Limb Lengthening Forum
Limb Lengthening Surgery => Limb Lengthening Patients Experiences => Topic started by: letsgo on October 23, 2023, 08:49:05 PM
-
Hi all — I am not sure who is the best person to answer this (hopefully past patients), but I have read a lot of diaries here which (perhaps rightly so) venerate the height bump. However, there has to be someone who thinks this surgery was underwhelming. There is a lot of girls racially profiling guys, so no matter what your height is if a girl is shallow, height won't beat it. Is the claim that height is a bigger factor than other social factors (money, facial features, race) for men.
And then I wonder when people (excluding dating scenarios) see you with the increased height, do they really respect you more or less? I know we will in a shallow world, but is that very prevalent and obvious in real life?
-
Hi all — I am not sure who is the best person to answer this (hopefully past patients), but I have read a lot of diaries here which (perhaps rightly so) venerate the height bump. However, there has to be someone who thinks this surgery was underwhelming. There is a lot of girls racially profiling guys, so no matter what your height is if a girl is shallow, height won't beat it. Is the claim that height is a bigger factor than other social factors (money, facial features, race) for men.
And then I wonder when people (excluding dating scenarios) see you with the increased height, do they really respect you more or less? I know we will in a shallow world, but is that very prevalent and obvious in real life?
Stop caring about what others think and the only good reason to do this surgery is doing it for yourself. Don't give people so much control over your life they don't even care if you live or die.
-
Height isn't everything, yes. It's one factor of many.
-
Hi all — I am not sure who is the best person to answer this (hopefully past patients), but I have read a lot of diaries here which (perhaps rightly so) venerate the height bump. However, there has to be someone who thinks this surgery was underwhelming. There is a lot of girls racially profiling guys, so no matter what your height is if a girl is shallow, height won't beat it. Is the claim that height is a bigger factor than other social factors (money, facial features, race) for men.
And then I wonder when people (excluding dating scenarios) see you with the increased height, do they really respect you more or less? I know we will in a shallow world, but is that very prevalent and obvious in real life?
as a close female friend put it, a guy with decent height and who is comfortable in his own skin beats anything.you will find guys who aren't that good looking but are competitive and confident, girls are attracted towards them period. "good looks" or the social factors as you mentioned will get the convo started but your attitude will decide if they stay. and irrespective of the gender people will only respect you when you have that for your self first, in my personal experience.
-
Si LL is not for you, I mean I going to do it in part of having better partner but you do it for you, it seems that you whant to impress a particular girl, there are many anyways
-
To answer your question. For dating, I think money is the biggest factor. Say you have "nothing" except for money, then pretty girl will still date you. How do you think rich old guys get pretty young girls? Do you honestly think these girls are attracted to them physically? No, they treat it as a high-paying job. Of course, I will never say this when I see an old-young couple in a public but we all know it, we just don't say it.
-
as a close female friend put it, a guy with decent height and who is comfortable in his own skin beats anything.you will find guys who aren't that good looking but are competitive and confident, girls are attracted towards them period. "good looks" or the social factors as you mentioned will get the convo started but your attitude will decide if they stay. and irrespective of the gender people will only respect you when you have that for your self first, in my personal experience.
Yes but what if you dont have a “decent height”?
-
First, I agree you need to care less about what people would think, but unfortunately height has a social impact and saying that "do it for you" implies that we don't think height bump will have social gains which later translate to personal well being. It is definitely tied up society and its perception. I don't know it might be just my personal experience, but being below average height would have been fine for me if the world didn't discriminate based on height. Slowly but surely we accumulate height debt.
Second, exactly decent height is key there. And there is something to be said about what makes a man desirable; money for sure but i think there are a lot of men with avg height and were acceptable, whereas there are a lot of short kings just not making the cut.
Anyway thanks for the input guys! looking for an ex patient to add their perspective (people who did it a few years back and were below avg but now are avg or above)
-
The people most likely to be in the category of "I got LL, but I am underwhelmed" are people that are already average height 5'10+ or tall. A man that is 6'0"/183cm getting this surgery will see almost no benefit. They would see no financial benefit, and they would see hardly a noticeable romantic benefit, possibly even a decrease if they go too far(Past 6'2", your romantic chances actually go down!) They would be far better off getting a rhinoplasty if they have a bad nose, braces if they have bad teeth, hair transplant if they are balding, or jaw surgery(BSSO, genioplasty, & LeFort I) to increase their overall attractiveness, and thus boost their halo effect.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4757567/
https://www.gertstulp.com/pdf/Stulp%20et%20al%202013_Anim%20Behav_The%20height%20of%20choosiness.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH5kitiXLGY&list=LL&index=83
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpjeMaOirvg
Edit; Forgot to add this one. Here's a video from HJ on the financial impact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZJihIEZ_8
-
*BRUH*
-
there are a lot of people with good height (everything over 172/173cm) who thinks that ll will be the solutions of all their problem, when in fact their problems are more related to their social skills, ll is way more useful for very short people (under 167) to become normal and stop being defined by only their height
-
Past 6'2", your romantic chances actually go down!
bumble data shows that past 6'6 is where chances start going down - https://medium.com/@whitep/women-have-hilarious-height-requirements-for-men-according-to-bumble-992862ba7772
-
bumble data shows that past 6'6 is where chances start going down - https://medium.com/@whitep/women-have-hilarious-height-requirements-for-men-according-to-bumble-992862ba7772
only paid users in bumble can use filters, it's not a useful study, only the most braindead women will pay a dating app
-
only paid users in bumble can use filters, it's not a useful study, only the most braindead women will pay a dating app
I think it has a large enough sample group for the data to be statistically valid.
