Limb Lengthening Forum
Community Hangout => Off Topic => Topic started by: MrHandsome on May 08, 2018, 10:40:06 AM
-
I am referring to being attractive to the majority of women.
-
6'5 so you're not manlet status.
-
6'7
-
My ex, who was also the tallest guy I was with, was 171cm. For me that was perfect, heightwise, but I am a lil shortie myself. If I were 4 inches taller (my dream height) then I guess I woul want him to be 4” taller than that.....soo 5’10” or there abouts??
There are quite a few guys that I wouldn’t have ever considered because they were too tall for me. Don’t really want to come up to my bf armpit or get neck strain the whole day.
-
6'7
fokin midgets
7' turian masterrace
-
fokin midgets
7' turian masterrace
if you have to jump to dunk then you are a midget
-
If you're below 10'2" don't even bother.
-
3m is tbe border between average and above average
-
Serious responses only
-
3m is tbe border between average and above average
you are trolling but your plan of getting LL at 5'10 is almost a troll already ^_^
-
Serious responses only
A serious response is that anything above 5'5" if you're not getting women it's your problem and not your height. Of corse an average girl would prefer a 6 foot whatever super handsome guy just like we'd all prefer a beautifully perfect looking girl if we had the chance. But just like us, most women will settle for less especially if you have good values and qualities.
There is nothing written in stone there are billions of women on the planet. Including tons of them that don't live on the internet obsessing about height and thinking it's the end all be all of life.
From my understanding most of us are here because we are either below 5'5" or psychologically obsessed and have height neurosis to the point where the only way for us to psychologically move on is to get LL and we'll risk just about anything to get it.
-
Serious responses only
How many times have you made a thread that was a variation of this exact same title?
-
How many times have you made a thread that was a variation of this exact same title?
This is the closest match:
What is the minimum height that a man needs to be to be considered hot? (http://www.limblengtheningforum.com/index.php?topic=5022.msg79078)
-
I'd say 5'7 or so. That's when male proportions start looking normal to me. Pair that with a "hot face" and boom, "hot guy."
There are guys under 5'7 who have dimorphic male proportions, like Dave Franco for example.
But it's pretty rare, most guys under 5'7 look like little kids with narrow shoulders and I would say it's worse than being short. I'm theoretically half an inch taller than Dave Franco but I would give up that half inch of height in a second just to have the shape of his body.
It really depends though.... For example Robert Downey Jr is 2 inches taller than Franco but looks narrower... I'd rather have Franco's build than Downey's and sacrifice those 2 inches of height.
(https://i.imgur.com/Wfu8krm.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/ApIg4yz.png)
-
Robert Downey Jr isnt 5'9
-
Robert Downey Jr isnt 5'9
He's 5'7 and some change... Franco is 5'5 and some change.
-
I'd say 5'7 or so. That's when male proportions start looking normal to me. Pair that with a "hot face" and boom, "hot guy."
There are guys under 5'7 who have dimorphic male proportions, like Dave Franco for example.
But it's pretty rare, most guys under 5'7 look like little kids with narrow shoulders and I would say it's worse than being short. I'm theoretically half an inch taller than Dave Franco but I would give up that half inch of height in a second just to have the shape of his body.
It really depends though.... For example Robert Downey Jr is 2 inches taller than Franco but looks narrower... I'd rather have Franco's build than Downey's and sacrifice those 2 inches of height.
I agree. Below 5'7" is where a guy really starts standing out as short in a crowd. When I was 5'5" and some change, my large-ish head/feet etc. (among other things - had to ;D) made me look sorta like a bobble head lol. I mean, I have great facial aesthetics and was always in shape so I still got girls, but definitely got called out for being short a good amount. I NEVER get called short anymore at 5'8". I technically still am technically, but I don't feel it and I don't believe I appear short anymore.
-
I NEVER get called short anymore at 5'8". I technically still am technically, but I don't feel it and I don't believe I appear short anymore.
The magic of being in the average range. Your height is invisible, in a good way!
-
I agree. Below 5'7" is where a guy really starts standing out as short in a crowd. When I was 5'5" and some change, my large-ish head/feet etc. (among other things - had to ;D) made me look sorta like a bobble head lol. I mean, I have great facial aesthetics and was always in shape so I still got girls, but definitely got called out for being short a good amount. I NEVER get called short anymore at 5'8". I technically still am technically, but I don't feel it and I don't believe I appear short anymore.
