"genes Involved In Baldness Are Associated, On Average, With Shorter Stature."

[Timii]

I'm 5'11 with a Nw2. I'd rather be 6'1 than a NW1. I agree that it's not my problem, it's not my strength either.


I don't represent America, and you don't represent Europe.

Most people, in general, don't think at all about looks to the level of detail that people on this forum do. It's mostly a subconscious process with the general population, with some focus on weight, muscle, clothes, and hairstyle, but very little on other things. And you know, for all the talk about Europeans not caring about looks, when I've been there the gyms have been packed, and the women have been well-dressed and with carefully placed makeup.

Others on the mainstream internet often mock lookism and other sites similar to this community for focusing on philtrums, etc. It's not a normal thing to do anywhere. The obsession with understanding is a coping mechanism emerging from our poor social station in life, we try and understand why we failed.

I don't claim that height buys everything, only that it's very valuable. Similarly there are men with fantastic hair who don't do well with women. There is no one trait that you can have that will buy everything.

Separately, 6'5 might well be too tall. I'm not sure where the threshold is, and it might vary from country to country and woman to woman, but 6'5 is borderline.

Yeah, I definitely agree. It 's a subconscious process, so an ordinary woman can find you attractive if you have a strong jaw but she can't pinpoint why. A random guy on this forum would be capable of listing every positive trait that makes him look good. But what I'm trying to say is this: Here where I live I really doubt that a super strong jaw is worshipped as much as in the USA. Actually you don't even need a Brad Pitt jaw to be handsome and I'm sure many European people share my point of view. But many American people in the internet seem to have another opinion, claiming it's crucial or incredibly attractive.
Furthermore I have two theories regarding height: First, the metric system. In Europe 5'11 is 180 cm, so pedantic girls round the minimum attractive height up to 180 cm, whereas Americans do that with 6' because it feels good to round up. Secondly, the average height in Germany is supposedly bigger than in the US. That means girls are more accumosted to tallish or tall guys and thus they are less pretentious than in the US.

 

[Timii]

That means girls are more accumosted to tallish or tall guys and thus they are less pretentious than in the US.

Although that would mean that being short is a "death sentence" here. But notice the distinction: Not being short is more important than being tall.

 

[CaptainForehead]

Here where I live I really doubt that a super strong jaw is worshipped as much as in the USA.

When I visited Germany, I was in a sea of strong jaws. Not so in the US. That may be why jaws are valued more in the US.

 

[Timii]

When I visited Germany, I was in a sea of strong jaws. Not so in the US. That may be why jaws are valued more in the US.

Possibly yes, I've never been in the US , so I personally can't tell if people here tend to have stronger jaws than in the US, but you might be right.

 

[disfiguredyoungman]

Egyptian priest not only shaved their head but also plugged their eyebrows, beard and the rest of the bodyhair..they surely didnt do this to attract women. And thus you cant assume that having no hair or having no eyebrows were attractive at this point.

The same goes for samurais. Just bc warriors shaved their hair like this for some retarded reasons doesnt mean it was a sign of beauty.

Our perception of beauty basically hasnt change since the stoneage. The only thing that slightly various is the perception of bodyweight - in hungry times fat women were perceived as more attractive for obvious reasons and vice versa.

Everything else, the face, body ratio etc hasnt changed since the stoneage. Man 5.000 years ago got a boner for the same reasons we do today, a nice face, a nice body. Women got wet for the handsome hunter with big shoulders and small waist.

And why is that? Body is understable (good proportions are somehow affect pregnancy for women, a big guy can better protect you, hunt etc)..but why face? Why are we attracted to high cheekbones, a nice jawline, nice shaped eyes? Noone is better at hunting just bc you have high cheekbones.

For the same reason women are attracted to men with hair - its a marker of good genetics, hormonal profile and development. The feature itself is useless but it tells you a lot of the genetic mating qualities.


But yeah - for 80% of men is also a sign of ageing which also affects genetic mating qualities - sperm quality drops with every year after 20. Chances of autism and other disease for the kid raises.

But here is the thing. You know what is also a sign of ageing? Grey hair


But people are way less forgiving for hairloss then for grey hair - and im pretty sure that has a reason..


Maybe it just shows that your body is really sh*t at ageing and thus not only your hair suffers but also your cardio system, your sperm etc..maybe it signals the women that you maybe die at the next hunt at a heartattache while the grey fox over there might be older than you but still has some more years left..i dunno

Look, I find this discussion interesting from a scientific point of view and we can go on and forth about it, but I am the first to admit that I am speculating heavily on some points, just like anyone else is because there is not a lot known about stoneage sexual preferences.

