When I read articles like this, they're so far removed from how me and my male friends interact that I find it hard to believe.
Three Six Mafia – Data about "6/6/6 dating" (2024)
61–70 of 223 posts
Re: Three Six Mafia – Data about "6/6/6 dating" (2024)
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The answer is "evolved intuition", like it or not. Maybe. A lot of what we assume are innate sexual preferences are actually determined socially. No one was talking about "body count" (at least not publicly) ten years ago. These days, a full-figure on a woman is considered attractive, but in the 1990s, being skinny was in vogue. Insofar as an attractive partner is a status symbol, the definition of "attractive" cha…
>These days, a full-figure on a woman is considered attractive, but in the 1990s, being skinny was in vogue. This is usually based on a selective and wishful interpretation of historical data. The best argument I've found is here - https://www.jsanilac.com/dispelling-beauty-lies/
I was alive in the 1990s. "Heroic chic" was definitely a thing.
I'm also alive now. It's not hard to find big butts being idolized.
Your linked article is not very scientific. For example, it cites porn-store purchasing preference as evidence of actual male taste in partner selection.
Re: Three Six Mafia – Data about "6/6/6 dating" (2024)
#63So... if you have a 7 inch dick, you can probably just retire.
Re: Three Six Mafia – Data about "6/6/6 dating" (2024)
#64This is solid reporting: > A 6" wiener is even rarer than being 6' tall. The average erect penis length is 5.166" with a std dev of 0.654".
It's not about length though. It's the dick to floor figure. One of the many gems from Silicon Valley. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-hUV9yhqgY This thread is just life imitating art.
No, D2F only matters if you're trying to optimize stroke between two hot-swappable participants.
And then it's really if an angle allowed by Base to Floor (B2F) and Length (L) is compatible with an angle allowed by the other participant's B2F and L.
A single woman trying to derive pleasure from a single man has a totally different set of criteria she needs to qualify.
Re: Three Six Mafia – Data about "6/6/6 dating" (2024)
#65I am curious why is height important? Understandably, income affects the lifestyle and opportunities, but what does height affect? What changes if you are several inch taller or shorter? I cannot understand. Also, why those who care about height so much do not go for basketball players? Also, the picture with income graph says "household income", not "personal income".
What does weight affect? Breast size? Hair color? Cultures create an archetype of attractiveness and then everyone feels like they come up short. Tale as old as time.
There is nowhere in the known universe where the average woman is taller than the average man.
Therefore, women will tend to select mates who are taller than themselves.
It’s not a cultural phenomenon, it’s universal.
Re: Three Six Mafia – Data about "6/6/6 dating" (2024)
#66I am curious why is height important? Understandably, income affects the lifestyle and opportunities, but what does height affect? What changes if you are several inch taller or shorter? I cannot understand. Also, why those who care about height so much do not go for basketball players? Also, the picture with income graph says "household income", not "personal income".
> I am curious why is height important? It's a common aesthetic preference, similar to liking large breasts. > Also, why those who care about height so much do not go for basketball players? Some of them certainly do. But there aren't very many professional basketball players.
So for example, a 6 feet tall nerdy-looking geek is better than 5' 6" athlete or celebrity? Doesn't seem logical to me.
Re: Three Six Mafia – Data about "6/6/6 dating" (2024)
#67I am curious why is height important? Understandably, income affects the lifestyle and opportunities, but what does height affect? What changes if you are several inch taller or shorter? I cannot understand. Also, why those who care about height so much do not go for basketball players? Also, the picture with income graph says "household income", not "personal income".
For one, because it's an indicator of health and healthy development, which are in turn related to other desirable features. Analogous things can be said for women.
You also can't ignore assortive mating. We're not all in the same mating pool, as it were. Women prefer men taller than they are, but that doesn't mean that a woman of 1.25m will pair with a man of 2m. The typical height difference between husband and wife is about 10-15cm, regardless of the absolute height of either spouse.
Re: Three Six Mafia – Data about "6/6/6 dating" (2024)
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exact opposite of the point they made, brother. Worth a reread and think depending on your headspace.
Might be you who needs to reread...
Since I'm feeling generous, the words you missed are "fun and confident". One could expand to "comfortable and happy in one's skin", very much not a synonym for cockiness which is prickly and challenging. You can't fake it, it comes and goes for all of us.
OPs friend got laid a lot despite "traditional" defects because of wholesome, fun confidence.
Re: Three Six Mafia – Data about "6/6/6 dating" (2024)
#69Also of note the income data is combined household income (2 incomes for a married couple) and over the entire population (including 40+ later-career incomes). It's likely significantly over predicting how common $100k yearly income is among the 20-35 year old "dating pool". Though probably balanced out some by being 10 year old data by now.
Buuut it's from 2014, and in case you didn't notice there was quite a bit of inflation between 2014 and now. Back in 2014 the share of household incomes earning more than 99,999 was 34.5 in 2024 it was 42.8
[flagged]
Re: Three Six Mafia – Data about "6/6/6 dating" (2024)
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the male equivalent of women asking why men care about boobs and body count. The answer is "evolved intuition", like it or not.
> The answer is "evolved intuition", like it or not. Maybe. A lot of what we assume are innate sexual preferences are actually determined socially. No one was talking about "body count" (at least not publicly) ten years ago. These days, a full-figure on a woman is considered attractive, but in the 1990s, being skinny was in vogue. Insofar as an attractive partner is a status symbol, the definition of "attractive" cha…
>No one was talking about "body count" (at least not publicly) ten years ago.
Why do you think that is? Our great grandfathers were practically guaranteed to be marrying virgins, while today's young men seem to consider themselves lucky if their girl is still in single figures. Things have changed, people are talking about it.