Worldwide male average is ~170cm, or 5'7, so how you want to view yourself is entirely up to you.
I do get that 5'8 is short in the US. Zac Efron short, but "short".
I'd say 5'7 or so. That's when male proportions start looking normal to me. Pair that with a "hot face" and boom, "hot guy."
There are guys under 5'7 who have dimorphic male proportions, like Dave Franco for example.
But it's pretty rare, most guys under 5'7 look like little kids with narrow shoulders and I would say it's worse than being short. I'm theoretically half an inch taller than Dave Franco but I would give up that half inch of height in a second just to have the shape of his body.
It really depends though.... For example Robert Downey Jr is 2 inches taller than Franco but looks narrower... I'd rather have Franco's build than Downey's and sacrifice those 2 inches of height.
(https://i.imgur.com/Wfu8krm.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/ApIg4yz.png)
You're on point in this post.
(Though there a lot more that could be discussed about this subject, but I'd rather not do it in a MrHandsome thread.)
-
IMO, there is no such thing as a guy who is hot to all women on the planet. Disagree with me, but women's attraction works a little different than men's. Even with male models or tall, well-built famous actors, there will be a proportion of women who won't feel it with the guy, and a large number of women will admit "he just doesn't do it for me". (side note, I have experienced the same thing with myself - there are "hot" women who do nothing for me, like Megan Fox) One the other hand, a lot of men, even really short dudes, can be attractive to a lot of women if they tick the right boxes. Probably not the majority of women, but a lot of them. Then again, we could discuss what "hot" means - does it only account women's opinions on a man's attractiveness, or also other men's opinions?
To take some actors as an example, Dustin Hoffman is like 5'6'' and my dad's girlfriend once called him cute or hot or something like that. He's from a past generation, but the point still stands I would say.
Tom Cruise is about 5'7'' and he receives a lot of mocking for his height (probably because he's said to wear lifts and is thus deemed as insecure).
Downey Jr. is 5'8'' and I've never heard him being mocked for his height, even though he also wears lifts. That is, mocked by women. I've also heard women describe him as attractive.
Tom Hardy is 5'9'' and plays a lot of traditionally masculine roles. I've never seen or heard women mocking him for his height, only men.
Daniel Craig is 5'10'' and also plays masculine, "hunk" roles. Same with Hardy, I've never witnessed his height being mentioned by women. Only some men attacked him for his height.
So to answer the OP, I believe you can be hot to a lot of women even while being short (of course you need to tick other boxes, but you also need to tick those if you're taller) but it gets a lot easier to be attractive with every inch past 5'6''-5'7'' or so.
-
IMO, there is no such thing as a guy who is hot to all women on the planet. Disagree with me, but women's attraction works a little different than men's. Even with male models or tall, well-built famous actors, there will be a proportion of women who won't feel it with the guy, and a large number of women will admit "he just doesn't do it for me". (side note, I have experienced the same thing with myself - there are "hot" women who do nothing for me, like Megan Fox) One the other hand, a lot of men, even really short dudes, can be attractive to a lot of women if they tick the right boxes. Probably not the majority of women, but a lot of them.
True.
In Japan and SE Asia, a lot of guys under 170cm are considered attractive because of their other physical aspects.
To take some actors as an example, Dustin Hoffman is like 5'6'' and my dad's girlfriend once called him cute or hot or something like that. He's from a past generation, but the point still stands I would say.
Tom Cruise is about 5'7'' and he receives a lot of mocking for his height (probably because he's said to wear lifts and is thus deemed as insecure).
Downey Jr. is 5'8'' and I've never heard him being mocked for his height, even though he also wears lifts. That is, mocked by women. I've also heard women describe him as attractive.
Tom Hardy is 5'9'' and plays a lot of traditionally masculine roles. I've never seen or heard women mocking him for his height, only men.
Daniel Craig is 5'10'' and also plays masculine, "hunk" roles. Same with Hardy, I've never witnessed his height being mentioned by women. Only some men attacked him for his height.
