Also of note the income data is combined household income (2 incomes for a married couple) and over the entire population (including 40+ later-career incomes).
It's likely significantly over predicting how common $100k yearly income is among the 20-35 year old "dating pool". Though probably balanced out some by being 10 year old data by now.
For the Average Man, gaining an inch of height is worth losing roughly $25k in annual salary. Meanwhile, an inch of pecker is roughly offset by reducing annual salary by $128k.
No, D2F only matters if you're trying to optimize stroke between two hot-swappable participants.
And then it's really if an angle allowed by Base to Floor (B2F) and Length (L) is compatible with an angle allowed by the other participant's B2F and L.
A single woman trying to derive pleasure from a single man has a totally different set of criteria she needs to qualify.
I really thought this post was gonna be adjacent to the hip-hop group, and I was patiently waiting to be told that Poppin one's Collar accounts for a pecker deficit.
I am curious why is height important? Understandably, income affects the lifestyle and opportunities, but what does height affect? What changes if you are several inch taller or shorter? I cannot understand.
Also, why those who care about height so much do not go for basketball players?
Also, the picture with income graph says "household income", not "personal income".
While cultures tend to have different standards of attractiveness, weight is most definitely, objectively related to health. If you care about having a healthy partner, you should probably care about their weight.
Weight varies much more than height (there is 3x-4x ratio between extreme values) and is instantly noticeable unlike height, so I think this is a bad comparison.
Ok but it's still a really basic evolutionary signal, taller is better, especially for the hunting/fighting gender. Some dogs get up on their hind legs to piss higher on trees.
I would liken it more to the male equivalent of facial beauty or weight: most men have a general level of facial beauty and weight they expect in a partner. And if not met, there is really nothing else that can help bind the attraction. For women, that is height. But yes, it is "evolved intuition."
You’re going to need some serious sources to back that up man because that flies in the face of our understanding of socially constructed beauty/physical/etc. standards. What we consider “attractive” has historically been incredibly varied and heavily determined by society, class, etc.
Your argument is that it's just more attractive. That might be true. That would also mean there's an underlying reason for females finding this attractive. This could be due to taller males being able to protect their offspring from other males, hence more of us are descended from taller males and females that found taller males attractive.
But being taller could also give other advantages like perceived or actual dominance over other males which is, in itself, an attractive quality.
>No one was talking about "body count" (at least not publicly) ten years ago.
Why do you think that is? Our great grandfathers were practically guaranteed to be marrying virgins, while today's young men seem to consider themselves lucky if their girl is still in single figures. Things have changed, people are talking about it.
I was alive in the 1990s. "Heroic chic" was definitely a thing.
I'm also alive now. It's not hard to find big butts being idolized.
Your linked article is not very scientific. For example, it cites porn-store purchasing preference as evidence of actual male taste in partner selection.
For one, because it's an indicator of health and healthy development, which are in turn related to other desirable features. Analogous things can be said for women.
You also can't ignore assortive mating. We're not all in the same mating pool, as it were. Women prefer men taller than they are, but that doesn't mean that a woman of 1.25m will pair with a man of 2m. The typical height difference between husband and wife is about 10-15cm, regardless of the absolute height of either spouse.
I've got a couple of methodological qualms with this article, but I do agree that in this case we should follow the spirit not the letter, so I'll keep them to myself.
Unfortunately the effort is likely lost on the people who most need to understand it. It's very hard to reason someone out of a position they didn't get into via reason.
Then again, based on local income statistics. Don't know locality of the third one. It's the good old, lies, damned lies and statistics (and meant as humor thus not really an issue).
Maybe we can get the USA to get the metric system for all those men who are 1.83 meters and below. Or do people internationally say that you need to be 1,8 meters to be dateable?
Not in salary though, given that the salaries in TFA are local to the US, and West European salaries are lower, as a rule (East European salaries, of course, even lower).
OTOH many women may prefer as partner the European man who doesn't work crazy overtime every night, takes 4 weeks of holidays every year with her, uses his months of legally mandated parental leave when they have a baby...
The 6/6/6 dimensions seem to capture very little about what's actually important for the success of a long-term relationship. I guess that's fine, it's presumably a game for 20-year-olds.
