Behavioral Ecology Blog

45 responses so far ↓

• 1 DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Why are models tall anyway??? // Jan 1, 2008 at 7:33 am

  [...] Read it. Personally, I think it’s the high heels, but that’s just a speculation. [...]

• 2 agnostic // Jan 1, 2008 at 10:07 am

  Thanks for the link! Here’s a follow-up I did on the question of much taller women, such as fashion models, beauty pageant contestants, and trophy wives whose trophy-ness derives from their height:

  http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/11/are-tall-women-like-porsches.php

  There’s also a link in there to another one on adult film stars, who are exactly average:

  http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/11/heights-of-female-adult-film-stars.php

  There’s no hard data on the heights of fashion models, but the agencies recommend being at least 5′8, and the median height for Miss Universe 2007 was about 5′9.

  The idea I floated in the first link in this comment is that, to the extent that tall women are preferred as mates, it is to signal the *male’s* quality — if tall women prefer to date tall men (true), then if a sub-tall man gets a tall woman, it shows that he’s someone special.

  The male can then parade around his tall wife or girlfriend to broadcast his quality to attract other females (who are going to be more average in height), the same way he might conspicuously drive his Porsche around to hit on girls. So, he’ll get a larger number of mating opportunities with the higher-fertility females, and his tall wife is his attention-getting device.

  Hrdy mentions in *Mother Nature* that tall women have healthier babies (she quotes another tall female scientist, who in turn is quoting a UNICEF study, iirc, so I don’t have the ref off-hand). So there could also be an r-K thing going on, with taller women having fewer but healthier kids and shorter women having more but less healthy kids.

  That sounds like a resource-rich vs. resource-poor difference, and taller women do indeed climb the social ladder more easily and end up marrying higher-status men. (These data are summarized in the Jensen & Sinha 1993 review that I quote in the “tall women are Porsches” post).

  One last thing about the general question about attractiveness and quality — one thing we find attractive is symmetry (it’s not super-strong, but the effect is there). However, heritability studies of symmetry across species show that it is 0 or very close to 0. So we are either paying attention to who had a favorable environment, or more likely who was favored by sheer chance (they had fewer minute chance perturbations in development).

  I think that’s a more important take-home message than the stuff about height, since the “sexy symmetry” findings so often get spun as “good genes” sexual selection, especially by those at U. New Mexico (sorry, but true). That can’t happen if the trait shows 0 heritability. So that’s an even bigger question — why pay attention to symmetry, if so much is due to chance and maybe environmental condition?

  Brief overview, with refs to the lit:

  http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/02/fluctuating-asymmetry-honest-truth-and.php

• 3 agnostic // Jan 1, 2008 at 10:13 am

  Oops, just noticed that SES was controlled for, so ignore the stuff about height and SES.

• 4 Meirav // Jan 1, 2008 at 3:03 pm

  If you look at sex symbols from thirty years ago, they had thighs that’d modeling agents of today send the girls home to throw up a little, and breasts that’d get them a recomendation to have them enlarged by a plastic surgen.

  Fashion trends change too quickly and are dictated by too few in society to really, actually, be the real embodiment of heterosexual male’s desires.

  And the kind of a reason is “Shorter women put out more.”?!

• 5 Matt // Jan 1, 2008 at 5:00 pm

  “Shorter women put out more.” is listed in the attempt to list all alternative hypotheses explaining the data… Are there ones that I forgot.

• 6 Meirav // Jan 2, 2008 at 10:39 am

  I still can’t believe how anyone can take this article seriously when this is obviously a fashion and status trend. If you look at dress fashions for women over the years from all over the world you’ll see the human focus on the female body is ever shifting and ever fickle from culture to culture, continent to continent and age to age.

  You just can’t publish such a generalizing with a straight face, expecting it to be true for societies other than ones where super models exist to are revered.

• 7 Matt // Jan 2, 2008 at 2:57 pm

  Meirav_ Do you have data from any other culture that suggest something else?

