so that's no big loss for me. There are plenty of women under 5'8/5'9 (I'm 5'9" with shoes/sneakers) even with heels, so plenty for me to choose from.
I just meant that, technically speaking, in the US, since I'm below 5'9.5", I'm still considered "short" for my country. But I sure as hell don't feel it anymore. And that is priceless.
Quote from: myloginacct on May 10, 2018, 12:37:22 PMTrue.
In Japan and SE Asia, a lot of guys under 170cm are considered attractive because of their other physical aspects.
I wish people would stop parroting this "height isn't that big of a factor in attractiveness in Asia" meme. I'm pretty sure I already addressed this in a response to another similar post you made some time ago. Asia isn't any less heightist than the rest of the world - in fact, many places (Northern China, South Korea) are much more heightist. There aren't "a lot" of guys under 170 cm that are considered attractive anywhere in East Asia, especially not in Japan:
https://soranews24.com/2017/03/22/japanese-college-women-pick-between-men-whore-short-and-handsome-or-tall-and-plain-in-survey/
QuoteA new survey, though, carried out by Japanese Internet portal My Navi no Madoguchi, questioned female Japanese university students about their preference between two other oft-desired traits in a guy: height and handsomeness. The researchers asked 286 females whether they’d rather date a short “ikemen” (a Japanese slang term referring to a handsome, and usually physically fit, man), or a tall guy with otherwise average looks.
When the votes were tallied, the tall men occupied the higher position, with 75.2 percent of the women saying they’d pick the tall, non-ikemen option.
75% (3 in 4) of young Japanese women would rather have a tall man rather than a good looking man who's short; as for why, according to the women themselves,
Quote“An average-looking guy is good enough for me,” said one respondent, while another added that she actually feels intimidated by handsome men.
Before you cope with the "intimidated by the good-looking short guy" claim, let's take a look at some more data on how Japanese women really view short men:
https://www.muripo.com/2013/11/24/japanese-women-refuse-date-short-men-dont-want-walk-beside-dont-look-dependable-feel-sorry-potential-child/
QuoteQ: Do you consider men shorter than you to be a romantic interest?
Yes 43.0%
No 57.0%
57% of Japanese women would never even consider dating a short man.
Reasons short men are not attractive, as quoted by Japanese women:
QuoteShort Men Are No Good
■ I just can’t……
“I just can’t think of them as cool” (23)
“Can’t help but to think that they’re cute, not cool” (30)
“It feels like I’m hanging out with a female friend” (33)
“I don’t want to look down on him” (31)
“It’s embarrassing” (25)
“I’m sorry to say this, but when I’m taller than them when I wear heels, I get disappointed” (25)
■ Short men are…
“They seem more narrow minded to me, I’m short myself so I feel resistance against men shorter than me” (32)
“They don’t look dependable” (23)
“It’s just not manly” (27)
■ I love tall men
“I feel attracted to tall men” (39)
“Being tall is a prerequisite” (24)
“I’ve never had any interest in short men” (30)
“Height is one thing I can’t ignore” (22)
“I like looking up to speak to men” (30)
■ When compared to me
“I’m pretty short, so even shorter is a little…” (33)
“I’m small, so… What if we marry, have a baby and the child develops an inferiority complex?” (31)
“I’m tall myself, and I like men that are taller than me, and he seems more dependable” (24)
“Same height is ideal” (22)
■ I don’t want to pay attention to his feelings
“I feel like I’d need to consider his feelings, like I wouldn’t be able to wear heels…” (23)
“I’m sure we’d both be thinking about our height” (26)
“I don’t want to walk beside them” (25)
“I think he’d mind” (30)
Do you really think there are "a lot" of short men in Japan who are considered attractive despite being under 170 cm when over half (57%) of Japanese women think these things about them?
Seriously, stop saying this sh*t. I understand that you think you're helping by repeating and insisting upon these sorts of false claims, but you have to understand that you really aren't. Gullible short guys see these kinds of bullsh*t copes spouted by people, fly to East Asia expecting tolerance from "open-minded asian women", and ultimately waste tons of time and money to get humiliated.
