Three Six Mafia – Data about "6/6/6 dating" (2024)
An older essay analyzing the “6‑6‑6” dating meme—demanding men be six feet tall, earn six figures, and have a six‑inch penis—prompts debate over how rare such traits actually are and how much they matter. Commenters question the underlying statistics, note that height and income are context‑dependent and culturally relative, and argue that long‑term relationship success depends far more on personality, confidence, and compatibility than on arbitrary physical and financial thresholds. Several also connect the meme to online “manosphere” insecurities and shifting beauty standards, seeing it as more about status anxiety than genuine mate selection.
Statistical claims & methodology
- Commenters highlight figures from the article (height, income, penis length) and note they’re striking but likely rough approximations.
- Several question methodology: opt‑in penis-size datasets, self-report bias, and the assumption that traits are independent when combining probabilities.
- Others note the income data is (a) household, not individual, (b) from 2014, and (c) skewed by later‑career earners, likely overstating how many dating‑age people hit $100k.
- Some argue the “blended exclusivity score” is mathematically brittle; with multiple traits, almost everyone becomes an “exclusive minority.”
Local context: height and income
- People stress global vs local variation: 6' is above average in many places but only average in some (e.g., parts of Europe).
- Income and attractiveness are framed as relative to local cost of living and lifestyle; a lower nominal salary in Europe can map to better real quality of life than a higher US salary.
- Several note cultural/regional definitions (Northern vs Western Europe) and how “tall” and “well paid” are interpreted differently by country.
Validity and relevance of the 6‑6‑6 rule
- Many see the rule as a clickbaity social‑media meme or niche forum artifact, not a serious or common female standard.
- Consensus in the thread: almost nobody actually screens dates strictly by 6/6/6, and men stressing over it are likely overestimating its importance.
- Multiple anecdotes: men who are short, not rich, or non‑“alpha” but do well in dating due to humor, kindness, or confidence.
Attraction, evolution, and social norms
- Height: explanations range from evolutionary “bigger male = protection/dominance” to purely aesthetic preference, to culture‑specific status signaling (especially in the US).
- Weight, waist‑hip ratio, facial symmetry, and hair are mentioned as possible health or fertility signals; others counter that beauty norms are heavily socially constructed and historically variable.
- Debate around “body count”: some frame concern as ancient and tied to paternity certainty; others argue the current fixation and language are modern, moralizing, and often misogynistic.
Manosphere, anxiety, and grifting
- Several see incel/manosphere narratives as amplifying male insecurity and turning arbitrary standards into dogma.
- High‑profile “alpha” influencers are described as monetizing male anxiety, with content that may actually make men less attractive and more dependent on such communities.
Humor and meta‑comments
- Many posts are tongue‑in‑cheek (IgNobel jokes, “retire with 7 inches,” metric-system gags).
- Some welcome the article as a fun break from AI/tech news; a few dismiss the entire topic as trivial.