Thread 82865425

Why do incel chuds say women only like the same type of guy? They have very varied tastes in men.

>>82865425 (OP)
My boyfriend is just 5 foot 11.

>>82865425 (OP)
>They're more likely to be 7' tall than 5'11"

Women are wild

>>82865425 (OP)
>be me, 6'2
>still failed on the easiest height

>>82865425 (OP)
this is looking at romance novels. If you look at porn most women are probably below 120 lbs, doesnt mean men expect all women to be that.

saying that women are shallow based on pure fantasy is insane.

>>82865499
What is height and weight distribution in men's romance books?

>>82865545
>men's romance books

>>82865545
well first of all men dont read romance books, they watch movies and porn

and secondly that hasnt been studied at all because women arent insecure about what men enjoy in their free time

>>82865568
>women arent insecure about what men enjoy in their free time

Only because there's no reason for them to be, they're always desired no matter what

>>82865425 (OP)
Hold on I have a jpeg of the joker somewhere in my meme folder for my reaction to this knowledge....

>>82865499
Even in porn, the taste of men varies. Asians, blondes, blacks, Latinas, fat, petite, busty, flat. Men cover a gamut of preferences. We even have data that suggests women have nearly uniform and linear tastes (taller = gooder), and for women, all romance and smut media directed at them is about 6'4 psychopathic serial killer Dark Triad male models kidnapping and quasi-raping average girls. Even when women argue about husbandos, it tends to be which flavour of 6'4 psychopathic rapist they like.

That being said, this doesn't affect me in real life because I got laid a lot when I was super skinny, and I am a 5'9 manlet.

>>82865568
>well first of all men dont read romance books,
Excuse mua but these are classic for example.
Of corse now men read less books but still.

>>82865499
But there is still plenty of fat girl porn out there. Is there any erotica for women featuring short men at all?

>>82865608
yeah well women also have a "variety of tastes"? some women like romance novels with black guys, or asian guys, or white guys, or latinos or whatever you're acting like men and porn are any better when theyre not

>>82865617
Those are fantasy novels where the romance is a small part of it

>>82865619
yes, there absolutely is. you just dont know about it because its not your thing, i dont blame you.

its the same thing as women assuming all men are shallow and just like big titted blondes in porn when there is a variety, its the same with "romance novels"

>>82865425 (OP)
never began for 6'10"cels

>>82865645
>yes, there absolutely is

Link some or you're full of shit

>>82865425 (OP)
oh hey I'm 6'2"

foids, line up right here and I'll message you when I have a chance

>>82865628
>some women like romance novels with black guys, or asian guys, or white guys, or latinos or whatever

>>82865425 (OP)

This post indeed merits the Joker.

>>82865628
I work in a library and nearly every romance book is white-on-white except the occasional jeet-on-jeet (no one reads those though)

>>82865653
here is an entire reddit thread of women asking for recommendations on romance novels with short male love interests (particularly shorter than the woman which is interesting)
https://www.reddit.com/r/RomanceBooks/comments/t35c5x/a_book_with_a_shorter_mmc_preferably_mf/

>>82865628
>or asian guys

doubt.jpeg

>>82865635
Yeah men's fantasy have more focus on violence and adventure but you cant deny abducting and raping cute girls with core premise of the Gor novels, this is what made them stand out.

>>82865425 (OP)
imagine being the giga incel that skimmed through 100s of female romance novels to make this

Assuming fisherian runaway, how tall do you think humans will be in a 100 years? What about 200, 300? Will 8 meter tall men be considered short at some point?

Also, we need to stop selecting short women too.

>>82865661
And the archetype in those books is always their version of Chad.

>Chad Thundercock
>Chang Lightningwang
>Chaquandius Stormdickius-Brown

They are always: 6'4", gorgeous psychopaths with intense Dark Triad traits. Even when the romance is about an average girl meeting a "meek guy", he always has a dark secret, and that dark secret is that he's actually a 6'4" Dark Triad psychopath of some kind who is extremely domineering, casually abusive and extremely unpleasant. I'd argue that being an abusive psychopath is the secret sauce to all female romance, from anecdotal and statistical evidence.

>>82865700
Men can be relentless when pursuit goals.

>>82865713
Well can be argued that male POV fantasy has subset of same.
Like Gor or Conan were books from POV of 6'4", gorgeous psychopaths Chad.
At the same time pinnacle of the fantasy are Lord of the Ring books with Hobbits mc.

>>82865688
You are a virtue signaling slut. Women aren't attracted to short men

>>82865763
okay man.

maybe read the thread before claiming you know or understand women. we are people and have nuanced opinions and tastes just like you buddy

>>82865425 (OP)
>6'11" is higher than 5'11"
Lol, lmao even. Thanks for reminding why I gave up.