On a related note, what I said above goes even in countries where the people are supposedly "extremely short" like the Phillipines or Indonesia.
What people don't seem to realize about these countries is that the statistics/figures you see for height on the Internet are outdated and/or skewed due to the inclusion of older individuals, who grew up in a time when there was much less food available and poverty was even worse than it is today (people literally starving to death). SEA may be a third-world region, but food is much more readily available today than it was 40-50 years ago when the current generation of geriatrics was growing up.
The average female height in the Phillipines isn't 4'10" like what you see on Wikipedia or whatever other resource. Fly to the Phillipines - in fact, no need to fly there, just check on any Phillipines dating site or whatever. The majority of the girls are in the 5'1" - 5'4" range, and a good number are 5'5" - 5'6", which is what the average height of the MEN in the Phillipines is in the modern day (NOT 5'4" like Google says).
QuoteI don't agree. There are some tall guys out there without "masculine" proportions at all. Some are due to genetic conditions. Weak shoulders, stick silhouette, below average faces.
If you're talking about being easier to be attractive to women who are near your height with every inch past that, then yeah, studies show there's a correlation. A hot 5'7 guy will generally not be considered as hot to a 5'7 woman as to a 5'4 woman.
You do realize there's a direct correlation between wrist circumference, bideltoid breadth, and ribcage width (all factors associated with masculine frame) and height?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5785639/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6823895
QuoteThe analysis shows that elbow breadth can be used as an indicator of frame size. Based on sex-, race-, and age-specific percentiles of elbow breadth the subjects were classified into categories of small, medium, and large frame size. It is suggested that these categories be used for the evaluation of weight for height and frame size.
Body mass estimate can be derived from stature and bi-iliac breadth
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15788184
QuotePrevious studies have indicated that body mass can be estimated from stature and bi-iliac (maximum pelvic) breadth with reasonable accuracy in modern humans, supporting the use of this method to estimate body mass in earlier human skeletal samples. However, to date the method has not been tested specifically on high latitude individuals, whose body form in some ways more closely approximates that of earlier higher latitude humans (i.e., large and broad-bodied). In this study, anthropometric data for 67 Alaskan Inupiat and 54 Finnish adults were used to test the stature/bi-iliac body mass estimation method. Both samples are very broad-bodied, and the Finnish sample is very tall as well. The method generally works well in these individuals, with average directional biases in body mass estimates of 3% or less, except in male Finns, whose body masses are systematically underestimated by an average of almost 9%. A majority of individuals in the total pooled sample have estimates to within +/-10% of their true body masses, and more than three-quarters have estimates to within +/-15%. The major factor found to affect directional bias is shoulder to hip breadth (biacromial/bi-iliac breadth). Male Finns have particularly wide shoulders, which may in part explain their systematic underestimation. New body mass estimation equations are developed that include the new data from this study. When applied to a sample of earlier (late middle Pleistocene to early Upper Paleolithic) higher latitude skeletal specimens, differences between previous and new body estimates are small (less than 2%). However, because the Finns significantly extend the range of morphological variation beyond that represented in the original world-wide reference sample used in developing the method, thereby increasing its generality, it is recommended that these new formulas be used in subsequent body mass estimations.
Sure, there are "some guys" who are tall and have gracile frames, but they are outliers. A tall man with a gracile frame is exactly as common as a short man with a robust frame, which is to say, they're rare.
In the end, the assertion that it gets easier to be attractive (for men) with every inch past 5'6"/5'7" is absolutely true insofar as body proportions and frame size is concerned.
Quote from: extremis on May 11, 2018, 05:01:08 PMI wish people would stop parroting this "height isn't that big of a factor in attractiveness in Asia" meme.
That's not what I said...
Quote75% (3 in 4) of young Japanese women would rather have a tall man rather than a good looking man who's short; as for why, according to the women themselves.
