[HN Gopher] Limb lengthening surgery is becoming more popular ___________________________________________________________________ Limb lengthening surgery is becoming more popular Author : edward Score : 80 points Date : 2022-04-29 23:19 UTC (23 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.buzzfeednews.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.buzzfeednews.com) | kingkawn wrote: | Height always seemed like the go to excuse for men with | unattractive personalities | [deleted] | eljimmy wrote: | Damn, that was sad to read. Kid needs to get unhooked from social | media. | fleddr wrote: | "a 2006 study on online dating found that a man who is 5'6'' | needs an additional $175,000 to be as desirable as a man who is | approximately 6' tall and only makes $62,500 a year." | | I guess I appreciate the brutal honesty. Wealth and height. And | not to forget social status, as one woman in the linked article | explained how she broke up with a short guy because of what | others (might) think of it. | | Not a word is wasted on actual love. The stereotype that women | barely ever date "below" them, in wealth, height, status, remains | true. Your character still matters, but only after checking the | above boxes. Men are selected by utility, with disastrous | consequences for those that get left behind, as there's no mercy | for them. | | You can't explain the harsh "be 6' or keep moving" requirement or | the open ridiculing of short men on evolutionary selection alone. | It's a US-dominant cultural trend. In many other countries no | woman would have such exact and absolute demands. It might be a | soft unspoken preference at best. Making it a "do or die" | requirement is cultural. | | Similarly, wealth is not an evolutionary selector for the simple | reason that wealth didn't exist until 10K years ago. You could | make the point though that wealth is a representation of | security, in an indirect way. | | In any case, I just find it disturbing how superficial the | matchmaking is. When you use a criteria, it's supposed to | increase your chance of success, meaning a "happily ever after" | story. None of these criteria do that. Beauty fades and none of | us are beautiful in the morning. Wealth doesn't buy love. Height | does absolutely nothing for a relationship. And yet women insist | on it. | | The female version is equally disturbing but different. I've | never met or talked to a man that finds fake boobs, duck lips, | botox, fake bums, fake tans, an inch of makeup in any remote way | attractive, or a "selector". So the depressing reality is that | women largely do this in a competition towards other women, and | this perverted rat race knows many victims. | | For the cynics that may think that I'm coping, I'm not. I'm 6"4 | and in a loving long term relationship. That doesn't stop me from | caring about the perverted mate selection dynamics of today that | are downright cruel and throws good people aside as if trash. | meowface wrote: | >The female version is equally disturbing but different. I've | never met or talked to a man that finds fake boobs, duck lips, | botox, fake bums, fake tans, an inch of makeup in any remote | way attractive, or a "selector". So the depressing reality is | that women largely do this in a competition towards other | women, and this perverted rat race knows many victims. | | I find everything on that list extremely unattractive, minus | that last one: what's wrong with makeup? If it's not used | excessively, it can look attractive. (I often tend to prefer | how people look without makeup or with only light makeup, but | some who are very good at makeup sometimes look better with it, | in my opinion.) | runnerup wrote: | > The stereotype that women barely ever date "below" them, in | wealth, height, status, remains true. Your character still | matters, but only after checking the above boxes. Men are | selected by utility, with disastrous consequences for those | that get left behind, as there's no mercy for them. You can't | explain the harsh "be 6' or keep moving" requirement or the | open ridiculing of short men on evolutionary selection alone. | | If it was this cut-and-dry, 80% of American women would just be | single at any given point in time, or they'd all be in | polyamorous relationships, or dating their own gender. Only 20% | of American men are 6'0". | | I'm assuming that it's not this cut-and-dry, and that most | American women are willing to date the other 80% of men. | ironman1478 wrote: | I can't comment about the career opportunities that tall people | seem to get more of, but the main take away I have from this | article is people should stop using social media. It will always | surface something to be insecure about. | | Also, I've seen short (and bald!) people have amazing dating | lives. The key is that they're confident, funny, and actually | care about the people they interact with. It's so easy to blame | something like height so one don't have to improve who they are | on the inside. | 3qz wrote: | Leg lengthening should be covered as a free gender affirming | surgery | uncomputation wrote: | I find these subtle, yet extremely intense neuroses we see so | often in Western cultures fascinating. The patient remarks on one | TikTok video in particular that seemingly tormented him. I had | never once thought a few inches height difference in a couple was | odd or even worth remarking upon and yet there seems to be this | vast, largely untapped sensitivity in men being short. Similar | things for sexual activity (incels) and breast size (breast | augmentations are by far the top cosmetic surgery). They all seem | to be little things people joke about sometimes but which have | disproportionately negative effects on the butt of the jokes' | psyches. I wonder if this is unique to Western/materialistic | cultures or more widespread. Whichever, I am sure the scale of | social media makes these neuroses worse. | dubswithus wrote: | Plastic surgery is quite common in Iran too. | foota wrote: | Korea is famous for plastic surgery. | uncomputation wrote: | Very true; yet they are also famously materialistic and | capitalistic (see the many film commentaries on capitalism | out of South Korea). I wonder if these surgeries are by | Western or Korean beauty standards. That is, are people | largely trying to obtain Western features through surgery. | filoleg wrote: | > are people largely trying to obtain Western features | through surgery. | | In my personal opinion, it depends. | | For some, like double eyelid surgery, absolutely yes. For | others, like the V-line jaw surgery (aka mandibuloplasty, | but the colloquial name is pretty self-descriptive), I | would say no. | | And some are just universal and are done by people of all | kinds of cultures/races, like face-lift surgeries (aka | rhytidectomy) or nose-jobs (aka rhinoplasty). | rapsey wrote: | As well as big parts of South America. | [deleted] | Tade0 wrote: | Limb-lengthening was popular in China until it got banned. | nverno wrote: | Putin wears lifts, Kim Jong Un is famously self-conscious, etc. | - so, no I don't think these insecurities are in any way unique | to with Western cultures. And every culture is materialistic. | brabel wrote: | It's apparently common for Koreans to make operations to widen | their eyes to look more like anime characters. | | In Japan, it used to be a necessity for women to use extremely | tight shoes in order to contain feet growth, as women with | large feet were less desired or something. | | In Brazil, the most common surgery for women is probably bum | enlargement rather than breast. | | In some parts of Myanmar, women need to have very long necks | decorated with coils... I would guess they obsess over their | appearance at least as much as any modern western woman does. | | People are people everywhere and will obsess over things that | are important to them, no matter how bizarre it may look to | someone from a different culture. | thaumasiotes wrote: | > In Japan, it used to be a necessity for women to use | extremely tight shoes in order to contain feet growth | | You've confused Japan with China. | filoleg wrote: | > I wonder if this is unique to Western/materialistic cultures | or more widespread. | | Not at all, you just don't seem like someone who has much | exposure to the world outside of "western cultures". Which is | unfortunate, because the rest of your comment has a lot of | pretty interesting points to ponder. | | As others have mentioned in replies, plastic surgery in South | Korea is so commonplace and integral to everyday life, it will | blow a lot of people's minds. Plastic surgeries are common high | school graduation gifts there (double eyelid surgery seems to | be one of the most popular ones). | | For a personal example, sister of one of my friends was | graduating from a nursing school there, and ended up getting a | surgery or two closer to the end of her program, despite | resisting it for the longest time. Why? Because photos are | required on resumes for pretty much any position there. And she | felt like she was at a strong disadvantage compared to her | classmates (who all had at least a couple of plastic surgeries | done) when it came to job applications, and iirc her suspicion | was strongly supported by her experiences. | ghostly_s wrote: | This is a pretty bad counter-example considering S. Korea is | by far the most Westernized place in Asia. | pell wrote: | The Western equivalent is probably braces. They're not | medically necessary in the vast majority of cases and usually | more invasive and painful than either nose or eyelid surgery. | Yet most people don't seem to consider them in the same | category at all. | shukantpal wrote: | I guess to an outsider they don't seem invasive. I didn't | realize they were invasive like surgeries | jmrm wrote: | This could be helpful to people who wants to enter some kind of | jobs who need more height (like being a police agent in some | European countries), but I find a huge thing for other reasons. | | For what it means to dating, I think the requirement to be at | least 6 feet tall for US women would disappear due to statistics | (the mean male height in the USA is 5'9"). Heck, some guys who | are 5'7" or 5'9" says to those women they are 6 feet and they | believe it; It's more a