It’s also funny cause it’s mocking this BS in such a good natured wonderfully overdone way. Guy in my college house who got laid the most was on the shorter side, poor, and kind of acted effeminate at times to the point that people mistook him for gay. Never saw his wing wong so maybe it was like ten inches but I doubt it. He was also kind and not a jerk and did not act like an “alpha male.”
What was he? Fun, hilarious, and confident.
I got zero until I decided to stop pretending not to be a weird nerd and just chat about stuff I was into, which at the time was evolutionary information theory and hacking. Guess what? Leading with who you are is confident.
It’s attractive in women too, at least for me.
The incel stuff is just men catching up with women when it comes to dumb anxieties about looking right according to arbitrary external standards.
I am pretty sure this 3 6's rule was a social media clickbaity phenomenon anyways. There are people this shallow and silly, but they are actually rare.
To be fair, "confidence" and knowing "who you are" in college is largely an illusion.
I would argue that "success" at that age is more a matter of being interesting and entertaining in a nonthreatening way.
It comes across as insincere to the majority of women who are also getting ignored by the majority of men at that age. That's what you get when you optimize for cheap and easy attraction instead of long term relationship appeal. A lot of younger people don't know the difference.
> Guess what? Leading with who you are is confident.
That was always my attitude, why hide who you are in the first place, I'm a computer geek who likes playing Chess,Cycling and heavy metal music - I put that on my dating profile and it didn't hurt me in the slightest.
yeah, its almost like treating women not like a piece of meat that youre only talking with to try and fuck goes a long way lol (not coming at you, just in general)
exactly what you said, just being you, listening and being engaging, remembering things, and like you said, be confident. Which doesnt mean being a masculine hyper alpha. it means that you are comfortable with yourself which is something that comes off so so well. hell ive literally had a girl on my couch practically on top of me listening to me ramble about the tragedy of char aznable and amuro ray AND SHE ASKED FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS lol
ive been labeled an "oblivious flirt" i just like being a little playful shithead and it comes off great apparently. and i think its because ill openly flirt and give but i dont take anything they give back in an cockhungry opportunistic way. confidence and knowing when to make your exit go a longgggggg way. im always called very sweet but my favorite thing is getting under someones skin just a bit to throw them off. denying a girl who is used to men bending to their will is extremelllyyyyyy satisfying lol
Since I'm feeling generous, the words you missed are "fun and confident". One could expand to "comfortable and happy in one's skin", very much not a synonym for cockiness which is prickly and challenging. You can't fake it, it comes and goes for all of us.
OPs friend got laid a lot despite "traditional" defects because of wholesome, fun confidence.
And you don't think the tall, rich, well-endowed man is more likely to be a little more confident than the short, poor micro-penised man?
Put "I'm fun and confident" in your dating profile and I'll put "6'4"" and we'll see how that pans out. You won't be having much fun and your confidence will be shot.
> "men catching up with women when it comes to dumb anxieties"
It's weird to watch all those fans of patriarchy step right into their own trap. Didn't they get the memo that this stuff was set up to control women? Or is it just a reflection of how these self-proclaimed "alphas" secretly see their own proper place as subjugated by men higher up in the hierarchy?
It’s all very obvious hysteria that parodies itself loudly.
It’s also a big con. Andrew Tate might be an abuser of women but his big marks are men. Look at how much money he makes selling that BS to insecure guys. That was his whole schtick as he rose to fame.
I suspect the manosphere stuff is designed to make men repellent to women to keep them hooked on it. If you find a girlfriend you might not pay $25K to attend an alpha male boot camp to have an idiot yell at you.
I guess it's dating app fatigue makes us promote old articles :)
Fun fact, I learned yesterday that Bumble will delete swipes in their upcoming app reset and go ai assistant way. Not that that I am fan of dating apps, it's one of the worse inventions ever, but seems pretty interesting seeing their stock price plummeted 93% since IPO
Also of note the income data is combined household income (2 incomes for a married couple) and over the entire population (including 40+ later-career incomes).
It's likely significantly over predicting how common $100k yearly income is among the 20-35 year old "dating pool". Though probably balanced out some by being 10 year old data by now.