I know about this survey, but I believe it to be a loaded question. I don't think the choices of:
- A tall but average looking man.
- A short but handsome/good-looking man.
... are actually equal.
The questionnaire should have been presented as:
- Tall man with an ugly face.
- Average height man with an average face.
- Short man with a good-looking face.
One of the problems with these surveys is that "tall" and "short" are prone to subjective bias, despite height being an objective measurement. Most women responding to these surveys will probably imagine the "short" in the "short man" sentence as being their same height or under, irrespective of the respondent woman's own height. They'd also probably not visualize a man who they deem too tall for themselves when reading the "tall man" sentence. I know this is purely conjecture on my part, but so be it.
QuoteOn a related note, what I said above goes even in countries where the people are supposedly "extremely short" like the Phillipines or Indonesia.
I don't believe this at all. It is in SE Asia that Japanese actors/"talents" are the most popular while still being under 170cm. An easy example is Teppei Koike (167cm). He's under 170cm, but has another physical aspect that is taken way more in consideration than it'd be in the West (his face). This is obviously directly related to the height of the natives.
And I never made any mention to them being significantly under 170cm. I was thinking of actors, singers, and "talents" in the 165~168cm range.
I know you may argue something about them being famous or outliers, but that's not the point I was making.
QuoteYou do realize there's a direct correlation between wrist circumference, bideltoid breadth, and ribcage width (all factors associated with masculine frame) and height?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5785639/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6823895
Body mass estimate can be derived from stature and bi-iliac breadth
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15788184
Sure, there are "some guys" who are tall and have gracile frames, but they are outliers. A tall man with a gracile frame is exactly as common as a short man with a robust frame, which is to say, they're rare.
In the end, the assertion that it gets easier to be attractive (for men) with every inch past 5'6"/5'7" is absolutely true insofar as body proportions and frame size is concerned.
Thanks for the links.
And certainly there's a correlation, but I never implied there wasn't any. I said there are taller guys with weak, narrow, and slim frames. I see some of them everyday. I was simply pointing out the variation that exists.
It also most certainly relies more heavily on the genetics of an individual than simply "height", even despite the fact height is also directly (and mostly) related to genetics. The ancestors of the tallest guys with the most masculine frames alive today were much shorter than they are, but they were certainly proportionally more masculine in their frames compared to their (also shorter) peers of the same time period. EDIT: Even if those peers were at similar height levels.
Quote from: myloginacct on May 11, 2018, 05:55:08 PMThat's not what I said...
Here is exactly what you said, verbatim:
QuoteIn Japan and SE Asia, a lot of guys under 170cm are considered attractive because of their other physical aspects.
The direct implication here is that the other physical aspects of these hypothetical "guys under 170cm" are sufficient to compensate for their short stature. This is absolutely false, as is indicated by the second survey I linked, which you didn't address
QuoteI know about this survey, but I believe it to be a loaded question. I don't think the choices of:
- A tall but average looking man.
- A short but handsome/good-looking man.
... are actually equal.
The questionnaire should have been presented as:
- Tall man with an ugly face.
- Average height man with an average face.
- Short man with a good-looking face.
One of the problems with these surveys is that "tall" and "short" are prone to subjective bias, despite height being an objective measurement. Most women responding to these surveys will probably imagine the "short" in the "short man" sentence as being their same height or under, irrespective of the respondent woman's own height. They'd also probably not visualize a man who they deem too tall for themselves when reading the "tall man" sentence. I know this is purely conjecture on my part, but so be it.
Whether the questionnaire was presented as it was or as you suggest is unlikely to have made any difference, a point that is substantiated (once again) by the second survey I linked. The majority of Japanese women consider being short a dealbreaker as far as romantic/sexual relationships are concerned. They are incapable of viewing short men as sexual or romantic entities and would in fact be embarrassed to be seen with them in public, and wouldn't want to reproduce with them for fear of producing short sons that would develop complexes (see list of reasons why they don't consider short men attractive).
