Anonymous #5 1d

Fr

1

Anonymous #2 1d

yes 5’9 is average so 5’7 is considered short

0

Anonymous #6 1d

No? 5’7” is the average. I’m not talking about regional averages lol

0

Anonymous #4 1d

5’9 is average in the united states

22

Anonymous #6 1d

And? I don’t care about a regional average in your city or state or country. I’m talking about THE average men’s height

0

Anonymous #4 1d

i’m just saying for the usa bc majority of this app is from here 😭😭

0

Comment Deleted

0

Anonymous #6 1d

But why does that matter for the average? 5’7” is still not short it’s average height

3

And?

1

Anonymous #7 1d

Yup

0

Anonymous #4 1d

everyone can have different perceptions of short. considering it’s below the average for my country and i’m a 5’9 woman, it’s short.

9

Anonymous #6 1d

It’s not short though. I could say a 120lb woman is overweight then and that I like chubby girls but that’s just mean. It’s rude to call normal average guys short for no reason and act like dating them is taboo

4

Anonymous #4 1d

ok so same thing there. say 170 is the average woman’s weight in the united states. anything over 170 would be considered on the heavier end and under would be considered on the lighter end of the spectrum. same thing for height. under 5’9 is considered shorter and over is considered taller. it’s not rude, it’s logical.

6

Anonymous #4 1d

i also never said anything about dating them being taboo

1

Anonymous #6 1d

Woah, you’re going on the US’s average. Why? Why not by state? Why not by household? Why not base it on anything else like personal opinion or what’s healthy? You’re arbitrarily choosing to base it off of the 2026 United States average woman’s weight

-2

Anonymous #4 1d

because the terms “short” and “tall” are relative. i think it’s fair to say the national average is the most common baseline. if the average adult man is about 5’9, then 5’7 is below average… so id call it short. you can use a different point of reference if you want, but using the national average isn’t arbitrary

9

Anonymous #6 1d

Technically you can say anyone shorter than you is “short”. Doesn’t mean you’re right. 5’7 isn’t really short at all.

1

Anonymous #7 1d

Technically you can say that ANYONE is short or tall. Technically you can say murder is good. Technically you can say that the sky is red and that Zeus is real and that 🍇 is ok. It doesn’t make it true bud.

1

Anonymous #4 1d

Maybe read my comment again #4? Think you might’ve responded pretty hastily without actually getting the meaning.

1

Anonymous #7 1d

I get you, I just think it’s dumb when they move the goal post

1

Comment Deleted

0

Using the US as the benchmark is the same as using your hometown as the benchmark. It’s dumb. You can call anyone anything you like but it doesn’t make it true or logical

1

Anonymous #7 1d

calling anyone shorter than me short uses my height as the benchmark for the judgement. im using the national average male height as the benchmark which is a population level reference not a personal one. #4 is just arguing semantics vs facts

5

Anonymous #6 1d

And certain benchmarks are inaccurate. If a 6’2 person uses their height as a benchmark and calls a 6’0 person short, they’re incorrect. Not that I agree with how #4 went about it. But 5’7 isn’t really short at all.

1

Anonymous #7 1d

Why are they incorrect? It’s a benchmark. They’re short COMPARED to them and a 5’5” is short compared to the average man

1

Anonymous #4 1d

Benchmarks can be inaccurate…

1

Anonymous #7 1d

It’s accurate to say someone is short compared to someone taller dude. I’m just saying it’s stupid to use a state or country as the benchmark for what a short man is

1

Anonymous #7 1d

thats exactly why we aren’t using an individual person’s height as the benchmark. a single data point isn’t representative of the larger group and isn’t a fair basis for making a general claim. i made my claim based off the population which is fair to say 🤷🏼‍♀️

1

Anonymous #4 1d

so then what is a fair benchmark if an actual statistic isn’t fair?

1

Anonymous #4 1d

It’s much less stupid to use a country as the benchmark than it is to use yourself. Still not super accurate depending on how it’s compared to the global population. “Short compared to” is not the same as “short”. There’s a clear difference. Again, a 6’2 person saying a 6’0 person is “short” is incorrect and inaccurate. Even if they use their height as the benchmark.