psychological thing than a real | preference as a have seen. | throwaway-jim wrote: | Do you actually think they will be fit for police jobs after | such surgeries? | cm2012 wrote: | Yeah these surgeries leave your body fairly fragile is my | understanding. | jmrm wrote: | Probably not, but I know cases where some people had silicon | prothesis implanted in the head to get up to 5 cm (about 2 | inches) of height to pass the requirement, so I won't be | surprised someone do this instead. | bongoman37 wrote: | Ancalagon wrote: | I hate, absolutely hate, that men have to worry so much about | something they can't control. My best friend is below average | height, and god bless him he never let that stop him from getting | women, but I've seen him made fun of for it over and over from | other "friends" for years. I call it out nowadays but didn't have | the chutzpah to do it when we were in high school. It makes my | blood boil so much that people will be quick to judge someone so | much for their height - this friend is literally the nicest | person I know. Would people mock others for disabilities, skin- | color, facial structure, weight, chest-size, etc. as openly as | they mock men's height, society would look very different. | parenthesis wrote: | Would Prince be sexier, or have better tunes if he were taller? | Would Danny DeVito be funnier if he were taller? | aaaaaaaaaaab wrote: | Would Tom Cruise not be a scientologist? | SemanticStrengh wrote: | asking the real questions | rootusrootus wrote: | This is the kind of surgery I might expect someone who is closer | to 5 feet might use to get nearer to normal range. I'm pretty | much average myself (71 inches) and I wouldn't look at a 67 inch | tall guy and think "wow he's short." He's still taller than the | vast majority of women. I think the money would be better spent | on therapy if it really is that depressing to be 5'7". | | Also, anybody making short jokes is a jerk and should be shamed. | Anyone calling 5'7" short has some problems of their own to sort | out. | faeriechangling wrote: | I really hate the idea that people dealing with actual problems | with objective evidence of being real problems should go to | therapy at substantial cost to have somebody gaslight them into | believing that their real problems don't matter. Sure somebody | could have delusional views of how much their height matters, | and such people could consider therapy, but I'd reckon most | people glum about their height have a pretty objective view of | it. | | The biggest issue I have with limb lengthening surgery is that | it's expensive and likely to lead to a lifetime of pain and, | lets be real, if you DO become genetically successful you're | going to have your son be in the same position of subjecting | himself to a lifetime of pain to be sexually successful. | | I guess my only advise is the controversial view that you | should do nothing and shrug your shoulders at the arbitrary | nature of the world. Maybe buy some heel lifts and wear them to | your job interviews. Putin does it and it doesn't require you | to experience a lifetime of pain. Lie about your height on the | internet too. | rootusrootus wrote: | > I really hate the idea that people dealing with actual | problems with objective evidence of being real problems | | That's my point. If you're 25th percentile in height, you | don't have an actual height problem. Treat the depression. | meowface wrote: | I would potentially agree, but how many of these people are | 75th percentile (I assume that's what you meant) in height | in their city? Global or national averages are pretty | irrelevant for them. | pram wrote: | They're burying the lede on this story. | | This guy runs an OnlyFans where he gets paid to dominate other | men. He psychologically wants to be taller because he doesn't | feel like his (completely unremarkable) height is appropriately | dominating. | meowface wrote: | You're reversing cause and effect: | | >Scott first heard about the procedure when he was in high | school. He watched a few YouTube clips about it but dismissed | it at the time. "I was like, 'That's sick, I would never do | that." But he kept researching, and about three years ago, he | became convinced it was the solution he was looking for. "I | felt miserable," he said. "There were things throughout my | day, every day, that would bother me. I felt attacked or | unfairly criticized due to my height." Then he had a | revelation: "When I realized what was really holding me back | was the obstacle of money, I was like, 'Oh, it's just a game. | If I can get $75,000, then I'm done feeling like this.'" | | >The goal gave him clarity. "I was not waking up and crying | every day in my mask, walking around the neighborhood. | Instead, it became 'OK, I just have to get on my grind and | figure out how to get the money.'" So Scott, who is bi, got | to work and, in February 2021, started an OnlyFans page. | Within a few months on the platform, he zeroed in on a niche: | financial domination, a form of humiliation kink where | clients pay him to degrade them and take their money. By | January 2022, by supplementing his OnlyFans earnings with | some of his savings and a small loan, he had enough to pay | for the procedure. | karaterobot wrote: | > There are no concrete numbers on how many people are having | this procedure (though a 2020 BBC report found that hundreds of | men have it every year) | | So, by "hundreds" they mean definitely less than a thousand | people. Presumably much less, or else they'd have "almost a | thousand". But in any case, they really have no idea how many | people are undergoing this surgery, or how much it has changed | over time, because nobody has any hard numbers. Not a strong | basis for a headline. | | I am not trying to trivialize the anxiety or social stigma short | men face, but the phrase but "becoming more popular" in this | headline is such a weak, almsost meaningless statement that I | wish they would have crafted a less click-baity headline. | wenmoon wrote: | considering that taller men make more money, and having more | resources is the way to compete in business/life, this is not a | surprise | | forget dating even, i'd say that is a 2nd order effect of having | more resources anyway | ilaksh wrote: | Short stature actually is objectively a disadvantage in dating | and the workplace for men. | | However, as someone who is barely 5'7", I have never found there | to be a lot of joking or something about it or anything really in | my face. | | I know it has affected me. But I also don't really feel inferior | in any way. Compared to human males overall I am fairly close to | average in height. | | But really my self-worth is based on things like integrity and | problem solving ability. So if I don't trigger a mating instinct | in a lot of females that's too bad, but I don't actually feel | like a lesser person or something. | | I actually believe that within a few hundred years unaugmented | biological humans are going to be mainly irrelevant. Things will | be run by AIs/robots with far superior intellects and | capabilities, along with some cyborgs (maybe). | | In fact, I believe that the human form will become passe among | intelligent agents. | askonomm wrote: | If height is so important, why not relocate? I'm 6.2, but | Northern European, and I see myself as quite average around these | parts, and often meet people taller than me. When I lived in | Argentina, I felt like a giant. South tends to have shorter | people, so perhaps if you feel out of place, you'd feel more in- | place there. Just a thought. At least I'd rather do that than | undergo such a treatment. | semitones wrote: | And what do you do if you're short in the south? | everly wrote: | Address the mental issues that are causing you to fixate on | height and how others perceive you. | Arubis wrote: | Socioeconomically, that makes you statistically unlikely to | be someone that can afford elective limb-lengthening surgery, | so you probably live with it. | downrightmike wrote: | stilts | thrower123 wrote: | I wish I'd hit 6'6" like I was supposed to, according to the old | wive's tale method of doubling your height at two years old. | | I could have dunked easily, instead of just that one golden time | I jumped freakishly high. | [deleted] | nosefrog wrote: | As a 5'5" guy, no one ever calls me short, and when I joke about | being short my friends tell me that they don't perceive me as | short unless I'm joking about it, so I stopped haha. | khazhoux wrote: | Exactly. I'm same height as guy in the article and no one has | ever commented on my height at work (or, pretty much anywhere | else). I think Scott had lots of other issues going on, but | blames his height. | | Of course I would have liked to have been 6' and looked more | like a "commanding leader" when I march into a room. Maybe it | would have given me a career boost... but I could also get that | from hitting the gym and bulking up, or buying better-fitted | clothes, or (heaven forbid) put more effort into my job and | actually become a more commanding leader! | Beaver117 wrote: | >I could also get that from hitting the gym and bulking up, | or buying better-fitted clothes, or (heaven forbid) put more | effort into my job! | | And what if you have done all that and are still mocked for | your height? | Jtsummers wrote: | Find a better community. If people are mocking you ( | _especially_ for things outside your control, but also | generally), you oughtn 't be around them. I've left social | groups and "friends" behind for lesser things than mocking | people over height. | khazhoux wrote: | I guess I'd say then he's just living amongst very, very | shitty people. I don't know the right solution in that | case. | | My point is only that when height is a barrier, there are | almost certainly other things that can be improved, with | some effort. | | (or, buy lifts, which is zero effort and effective for an | inch or 1.5" boost) | ghostly_s wrote: | I'm inclined to think the issue is not him but the people he | surrounds himself with. I'm vaguely aware of toxic content | about short men on social media but don't think I've ever | encountered it directly- I use Tiktok frequently but never | see this kind of stuff, it's generally positive content and | things related to my hobbies