Your conjecture at the end doesn't hold much logical ground.
Suppose the women in question really did mean "their height or below" when they said "short men". For most of these women, "their height or below" is going to mean 5'2" to 5'4". So, when they said they wouldn't consider a short man as a romantic/sexual partner, what they meant was a man shorter than 5'2" - 5'4" (whatever value within that range constitutes her own height).
Now, again, look at what these women are saying about short men. If a woman says things like "I'd be embarrassed to be seen with him in public" and "I wouldn't want to reproduce with him" about short men, it's highly unlikely she's going to consider a man who's only an inch or two (2-4 cm) taller than 5'2" - 5'4" as "not being short". It doesn't make sense. If a woman is disgusted by a man who's 5'4" to the point she'd be ashamed to be seen with him in public, she's not going to suddenly be attracted to him at 5'5" or 5'6".
It's much more likely that "short" means "below average height for Japanese males". Japan is a highly homogenous society. It's pretty clear to Japanese people what the average height of a young man is in Japan. If a Japanese man is noticeably shorter than most or all of his Japanese male peers, he is short.
QuoteI don't believe this at all. It is in SE Asia that Japanese actors/"talents" are the most popular while still being under 170cm. An easy example is Teppei Koike (167cm). He's under 170cm, but has another physical aspect that is taken way more in consideration than it'd be in the West (his face). This is obviously directly related to the height of the natives.
First, 167cm is within average range for a man in SEA. Teppei Koike isn't "short" in SEA at 5'5" any more than Manny Pacquiao (also 5'5") is. There's nothing special about being popular when you're "under 170cm" in a region where most of the men are below 170cm. It doesn't prove anything.
Second, SEA is notorious for being obsessed with Western and East Asian media and culture, especially celebrities, and especially when those celebrities have light skin (the lighter the better, SEA are massive white worshippers). Teppei Koike isn't any more popular in SEA than any given average-height or tall K-pop group member is, or any random white movie star/singer from the U.S. or Europe. Frankly, any white guy with a nordic phenotype (blonde, blue eyes, tall) would be about as popular in the Phillipines as Teppei Koike is.
Third, the fact that Teppei Koike is popular in SEA despite being short relative to other Asian celebrities doesn't mean SEA would consider him sexually attractive relative to those other celebrities. It means he's popular despite being short. 5'4" Bruno Mars is more popular in the US than Teppei Koike is anywhere on planet earth, plenty of women like his music, but I'd be willing to bet a solid amount of money few (if any) of them would rather have sex with him than the guy who played Thor.
QuoteI know you may argue something about them being famous or outliers, but that's not the point I was making.
At first I was going to, but frankly, this Teppei Koike character really isn't that "famous" at all. I'd never heard of him until today. Ironically, I saw his name mentioned in the comment section of one of the articles I linked (the one about 75% of Japanese women preferring a tall average man) in my previous response to you and had a feeling you would mention him. I briefly considered adding the points I mentioned about him above to my previous response, but decided against it in the interest of keeping the post concise.
I don't know what else to say. He really doesn't even seem very popular in Japan. He has a small following, but it pales in comparison to what average-height/tall K-pop singers have. He's clearly trying to leverage his stature into the "cute"/"pretty boy" (or "bishonen" in Japan) archetype, which I guess is fine if you don't mind being viewed as a child when you're a grown man.
Unfortunately for Mr. Koike, he is old (32), and despite the excellent aging genetics afforded him by his Asian heritage, he has at most 5 or so years left before he seriously starts to look old and he won't be able to run the pretty boy routine anymore, at which point he'll just be a short washed-up man. I don't know anything about his sexual/dating history, so I can't comment on that.
Justin Bieber would be a much better example of a relatively short (5'7") man who was still viewed as attractive by women... teenage women. When he was a teenager. In his case, however, he aged VERY quickly once he reached his 20's and he looks like sh*t now (tons of acne, balding, facial structure ruined).