-
a bogus and unreal study.
-
bumble data shows that past 6'6 is where chances start going down - https://medium.com/@whitep/women-have-hilarious-height-requirements-for-men-according-to-bumble-992862ba7772
These heights are only for basketball players. Everything over 6.3 is too tall to have any further benefit and the difference with the average height woman will be abnormally huge. I too believe that after 6.2 a man has no benefit to become taller. Even at these heights many women would prefer a 6ft man conpared to a 6.2 one.
What is common is women to not like short men and usually prefer a tall man (anything more than 6ft) compared to an average one (5.8-5.11). However LL have way too much risks for anyone close to upper limit of average height compared to the benefits it may give even if everyrhing goes fine. An 5.10 man for instance will have much more benefits by using the 50-60k euros that LL needs to something else (like a good car or some investment) and have his full sports abilities conpared to becoming 6.1 ft with less money and abilities. And of course the risk to become crippled.
Thats my 2 cents.
-
I did my surgery exactly one year ago roughly. I was 174.5cm and did 7.5cm on Femurs (LON), so Im about 182cm today. I live in a scandinavian country so I kinda just became average. Like people have mentioned above, I think the taller you are the more "underwhelming" it is. But for me its more like, I no longer notice height. It doesnt matter if I put on shoes that give me extra 3cm or whatever, I dont even notice the difference. People to me now are only short or huge. No in-between. I also dont think about height at all. I had enough of a complex about my height to do this surgery and now all those feelings feel like a lifetime ago. I think if you dont have a massive issues with dating because of your height and its more of a confidence thing you're not really going to see a major change in the quality of your life. It was like that for me.
Don't get me wrong, Id do it all over again. But then again I think I went into it just with the expectation of curing my height body dysmorphia. I just never wanted to feel small ever again and I haven't since.
-
bumble data shows that past 6'6 is where chances start going down - https://medium.com/@whitep/women-have-hilarious-height-requirements-for-men-according-to-bumble-992862ba7772
Why the Bumble data, specifically 6'6" being the best height for dating, is false:
I cannot find the source on Bumble's website or their social media profiles. Anyone could've made the graph, faked it, then posted it online to 'stir the pot'. Luckily, there is a "source" on the bottom left leading to Statista. I looked on Statista, which is where the source is apparently from and found this: https://www.statista.com/study/94080/online-dating-bumble-users-in-the-united-states/
Who is Statista? A private company founded in 2007, headquarted in Germany. They are NOT a government organization, they are NOT owned by or work for Bumble, they are a private company specalized in data gathering and visualization, collected via online surveys, then sold mainly to business customers, lecturers, and researchers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statista and https://www.statista.com/aboutus/
How did they aggregate the data? It says this: "The report is updated quarterly and is based on data from the Statista Consumer Insights Global survey, an international survey that covers more than 15,000 brands across 56 countries."
So what is the Statista Consumer Insights Global Survey? Well, it says here: https://www.statista.com/global-consumer-survey "Our Consumer Insights Surveys are conducted as interactive online surveys. Respondents in each country are sampled according to representative quotas for age, gender, and region." So it was conducted via an online survey? By an outside company that IS NOT Bumble themselves?? So ANY ONE OF US on this website could make a company, conduct some online questionnaires, then pass that off as legitimate and factual information??
Here's one of their Survey Questionnaires, "Statista Consumer Insights Global 2023 Questionnaire - International Version (English) June 2023": https://de.statista.com/download/Statista_Global_Consumer_Survey_Questionnaire_EN.pdf
SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT...
We have a PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH STUDY by Psychologists from the University of Gronigen, NH, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, NH, University of Pennsylvania, USA, and University of Alaska, USA...versus a private company doing online questionnaires which IS NOT peer reviewed nor held to the same rigorous standard, nor cited by any other study or researcher...and you're going to trust the online questionnaire??
Haha. Hilarious. I'm not believing that crap AT ALL.
-
Hey everybody...go ahead and comment what your favorite flavor ice cream is. I'm doing an online poll. Then I'm going to pass it off as a legitimate source and charge people 495$ to access it. LOL.
What a freakin' joke!
-
These heights are only for basketball players. Everything over 6.3 is too tall to have any further benefit and the difference with the average height woman will be abnormally huge. I too believe that after 6.2 a man has no benefit to become taller. Even at these heights many women would prefer a 6ft man conpared to a 6.2 one.
What is common is women to not like short men and usually prefer a tall man (anything more than 6ft) compared to an average one (5.8-5.11). However LL have way too much risks for anyone close to upper limit of average height compared to the benefits it may give even if everyrhing goes fine. An 5.10 man for instance will have much more benefits by using the 50-60k euros that LL needs to something else (like a good car or some investment) and have his full sports abilities conpared to becoming 6.1 ft with less money and abilities. And of course the risk to become crippled.