because that's what I interact | with. Why on earth is this woman he quotes saying toxic shit | about short men "one of his favorite influencers?" | baskethead wrote: | You are blessed to be surrounded by a great group of friends! | | I have a friend who is short as well, probably 5'5" and he | married a girl who is taller than him when she wears her heels. | Neither of them care, which is great and I love both of them. | | I have another friend who is around the same height or shorter | and can't get past how short he is. I keep trying to help him | find a girlfriend, but he resists all efforts and I think he's | still a virgin at age 45. So the stigma is very real and can be | extremely damaging. | mft_ wrote: | I suspect to, to an extent, it's a self-fulfilling issue: once | you're sensitive to an issue, you listen out for examples, and | then of course pay special attention to the ones you do hear. | | I don't remember hearing people refer negatively to baldness... | until I started losing my hair and it became (marginally) | personal to me. | xvector wrote: | It is 100% self-fulfilling. Worrying about height is like a | thought-virus, once you encounter it, it infects you, but you | can do just fine until you come across it. Then the challenge | is learning to not give a fuck. | LoveMortuus wrote: | I'm 159cm/5'2.6" and people quite often mistake me for a woman. | | In school people did call me short but in time I learned to | ignore it and to just not hear it. Because there's really | nothing that I can or even should do about it. | docandrew wrote: | Being tall isn't all it's cracked up to be. Always hitting your | head on things, and being short of breath all the time because | the air is thinner up there. | robotresearcher wrote: | Unable to buy pants, kitchens and bathrooms are too short so | cooking and washing dishes are back-aching activities. Economy | seating in airplanes is almost impossible. Vacuum cleaner | handle not long enough. Few car brands have seats that go back | far enough. | | It's very hard to buy a bicycle. | | Nothing terrible, just annoyances. No big deal compared to dumb | social prejudice against shorter men. | theknocker wrote: | pmdulaney wrote: | Gattaca. | timoteostewart wrote: | My first thought too | reducesuffering wrote: | It's here. | jjeaff wrote: | Seems like such an extreme surgery for a few inches. I would | think that a treatment as extreme as this should require at least | attempted psychiatric treatment before going to full on broken | femurs. | | But maybe an inch can make much more difference than I think. I | am literally one inch taller than this guy and I cannot ever in | my life remember someone calling me short or disparaging me for | my height. | | I do agree that being a little bit taller would be an advantage | in many ways. But so would being born into wealth or being | extremely attractive. | smt88 wrote: | > _I would think that a treatment as extreme as this should | require at least attempted psychiatric treatment before going | to full on broken femurs._ | | Isn't this true of any cosmetic surgery? They all carry some | amount of expense, pain, and risk. | | > _I do agree that being a little bit taller would be an | advantage in many ways._ | | I suspect that most people who get this surgery are thinking | mostly about their ability to date women. That single issue can | definitely be make-or-break for some people's happiness. | ReactiveJelly wrote: | I have to get a few letters of sanity to get genital surgery. | It'll probably turn out the same with stuff like this. | rootusrootus wrote: | I know it's not what you're referring to, but I just have to | say that the first doctor to figure out a really plausible | way to add a couple inches of penis length without serious | side effects is going to be _very_ wealthy. | messe wrote: | They'll have a hard time marketing it though (no pun | intended), given the state of spam filtering. | altdataseller wrote: | Also hard to really convince ppl given there's already a | ton of spam products that tell you they help make your | member bigger. | thangalin wrote: | For folks in this thread making statements such as, "I don't see | how one can dictate to others what they should find attractive," | the negative social stigmas towards men of short stature go far | beyond physical attraction. (There's absolutely nothing wrong | with women finding taller men attractive.) | | https://twitter.com/heightismxposed | | Swap "short guy" for "Jew" in the quotations from those twits | that have nothing to do with attraction: | | > I feel sorta bad, but when short guys talk to me all I can | think is "wow, what is this miniature dude even saying?" | | > cute short guys are waste of space and life tbh | | > I don't take short guys serious at all. | | > Ugly, short men kill yourselves! | | > I can't respect short guys especially if we're the same eye | level, I feel like I can beat you up lol | | > Men under 5 feet 9 arent really men. | | > There's too many short guys in the world | | Hopefully the problem is apparent. (The first quote I listed is | by a man, AFAICT.) | chrisseaton wrote: | Even people I respect use 'short' as some kind of slur against | people they don't like. | | For example against Putin. | | (Doesn't matter what you think of Putin - slurs based on | personal appearance are always wrong against anyone full stop.) | SamoyedFurFluff wrote: | Yeah ngl I wish people would move on from denigrating people on | factors like appearance, poverty, disability, etc. and more on | things like being inauthentic, unempathetic, manipulative, etc. | jasonhansel wrote: | It's pretty telling that the surgeon they mention advertises on | the same social networks that cause the underlying body image | issues. Clearly he knows that the people using these apps | regularly will make up a disproportionate share of his clientele. | aaron695 wrote: | SemanticStrengh wrote: | The truth is, growth hormone inoculated at young age increase | lifespan and healthspan in addition to improving cognition, | muscle size and height. As a reminder, growth hormone given after | ~20-30 year actually reduce lifespan/healstpan. That's simply | because you only want to grow healthy tissue, at 30 you are | already mutating/oxidating too much. although could be | pharmacologically adressed too. | bongoman37 wrote: | mdoms wrote: | This guy Scott was 5'7". His attitude about his height was a | mental illness and shouldn't be validated, it should be treated. | Avicebron wrote: | I mean women suffer from this too, my gf is 5.1 and constantly | complains about not finding things in her size, not being able to | reach stuff, so I mean, i suppose it is a real disadvantage I can | imagine how humilitating it must feel if someone has to get a | milkcrate to put in your garage so you can reach a shelf. | FooBarWidget wrote: | When I am in a store and I can't reach for the item on the | highest shelf, I unapologetically jump to get it, not minding | what other people think. It's the store's fault for not | providing a chair. | valec wrote: | i'm sorry but if my only concerns as a shorter man were not | reaching things on the shelf my life would be immensely better | mellosouls wrote: | For "normal" shortness (eg non-dwarfism), there is no way women | generally have a comparable negative experience to men (that is | not to comment in any way on the many other prejudices women | face); the latter have a significant part of their social place | and psychological health influenced by it. | Avicebron wrote: | isn't the average for women 5.4-5? Thinking you look like a | child seems like a fairly big social disadvantage, the | difference between 5.10 and 6.2 is relatively comparable. | chrischen wrote: | > "Don't be so sure of yourself, short man!" | | The problem is that it's still socially acceptable to see short | stature as some objective faux-pas. There's really no difference | between a person proudly declaring they only like "white" people | and a person declaring they only like "tall" people. If the guy | said "Don't be so sure of yourself, black man" maybe it would | have been acceptable in the 1920s, but it surely isn't now, and | the fact that we can't see that calling someone "short" | derogatorily is the same form of prejudicial discrimination shows | that we as a society still don't understand the root of racism | and prejudice. It's wrong to deride a person based on skin color | not because it hurts their feelings, but because our preconceived | notions on their inferiority hold no objective basis in reality | except those derived from our flawed social perceptions. | | Maybe at one time short stature was a decent signal for childhood | malnutrition, but in our modern society short stature is mostly a | matter of genetics, and there aren't really downsides to short | stature in modern life except socially derived ones. It used to | be sexy to be fat, but as social perceptions caught up with the | reality that calorie dense foods was actually abundant, we | shifted our social preferences to fit bodies. | sonicggg wrote: | You're comparing apples to oranges. Not trying to guess your | height, but it seems you got personally attacked by the fact | that society in general looks down on short guys. | | Different from skin colour, there's an evolutionary trait to | height preference. Studies have shown that heterosexual women | prefer partners taller than them. It's understandable this | subconscious bias. And what seems like discrimination, it's | just a natural product. | | Similarly, men have always shown preference to larger breasts | and hips, signs of fertility. We can't, even shouldn't, shut | down our instincts due to politically correctness. | onion2k wrote: | _We can 't, even shouldn't, shut down our instincts due to | politically correctness._ | | Of course we should. Relying on reasons that would have been | acceptable to a caveman 10,000 years ago is no basis for | modern society. We've beaten evolution. Modern science, | medicine, and society means evolutionary pressures _can_ be | ignored - women with bigger breasts and hips aren 't any more | likely to have successful offspring now because women without | those traits can go to Walmart for baby formula and a GP if | their baby gets ill. Evolution has no bearing any more. Why | keep using it as a reason? | Crabber wrote: | >We've beaten evolution | | No we haven't, and that's a good thing because a society | made up of completely dysgenic people who need countless | supplements and medical products just to stay alive would | not be the utopia you're trying to paint it as. | Brybry wrote: | "just a natural product" is an argument that has been used | for racism as well. White people claimed to be naturally | superior to black people which is one way they falsely | justified slavery. See "appeal to nature" fallacy. | | Obviously taller men are naturally superior to shorter men | and so it's just natural that they make more money. /sarcasm | | And saying men have always shown a preference for larger | breasts is begging the question. There are plenty of studies | out there showing that breast size preference is complicated | -- bigger is not always better. | | Some cultures prefer medium sized breasts (actually, most | studies I found this is the preference).