In short, ignore trolls on the internet. How can one take anyone mocking Daniel Craig seriously?
but it gets a lot easier to be attractive with every inch past 5'6''-5'7'' or so.
I don't agree. There are some tall guys out there without "masculine" proportions at all. Some are due to genetic conditions. Weak shoulders, stick silhouette, below average faces.
If you're talking about being easier to be attractive to women who are near your height with every inch past that, then yeah, studies show there's a correlation. A hot 5'7 guy will generally not be considered as hot to a 5'7 woman as to a 5'4 woman.
-
Worldwide male average is ~170cm, or 5'7, so how you want to view yourself is entirely up to you.
I do get that 5'8 is short in the US. Zac Efron short, but "short".
Oh no, I don't really consider myself short anymore. I consider myself "low average." For the most part, I think I blend in with the crowd really well now. And I very rarely meet women who are taller than me without heels, and honestly, I've never cared for super tall women, so that's no big loss for me. There are plenty of women under 5'8/5'9 (I'm 5'9" with shoes/sneakers) even with heels, so plenty for me to choose from.
I just meant that, technically speaking, in the US, since I'm below 5'9.5", I'm still considered "short" for my country. But I sure as hell don't feel it anymore. And that is priceless.
-
True.
In Japan and SE Asia, a lot of guys under 170cm are considered attractive because of their other physical aspects.
I wish people would stop parroting this "height isn't that big of a factor in attractiveness in Asia" meme. I'm pretty sure I already addressed this in a response to another similar post you made some time ago. Asia isn't any less heightist than the rest of the world - in fact, many places (Northern China, South Korea) are much more heightist. There aren't "a lot" of guys under 170 cm that are considered attractive anywhere in East Asia, especially not in Japan:
https://soranews24.com/2017/03/22/japanese-college-women-pick-between-men-whore-short-and-handsome-or-tall-and-plain-in-survey/
A new survey, though, carried out by Japanese Internet portal My Navi no Madoguchi, questioned female Japanese university students about their preference between two other oft-desired traits in a guy: height and handsomeness. The researchers asked 286 females whether they’d rather date a short “ikemen” (a Japanese slang term referring to a handsome, and usually physically fit, man), or a tall guy with otherwise average looks.
When the votes were tallied, the tall men occupied the higher position, with 75.2 percent of the women saying they’d pick the tall, non-ikemen option.
75% (3 in 4) of young Japanese women would rather have a tall man rather than a good looking man who's short; as for why, according to the women themselves,
“An average-looking guy is good enough for me,” said one respondent, while another added that she actually feels intimidated by handsome men.
Before you cope with the "intimidated by the good-looking short guy" claim, let's take a look at some more data on how Japanese women really view short men:
https://www.muripo.com/2013/11/24/japanese-women-refuse-date-short-men-dont-want-walk-beside-dont-look-dependable-feel-sorry-potential-child/
Q: Do you consider men shorter than you to be a romantic interest?
Yes 43.0%
No 57.0%
57% of Japanese women would never even consider dating a short man.
Reasons short men are not attractive, as quoted by Japanese women:
Short Men Are No Good
■ I just can’t……
“I just can’t think of them as cool” (23)
“Can’t help but to think that they’re cute, not cool” (30)
“It feels like I’m hanging out with a female friend” (33)
“I don’t want to look down on him” (31)
“It’s embarrassing” (25)
“I’m sorry to say this, but when I’m taller than them when I wear heels, I get disappointed” (25)
■ Short men are…
“They seem more narrow minded to me, I’m short myself so I feel resistance against men shorter than me” (32)
“They don’t look dependable” (23)
“It’s just not manly” (27)
■ I love tall men
“I feel attracted to tall men” (39)
“Being tall is a prerequisite” (24)
“I’ve never had any interest in short men” (30)
“Height is one thing I can’t ignore” (22)
“I like looking up to speak to men” (30)
■ When compared to me
“I’m pretty short, so even shorter is a little…” (33)
“I’m small, so… What if we marry, have a baby and the child develops an inferiority complex?” (31)
“I’m tall myself, and I like men that are taller than me, and he seems more dependable” (24)
“Same height is ideal” (22)
■ I don’t want to pay attention to his feelings
“I feel like I’d need to consider his feelings, like I wouldn’t be able to wear heels…” (23)
“I’m sure we’d both be thinking about our height” (26)
“I don’t want to walk beside them” (25)
“I think he’d mind” (30)
Do you really think there are "a lot" of short men in Japan who are considered attractive despite being under 170 cm when over half (57%) of Japanese women think these things about them?