• 8 Ernie Bornheimer // Jan 3, 2008 at 6:53 am

  In the ancestral environment, where sexual preferences were created, we experienced each other face to face. Today, we experience “sex symbols” through visual media. I’ve never seen a fashion model in person, but I’ve seen plenty in magazines and TV. Might not there be some effect, whereby taller women are selected for (to be sex symbols in the media)? And might not this effect outweigh natural preference?

  Here’s another idea: the traits men prefer in sex symbols may be different than those preferred in “real women.” The two groups fulfill different functions, one public, one private. This is analogous to how we feel about our political leaders. The person I vote for is not the person I want at the dinner table, and vice versa.

• 9 Ernie Bornheimer // Jan 3, 2008 at 6:55 am

  In the ancestral environment, where sexual preferences were created, we experienced each other face to face. Today, we experience “sex symbols” through visual media. I’ve never seen a fashion model in person, but I’ve seen plenty in magazines and TV. Might not there be some effect, whereby taller women are selected for (to be sex symbols in the media)? And might not this effect outweigh natural preference?

  Here’s another idea: the traits men prefer in sex symbols may be different than those preferred in “real women.” The two groups fulfill different functions, one public, one private. This is analogous to how we feel about our political leaders. The person I vote for is not the person I want at the dinner table, and vice versa.

• 10 Meirav // Jan 4, 2008 at 1:07 pm

  First off, I agree completely with Ernie.

  Matt, you asked for cultural references. The women of the Mursi and Surma tribes (the spelling might be off, I’m translating from the punctuation in my book in hebrew) in Ethiopia insert plates into their upper and lower lips and gradually enlarge said plates. It’s thought the reason for this form of body modification is used to enhance the sexual organ that is the lips much like western women use lipstick. In my opinion there might also be a matter of the handicap principle, but I’m a Zahavi fan so I’m biased.

  Ancient Chinese noble women had their feet tied from early ages to create the ‘lotus feet’ appearance of an ‘n’ shaped foot thus making their feet look small and the woman, thus, smaller and more fragile. The story of Cinderella with the ugly stepsisters unable to fit their big feet into the delicate glass shoe, originates from China.

  Belly dancing, appearing in many Arab societies, is all about the shaking of the pelvise and the breasts in obviously enticing movements requiring quite a skill in moving ones’ tights and pelvise while flaunting the main locations of female fat reserves by making motions which jiggle said areas a lot.

  This study might be something for an anthropologist, as one of many cultural phenomenas , but not for a behavioral ecologist, in my opinion.

• 11 doya // Jan 6, 2008 at 12:10 am

  meirav, you come across as non-American and well educated. I don’t know how scientists in America can be brainwashed to this extent as to not see the sense in your posts??? strange

• 12 Meirav // Jan 6, 2008 at 2:01 am

  Thank you, Doya! I’m Israeli, by the way. There’s a lot of brainwashing involved in posting something like this, brainwashing that makes you think your country and culture are so great that only it exists in the world.

• 13 Matt // Jan 6, 2008 at 2:05 pm

  Oh please… I proposed that height is generally associated with sexual attraction.. I asked you (Meirav) to present data that supports your position. I have yet to see those data, but instead see some bullshit about my country of origin. I bet it would just be better if we left the nationalistic comments out of it yes? After all, one might say that Israel has it’s own set of issues to contend with.

• 14 Meirav // Jan 7, 2008 at 5:21 am

  Well, that’s not the comment I expected from a grown man who claims to also be a scientist. Before my response comment to Doya’s comment, I left a comment with three different examples from three different cultures showing very different fashion trends and features enhancing different things in the female body; I did what you asked, I gave you examples. If you want to ignore those and focus on something political to completely drive this discussion from its original topic then go ahead, but it won’t be the most mature thing to do….

• 15 Felicia Gilljam // Jan 9, 2008 at 8:38 am

  Meirav, what you failed to do was present data showing that cultural preferences for short women exist. Certain features are considered attractive in nearly all human cultures, such as an hourglass shape in women, certain facial proportions in both men and women, and above average height, large chin and deep voice in men. This can all be very easily explained by these features being linked to hormone levels that indicate reproductive success. You are talking about superficial, cultural phenomena about altering ones looks. That’s only vaguely related to the topic of this study. If you want to be taken seriously, tone down the ad hom attacks and present some data.