Thats my 2 cents.
Agreed. I always believed, even prior to learning about the statistics, facts, and limb lengthening, that somewhere between 6'2" and 6'3" was the perfect male height. And now, we can see the studies back that up. After 6'2"-6'3" you are so tall that everything is a hindrance. Hitting your head on things, clothing that doesn't fit, can't fit into cars or airplanes comfortably, just too tall in a world not made for you for it to be worth it. If a woman isn't interested in you, and you're 6'2"...it's not the height that's the issue!
-
I did my surgery exactly one year ago roughly. I was 174.5cm and did 7.5cm on Femurs (LON), so Im about 182cm today. I live in a scandinavian country so I kinda just became average. Like people have mentioned above, I think the taller you are the more "underwhelming" it is. But for me its more like, I no longer notice height. It doesnt matter if I put on shoes that give me extra 3cm or whatever, I dont even notice the difference. People to me now are only short or huge. No in-between. I also dont think about height at all. I had enough of a complex about my height to do this surgery and now all those feelings feel like a lifetime ago. I think if you dont have a massive issues with dating because of your height and its more of a confidence thing you're not really going to see a major change in the quality of your life. It was like that for me.
Don't get me wrong, Id do it all over again. But then again I think I went into it just with the expectation of curing my height body dysmorphia. I just never wanted to feel small ever again and I haven't since.
Sounds like you had a perfect outcome. Not thinking or worrying about height anymore is definitely the goal of LL in my opinion.
-
Hi all — I am not sure who is the best person to answer this (hopefully past patients), but I have read a lot of diaries here which (perhaps rightly so) venerate the height bump. However, there has to be someone who thinks this surgery was underwhelming. There is a lot of girls racially profiling guys, so no matter what your height is if a girl is shallow, height won't beat it. Is the claim that height is a bigger factor than other social factors (money, facial features, race) for men.
And then I wonder when people (excluding dating scenarios) see you with the increased height, do they really respect you more or less? I know we will in a shallow world, but is that very prevalent and obvious in real life?
I've written about this a bit in my diary, which you'll find in my signature. I try to talk about this now because before I did my surgery there was very little to no information about peoples experience with dating and women post-surgery. So I am happy to talk about this.
Like others have written, "do this surgery for yourself and not for others". While I do agree with this 100%, it is hard to ignore that we actually do live in a world full of "others" and how others perceive us has a huge impact on how we experience life.
Pre-surgery I was a quite successful and relatively popular guy with a sizeable social media following. I had very good confidence, dressed well and was in good shape. Being in my mid 30's I'd been told or heard that I am handsome or good looking maybe 5-10 times since the age of 13. In that perspective I'd gotten those compliments once every blue moon in a period of over 20 years. Sure I have had a few very pretty girl friends and some very pretty women being interested in me, but to most women I did feel invisible. This discrepancy was strange at first, but as I got older it started to f*** with me and bothered me more and more. How could a few select hot women find me hot, while most average women would ignore me. It just didn't make any sense.
I then started to look into height, and found study after study pointing to short stature being the main reason. At first, I was sceptical. But the more I looked into it the more it made sense. At this point already wanted to do LLS, but not for dating reasons. I've always felt bigger than my body was, I just felt a mismatch between how I felt and the small person I saw in the mirror. But be honest, all the research about how height affects your attractiveness did help push me over the line. That being said, I did tell myself I would still be happy if the attention from women did not increase one bit, because at least I wouldn't be short - and normal height would benefit me in other ways.
January 14th 2022 I underwent surgery, and a little more than five months later I had grown from 165cm, to 177cm, or 11,5cm. It took me another 10-11 months to recover to part I felt I could go out drinking, clubbing and socializing in public. Being 177cm tall in a northern European country is still slightly below average according to studies, but in reality I feel average now. I think those studies should be taken with a grain of salt as most use self-reported numbers. Either way, being 1 or 3 cm shorter than the average male isn't going to make it or break it for most women.
I started going out again in may, and through the summer i have been out about twice just about every weekend. So sizeable amount of times at my new height, meaning I already have a lot of experience being 177cm and going out. The newfound attention from women threw me off at first, as I really didn't want to be biased either way. Taking every interaction with a grain of salt, and trying to be as objective as possible. I even wrote down a list of kisses, hookups, girls being interested, compliments, flings and girl friends etc pre surgery, and started taking notes post surgery to compare as objective as possbile.
!!!DISCLAIMER BEFORE I REVEAL MY EXPERIENCE!!!
In my country I went from being shorter than the average women to being about as tall as the average man. I also did lengthen what would be considered extreme for most people. I have great mental health and success in life, and did not do this surgery solely for dating. I do think I was handsome before surgery, but was limited because of my height. With all this being said I do think I had the best case scenario and my circumstances where optimal for achieve the best results possbile. Do not expect these results If you already are closer to or are actually around average height. And do not expect these results if you are an average looking guy, I am just being honest - and you'll understand once you read my experience.