1

Anonymous #7 1d

fair i agree with that. yikyak started as a hobby between two united states college grads and the majority of yikyak users are based in the united states, hence why i thought it was reasonable to make that claim

1

Anonymous #6 1d

Yeah, I’d agree. Especially since any meaningful conversation wouldn’t include comparing to the global population so it’s fair to use your own country’s stats.

5

Anonymous #6 1d

It’s dumb though. Should I judge all the 40yo women on here’s bodies by the bodies of college age women? No. (Not that our bodies should be judged)

0

Anonymous #7 1d

No, it’s fair to use the global stats. Any meaningful convo about height wouldn’t use regional stats

1

Anonymous #7 1d

100%. glad we can agree 😄

1

Anonymous #4 1d

I guess I misspoke because a meaningful conversation can include global stats depending on what it’s about. Same is true for region(country or area of country if it’s big enough).

1

Anonymous #7 1d

Just to take us back to the whole point of this conversation. 5’7.5” is the average height and tall starts at like 5’9” and short starts at 5’5”. Most men in the US are (on average) 5’9” meaning the average man in the US is a little tall.

1

Anonymous #4 1d

even if you are using the global average height as the benchmark, anything under 5’7.5 would be considered short. anything less than average is short anything above average is tall. so 5’7 would be considered short. now ofc there’s a difference between 5’7 short and 5’0 short. one is much further from the average than the other, but they both fall below average.

3

Anonymous #4 1d

Sure. Doesn’t mean if you’re strictly speaking US men you’d say 5’9 is “a little tall”. Because the benchmark being the US lists that as average. Someone who is 5’0 saying 5’9 is tall may be right from their perspective compared to them, but it really just means they’re exceptionally short

4

Anonymous #6 1d

No, anything 2 inches below or above is short or tall so says me

-1

Anonymous #4 1d

now ur just making up rules 😭😭

4

Anonymous #6 1d

So are you

1

Anonymous #6 1d

This is one of those topics where a spectrum of “below average - average - above average” is appropriate honestly. Technically you may be correct (best kind of correct) but that doesn’t really have meaning tbh. I wouldn’t call someone who is 5’7.0 short just because they’re half an inch under average

4

Anonymous #4 1d

im not tho. im using logic and statistics

1

Anonymous #7 1d

Exactly

1

Anonymous #7 1d

thats fair but theres not necessarily a way to put “far below average” “slightly below average” “average” “slightly above average” “far above average” into terms for height. in everyday vernacular, we say short average or tall. statistically speaking, since 5’7 is below average it’s considered short. regardless of the degree

1

Anonymous #6 1d

“Below average” and “above average” are used conversationally. Far below and far above would just be short and tall. Statistically speaking, sure. But is anyone ever really having a conversation “statistically”.

1

Anonymous #7 1d

i would consider “below average” to be synonymous with “short” in this context, but I guess that comes down to personal interpretation

1

Anonymous #6 1d

Not logic

1

Anonymous #6 1d

A 7’7.6” is not a tall guy even though he’s above average.

1

Anonymous #6 1d

It’s not though. You’re not skinny bc you’re a pound less than the average weight globally or fat be you’re above it

1

Anonymous #4 1d

nobody ever said that. skinny and fat typically refers to body fat. you are changing the point completely by using those words

1

Anonymous #6 1d

Not really. Short isn’t just someone who is below average, they’re someone who is VERY below average

1

Anonymous #4 1d

we can agree to disagree on that

1

Anonymous #6 1d

I wouldn’t consider below average to be short unless the person claiming to be below average was VERY below average. I mean, would you actually call someone who is 5’7.45 short in reality?

1

Anonymous #7 1d

yes i would. the definition of short has to start somewhere. where is a better place than below average? now ofc im not going to go around measuring people or asking for their exact height, but in conversation id consider that short.