What I'm getting at is that the "pretty boy" routine is a poor answer to the problem of a short man insofar as attracting women goes. It works best on underaged teenage girls (which in most countries will land you in prison), and a lot of people seem to forget that for most people life goes on for a long time after women stop finding pedomorphic "pretty"/"cute" boys attractive (that is, after high school or in some women's cases, after college).
QuoteThanks for the links.
And certainly there's a correlation, but I never implied there wasn't any. I said there are taller guys with weak, narrow, and slim frames. I see some of them everyday. I was simply pointing out the variation that exists.
It also most certainly relies more heavily on the genetics of an individual than simply "height", even despite the fact height is also directly (and mostly) related to genetics. The ancestors of the tallest guys with the most masculine frames alive today were much shorter than they are, but they were certainly proportionally more masculine in their frames compared to their (also shorter) peers of the same time period. EDIT: Even if those peers were at similar height levels.
Yes, but when another poster said this:
Quotebut it gets a lot easier to be attractive with every inch past 5'6''-5'7'' or so.
Your response was:
QuoteI don't agree. There are some tall guys out there without "masculine" proportions at all. Some are due to genetic conditions. Weak shoulders, stick silhouette, below average faces.
Which doesn't disprove the first quote. Statistically speaking, it does get easier and more likely that you will have a robust frame ("being attractive") as an individual grows taller. The fact that there exist "some" outliers who do not conform to the general trend is not an argument against this, which was my point.
Quote from: extremis on May 11, 2018, 08:58:28 PMHere is exactly what you said, verbatim:
QuoteIn Japan and SE Asia, a lot of guys under 170cm are considered attractive because of their other physical aspects.
The direct implication here is that the other physical aspects of these hypothetical "guys under 170cm" are sufficient to compensate for their short stature.
Yes... such as their faces. Then I raised the example of Teppei Koike (167cm), but you could go for the even shorter Ryosuke Yamada (165cm). There are a bunch of male "idols", "talents", actors, singers who are still popular for their appearance despite being under 170cm... because of their other physical aspects, mainly their faces. Obviously they aren't considered as "perfect" as taller guys with similar levels of facial beauty, but I've demonstrated what I said.
Japan is more heightist than SEA because the Japanese are a bit taller and way more self-conscious. That is known and your links demonstrate that. They also do not disprove what I said: guys under 170cm can still be considered attractive in Japan and SEA with other physical aspects (such as as "pretty/beautiful face", and not being old). I never said they'd manage to pull it off at 150cm.
Even worse, I don't know how you inferred "height isn't that big of a factor in attractiveness in Asia". Height and body frame are part of sxxual dimorphism and sxxual attractiveness. I have no idea how or why you would infer that I somehow think "height isn't that big of a factor in Asia" (or a factor at all) just because guys under 170cm can be considered attractive due to other physical features in those countries. I even went so far as to demonstrate it. I also correlated the fact to the height of the natives.
QuoteIf a woman is disgusted by a man who's 5'4" to the point she'd be ashamed to be seen with him in public, she's not going to suddenly be attracted to him at 5'5" or 5'6".
What a sweeping generalization. How do you even explain the fanclubs for the male "idols" under 170cm? Do all men think the same?
QuoteFrankly, any white guy with a nordic phenotype (blonde, blue eyes, tall) would be about as popular in the Phillipines as Teppei Koike is.
Any? Really? His fanpage on online wikis is full of mostly SEA women fangirling over him and his appearance (his band was never that big). I've never seen them flocking to chubby Swede #3 on social media.
QuoteWhich doesn't disprove the first quote. Statistically speaking, it does get easier and more likely that you will have a robust frame ("being attractive") as an individual grows taller.
Fair enough.
Quote from: myloginacct on May 11, 2018, 10:19:17 PM
Yes... such as their faces. Then I raised the example of Teppei Koike (167cm), but you could go for the even shorter Ryosuke Yamada (165cm). There are a bunch of male "idols", "talents", actors, singers who are still popular for their appearance despite being under 170cm... because of their other physical aspects, mainly their faces. Obviously they aren't considered as "perfect" as taller guys with similar levels of facial beauty, but I've demonstrated what I said.