Before going out I already noticed more women looking at me in public, at first I thought it was the crutches, and as I ditched those I thought it was the strange and stiff walk, but as I started walking normal the looks and stares from women didn't go away. Then I noticed it from women while going out. First time i really noticed change was out at this mini-golf bar and these two girls started taking to us the minute we walked in. The blond started at me all night. Later that night we got separated, and I texted here "where did you go" and she replied, "home, wanna come over?". Just to be clear, I have never had this happen to me before with a girl I just met.
As I started to go out more and more I would experience more and more positive attention from women. Being approached about once every night out, random women calling me handsome or good looking straight to my face, random girls coming up trying to kiss or make out with me, random girls coming over and sitting down on my lap, random girls trying to dance with me at night clubs. On the other hand I felt I could approach just about any girl and strike up a conversation. Most times women would be positive and flirty back, and very seldom would i experience a cold shoulder.
In the past five months I have gotten more compliments, been approached by more women, had more random hookups, gotten more numbers, snaps or IGs that from the age of 13 to 35 combined. After trying to not to be biased, as objective as possbile, and as humble as possbile. My self image has now changed for the better. It feels strange to write this, but from my experience the past five months I now accept that I am handsome, good looking or what people might refer to as a chad. I can't explain how good all of this does feel, and is something I NEVER expected. Not at all.
-
Hey everybody...go ahead and comment what your favorite flavor ice cream is. I'm doing an online poll. Then I'm going to pass it off as a legitimate source and charge people 495$ to access it. LOL.
What a freakin' joke!
It seems like the 6’6” preference in online dating is also backed up by a comprehensive 2006 study from the university of Chicago:
https://home.uchicago.edu/~hortacsu/onlinedating.pdf (see page 48 table 5.5)
I would agree with you and Bodybuilder though that the actual peak in reality would be somewhere around 6’1” - 6’2”. And that as to LL the actual benefits to pain, cost and risk ratio would stop somewhere around going from 5’8” - 5’11” or similar.
The 6’6” thing might simply be an occurrence of online dating bias.
-
Simple, the taller you are the better for dating wise. A lot of women see you as more of a "man" (same goes for the genital size :P). Anyways, the reality is not a lot of people in the world are 6'6. 6'6 is 198 cm. That's roughly 2m. Even Netherlands, a country with a tallest average height, you rarely gonna see a person with 6'6 and over. The point is, a lot of things in the world are made suitable for world average height. You are gonna face some difficulty in life if you are 6'6. I am 5'10, I would be much happier with 6'0 - 6'1 than 6'6, which is why I am planning to do the surgery.
-
Simple, the taller you are the better for dating wise. A lot of women see you as more of a "man" (same goes for the genital size :P). Anyways, the reality is not a lot of people in the world are 6'6. 6'6 is 198 cm. That's roughly 2m. Even Netherlands, a country with a tallest average height, you rarely gonna see a person with 6'6 and over. The point is, a lot of things in the world are made suitable for world average height. You are gonna face some difficulty in life if you are 6'6. I am 5'10, I would be much happier with 6'0 - 6'1 than 6'6, which is why I am planning to do the surgery.
You can just wear elevator shoes and be 6'0. It's not worth it at 5'10. There risk of death and other risks as well. I highly doubt you'll end up doing it but let's see. I've seen a lot of average height people posting on this forum and only very few get it done. It's easy to type but going through all that pain and spending all that money, taking all that risk is a totally different thing.
-
I’m 5’3 and I’m scheduled for the surgery in December. It should change my entire life.
-
I’m 5’3 and I’m scheduled for the surgery in December. It should change my entire life.
good luck, rooting for you.
-
Thanks and I will let you guys know how it turns out.
-
I’m 5’3 and I’m scheduled for the surgery in December. It should change my entire life.
It will change your life. Finally, someone planning on getting CLL done who actually will see a benefit. There are too many people here who are 5'9" and up planning on doing this, and it won't have much benefit to their life.
-
good luck Acemace86! I am also rooting for you.
-
You can just wear elevator shoes and be 6'0. It's not worth it at 5'10. There risk of death and other risks as well. I highly doubt you'll end up doing it but let's see. I've seen a lot of average height people posting on this forum and only very few get it done. It's easy to type but going through all that pain and spending all that money, taking all that risk is a totally different thing.
Thank you for the feedback.
I understand but I have been thinking about this surgery for more than 10 years. I am definitely doing it.
It's just matter of when I can find the time to do it because I work full-time.
Also, some useless info, I live in Canada and I am interested in doing it with Dr. Marie because she's the only doctor that performs CLL in Canada
and Canadians are fully covered for any complications that might arise from CLL.
Unfortunately, there aren't many diaries about experience with Dr. Marie in this forum :'(
-
It seems like the 6’6” preference in online dating is also backed up by a comprehensive 2006 study from the university of Chicago:
https://home.uchicago.edu/~hortacsu/onlinedating.pdf (see page 48 table 5.5)
I would agree with you and Bodybuilder though that the actual peak in reality would be somewhere around 6’1” - 6’2”. And that as to LL the actual benefits to pain, cost and risk ratio would stop somewhere around going from 5’8” - 5’11” or similar.
