T
even the main stream media things sub 5'11" is a manlet
even the main stream media things sub 5'11" is a manlet
Poor daniel radcliffe. If he was taller, he would be a capable slayer.
5'10 is now midge
*t territory
*t territory
Tell me something new.
5'8 in 2018, just lol
---
I'd say the bare minimum to be accepted as a man is pretty much 5'11
I mean the REAL BARE MINIMUM, without any mental gymnastics or cope.
5'8 in 2018, just lol
---
I'd say the bare minimum to be accepted as a man is pretty much 5'11
I mean the REAL BARE MINIMUM, without any mental gymnastics or cope.
D
>the average mean height preference difference of all women was 7.94in taller, the overall ideal range was 5.3in taller to 10.4in taller
>avg height 5ft 5in for women
>prefer a range of 5ft 9in to 6ft 2in
"Adjusting for the height difference of men and women, women would still prefer men .3 to 5.4 inches taller than them (the unadjusted preference range is 5.3 to 10.4 inches taller). Men prefer women 4.93in shorter to 1.65in taller than them. Thus, men have approximately a one inch larger acceptable range, on average. That one inch is on the taller end of the preferred range. So men, are more likely to self report as being attracted to slightly taller girls, whereas women do not share that accommodation in the opposite direction. The female range preference ends at slightly above their gender adjusted height. From an evolutionary standpoint this all makes sense. Preference selection should be mirrored in the sexes and any flexibility is more likely to show up in males since women exert greater selection power than men, on average.
These are anonymous self reported results but they match up very well with previous research on this topic. In a study by Gillis and Avis (1980) only 2 couples out of 720 consisted of a pair in which the man was shorter than the woman. In a study by Hensley (1994) women most preferred a man who was 72 inches (6ft) tall. In a study by Cameron (1978), 100 percent of the women advertised the desire to date a man who was 4 inches taller than themselves."
http://research.similarminds.com/romantic-height-preferences-in-men-and-women/227
Here is a suicide endorsing comment from some dumb cunt on these studies.
"A lot of people are talking about how superficial this study is. It’s an appearance preference study, that’s the point. Yes, women prefer taller men. Does that mean that most women would take a tall jerk over a short guy who had a great personality? No. Plus, this is just an average. I’m 5′3″, and I’m therefore supposed to want a guy who is 5′10″. My ex was 6′6″ and that was perfect height in my opinion. For every short girl that wants a 6′6″ guy, there’s a short girl that wants a 5′2″ guy (if averages worked out perfectly, I mean)."
Repeat after me, fellow incels:There is no such thing as being too tall for a man.
>avg height 5ft 5in for women
>prefer a range of 5ft 9in to 6ft 2in
"Adjusting for the height difference of men and women, women would still prefer men .3 to 5.4 inches taller than them (the unadjusted preference range is 5.3 to 10.4 inches taller). Men prefer women 4.93in shorter to 1.65in taller than them. Thus, men have approximately a one inch larger acceptable range, on average. That one inch is on the taller end of the preferred range. So men, are more likely to self report as being attracted to slightly taller girls, whereas women do not share that accommodation in the opposite direction. The female range preference ends at slightly above their gender adjusted height. From an evolutionary standpoint this all makes sense. Preference selection should be mirrored in the sexes and any flexibility is more likely to show up in males since women exert greater selection power than men, on average.
These are anonymous self reported results but they match up very well with previous research on this topic. In a study by Gillis and Avis (1980) only 2 couples out of 720 consisted of a pair in which the man was shorter than the woman. In a study by Hensley (1994) women most preferred a man who was 72 inches (6ft) tall. In a study by Cameron (1978), 100 percent of the women advertised the desire to date a man who was 4 inches taller than themselves."
http://research.similarminds.com/romantic-height-preferences-in-men-and-women/227
Here is a suicide endorsing comment from some dumb cunt on these studies.
"A lot of people are talking about how superficial this study is. It’s an appearance preference study, that’s the point. Yes, women prefer taller men. Does that mean that most women would take a tall jerk over a short guy who had a great personality? No. Plus, this is just an average. I’m 5′3″, and I’m therefore supposed to want a guy who is 5′10″. My ex was 6′6″ and that was perfect height in my opinion. For every short girl that wants a 6′6″ guy, there’s a short girl that wants a 5′2″ guy (if averages worked out perfectly, I mean)."
Repeat after me, fellow incels:There is no such thing as being too tall for a man.
A
According to this study 5'9'' is the hard cutoff.
Well and because men are lying about heir height (women too) they think an actual 5'9'' guy is 5'11.
So the real, real cutoff is 5'7''
Under 5'7'' -> ROPE
Well and because men are lying about heir height (women too) they think an actual 5'9'' guy is 5'11.
So the real, real cutoff is 5'7''
Under 5'7'' -> ROPE
Prince Of Dankness said:
probably still slays. He just replaces height with status and money
L
lol at that fucking username
It all depends on the country, 5'6 would probably be considered above average in Vietnam.
Most of those guys slay, what the fuck are you going on about.
this. 5'11+ or bust.
Brad Pitt and Daniel Craig are slayers, COPE.
85% of men are < 6ft.
This doesn't even make sense. < 5'7 is manlet.
This doesn't even make sense. < 5'7 is manlet.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