Buuut it's from 2014, and in case you didn't notice there was quite a bit of inflation between 2014 and now.
Back in 2014 the share of household incomes earning more than 99,999 was 34.5 in 2024 it was 42.8
The tragedy of it all is that with all this inflation, my dick never grew longer...
I worked with a short, partially bald guy, but he could charm the socks off any girl. Pretty sure; he didn't care a wit for 6/6/6.
The information that was missing from my life:
For the Average Man, gaining an inch of height is worth losing roughly $25k in annual salary. Meanwhile, an inch of pecker is roughly offset by reducing annual salary by $128k.
So smaller penises are rewarded with higher salaries?
why do you think they chase the money?
This is solid reporting:
> A 6" wiener is even rarer than being 6' tall. The average erect penis length is 5.166" with a std dev of 0.654".
It's not about length though. It's the dick to floor figure.
One of the many gems from Silicon Valley.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-hUV9yhqgY
This thread is just life imitating art.
South Park also had a great episode about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81bt0ZJLMas
No, D2F only matters if you're trying to optimize stroke between two hot-swappable participants.
And then it's really if an angle allowed by Base to Floor (B2F) and Length (L) is compatible with an angle allowed by the other participant's B2F and L.
A single woman trying to derive pleasure from a single man has a totally different set of criteria she needs to qualify.
The data cannot be right. Is the average penis really that small in the states ?
There is a correlation with average waist size here...
No wonder for the overcompensation on the worldstage!
I really thought this post was gonna be adjacent to the hip-hop group, and I was patiently waiting to be told that Poppin one's Collar accounts for a pecker deficit.
Really, it should be, they should volunteer for measurements.
So... if you have a 7 inch dick, you can probably just retire.
I am curious why is height important? Understandably, income affects the lifestyle and opportunities, but what does height affect? What changes if you are several inch taller or shorter? I cannot understand.
Also, why those who care about height so much do not go for basketball players?
Also, the picture with income graph says "household income", not "personal income".
> I am curious why is height important?
It's a common aesthetic preference, similar to liking large breasts.
> Also, why those who care about height so much do not go for basketball players?
Some of them certainly do. But there aren't very many professional basketball players.
So for example, a 6 feet tall nerdy-looking geek is better than 5' 6" athlete or celebrity? Doesn't seem logical to me.
No one claimed that height is the only or the most important metric; simply that it is a metric by which partners can be judged.
What does weight affect? Breast size? Hair color?
Cultures create an archetype of attractiveness and then everyone feels like they come up short. Tale as old as time.
While cultures tend to have different standards of attractiveness, weight is most definitely, objectively related to health. If you care about having a healthy partner, you should probably care about their weight.
There is nowhere in the known universe where the average woman is taller than the average man.
Therefore, women will tend to select mates who are taller than themselves.
It’s not a cultural phenomenon, it’s universal.
taking it a step further, sexual dimorphism is incredibly common for vertebrates.
not just universal for humans, but pretty common in general.
Weight varies much more than height (there is 3x-4x ratio between extreme values) and is instantly noticeable unlike height, so I think this is a bad comparison.
Ok but it's still a really basic evolutionary signal, taller is better, especially for the hunting/fighting gender. Some dogs get up on their hind legs to piss higher on trees.
You don’t instantly notice how tall someone is?
Unless they are very tall or very short, probably no.
That's the male equivalent of women asking why men care about boobs and body count. The answer is "evolved intuition", like it or not.
I would liken it more to the male equivalent of facial beauty or weight: most men have a general level of facial beauty and weight they expect in a partner. And if not met, there is really nothing else that can help bind the attraction. For women, that is height. But yes, it is "evolved intuition."
You’re going to need some serious sources to back that up man because that flies in the face of our understanding of socially constructed beauty/physical/etc. standards. What we consider “attractive” has historically been incredibly varied and heavily determined by society, class, etc.
Possibly, but not necessarily.
Your argument is that it's just more attractive. That might be true. That would also mean there's an underlying reason for females finding this attractive. This could be due to taller males being able to protect their offspring from other males, hence more of us are descended from taller males and females that found taller males attractive.
But being taller could also give other advantages like perceived or actual dominance over other males which is, in itself, an attractive quality.
