I know this makes feminists enraged beyond belief, but it’s probably (mostly) evolutionary, reinforced by culture. I’d say the neutral range preference would be 24-28, but culture pushes it down a bit for men.

And yet when you say women do the same thing with height, they tell you how it’s “different.” Evidence:

Yep, because having height preferences is the exact same as only valuing women for their youth. Sit in syrup honey buns.

— tiredtiredtiredfuckyourguns (@ThePoeticHermit) February 21, 2019

I don’t see the difference at all. Anyway, notice how the question is worded. It’s deceptive; it’s not actually measuring what the feminist ragesplosion thinks it’s measuring. The wording was, “the age of women who look best to him.”

With rare exception, the average 20-year-old woman is going to be more physically pulchritudinous than the average 40-year-old. That’s just life, and that’s what the wording means. Who “looks best to me” is not necessarily who I want to date, or to be in a long-term relationship with. That’s true of most men. (And you know what: most women will definitely have a short-term fling with a much younger man, and will admit it if you phrase the question right!) Is it really so shocking, especially in completely obesity-ridden cultures, that someone 20 is more beautiful than someone who’s 40 or 50? I mean, come on, that’s not even a fucking insight. It’s a false rage-boggle.

At least 90% of the outrage is due to the desire to eliminate competition from the dating market, because older women who tend to be bitter, do nothing with their lives, and aren’t that interesting and are no longer beautiful absolutely cannot compete on any axis with a 22-year-old. A bunch of wine moms raging against life and nature, with all the baggage of a fucking Airbus A380. Sure, that’s who I’d want to date were I in the market. 🤮

But sure, height is, like, totally different as a hard requirement, because that’s so easy to change….