1

Anonymous #6 1d

Wow, I mean okay. I think many would disagree with you. Far below average is a better place to start. The fact you’d then consider 5’7.51 to be tall is also a bit crazy. That’s the slimmest above average you can be yet you’d consider that tall. We’re talking 5 hundredths of an inch difference between average and “short”. Like cmon now

1

Anonymous #7 1d

im just saying, what is “far below average?” everyone is going to have different definitions for that and therefore different definitions for short. without complicating things, below average is short and above average is tall.

1

Anonymous #6 1d

2.5-3 inches is far below average so says me. You’re complicating things by calling most men short or tall. Most men are above or below average height

1

Anonymous #4 1d

this whole conversation started by wondering what the definition to tall and short is. i agree, most men are above or below average but that was never the conversation.

1

Anonymous #6 1d

Short/Tall should be considered when you’re noticeably below or above the average. You can hardly tell immediately someone who is 5’6 is noticeably below that. Or 5’8 being noticeably above it. When it becomes noticeable is when it’s most appropriate.

1

Anonymous #7 1d

but that again is taking a personal approach to it. my friend is 6’8 and he is not going to notice the difference between 5’5 and 5’9. despite one being short and one being tall.

1

Anonymous #7 1d

Your friend being 6’8 isn’t a great benchmark for what’s tall and what’s short anyways because they’re so exceptionally tall anyways. Anyone compared to them minus the .1% taller than them would be short. They’re over a foot above average.

1

Anonymous #7 1d

thats what im saying, my friends height ISNT a benchmark. i was using it as an example of how personal perspective does not change the facts. the fact that extremes exist doesn’t change where the average is.

1

Anonymous #6 1d

5’5 is noticeably below average to average people, though. 5’6 may not be unless you’re standing back to back. And the average person isn’t going to be able to distinguish a less than an inch difference unless they’re back to back measuring again.

1

Anonymous #6 1d

It’s always going to be personal. Everything is personal

1

Anonymous #4 1d

thats why im trying to remove personal opinion from the debate and leave it matter of fact but ofc. everyone is welcome to have their own opinion

1

Anonymous #6 1d

There is no fact on what is short and what is tall but there IS on what is above or below average so we can look at the average and see that 5’7.4” isn’t short and 5’7.6” isn’t tall bc we are logical creatures

1

Anonymous #7 1d

but now you are making the benchmark the average person. most people aren’t average height, they are either above or below. if you are distinguishing short vs tall based on an individuals height ofc the definition is always going to change as a matter of personal opinion

1

Anonymous #6 1d

Sure same with everything so there’s no point in talking about anything lol. I’m just saying the op is morally wrong for calling men short who aren’t just like it’s wrong to call normal healthy women fat (equal comparison)

1

Anonymous #4 1d

valid. technically speaking below average is short, but each person is welcome to have their own interpretation of the word tall and short

1

Anonymous #6 1d

No, short isn’t just below average “technically speaking.” You can’t just say “technically speaking”

1

Anonymous #4 1d

op never alluded to short being a bad thing?? op used the words king and mesmerizing so im not sure why you are saying op is morally wrong for that. you are implying that short is a bad thing by being offended

1

Anonymous #6 1d

That’s ok my fat chopped queen

1

Anonymous #6 1d

Within a few inches, give or take. So unless you can tell at a mere glance someone is above or below your height by a noticeable amount, then they’re probably at or just below/above average. Nobody is calling 5’7 short if the global average is 5’7.5 except you I guess. And nobody is calling 5’8 all that tall unless you’re in a country/area where the average height is far below 5’8.

1

Anonymous #4 1d

“Short stature is a general term for a height that is below average for a person’s age and sex” (Children’s Hospital Colorado).

1

Anonymous #7 1d

90 percent of people call 5’7” short for a guy

3

Anonymous #6 1d

And? That’s one place’s term? That doesn’t mean anything. It’s not something that you can study and get a “technical” answer to like the speed of light gng

1

Anonymous #4 1d

i can find plenty of more credible medical websites that say that same thing if that would make you happy

1

Anonymous #6 1d

There’s nothing medical about saying below average is short. Might I ask, below what average?