Seriously, stop saying this sh*t. I understand that you think you're helping by repeating and insisting upon these sorts of false claims, but you have to understand that you really aren't. Gullible short guys see these kinds of bullsh*t copes spouted by people, fly to East Asia expecting tolerance from "open-minded asian women", and ultimately waste tons of time and money to get humiliated.
On a related note, what I said above goes even in countries where the people are supposedly "extremely short" like the Phillipines or Indonesia.
What people don't seem to realize about these countries is that the statistics/figures you see for height on the Internet are outdated and/or skewed due to the inclusion of older individuals, who grew up in a time when there was much less food available and poverty was even worse than it is today (people literally starving to death). SEA may be a third-world region, but food is much more readily available today than it was 40-50 years ago when the current generation of geriatrics was growing up.
The average female height in the Phillipines isn't 4'10" like what you see on Wikipedia or whatever other resource. Fly to the Phillipines - in fact, no need to fly there, just check on any Phillipines dating site or whatever. The majority of the girls are in the 5'1" - 5'4" range, and a good number are 5'5" - 5'6", which is what the average height of the MEN in the Phillipines is in the modern day (NOT 5'4" like Google says).
I don't agree. There are some tall guys out there without "masculine" proportions at all. Some are due to genetic conditions. Weak shoulders, stick silhouette, below average faces.
If you're talking about being easier to be attractive to women who are near your height with every inch past that, then yeah, studies show there's a correlation. A hot 5'7 guy will generally not be considered as hot to a 5'7 woman as to a 5'4 woman.
You do realize there's a direct correlation between wrist circumference, bideltoid breadth, and ribcage width (all factors associated with masculine frame) and height?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5785639/
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5785639/bin/JCRPE-9-329-g4.jpg)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6823895
The analysis shows that elbow breadth can be used as an indicator of frame size. Based on sex-, race-, and age-specific percentiles of elbow breadth the subjects were classified into categories of small, medium, and large frame size. It is suggested that these categories be used for the evaluation of weight for height and frame size.
Body mass estimate can be derived from stature and bi-iliac breadth
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15788184
Previous studies have indicated that body mass can be estimated from stature and bi-iliac (maximum pelvic) breadth with reasonable accuracy in modern humans, supporting the use of this method to estimate body mass in earlier human skeletal samples. However, to date the method has not been tested specifically on high latitude individuals, whose body form in some ways more closely approximates that of earlier higher latitude humans (i.e., large and broad-bodied). In this study, anthropometric data for 67 Alaskan Inupiat and 54 Finnish adults were used to test the stature/bi-iliac body mass estimation method. Both samples are very broad-bodied, and the Finnish sample is very tall as well. The method generally works well in these individuals, with average directional biases in body mass estimates of 3% or less, except in male Finns, whose body masses are systematically underestimated by an average of almost 9%. A majority of individuals in the total pooled sample have estimates to within +/-10% of their true body masses, and more than three-quarters have estimates to within +/-15%. The major factor found to affect directional bias is shoulder to hip breadth (biacromial/bi-iliac breadth). Male Finns have particularly wide shoulders, which may in part explain their systematic underestimation. New body mass estimation equations are developed that include the new data from this study. When applied to a sample of earlier (late middle Pleistocene to early Upper Paleolithic) higher latitude skeletal specimens, differences between previous and new body estimates are small (less than 2%). However, because the Finns significantly extend the range of morphological variation beyond that represented in the original world-wide reference sample used in developing the method, thereby increasing its generality, it is recommended that these new formulas be used in subsequent body mass estimations.
Sure, there are "some guys" who are tall and have gracile frames, but they are outliers. A tall man with a gracile frame is exactly as common as a short man with a robust frame, which is to say, they're rare.
In the end, the assertion that it gets easier to be attractive (for men) with every inch past 5'6"/5'7" is absolutely true insofar as body proportions and frame size is concerned.
