For all my very firm beliefs that dating in NYC is harder for women, here's a stat that will make you cringe for men, or at least some of them: In Manhattan, a guy who is under 5'9" has only a 1.2 percent chance of getting contacted after being viewed, according to dating site AYI.com. One point two! That's even worse than the 2.9 percent chance that a "curvy" girl will get liked, which made me mentally barf a few weeks ago.
Different heights; both hotties.
Why so harsh to the not-so vertically inclined, New York ladies? And likely, ladies all over the country, although shorter guys do have much better odds in New Jersey, where they have a 7.6 percent of being contacted. Being totally guilty of writing off guys of a certain height myself, even while knowing it's pretty stupid, I thought we should address the reasons we're biased against short guys and debunk the reasoning behind them.
Reason 1: Well, he has to be at least taller than I am.
Rebuttal: OK, we'll discuss why this isn't actually necessary next. But assuming for now it is, the average American woman is about 5'4". A guy who's 5'8" and only has that 1.2 percent chance of you messaging him? He's at least a good four inches taller than a bunch of us. (I'm an inch shorter than average, so I should definitely get over it.)
Reason 2: He has to be tall so I feel small and feminine.
Rebuttal: OK, here's my biggest hangup. Ugh, most guys have such skinny legs and I just don't, so I feel like I need them to measure up in another way. But, geez, do I also think he should make more money than I do and that I'm responsible for cooking all his meals? Way to cling to outdated notions, self!