Neither of those two people are anywhere near as popular as average-height or tall celebrities either in their own country of Japan or abroad, which is my point. I don't care if they have two dozen die-hard fans. It doesn't prove anything. The overwhelming majority of women, even Japanese women, would not find them attractive. The surveys demonstrate that.
QuoteJapan is more heightist than SEA because the Japanese are a bit taller and way more self-conscious.
Well, it isn't actually that simple. SEA women are just as heightist as any other type of asian woman. The real difference is in the fact that East Asian women (Japanese, Korean, Chinese) live in wealthier, more developed countries where they have good wages and don't need to get married and be financially supported to survive.
I've dealt with plenty of SEA women, been to SEA, and they're every bit as heightist as other women, and they've got MASSIVE Pinkerton syndrome, but they'll settle for just about any man as long as he has money. Simply put, SEA women cannot afford to be heightist. As in, literally, they cannot financially afford to select for tall men only, else they will starve on the street.
QuoteThat is known and your links demonstrate that. They also do not disprove what I said: guys under 170cm can still be considered attractive in Japan and SEA with other physical aspects (such as as "pretty/beautiful face", and not being old). I never said they'd manage to pull it off at 150cm.
Again, the fan following of the two individuals you noted is vanishingly small. Just because a handful of Japanese women who most likely have fetishes find them attractive doesn't mean they are attractive in the general sense.
As for SEA, literally absolutely ANYONE who is white (or even just has light skin, Fitzpatrick 3 or above) is "considered attractive" there.
QuoteEven worse, I don't know how you inferred "height isn't that big of a factor in attractiveness in Asia". Height and body frame are part of sxxual dimorphism and sxxual attractiveness. I have no idea how or why you would infer that I somehow think "height isn't that big of a factor in Asia" (or a factor at all) just because guys under 170cm can be considered attractive due to other physical features in those countries. I even went so far as to demonstrate it. I also correlated the fact to the height of the natives.
The majority of the women who consider those guys attractive consider taller guys with similar looks more attractive. If they had to pick between the two, the shorter ones would lose, thus it's meaningless to say they "consider them attractive".
QuoteWhat a sweeping generalization. How do you even explain the fanclubs for the male "idols" under 170cm? Do all men think the same?
Women with fetishes (a.k.a. """preference"""). Women who have had bad experiences with tall men (cheating on her, etc) and now purposely avoid them. Etc.
Come on. Their fanclubs seriously aren't that big. Again, there's K-pop singers and then there's these guys. Big difference.
QuoteAny? Really? His fanpage on online wikis is full of mostly SEA women fangirling over him and his appearance (his band was never that big).
SEA women fangirl over any light skinned East Asian celebrity, ESPECIALLY singers (there's a massive karaoke culture in the Phillipines). If you could go to any K-pop singer's fanpage and somehow filter for only SEA women's posts, you would see just as many (if not more) of their posts fangirling about him.
QuoteI've never seen them flocking to chubby Swede #3 on social media.
That's because chubby Swede #3 is an ordinary civilian they don't know exists, while the Japanese guys are celebrities.
Quote from: extremis on May 11, 2018, 05:01:08 PMYou do realize there's a direct correlation between wrist circumference, bideltoid breadth, and ribcage width (all factors associated with masculine frame) and height?
Sure, there are "some guys" who are tall and have gracile frames, but they are outliers. A tall man with a gracile frame is exactly as common as a short man with a robust frame, which is to say, they're rare.
In the end, the assertion that it gets easier to be attractive (for men) with every inch past 5'6"/5'7" is absolutely true insofar as body proportions and frame size is concerned.
