Could be, depends on the woman and what she values. Celebrities are usually in a league of their own. The way you have to see it, is that women look for a certificate of potential for success (and many other things, but this is one of them). Since being tall is generally desirable in society, it acts as such a certificate. It is definitely not the only trait or circumstance that acts as such, but it is pretty much impossible to fake.

The reason why height is so important, is because it serves as a proxy for strength, potential for dominance, and protective capacity. Women feel safe from the world and other men, when they are with a tall man (assuming they also feel safe from him). The circular effect of this is that tall men are seen as a successful archetype from all the attention and resources they get, which inflates their true sexual value. Probably social media and internet has a big hand in this too.

Athletes and celebrities are famous people who have a lot of eyes on them and thus naturally get more attention.

I’d prefer anyone else over an athlete or a celebrity, regardless of height. Humans are allowed to have different preferences.

No one claimed that height is the only or the most important metric; simply that it is a metric by which partners can be judged.

Ok but it's still a really basic evolutionary signal, taller is better, especially for the hunting/fighting gender. Some dogs get up on their hind legs to piss higher on trees.

You don’t instantly notice how tall someone is?

Counterpoint: Anglerfish

taking it a step further, sexual dimorphism is incredibly common for vertebrates.

not just universal for humans, but pretty common in general.

>These days, a full-figure on a woman is considered attractive, but in the 1990s, being skinny was in vogue.

This is usually based on a selective and wishful interpretation of historical data. The best argument I've found is here - https://www.jsanilac.com/dispelling-beauty-lies/

>No one was talking about "body count" (at least not publicly) ten years ago.

Why do you think that is? Our great grandfathers were practically guaranteed to be marrying virgins, while today's young men seem to consider themselves lucky if their girl is still in single figures. Things have changed, people are talking about it.

> No one was talking about "body count" (at least not publicly) ten years ago.

People have been talking about virginity and monogamy for 1000s of years. Men want to know that the children they raise are their own.

It might have blipped a bit since the invention of the pill but women cuckolding their partners has been frowned upon world wide for a very long time.

Sex before monogamous marriage has historically been a big thing.

There's even songs, sagas and religious books that make virtue of it.

Women, the world over, are, on average, shorter than men.

Therefore women will, on average, select mates who are taller than them.

Cultural relativism has fallen out of fashion, universal truths are back in.

body count was definitely a topic in the early 2000s