I will say this: Androgenetic baldness during the stoneage, probably was not a mating criteria at all, since baldness, especially premature baldness pretty much is a side effect of civilization and more so of modern life. Tribal people today, for some reason, show very little to no balding even in old specimen.
In the same vein: baldness was virtually non-existent in Japan until they modernized rapidly, today Japan is the 'baldest' Asian nation on earth.

What does that mean? We can only speculate, if baldness as a mating criteria derrived from prehistoric selection bias at all, then maybe only in that sense, that there had to be something seriously wrong with your immune system, if you were balding before the age of 40, or that it would indicate that you are very, very old.

Facial structures are different. You are basically born with them, they are a consistent indicator. Conversely, even today full blown baldness kicks in for most of us at a age, long after we would have procreated in the past. 24 is an early age for baldness and most certainly accelerated by modern life styles, in prehistoric times we would have already had 8 children by then, heck even my grandpa had two kids at that age already.
What a shitty indicator of genetic potential is that, when it becomes only visible after you produced children for most of human history?

You say, we are just scrapping the tip of the iceberg, but that is pure speculation. There are probably a variety of clusters , that could be constructed with other traits as well, hair color, eye color, height, foot size...it's always questionable how evolutionary significant these are if they occur at a later age. For example tall men, have a far higher risk of getting a heart attack, that's why there are no old tall people...doesn't stop tall guys getting laid like hell.
To be honest, your grey fox example makes a lot of sense...yeah maybe a female would be discouraged from mating with certain older specimen, if they show baldness signs, because it indicates approaching death. It's still speculative and would be a attavistic criteria in that case, since the outbreak of heart attack, prostate cancer and premature hairloss, don't fall into the same agerange at all anymore. And I'd argue, that she had to mate with the tribe leader either way, balding or not.

All in all, I don't find the evidence that the genetic properties of the cluster of baldness + x per se are responsible for its unattractiveness very convincing so far. Baldness at a mating age probably meant something very different thousands of years ago, than what it does now.
Also why would black men get a pass when it comes to balding? The basic mechanics are just the same as for anyone else.

Who knows...this discussion is mere academic, it's obvious that baldness decreases your looks and that you should fight it. There's no responsibility about being honest about your genetic make up anyways though. Especially not to women, who cheat all the time by wearing, high heels, make up, eye lashes, push ups, fake nails, lip stick, tit implants, *** implants and most importantly: wigs.

 

[Timii]

Egyptian priest not only shaved their head but also plugged their eyebrows, beard and the rest of the bodyhair..they surely didnt do this to attract women. And thus you cant assume that having no hair or having no eyebrows were attractive at this point.

The same goes for samurais. Just bc warriors shaved their hair like this for some retarded reasons doesnt mean it was a sign of beauty.

Our perception of beauty basically hasnt change since the stoneage. The only thing that slightly various is the perception of bodyweight - in hungry times fat women were perceived as more attractive for obvious reasons and vice versa.

Everything else, the face, body ratio etc hasnt changed since the stoneage. Man 5.000 years ago got a boner for the same reasons we do today, a nice face, a nice body. Women got wet for the handsome hunter with big shoulders and small waist.

And why is that? Body is understable (good proportions are somehow affect pregnancy for women, a big guy can better protect you, hunt etc)..but why face? Why are we attracted to high cheekbones, a nice jawline, nice shaped eyes? Noone is better at hunting just bc you have high cheekbones.

For the same reason women are attracted to men with hair - its a marker of good genetics, hormonal profile and development. The feature itself is useless but it tells you a lot of the genetic mating qualities.


But yeah - for 80% of men is also a sign of ageing which also affects genetic mating qualities - sperm quality drops with every year after 20. Chances of autism and other disease for the kid raises.

But here is the thing. You know what is also a sign of ageing? Grey hair


But people are way less forgiving for hairloss then for grey hair - and im pretty sure that has a reason..


Maybe it just shows that your body is really sh*t at ageing and thus not only your hair suffers but also your cardio system, your sperm etc..maybe it signals the women that you maybe die at the next hunt at a heartattache while the grey fox over there might be older than you but still has some more years left..i dunno

High cheekbones and strong jaws are probably correlated to aggressiveness in the Stone Age, having stronger facial bones would indicate better resistance to punches.

