What is the minimum height where you can get jacked and it looks impressive to people? Like a jacked 6'4 guy is gigachad mode. A jacked 5'3 guy just gets called a coping manlet. When does the cutoff begin? 5'7?

I don't respect your gym gains if you're under 5'10

Being short makes gym easy mode

I'm a jacked 5'3" guy and nobody has ever called me a coping manlet or told me that I'm D tier.

>>76464699 (OP)
Why is the E rank always nonexistent? E goes after D, not F

>>76464704
I don't want to he a dick but that's some low brain activity thought process. I get where you're coming from. A 5'10" guy has to bench 300 while a 5'3" guy only has to bench 250. It's not as easy for the manlet to get to 250 though. It's just as hard as it is for you to get to 300. That's why weight classes exist and the higher weights lift more.

As a 5’7.5 I’ll take this

>>76464699 (OP)
I respect any C - F tier manlet more than any smelly foid

>>76464699 (OP)
what's the point of this tier list if it stops at 6'4"? The only thing that would make it interesting is seeing after what height it drops back below S because it's too much
>>76464716
I think it's based on the american school grading system, although I'm not sure where the S tier above A comes from

>>76464699 (OP)
5’8 is the minimum height to be respected as a man

>>76464699 (OP)
First of all, women can't tell the difference between 6 - 6'4

Second, Cs make degrees. 5'8 dwarfmaxing chads will eventually just rape lankets if no women are available simple as

>>76464807
s comes from japan where it is the top mark

>>76464708
That's because when they turn to look at you, they can't find you.

>>76464699 (OP)
B bros we eating okay

>>76464807
>I think it's based on the american school grading system, although I'm not sure where the S tier above A comes from
And why do Americans ignore the E then? Doesn't make sense when your ranking literally follows the alphabetical order.

>>76464708
that's because you're cute

>>76464699 (OP)
That feels accurate, although I think there is a cuttoff around 6'6 after which it becomes too freaky.

t. 5'11

>>76464924
I see, I guess that video games then made it popular
>>76465029
I've wondered the same, so here's the answer
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/08/how-come-schools-assign-grades-of-a-b-c-d-and-f-but-not-e.html

>>76465029
There is no 'E' grade in the ABCDF grading system because a century ago, when the system was becoming standardized, some educators were concerned that students might mistake 'E' for "excellent." To avoid confusion, the failing grade was changed from 'E' to 'F' which stood for "failure."

178 cm here. B tier is solid.

>>76464747
Based white man

>>76465235
177cm here and I feel short

>>76465235
>>76465261
let me guess, 178 is in southern europe or somewhere other continent and 177 is in northern europe or nearby

>>76465269
not that anon but I'm 178cm in Italy and I feel perfectly average, I'd like to be a little taller of course but I have no problems with my height either. When I go up north I do feel a bit short though

>>76464699 (OP)
Thank fucking god, I always thought 5'7" would be D, not C. This is an ever so slight confidence booster desu.

>>76464699 (OP)
In Italy, everyone is short. 5'7 is 6'0.
So, not my problem.

>>76464699 (OP)
>jacked 6'4 guy
Never seen a jacked guy over 6'2. Tall people don't work out.

>>76464699 (OP)
Cool, now let the men do a weight tier list

>>76464708
Don't worry, anon, at least you won't get cancer.

>>76465380
S - 320lbs
A - 255 lbs
B - 225 lbs
C - 180 lbs
D - 150 lbs
F - < 120 lbs

>>76465207
What if they think F means Fantastic?

>>76465376
Maybe in terronia

>HERE'S A TOTALLY LEGIT TIER THAT WAS TOTALLY MADE BY 3K COLLEGE GIRLS AND I TOTALLY DID NOT PULL OUT OF MY ASS TO POST ON THIS MISERABLE SUB
Am 6'3 but that's pathetic

>>76465383
based

>>76464699 (OP)
Cs get degrees baby let's go

>>76465379
Yep, it's extremely rare

>>76464704

A tall dude has more mass and cat eat more burgers and shakes to get big without getting fat. Being tall doesn't make the gym harder.

>>76465879
This. It it legitimately makes it easier in every way.

>>76464704
No one wants to be under 5'10, the gym is our last cope

>>76465044
>That feels accurate, although I think there is a cuttoff around 6'6 after which it becomes too freaky.
I think it becomes freak not because they're so tall but because their faces are all disfigured, I'd say 6'5 is the perfect height for a man but anything above is just for bragging rights

>>76465379
>Never seen a jacked guy over 6'2. Tall people don't work out.
In my experience the average gym height is lower than the average country height, taller people tend to do more sports oriented stuff here

If you are tall and super jacked , it’s more impressive than being short and jacked. It is true that being shorter makes gains easier.

>>76464704
It really doesn't. I have a large frame at 5'7" with long arms I feel like I have to eat twice as much as someone else at my height. It's only easy if you're an armlet.

>>76464699 (OP)
Don't worry, after they see my 8 incher, they will instantly put me in S tier from D tier.

>>76464699 (OP)
>5'6 in the same category as 5'9
NO ahahahaha, 5'9 is lowest tier normie height you sometimes get made fun of if you only hang out with taller dudes
5'6 is literally female tier

>>76464708
>5'3"
You're not D tier you're suicide Z tier.
There is no tier below yours anything below 5'5 is Z tier.
12 year old girls are taller than you, people in wheelchairs are taller than you.

>>76464704
Good day to be 5'10

Anything below A is F tier

>>7646480

>>76464699 (OP)
If american women keep pushing the height meme they're gonna get replaced when every guy under 6'0 just gets a filipina gf

>>76466415
Making fun of people for something they cannot control is woman-tier
Therefore tits or gtfo

>>76464708
Anon most people aren't going to mock you to your face that's high school tier IRL they just make fun of you when you aren't there.

>>76465879
>>76466292
t. fatasses

>>76466767
Post body

>>76466719
Then why should I give a shit?

>>76464708
Jesus my gf is 5'3 brutal mog. Post body if you're actually jacked.

>>76466810
>my gf is 5'3
Cool. So is my wife.
>Post body
No. I'm worried about where you're going with this.

>>76464747
This. Don't let the roasties divide us. Bros before hoes.

>>76464699 (OP)
>Tfw 6'0.85"

>>76465580
Lol

B means bad, c means crap

>>76464699 (OP)
>tfw 184.Xcm without shoes in the morning
So close to 6'1 yet so far. At least I can wear shoes with a slight lift and people call me tall.

>>76466839
Lol, you're just a pussy who won't post body. I posted mine. I just wanted to see how "jacked" you actually ate. Id put money in not very.

why do blackpilled retards always prioritize height over physique?

no girl has ever said "send me a picture of your height"
no girl can grab on to and feel up your height during sex

height is an intangible thing. it's more important to have developed muscles that women can actually lust over

>>76467119
Height is potential. If you are tall, you have a higher potential than someone who is short. Same with being Norwood 0/1 vs Norwood 7.

>>76464699 (OP)
So is 6'0" king of manlets or the runt of the tallkings?

