[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)