The 6’6” thing might simply be an occurrence of online dating bias.
Thank you for posting this, I will delve into this one.
"Our paper contributes to this literature using a novel data set obtained from an online dating service."
What online dating service? And did the online dating service give it to them directly, or a third party, private organization such as Statista? I won't repeat what I already said in regards to Statista for brevity. Also, what about this is "novel"? Is this previously unexplored and never heard of data, as in it's the first time showing that women want a man that's 6'6"? If so, doesn't that imply the data is not typical? Shouldn't we only care about typical outcomes AKA the average? Is this a statistical outlier? I am asking these questions because I am curious what other people here think, and also because of the vagueness. I am not a professional researcher, but I am a man interested in these topics.
"Online dating provides us with a market environment where the participants’ choice sets and actual choices are observable to the researcher.3 "
"3To be precise, we do not observe the site users’ opportunities outside the dating site. However, we observe them browsing multiple alternatives on the site and their choices, which allows us to infer their relative rankings of these potential mates."
Hmm, I'm uncertain of this method in assessing the data and it's really based on a lot of assumptions. Online dating is quite different than in person.
"Our preference estimation approach relies on the well-defined institutional environment of the dating site, where a user first views the posted “profile” of a potential mate, and then decides whether to contact that mate by e-mail. This environment allows us to use a straightforward estimation strategy based on the assumption that a user contacts a partner if and only if the potential utility from a match with that partner exceeds a threshold value (a “minimum standard” for a mate)."
So first contact is determined by who gets an email from a new person for the first time.
"Our data set contains socioeconomic and demographic information and a detailed account of the website activities of approximately 22,000 users of a major online dating service. 10,721 users were located in the Boston area, and 11,024 users were located in San Diego."
"We observe the users’ activities over a period of three and a half months in 2003"
Approximately 20,000 users in two different cities were sampled, over the course of 3 and a half months in 2003, this is good to know.
"Our data set contains detailed (although self-reported) information regarding the physical attributes of the users."
"Interestingly, there also appears to be a significant height premium for men: a one inch increase is related to a 1.4% increase in earnings."
So the data is self reported(Finances isn't physical attributes, but I assume this was just an oversight/error because how would they know how much the users were making??), but it correlates with other studies saying more height = more money. Nothing new here.
"Men and women in the lowest decile receive only about half as many e-mails as members whose rating is in the fourth decile, while the users in the top decile are contacted about twice as often. Overall, the relationship between outcomes and looks is similar for men and women. However, there is a surprising “superstar effect” for men. Men in the top five percent of ratings receive almost twice as many first contacts as the next five percent; for women, on the other hand, the analogous difference in outcomes is much smaller."
80/20 rule. 20% of men get 80% of the women. Although here, it really shows how much of a difference there is even between the top 5% men and the top 10% men!
"Height matters for both men and women, but mostly in opposite directions. Women like tall men (Figure 5.4). Men in the 6’3 - 6’4 range, for example, receive 65% more first-contact e-mails than men in the 5’7 - 5’8 range"
First mention of height thus far. So men in the ~99th percentile of height get 65% more first-contact emails than men in the ~28th percentile of height. But that is a relative number, not an absolute. 2 messages compared to 1 message would be a 100% increase...but it's still only two. So it's difficult to get a full grasp on the situation here. Still, I am not surprised at all that tall men get messaged more/are more attractive than short men. I don't think that's disputed.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_11/sr11_246.pdf
https://www.gigacalculator.com/calculators/height-percentile-calculator.php
"For women, on the other hand, the optimal BMI is about 17, which is considered under-weight and corresponds to the figure of a supermodel. A woman with such a BMI receives 90% more first-contact e-mails than a woman with a BMI of 25"
Interesting!
"Relative to incomes below $50,000, the increase in the expected number of first contacts is at least 34% and as large as 151% for incomes in excess of $250,00"
The % increase here is substantially more than the height one, wow! Approximately ~306k is considered the 99th percentile, according to the WSJ calculator below. One flaw is that it's from 2014, not 2003, and so the numbers would've been much lower back then to be considered 99th percentile. Luckily, there is the data towards the bottom showing that approximately ~3.5% of the users have an income of $200,001 or more. That's more than the average even today, and the data is self reported...so let's be honest, a lot of the men were probably lying here. But same with their height.
https://graphics.wsj.com/what-percent/
Table 5.4 is interesting, how much $ a man needs to make up for his bad looks compared to the top 90th percentile to get similar results.
Table 5.5 is similar to the above, but with height. A 5'2" man needs to make 331,500$ a year to be as desirable as a 5'11.5" man making only 62,500$. Now this is the first time I've seen any mention of 6'6". A 6'6" man gets -63, so presumably he could literally make zero dollars and still get the same amount of first-contact emails as a man that is 5'11.5" and makes 62,500$? Because a man being 6'6" is VERY, VERY rare, 99.96th percentile....~20,000 sample size, and with approximately half of the userbase being male/female...That's 4 men. There are 4 men in the ENTIRE sample size that would be 6'6"+...SELF REPORTED.