 

[disfiguredyoungman]

I reckon biting power was even a more significant factor during that time, both for diet and combat reasons. You guys remember that scene in Quest of Fire?Yikes.

 

[Saulus]

@disfiguredyoungman

"I will say this: Androgenetic baldness during the stoneage, probably was not a mating criteria at all, since baldness, especially premature baldness pretty much is a side effect of civilization and more so of modern life. Tribal people today, for some reason, show very little to no balding even in old specimen.
In the same vein: baldness was virtually non-existent in Japan until they modernized rapidly, today Japan is the 'baldest' Asian nation on earth."


Exactly - balding in the stoneage was probably even less common than today - and in that time the basis of what we find attractive was found

I read somewhere that indios who lives in the jungle have way lower testosterone level and thus lower dht lvl then the western men. 30+ year old men have still normally full hair there, meaning norwood1.

If you would compare insulin resistance indios would probably score there better aswell. Its known that insulin resistance lowers sghb and highers dht.

And if you managed to get insulin resistance or losing your hair at that time and under this circumstances it really means sth wasnt right with your genetics -> and you dont want those genetics for your offspring

 

[Timii]

Look, I find this discussion interesting from a scientific point of view and we can go on and forth about it, but I am the first to admit that I am speculating heavily on some points, just like anyone else is because there is not a lot known about stoneage sexual preferences.

I will say this: Androgenetic baldness during the stoneage, probably was not a mating criteria at all, since baldness, especially premature baldness pretty much is a side effect of civilization and more so of modern life. Tribal people today, for some reason, show very little to no balding even in old specimen.
In the same vein: baldness was virtually non-existent in Japan until they modernized rapidly, today Japan is the 'baldest' Asian nation on earth.

What does that mean? We can only speculate, if baldness as a mating criteria derrived from prehistoric selection bias at all, then maybe only in that sense, that there had to be something seriously wrong with your immune system, if you were balding before the age of 40, or that it would indicate that you are very, very old.

Facial structures are different. You are basically born with them, they are a consistent indicator. Conversely, even today full blown baldness kicks in for most of us at a age, long after we would have procreated in the past. 24 is an early age for baldness and most certainly accelerated by modern life styles, in prehistoric times we would have already had 8 children by then, heck even my grandpa had two kids at that age already.
What a shitty indicator of genetic potential is that, when it becomes only visible after you produced children for most of human history?

You say, we are just scrapping the tip of the iceberg, but that is pure speculation. There are probably a variety of clusters , that could be constructed with other traits as well, hair color, eye color, height, foot size...it's always questionable how evolutionary significant these are if they occur at a later age. For example tall men, have a far higher risk of getting a heart attack, that's why there are no old tall people...doesn't stop tall guys getting laid like hell.
To be honest, your grey fox example makes a lot of sense...yeah maybe a female would be discouraged from mating with certain older specimen, if they show baldness signs, because it indicates approaching death. It's still speculative and would be a attavistic criteria in that case, since the outbreak of heart attack, prostate cancer and premature hairloss, don't fall into the same agerange at all anymore. And I'd argue, that she had to mate with the tribe leader either way, balding or not.

All in all, I don't find the evidence that the genetic properties of the cluster of baldness + x per se are responsible for its unattractiveness very convincing so far. Baldness at a mating age probably meant something very different thousands of years ago, than what it does now.
Also why would black men get a pass when it comes to balding? The basic mechanics are just the same as for anyone else.

Who knows...this discussion is mere academic, it's obvious that baldness decreases your looks and that you should fight it. There's no responsibility about being honest about your genetic make up anyways though. Especially not to women, who cheat all the time by wearing, high heels, make up, eye lashes, push ups, fake nails, lip stick, tit implants, *** implants and most importantly: wigs.

It's a pity that nobody is investigating the role of environmental factors in balding. It's safe to say that claiming balding is only a static, genetical feature like height is ridiculous. I believe environmental factors are more crucial in hair loss than in height.
As for why balding is considered unattractive from an evolutionary point of view, yeah, we can only speculate.

 

[Timii]

@disfiguredyoungman

"I will say this: Androgenetic baldness during the stoneage, probably was not a mating criteria at all, since baldness, especially premature baldness pretty much is a side effect of civilization and more so of modern life. Tribal people today, for some reason, show very little to no balding even in old specimen.
In the same vein: baldness was virtually non-existent in Japan until they modernized rapidly, today Japan is the 'baldest' Asian nation on earth."


