That's the male equivalent of women asking why men care about boobs and body count. The answer is "evolved intuition", like it or not.

I would liken it more to the male equivalent of facial beauty or weight: most men have a general level of facial beauty and weight they expect in a partner. And if not met, there is really nothing else that can help bind the attraction. For women, that is height. But yes, it is "evolved intuition."

You’re going to need some serious sources to back that up man because that flies in the face of our understanding of socially constructed beauty/physical/etc. standards. What we consider “attractive” has historically been incredibly varied and heavily determined by society, class, etc.

Possibly, but not necessarily.

Your argument is that it's just more attractive. That might be true. That would also mean there's an underlying reason for females finding this attractive. This could be due to taller males being able to protect their offspring from other males, hence more of us are descended from taller males and females that found taller males attractive.

But being taller could also give other advantages like perceived or actual dominance over other males which is, in itself, an attractive quality.

> The answer is "evolved intuition", like it or not.

Maybe. A lot of what we assume are innate sexual preferences are actually determined socially.

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

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

Insofar as an attractive partner is a status symbol, the definition of "attractive" changes with fashion.