It’s too obviously true on average to need a cite IMO, in the context stated. Do we need a cite to tell us women thought of as very beautiful by conventional standards in a given society* get more attention from men in pick up/hook up situations? Do we need one to say women over a certain age get less such attention in such situations?
Of course it’s not true of ‘anywhere near everyone’ in absolute numbers, obviously valid generalization about people seldom are. I think it could be debated whether it’s ‘anywhere near’ all in %, depending on definition of ‘anywhere near’. But IMHO the idea it would be challenged as a general idea shows some desire to see things other than as they are, or else to read into this obvious observation some pejorative inference, such as that women (in case of preferring tall or at least not short men), or men (in case of preferring very pretty women) are being ‘superficial’. But pick up/hook up situations are superficial by definition.
*and that we can fairly easily defined for the most part, say 80% of males agreeing who is a very attractive women even if 20% disagree, again in a given society (or perhaps subculture) and time.
I understand your FWIW disclaimer, but I think it may be an example why not to look for social ‘science’ studies to confirm whether patently obvious patterns of human behavior are ‘really true’.
Huge advantage for 6-4 over 5-7 in casual pick up/hook up, entirely obviously IMO, is as much a function of the (generally shared) perception of (superficial, if you like) attractiveness of the female partners as number.
In general people tend to pair up sexually. It’s kind of like saying, truthfully, that sellers don’t actually outnumber buyer when market prices decline, sellers and buyers (or units bought/sold) have to be equal. Still, prices move. Sex isn’t quite the same since not everyone finds (non commercial) sexual partners. But in general people pair up. However to extrapolate from that that perceived success in finding sexual partners has no pattern including physical characteristics, is still ridiculous.
More attractive people tend to end up with more attractive people, less attractive with less attractive. And in casual ‘fast’ situations ‘attractive’ tends to mean physically, and short tends to be less physically attractive to women on average, not all, but it’s pretty obvious that’s so generally. Whereas back to OP, penis size, however important it might or might not be if it was itself apparent on meeting a man, generally is not directly apparent, unlike height.
I had a friend in high school/college who was 6’10", last I heard he committed suicide after his girlfriend broke up with him so there’s a data point of uh um something.
I am a Millenial woman. I truly do not want a big dick or a particularly tall guy. Personally, I consider an average height guy with an average sized penis to be ideal.
With the choice presented here,I would probably lean towards the 5’7" guy - but not because I want a huge penis. Instead, it’s because I would rather have a 5’7" guy over an especially tall guy. I grew up in a family where all the guys were over six feet, and I don’t really see what the big deal is about being tall. Yes, being tall can be helpful in some situations, but it can also create problems that shorter people don’t have (finding clothes that fit, feeling cramped in small cars or airplanes, etc.). I am 5’6" myself and a guy who is around my height is ideal, because then it’s easy to kiss, and there is no major disparity to deal with during sex.
Sure, there are individuals who prefer a tall guy or a big dick for their own reasons, but plenty of us really don’t care.
There are lots of things that many people think are “obviously true” that aren’t true.
Is there some slight advantage to tall men in casual pickup situations? Probably. Is there a “huge” advantage? I doubt it. And the one actual study we’ve seen cited so far appears to agree with that – a slight difference only.
This the second time in this thread a woman preferred the 5’7 guy but not because of his larger penis size. Could you really say that 8 inches > 4 inches wasn’t the main reason why you went with the short dude?
Here’s another data point: My husband is 6’10", and his cock is more than proportional. He - and it - started to grow when he was only 9, and he was raped by a group of older kids after school. This was the beginning of years of sexual abuse (“Hey, let’s get that kid with the really big dick.”) which led to bullying, promiscuity, forced drug abuse, addiction and suicide attempts. Fortunately his parents got him into really great therapy, and he eventually got all straightened out. But it was really bad during his teens.
He was 22 when we met 32 years ago, and he’s been happily monogamous and drug-free ever since.
Why are you doubting what actual real women are telling you?
Again, any penis characteristic you care to name matters much much more to you than it does to almost any woman you’d meet in a lifetime. If there’s any physical dimension women have a preference for in regard to a penis it’s girth, not length. More than one woman here has spoken about a penis that is too large can be physically painful and I’ll point out that here eight inches is getting into that range. Do you honestly think women seek out painful sexual intercourse?
If you’re a short guy hung like a horse enjoy your penis but don’t think it’s why women are interested in you or is a selling point in a relationship.
Men comparing penis size is men competing with each other. It’s like male sheep or goats ramming each other’s heads - rams ram other males, they don’t butt heads with the female of the species. Waving a giant penis around is a male display ritual, it’s not how you attract females of your species. Waving a penis of any size around in front of women in hopes of attracting them doesn’t make you look manly, it makes you look like a dick.
The OP’s comparison is flawed for height because 6’4 is much farther from the average height for U.S men (5’9) than 5’7 is. So it shouldn’t be surprising that many women wouldn’t swoon over a 6’4 guy, even if penis size was the same. Such a guy would be distractingly tall relative to your average woman.
I’m a tall woman (5’9) and it would be jarring even for me.
Average male height in the US is supposedly 5’9". So 5’7" is a little bit shorter than average in this country, but not particularly extreme. It’s well above the average height of men in some other countries.
Yeah, I thought that too. The category “short” should encompass people who are at least one standard deviation from the average/median. If being 1-2’’ shorter than average is short, then being 1-2’’ taller than average is tall and I’m not sure I’d consider a man who is 5’10-11’’ to be tall.
OP, will you believe what the women in this thread are telling you or do you just want to confirm whatever anxieties you may have? Obsessing over numerical comparisons is something the men in those forums do much more than the average woman.
My guess, at risk of triggering the incels, is that “overweight” in the context of this study probably means someone who actually works out and is athletic, and has a substantial amount of muscle.
For example, for a 5’9" man, the “normal” BMI weight ranges are from 128 lbs through 162 lbs. Go google " 5’9" 162 lbs " for an idea of how unrealistic that is.
Or for a better illustration, NBA player James Harden, hardly someone anyone would call super-muscled up or overweight is technically overweight by the BMI standards, at 6’5" and 220 lbs (BMI of 26.09). Same thing for Tom Brady - 6’4" and 225 lbs- even more “overweight”.
I suspect that most men who work out and are fit are probably “overweight” by BMI standards, and that’s what’s skewing the numbers that way. I sort of doubt it’s flabby guys getting laid a lot.
I disagree. Real people who are overweight successfully hook up all the time, regardless of what forums full of guys who don’t get laid tell each other. Lots of women are perfectly happy to be with a guy who has a ‘dad bod’, and society is not nearly as harsh about weight on guys as it is about weight on women. They’re likely not all hooking up with thin 21-year-old girls, but those women in the ‘overweight’ category also exist.
Also, the cited study is of people’s lifetime number of sexual partners, and really isn’t relevant to the idea of ‘who’s more attractive’ or ‘who’s hooking up better’. Lifetime sexual partners has a lot more to do with things like how your relationships work than how good you are at attracting new partners. Someone who only finds one partner a year but has relationships that last only a year will have had 11 parters at age 40, while someone who can find a partner a night but tends to stay in relationships for five years will have 4-5 by the same age even though they can easily hook up if they want to. Theoretically, if someone is monogamous and has perfect attractiveness so that they get their exact pick of partner whenever they seek one, their answer in that study would be ‘1’ as their amazing attractiveness got them the perfect partner early on, even though they could push the number as high as they wanted to.