>>76464699 (OP)
I'd say at very least 5'6

>>76464934
Based

>>76464699 (OP)
damn, is 6’0 really that bad nowadays? or was this like a college in the netherlands

I'm 5'7. I wouldn't mind being a few inches taller. Being around my height is pretty solid for the gym. I can fill out my frame and I have good leverages.

wtf? they want a guy that is nearly 2 meters tall????? huh? average women height in germany is like 165 to 175. wtf are they gonna do with someone that is 2 meters.

>>76464704
It is about torque ratios just to get the bar moving though, and that's typically more than half the battle.
>would you rather be 6 inches shorter at the same strength?
Of course not like I'd wanna be taller.

>>76464727
Little victories for a little fella

>>76464699 (OP)
I am personally not intimidated by size alone until someone is 6'5 and jacked.

>>76464699 (OP)
The cutoff is when you stop being a sperg obsessing over this stupid shit online and instead decide to go outside and touch grass and talk to chicks you start pulling bitches. The fat normies literally dunk on you losers entirely because they simply show up.

>6’ lumped in with 5’10-11
I call bullshit

>>76464708
Calm down Alex

>>76466934
You posted an unoriginal picture. That doesn't mean anything. I'm around 23 ffmi if you must know.

>>76466317
6'2 to 6'4 is perfect. Wish I was that tall and not 5'9 :(

>>76464699 (OP)
What is jacked?

>>76466398
>I have a large frame at 5'7
No

Lanklets short-circuit when you mog them, not even just lanklets, everyone taller than you, you can see it in their face.
At least younger ones, for some reason they fully believe height is everything, there was this one "friend" of mine that had a crush on a girl, I didn't even know about it, the girl starts pursuing me and we get together, I bring this up to him like in small talk, he says "nah, she doesn't actually feel attracted to you", full on denial.
Another instance, I go to the gym with that one neighbour of mine, he's younger, around 25, we were talking about how hyped we are for the gym and how we're gonna be spotting each other, same ppl routine and everything.
We go try finding out our max for the bench as it had been a while, he's afraid to put on 40kgs, settles at 35kgs or something like that, I do 77 something.
He tried doing pull ups, couldn't do one, I do 10 while being 20kgs overweight.
He had this sour face throughout and was very quiet.
I was hyping him up, he started leaving me alone and doing other stuff.

>>76469230
ego is not exclusive to height

>>76468647
>she doesn't know about heightinflation
ngmi sis

>>76464699 (OP)
Just get wider and insanely strong stop being a pussy

>>76466398
I have long arms because it fits the torso genetically, so developmentally if you have long arms but narrow clavicles you were probably probably slacking on getting strong for at least several years after getting to adult height.

>>76465029
Fucking foreigners
>Seethes about American education constantly
>Doesn't know the first thing about American education
Go milk a yak or ride a train or whatever you provincials did before you discovered the AMERICAN internet

I’m 5’11” but say I’m 6’1” kek. Sometimes I wear inserts up to a 3/4” which puts me closer to 6’1” but not usually. They still can’t tell the difference. You can +/- your height 1”-2” and nobody will ever know.

>>76466857
>A for acceptable
>B for bad
>C for crap
>D for disowned
>F for fuck outta my house

>>76464699 (OP)
Isn’t 6’4 like 2,1 m? Sorry I don’t speak Burger, but that’s ridiculously funny.

>>76464747
>foid
You have never seen a vagina in real life.

>>76464699 (OP)
I never lie about my height but I’m considering it since everyone else seems to. How many inches can I believably add to it? I’m 6’0” on the dot.

>>76467119
>no girl has ever said "send me a picture of your height"
For people whom their only resource for women is a dating app, posting their height is key.

>>76469857
It's 193cm

>>76464720
Manlet cope

>>76467119
>why do blackpilled retards always prioritize height over physique?
Because height is more important that physique. Height = size, and size = dominance.

>no girl has ever said "send me a picture of your height"
Because at that point the girl already knows the height of the man, or is imagining him as large in size.

>no girl can grab on to and feel up your height during sex
Yes they can.
By touching and feeling your body, they are also feeling your height and size by extension.
Saying women cannot grab on to a man's height is like saying men cannot grab onto a woman's hip-to-waist ratio.
Just because they cannot physically grasp the figurative concepts of height and ratios doesn't mean they don't matter.

>it's more important to have developed muscles that women can actually lust over
Muscles are absolutely an important indicator of dominance and health, too, but height is MORE important.

>>76469954
generally smaller women generally want to look up at someone, and taller women will accept both looking at eye level or looking up at someone. relatively few will accept looking down at their man, but if you go outside and walk around you will see it from time to time.

dogma is simple and easy to grasp, and then when someone cites research you can say it's the jews, but if you take a moment to walk around outside you may notice that actually you are making categorical statements that are proven to have nuance just by being around other human beings. please go outside; it is really good for your mental health.

>>76469027
>An unoriginal picture
Bitch nigga that's MY picture what are you talking about lmao. I'll believe you're 23 ffmi when you actually post a picture proving you aren't a dyel larping. You're likely a manlet lank or a fat dweeb. Why be here if you aren't ready to post body

Non-meme male height chart:

>less than 5'6
It's over tier. Troon out, become a catholic priest or kill yourself.
>5'6-5'8
Very short tier. Even if have a great face or charisma your height will be a huge and persistent disadvantage thought all your life. Women won't see you as a man and you'll be a beggar without standards. If by chance a woman shows interest in you (possibly out of desperation), you'll have to accept it or die alone. Even if she's fat/single mother/ugly minority/old roastie. Consider moving to Asia.
>5'8-5'10
Short tier. Your height is a clear disadvantage when it comes about the opposite sex. Many women will automatically discard you even if Chad isn't in the room simply because they are taller than you with heels. Becoming popular with the ladies is near impossible. But still, if you are skilled or lucky enough, you can find a decent life partner. If you have other disadvantages, like autism or an ugly face/body it's as over as if you were 5'6.
>5'10-6'0
The average plateau. Your height won't give you neither a notorious advantage or disadvantage. You are taller than 90-95% of women so, assuming you don't have other fucks up, it won't be a problem if you are looking for a long-term partner. But you still unremarkably average and will get mogged on a regular basis. Becoming a Chad is possible but only if you maxx everything else and have a 8-10/10 face, body and charisma. Many people here are insecure and will usually lie about their height in order to reach the 6 meme number.

>>76469983
>6'0-6'2
Tall tier. Your height will be an advantage when it comes about ladies, who will automatically find you attractive just because of it. If you don't have any severe disadvantage, you won't have any problem finding a great woman, and if you also have an above average face, good looking body or charisma you can easily become a Chad. If you have issues about your height you should go to your therapist and address your nonrealistic insecurities. If for whatever reason you are not popular, it's not because of your stature.
>6'2-6'4
Chad tier. Every woman will turn their heads towards you the moment you step into the room. As long as you are decent looking with the minimum social skills, you'll be a Chad by default. You must have severe autism, weight more than 300lb or uglier than sin to be alone here.
>6'4-6'6
Bit too tall tier. Your height will filter a good portion of women. You can still be a Chad is you have a great looking body free of lankly proportions.
>more than 6'6
Tall freak tier. Your height is a clear disadvantage and will cause health problems. But still better than being 5'6.