-
I wish people would stop parroting this "height isn't that big of a factor in attractiveness in Asia" meme.
That's not what I said...
75% (3 in 4) of young Japanese women would rather have a tall man rather than a good looking man who's short; as for why, according to the women themselves.
I know about this survey, but I believe it to be a loaded question. I don't think the choices of:
- A tall but average looking man.
- A short but handsome/good-looking man.
... are actually equal.
The questionnaire should have been presented as:
- Tall man with an ugly face.
- Average height man with an average face.
- Short man with a good-looking face.
One of the problems with these surveys is that "tall" and "short" are prone to subjective bias, despite height being an objective measurement. Most women responding to these surveys will probably imagine the "short" in the "short man" sentence as being their same height or under, irrespective of the respondent woman's own height. They'd also probably not visualize a man who they deem too tall for themselves when reading the "tall man" sentence. I know this is purely conjecture on my part, but so be it.
On a related note, what I said above goes even in countries where the people are supposedly "extremely short" like the Phillipines or Indonesia.
I don't believe this at all. It is in SE Asia that Japanese actors/"talents" are the most popular while still being under 170cm. An easy example is Teppei Koike (167cm). He's under 170cm, but has another physical aspect that is taken way more in consideration than it'd be in the West (his face). This is obviously directly related to the height of the natives.
And I never made any mention to them being significantly under 170cm. I was thinking of actors, singers, and "talents" in the 165~168cm range.
I know you may argue something about them being famous or outliers, but that's not the point I was making.
You do realize there's a direct correlation between wrist circumference, bideltoid breadth, and ribcage width (all factors associated with masculine frame) and height?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5785639/
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5785639/bin/JCRPE-9-329-g4.jpg)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6823895
Body mass estimate can be derived from stature and bi-iliac breadth
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15788184
Sure, there are "some guys" who are tall and have gracile frames, but they are outliers. A tall man with a gracile frame is exactly as common as a short man with a robust frame, which is to say, they're rare.
In the end, the assertion that it gets easier to be attractive (for men) with every inch past 5'6"/5'7" is absolutely true insofar as body proportions and frame size is concerned.
Thanks for the links.
And certainly there's a correlation, but I never implied there wasn't any. I said there are taller guys with weak, narrow, and slim frames. I see some of them everyday. I was simply pointing out the variation that exists.
It also most certainly relies more heavily on the genetics of an individual than simply "height", even despite the fact height is also directly (and mostly) related to genetics. The ancestors of the tallest guys with the most masculine frames alive today were much shorter than they are, but they were certainly proportionally more masculine in their frames compared to their (also shorter) peers of the same time period. EDIT: Even if those peers were at similar height levels.
-
That's not what I said...
Here is exactly what you said, verbatim:
In Japan and SE Asia, a lot of guys under 170cm are considered attractive because of their other physical aspects.
The direct implication here is that the other physical aspects of these hypothetical "guys under 170cm" are sufficient to compensate for their short stature. This is absolutely false, as is indicated by the second survey I linked, which you didn't address
I know about this survey, but I believe it to be a loaded question. I don't think the choices of:
- A tall but average looking man.
- A short but handsome/good-looking man.
... are actually equal.
The questionnaire should have been presented as:
- Tall man with an ugly face.
- Average height man with an average face.
- Short man with a good-looking face.
One of the problems with these surveys is that "tall" and "short" are prone to subjective bias, despite height being an objective measurement. Most women responding to these surveys will probably imagine the "short" in the "short man" sentence as being their same height or under, irrespective of the respondent woman's own height. They'd also probably not visualize a man who they deem too tall for themselves when reading the "tall man" sentence. I know this is purely conjecture on my part, but so be it.
Whether the questionnaire was presented as it was or as you suggest is unlikely to have made any difference, a point that is substantiated (once again) by the second survey I linked. The majority of Japanese women consider being short a dealbreaker as far as romantic/sexual relationships are concerned. They are incapable of viewing short men as sexual or romantic entities and would in fact be embarrassed to be seen with them in public, and wouldn't want to reproduce with them for fear of producing short sons that would develop complexes (see list of reasons why they don't consider short men attractive).
Your conjecture at the end doesn't hold much logical ground.