[1] Poorer men might | prefer larger breasts and richer men might prefer smaller | breasts [2][3] Or maybe sexist men prefer larger breasts [4] | | I don't think we know why women have the breasts they have or | if breast size actually is a meaningful signifier of | reproductive fitness. Seems like evidence points that women | get breast implants because of their own opinions of their | body image and not because it's an actual reproductive | advantage.[5] | | [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10 | 905... | | [2] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/jour | nal... | | [3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20862533/ | | [4] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23412650/ | | [5] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-we-do- | it/202001/... | chrischen wrote: | Yes thank you! My whole argument is that we should | reconsider the ingrained belief that short == bad and is | some natural truth. | | Also I would like to add that not even all cultures like | big asses. Some even find the practice of injecting cement | into buttocks (to enlarge them) to be repulsive. Different | cultures have different preferences. Heck, different | cultures can even be sensitive to _different colors_ in | their eyes[1]. | | Once people _open their eyes_ and broaden their minds they | 'll see that _perceptions_ are _extremely_ malleable. | | Height didn't work out for the dinosaurs, and being small | works great for the cockroach. There is no objective short | == bad in reality. | | [1] https://gondwana-collection.com/blog/how-do-namibian- | himbas-... | throwaway202022 wrote: | I don't mean to argue that people shouldn't have preferences, | but do you know many men who have breast and hip size | requirements for a partner and wouldn't consider someone | under those measurements? I'm sure there are some, but I | can't imagine that's true of the vast majority of men. | There's something rather different about a man's height. | neither_color wrote: | I think it's erroneous to think someone who demands a 6'3 | guy won't settle for someone shorter. Those "requirements" | as listed on a dating profile are about as strict as "5 | years experience with a framework that was released 4 years | ago" on a job posting. They're an ideal, There aren't | enough men in the world to meet the "6'-6'3" requirement | and the majority of would-be partners will have to settle. | Teever wrote: | > Different from skin colour, there's an evolutionary trait | to height preference. | | Does this difference exist? I recall studies that showed that | babies are afraid of people who look very different from them | and their family members. As such I was under the impression | that there was a genetic basis for discrimination of people | based on some outward difference in appearance like skin | colour that was due to people having an inherent distrust in | the 'other.' | | If that's the case it's not unreasonable to desire that | society progress in a way that mitigate these biases against | short people in the same way that we desire that society | progresses in a way that mitigate biases against people of | colour. | | > Similarly, men have always shown preference to larger | breasts and hips, signs of fertility. We can't, even | shouldn't, shut down our instincts due to politically | correctness. | | What kinds of things that you feel are due to an instinctual | bias to discriminate against short people, and why should we | not attempt to shut down this discrimination? If your | children were short and they felt like they were | discriminated against for being that way, what sort of advice | would you give them? | omginternets wrote: | >There's really no difference between a person proudly | declaring they only like "white" people and a person declaring | they only like "tall" people. | | I get where you're coming from -- criticizing people for what | they are, rather than for what they do, is exceedingly unfair | -- but I can think of at least three important differences, | chief among which are: | | 1. The shortness of men (barring outright dwarfism) has never | been the object of widespread theories about their fundamental | inferiority, nor have such theories been enshrined into | widespread law. | | 2. Social institutions have never explicitly conspired to | marginalize short men. | | 3. Redlining, lynching, the selling of persons into slavery, | ghettos, etc. have no equivalent in the realm of height. | | And to be frank, it's rather shocking that you would suggest | otherwise. I don't doubt that you've been treated unfairly, and | you are perfectly entitled to complain about it, but that | doesn't require you to twist reality. | thaumasiotes wrote: | > 1. The shortness of men (barring outright dwarfism) has | never been the object of widespread theories about their | fundamental inferiority | | You haven't spoken to many women. | omginternets wrote: | I have, actually. That's the part where I agree with you. | | The point at which I disagree is when you imply that this | is somehow comparable to institutionalized slavery and Jim | Crow laws. | bscheckerhere wrote: | You don't need to have an institution to have similar | effects. What would you call the mass marginalization of | short men by women. Can it be filed under 'natural | selection'? If that is the case, the same should be for | skin color. But nooo, that is not OK. Neither should this | be OK, yet it has been happening for a long time. Because | it's accepted by society and not questioned. It is | generally filed under "they are women" justification. | | How many relationships have you seen where the man is | shorter than the woman? Pull up the stats. I'll wait. | | This 'the short man' preference, 'tall and handsome', 'i | like to look up at my man', 'i like to wear heels', | 'height profiling', 'social selection', 'discrimination | by height' is a real thing. | | A woman will never admit this is similar to skin color | discrimination because she benefits from it. Because that | would require introspection, a quality in short supply | when the focus is "my comfort". They are all practicing | "social darwinism" and could care less. | | To most of us, equality is only equal when we benefit | from it. It's always about the interested parties not | some fancy utopian pipe dream. There will always be a | hierarchy regardless who occupies the poles and in | betweens. | omginternets wrote: | Again, I recognize the injustice you are facing. But | surely you can recognize that there are important, | meaningful differences with respect to racial | discrimination? | | To put it differently: I object to your sense of | proportion. | thaumasiotes wrote: | Me? | omginternets wrote: | You seem to be defending the thesis in the original | comment, so yes. | PretzelPirate wrote: | I think you may have misunderstood the OP and didn't | align with the HN rules of assuming the best meaning. | | They didn't equate racism and discrimination based on | height, they said that there's no difference in someone | discriminating based on that - meaning discriminating | based on something that wasn't a choice and cannot | reasonably be changed. | omginternets wrote: | Respectfully, your accusation does not hold. | | It doesn't hold because: | | 1. I pointed out this distinction in my initial comment, | and the OP has not conceded the point that "x and y are | members of set S" is different from "there are no | differences beetween x and y". | | 2. This in turn negates the "best meaning" you seem to be | assuming. | | And the first point bears repeating. Even if height | discrimination and racism are both instances of prejudice | based on immutable characteristics, there are very | important differences between them. | | Your waiving of the rulebook in response to this is | puzzling. | xvector wrote: | no one is comparing the historical treatment of short people | to slaves; they are comparing how preference for some | unchangeable attributes are somehow acceptable but preference | for others are not. | | you are forcing additional context where there is none. | omginternets wrote: | That's just untrue. The claim is that there is "really no | difference" between discriminating against Blacks and short | people. There are several important differences, and they | relate directly to the historical treatment of Black | people. | | You are arguing in bad faith, just like the OP. | daenz wrote: | There is no difference in the comparison because they're | both based on immutable physical characteristics. There's | a difference in the historical context, which you | highlight. | xvector wrote: | > You are arguing in bad faith, just like the OP. | | Can we keep discussion civil? | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html - | "Assume good faith." | | > There are several important differences, | | _Historically._ But if the historical context of slavery | did not exist, it would still be just as unacceptable to | treat Black individuals differently. | | In essence, historical context is largely irrelevant to | whether an action is right or wrong. An action is right | or wrong in itself (with respect to the contemporary | common moral framework, (which may itself be influenced | by history) etc.) | | As such, treating Black individuals differently is not | more or