>>76469965
>generally smaller women generally want to look up at someone
Do you understand why?

>if you take a moment to walk around outside
This is a strawman. It also implies that the examples of couples with shorter men somehow disprove evolution and human sexual preselection.
Animals of sexual species are hardwired to detect specific traits in the opposite sex which have historically maximized reproductive success throughout evolution.

The males of nearly every animal species are hardwired to detect FERTILITY CUES in women, since not every woman can effectively get pregnant and bear children in every circumstance.
For example, male gorillas are sexually aroused at the sight and smell of female pussy glands during their ovulation, because they directly signal fertility.

On the other hand, the females of every animal species have evolved to detect DOMINANCE CUES, since mating dominant men historically led to better protection, provisioning, and above all- security.
'Mate Guarding' refers to the evolved phenomenon across all animal species where males fight over mates, and are possessive over them. If a woman mates with a non-powerful man, it's a massive risk and evolutionarily unfavorable.

When I say the word 'dominance', I'm not referring to sex or BDSM. I'm referring to the biological state of being the most powerful individual among your peers.
Women have evolved to scan for dominance, which include strength, size, and controlled demeanor.

Height isn't just a cultural fetish, it is an evolutionary sexual preselection development that all human women possess to subconsciously protect themselves and their children from danger.
Size IS strength, size IS height, and size IS saftey.
Even if that isn't true in modern society, the evolutionary framework is instilled in the mind of every woman alive due to the thousands of years they faced those issues.

>>76469983
You have the same highest in multiple categories, you retarded?

>>76469966
It's your picture the first time you post it.
And I don't have any reason to care if you believe me.

Schizo here with a schizo theory

Women don’t prefer tall men because of size difference directly, but because of social status and the size difference is linked to it.

This is why they will instantly karate kick a 6’4” man in the face to get to Justin Bieber or Bruno Mars even if they are turbomanlet twinks.

Women are giga wired towards social status. If we lived in a parallel world where being a manlet was considered high social status then OP’s pic would be opposite.

>>76470189
Whatever you say manlet pussy boy.

>>76470231
>whatever I say
That's right, faggot. Don't ever ask me for physique shots again.

>>76470073
>Do you understand why?
yes
>This is a strawman.
how is suggesting you take a walk outside misrepresenting your argument
>It also implies that the examples of couples with shorter men somehow disprove evolution and human sexual preselection.
sure. it seems like you're referring to evo psych or evo bio data. are you aware how to read that data and are you familiar with supplementary data from the corpus? you are talking about averages as if they are absolutes of human behavior. i

am telling you that when you do this and make it a matter of dogma and flatten human behavior into "if you are a woman, then you do this," and "if you are a man, then you do this," you are actually completely missing the difference between population and individual. individual preferences vary. people at different ends of e.g. the height bell curve have different preferences for mate height. differences within populations exceed differences between populations. mating strategies and desires exist on spectra, not as "hardwired" inborn maxims of mate selection. thus, it is more likely that you go outside and see a couple for whom there is some deficit that your (assumed) ideology precludes than it is not to. this is because there are compensatory effects between different axes of mate selection, and because everyone exists on spectra of what is important to them in mate selection. you will see good women in stable relationships with men who are stay at home dads. you will see men who are dating women who have chronic illnesses. you will see short men with tall women. you will see prosocial men with fewer dominant cues in long term relationships MORE often than not.

reduction to a handful of boolean values is not only a misrepresentation of the literature regarding this topic, and of statistics, it is also usually ideologically motivated and defeatist.

>>76470262
You sound like a bot

>>76470228
yes, value in one domain can compensate for value in another domain, and the effect size of different domains on attractiveness varies by individual but on average is usually surprisingly small for things like height. generally these things are like thresholds: being 6'4" is a small gain over being 5'11" relative to the gain of being 5'11" over being 5'6". having an upper quartile salary is a relatively smaller gain over local average than local average is over lower quartile.

besides, this is all about averages

>>76470280
you sound like you don't understand how population level behavior relates to individual behavior

>>76470288
I wasn't the person you're responding to.
Your post did just sound like a bunch of drivel. No one would claim all women are ____ or all men are _____.
>if you are a woman, then you do this," and "if you are a man, then you do this," you are actually completely missing the difference between population and individual
This is a strawman. Go shit up reddit instead

>>76470290
dude height matters, move on

Feels mostly true besides women wanting men 6'4+

It just gets weird after that and causes health issues, lower lifespan because how hard your heart has to work too. Also kills gains.

>>76470290
you need to know how to read data to make conclusions

anyway, if you read the exchange you'll see that i said "most women prefer a taller partner but a few will partner with shorter" and then they said "yes but that doesn't disprove that women select for height" which literally just agreed with me by disagreeing with me. so i'm responding to the spirit of what was written. anyway, go debate moderate somewhere else redditoid, it's an image board

>>76470321
nigga what thread are you reading

>>76469983
I'm 5'9 and never had any trouble getting women. Maybe because I hang in nerd circles and don't really spend time with shallow normie women?

I am in decent shape, which is rare for men in nerdy circles. I feel this shit mostly applies to normalfags and being a nerd who isn't intimidated by women is easy mode?

>>76470245
Well one thing for certain is you won't post them because you're a lying bitch made faggot!

>>76470245
Tough talk for a manlet kek

This list is only true for the USA

>Less than 5'4
You better be famous or into literal dwarves. Gains don't even matter anymore, it's not a great place to be.
>5'4 to 5'5
If you have a great face, good build, and money you can maybe pull the shortest asian/latina women. Baby mode gains so no excuse not to be built.
>5'6 to 5'7
You won't really he attracting white/black women unless youre rich/famous or they're almost dwarves. Still have a shot with Latinas and Asians. Easy gains
>5'8 to 5'9
Neither advantageous or disadvantageous. Easy enough gains.
>5'10 to 5'11
Slight advantage, good range to still get gains
>6'0 to 6'3
Optimal height for attracting women, gains are moderately difficult natty
>6'4 to 6'5
Better than average height at attracting women, health problems start to emerge and lower lifespan. Gains are difficult
>6'6+
Perhaps worse than being average height, the health issues and poor gains suck

>>76470399
Most realistic list desu

>>76470423
Yeah maybe I should, would probably be far less pissy than you bunch of fucking faggots

>>76465879

Being over 6' makes bench pressing a lot harder, but deadlifts and BB rows easier.

>>76465879
I don't feed my cats burgers

>>76466483
Filipinas are ugly monkeys keep coping

>>76467119
Because of women retard

>>76470228
>Bruno Mars
Why are you brown

>>76470399
Who in the fuckity fuck wants black women kek

>>76464699 (OP)
i know a 5’6 guy who can 4pl8 (obv roider) but the only people who ever talk about him are men mirin his lifts

face>height>>>>>>physique

a 6ft1 5/10 wont pull the same as a 5ft9 8/10 but a 5ft5 with perfect body is invisible compared to both unless he has top 0.1% face or is rich

>>76470518
Height >>>> physique > face.

>>76470494
I do.
>Source: dating a 10/10 thicc black girl with a fat ass and huge titties that also has a masters degree

>>76470528
You're a virgin if you believe this.