>>82865758
That's true, but it's also a "whataboutism" in the sense that this is about preferences in a partner in fiction, as opposed to how one wishes to be portrayed in fiction. Men seek power fantasies, women seek disempowerment fantasies (where their sole "power" is their pussy being able to tame an evil psychopath who is evil and violent towards everybody but her). Culturally and socially, we can't really put the toothpaste back in the tube regarding these perceptions of the opposite sex. Men were taught for generations that the best way to impress women was to be kind, caring, and hardworking, when the reality is that the best way to impress women is to just be as evil, narcissistic and tall as possible. Women were taught that being a good wife was the best way to get a man, when the reality is that men will fuck anything with a pulse and have no standards.

Retarded criminals reproduce more often than geniuses and people who actually contribute to society, so hey, I guess the future is gonna be bright.

>>82865786
>maybe read the thread before claiming you know or understand women.
It's pretty easy to understand women lmao
>we are people and have nuanced opinions and tastes just like you buddy
Sure you do, and why are you talking down at me?

>>82865800
because you called me a slut and generalised all women? idk kinda easy to understand imo

>>82865800
>Sure you do, and why are you talking down at me?
The default female argumentation involves emasculating their male opponent and pointing out minority exceptions that "prove" they are right, despite doing the opposite (the necessity for women to reach out and desperately search for media that has shorter male love interests proves that the hyper-majority of romantic media for women contains 6'4" psychopathic rapists, or else they wouldn't need to scrounge for media with average height male leads). Women can only be passive aggressive and talk down to you while defeating their own arguments.

>>82865831
>because you called me a slut and generalised all women?
Because I'm tired or women lying and virtue signaling online to save face. We can see what kind of guys that yall go for.

>>82865425 (OP)
>>82865795
6'10 bros how are we going to recover?

>>82865856
dont speak for me. i am not who you think i am and you dont know me

also calling random women online sluts is not doing you any fucking favors, this is why you dont get laid, not because youre "ugly"

i was trying to be civil honestly but you are just pissing me off and im tired of acting nice to please others

>>82865860
>>82865795
>>82865469
To be fair, it's "6'11+", which covers the range of 6'11" to literally infinitely tall. It's not really a valid measure of anything. It bunches a tall basketball player in with a minotaur who is 8 feet tall.

>>82865896
>also calling random women online sluts is not doing you any fucking favors, this is why you dont get laid, not because youre "ugly"
This is maybe the worst thing you have said all thread, if you are serious. Despite what you may think, no, you do NOT have psychic powers. You are NOT blessed by Mother Gaia (praise her womb!) to be able to tell when a man makes meanie-bo-beanie posts about women online or has nasty, secret negative opinions about women. Were this true, domestic abuse would be a non-existent issue. It's an extremely disingenuous and idiotic thing to say. Please reflect on yourself and your thinking processes.

I will say that the reality is that the anons who can't get laid here most likely can't get laid because of their personalities. Not because they are mean, nasty misogynerds, but because they aren't low-inhib quasi-psychopaths. Any young guy who isn't deformed can get laid by being ridiculously extroverted and extremely low in agreeableness. Women select for anti-social behaviours and ADHD, on average. Being a highly inhibited young man is the best way to remain a virgin.

>>82865499
>sample of 5782 speed-daters making 128104 choices
> women strongly disfavoured men who were shorter, but not those who were taller, than their preferred height range
> male-taller norm observed in actual couples (i.e. males are more often taller than their partner when compared to random mating; Gillis & Avis 1980) is driven by women rather than by men
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347213001590?via%3Dihub

>>82865558
I see where you're going but we still win this one as men. We have flat chest love and big booba love threads. All of womens fiction is >6ft men.

>>82865896
>dont speak for me. i am not who you think i am and you dont know me
I've met enough women to know that all of you are the same carbon copies of eachother.
>also calling random women online sluts is not doing you any fucking favors
Has nothing to do with anything.
>this is why you dont get laid, not because youre "ugly"
Who said I haven't gotten laid? Don't speak for me, I am not who you think I am.
>i was trying to be civil honestly but you are just pissing me off and im tired of acting nice to please others
Not my problem honestly.

>>82865937
>no love for tall volleyball girls
Sad!

>>82866037
I think you are reading something wrong

>>82865425 (OP)
w-what happens if you off scale low on this chart

>>82865425 (OP)
Lets be honest, anything below 6 feet is barely considered a man. Just transition already.

>>82865425 (OP)
6'10 bros, it's truly joever by now.

>>82865795
>Thanks for reminding why I gave up.
You gave up because of books? Thank God you won't have a chance to reproduce

>>82865937
im 185cm tall. should i just try speed dating?