>>14405077>manletsThe survey was for a bunch of thots from a gynocentric country. Ask a bunch of peasant women from a hundred years ago and I don't think they'd see height as being nearly as important as other masculine traits.
Also, consider that men have much more variation than women. Men have a broader bell curve for many traits so will have more absolute failures but also more top tier specimens. Risk vs reward, and why the first born (male or female) tends to have higher testosterone due to uteral conditions. If you're going to have kids, you want your first ones to be most likely to be breeding machines while later children get higher estrogen to promote feminine daughters.
As for why we don't have more polygamy, I think even at the hunter-gatherer level you want your tribe to have enough men to not be wrecked by another tribe, and as towns and states formed that mindset still applied. It just doesn't make long term sense for humans to have a giant class of directionless males with nothing to live for, something the West and China/Japan will soon see the consequences of. Still, genetics suggests that human men were not nearly as successful as women on average, so plenty of polygamy or at least rape has happened historically.