  Personally I have one thought about the post - why the focus on fasion models? Almost no men I’ve talked to have ever expressed any interest in fashion models. They’re all too tall and skinny. Men seem to prefer women with a bit of flesh on them. There’s a joke that fashion models are tall and skinny and flat-chested because they’re selected by male homosexual designers - presumably because they look vaguely male. Perhaps there’s something to that joke.

• 16 Matt // Jan 9, 2008 at 9:26 am

  Thanks for reiterating my point to Meirav about presenting data and personal attacks.

• 17 S. Fisher // Jan 9, 2008 at 9:37 pm

  I think models are tall only because their tallness make the clothes they are modeling look good. That is a models main purpose, after all.

• 18 Spaulding // Jan 10, 2008 at 2:51 pm

  It would be interesting to extend the view for a few generations.
  Example A: a man pairs with a short female and has short offspring. The daughters grow up with a mate-finding advantage, while the sons grow up with a mate-finding disadvantage.

  Example B: a man pairs with a tall female and has tall offspring. The daughters grow up with a mate-finding disadvantage, while the sons grow up with a mate-finding advantage.

  Does the reproductive advantage of having tall sons outweigh the disadvantage of fewer first-generation progeny? Doesn’t answer all the questions, but it’s part of the equation.

  Another angle: height broadly correllates with economic status via nutrition. If low income /high risk environment folks are shorter, then Agnostic’s r-K hypothesis would be an expected corellation. But that’s a lot of “if”s, and I don’t have the data to back it up.

  Meirav, your argument is essentially: some markers of attractiveness are cultural constructions, therefore any marker of attractiveness is a cultural construction. That’s a very shaky inductive leap, especially since there are some such markers that are known to be universal, or nearly so. Felicia Gilljam provided good examples above. However, cross-cultural data should be obtained before assuming that a trend is universal.

• 19 Matthew S. // Jan 10, 2008 at 3:36 pm

  I recall learning in a gender psych class as an undergraduate that XY/androgen-insensitive women are overrepresented in modeling, as the lone Y tends to contain genes for male height and lean builds, and the androgen insensitivity tends to allow the unchecked estrogen to push development of a longer leg-to-torso ratio and larger breasts. Academic lore holds that Jamie Lee Curtis is an example of such a woman. I wonder how much, or if, this trend exists, and if it has been researched? If so, this would fit into hypothesis 7, but also hyp. 3 (i.e., taller women are more likely chromosomally XY, and therefore infertile).

• 20 Matt // Jan 10, 2008 at 4:29 pm

  Meirav?? A response? Maybe another personal attack instead of something that responds to everybodies comments…

• 21 rod sanchez // Jan 13, 2008 at 5:37 pm

  This is far less complicated than you all think….

  Taller women, generally look thinner. Their proportion of height to width allows them a bit more flexibility in terms of how much weight and width they can gain/maintain. The “tall-thin” model is used for runway modelling for this very reason.

  When seeing models we rarely see them in comparison to people of average height, but rather, surrounded by other models. In that world they appear average, and therefore as average-heighted, but thin people. Atheletes look pretty average on TV too (around eachother), but if you’ve ever seen any up close, you’d obviously see the difference.

  But actually dating such a woman would pose some issues. They want to date men taller than themselves, and generally, men don’t want to FEEL like they’re the smaller and less dominant one in the the relationship. Luckly, I’m fairly tall, and have the luxury to date such women.

  So all because they may appear more attractive, it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re more desirable.

• 22 mybeeswax // Jan 21, 2008 at 11:16 pm

  Im a tall woman with a slender build. I am this way because my dad was well over 6 ft5. My mom was short. I have gotten a lot of animosity from my mom and a lot of other short women, because they assume I am treated better. I am often assumed to be a model by females and therefore shallow and superficial but I am not. I am well read and have a good heart and hope to find a mate based on those characteristics. However, when I go to a club, I am definately at a disadvantage for “hooking up.” Short girls really do get all the benefits of having a lot more dates.My tall brothers have that benefit. I am honestly really offended by the assumption that I have a rare chromosomal disorder, because my dad and all his lineage (aunts etc.)lead me to be tall. I have plenty of woman in me, and am not too worried that I will make a man happy, a man that likes tall women, they definately exist…despite the fact that I am at a definate disadvantage to my shorter brethren IF promiscuity was my thing.