Exactly - balding in the stoneage was probably even less common than today - and in that time the basis of what we find attractive was found

I read somewhere that indios who lives in the jungle have way lower testosterone level and thus lower dht lvl then the western men. 30+ year old men have still normally full hair there, meaning norwood1.

If you would compare insulin resistance indios would probably score there better aswell. Its known that insulin resistance lowers sghb and highers dht.

And if you managed to get insulin resistance or losing your hair at that time and under this circumstances it really means sth wasnt right with your genetics -> and you dont want those genetics for your offspring

We can safely claim that hair is a sign of youth and thus of fertility. Back then men would bald much later in life than we do now and that would possibly indicate a stage of maturity where the bald man is done with reproducing and signaling that he can't offer the best quality of his genes anymore. But this raises the question why some men (usually the masculine-faced ones) look better bald than with hair like The Rock? Baldness seems to go hand ind hand with the masculine look and I've no clue why.

 

[Timii]

@disfiguredyoungman
I read somewhere that indios who lives in the jungle have way lower testosterone level and thus lower dht lvl then the western men. 30+ year old men have still normally full hair there, meaning norwood1.

This is strange. Why are masculine features then attractive if "savages" don't even have the necessary amount of testosterone to devolop them?

 

[Saulus]

High cheekbones and strong jaws are probably correlated to aggressiveness in the Stone Age, having stronger facial bones would indicate better resistance to punches.

The advantage is so low it doesnt really matter.


It has more to do what biologist call honest or handicapped signaling which means that you have a good genetics, immune system, hormonal profile and environment during your development years your body is able to afford to put sh*t into things that arent necesseraly for survival - like putting bonemass into your cheekbones.

Or we know that kids that were born or lived during time of hungers have less symmetrical faces bc ressources were needed for more important than face growth at the time. These kids also happen to be smaller. Compare north and south korea. Fifty years ago they were almost the same height no there is a gap.


We know this from animals aswell:

"Consider the following hypothetical scenario. In a particular species of birds, female-choice sexual selection is operating: females pick mates from a pool of males of varying qualities. The process of choice is not entirely straightfoward, however. Females are unable to assess directly the quality of the males. Instead, males advertise their quality via a display of some sort, for example, with bright plumage and a long flamboyant tail. This advertisement is a handicap in the sense that it is energetically costly and possibly dangerously conspicuous as well. As a male adopts brighter colors and a longer tail, his chance of surviving declines.

But the cost of producing a long tail varies among males. A weak and sickly male can scarely afford to put energetic resources into production of mere ornaments, and moreover he would have a hard time escaping from a predator if his flight was hindered by a long tail. A strong and healthy male, by contrast, can afford the energetic expenditure necessary to produce bright colors and a long tail, and, moreover, can usually escape a predator even when his flight is somewhat restricted by the length of his tail."

http://octavia.zoology.washington.edu/handicap_old/sexual_selection.html

And humans:


"The hypothesis behind this paper starts with testosterone and something called "honest signaling". An honest signal is a sexual selection hypothesis regarding the signals used by males to signal to females (usually during mating season) that they are healthy, fit, and otherwise the best choice of potential baby-daddy. This involves signaling that is "honest" and usually costly to the males. The idea is that if you're doing something THIS costly (called the "handicap principle"), well you must be pretty fabulous to be able to support such a cost and still survive. The classic idea of this is the peacock's tail. The tail is huge, makes flying and survival difficult, and the energy that goes into it negatively impacts the immune system. A peacock with an awesome tail must be pretty great if he's able to support that thing and still get around.

The idea in humans is that high levels of testosterone may be an honest signal of male quality. Testosterone may suppress the immune system (though actual immunosuppressive effects are inconsistent so far), so the idea is that traits dependent on testosterone, such as facial shape in men, may serve as honest signals of high testosterone, and thus as proof of a man's quality. He must be pretty awesome to have all that testosterone suppressing his immune system."

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...him-for-him-or-for-his-hot-hot-immune-system/



And hair is probably also an honest signal. And honest signal how you age. If you age shitty probably the first that the body gives up is to protect your hair bc its totally unimportant for survival

 

[Saulus]

This is strange. Why are masculine features then attractive if "savages" don't even have the necessary amount of testosterone to devolop them?

Yeah i wouldnt say the average indio who lives in the jungle, is 1.55m tall, weights 45kg is a sexsymbol.

Having high testosterone and still having hair is attractive.

Having low testosterone and still manage to lose hair is unattractive.

