The heightpill (a subset of the blackpill) is the realization that females prefer men who are much taller than average, that a man's height is a hard limit to his attractiveness, and that females feel visceral disgust toward manlets.
Intro[edit | edit source]
Originating from the biological needs of femoids, it concludes that manlets (men who rank in the bottom half in terms of height) are heavily disadvantaged in dating unless they have a Chad face or have high status. This is because women are sexual gatekeepers and their near universal natural preference for tall men means that dating down in height is nearly impossible for men in a society that encourages natural female sexuality. For the depraved female species, the manlet cutoff might as well be under 6 foot even, thanks to hypergamy.
Origins[edit | edit source]
Social constructionists like to explain heightism by norms, namely by the malle-taller-norm. However, an evolutionary explanation would be that the taller male will on average be stronger and better able to ward off physical threats (bodyguard hypothesis). However, women also adhere to a male-not-too-tall norm, possibly because large age differences being frowned upon in Western culture, possibly due to female rape hysteria and egalitarian ideals, or because it is just out of the ordinary and people generally prefer to blend in.
Tallfaggot advantage in online dating[edit | edit source]
Stating your height in an online dating profile could fuck you over badly if you’re a manlet. According to a particular dating app, firstmet, the ideal height related to most matches in males was 6’2” (188 cm). Specifically, they said:
If you are under 5'6", you are exponentially less attractive than average men[edit | edit source]
In a study on humans published in Animal Studies, it was shown that men who are between 5'3" (160 cm) and 5'6" (168 cm) are anywhere from 3–10 times less attractive than average height men, solely because of their height.
Bluepill argument on Heightmatching[edit | edit source]
[edit | edit source]
FHO’s don’t even see us as worthy of any respect.
Manlet disadvantage in dating and even betabuxxing[edit | edit source]
If even in not quite hypergamous nations manlets are screwed, then imagine the horror they have to face in western nations.
Research studies[edit | edit source]
2012[edit | edit source]
Hungary study[edit | edit source]
"Relations between anthropometric parameters and sexual activity of Hungarian men" published 5 January 2012 at https://www.nature.com/articles/ijir201157
2013[edit | edit source]
Gert study[edit | edit source]
16 January 2013 a study by Gert Stulp was published called "Are Human Mating Preferences with Respect to Height Reflected in Actual Pairings?" which can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0054186
Even though women have strong preferences for height, these preferences only translate modestly into actual pairings.
Such statistics may be too old to reflect very recent dating realities though.
2014[edit | edit source]
September study[edit | edit source]
"Sexual activity of young men is not related to their anthropometric parameters" abtract can be found at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24964363/
Controversial claims include:
- "Coital frequency was higher among men with a height of less than 175 cm"
- "lesser height (ORcf≥3.5 = 0.951, P = 0.005) was associated with higher activity."
Access to the entire study (with more data than the abstract, would include info like how people were polled/sample, etc) is a logical requirement before relying on this to make arguments, however access to the full study has not yet been found.
2015[edit | edit source]
Dutch case[edit | edit source]
- 7 May 2015 study http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1806/20150211 called "Does natural selection favour taller stature among the tallest people on earth?"
Normies commonly suggest that Europeans, especially the Dutch, became tall due to external factors such as a great supply of nutrients. As we delve deep into evolutionary psychology, we find out that the main reason as to why Dutch men are tall these days is because short Dutch men barely even reproduced. A study which analyzed the number of kids received by men of different heights in the Netherlands concluded that:
“Our results suggest that... taller men have higher fertility compared with shorter men. It therefore seems plausible to suggest that natural selection may have acted on the Dutch population, and helped drive the Dutch toward taller heights”.
Brooke Jenkins study[edit | edit source]
- note: her maiden name is Brooke Gentle, she married Nick Jenkins in 2014. They live in California.
Brooke N. Jenkins (with help from David A. Frederick) did a study published 18 September 2015 called "Height and Body Mass on the Mating Market" subtitled "Associations With Number of Sex Partners and Extra-Pair Sex Among Heterosexual Men and Women Aged 18–65".
A 14-page PDF for it will automatically download if you click https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1474704915604563
It showed as height increases, average partner count consistently also increases.
Brooke divided men into five height categories (pg 5) and listed their average partner counts (pg 1)
- very short (5'2"–5'4"; 157–164 cm; 1%) avg 9.4
- short (5'5"–5'7"; 165–171 cm; 9%) avg 11.0
- average (5'8"–5'10"; 172–178 cm; 33%) avg 11.7
- tall (5'11"–6'1"; 179–186 cm; 40%) avg 12.0
- very tall (6'2"–6'4"; 187–194 cm; 15%) avg 12.1
- extremely tall (6'5"+; greater than 194 cm; 2%) avg 12.3
Although the pattern is consistent, the difference is underwhelming to those who consider height to have a larger impact.
- User:Bibipi for example was distressed about some sort of "d = .22 less than tall people" for the extremely short, although it's unclear how he got that number. He talks about <4'11" yet that was not the parameters of the "very short" in Brooke's study. Men below 5'2" were not even surveyed in it, and 12.0 minus 9.4 is a difference of average partner count of 2.6 not 0.22.
One interesting thing to notice about the sampling Jenkins did is she highly over-sampled "tall" men (at 40% this is higher than the 33% "average" men) and under-sampled "short" men (only 9%)
Similarly there was a negligible amount of "very short" men, constituting only 1% of the sampling size, as compared to 15% of the sampling being "very tall".
Brooke's bias is also shown in the naming system chosen: there is an "extremely tall" category yet no "extremely short" category for parity.
A reason for this could be that short men tend to resist taking studies like this, because they are ashamed to participate in them and relate their low partner counts.
This creates a selection bias where the minority of short men who DO respond to the study are the outliers who get an unusually higher amount of sex due to other factors in their favor, such as face/wealth/etc.
It would be selection bias against the "omega" men (short AND ugly) who are too dead/depressed to bother with surveys.
It would also not be something an "alpha" male (tall AND handsome) would take, since he's be too busy fucking to bother.
It inherently caters to beta males (tall and ugly, short and handsome, or medium+medium) because they're in the sweet spot where they can actually get just enough scraps to hold onto idealistic hopes and swim inside the blue pill of leftist liberalism where you have faith in MSM and science.
The poll was held anonymously by MSNBC and alphas/omegas wouldn't be taking shit like that, therefore they are ignored in this sampling.
This is why the curve is not as steep in these results as it would be IRL.
Videos on height and dating[edit | edit source]
A TV reportage shows the heightpill by interviewing scientists, as well as conducting an experiment, proving that below 5'3 (160 cm), it never began:
Abbreviations[edit | edit source]
If you have this property in your body with these four letters, you are perceived as significantly more romantic by your bare presence, levitate above the crowds, and you do not have to settle for misery:
Your body needs these four letters!
Women tend to pronounce “tall” in a soft and romantic way.
- (Example – Peter Jones: 201 cm / 6ft 7in)
- Example 2: Julian Claßen (193 cm / 6ft 4in)
- Example 3: Anthony Robbins (201cm / 6ft 7in)
Other possibilities[edit | edit source]
- High society
- genetic quality
- hoarder of women
References[edit | edit source]
See also[edit | edit source]
- Just be tall
- Reverse dogpill
- Incels.co thread: “F_ck genetic lottery: I am too short.”
- Elevator shoes