• 23 mira // Jan 25, 2008 at 10:09 am

  I never realized that height can be so influential on many aspects of a women’s life.Being an average height, I am starting to feel a little depressed.

• 24 e2 // Jan 27, 2008 at 2:24 am

  45,X/46,XY syndrome: a chromosomal variant of Turner’s (typically 45,X) syndromeevident neonatally by reason of a birth defect of the sex organs, which look hermaphroditically ambiguous. The gonads are neither ovarian nor testicular, but malformed or dysgenic streaks. Short stature is characteristic. At the age of puberty and thereafter, sex hormone treatment is necessary. Some babies with this condition are assigned, reared, and clinically habilitated as boys, some as girls, the latter being more satisfactory.

• 25 keeks // Mar 14, 2008 at 5:46 pm

  about models: they’re used because clothes looked best on them. It’s not necessarily about attractiveness ( some catwalk models are butt-ugly). The point of a model is that they are a clothes hanger: the thinner the bettr, that means th emphasis is on the clothes. although there is the odd exception. Cindy craword, christy turlington and catherine mcneil.

• 26 Auroravj // Apr 6, 2008 at 12:34 pm

  thank you, man

• 27 luvWI // Jun 28, 2008 at 10:52 am

  The article ‘Female sex symbols: somewhat taller than average ‘ states that “A recent John Tierney blog entry cited a much discussed study of online dating behavior (PDF), which suggests that shorter than average women have it easier in the online dating market, with the ideal height being about 5′2 - 5′3, and taller heights incurring increasingly greater costs. [1] ”

  This reiterates what ‘Woman’s Height, reproductive success and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in modern humans’.

  So, I’m confused.

• 28 Shae // Jul 5, 2008 at 10:36 pm

  Taller women are more attractive to WOMEN. Women want to be taller, like models, to be viewed as leaner, again like models. Models must be tall to fit the clothing by designers.
  Shorter women have more offspring because they are more attractive to MEN. Thus, these shorter women have more reproductive success.
  Also, taller women are most likely more intimidating to men, since a vast majority of them are super models, and won’t date just ANY man. It’s probably hard for men to live up to those standards.
  AND most men are not tall enough to be TALLER than those super model tall women. And like your study also suggests, taller men are obviously more attractive. But they have to be taller THAN the woman. Not just tall in general.

• 29 Paula // Jul 18, 2008 at 6:48 am

  I never heard guys complain about me being petite, just girls who were taller. They were probably jealous. Just like I commented on taller girls. It’s all jealousy. Both small and tall have advantages. But we must remember, it’s all outer appearance. We shouldn’t make it THAT important.

  By saying: ‘you’re tall and skinny, so you are good, so you can be a model ‘ to one girl and by saying: ‘you’re petite and too curvy, so you’re not good’ to an equally attractive girl, those fashion buttholes only create HATE between women.

  In science actually, they say that the legs of models and supermodels aren’t well-liked amongst men, because they are too tall. Men like 5 % above average taller legs, and the models have 15 % above average. But surely, there are men who do like it. And some guys find below average height women really attractive for their cuteness.

  Just like the blonde - brunette discussion. What does the colour of a hair really mean?

  I always feel sorry for short men too, because according to science they can’t be attractive to women for some reason. Because the only thing that would be attractive in men is their function as a guardian for us scared women. Aren’t there other qualities important too in men, like character, intelligence, humor, beautiful face?

  . It’s just untrue. Both small and tall men can be attractive, it just depends on who these man are and which woman is watching.

  And small and tall women can be attractive. Fashion industry shouldn’t make women hate eachother, but if they REALLY know how to make clothes, then they should make clothes for all sizes.