less wrong than treating short individuals | differently. | omginternets wrote: | I believe I am being civil. I also think bad faith can be | demonstrated, and that it has been. | | >As such, treating Black individuals differently is not | more or less wrong than treating short individuals | differently. | | Again, as I have mentioned repeatedly, we agree on this | point. Where we disagree is in the assertion that there | is "no difference" in effect, precisely because of the | historical context. | Gimpei wrote: | Height does appear to be correlated with income[1]. So it's | entirely possible that discrimination has existed and | continues to exist. People seem to think that because | something is difficult to measure, it isn't there, but that | simply isn't true. Lookism could also be a big problem, but | the causal effects of being unattractive are hard to | identify. Imagine trying to assemble a treatment and control | group for that. Who is going to self identify as being ugly? | | I understand your objection to drawing an equivalence between | racial discrimination, but even if it isn't as "bad" can't it | still recognized as a lesser form of bigotry? | | https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~apostlew/paper/pdf/short.pdf | bigfudge wrote: | The difference here is that height is also correlated with | nutrition and by proxy social class. Whatever that study | says, eradicating that type of confounding from statistical | associations is hard/impossible. | omginternets wrote: | >even if it isn't as "bad" can't it still recognized as a | lesser form of bigotry? | | Yes. In fact, that's exactly what I said. | | It's also worth calling out the sheer madness of equating | height discrimination to racism, and pretending not to see | the problem. | chrischen wrote: | They are equated under the principle of injustice | anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. You could | make the argument that Black people have suffered _more_ | at the hands of society, but the injustice of both are in | the same _class_ : prejudice. | omginternets wrote: | >You could make the argument that Black people have | suffered more at the hands of society, but the injustice | of both are in the same class: prejudice. | | Again, this is exactly what I am saying. | | I am _also_ saying that you go further, and engage in an | intellectual slight-of-hand. This happens precisely when | you say "there's really no difference [...]". | | Yes there is. There are several, _important_ differences | that render irrelevant their belonging to the same | category. Abraham Lincoln and Pol Pot both belong to the | category of "heads of state", but it is laughably | incorrect to claim that there are no differences between | them. So too with your example. | SnowHill9902 wrote: | I agree that it shouldn't be used in a derogatory manner, but | it's a fact that people have preferences in who they prefer to | breed with. In fact that's the reason why we are what we are in | a positive way. You are being disingenuous or have genetic | maladaptive screening of partners if you think otherwise and | that maladaptation is naturally evolved away. | chrischen wrote: | My point is that preferences are malleable and there is no | objective reality or grounding in modern society for short | stature being an undesirable trait (at least going forward). | My hypothesis is that short stature historically has been | attributed to malnutrition, and therefore destitution as | well, which has shaped modern day preferences, but perception | lags reality. | | EDIT: Also I should add that people are reading my comments | automatically into the context of sexual preference, but I | was talking more specifically about the general attitude that | it's ok to deride people based on their genetic shortness. | That being said, even if OK Cupid (Which is just a proxy for | dating preference due to the specific nature of how it | operates) showed that black woman were the least likely to | get matched on OK Cupid doesn't mean it's ok to now make fun | of them based on their skin color / cultural / racial | background. Our perceptions about short people, black women, | etc, are the results of social conditioning. Conditioned | behavior will always lag the current reality. It is my belief | that short stature does not hold the negative associations it | once had, just as whatever was the reason for our preferences | against black woman probably do not hold anymore. | | We don't go around forcing people to start liking short | people or black woman if they have not conditioned themselves | to do so yet, but we also shouldn't be accepting _adding fuel | to the prejudicial fire._ | SnowHill9902 wrote: | You are overestimating and being too kind on "modernity". | Even if today short stature is not a disadvantage (and | that's a big if), it can perfectly well be in one month, | after a war or pandemic breaks out, or in a generation when | your children will be shorter because of current | preferences. | Teever wrote: | Isn't the opposite equally plausible? Tall people kind of | stand out in foxholes, and they require more calories | that may not be available in desperate times. | SnowHill9902 wrote: | Height is not necessarily an end in itself. It's much | easier to be short than to be tall. For someone to be | tall many things have to have gone exactly well. So | tallness is a proxy for generic success. | chrischen wrote: | It can, but hasn't. Our prejudice against short people is | almost certainly a result of past associations with | malnutrition and poverty. I can't speak for other | reasons, but this reason for short stature is no longer a | main cause in modern Western (or even Eastern) society. | Plus what you say about the fickleness of | advantage/disadvantage equally applies to tall stature. | Maybe Ryanair will start charging tall people extra next | month. | | Your comment shows your hand on your prejudice, because | you're still somewhat commenting from the viewpoint that | tallness is still an inherent positive trait. That | clearly didn't work out for the dinosaurs. I'm not saying | the opposite is true (that shortness is an inherent | positive trait), but I do believe we need to dispel our | preconceived notions because they are very _short_ | -sighted. | thoms_a wrote: | I can think of another genetic factor that has a much, | much greater impact on survival. And it is absolutely | taboo to mention the heritability or genetic basis of | this trait. | | Take solace in the fact that if you find yourself on HN, | you're likely at least a few SD above the mean in this | trait, so you don't have much to worry about. | Furthermore, you can use this trait to understand the | fickle nature of sexual attraction, and how to obtain | whatever it is you're looking for in an efficient manner. | Avicebron wrote: | oof, we don't discuss intelligence == genetics == success | here, too bad those three are hardly correlated without | addressing other factors, edit too bad as in too good, | because without the other factors they aren't related. No | straight line for you here | jdkee wrote: | Via Rob Henderson's newsletter: | | Muscularity is the strongest predictor of mating success | for men. | | A study on males aged 18 to 59 found that muscularity is | significantly positively associated with the number of | total sexual partners and partners in the last year. | | Handgrip strength is correlated with self-assessed | happiness, health, social confidence, overall physical | attractiveness, and overall number of sexual partners. | | Researchers recorded short videos of 157 different men. | Next, they had a group of male viewers watch videos of the | men and asked, "How likely is it that this man would win a | physical fight with another man?" Then the researchers had | a group of female viewers watch the same videos and asked, | "How sexually attractive is this man?" Eighteen months | later, the men in the videos completed a questionnaire | asking about their sexual history of the previous 18 | months. How tough a guy looked to men was a much stronger | predictor of mating success than how attractive he looked | to women. | | In this study, researchers asked two different groups of | women to look at photos of different men and rate how | strong the men looked. Results showed that the rated | strength of a male body accounts for 70 percent of the | variance in attractiveness (this is a massive effect size). | From the paper: "None of the women produced a preference | for weaker men...in both samples, the strongest men were | the most attractive, the weakest men were the least | attractive." | | See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S | 10905... | | See also https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/ | pii/S10905... | | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090 | 5... | | https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.201 | 7... | SnowHill9902 wrote: | So sexual attractiveness as assessed by women is the best | predictor of sexual success with women? Who would've | thought? | xeromal wrote: | I would say that past preferences are simpler than | malnutrition. The biggest brute wins. People feel safe | around bigger people if they're on their team. I met Thor | Bjornson a few years ago and meeting him was terrifying. I | can see that trait as being desirable just from a | protection and safety perspective. | | Like you said though, that's less necessary in this day and | age. | chrischen wrote: | Even if you add that and other hunter-gatherer positive | qualities, those don't apply in modern society as much | either. Today the frail rich nerd wins, for the most part | (or at least their ability to kill a man wit their bare | hands matters a lot, lot less). | thoms_a wrote: | I was wondering how far I had to scroll down to find one | person (on HN no less) finally stating the obvious. | | Thor could be 8ft tall and able to lift to a house. It | won't save him from a drone swarm designed by a nerd at | Lockheed. | xeromal wrote: | I don't think anyone is arguing who has greater modern | power. I think people are just arguing if the preferences | are created through upbringing or do they come from | something more innate in our biology. | xeromal wrote: | Agreed. I'll also say though that we have these | preferences and a lot of them are hardwired. Some come | from upbringing but our brains looking for symmetry in a | face or perhaps certain features on men or women come | from our DNA. | | I find women of a certain size and shape attractive. That | doesn't mean I can't find other kinds of women | attractive, but you're doing the argument a disservice if | you don't think at least some of our preferences are | innate. | nathias wrote: | are you confusing sexual preference with chattel slavery? | chrischen wrote: | Sexual preference is largely shaped by societal influences as | well. As I stated at the end there's historical pretext to | this: fat women used to be preferred by men. Sexual | preferences have changed over time. It's just as wrong as | assuming that patriarchal society is some universal truth. | | Assuming that it is some innate quality that women are | attracted to people taller than them is also flawed. What | about homosexual woman? If they both prefer someone taller | how does that work? | paulryanrogers wrote: | > As I stated at the end there's historical pretext to | this: fat women used to be preferred by men. | | Is there a citation? I've heard only the rich were 'plump' | in ancient times, though not that it was ever sexually | desirable. | | > What about homosexual woman? If they both prefer someone | taller how does that work? | | Nature doesn't always fit our intuition or first | hypothesis. IIRC, gay men strongly prefer very fit men, yet | they cannot procreate. That struck me as counterintuitive, | though if the cause is genetic there could be a variety of | factors leading to such genes. | threatofrain wrote: | Philosophically I am sympathetic to the argument that judgments | on skin color vs height are all about judging people based on | looks rather than moral conduct. But I do say that race is | different simply because people treat race as something worthy | of violent tension. | | Are tall and short people getting into wars or engaging in clan | strife? | fleddr wrote: | Yes and no. It's complicated. | | Mate selection is not and should not be institutionalized which | means that you are within your rights to discriminate | on...anything. Your criteria may be based on "taste", past | experiences or downright prejudice. It is inevitable that as | you pick a mate, you discriminate. | | You can't stop that nor should you. We can however openly | discuss criteria that are unhealthy, perverted, make no | sense...in an attempt to open people's minds. Not to control | whom they can date, rather to open up possibilities. People may | be missing out a lot by being needlessly restrictive. | | As old man I might provide a shortcut. Cliche as it is, | character stands the test of time. What is somebody like? | Select for that, the rest is a bonus. | didibus wrote: | I don't know if that's the issue people are bringing. I think | people are talking about the active derogatory and | communicated bias towards shorter men. | PKop wrote: | This reads like pure cope from a short guy. I don't see how one | can dictate to others what they should find attractive. That's | not how it works. | | >but in our modern society short stature is mostly a matter of | genetics | | And as biological creatures, we can perceive better genetics vs | worse, as we can perceive "more attractive" vs "less". This is | how sexual selection works. You're arguing against fundamental | aspects of the universe and for people to not pursue their | biological imperatives via preference for physical fitness. | There's always going to be some sort of elevated status to | those that are more fit and physical markers for health may not | be less important in "modern world" than you assume. It may be | culturally trendy to want to minimize physical ideals vs the | past, and environmental factors may be pushing us away from | promoting an ideal of physical healthy (obesity rates, | industrial processed food, sedentary lifestyles etc) but that | may not be the last word on the subject. Harsh reality may | assert itself. | | >inferiority hold no objective basis in reality | | I would trust the many thousands of years of evolutionary | instinct which elevates the "tall" in minds of say women and | what they perceive as stronger and fitter than some claim that | suddenly now the world works differently than it always has. If | it was so flawed it wouldn't be such a pervasive instinct in | social status and sexual attractiveness. | | >It used to be sexy to be fat | | Ultimately making good or bad assumptions about "fitness" is | part of the game. The best perceptions of health will win out | over the worse ones. Though if you look at ancient Greece or | Rome to give 2 examples I question the claim that "fit bodies" | weren't the ideal, for men at least. | chrischen wrote: | > This reads like pure cope from a short guy. I don't see how | one can dictate to others what they should find attractive. | That's not how it works. | | No one is dictating anything about _attractiveness_ , and you | really shouldn't be trying to marginalize my arguments on the | ground that I might be short. It really has no relevancy | here. I wasn't talking about dating and people's dating | preferences. I was referring specially to the person | receiving a derogatory comment about his stature, that was in | the context of normal socializing. Again, it is not socially | or morally acceptable to deride someone for their skin color, | and my point is that _it 's equally unacceptable_ to do so on | another genetic trait such as height. Just because that | random man did not find the height adjusted man to be | attractive or not has no bearing on whether he has the right | to express derision about his height in such a nonchalant | manner. I mean, it shouldn't be made illegal, but it | shouldn't be socially acceptable either assuming all parties | are not toxic and want to be part of well-intenioned society. | | However, if we want to shift the topic to | dating/attractiveness, your statement applies to people's | "preferences" on race as well. OK Cupid published these | preferences against black woman (and also Asian men) on their | site. We can use this as an example because it's been more in | the spotlight than the topic of stature, and easier to see my | point. | | My opinion on this is that if you are short/Black/Asian and | dating then just skip to the next person who can't see past | superficial physical qualities. Usually it's a sign of dating | inexperience anyways. It's a free market, and the winners | will be those that are able to make a decision beyond | superficial factors. Many people can't see past the | superficial qualities as trivial as a candidate being a woman | instead of a man, and the same thing applies here. It's their | loss. Societal trends will always lag reality. We can't force | people to get up to speed, nor should we (and I never | advocated for this). The best thing to do is to simply reward | those who are prescient. | Crabber wrote: | >the winners will be those that are able to make a decision | beyond superficial factors | | You're just inverting reality now. "The winners of dating | are those that pick partners with the least desirable | physical traits". | | If there's two men with identical personalities, but one is | 6'5 and muscular and the other is 4'2 and 300lbs what | exactly would a woman be "winning" by going with the second | man? | aortega wrote: | >there aren't really downsides to short stature in modern life | | It even have several health benefits. Except that in dating, | women overwhelmingly prefer men over 6', and very small | differences like 5'7 vs 5'9 double or triple the matches in | online dating sites. If we are talking about 5'6 vs 6'0 the | difference is ridiculous, like over 200X more matches. Women | even divorce short men at double the rate of tall men. Those | sites have years of very precise statistics that support this | fact. | | Basically this means that in modern dating, if you are short, | you are very likely to die alone and this trend will only get | worse in the future. | paulcole wrote: | > Except that in dating, women overwhelmingly prefer men over | 6' | | Is this actually true? | | > if you are short, you are very likely to die alone | | This also seems like nonsense. | claytongulick wrote: | I'm somewhere between 5' 7" and 5' 8". | | I've experienced the "filter" issue with online dating, but | my conclusions are entirely different. | | I really don't mind it, in fact I appreciate it. | | Anyone who would filter me out over something as shallow as | height would undoubtedly be an extraordinarily poor match for | me. | | I prefer quality over quantity. | | As to the "die alone" thing - that seems a bit grim. | | I'm 46, since age 14 when I actively started dating the | longest I've been single was for about 3 months after a bad | break-up, and that was by choice. | | Sure, when you don't have a height advantage you have to make | it up in other ways - personality, fitness level, | professional success, etc... | | In general, I think my relatively modest stature has been a | benefit to me. It forced me to be a better person, and to | focus on qualities that matter, rather than superficial | things. | aortega wrote: | I knew there would be answers of the style 'I'm short and | Im great with girls' yes, but you are only a data point. | I'm talking here of statistics, and in general short guys | have it bad, according to online dating sites. You can | easily do an experiment with a fake profile and see it | yourself. | claytongulick wrote: | Is that what I said? | | I acknowledge that there's a difference and that it needs | to be made up for in other ways. | | Everyone has challenges. Tall people, minorities, gay | people, short people, poor people, rich people... the | list is endless. | | We all have challenges. | | We shouldn't measure ourselves by our challenges. We | should measure ourselves by the effort we put in to | overcome. | | When I see a handicapped person climb a mountain, the | thing I find extraordinary isn't the handicap, it's the | phenomenal effort to transcend. | | I don't have anything close to those problems. I'm just a | bit vertically challenged. | | I'll be double damned if I'm going to let that hold me | back, or bemoan how unlucky I am because of