>>76469870
You could say 6’2 and probably get away with it

>>76464699 (OP)
I thank god everyday I'm bisexual, having been with both jesus fucking christ straight bros I'm so sorry you're stuck dealing with women.

>>76470598
I mean, you can easily test it.
Make a Tinder without showing your muscular body, and then with it.
The muscular body 10Xs your matches. It's just that the majority of matches will be lustful women in their 30s.
From my testing, height is by far the biggest factor. If you input anything under 5'7", it's over. A 6'2" guy covered in acne and blisters(clearly visible) will still get more matches than you.

>>76470649
This is how you know homosexuality isnt a choice, because no sane man would choose to be straight.

Are all women bad? No. Are most women very short sighted and hedonistic?Absolutely.

>>76470679
I would never "test" it because I'm not a spastic pathetic dork. Face is 90% of everything, and unless you're under 5'5 women do not give the slightest fuck if you have a handsome face. Women aren't nearly as picky as goombas in this thread like to pretend, its generally just due to you being objectively fucking ugly and/or fat.

>>76470679
>>76470702
> Face is 90% of everything
Well i got a 23 year old gf at 32 while being only 5'9 with average face but beardmaxxed and good hunter eyes and good hairline. You can make it as an average guy

>>76470730
What the fuck are good hunter eyes

>>76465376
23 doesnt say much, hot? virgin?

>>76470528
No falsehoods detected

>>76470528
>>76470518
It's not so simple. Just like one wouldn't say looks > personality or personality > looks.
It's a bit more complex. For example, if I think a woman is ugly, it doesn't matter how great her personality is, I will never consider her wife material. However, if she gets over that threshold to the point I consider her "normal" i.e. "pretty", then personality starts to matter a lot more than looks. I would gladly take a 5/10 with a great personality than a 10/10 with a shitty personality.

>>76469191
>>76469780
I have a 19 inch biacromial width. If that isn't a large frame at 5'7" I don't know what is.

6’0” - 6’3” is unironically the perfect height for a man from an aesthetics and logistics perspective

>>76469861
Yes. Problem?

>>76470528

Does someone want to tell this seething tranny/lanklet?

>>76470528

>>76464699 (OP)
I'm tired of 5'2" women thinking they are 5'8".

>>76464699 (OP)
>college student females
aka vapid retarded cunts. Who gives a shit? Seriously? Also touch grass, go to a campus and just people watch. You'll see that all this heightmaxxing schizobabble bullshit is just that. There are plenty of hot chicks with dudes that don't match this at all. Hell plenty of hotties with abject uggos that make you scratch your head in disbelief. I swear this shit only thrives here and in other dark retarded recesses of the internet. It has no place in reality.

>>76470905
Hot but not a virgin and triple vaxxed but you can still change them because 23 is young

>>76472161
You'll never get through to these people. They are schizoid mongrels that don't live within the confines of society.

>>76466483
>filipina
Ew

>>76467119
>no girl can grab on to and feel up your height during sex
Them being smothered by an over 6' man's frame already qualifies.

>>76470262
>how is suggesting you take a walk outside misrepresenting your argument
Your insinuating that I only hold this stance because of a terminally online basement-dwelling lifestyle. That's a strawman- you are making your own caricature of who I am in your head and attacking the person rather than the argument.

>you are actually completely missing the difference between population and individual
Listen, we aren't talking about language or law here. We are talking about something deeply biological.
Sexual preselection is and attraction is a limbic reflex, meaning it is subconsciously triggered.
A man doesn't actively choose to be attracted to wide hips and small waists, but they all are by design.

>the height bell curve have different preferences for mate height.
Because limbic attraction was NOT meant to define an ideal mate and try to get as close as possible to it.
I already told you- it functions by identifying specific cues of dominance in potential men (or fertility in potential women). The cues are important- not the ideal.

This doesn't mean every single man will end up with a perfect specimen woman, since we don't live in a world like that.
People have to compromise on what they're attracted to and settle for the best mate available.

>you will see good women in stable relationships with men who are stay at home dads. you will see men who are dating women who have chronic illnesses. you will see short men with tall women
People settle for what they can get.
This doesn't disprove evolution. Nor does it disprove the fact that every human live today is descended from millions of other humans who were subject to evolutionary pressures- the same ones who made women like height.
Human genetic variance does not significantly effect reproductive preferences to the point where women don't care about height anymore. That is only possible if selecting for height became reproductively dangerous for thousands of generations (which it clearly doesn't).

(1/2)

>>76467119
>it's more important to have developed muscles that women can actually lust over
No woman has ever said "OMG this guy is so ugly, but look at his muscles they make me so wet I wanna have sex with him"
You guys are literally the biggest retards on the planet.
>developed muscles that women can actually lust over
No woman lusts over muscles alone you retarded shit for brains moron.
If your face is ugly your muscles are USELESS, completely fucking useless.
If you are 5'4 your muscles are also completely fucking useless.
If you are both short and ugly your muscles are useless.

I swear to god you are the most retarded people on the planet, pick someone with an ugly face and photoshop muscles on him, make a Tinder profile. You won't get any bitches.

>>76470262
>>76472386
>differences within populations exceed differences between populations
But we are all humans, and are subject to the same sexual preselection preferences that all humans have.

>mating strategies and desires exist on spectra, not as "hardwired" inborn maxims of mate selection
The Individual genetic variance that people have is nowhere near divergent enough to make women not care about height, or make men not care about hips, or whatever.
These things develop after thousands of generations of immense risk and pressure for survival.
They are ABSOLUTELY hardwired.

Why is everyone totally fine with acknowledging that muscles are hardwired to be attractive to women, but the second height is mentioned, everyone changes their story?
I'm not accusing you of doing this intentionally, I just think the narrative surrounding these topics is muddied by insecurities or activism.

>you will see prosocial men with fewer dominant cues in long term relationships MORE often than not.
In modern society, everyone gets into relationships eventually. That alone isn't an achievement.
What matters is who ends up being with the mates that people actually compete for.

>reduction to a handful of boolean values is not only a misrepresentation of the literature regarding this topic, and of statistics
Except I'm not going off of OKCupid statistics or any of the things incels typically use to talk. I'm going off of evolutionary theory, and well understood limbic psychology.
Statistics on anecdotes or online dating are extremely flawed to use when talking about attraction in all humans, evolution isn't.

>it is also usually ideologically motivated and defeatist.
Let me clarify something: There are many dominance cues besides height.
I never once meant to say that 'its over for manlets' or that it is impossible for short men to be attractive.
You are confusing my point with incel rhetoric.

I am simply saying that height is the most limbically important to all women. Got it?

Thousands of years ago no one was really much taller than their fellow hunters? Want to know how I know? Go look at any primitive tribe today. from South American tribes that have never evolved to African tribes to the South Pacific Islands....go look at the men, they are all within 1 inch in height. If height is this hardwired attraction in women from long ago well then were are the tall chads in these tribes?

Height is largely dependent on nutrition and scarcity. In tribal settings everyone eats the same shit, sleeps the same, is raised the exact same and thus their genes are the same. Only faggot liars such as yourself who can easily see by looking outside can deny that people born in poor environments for example are much smaller than anyone born in the suburbs.