Suppose the women in question really did mean "their height or below" when they said "short men". For most of these women, "their height or below" is going to mean 5'2" to 5'4". So, when they said they wouldn't consider a short man as a romantic/sexual partner, what they meant was a man shorter than 5'2" - 5'4" (whatever value within that range constitutes her own height).
Now, again, look at what these women are saying about short men. If a woman says things like "I'd be embarrassed to be seen with him in public" and "I wouldn't want to reproduce with him" about short men, it's highly unlikely she's going to consider a man who's only an inch or two (2-4 cm) taller than 5'2" - 5'4" as "not being short". It doesn't make sense. If a woman is disgusted by a man who's 5'4" to the point she'd be ashamed to be seen with him in public, she's not going to suddenly be attracted to him at 5'5" or 5'6".
It's much more likely that "short" means "below average height for Japanese males". Japan is a highly homogenous society. It's pretty clear to Japanese people what the average height of a young man is in Japan. If a Japanese man is noticeably shorter than most or all of his Japanese male peers, he is short.
I don't believe this at all. It is in SE Asia that Japanese actors/"talents" are the most popular while still being under 170cm. An easy example is Teppei Koike (167cm). He's under 170cm, but has another physical aspect that is taken way more in consideration than it'd be in the West (his face). This is obviously directly related to the height of the natives.
First, 167cm is within average range for a man in SEA. Teppei Koike isn't "short" in SEA at 5'5" any more than Manny Pacquiao (also 5'5") is. There's nothing special about being popular when you're "under 170cm" in a region where most of the men are below 170cm. It doesn't prove anything.
Second, SEA is notorious for being obsessed with Western and East Asian media and culture, especially celebrities, and especially when those celebrities have light skin (the lighter the better, SEA are massive white worshippers). Teppei Koike isn't any more popular in SEA than any given average-height or tall K-pop group member is, or any random white movie star/singer from the U.S. or Europe. Frankly, any white guy with a nordic phenotype (blonde, blue eyes, tall) would be about as popular in the Phillipines as Teppei Koike is.
Third, the fact that Teppei Koike is popular in SEA despite being short relative to other Asian celebrities doesn't mean SEA would consider him sexually attractive relative to those other celebrities. It means he's popular despite being short. 5'4" Bruno Mars is more popular in the US than Teppei Koike is anywhere on planet earth, plenty of women like his music, but I'd be willing to bet a solid amount of money few (if any) of them would rather have sex with him than the guy who played Thor.
I know you may argue something about them being famous or outliers, but that's not the point I was making.
At first I was going to, but frankly, this Teppei Koike character really isn't that "famous" at all. I'd never heard of him until today. Ironically, I saw his name mentioned in the comment section of one of the articles I linked (the one about 75% of Japanese women preferring a tall average man) in my previous response to you and had a feeling you would mention him. I briefly considered adding the points I mentioned about him above to my previous response, but decided against it in the interest of keeping the post concise.
I don't know what else to say. He really doesn't even seem very popular in Japan. He has a small following, but it pales in comparison to what average-height/tall K-pop singers have. He's clearly trying to leverage his stature into the "cute"/"pretty boy" (or "bishonen" in Japan) archetype, which I guess is fine if you don't mind being viewed as a child when you're a grown man.
Unfortunately for Mr. Koike, he is old (32), and despite the excellent aging genetics afforded him by his Asian heritage, he has at most 5 or so years left before he seriously starts to look old and he won't be able to run the pretty boy routine anymore, at which point he'll just be a short washed-up man. I don't know anything about his sexual/dating history, so I can't comment on that.
Justin Bieber would be a much better example of a relatively short (5'7") man who was still viewed as attractive by women... teenage women. When he was a teenager. In his case, however, he aged VERY quickly once he reached his 20's and he looks like sh*t now (tons of acne, balding, facial structure ruined).
What I'm getting at is that the "pretty boy" routine is a poor answer to the problem of a short man insofar as attracting women goes. It works best on underaged teenage girls (which in most countries will land you in prison), and a lot of people seem to forget that for most people life goes on for a long time after women stop finding pedomorphic "pretty"/"cute" boys attractive (that is, after high school or in some women's cases, after college).
Thanks for the links.