it. | reverend_gonzo wrote: | Sounds like a forever aloner. | | I know multiple tall, classically good looking men who, while | they can can get dates, can not maintain them because they | have zero relationship skills, and I know just as many short | men who have a relationship whenever they want. | | While height might be an early filter, it is by no means the | only source of attraction. Men would do well to build the | rest of their personalities to stand themselves out rather | than complain about something they have no control over. | aortega wrote: | >Sounds like a forever aloner. | | This social disqualification is the reason the truth | remains hidden. I'm only 5'9 and have a family, but this | was way before social networks and online dating. The world | is different now. | | >I know | | Yes I know many data points that fall outside the curve | too. But I'm talking about the curve. | FooBarWidget wrote: | Well ok but all the relationship skills in the world can't | help you if you can't get past that initial filter. | throwaway515 wrote: | _> Basically this means that in modern dating, if you are | short, you are very likely to die alone and this trend will | only get worse in the future._ | | I'm 5'6, and after almost 15 years of dating sites to modern | dating apps, I have indeed accepted that yes, I will very | likely die alone. My therapist has even half-seriously | suggested I try lying about my height, and qualms aside, from | the studies I've read, any plausible-in-person exaggeration | would gain me a couple of percentile points at most. | throw__away7391 wrote: | I'm a tad over 6' but girls are so used to guys lying about | their hight that they usually say I'm 6'2". On multiple | occasions I've had my date insist over my objection that I | must be taller than that. | | It's not a stretch for me to imagine that widespread lying | by men about their hight has actually collectively made the | problem worse for men, e.g. women insisting on 6 feet | because they've dating 5'10" guys claiming to be 6" and | decided that was the minimum. | miramardesign wrote: | Darmody wrote: | Plenty of women don't care about that. | | Just stop using apps like Tinder, they attract the worst of | the worst, by what I see, especially in the US. Even if you | were above 6', you wouldn't want to date a woman obsessed | with height. | | In my group of friends, the shorter ones (around 1,73m) are | the most successful ones. | aortega wrote: | My theory is that if you stay in a city, you are very | likely correct. In a city you have to compete with men much | taller and attractive. And women have access to hundreds of | those men 24/7 through their cell phones constantly hitting | on them. You won't win, but in a smaller city/rural town, | you have much more chances. | handmodel wrote: | I am a 5'6 man. I still think a city is much better as I | assume the 5'6 man has standards, too. It's not like | finding a partner who is willing to settle with you is | difficult at all - it is finding one that you feel meets | your level of fitness, intelligence, and social status | which is considered high (other than your height). In a | rural setting you are going to be very limited but a city | definitely has options. | | I would say be patient. I think as you grow older it | becomes less important. And even if 80% of women have | fairly strong height preferences I think a solid 20% have | close to no preference or would care bubt are very short | themselves. | chrischen wrote: | Lying about your height is actually an acceptable thing to | do if it is to get over people's prejudices. In all honesty | a good chunk of the people you encountered probably wrote | you off prematurely anyways. But online dating and Tinder | isn't great when you're trying to look past superficial | qualities (your face, your height, your basic physical | characteristics) so it's setting you up for failure, not to | mention the way these apps are setup makes it really low | effort for men to and woman to each have unrealistic | expectations, and setup the vast majority for failure. | | But if you're still looking for things to try, I would | recommend you get some activities (sports, hobbies) and | meet people outside of a purely dating context. People's | guards will be down and they'll be evaluating you on your | other qualities rather than height in these contexts, and | the extra time you spend with them is exactly what you need | for them to overcome their prejudices. | abledon wrote: | google: "filipino average height" | | You might have some luck over there :) | SemanticStrengh wrote: | aortega wrote: | Being tall had several competitive advantages in the past. | Basically before guns were invented the bigger guy usually | could kill smaller guys, and get more food for the family. | Quite obvious that women would prefer the big guy, and | instincts don't change that quickly. | chrischen wrote: | I think they actually change faster than most would | think. While that specific reason for preferring big guys | is out-dated, more recently malnutrition and destitution | have been a black mark on short people. | | The reason I think societal trends move faster than we | think is that I think it was only in the middle of the | last century that we still preferred fatter bodies. | SemanticStrengh wrote: | > we still preferred fatter bodies how widepsread? And | how much of it was physical attraction vs social reasons | attraction? | SemanticStrengh wrote: | I perfectly agree it make sense evolutionarily speaking, | I just wonder how that subjectively manifest in a woman | mind. I don't think it's the same perceived stimulus vs | the consensual sexy perception of a hypertrophied 6 pack. | robotresearcher wrote: | Height is an historically reliable signal of access to | good nutrition, and hence wealth and security. | | It's not so much that being bigger helps you get stuff, | it's that it's unfakable proof that you've been getting | stuff long term. | chrischen wrote: | Various amounts of social conditioning. In fact, that's how | all our preferences are shaped. Some people like | ratatouille, some people like sushi. | chrischen wrote: | Lucky for short people, height is a lot less of a factor in | modern society. Wealth is a much bigger factor. And what's | the best path to wealth? _Software_. Even more lucky for | them, software and internet doesn 't care about height. | ayngg wrote: | There was a study on online dating habits that said that | even someone who was 5'8 would need to earn ~138k more than | the same 6'0 person to be considered equivalent, | controlling for everything else [1]. Of course it is just | one study and I havent looked into it fully but | nonetheless. | | [1] https://home.uchicago.edu/~hortacsu/onlinedating.pdf | table 5.5 | aortega wrote: | > height is a lot less of a factor in modern society. | Wealth is a much bigger factor | | It seems logical, but you are wrong. Women usually marry | the millionaire, but have sex with the pool boy. This dual- | mating strategy is instinctive: get resources from the | rich, and genes from the tall. Maybe that's why humans are | getting taller and taller. I know is not politically | correct to say this, and I wish it wasn't true, but the | data is quite clear. | bigfudge wrote: | Is that really why humans are getting taller? Most | increase in height has happened in the last 70 years and | linked to increases in nutrition. Selective pressure | seems implausible as an explanation for any measurable | increases in height in historical time. | Salgat wrote: | What if better nutrition has allowed for better selection | of taller genes? Back when everyone was more nutrient | deficient and had stunted growth, I imagine it would be | much harder to select for a suppressed trait. | chrischen wrote: | I think the stats you are referencing about humans | getting taller are from improvements in childhood | nutrition. I don't think genetically we've been selecting | for taller people, as that is harder to conclude (plus, | even if woman select for taller men, men do not | necessarily select for taller woman, and woman are part | of this too let's not forget). | | > Women usually marry the millionaire, but have sex with | the pool boy. This dual-mating strategy is instinctive. | | Yea and the man has concubines, and the prenup? Pretty | sure the woman usually doesn't have the pool boy's | children in these stories. | klipt wrote: | > plus, even if woman select for taller men, men do not | necessarily select for taller woman, and woman are part | of this too let's not forget | | Men's preferences only matter in a monogamous society, | where less attractive women are expected to settle down | with less attractive men who will financially support | their kids. | | But in modern welfare states, less attractive women can | still sleep with very attractive men (whom they could | never marry), have their children, and rely on the state | to financially support their kids. | | Which means the rich but unattractive men are, through | taxes, paying for the children of the attractive men. | buran77 wrote: | Height, weight, shape, pilosity, generic looks, | intelligence, education, success, wealth, etc. are all | criteria that are used by people to judge other people | and _discriminate_. Society also prizes different things | in men and women. These are all forms of discrimination | but despite several attempts to justify your original | statements I think it should be clear that they 're | _nothing_ like discrimination of black people. Scale, | intention, means, effect all matter. | | If your point is that we should eliminate any and all | discrimination... sure. It's a far too lofty goal to | happen as long as we're biological beings but why not. | But saying that "there's really no difference" between | the 2 types of discrimination is something you could and | should really walk back from. | | Every single decision you make is based on some criteria | that you may not even be able to clearly define. But just | because you can't verbalize why you like this person and | not the next doesn't make it less of a _discrimination_ | process. Do you think that makes you the KKK? | aortega wrote: | >Pretty sure the woman usually doesn't have the pool | boy's children | | You'd be surprised. | chrischen wrote: | This problem