Is being 6 feet tall really that important?

Inflation adjusted it's now 6'2"

I am 6-3. Nobody cares including myself.

Yes, and anything under 5'9 should be eligible for disability allowances.

Yes...it is really that important:

maxmylooks.com

Heightism: Why Tall Men Win & Short Men Lose • Max My Looks

Leon

Become Better Looking

Link:maxmylooks.com/heightism/

I'm a tad shy of 6'5 barefoot, and I like it. I like it better than being 6', but 6' is probably better for some reason. I do pretty well in standard cars, but not little sports cars.

In public meetings where people are speaking, especially if it's a little challenging and tense, I think being tall is a pretty big deal, but you have to be confident and smart too.

Face > Height.

But generally:

The better looking you are, the more you can get away with being short.

The taller you are, the more you can get away with being average or less looking.

Being tall & jacked & you'll have even more success in life. Look at Arnold Schwarzenegger - certainly not that good looking & not a very good actor either. But at a jacked 6-2 with a successful bodybuilding career, he became one of the most successful action Hollywood stars in this era. Plus he served two (2) terms of governor in California! Arnie killed it with his leadership qualities emulating from being so tall & muscular. No way any of this happens if he was a short guy.

Height & muscles never has a bad day....

You know the little shrimps are going to give the tall men thumbs down.

I don't date any guy under 6ft, and none of my running friends do either. We all joke that we only date 666s.

6ft, six figure salaries, and 6 minute mile easy pace.

Spoken like a true 6

Arnold was highly good looking. Without the looks, no acting, no political career, regardless of how tall and buff he was.

The great Frank Zane all 5-9 of him

Image:www.greatestphysiques.com/wp-content/u...

9” > 6’

Technically the difference between a tall and short guy is the width of a hand sideways. It’s not any discernible difference but my theory is it’s the Pareto distribution that matters. As long as you’re in the top 5 percent or so for height your genes are desirable, you literally stand out. But the same could be said for income and looks and personality and social status. You gotta bring something of inherent value to the table for the next generation and for some guys it’s their height. Because that aspect is strictly genetic it terrifies probably 90 percent of the male population at some point but if you have any kind of awareness or common sense you will quickly see it’s not the be all and end all.

Same. No fit female runner wants to date a waddling duck. Unless you are the type that dates an ugly man on purpose, because you think he will be less likely to cheat. But medium-ugly short men do seem to require more validation, so it's probably best to stick with the 666s.

Arnold was an extremely handsome man in his prime. Women generally aren't all that interested in extreme muscles and look at the face and height more. But I've got the full package and wouldn't have been interested in a man without the full package when I was single.

A man who is good looking and healthy, who works hard in his career and was committed to his sport while younger, and is also kind and truthful, thars what's desirable.

You're forgetting about dual female mating strategy. They can get income and social status from their husband, and genetics (which partially includes personality) from the secret biological father of their children. This is so common that countries like France make it illegal to do paternity testing.

There's a difference between being 6' and thinking you're 6'. Most people's idea of '6 feet tall' is probably closer to 5'10.

It's an international phenomenon - even a lot of women think they're 1-2" taller than they actually are.

At 6'1 - a front row seat to the delusion - it's very rare I've met a guy claiming to be 6'-6'2 actually be within even half an inch of their claimed height.

I did a semester abroad in The Netherlands. They're the tallest people I've seen, and even then they're maybe 5'11 (which is what the study taking GP measurements of students had them as), possibly slightly under. Certainly not the 6' or 6'1 you see people repeat ad nauseum online.

5'10, especially with broad shoulders, is a very good height imo. My brother's about that, and I've never thought he looks remotely short.

6 foot or 6 foot 1 isn't rare!!

Yes, you have to be at least 6’ tall an 6” long to get all the good things in life.