• 30 hailey // Jul 30, 2008 at 9:37 am

  i agree with paula becuase i get that all the time im skinny and very tall for my age and all the boys are m,y friends but only the tall ones ask me out becuase they think i am to tall i ther im tall or there short because i use to like this guy named josh and i asked him out he said i would say yes but your too tallit buged me then i forned a very hot guy his name was nate and he was tall to we went tout and we still are we have dated for 2 moths not …………….im am tall for my age i am 11 years old and i am 5ft5.

• 31 June // Aug 12, 2008 at 6:38 pm

  I know that tall me are reported to earn more, I wonder if tall women do, and if that has any impact on their having fewer but better taken care of children?
  As far as attractio, it depends on what a man is looking for: some men want a mother figure and wold prefer a taller woman, while others prefer to feel like they have a baby. Maybe that has something to do with the number of children also…because a babied woman is going to feel free to keep reproducing while a tall woman forced to be more responsible may feel overwhelmed already and not want to bring more responsibility into the world.
  I think any healthy woman can be attractive and it IS too bad society makes it a contest of contempt. Does a miniature poodle make fun of the legs of a greyhound? No, because they are both content to be as they are in their own body. And like Dogs, human breeding is often a matter of opportunity.

• 32 nadia // Nov 2, 2008 at 3:28 pm

  OK….with regards to this debate…how do you account for the following:

  Scarlett Johansson is widely known as a sex symbol.. She is 5′4 which is just on average.

  Same goes with Jennifer Love-Hewitt (5′3), Carmen Electra (5′3″), Salma Hayek (5′1″), Kylie Monogie (5′1″)….now you don’t ever see Nicole Kidman being seen as a sex symbol do you?

  A sex symbol requires women to have SHAPE and FIGURE. For example, boobies. Fashion models rarely actually have any boobies. Unless you’re talking about Heidi Klum (who is exceptionally beautiful and attractive for a girl of her height).

  Other short famous women: Lucy Liu, Drew Barrymore, Madona, Penelope Cruz, Natalie Portman, Jessica Simpson, Shakira (4′11″!!!)….

  Now if someone can still tell me that tall women are sex symbols….then I’d be surprised. I’ve always thought sex symbold requires boobs and hips. Not a trait of a fashion model.

  I am 5′3″ tall and I get a lot of attention, mostly more than my bf would like. It’s all about proportions. Not height.

• 33 Eagle // Dec 26, 2008 at 8:54 pm

  If I had to pick a height for my female partner it would be around 5′6. I guess that the one night stand women that are more attractive to men stems from the fact, that we men may think that they are kinkier, and more dominating in bed, were we see shorter women as more loyal submissive,and the kind of girl that needs to be held. we appreciate both in different ways

• 34 Robert // Jan 7, 2009 at 12:49 am

  The article sounds like something composed in high school study hall. For example, condsider using fashion models as standarsds of desirability. I have a friend who works in theatrical costume design and is familiar with the fashion industry.

  She pointed out that fashion models are chose to make clothes look good, primarily in the eyes of women buyers. If the model has curves and stunning looks, the clothes seem insignificant. Give the fabric more room to hang and drape and it looks better. She stated it simply:
  “Clothes look good on a hangar”

  That is not esoteric knowledge, you could simply ask what the purpose of a fashion model is - and interview a few designers. Models are not chosen to fire men’s hormones but to fire women’s Amex cards.

• 35 Courtney // Jan 17, 2009 at 3:05 am

  All these comments are really depressing for me!!
  I am female and 6ft tall.

  One thing that hasn’t really been mentioned is that maybe men tend to go for shorter women because they feel a shorter woman might need him to “protect” her [makes him feel more manly!] , where as a taller woman may come across as being able to look after herself.

  I definitely find that I get much much MUCH less attention than females shorter than myself do.
  Whether it’s because I’m intimidating or have male height I do not know. I would love to know!!

• 36 a // Feb 10, 2009 at 4:27 pm

  hahaha

  all of you are stupid, just get over it!!!
  there is nothing you can do about your hight…

• 37 Michael // Apr 9, 2009 at 4:30 am

  I agree completely with Nadia in comment #32

  Many of the women men find most attractive are actually below average or around average height, (possibly because it gives them more pronounced curves.)

