- Reaction score
- 11,939
I was shocked to see he's 5'9", so I looked it up and he's 5'7" according to google. 200 years ago that would have been considered tall, and in some countries that's average today. Anything under 6' is short in Scandinavia. So yes, it is dependent on where you live. That just proves that beyond a certain point height is not relevant to attractiveness except as a matter of status, like what car you drive or what job you have. Millions of years of evolution have set the height requirement for reproductive desirability to be around 5'6" or higher. Women are programmed to be attracted to men who have otherwise attractive features if they are at least that tall. Being taller than that doesn't give you any advantage except as a symbol of status. It doesn't actually make you more sexually attractive to the female eye, and it will take a lot more than a couple generations of humans being taller for that change.
Why all this pseudoscientific narrative to deny that all other things being equal, 6'2 is substantially better than 5'8?
But yes sexuality is socially constructed. Raise a woman in a world where the average height is 5'4, she will swoon for the 5'7 man. But women are no longer raised in that world so it's a moot point.