And certainly there's a correlation, but I never implied there wasn't any. I said there are taller guys with weak, narrow, and slim frames. I see some of them everyday. I was simply pointing out the variation that exists.
It also most certainly relies more heavily on the genetics of an individual than simply "height", even despite the fact height is also directly (and mostly) related to genetics. The ancestors of the tallest guys with the most masculine frames alive today were much shorter than they are, but they were certainly proportionally more masculine in their frames compared to their (also shorter) peers of the same time period. EDIT: Even if those peers were at similar height levels.
Yes, but when another poster said this:
but it gets a lot easier to be attractive with every inch past 5'6''-5'7'' or so.
Your response was:
I don't agree. There are some tall guys out there without "masculine" proportions at all. Some are due to genetic conditions. Weak shoulders, stick silhouette, below average faces.
Which doesn't disprove the first quote. Statistically speaking, it does get easier and more likely that you will have a robust frame ("being attractive") as an individual grows taller. The fact that there exist "some" outliers who do not conform to the general trend is not an argument against this, which was my point.
-
Here is exactly what you said, verbatim:
In Japan and SE Asia, a lot of guys under 170cm are considered attractive because of their other physical aspects.
The direct implication here is that the other physical aspects of these hypothetical "guys under 170cm" are sufficient to compensate for their short stature.
Yes... such as their faces. Then I raised the example of Teppei Koike (167cm), but you could go for the even shorter Ryosuke Yamada (165cm). There are a bunch of male "idols", "talents", actors, singers who are still popular for their appearance despite being under 170cm... because of their other physical aspects, mainly their faces. Obviously they aren't considered as "perfect" as taller guys with similar levels of facial beauty, but I've demonstrated what I said.
Japan is more heightist than SEA because the Japanese are a bit taller and way more self-conscious. That is known and your links demonstrate that. They also do not disprove what I said: guys under 170cm can still be considered attractive in Japan and SEA with other physical aspects (such as as "pretty/beautiful face", and not being old). I never said they'd manage to pull it off at 150cm.
Even worse, I don't know how you inferred "height isn't that big of a factor in attractiveness in Asia". Height and body frame are part of sxxual dimorphism and sxxual attractiveness. I have no idea how or why you would infer that I somehow think "height isn't that big of a factor in Asia" (or a factor at all) just because guys under 170cm can be considered attractive due to other physical features in those countries. I even went so far as to demonstrate it. I also correlated the fact to the height of the natives.
If a woman is disgusted by a man who's 5'4" to the point she'd be ashamed to be seen with him in public, she's not going to suddenly be attracted to him at 5'5" or 5'6".
What a sweeping generalization. How do you even explain the fanclubs for the male "idols" under 170cm? Do all men think the same?
Frankly, any white guy with a nordic phenotype (blonde, blue eyes, tall) would be about as popular in the Phillipines as Teppei Koike is.
Any? Really? His fanpage on online wikis is full of mostly SEA women fangirling over him and his appearance (his band was never that big). I've never seen them flocking to chubby Swede #3 on social media.
Which doesn't disprove the first quote. Statistically speaking, it does get easier and more likely that you will have a robust frame ("being attractive") as an individual grows taller.
Fair enough.
-
Yes... such as their faces. Then I raised the example of Teppei Koike (167cm), but you could go for the even shorter Ryosuke Yamada (165cm). There are a bunch of male "idols", "talents", actors, singers who are still popular for their appearance despite being under 170cm... because of their other physical aspects, mainly their faces. Obviously they aren't considered as "perfect" as taller guys with similar levels of facial beauty, but I've demonstrated what I said.
Neither of those two people are anywhere near as popular as average-height or tall celebrities either in their own country of Japan or abroad, which is my point. I don't care if they have two dozen die-hard fans. It doesn't prove anything. The overwhelming majority of women, even Japanese women, would not find them attractive. The surveys demonstrate that.
Japan is more heightist than SEA because the Japanese are a bit taller and way more self-conscious.
Well, it isn't actually that simple. SEA women are just as heightist as any other type of asian woman. The real difference is in the fact that East Asian women (Japanese, Korean, Chinese) live in wealthier, more developed countries where they have good wages and don't need to get married and be financially supported to survive.