IMO, the fallacy that some posters here have (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) is to think that frame and body porportions making a man attractive are absolute numbers, when in fact, they are relative numbers. Of course taller people will on average have wider shoulders, wider ribcages, etc. because the whole body of a person increases proportionally as the person gets taller (with the exception of penis size, which only has a very small correlation and other studies haven't found a correlation at all). What makes a person attractive is the proportions of their whole body, not the porportions of one part of their body in comparison to some statistic. A girl isn't going to see a guy and think "oh wow, he has a 22 inch bideltoid, that is soo hot", she's going to look at his body and if his shoulders look wide on his body, she's likely going to find that attractive. (shoulder to hip ratio is a well-known attractiveness marker for men, but taller men also have wider hips).
Saying "taller men are attractive because they have bigger frames" is like saying "a real car looks better than a model car because it's wheels are bigger". When in fact, wheels looks sporty and good on a car when they are big compared to the tyres and wheel well size. 20 inch wheels on a Ferrari look sporty, but 4 inch wheels on a Ferrari model will still look sporty. (because the whole car is much smaller, duh)
Quote from: IwannaBeTaller on May 14, 2018, 08:13:53 AMIMO, the fallacy that some posters here have (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) is to think that frame and body porportions making a man attractive are absolute numbers, when in fact, they are relative numbers. Of course taller people will on average have wider shoulders, wider ribcages, etc. because the whole body of a person increases proportionally as the person gets taller (with the exception of penis size, which only has a very small correlation and other studies haven't found a correlation at all). What makes a person attractive is the proportions of their whole body, not the porportions of one part of their body in comparison to some statistic. A girl isn't going to see a guy and think "oh wow, he has a 22 inch bideltoid, that is soo hot", she's going to look at his body and if his shoulders look wide on his body, she's likely going to find that attractive. (shoulder to hip ratio is a well-known attractiveness marker for men, but taller men also have wider hips).
I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise or tried to. I'm fairly certain that the argument (at least the way I mean it when I present it) is based on the underlined text, i.e. a person with a 22 inch bideltoid is statistically more likely to be tall and have other robust features (wrist circumference, ribcage width, etc) than not.
Sexual dimorphism isn't based on one feature, it's based on a SET of features which includes bideltoid breadth (and ribcage width, wrist circumference, the obvious height, and so on). It's a given that harmony and symmetry are desirable (I've said this in the past as well). JUST having a 22 inch bideltoid without at least some semblance of the other features will look incongruous and have an "uncanny valley" vibe to it, just like a guy who's 5'4" lengthening to 6'0"+ (or maybe even just 5'10") would look "off".
QuoteSaying "taller men are attractive because they have bigger frames" is like saying "a real car looks better than a model car because it's wheels are bigger".
I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't say this either. I said that it is statistically more likely for taller men to have more robust frames (which is scientific fact), and that by corollary it is therefore easier for a man to be attractive as he becomes taller (since growing tall, an attractive feature, will directly increase his likelihood of developing a robust frame, another attractive feature).
QuoteWhen in fact, wheels looks sporty and good on a car when they are big compared to the tyres and wheel well size. 20 inch wheels on a Ferrari look sporty, but 4 inch wheels on a Ferrari model will still look sporty. (because the whole car is much smaller, duh)
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I agree that from a purely geometric point of view, a short man with a conventionally robust frame is equally as attractive as a tall man with a robust frame... insofar as their frames are concerned, they have equal sexual dimorphism. The short man, however, is missing a crucial element of dimorphism, which is stature, and it's that aesthetic deficiency that renders him unattractive, because short stature is a death sentence in terms of dimorphism.
It's the difference between the Ferrari with the 20 inch wheels and the one with the 4 inch wheels. Sure, they both "look" sporty, but one of them is a car, and the other one is just a toy that looks like a car.
5’7 for the manliest possible look without being that short. 5’4 if you don’t mind being a bit short and/or looking a bit odd probably, but with nice facial aesthetics it won’t matter. At my height tho, I can’t do anything since I have a really small frame, gym is not helping I am just looking odd now, and ofc my problem is not my legs it is my body frame overall. It seems as if I have stunted my growth somehow.
You must be logged in to post a reply.