And regarding attractivness were still running the program from the stoneage: and if you manage to get bald at this time your body surely couldnt handle the t

 

[Timii]

The advantage is so low it doesnt really matter.


It has more to do what biologist call honest or handicapped signaling which means that you have a good genetics, immune system, hormonal profile and environment during your development years your body is able to afford to put sh*t into things that arent necesseraly for survival - like putting bonemass into your cheekbones.

Or we know that kids that were born or lived during time of hungers have less symmetrical faces bc ressources were needed for more important than face growth at the time. These kids also happen to be smaller. Compare north and south korea. Fifty years ago they were almost the same height no there is a gap.


We know this from animals aswell:

"Consider the following hypothetical scenario. In a particular species of birds, female-choice sexual selection is operating: females pick mates from a pool of males of varying qualities. The process of choice is not entirely straightfoward, however. Females are unable to assess directly the quality of the males. Instead, males advertise their quality via a display of some sort, for example, with bright plumage and a long flamboyant tail. This advertisement is a handicap in the sense that it is energetically costly and possibly dangerously conspicuous as well. As a male adopts brighter colors and a longer tail, his chance of surviving declines.

But the cost of producing a long tail varies among males. A weak and sickly male can scarely afford to put energetic resources into production of mere ornaments, and moreover he would have a hard time escaping from a predator if his flight was hindered by a long tail. A strong and healthy male, by contrast, can afford the energetic expenditure necessary to produce bright colors and a long tail, and, moreover, can usually escape a predator even when his flight is somewhat restricted by the length of his tail."

http://octavia.zoology.washington.edu/handicap_old/sexual_selection.html

And humans:


"The hypothesis behind this paper starts with testosterone and something called "honest signaling". An honest signal is a sexual selection hypothesis regarding the signals used by males to signal to females (usually during mating season) that they are healthy, fit, and otherwise the best choice of potential baby-daddy. This involves signaling that is "honest" and usually costly to the males. The idea is that if you're doing something THIS costly (called the "handicap principle"), well you must be pretty fabulous to be able to support such a cost and still survive. The classic idea of this is the peacock's tail. The tail is huge, makes flying and survival difficult, and the energy that goes into it negatively impacts the immune system. A peacock with an awesome tail must be pretty great if he's able to support that thing and still get around.

The idea in humans is that high levels of testosterone may be an honest signal of male quality. Testosterone may suppress the immune system (though actual immunosuppressive effects are inconsistent so far), so the idea is that traits dependent on testosterone, such as facial shape in men, may serve as honest signals of high testosterone, and thus as proof of a man's quality. He must be pretty awesome to have all that testosterone suppressing his immune system."

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...him-for-him-or-for-his-hot-hot-immune-system/



And hair is probably also an honest signal. And honest signal how you age. If you age shitty probably the first that the body gives up is to protect your hair bc its totally unimportant for survival

Yeah, very interesting point of view. But does this mean that if we manage to raise the testosterone production of a child, he will become more attractive? This seems to me possible. Look at Jason Momoa, his parents are normal-looking, white parents, but he managed to have dark skin and several masculine features that are only possible by having high testosterone.

 

[Saulus]

Yeah, very interesting point of view. But does this mean that if we manage to raise the testosterone production of a child, he will become more attractive? This seems to me possible. Look at Jason Momoa, his parents are normal-looking, white parents, but he managed to have dark skin and several masculine features that are only possible by having high testosterone.

Environment plays a role in development but is limited by genetics.

And just injecting testosterone wont make the cut. Its also how about who will your body handle the testosterone as we just learned. In modern times its highly genetics but ofc enviromental factors play a role - eg prenetal month are very important and can for example affect your later testosterone production in puberty.

Besides i dont know if its a good idea to inject your child testosterone. One affect is that it stuns the growth in children. Some kids who would naturally grow over 6'6 get treated with testosterone in puberty

 

[Timii]

Environment plays a role in development but is limited by genetics.

And just injecting testosterone wont make the cut. Its also how about who will your body handle the testosterone as we just learned. In modern times its highly genetics. How does your body react the thre ressources that is given to him.

Besides i dont know if its a good idea to inject your child testosterone. One affect is that it stuns the growth in children. Some kids who would naturally grow over 6'6 get treated with testosterone in puberty

Afro seemed to be right again. Eating healthy and exercising regularly during puberty could maximize the look later on in adulthood. Don't worry, I have no children, but I was just wondering if a right amount of testosterone injection could be beneficial. I mean to me it seems obvious that Jason Momoa had some kind of miraculous response to testosterone going on. Yeah, he looks a little bit like his parents, the genetical setup is there, only maximized by a factor of 10.

