> the shorter ones (around 1,73m)

Ahem, that's almost exactly the average height for a male in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_human_height_by_countr...

The average here is 1,75 so my friend is shorter.

My point is, it doesn't matter that much. It matters, sadly, but not to the point where you can't find women that are attracted to you.

Women don't go for average, they go for 20% top percentile or higher. That's the Pareto principle and most mammals follow the same rule.

Come on, women aren't a monolith. We're talking about one factor (height). It might be important to some women, it might not be as important to other women.

Obviously those percentages can't be accurate. Just look around. The average person at age 35 is in a long-term heterosexual relationship. That's still the default. Not everyone, but way more than 20%.

These kinds of power law statistics describe sexual attraction and activity, but that selects for different characteristics than long-term relationships - where things like intelligence, honesty, reliability, etc., come to the fore.

It shouldn't need to be said, but Tinder is not representative of all human relationships.

> The average person at age 35 is in a long-term heterosexual relationship.

Mode maybe, but not the mean.

How are all the women settling down with 20% of the men again precisely? A women would rather have all of your attention, time, and resources than 2% of a slightly taller dudes.

so you're saying you've never had a date. I'm like 5'8 maybe 5'9 depending on when you measure me. it's not that hard to get a date. I even have computer nerd chub.

I'm an old man with children. Fortunately when I was dating, internet almost didn't exist. Women barely had any choice except the guys they saw everyday. Now is a total different world.

This is like the single lump of labor fallacy except its the single lump of mammaries fallacy. There are still roughly the same number of women chasing the same number of men in a larger more connected graph as there are in many smaller disconnected ones.

Even if you assume temporal polygamy (serial marriages), I would consider an individual with one woman for 20 years to be more successful than one with 5 women 10 years each.

>Plenty of women don't care about that.

Yes, and plenty of men likes obese women over 50 year old. But its a relatively low percentage.

Tinder is fine. I'm 5'7 or 5'8 (I don't even know really). I do alright on there.

Scott's problem is he's on social media (particularly Tik Tok) and apparently works or worked in a toxic environment.

They say they don't, but they do.

1,73m is oddly specific.

1.7m vs 1.8m is a difference of 10cm. That's WAY too large of a difference to not settle on using cm. Adding an additional decimal point would be oddly specific.

Specific because I know the height of my friends.

He's the shorter one and he had the most success of all of us.

It's five foot nine in metric.

Nope. 173cm is less than 5'7

It's 5 foot 8.1 inches.

Ah, so it is. The converter I used gave 5 feet 8.11 inches, and that last number tripped up my mental rule for rounding measurements in 12-inch feet such that I came out incorrectly with 5'9".

Oh. Right. 5.675853 feet is 5 Feet, 8.1102 Inches

Naturally.

Yay. I'm 5'8

No, that's how you specify your length in the metric system. I'm 5'14, or should I say 'between 6'1 and 6'2'?

I mean, so is all of these inches. Why not just say 5 foot or 6 foot... Whole mixed unit is so oddly specific...

Also my exact height (and have no idea what all these people are talking about)! Spooky, GP!