> The answer is "evolved intuition", like it or not.
Maybe. A lot of what we assume are innate sexual preferences are actually determined socially.
No one was talking about "body count" (at least not publicly) ten years ago.
These days, a full-figure on a woman is considered attractive, but in the 1990s, being skinny was in vogue.
Insofar as an attractive partner is a status symbol, the definition of "attractive" changes with fashion.
>No one was talking about "body count" (at least not publicly) ten years ago.
Why do you think that is? Our great grandfathers were practically guaranteed to be marrying virgins, while today's young men seem to consider themselves lucky if their girl is still in single figures. Things have changed, people are talking about it.
Women, the world over, are, on average, shorter than men.
Therefore women will, on average, select mates who are taller than them.
Cultural relativism has fallen out of fashion, universal truths are back in.
>These days, a full-figure on a woman is considered attractive, but in the 1990s, being skinny was in vogue.
This is usually based on a selective and wishful interpretation of historical data. The best argument I've found is here - https://www.jsanilac.com/dispelling-beauty-lies/
I was alive in the 1990s. "Heroic chic" was definitely a thing.
I'm also alive now. It's not hard to find big butts being idolized.
Your linked article is not very scientific. For example, it cites porn-store purchasing preference as evidence of actual male taste in partner selection.
Evil Vizier’s work on the topic is fascinating
For one, because it's an indicator of health and healthy development, which are in turn related to other desirable features. Analogous things can be said for women.
You also can't ignore assortive mating. We're not all in the same mating pool, as it were. Women prefer men taller than they are, but that doesn't mean that a woman of 1.25m will pair with a man of 2m. The typical height difference between husband and wife is about 10-15cm, regardless of the absolute height of either spouse.
The three six rule is a low bar for dating: you should also have a 6 pack. If you only want three sixes, here are 666 cents I keep in my pocket!
The night I met my wife I had just bought a whole case, so the six pack thing probably works too.
I've got a couple of methodological qualms with this article, but I do agree that in this case we should follow the spirit not the letter, so I'll keep them to myself.
Unfortunately the effort is likely lost on the people who most need to understand it. It's very hard to reason someone out of a position they didn't get into via reason.
When I read articles like this, they're so far removed from how me and my male friends interact that I find it hard to believe.
These numbers seem based on global distributions rather than local ones. After all, six feet is just average height in the Netherlands.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/average-h...
Maybe that's what the rule tells you. Ladies love the north Europeans.
I'd never call someone from the Netherlands north European, it's western Europe
It's North when contrasted with the South, like the Mediterranean countries, and West when contrasted with the East, like the old Easter Bloc.
And South when contrasted with the "real" North?
Northern Europe is a region and while there can be various definitions the most common ones do not include Benelux countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Europe
Average height for boys that were 19 years old in 2019, not for the entire population.
Then again, based on local income statistics. Don't know locality of the third one. It's the good old, lies, damned lies and statistics (and meant as humor thus not really an issue).
It's all relative.
You're gonna need to be even bigger in the netherlands, both in height and salary to impress a dutch woman if you're dutch already.
In south east asia you may get away with less height and money.
Maybe we can get the USA to get the metric system for all those men who are 1.83 meters and below. Or do people internationally say that you need to be 1,8 meters to be dateable?
Not in salary though, given that the salaries in TFA are local to the US, and West European salaries are lower, as a rule (East European salaries, of course, even lower).
OTOH many women may prefer as partner the European man who doesn't work crazy overtime every night, takes 4 weeks of holidays every year with her, uses his months of legally mandated parental leave when they have a baby...
The 6/6/6 dimensions seem to capture very little about what's actually important for the success of a long-term relationship. I guess that's fine, it's presumably a game for 20-year-olds.
Men are pretty tall in Montenegro too.
Submit this for an IgNobel.
It’s also funny cause it’s mocking this BS in such a good natured wonderfully overdone way. Guy in my college house who got laid the most was on the shorter side, poor, and kind of acted effeminate at times to the point that people mistook him for gay. Never saw his wing wong so maybe it was like ten inches but I doubt it. He was also kind and not a jerk and did not act like an “alpha male.”
What was he? Fun, hilarious, and confident.