Figure 5.2 shows first contacts and their looks ratings(Read the paper if you want to see how they determined looks ratings). The top 96th percentile of men get a HUGE jump over of about 200% over the men in the 91-95th percentile! Wow!
IF YOU'VE MADE IT THIS FAR AFTER THIS WAYYY TOO LONG WRITE UP...LOL...I FINALLY HAVE THE ANSWER THAT YOU'VE BEEN WAITING FOR!
At what height does your romantic pursuits/dating life decrease? Is it 6'6" as another poster said? Is the Bumble data accurate? NO.
Figure 5.4 on page 56 shows that men receive steadily more % first contact emails from women, up until about 6'3"-6'4". On average, men in the 6'5"-6'6" range will receive less first contacts than men in the 6'3"-6'4"! The "Bumble data" claiming 6'6" is the best height when it comes to dating is false!
Important note:
-Going from 5'7"-5'8" to 5'11"-6'0" will increase your first contacts by 50%. But going from 5'11"-6'0" to 6'3"-6'4" will only increase your first contacts by ~%20.
-The "bumble data" is based off of filters set by women. The dataset from this paper is based off of actual first-contact emails being sent to another person. Essentially, the way it's being "measured" is different. This is a very important distinction to make!
Tl;dr
-6'6" is not the best height when it comes to dating, and your chances will decrease if you are 6'6"+ because you are simply too tall.
-There is a huge difference going up to 6'0" in height, every inch counts when it comes to dating, but the difference is much smaller thereafter.
-This paper alleges that 6'3"-6'4" is the "best height" when it comes to dating, although with diminishing returns.
-
Thank you for posting this, I will delve into this one.
"Our paper contributes to this literature using a novel data set obtained from an online dating service."
What online dating service? And did the online dating service give it to them directly, or a third party, private organization such as Statista? I won't repeat what I already said in regards to Statista for brevity. Also, what about this is "novel"? Is this previously unexplored and never heard of data, as in it's the first time showing that women want a man that's 6'6"? If so, doesn't that imply the data is not typical? Shouldn't we only care about typical outcomes AKA the average? Is this a statistical outlier? I am asking these questions because I am curious what other people here think, and also because of the vagueness. I am not a professional researcher, but I am a man interested in these topics.
"Online dating provides us with a market environment where the participants’ choice sets and actual choices are observable to the researcher.3 "
"3To be precise, we do not observe the site users’ opportunities outside the dating site. However, we observe them browsing multiple alternatives on the site and their choices, which allows us to infer their relative rankings of these potential mates."
Hmm, I'm uncertain of this method in assessing the data and it's really based on a lot of assumptions. Online dating is quite different than in person.
"Our preference estimation approach relies on the well-defined institutional environment of the dating site, where a user first views the posted “profile” of a potential mate, and then decides whether to contact that mate by e-mail. This environment allows us to use a straightforward estimation strategy based on the assumption that a user contacts a partner if and only if the potential utility from a match with that partner exceeds a threshold value (a “minimum standard” for a mate)."
So first contact is determined by who gets an email from a new person for the first time.
"Our data set contains socioeconomic and demographic information and a detailed account of the website activities of approximately 22,000 users of a major online dating service. 10,721 users were located in the Boston area, and 11,024 users were located in San Diego."
"We observe the users’ activities over a period of three and a half months in 2003"
Approximately 20,000 users in two different cities were sampled, over the course of 3 and a half months in 2003, this is good to know.
"Our data set contains detailed (although self-reported) information regarding the physical attributes of the users."
"Interestingly, there also appears to be a significant height premium for men: a one inch increase is related to a 1.4% increase in earnings."
So the data is self reported(Finances isn't physical attributes, but I assume this was just an oversight/error because how would they know how much the users were making??), but it correlates with other studies saying more height = more money. Nothing new here.
"Men and women in the lowest decile receive only about half as many e-mails as members whose rating is in the fourth decile, while the users in the top decile are contacted about twice as often. Overall, the relationship between outcomes and looks is similar for men and women. However, there is a surprising “superstar effect” for men. Men in the top five percent of ratings receive almost twice as many first contacts as the next five percent; for women, on the other hand, the analogous difference in outcomes is much smaller."
80/20 rule. 20% of men get 80% of the women. Although here, it really shows how much of a difference there is even between the top 5% men and the top 10% men!
"Height matters for both men and women, but mostly in opposite directions. Women like tall men (Figure 5.4). Men in the 6’3 - 6’4 range, for example, receive 65% more first-contact e-mails than men in the 5’7 - 5’8 range"
First mention of height thus far. So men in the ~99th percentile of height get 65% more first-contact emails than men in the ~28th percentile of height. But that is a relative number, not an absolute. 2 messages compared to 1 message would be a 100% increase...but it's still only two. So it's difficult to get a full grasp on the situation here. Still, I am not surprised at all that tall men get messaged more/are more attractive than short men. I don't think that's disputed.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_11/sr11_246.pdf
https://www.gigacalculator.com/calculators/height-percentile-calculator.php
"For women, on the other hand, the optimal BMI is about 17, which is considered under-weight and corresponds to the figure of a supermodel. A woman with such a BMI receives 90% more first-contact e-mails than a woman with a BMI of 25"
Interesting!
