The only failure in an otherwise beautiful piece of photography and thought is this: you might have given the guy a three-inch block upon which to stand, and then shadowed it out...
This works: there's a celebrity couple that does a lunchtime cooking slot on Spanish tv that I see every day having lunch (I'm having lunch, they are up on the screen) in the local restaurant (her name's Mariló Montero and she has the most appealing dark, Spanish glamour - sophisticated not cute; her partner's name I have no idea) and on tv, as they move around the studio with the other two characters, she's taller than he. However, they always push their cookery book on the show, and on its cover, he's suitably taller than she... looks far more appealing than the reality of the small man with the big girl. The point, as I see it, is that a still image sticks in the mind longer than for just the time you look at it, whereas the moving one is far more transitory and is easily forgotten.
I have no problem with short men and tall ladies; in life that's an entirely private affair that may offer its own complications, but these are far removed from the circumstances of this little discourse. I feel no sympathy for people taking on more than they can chew, and in reverse, I sense a sense of dominance at play, a rôle-swapping that might well offer its own intrinsic reward but, as I indicate, I'm no judge of that at all and believe in private freedoms, regardless of state in which they might happen to be being played out.
I guess Tommy Cruise spoke out on behalf of all short men. In all states.