The Average Height Difference Between Couples Revealed

If you want to know the average height difference between couples, then this article is for you. We based our data on the height measurements of thousands of men and women, so you can be sure that it’s pretty accurate.

As well as presenting the height difference facts, we’ll also be debating whether there’s such a thing as an ideal height difference between couples or a perfect height ratio.

See More Height Differences:

Table of Contents show

What is the average height difference between couples?

A man and a woman with an average height gap for couples

What is the average height difference between couples? The average height difference between couples is between 4 and 6 inches, with the man being taller than the woman.

On average, men are around 5 inches taller than women.

But since many women prefer a large height difference between themselves and their partner, the ideal height difference can often be in excess of 5 inches for many females.

Of course, there’s no such thing as a perfect height difference for everyone because human relationships are much more intricate and complex than simple height ratios.

In some cultures, a smaller height difference is preferred. ^[1] But in Western nations, 4-6 inches is the average height difference between male-female couples.

Is it bad to be taller than my partner?

It’s certainly unusual for a woman to be taller than her partner in the sense that it’s uncommon. But if you read around the internet, you’ll see plenty of examples of couples where the woman is taller than the man.

So is it bad to be taller than your partner?

No, it’s definitely not bad. But the theme with the woman-taller-than-man couples is that they make their relationship work in spite of their reversed height difference.

In other words, the fact that the woman is taller isn’t a problem for them, although, at the same time, it’s not preferable for them either. At least, that’s what I’ve picked up from couples where the woman is taller than the man.

Is there such a thing as a perfect height ratio for couples?

A man and a woman who have the perfect height ratio for couples

Some research suggests that 1.09 is the perfect height ratio for couples because women generally prefer men who are taller than them but not extremely tall. ^[2]

Specifically, the woman would multiply her height by 1.09 to get her partner’s ideal height, and the man would divide his height by 1.09 to work out his partner’s ideal height.

Of course, this is just one study. While participants may well have favored a 1.09 height ratio, that’s not to say that they and other people wouldn’t be completely open to dating people who would give them a different height ratio.

Still, it’s interesting to see that many people do share a strong preference for certain height ratios or, at the very least, for a range of height ratios.

Conclusion: Would you date a guy shorter than you?

Here’s something to think about: Would you date a guy that’s shorter than you?

While it might be short-sighted to rule out a relationship simply due to a less-than-ideal height difference, many women would understandably be very-self conscious if they towered over their other half.

And who wants to be self-conscious every time they go out in public with their partner?

Nobody wants to feel that way.

For this reason—and the fact that men simply are taller than women on average—many women like to stick with the average height difference between couples, which is around 4-6 inches.

References

Sorokowski, P., Sorokowska, A., Butovskaya, M., Stulp, G., Huanca, T., & Fink, B. (2015). Body height preferences and actual dimorphism in stature between partners in two non-Western societies (Hadza and Tsimane’). Evolutionary psychology : an international journal of evolutionary approaches to psychology and behavior, 13(2), 455–469.
Pawłowski B. (2003). Variable preferences for sexual dimorphism in height as a strategy for increasing the pool of potential partners in humans. Proceedings. Biological sciences, 270(1516), 709–712. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2002.2294