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.