1

Anonymous #6 1d

Short stature isn’t used to describe people just under the “average” height in medical terms. As in, you don’t call someone who is 5’6.5 “short stature”.

2

Anonymous #4 1d

90% of people you know or live in an area where the average height is taller than that maybe. In the US I can understand why that would be, even if it’s not really accurate

1

Anonymous #7 1d

you guys are arguing semantics now which is pointless. statistically speaking 5’7 is short. have a nice night

1

Anonymous #6 1d

Interesting you bug out the moment you’re called out that you were wrong when you tried to use a medical term inaccurately.

1

Anonymous #7 1d

It’s not a medical term

1

Anonymous #4 1d

It’s a term used in the medical field, though it’s not a diagnosis. John Hopkins has a page on it.

1

Anonymous #7 1d

im not “bugging out” its 5 am here and i am done talking in circles, although i did have a nice conversation and enjoyed hearing your perspectives. im not using the medical term to attempt to diagnose anyone. im simply saying the quote defines short stature as height below average for age and sex. therefore its fair to say below average can be described as short.

0

Anonymous #7 1d

“Obesity is commonly defined as having too much body fat.” By that definition I could say that you are overweight if you’re above some arbitrary weight/body fat percentage.

1

Anonymous #6 1d

It’s not used for “below average”. It’s used for those in the shortest 3-5 percentile.

4

Anonymous #6 1d

5’7.6” is not tall. I don’t know what else to tell you. If that’s tall then I’m a giant and I’m not

1

Anonymous #4 1d

not sure what this relates to but yes that would be fair. if you are above the defined range for a healthy body fat percentage then you could be described as obese. healthy ranges aren’t arbitrary and are backed by science.

1

Anonymous #4 1d

to you it’s not tall, to others it may be. strictly speaking based on facts, it’s considered tall based on population statistics.

0

Anonymous #6 1d

That’s not a fact, it’s a fact that it’s above average but it’s an OPINION weather or not it’s “tall.” I don’t think you know what a fact is.

1

Anonymous #2 1d

is this a joke? the average woman is 5’4 so yes 5’7 is short

1

Anonymous #4 1d

still short lol

8

Anonymous #4 1d

i would claim that 5’7” is the tallest of the shorts for men in the United States, as it is the marker of one standard deviation below the average male height. That means that 84% of the US male population is taller than you. between 5’7” and 6’1” is average height, with 5’10” being the mean, and anything above 6’1” is tall

1

Anonymous #4 22h

Bruh… 120? I know this was an example but do u fr think 120 is overweight genuinely curious

4

Anonymous #10 22h

Like objectively… yes. For 165 pounds to be not overweight for a woman you’d have to be over 5’8 (assuming average muscle mass). And 5’7 is objectively below the US average in height lmao. No one’s claiming not to like the height btw, 5’7 is not a real disadvantage as many have pointed out here.

1

Anonymous #12 22h

You’re short too lol

0

Anonymous #14 22h

5’7” is below the us average but that doesn’t mean it’s short. It’s not above the average for MEN

-1

Anonymous #4 22h

I’m assuming you meant below the average but I mean as others have said it’s just about where you’re comparing height. (I didnt even call 5’7 short, personally it’s an aight height)

1

Anonymous #14 22h

It’s THE average height

0

Anonymous #4 22h

Like average WHERE bro. Maybe it’s average in your town, but it’s not average in my town, or the USA, or even in Russia. Average in the world? Sure you can say since 5’7.5 is what apparently is considered world average. But statistically averages are really defined by your pool of data. Again, why does this even matter 5’7 is not astronomically short in most places it doesn’t affect anyone

1

Anonymous #14 22h

The average in the world. 5’7” isn’t short unless 5’8” is tall

0

Anonymous #4 22h

Shorter than average. Did not say short as the adjective. I agreed to the post initially out of how ridiculous it was to equate a common healthy male height to an absolutely unhealthy weight in woman as some diss

1