Height is a manufactured thing. If you have a young daughter, you would know how much she loves to be picked up and how much she is likely psychologically being programmed as a little girl that height is an attractive thing in a male figure as she adores her much taller father/protector. The amount of times I've made a woman turned on by simply lifting them up like a caveman when it's time for sex is unprecedented and direct evidence where the majority of women get their sexual imprinting from despite what these foolish "geneticists" say online. Keep in mind I'm a manlet but a strong one. To think that much taller daddy-to-daughter early relationship is not where women are getting imprinted for height attraction and instead pretending it is some relic from hunter gather days is peak midwit.

Even manlet fathers are imprinting height attraction in their daughters early on. Point is, it is NOT some evolutionary bullshit that these online faggots like the one above me claim it is. Most men in a tribe throughout history were of equal size since they all ate the same, slept the same and shared the same living habits and had similar genetics.

>>76472573
But anon, if people stop blaming genetics for everything, they'll have to take responsibility for their situation in life. We can't have that, can we?

I'm gonna call you a coper and go back to watching blackpill video compilations of anorexic and homosexual male models wearing a pound of makeup.

>>76464699 (OP)
>r/shortguys
That place and OP must have some kind of humiliation fetish

>>76468643

>>76472410
>pick someone with an ugly face and photoshop muscles on him,
No need to.

>>76464704
This, to be honest.

>>76464720
Get a stool, I can't hear you from down there.

>>76464699 (OP)
Very kind list but also kind of BS, there's a whole universe of difference between 5'6 and 5'9

>>76464704
Having high test makes gym easy mode too, you don't respect the gains of high test men either?
Does one needs to be a 6'9 low test eunuch to gain your respect?

>>76471398
What's your.bf, my shoulders are 19 inches across and 50 around but I'm like 22% at 5'7

>>76473264
>difference between 5'6 and 5'9
Lmao no difference at all

>>76471909
>5'9 hot model vs 6'2 disabled person
wow, you proved him wrong, anon.

>>76472573
>go look at the men, they are all within 1 inch in height
This is total bullshit. Men of these tribes variated in height just as much as people do now.
In times of famine people often didn't grow to their full heights, but among those who did, there was plenty of variation.

Just because jeets and native americans are portrayed as uniform brown manlets with mantits doesn't mean that they all looked like that. Go look up authentic pictures of south asian tribespeople taken in the 1800s and they all looked relatively distinct from each other besides skin color.

>If height is this hardwired attraction in women from long ago well then were are the tall chads in these tribes?
King Kamehameha (hawaiian) was 7ft tall. Chief Joseph (native american) was 6'4
Sancho VII was fucking 7'3.
Tall people existed since all of human history.
Especially in cultures where famine wasn't as rampant.

>In tribal settings everyone eats the same shit, sleeps the same, is raised the exact same and thus their genes are the same
The way you live your life doesn't affect your genetics.
Genetics are genetics. They are your DNA. They aren't changed by eating or sleeping habits.

>Only faggot liars such as yourself who can easily see by looking outside can deny that people born in poor environments for example are much smaller than anyone born in the suburbs
Tell that to Lebron James. Tall people exist in every environment so long as they aren't malnourished to the point of having their growth significantly inhibited.

>If you have a young daughter, you would know how much she loves to be picked up and how much she is likely psychologically being programmed as a little girl that height is an attractive thing
You are referencing the outdated concept of the Electra complex as proposed by Sigmund Frued.
The idea is that woman's preferences for dominator/protector archetypes stem from childhood sexual attraction to their fathers.
This concept is no longer accepted because...
(1/2)

>>76472573
>>76474232
...because the underlying evolutionary backing for the Electra complex doesn't exist.
It also doesn't explain why women are able to develop sexual feelings towards their fathers in the first place, even if we were to assume they did.
Plus, even women who did not grow up with a close father figure still greatly exhibited limbic arousal towards dominator/protector traits.

Therefore, the whole "choke me daddy" brand of female sex psychology isn't based in a LITERAL incest fetish from childhood, but rather normal limbic behavior that all women carry for the sake of reproductive security.
The viscerally arousing reaction women have to being carried or spanked isn't because they fetishize fucking their dad, but because they are limbically hardwired to seek dominant men, which is most recognizable in the dad/daughter dynamic.
Or in other words, it's not about incest because it's a widespread fetish (Electra complex), but rather it's about power dynamics because of limbic evolutionary programming.

>The amount of times I've made a woman turned on by simply lifting them up like a caveman when it's time for sex is unprecedented and direct evidence where the majority of women get their sexual imprinting from despite what these foolish "geneticists" say online
Wrong. It's evidence of the exact opposite.
Frued, and other proponents of the idea that women get their sex tastes solely from the fathers could not explain why being carried was arousing to women despite them not having a close father figure in their lives.
The fact that women across the board, regardless of childhood, are united in their arousal response is proof of evolution and limbic programming, NOT conditioning!

>pretending it is some relic from hunter gather days is peak midwit
Your fruedian ideas do not hold against the facts. The uniformity of the behaviors proved him wrong.
Evolution is fact. To deny it is to deny biology.

>>76474266
>Therefore, the whole "choke me daddy" brand of female sex psychology isn't based in a LITERAL incest fetish from childhood, but rather normal limbic behavior that all women carry for the sake of reproductive security.
Man women do prefer long men, but I see them settle and have children with average height guys. Go outside and see for yourself

>>76470073
>NO I WILL NOT GO OUTSIDE AND RISK MY DOGMAS BEING PROVEN WRONG
lol

>>76467119
>why do blackpilled retards always prioritize height over physique?
here is Jeff Nipard's wife.
He is rich, has a 10/10 physique, is attractive, and still was forced to settle with a 3/10 Latina. Why? Because he is a 5'4 manlet.

>>76464699 (OP)
>What is the minimum height where you can get jacked and it looks impressive to people?
what's the maximum height??

I'm slightly over 2m (6'8 for you americans)
with ~105kg (~230lbs?) and still looking like a dyel

literally impossible with that height

>>76474325
You literally cannot have a 10/10 physique while being 5'4". Height is an integral aspect of one's physique.

>>76474325
It is always funny when you see Jeff next to the bed and the bed being half his size.

>>76464704
I don't respect idiots that make their height their personality. Imagine just feeling auto mogged and emasculated the second someone an inch higher than you shows up

>>76472386
nah i said go outside because there are readily available counterexamples in pretty much every developed human society.

the difference between population and individual means that on AVERAGE people prefer x trait, which you are 100% correct about, but individuals exist on a curve for each axis of their mate selection behavior, and some won't give a shit if you're e.g. tall while others will literally fuck you just because of it. the average person exists in the middle but there are so many axes of mate selection that most people are an outlier in at least one of them, and thus most people can be in a relationship with someone they are uniquely attracted to where others don't see as much appeal. this is the difference between population and individual.

you can have a composite ideal mate, sure, but this is based on population-level preferences. individuals have variable types and preferences. this is important because it means your experience as an individual meeting other individuals can look very different than if everyone behaved as if every aspect of their being were exactly at the 50th percentile of the population. mate preferences also adapt quite a bit to circumstance, upbringing, and personal characteristics even at a population level.