 

[Timii]

To be honest if there was a safe way to make my hypothetical offspring/ child more attractive, I would do it. I would do him a great favor.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

I think it's a fair guess at this point you would say you are short?

I've not once said it's "meaningless" I've said it's not as big a deal as people want it to be, and I stand by that.



I have no idea what you are talking about here.

The point that I have made is that being tall is not going to put you in a whole other league; it simply makes you better within your own.

If what you are suggesting were really such a vital thing that gives you a tremendous advantage, we'd all being see ugly, rat-faced or at least really average dudes with attractive women just because they're tall and we'd see them often. But we don't.

These are not "extreme" examples, I don't know how you'd call "balding dudes with dad bods" "extreme" when they are literally everywhere.

I'm sorry man, but you've not provided anything for evidence beside "Women say they want height" and no one said they didn't, but what I don't believe and you haven't demonstrated otherwise, is that this can make up for any shortcomings in appearance.

Sorry, but I don't buy it that any of these famous men that make all the women wet would suddenly stop doing so if those women found out those guys were under six feet.

I'm 5'11, I'm mostly just arguing for the sake of truth. I do that sometimes.

About you not noticing your height, some guys and I yesterday were discussing the cost of haircuts. One guy said that he hates haircuts, I told him that he should get good haircuts as in twenty years he might be bald (he's young). He has great hair, excellent hair. He told me that he looks forward to going bald as he won't need to spend time taking care of his hair. So there you go, a good example from real life, people don't notice hat they have.

As for 5'5 versus 6'1, we can just look at real life. The average height is 5'9, and the distribution is probably Gaussian, so there are roughly as many 5'5 men as there are 6'1 men, maybe 6'2 men if you want to assume a kew-Gaussian distribution. How many 6'1/6'2 men are sex symbols? A disproportionate number. How many 5'5/5'6 men are sex symbols? Virtually none. That's because height (with a proportional frame) pushes people up a point or two or three on the ladder.

Meanwhile, in the real world, tall men are more likely to get married. Here's a report: shorter men marry less frequently, they marry later, they marry less educated women, and they marry less wealthy women, as in the short men need to earn a high income to compensate:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/28/link-between-mens-height-divorce-_n_5731688.html

It is interesting that shorter husbands do less housework. Perhaps it's because short men marry lower-quality women who have lesser careers, or because they can only get married if they're very masculine (compensatory), or have an extremely time-consuming career themselves.

Don't just go by what you want to believe, stick to what women say and what women do.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

If i had to choose between 1 mio dollar or eternal norwood 1 without any medication id always pick hair

Why don't you just get an hair transplant for $10,000?

Yeah, I definitely agree. It 's a subconscious process, so an ordinary woman can find you attractive if you have a strong jaw but she can't pinpoint why. A random guy on this forum would be capable of listing every positive trait that makes him look good. But what I'm trying to say is this: Here where I live I really doubt that a super strong jaw is worshipped as much as in the USA. Actually you don't even need a Brad Pitt jaw to be handsome and I'm sure many European people share my point of view. But many American people in the internet seem to have another opinion, claiming it's crucial or incredibly attractive.
Furthermore I have two theories regarding height: First, the metric system. In Europe 5'11 is 180 cm, so pedantic girls round the minimum attractive height up to 180 cm, whereas Americans do that with 6' because it feels good to round up. Secondly, the average height in Germany is supposedly bigger than in the US. That means girls are more accumosted to tallish or tall guys and thus they are less pretentious than in the US.

I agree with you on the metric system.

It's a pity that nobody is investigating the role of environmental factors in balding. It's safe to say that claiming balding is only a static, genetical feature like height is ridiculous. I believe environmental factors are more crucial in hair loss than in height.
As for why balding is considered unattractive from an evolutionary point of view, yeah, we can only speculate.

There are a few investigations of environmental factors, for example the twin study. It's why many here believe that smoking is bad for hair.

 

[Saulus]

@Afro_Vacancy

Youre long enough here to know that even with dense packing hair transplant cant give you the natural state of the sick natural norwood 1

You will always which part is transplanted

Besides even though im norwood 2 at this point im pretty sure i will follow my fathers norwood 5/6 route..and at this point results of hair transplant are even less convincing


You cant buy perfect hair - youre a born with it