any studies which show the difference in importance of face and height in regards to sex partner count/short term mating success?

eduardkoopman · 2019-03-09T17:06:53+00:00

I only recall, a study. About
* income compensation of lack of height
* income compensation of lack op attractiveness (which might be face largely).

https://imgur.com/a/zU7lwht

Height.
With 5'11/180cm being the Break Even Point (which actually is 2 inch/5 cm above the average height USA).
Let's say a man is average height, thus 5'9.
He will need an extra income of around: 80.000 dollars.

Looks attractiveness.
Let's say a man is average in looks, a man in the 50% range.
He will need an extra income of around: 135.000 dollars.

Imo.

This shows.
Looks (face) is a little bit more important then height. Seeing how more income is needed to compensate sub-optimal looks.
Yet, both are hughly important in dating. Both are are probably the top 2 Most Important disqualifications factors. Becuase one needs rediculous amounts of added income to compensate looks(face) as well as height(height)

Funkydirigidoo · 2019-03-09T11:47:47+00:00

Interesting, thanks for sharing. Top of healthy BMI is actually 25, so men may be more sexually appealing a little above that. But is this an American study? I think Americans tend to be a little fat and the culture promotes that.

Meanwhile the number of sex partners spikes for fat women, affirming the reputation that fat girls are easy.

sadomasochrist · 2019-03-09T14:05:37+00:00

Was not substantial. Increased buying power manifests as more attractive mates.

Comments