I got zero until I decided to stop pretending not to be a weird nerd and just chat about stuff I was into, which at the time was evolutionary information theory and hacking. Guess what? Leading with who you are is confident.
It’s attractive in women too, at least for me.
The incel stuff is just men catching up with women when it comes to dumb anxieties about looking right according to arbitrary external standards.
I am pretty sure this 3 6's rule was a social media clickbaity phenomenon anyways. There are people this shallow and silly, but they are actually rare.
To be fair, "confidence" and knowing "who you are" in college is largely an illusion.
I would argue that "success" at that age is more a matter of being interesting and entertaining in a nonthreatening way.
It comes across as insincere to the majority of women who are also getting ignored by the majority of men at that age. That's what you get when you optimize for cheap and easy attraction instead of long term relationship appeal. A lot of younger people don't know the difference.
> Guess what? Leading with who you are is confident.
That was always my attitude, why hide who you are in the first place, I'm a computer geek who likes playing Chess,Cycling and heavy metal music - I put that on my dating profile and it didn't hurt me in the slightest.
yeah, its almost like treating women not like a piece of meat that youre only talking with to try and fuck goes a long way lol (not coming at you, just in general)
exactly what you said, just being you, listening and being engaging, remembering things, and like you said, be confident. Which doesnt mean being a masculine hyper alpha. it means that you are comfortable with yourself which is something that comes off so so well. hell ive literally had a girl on my couch practically on top of me listening to me ramble about the tragedy of char aznable and amuro ray AND SHE ASKED FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS lol
ive been labeled an "oblivious flirt" i just like being a little playful shithead and it comes off great apparently. and i think its because ill openly flirt and give but i dont take anything they give back in an cockhungry opportunistic way. confidence and knowing when to make your exit go a longgggggg way. im always called very sweet but my favorite thing is getting under someones skin just a bit to throw them off. denying a girl who is used to men bending to their will is extremelllyyyyyy satisfying lol
tldr: ive got a hugeeeeee schlong brahhhh
Oh women are actually most attracted to short effeminate men because of that one guy you knew in college? Somebody should tell them.
Exact opposite of the point they made, brother. Worth a reread and think depending on your headspace.
Might be you who needs to reread...
Since I'm feeling generous, the words you missed are "fun and confident". One could expand to "comfortable and happy in one's skin", very much not a synonym for cockiness which is prickly and challenging. You can't fake it, it comes and goes for all of us.
OPs friend got laid a lot despite "traditional" defects because of wholesome, fun confidence.
And you don't think the tall, rich, well-endowed man is more likely to be a little more confident than the short, poor micro-penised man?
Put "I'm fun and confident" in your dating profile and I'll put "6'4"" and we'll see how that pans out. You won't be having much fun and your confidence will be shot.
> "men catching up with women when it comes to dumb anxieties"
It's weird to watch all those fans of patriarchy step right into their own trap. Didn't they get the memo that this stuff was set up to control women? Or is it just a reflection of how these self-proclaimed "alphas" secretly see their own proper place as subjugated by men higher up in the hierarchy?
It’s all very obvious hysteria that parodies itself loudly.
It’s also a big con. Andrew Tate might be an abuser of women but his big marks are men. Look at how much money he makes selling that BS to insecure guys. That was his whole schtick as he rose to fame.
I suspect the manosphere stuff is designed to make men repellent to women to keep them hooked on it. If you find a girlfriend you might not pay $25K to attend an alpha male boot camp to have an idiot yell at you.
It doesn't have to be designed, can be an emergent survival property. Wholesome and helpful dating advice just never builds a cult of loners.
I’m 36 and
Would be a bit more interesting if you were in the dating pool, but it sounds like you’ve already wived.
What a waste of time.
oh dont be lameeee, some people are freaks who find fun in doing math. power to em
How does a >2 year old article get necroed to the top on HN?
I guess it's dating app fatigue makes us promote old articles :)
Fun fact, I learned yesterday that Bumble will delete swipes in their upcoming app reset and go ai assistant way. Not that that I am fan of dating apps, it's one of the worse inventions ever, but seems pretty interesting seeing their stock price plummeted 93% since IPO
Maybe by being something different than the regular slop on the HN front page. And just being a high quality article in general.