From Incel Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

While women do tend to prefer men who are taller than themselves, it appears that body height only has a very small impact on men's sex lives in terms of number of sex partners and sexual activity.

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).[1] However, women also adhere to a male-not-too-tall norm,[2] 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.

The Pedo-Manlet Hypothesis[edit | edit source]

A small sample study[3]noted that the division between Pedophiles and non-pedos is of a height of 5 foot and 9.5 inches (with 95% confidence). A larger scale study[4] deduced that pedophiles are a quarter inch shorter than regular offenders. It can be hypothesized that shorter people are more likely to be disposed to pedophilic phenotypes. However, this has not take to account Life History, masculinity and other biofactors (see also "masculinized" digit ratio in study[5]).

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:

A man who is 6’2″ is 17% more likely to be contacted than a man of average height of 5’8″ (173 cm) and 57% more likely to be contacted than a man under 5’5” (165 cm).[6]

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.[7]

Caveat[edit | edit source]

It is known that there are diminishing returns on height, and that for every 1 inch above 6 feet, the chances of getting a woman is equivalent to having 1 inch less than 6 feet.

Lanklet vs Manlet with equal chances
Height over 72 inches 73 74 75 76 77 78 79
Height under 72 inches 71 70 69.5 69 68 67.5 67
Chances (%) 95 90 80 70 55 40 35

Female reaction to manlets on social media[edit | edit source]


The twitter account[8] commonly showed how judgemental women are toward manlets, even being distrustful of their personality or intentions just because they’re vertically disadvantaged.

FHO’s don’t even see us as worthy of any respect.

Manlet disadvantage in dating and even betabuxxing[edit | edit source]

A marriage is more likely to be successful if the male partner is tall. Women just feel happier about it.

Several studies in Asia completely proved this hypothesis.[9][10]

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]

Jenkins and Frederick (2015)
Category Average partner count
very short (5'2"–5'4"; 157–164 cm; 1%) 9.4
short (5'5"–5'7"; 165–171 cm; 9%) 11.0
average (5'8"–5'10"; 172–178 cm; 33%) 11.7
tall (5'11"–6'1"; 179–186 cm; 40%) 12.0
very tall (6'2"–6'4"; 187–194 cm; 15%) 12.1
extremely tall (6'5"+; greater than 194 cm; 2%) 12.3

Research into the effect of body height on men's mating frequency and partner counts generally suggest a small effect, if any. Two Hungarian studies from 2012 and 2014 of heterosexual male patients even found a clear trend of higher sexual activities in the lower body height categories.[11][12] A 2013 study by Gert Stulp found that height preferences only translate modestly into actual pairings. The males in relationships were on average not much taller than random pairing would suggest (as men are taller than women in the first place).[13] A 2015 Dutch study [14] suggested that natural selection (rather than sexual selection, i.e. mate choice) has acted on the Dutch population, and helped drive the Dutch toward taller heights.

In 2015, Jenkins and Frederick published a study based on a large online survey (N = 60,058) that found a slight positive relationship between male's body height and partner counts.[15] The main findings are reproduced on the right. The effect size is, however, very small. Even for the 1% shortest men, the effect was only d = .22 when compared to tall people and an effect smaller than .2 is typically considered small in the social sciences. 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.

Discussion of the research results[edit | edit source]

A reason for short men being undersampled 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. Though height might have a larger impact on the quality of the partners and relationships a man can attain.

One needs to keep in mind that these statistics may be too old to reflect very recent dating realities with the rise of online dating. However, as of 2022 no such trend has been observed.

Short stature is linked to various other factors that predict lower sexual success such as mental and physical disease and higher mutational load.[citation needed] Hence, short men reporting a slightly lower sexual activity might not be only due to their height, but also other factors adversely affecting their sexuality.

Rather than from sexual success, the salience of the heightpill for some people in the incelosphere possibly stems from the redpill that men do engage in physical intimidation of one another in which short guys will lose more often. However, the effect of social dominance on partner counts is also relatively small, much smaller than among closely related apes (r = .19 vs r = .8).[16]

Counter to Heightpill: Heightmatching[edit | edit source]

It is rare to find a tall female dating a short guy, or that the guy is 10 inches (25cm) taller than the girl.

The Bluepill argument against the heightpill is that the male-female height difference is platonic at 15cm[17] or 6in[18]. CoffeeMeetsBagel[19] reflects this sentiment as well.

The research affirms such suspicion. According to Atlantic (2009)[20] and PN Cohen's Research (2017)[21], the average distribution of height difference between couples should be 6 inches (15cm), and that observed height difference has less variance and more leftward shew than random sampling of males and females (it is rarer than random chance to find someone with a height difference of more than 10 inches (25cm), or that the female is taller than the male. This leads to the question of female entitlement and "size kinks" in contrast to assortative mating.

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:

t. a. l. l.
Top all limerence leverage
The alpha life levitation
Thrive around lovely ladies

Your body needs these four letters!

Women tend to pronounce “tall” in a soft and romantic way.

Other possibilities[edit | edit source]

  • H.e.i.g.h.t.:
    • High society
    • elegance
    • imperator
    • genetic quality
    • hoarder of women
    • testosterone

References[edit | edit source]

  1. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201306/why-women-want-tall-men
  2. https://incels.wiki/w/Scientific_Blackpill#A_man.27s_height_determines_his_dating_pool._Over_94.25_of_women_reject_men_for_being_.22too_short.22
  3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17952597
  4. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2016.1254986
  5. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-018-0326-0
  6. https://www.firstmet.com/dating-blog/online-dating-size-matters-male-height/
  7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236670565_The_height_of_choosiness_Mutual_mate_choice_for_stature_results_in_suboptimal_pair_formation_for_both_sexes
  8. https://mobile.twitter.com/heightismxposed
  9. https://www.providr.com/tall-husbands-and-short-wives/
  10. https://www.worldofbuzz.com/short-women-who-date-tall-men-have-the-happiest-relationships-study-shows/
  11. https://www.nature.com/articles/ijir201157
  12. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24964363/
  13. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0054186
  14. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1806/20150211
  15. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1474704915604563
  16. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27601650/
  17. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-common-is-it-for-a-man-to-be-shorter-than-his-partner/
  18. https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2019/11/06/man-woman-couple-height-updated/
  19. https://coffeemeetsbagel.com/blog/dating-statistics/how-tall-are-you-really/
  20. https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/01/why-its-so-rare-for-a-wife-to-be-taller-than-her-husband/272585/
  21. https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2019/11/06/man-woman-couple-height-updated/

See also[edit | edit source]



Biological essentialismEugenicsEnvironmentalismTraditionalist conservatismFatalismBlackpillScientific BlackpillScientific Blackpill (Supplemental)Behavioral sinkHypergamyMatthew effectBeautyNeotenyFisherian runawayGood genes hypothesisDominance hierarchyIntrasexual competitionJ. D. UnwinSexual sublimationFemale subordinationSexual modestyOnline datingPhysiognomyPersonalityEvolutionary psychologySub8 theory


SlutMonogamyMarriageArranged marriagePolygynyPolyandry




BlackpillRacepillHeightpillDickpillBaldpillShitpillDogpillBirdpillTeen love pill

It's over

Cope or ropeCopeRopingLay down and rotInbreeding depressionOutbreeding depressionMutationFeminizationSocial epistasis amplification modelAtavismReproductive successDemographics of inceldomTeleiophilic delaySampo generationCauses of celibacyAdverse effects of inceldomBrain rotEvolutionary mismatchBehavioral sinkRegression toward the meanPeaked in high schoolFOMOSexual envyNo x for your yJaw is law