"Relative to incomes below $50,000, the increase in the expected number of first contacts is at least 34% and as large as 151% for incomes in excess of $250,00"
The % increase here is substantially more than the height one, wow! Approximately ~306k is considered the 99th percentile, according to the WSJ calculator below. One flaw is that it's from 2014, not 2003, and so the numbers would've been much lower back then to be considered 99th percentile. Luckily, there is the data towards the bottom showing that approximately ~3.5% of the users have an income of $200,001 or more. That's more than the average even today, and the data is self reported...so let's be honest, a lot of the men were probably lying here. But same with their height.
https://graphics.wsj.com/what-percent/
Table 5.4 is interesting, how much $ a man needs to make up for his bad looks compared to the top 90th percentile to get similar results.
Table 5.5 is similar to the above, but with height. A 5'2" man needs to make 331,500$ a year to be as desirable as a 5'11.5" man making only 62,500$. Now this is the first time I've seen any mention of 6'6". A 6'6" man gets -63, so presumably he could literally make zero dollars and still get the same amount of first-contact emails as a man that is 5'11.5" and makes 62,500$? Because a man being 6'6" is VERY, VERY rare, 99.96th percentile....~20,000 sample size, and with approximately half of the userbase being male/female...That's 4 men. There are 4 men in the ENTIRE sample size that would be 6'6"+...SELF REPORTED.
Figure 5.2 shows first contacts and their looks ratings(Read the paper if you want to see how they determined looks ratings). The top 96th percentile of men get a HUGE jump over of about 200% over the men in the 91-95th percentile! Wow!
IF YOU'VE MADE IT THIS FAR AFTER THIS WAYYY TOO LONG WRITE UP...LOL...I FINALLY HAVE THE ANSWER THAT YOU'VE BEEN WAITING FOR!
At what height does your romantic pursuits/dating life decrease? Is it 6'6" as another poster said? Is the Bumble data accurate? NO.
Figure 5.4 on page 56 shows that men receive steadily more % first contact emails from women, up until about 6'3"-6'4". On average, men in the 6'5"-6'6" range will receive less first contacts than men in the 6'3"-6'4"! The "Bumble data" claiming 6'6" is the best height when it comes to dating is false!
Important note:
-Going from 5'7"-5'8" to 5'11"-6'0" will increase your first contacts by 50%. But going from 5'11"-6'0" to 6'3"-6'4" will only increase your first contacts by ~%20.
-The "bumble data" is based off of filters set by women. The dataset from this paper is based off of actual first-contact emails being sent to another person. Essentially, the way it's being "measured" is different. This is a very important distinction to make!
Tl;dr
-6'6" is not the best height when it comes to dating, and your chances will decrease if you are 6'6"+ because you are simply too tall.
-There is a huge difference going up to 6'0" in height, every inch counts when it comes to dating, but the difference is much smaller thereafter.
-This paper alleges that 6'3"-6'4" is the "best height" when it comes to dating, although with diminishing returns.
your reasoning is wrong or your study is completely stupid. the perfect height of a man is not 6'3 - 6'4. Unless you measure yourself in shoes and even then, I don't think you have the idea of sizes. Recently when I'm between 5'11-6 a girl told me that I was tall and that I must please a lot of girls. she was not tall. a fairly tall girl around 5'9 said that when it exceeds 6'3 it becomes too tall and that the ideal is around 6' to 6'3. Besides, modeling tends to require heights of 6'1 and 6'2 and there is good reason for that. if you want to play basketball then yes 6'4 is not a luxury. I think you should stop coming up with figures out of nowhere or bogus studies in the future.
-
your reasoning is wrong or your study is completely stupid. the perfect height of a man is not 6'3 - 6'4. Unless you measure yourself in shoes and even then, I don't think you have the idea of sizes. Recently when I'm between 5'11-6 a girl told me that I was tall and that I must please a lot of girls. she was not tall. a fairly tall girl around 5'9 said that when it exceeds 6'3 it becomes too tall and that the ideal is around 6' to 6'3. Besides, modeling tends to require heights of 6'1 and 6'2 and there is good reason for that. if you want to play basketball then yes 6'4 is not a luxury. I think you should stop coming up with figures out of nowhere or bogus studies in the future.
I was responding to another commenter, TheDream, who posted the study. This was spurred by a previous post regarding the "bumble data". The premise was that 6'6" is the "best height" for dating.
Coming up with figures out of nowhere? I quoted those excerpts directly from the study TheDream posted. Those are not mine, but what the study at least claims. Bogus studies? The "bumble data"/Statista I believe is bogus, sure.
You are very accusatory without even reading this entire thread. Go back, read everything, before you comment again. You don't know the context of the conversation. We are trying to have an intelligent discussion, and your anecdotes, along with your reading comprehension, is pitiful.
-
I was responding to another commenter, TheDream, who posted the study. This was spurred by a previous post regarding the "bumble data". The premise was that 6'6" is the "best height" for dating.
Coming up with figures out of nowhere? I quoted those excerpts directly from the study TheDream posted. Those are not mine, but what the study at least claims. Bogus studies? The "bumble data"/Statista I believe is bogus, sure.