• 38 Michael // Apr 9, 2009 at 4:41 am

  Here’s another possible: It is good for models to be tall (for technical reasons related to modelling - not attractiveness) and most sex symbols would be ‘found out’ while modelling. Thus explaining the bias towards taller sex symbols in a way unrelated to attractiveness.

  It could further be said that there is therefore, a significantly larger number of below average or average height sex symbols than there should be (since they are unlikely to be discovered while modelling.)

  Meaning that it is possible that there may be more shorter sex symbols than there are taller ones after taking this into account, therefore making taller women less sexually attractive and average/shorter women moreso.

  Just shows the big problem with using statistics like that to back anything up.

• 39 Abby // Apr 18, 2009 at 2:07 pm

  Surprise, surprise. Short (and a tad too forward making her appear bitter?) Nadia has conveniently left out tall sex symbols such as Giselle Bundchen, Paris Hilton, Charlize Theron, Tyra Banks, Liv Tyler, Mischa Barton, Stephanie McMahon to name a few.

  I’m a 6′0″ woman and have NO PROBLEMS getting attention from men. My boyfriends comment on my long torse, my legs , my slender fingers, my feminine arms, how I appear to move gracefully, blah blah blah. I’ve dated short men for, cumulatively, about 4 years in my life (two seperate relationships, one was 3 years and one was 1 year). I was about 5′10″ at the time and they were between 5′6″ and 5′9″ and they were dominant and nobody cared about height and we looked cute together (always laughing and piggy back rides and kissing in the rain, etc. all the good stuff). And they weren’t “special men” becuase they were dating a tall girl. Hahaa They were average joes as far as what they’re attracted to and they just found themselves attracted to another good-looking woman with something interesting to say. So what now, scientists?

  Height has nothing to do with attractiveness. If you’re gorgeous, you’ll attract mates. The End.

  And Nadia, of course you shorties are lusted after. But so are us elven-looking sweeties.

  Also-one interesting thing I’ve noticed as a tall girl is that short men sometimes, depending on if they have an inferiority complex and how bad it is, will be mean to me at first because they assume I wouldn’t find them attractive. But then when they realize I’m really rather silly and pretty and interested in them after all, they drop that disinterested act fast and I always have problems trying to get guys to just be my friend and not try to be my boyfriend. haha So perhaps men don’t prefer women who are shorter than them NECESSARILY.

  The question to me is this: when you think about a lot of animals in the animal kingdom, the females are bigger than the males. Why do humans (specifically Americans) have this cookie-cutter image in our minds of what lovers should look like? To be honest, I have a model friend (who’s constantly sought after by men-she’s not chosen by magazines because the designers are gay-JESUS GIVE DESIGNERS SOME RESPECT, whatever asshole said that) who is dating a short photographer and they’re adorable together.

  I’ve said my piece. hehe

  Sorry, that was scatterbrained but I’m hung over and wondering who I wound up on this blog site in the first place…… and I don’t have any, um, data. Woopsie. :]

• 40 Abby // Apr 18, 2009 at 2:14 pm

  One more thing-I sound a tad full of myself in that response above, but for god’s sakes. Sometimes tall insecure women sound so whiny and lame.

  You’re not getting attention because you’re probably awkwardly slouching and feeling sorry for yourself (for no reason.)

• 41 gail // Apr 18, 2009 at 3:34 pm

  I studied mass communications in college (and unfortunately as a result had to learn a bit about the eerie world of advertising.) And I think that this train of thought that you’ve all embarked upon has gone off the tracks.

  The kind of people who would “never date a man shorter than me” or would “never date a woman taller than me” are people who seek normalcy….status quo…and who do not have the mental flexibility to see sexual relationships in other contexts besides the textbook ideals they’ve been exposed to since birth (in America.)

  What I’m saying is that if the majority of women were taller than 5′9″ and the majority of men were shorter, those very same people would be saying “I would never want to date a man taller than 5′6″ and “I would never want to date a woman shorter than 5′9.”

  People are trained since their eyes are fully developed to imagine feminitiy and masculinity in a certain way.