in online dating doesn't just apply to the | single physical characteristic of height. It's a clusterfuck | of ticking boxes and underdeveloped expectations. A 5 year | old boy might tick "no girls", while a 14 year old boy might | tick "big boobs", and a 30 year old man might tick "good | education and stable job." | | It's as if we all go into it like ordering at a Burger King, | except _Have it your way_ (tm) comes out tasting like crap | because we realize we aren 't chefs. Online dating is how a | bureaucrat decides to choose their life partner. The boxes | you tick in online dating _aren 't_ important and are there | just to pander to users. | daenz wrote: | Yep. Nobody wants to talk about it, but the amount of abuse | that is directed from otherwise-socially-conscious women | towards short men is pretty disgusting. It's extremely common | for groups of women to laugh at and deride short men, both | online and publicly in real life. It's eye-opening. (And before | you ask, no I am not short, I've just witnessed the abuse first | hand). | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | I'm 5'5" and 120 lbs and that hasn't been my experience. My | past promiscuity is the butt of jokes far more often than my | stature. | kodah wrote: | Personally, the short men I know still get play. Women have | a wide variety of tastes, as do men; and the taste really | just needs to be tried once to get a probability for it to | stick. | | That said, women being callous and cruel in groups about | height, fitness, etc is more congruent to locker room talk. | You probably won't hear it because it's behind your back | and _usually_ not by people you know. I say that as having | been witness to this kind of private talk before. | aortega wrote: | Didn't see any study about that, but its true that women not | only reject unfit men (short, poor, etc.) but sometimes are | actively hostile and abusive to them. Perhaps is a | instinctive behavior from a past were rapes were much more | common than today. | maxcan wrote: | 100%, but you're right that nobody wants to talk about it. I | guess I've just adapted by growing thick skin around the | issue and just not letting it bother me. | | That thick skin is, IMHO, a trait that I think has become | vastly underappreciated in our society. | georgia_peach wrote: | Goliath the Philistine was six cubits and a span. The internet | tells me that 6'0" is the manlet cutoff. He should have either | embraced his original height, or asked for a discount since the | doctor was two inches short of the mark. | milkey_mouse wrote: | I'd imagine one can only lengthen their limbs so much before | they end up looking like a Japanese spider crab. | georgia_peach wrote: | Japanese spider crab is aesthetic compared to many of the | abominations coming out of elective surgery these days. | bumblebritches5 wrote: | ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote: | That's incredibly sad, the comparison to boob and nose jobs is | apt. It's a symptom of a sick society when people are so insecure | about their bodies they feel they have to undergo unnecessary | surgery to fit in. | | My cousin had this procedure done almost 30 years ago, but she | was pathologically small, at a height which makes it hard to | function. | bigcat123 wrote: | Pxtl wrote: | AFAIK the boob and nose job comparison is a bit off because | those are pretty harmless and safe compared to this incredibly | dangerous process. | zdragnar wrote: | "Safe" is a pretty relative term; there are no shortage of | complications that can arise from any of these surgeries | (though the risk profiles are different, there are definitely | still risks of permanent injury). | | At the end of the day, these are elective surgeries too | frequently used as an attempt to mask a pathological low self | esteem. | meowface wrote: | That's why they said "compared to this". | hobomatic wrote: | Yes it's a relative term, but it's a comparison; it's being | used as a relative metric. | dubswithus wrote: | Implants have to be replaced eventually, right? So the danger | is having a surgery every X years. | jasonhansel wrote: | What does insulting these people--and "insecure" here is hard | to read as anything but an insult--do to help them? If you want | to fix society, by all means take action and work to do so. But | criticizing people who choose to undergo such procedures only | makes their situation worse. | xiphias2 wrote: | ,,people are so insecure about their bodies'' | | While I agree that it's probably not worth it for the | operation, multiple studies have shown that heigh is an | important factor in mate selection (and I believe there's a | consensus on it), so using the word insecurity, which refers to | a mental problem, diverts thinking of alternative solutions | (like better fitness) to a bad direction. | throwaway284534 wrote: | As someone who got a nose job, I've heard this line too many | times to count. It seems that people want to believe the only | reason I would remove the hump on my nose is because of | society's beauty standards. I'm not allowed to simply not like | it. Why this same logic doesn't apply to hair dye or clothing, | I'll never know. | | Y'know what's funny too? I've never once met someone who both | admired big noses and chose to increase the size of their own. | I guess that's society for you... | ch4s3 wrote: | Indeed, the basic promise of our social order is individual | autonomy and self ownership. Body modification is an exercise | is self ownership. | hervature wrote: | This is a sensitive topic so don't expect people to comment | with anecdotes about people who do want to enhance their | nose. That being said, it is popular enough to warrant some | businesses [1]. We are also talking about a medical surgery | that might not be sufficient for people's needs. Much easier | to remove material than add it to the body. | | [1] - https://www.floridacosmeticsurgerycenter.com/services/p | lasti... | emptybits wrote: | > "Then I insert a rod -- we call it a nail or a rod -- that goes | inside the bone. The rod is magnetic and it has gears. Then | there's an external device that communicates with the nail. And | over time, little by little, it lengthens out the nail." The | lengthening happens gradually. "We usually say about a millimeter | a day, until they get to their desired height." | | The "external device that communicates with the nail" part should | perk up hacker ears, with various motivations. o_O | jasonhansel wrote: | If your bones get unusually hot, they may be mining Bitcoin for | North Korea. | SomaticPirate wrote: | I had a short friend in high school who was insecure about his | height. He is about 5'3. In his eyes, it was the first thing | people noticed about him. Last time I saw him he had gotten | incredibly fit. Most people noticed his muscles more than the | fact that he was short (also you might he less likely to tease | someone who can throw your 6 foot body across the room). | | I think that would be a more appropriate investment than this if | it bothered you so much. I also think it gave him more | confidence. I worry the individual in the article will end up | despondent that they aren't "over 6 feet". | tomjakubowski wrote: | Shorter bodybuilders tend to look more muscular too because of | their shorter limbs and torso. | paulpauper wrote: | yeah but your arms will now appear short | Jtsummers wrote: | Not if the lengthening is in the legs and only 2-3 inches. Your | _torso_ may appear short when compared to the legs (but | probably not at just 2-3 inches), but the arm length 's | appropriateness to body size is more often going to be based on | comparison to the torso itself. People don't normally fold up | so their arms and legs are near enough to make a proper | comparison. | detcader wrote: | In a century or two it will be wild that doctors could just get | up in the morning and do these things. How far does this stuff | have to go for anyone to reckon with this? If I have a | psychological need, with a fancy name, for people to eat me, can | a surgeon just cut off my arm and feed it to people? Why not? | [deleted] | djohnston wrote: | Do you think remote first companies will be at an advantage | because physical biases like height, age, and weight have less | signal to form against? | jghjjhjkh wrote: | No, the opposite. This is _driven_ by apps and screen mediated | interaction. In real life every person has thousands of facets | that give a holistic impression. And people more easily have | genuine connections with each other. | | Online there is instead a huge focus on the big few. And they | take on the role of dealbreakers. | __derek__ wrote: | Maybe, but many remote-first companies eventually hold in- | person events. I recently met the folks on my all-remote team | for the first time, and it was a little jarring to see the | differences between expectation and reality. | etempleton wrote: | I would also argue height advantages do not really factor in | until one reaches leadership positions. At that point the job | probably dictates being in person at least part time. | __derek__ wrote: | As I understand it, height bias factors into who gets | leadership positions in the first place. Maybe that | phenomenon decreases as a result of remote work, though. | [deleted] | xunn0026 wrote: | Curious: jarring how? | | I saw an excellent educational video recently from a guy that | was, how to put it, dressed almost like a hobo. | 3qz wrote: | Lookism is much worse than racism or sexism but nobody ever wants | to talk about it. | ponder4722 wrote: | Everything we are judged on - appearance, intelligence, earning | potential - is a random dice roll of DNA that none of us control. | Yet people take credit (pride or shame) for these traits. | Pondering this has left me more detached and unimpressed with the | human society game and competition... but what else is there? | What am "I", if anything, beyond the randomly assigned DNA-based | traits? | cjbgkagh wrote: | The same random DNA lottery applies to women. I think the | difference is the normalization of cruelty and inefficiencies | in the dating market. I think a lot of women end up deeply | unhappy but by the time they're that age they're largely | ignored. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-04-30 23:00 UTC)