>>76472458

see above. you are not disagreeing with me per se, and i am agreeing with you about population dynamics, but you can't extrapolate them to individual experience in the way you keep implying.

like this: "I am simply saying that height is the most limbically important to all women. Got it?"

this is just patently wrong even if we take your phrasing to mean "all women as a composite average." read the literature nigga

>>76474325
he lives a happy life with a wife he loves and they are both highly educated and fit. it's just assortative mating, not a personal failure.

>>76474266
Not even going to respond to this drivel.

I'm a literal Father of a daughter but...

> ....but Kike Freud was debunked!

Lol like I said you are a midwit and a sad one at that.

If you think the vast majority of good looking women would rather have this tall nigger over the handsome manlet >>76471864 well then clearly you are not only a midwit but a lying POS. This picrel proves height is just ONE aspect of attraction. No better than no worse than the others. But keep digging through literature when you can just live life normally to witness the truth first hand.

I'm literally a manlet and every time I step into a grocery store or mall, women look at me. Your ugly ass could not understand of course but no matter what bullshit you pull out of your kike textbooks nothing will discount my personal experience. Women literally fixing their hair and clothes the moment I get closer to them and no I do not have a male model tier face, I just simply out mog most men face-wise and shoulder-wise but still I am a massive manlet. LMAO.

>>76473240
>Roiding for this

>>76474325
Nippard is a roiding retard so this doesn't even count lol.

i'm 5'8 twink, wide shoulders and big d
i've done both the chad thing and the femboy thing and women like both
i'm gay too and women still like me

>>76466409
t. 5’9 coping manlet
Back into the manlet pit.

Looks accurate. Pic related is D-tier. Gymmaxxed, looksmaxxed, millionairemaxxed, famemaxxed, and still ended up with a mid bogged asian.

You really do have to max out every part of your life to even compete with the average looking average height guys for average women. And they don't even have to do any improving. They're just taller.

>>76464704
It's not about height, it's about frame. Being short doesn't mean anything if your frame is proportionally small.

>>76475368
>i've done both the chad thing and the femboy thing and women like both
>i'm gay too and women still like me
Same here. Shit's hilarious.

>>76469899
How is it "cope" you brainlet, do you even know what that word means? He's openly accepting that it's harder for the manlet to lift lighter weights. That's accepting reality, the complete opposite of "cope".

>>76464699 (OP)
there are zero tall centenarians. More cells, more cancer.

>>76466409
The entire thing is a gradient instead of a tier list. If you're 5'9 then ~30% (as an example percentage) of women will find you visually repulsive, and if you're 5'8.9" then the percentage is ~30.1%, etc.

>>76473240
lol, lmao even

Protip: half of the retards claiming 6'0" online are frauding with in soles and then adding an inch or two on paper
>source: 5'11', feel average as fuck living in a top 5 height euro country
>look at people's feet, they are wearing shoes with moon boot tier heels/soles
>put on a pair of heeled dress shoes once for an occassion, suddenly I am 'tall' by comparison

>>76474266
>evopsych
You are a midwit retard if you believe Freud sucks because muh science muh empiricism and then subscribe to just as unprovable freudifhewasreddit pseudoscience pablum bullshit

>>76474807
You can have “tall” proportions in isolation. I am short but have a small head, long limbs, and narrow joints so I do not make a squat impression whatsoever

>>76476469
Your buzzwords mean nothing to me. Explain how your Freudian theory about sexuality explains the uniformity of dominator/protector traits being chosen among women.
That is literally the EXACT reason why Freud and the Electra theory are no longer excepted in modern biology.
I'll wait.

>freudifhewasreddit
Dude you can't be yelling 'reddit' when you talk the way you do. Every single buzzword of your is the epitome of what people hate about reddit

>>76474980
>If you think the vast majority of good looking women would rather have this tall nigger over the handsome manlet
When the fuck did I ever say that?
Just because someone is taller doesn't mean they are more attractive.
There are many dominance cues besides height, but height is among the most important dominance cues.
You are referring to extreme examples of taller men being outperformed by shorter men, and they are in no way indicative that height does not matter to women.

>This picrel proves height is just ONE aspect of attraction. No better than no worse than the others.
Yes. You get it now.
The only thing to clarify is that some dominance cues are more important than others.
Social charisma is important, but not as important as not having extreme physical deformities. Get it?

>live life normally to witness the truth first hand.
This is just random projection.
You talk as if I'm a turbo basement coomer who hasn't seen the sun in years.
Like dude, I'm also a father. Get this weird fantasy you have of me out of your head.

>I'm literally a manlet and every time I step into a grocery store or mall, women look at me.
You've already aspoused your attractiveness to women. Good for you!
I'd also consider myself above average in terms of looks. I am seemingly taller than you but I'm pretty average in terms of facial aesthetics.
Neither of our indavidual anecdotes disprove that all women are wired to be attracted to height.

That doesn't mean the ONLY like height, or that a short person cannot be attractive to them, it merely means that height is attractive to them. ALL of them.

>Your ugly ass could not understand of course
More projection. You have a really active imagination.

>>76476620
>height is attractive to them. ALL of them.
That just isn’t true. A lot of young teens or traumatized people are attracted to more stereotypically “sexless” or nonthreatening men to compensate for being afraid of us

>>76476673
Something you might acknowledge, btw, if you were a psychoanalysis chad and not an evopsych stooge retard

>>76476673
>>76476689
It’s also pretty fucking retarded to suggest “dominance cues” are the only thing women are attracted to, same for “fertility cues”. I love wide hips (fertility cue) but also gaunt faces and crooked noses and eye bags and stick limbs, all of which by and large suggest some kind of weakness and deformity, due to psychological factors. Similarly, a lot of women want to fuck cartoon twinks

>>76476704
Those other things that arouse you are your own personal associations and aren't reflexively arousing in your limbic system in the way wide hips are.
There are many associations and beliefs you may assign to traits that allude to arousing thoughts, but that isn't the same as hardwired limbic arousal.

This is why sexual attraction for men is purely stemmed from fertility cues, since it is uniform and entirely limbic and reflexive, unlike your taste for crooked noses.

For example, a woman may like a tanned surfer-type of dude, or a nerdy scholar type of dude, but that isn't because they are reflexively aroused by the concept of surfing or nerdyness. That's just ideological associations.
Meanwhile, things like height and muscles ARE reflexively arousing since they are dominance cues. Get it?

>>76464699 (OP)
5'6" and 5'9" absolutely cannot be in the same category, they are worlds apart

>>76476797
Yeah this.

>>76470399
This list here seems more accurate.

>>76476796
>aren’t reflexively arousing in your limbic system
That just isn’t true. I find myself compelled by these features before I can think about it. An all-but-anorexic woman I was cohabitating with for a little while once walked by me in a long nightgown and she looked so slight and feeble that something gripped my soul and I sat there dumbfounded not knowing what lizard brained impulse just wrenched at me. Something different and scarier than attraction that got aroused by how fragile and genetically dead-ended she was. After some reflection and weird dreams I later figured out that’s how it feels to want to marry someone, and it was a very obviously subconscious visceral experience meaning ideology played a minimal role unless you want to say the subconscious and the limbic system are different which is silly pedantics

>>76476673
>A lot of young teens or traumatized people are attracted to more stereotypically “sexless” or nonthreatening men to compensate for being afraid of us
Then you simply don't know what you're talking about. Or rather you are misunderstanding what the point of the discussion is.
The fact that a woman may be consciously afraid of men, or afraid of losing autonomy, and thus may settle in a relationship with a non-powerful man is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to whether women are limbically aroused by such men.
This is why personal anecdotes are pointless. There are 10/10 women who end up fucking boomer manlets in sugardaddie relationships. That doesn't fucking mean they are evidence that evolution is wrong.