  If you grew up watching your mom (who was a couple inches taller than your dad) being swooped into the masculine arms of her shorter husband, and your neighbors’ parents of the same builds and watching tall women walkin garound and looking at tall women in porn and all the clothing stores for women had jeans with inseams that start at 35″ and you were used to it, you would want a woman of that height as well.

  But women are short, and thus exposed to the common eye more frequently. So short ladies (myself included) don’t go thinking you’re sexier than tall women just because the majority of men date shorter women. It’s a lot like bragging that people leave your house through the door and not the window.

• 42 Abby // Apr 19, 2009 at 9:08 am

  true. However, I think that tall women are not a rarity. You see them all the time. Right now I’m watching That 70s Show re-runs and that red head girl who plays Topher Grace’s girlfriend is taller than him.

  My question is this-why are people such assholes to tall women?

  Honestly? Some of the crap in this blog is completely ridiculous.

  We can’t reproduce? Men pick us out because they want us to work hard for them and raise their children!? We’re chosen for magazines because we look like boys?! Heidi Klum is good looking “for someone of her height”!?!?!?!?! Fuck you! Wow, seriously. Why are people such jackasses about this?

  Matt, have your next blog be this “Do short people feel left out in general??”
  or how about this: “Do people with wider noses get dates??” haha as long as you’re in the mood for petty over-analytical bullshit.

  This less-reproduction-per-tall-women thing sounds bogus to me. A. Did they take into account there’s less tall women in general? Where are those women from (is it a cultural thing)? What do they do for a living?

  I would like to see everyone in this blog’s height.

• 43 Hivemind // May 19, 2009 at 11:49 am

  Abby, you seem to be taking the comments WAY too personally - there are a whole load of comments on how tall women are beautiful and yet you pick on one of the only ones where the poster is actually defending shorter women. You attack Nadia, yet your own comments are far more insulting, especially since you already know that your height is sought after for models…

• 44 Harsimran // Jun 2, 2009 at 7:00 am

  I don’t know why people are so rigid while defining beauty??why do u have to be tall and skinny necessarily ,when models should represent the normal day to day women who are their targets to sell theproduct of the designer.i think it is the mindset of the society which should be reformed…. A short women,a fat women do exit everywhere…..Why don’t we have designers for them..even i am short and have perfect body for modelling and was olways intrested for it but couldnot try because of my height…..i am sorry to say but todays models donot represent today’s women instead they only serve as a maniquines .. but lack true beauty ….Other than being tall and skinny ,some of them definately lack charm on their faces…

• 45 S // Jun 13, 2009 at 12:15 pm

  Harsimran, you are definitely generalizing. Tall women don’t have charm in their faces? That’s bull. Beautiful female faces are everywhere, on both short and tall women. Are you going to tell me Adriana Lima, Christy Turlington, Gisele Bundchen, Heidi Klum, Nicole Kidman etc. etc. do not have beautiful faces?

  And I totally agree with Abby; there is definitely some kind of problem people seem to have with tall and skinny women in general, making snide remarks about their ‘masculinity’ , their ‘inability to reproduce’, their ‘freakiness’ and the like. I think that’s mainly because of resentment of the fact that today’s supermodels are exactly that; tall and skinny and pretty. That’s today’s beauty ideal and most women, like it or not, aspire to be like that. But because height is not something you can acquire in the gym (i.e. you have it or you don’t), there is resentment about it.

  Anyway, I think this post/study is pretty narrow-minded in the sense that it overlooks that today’s women are just more empowered than before and this is what height reflects. Women have their own careers and their own money/education, hence height, a traditionally male trait of attractiveness, becomes a desirable attribute for today’s women. And in that sense, it’s more than just a fashion trend; it’s a reflection of societal changes which are here to stay.

  Because today’s women role models are both successful/empowered and ‘traditionally’ feminine (i.e. managing the house, taking care of children etc.), today’s beauty icons reflect exactly that; they are statuesque yet lovely.

  So basically this study says Men don’t find leggy supermodels sexually attractive? I think it will be obvious to even the common man, let alone scientists, that this is bull.

Leave a Comment