You are very accusatory without even reading this entire thread. Go back, read everything, before you comment again. You don't know the context of the conversation. We are trying to have an intelligent discussion, and your anecdotes, along with your reading comprehension, is pitiful.
It’s your comment that’s pitiful. you don't accept the fact that you're wrong. Your study is already bogus because the sources are dubious and if you wanted a more reliable study, take an interest in the newspaper. a study posted a few days ago on this forum showed that the optimal height was between 6'-6'2 with data from 1500 real men and women. If you are frustrated for whatever reason you don't need to talk bad to people or make yourself feel smarter. I really think you're frustrated like the nervous kid who wants to pick on everyone. peace
-
I was responding to another commenter, TheDream, who posted the study. This was spurred by a previous post regarding the "bumble data". The premise was that 6'6" is the "best height" for dating.
Coming up with figures out of nowhere? I quoted those excerpts directly from the study TheDream posted. Those are not mine, but what the study at least claims. Bogus studies? The "bumble data"/Statista I believe is bogus, sure.
You are very accusatory without even reading this entire thread. Go back, read everything, before you comment again. You don't know the context of the conversation. We are trying to have an intelligent discussion, and your anecdotes, along with your reading comprehension, is pitiful.
you are making an argument on a false study. When I walk in the street and I look at a turd, I don't stand in front of it and check if it's a big or small turd. you claim things based on your own experience ok but why say it's the absolute truth
-
The plethora of research seems to support this post. The Goldilocks zone is 5’10 to 6’
-
It’s your comment that’s pitiful. you don't accept the fact that you're wrong. Your study is already bogus because the sources are dubious and if you wanted a more reliable study, take an interest in the newspaper. a study posted a few days ago on this forum showed that the optimal height was between 6'-6'2 with data from 1500 real men and women. If you are frustrated for whatever reason you don't need to talk bad to people or make yourself feel smarter. I really think you're frustrated like the nervous kid who wants to pick on everyone. peace
Someone posted a study I hadn't seen before, so I dug into it to see what it said. I wasn't claiming it was right or wrong, I was curious what it said and took some excerpts from it. What you think is up to you. Most people are not going to read that whole study, especially not you since you can't even read this thread. So by picking out some of the interesting topics, and hopefully help answer the alleged position that "6'6" is best for dating", we can get closer to the truth...which is that 6'6" is NOT the "best height". But you completely missed that.
You're an idiot if this is what you took away from my post. You have zero reading comprehension. Once again, you didn't read the thread but instead read a few sentences and your pea-sized brain ran with it.
Do you understand that I wasn't the one claiming that "6'6" is best for dating"? I was refuting that, not agreeing with that. Is English not your native language? If so, then I would understand why you seemingly cannot read it. Do you understand that I also agree that somewhere in the 6'0-6'2"(Absolutely NO more than 6'3") range is the "optimal height"? You need to get your eyes checked because you are seeing stuff that isn't even there. I don't know if you're trolling and just pretending to be room-temp IQ, but you should really slow down and try to read what was posted in this thread from start to finish.
-
It’s your comment that’s pitiful. you don't accept the fact that you're wrong. Your study is already bogus because the sources are dubious and if you wanted a more reliable study, take an interest in the newspaper. a study posted a few days ago on this forum showed that the optimal height was between 6'-6'2 with data from 1500 real men and women. If you are frustrated for whatever reason you don't need to talk bad to people or make yourself feel smarter. I really think you're frustrated like the nervous kid who wants to pick on everyone. peace
Omar relax no one is saying 6’4” or 6’6” is the perfect height we are just discussing the few studies available on online dating, which are obviously biased but talking about it helps understand why.
-
only paid users in bumble can use height filters, it's not a useful study, only the most braindead women will pay a dating app
depends on your where you live
in the US , users have access to one filter for free , guess which women choose ?
These heights are only for basketball players. Everything over 6.3 is too tall to have any further benefit and the difference with the average height woman will be abnormally huge. I too believe that after 6.2 a man has no benefit to become taller. Even at these heights many women would prefer a 6ft man conpared to a 6.2 one.
the problem is that these days , most zoomer white girls are in the 5'5-5'7 range , and when they put on 6' heels , the 6ft guy suddenly seems less tall.
Also,women nowadays are in a dck measuring contest about who has the tallest bf in their group.This craze is being fueled by tiktok videos villifying short men and worshipping tall ones.So taller the better.
Anyone could've made the graph, faked it, then posted it online to 'stir the pot'
Ok , tnen why stop at 6'6 , why not claim that 7' is the best height ?
if you wanted a more reliable study, take an interest in the newspaper. a study posted a few days ago on this forum showed that the optimal height was between 6'-6'2 with data from 1500 real men and women.
That study is 20 years old , 6 feet was a good height back then since few men were that height
most zoomer white guys are insanely tall, just take a stroll through your local uni campus if you don't believe me ;)
-
Sounds like you had a perfect outcome. Not thinking or worrying about height anymore is definitely the goal of LL in my opinion.
Dude you are mad coping. Door frames are 6'8. So you start grazing them at 6'7 if you have shoes on. The optimal height is 6'4 because you are taller than almost anyone without any real drawbacks.