Regardless of what women choose to do with their bodies and their time, we are discussing what they are hardwired to find attractive, and that has a hell of a lot more to do with evolution than it does psychoanalystics, even when it comes to trauma.
Why else do you think rape victims disproportionately fetishize being raped? Or why even the most progressive feminist women still liked being choked and groped during sex?
Feeble ideology does not magically erase who we are, as creatures.

>>76476689
>if you were a psychoanalysis chad and not an evopsych stooge retard
There's nothing wrong with psychoanalysis, you just aren't doing it correctly.
Psychoanalysis is pointless when the sexual traits we are talking about are present in all women across the board, regardless of upbringing or race.
It is also entirely limbic, which in psychoanalytics, can only be altered through intense salience network interference (like PTSD). The idea that women get their sexual tastes from the fathers when not all women have dominator/protector fathers in their lives is fundamentally flawed.
Evolution and shared conditioning across generations is the only explanation why Women are LIMBICALLY HARDWIRED to select for dominance cues across different backgrounds.

>>76464699 (OP)
I'm 6'10", 300 lbs. Mid 40's. Only wife ever gave me any attention or affection.

>>76470518
>5’6 guy who can 4pl8 (obv roider)
4pl8 what? deadlift? you definitely don't need roids for that at any height

>>76476824
Very strange and rapey undertones to saying every single woman wants a dominant alpha and the ones who don’t are lying but it’s intellectually dishonest and cowardly to call you a rapist and be done with it so instead I’ll question why you think a general pattern which no one would disagree with (dominance and dominance cues are generally attractive regardless of background) is true in every possible scenario like gravity would be. You can’t prove anything with science, you can only find strong correlations, and the correlation you’re finding isn’t anywhere near strong enough to suggest anyone who finds montraditionally masculine traits attractive is settling or coping or whatever. If you’re so crazy about evolution then surely you’d understand there’s a bunch of frivolous shit we have that isn’t ideal (appendix, tailbone) but still sticks around. Same with attraction, all sorts of men and women can be viscerally attractive to some freak who just has that type lodged in their system, saying that’s cope is dishonest

>>76476845
>Very strange and rapey undertones to saying every single woman wants a dominant alpha and the ones who don’t are lying
They aren't necessarily lying, they are just choosing for reasons other than pure sexual arousal, like most people do.
If men were selecting wives for ONLY sexual arousal purposes, and nothing else, we would all be fighting over various young curvy women with wide hips and fat tits who probably aren't even old enough to drink yet.
You know why men don't exclusively go for these women? Because there are other things that matter, not just limbic arousal. There is ideological, pathological, and emotional reasons why people get together and stay together.
None of that disproves the uniform limbic arousal as explained by evolution.

>the correlation you’re finding isn’t anywhere near strong enough to suggest anyone who finds nontraditionally masculine traits attractive is settling or coping or whatever
I would argue it is, but I need to clarify something.
'Masculine' does not always mean 'attractive to women'. Sexual arousal wasn't shaped by an effort to exaggerate sexual dimorphism, but rather to maximize reproductive success.

For example, Baldness is extremely masculine.
However, most women would pick a man with a full head of hair over a bald man, even if the bald man is seen as 'more manly'.
The reason why is because there is no reproductive advantage to selecting for bald men, but there ABSOLUTELY IS reproductive DISADVANTAGES to selecting an old, aging man.
And since baldness is limbically associated with old age, it is considered unattractive.

>There’s a bunch of frivolous shit we have that isn’t ideal (appendix, tailbone) but still sticks around
That's because the appendix and tailbone weren't unideal enough to become the difference between survival or death for people or their children. So there wasn't strong enough selection against it to change.
It's the same reason why all of us aren't 6'5 gigachads who can fly.

(1/2)

>>76476845
>>76476889
>Same with attraction, all sorts of men and women can be viscerally attractive to some freak who just has that type lodged in their system, saying that’s cope is dishonest
This is the most astute thing you've said so far.

You are absolutely right.
There is a degree of genetic variance between individuals of a specific generation. Part of the reason why these limbic arousal templates evolved in the first place is because the ones who carried them were reproductively successful while the ones who didn't were not.
Therefore, there is variance between humans, and thus people inherently find things hot to varying degrees from each other.
When it comes to height, it stands to reason that some women posses limbic systems that place less importance on it than others do.

That said, you are greatly overestimating the amount of genetic variance between peoples in a specific generation.
People don't differ from each other anywhere near drastically enough for our limbic systems to be that polarizing different unless you literally have a brain deformity.
To put it in perspective, enough time has passed between early humans in Africa and the different migration tribes getting us to where we are today that humans have different skin colors, eye shapes, and hair textures.
Those are pretty drastic differences, and yet, the limbic system is completely uniform among all of us, even when some other areas of the brain are slightly different.
The idea that a single generation of people can have more variance than people who have spent HUNDREDS of generations estranged from each other and look wildly different is absurd.

So yeah, you're on the right track with that last line but you got the scale of it wrong. Limbic development is extremely hardcoded.

(2/2)

>>76476833
>6'10

The ideal male height for proportions and aesthetics is 5'11/180cm. Anything over that has diminishing returns and looks goofy for 90% of natties.

Honestly I don't mind being a 5'5 manlet. Don't have to eat as much, don't have to lift as much, and I'll live longer.

>>76470518
But you're asserting that short isn't just better for strength and that all physiques are basically the same. I'm not either I'm tall as shit and my lifts seemed to indicate bad lifting genes until I finally got solid mass on me, I just got solid mass from 1wk of lifting tris for once.

Stop listening to people who hate themselves, 4pl8s for reps is nowhere near unachievable natty.

>>76470461
Until you just pack on so much muscle that you're actually having an easier time benching than manlets do.

>>76474980
> I'm literally a manlet and every time I step into a grocery store or mall, women look at me

Yes dwarfs are a circus attraction.

>>76477176
> Until you just pack on so much muscle that you're actually having an easier time benching than manlets do.
This is true, I’m 5’10 on a good day and I was out benching some lanky zoomers last years and they came back this year and they surpassed my bench because they are little heavier and packed more muscle, I think they are like 6’2 (twins) but the majority of lanklets I know are not that strong because they don’t eat enough

>>76464699 (OP)
>6'4 guy is gigachad mode.
No it's not
It's:
75% Face
15% body
10% charisma
Women have ZERO idea what 6ft4+ looks like.
That's 0.8% of the male population.
Bitches think 6ft 1in is that tall.
Anyways.

.t 6ft 5in tall, 8 pack abs but average face

>>76464699 (OP)
Why so short or average height guys think height is some kind of cheat code?
It's not.
It's just 1 more hurdle before women reject you.
.t 195cm

>>76464699 (OP)
dunno but i've known plenty of loser incel guys who tall, one example is picrel this guy is 6'4, he was orbiting this girl who was just using him for his car, he spent months orbiting this bitch and driving her everywhere hoping for something to come of it and then she let me smash after a few days of hanging out.


oh the guy got in trouble for breaking into her house. she said he went through her dirty laundry.

this is his mugshot lmao

>>76464699 (OP)
dunno but i've known plenty of loser incel guys who were tall, one example is picrel this guy is 6'4, he was orbiting this girl who was just using him for his car, he spent months orbiting this bitch and driving her everywhere hoping for something to come of it and then she let me smash after a few days of hanging out.


oh the guy got in trouble for breaking into her house. she said he went through her dirty laundry.

this is his mugshot lmao

5'10 btw

>>76477176
> Yes dwarfs are a circus attraction.
Yes they fix their hair and clothes when I approach because I'm a circus attraction...

Cope harder ugly.

See doesn't feel good when your entire ego is built on shit you never earned like height. I will never not laugh at mogging ugly lanklets like you.

>>76477266

>>76476924
Good read unironically

>>76477266
.t

>>76469836
are you doctor yet

>>76477504
cope

>>76464699 (OP)
Bros im 6'3.5, can I fraud max and say I'm 6'4? They're not going to know are they?

>>76477819
How would you feel if a person asked about your height then whipped out a measuring tape after you tell the lie? If you don't mind getting caught, fraud away.

The lower part of the chart is probably true but I don't think a 6'6" guy has better success with women than a 6'1" guy. And 5'8-9" is very different to 5'6"

>tfw 5'8
im saved boys
C tier, but high C.

>>76465635
BASED

>>76477841
The 6'6 guy stands out, height attracts women at the peak of their ovulation, like moths to the brightest bulb in the room, constantly, absently mindedly, butting into them

I have a friend who is legit 6'6" barefoot. We talked about height and he was surprised to hear I am "only 5'11". Broad shoulders, fizeek and good posture matters a lot more than 2" of height, unless you are below 5'8" in a western country I'd stop doom posting about muh height, you are dead on average and fixing your posture and fizeek goes a long way and then there's fraud shoes/shoe inserts with 2"+ heels which every other "yeah I am six feet bro" retard is wearing anyway

>>76470399
Trvke

>>76477862
Do you stand on your tiptoes for photos?

>>76477871
Nah but I saw a thin zoomer walking around in public on his toes once, he had the gait of a wounded animal. I reckon he'd be taller than me without the antics but he has probably doom scrolled height memes until infinity and is now mentally scared for life. It's ironically lanklets that seethe the most about height and get flustered, 5'9"-6'0" men don't give a shit

>>76478270
If you ask nicely I'm sure they'll let you sit on their shoulders next time

>>76464699 (OP)
whats the penis size version of this?

Bros I'm a 6'1 guy 7.5/10 in looks. My gf is 5'0 but 9/10 in looks, beautiful face. I'm genuinely convinced I can't get better than her. My choices are actually chopped taller women(5'8+) or hot shorter women. Would you sacrifice your sons height for a hotter girl?

>>76478639
>Would you sacrifice your sons height for a hotter girl?
you know that genetics don't work that way, right?
only 60-80% of your height are usually genetic

and current research suggest that the genetic part is more influenced by the taller parent

so I wouldn't worry that much

>>76478639
Congrats but 9/10 in looks when she's 5'0 an inch from midget tier is like saying a 5'3 guy is 9/10 in looks. The body counts in looks and there is no way a 5'0 woman's body is that great. You can say she has a 9/10 face though which could be true. But whatever if she makes you happy and she passes every one of your long term shit tests, go for it bro!

>>76478270
>It's ironically lanklets that seethe the most about height and get flustered, 5'9"-6'0" men don't give a shit
From my experience it's actually the guys from 5'5-5'10 that seethe about height. Lanklets don't give a shit. They are insecure for other reasons. All the manlet hate you see is mostly from ugly manlets online and height seething and hating irl is from guys 5'9-5'10 who couldn't make the tall cut by a few inches and are insecure and shit on those smaller than them to feel good. Typical bully that gets bullied by dad at home mindset.

To me 5'7-5'8 is the least insecure. They are far away from tall that they never had a shot and never cared as a result at the same time just barely above the really tiny club.

> t. 5'7-5'8 club

>>76478672
alright that makes me feel better. I think after 5'9 looks matter more than height anyways. We've been together for almost 3 years and I'm gonna propose to her as soon as she gets her career in order.

>>76478978
yeah her body is just alright. great face though, looks just like young jennifer connely. she really does make me happy but can be crazy at times which is concerning but I've accepted all girls can be crazy.

>>76476469
A pretty good litmus test to see if you're just projecting your internal fantasies as a nEW ReVolUTioNaRY schema is to see if it exists in other animals.

>>76464699 (OP)
Manlet cutoff is de jure 5'10" but de facto 6'.

>>76464699 (OP)
I think working out stops mattering at around 5'8 or 5'9. I am 5'7 and have motivation issues because I know no matter how much I work out my 6'2 friend will be more attractive than me, though he has never worked out a day in his life.
I have coped myself into working out for my health rather than for attraction though.

>>76470262
>how is suggesting you take a walk outside misrepresenting your argument
Because it's a nonsensical believe to think everything in the world matches what you see on some specific day. As a counter-example to the people saying they see gross dudes with hot chicks, I see the inverse. It's tall skinny/fit guys with hambeasts where I live.

>>76480733
*belief

>>76473933
He was the one who suggested looks mattered least.

I honestly thought height was kind of a meme. Then I met this guy who massively slayed pussy, at least according to him, and as far as I can tell the only thing he really had going for him was height. He was like 6'7, lanky and goofy looking. Your typical 'too tall' guy.

>>76478639
I met a perfect unicorn (at least a 9, virgin, rich, kind) but all of the guys in her family were uber manlets so I didn't ask her out (that's the reason, honestly, nothing else to it)


>>76480689
So then you are just doing a basic routine of the compounds right? No reason to do 5 days a week 10 exercises per day type workout

>>76478672
My father is 6’3 and I ended up 5’10 because my mom is short

>>76464699 (OP)
5'9"

You have to at least be average or it's seen as cope.

>>76482623
Also measuring height in inches is retarded. There are 3 heights: short, average, tall. Nobody is counting hairs.

>>76479712
>dude it’s over if you’re not at least 6’2” in 2025, I regularly get heightmogged by women in heels on the street and I get zero attention from females at clubs. the stats are lying to you the average male zoomer is way over 6 feet tall
>how tall am I? Well I’m 5’8”, more accurately 5’8.4, which is basically 5’8.5 which I round up to 5’9”. Also I wear lifts and platform shoes whenever I go out in public which adds 2 inches, plus I spike up my hair and everyone frauds a little so I’m basically 6 foot.
6’ is solidly tall IRL, all the stats support this, every single study says that only about 15% of American men are 6 feet and above. Even if you believe in the 80/20 rule, just being 5’11” is more than enough to land you in the “tall” club. You are probably a coping actual manlet trying to drag normal and tall men down with you