I've dealt with plenty of SEA women, been to SEA, and they're every bit as heightist as other women, and they've got MASSIVE Pinkerton syndrome, but they'll settle for just about any man as long as he has money. Simply put, SEA women cannot afford to be heightist. As in, literally, they cannot financially afford to select for tall men only, else they will starve on the street.
That is known and your links demonstrate that. They also do not disprove what I said: guys under 170cm can still be considered attractive in Japan and SEA with other physical aspects (such as as "pretty/beautiful face", and not being old). I never said they'd manage to pull it off at 150cm.
Again, the fan following of the two individuals you noted is vanishingly small. Just because a handful of Japanese women who most likely have fetishes find them attractive doesn't mean they are attractive in the general sense.
As for SEA, literally absolutely ANYONE who is white (or even just has light skin, Fitzpatrick 3 or above) is "considered attractive" there.
Even worse, I don't know how you inferred "height isn't that big of a factor in attractiveness in Asia". Height and body frame are part of sxxual dimorphism and sxxual attractiveness. I have no idea how or why you would infer that I somehow think "height isn't that big of a factor in Asia" (or a factor at all) just because guys under 170cm can be considered attractive due to other physical features in those countries. I even went so far as to demonstrate it. I also correlated the fact to the height of the natives.
The majority of the women who consider those guys attractive consider taller guys with similar looks more attractive. If they had to pick between the two, the shorter ones would lose, thus it's meaningless to say they "consider them attractive".
What a sweeping generalization. How do you even explain the fanclubs for the male "idols" under 170cm? Do all men think the same?
Women with fetishes (a.k.a. """preference"""). Women who have had bad experiences with tall men (cheating on her, etc) and now purposely avoid them. Etc.
Come on. Their fanclubs seriously aren't that big. Again, there's K-pop singers and then there's these guys. Big difference.
Any? Really? His fanpage on online wikis is full of mostly SEA women fangirling over him and his appearance (his band was never that big).
SEA women fangirl over any light skinned East Asian celebrity, ESPECIALLY singers (there's a massive karaoke culture in the Phillipines). If you could go to any K-pop singer's fanpage and somehow filter for only SEA women's posts, you would see just as many (if not more) of their posts fangirling about him.
I've never seen them flocking to chubby Swede #3 on social media.
That's because chubby Swede #3 is an ordinary civilian they don't know exists, while the Japanese guys are celebrities.
-
You do realize there's a direct correlation between wrist circumference, bideltoid breadth, and ribcage width (all factors associated with masculine frame) and height?
Sure, there are "some guys" who are tall and have gracile frames, but they are outliers. A tall man with a gracile frame is exactly as common as a short man with a robust frame, which is to say, they're rare.
In the end, the assertion that it gets easier to be attractive (for men) with every inch past 5'6"/5'7" is absolutely true insofar as body proportions and frame size is concerned.
IMO, the fallacy that some posters here have (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) is to think that frame and body porportions making a man attractive are absolute numbers, when in fact, they are relative numbers. Of course taller people will on average have wider shoulders, wider ribcages, etc. because the whole body of a person increases proportionally as the person gets taller (with the exception of penis size, which only has a very small correlation and other studies haven't found a correlation at all). What makes a person attractive is the proportions of their whole body, not the porportions of one part of their body in comparison to some statistic. A girl isn't going to see a guy and think "oh wow, he has a 22 inch bideltoid, that is soo hot", she's going to look at his body and if his shoulders look wide on his body, she's likely going to find that attractive. (shoulder to hip ratio is a well-known attractiveness marker for men, but taller men also have wider hips).
Saying "taller men are attractive because they have bigger frames" is like saying "a real car looks better than a model car because it's wheels are bigger". When in fact, wheels looks sporty and good on a car when they are big compared to the tyres and wheel well size. 20 inch wheels on a Ferrari look sporty, but 4 inch wheels on a Ferrari model will still look sporty. (because the whole car is much smaller, duh)
-
IMO, the fallacy that some posters here have (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) is to think that frame and body porportions making a man attractive are absolute numbers, when in fact, they are relative numbers. Of course taller people will on average have wider shoulders, wider ribcages, etc. because the whole body of a person increases proportionally as the person gets taller (with the exception of penis size, which only has a very small correlation and other studies haven't found a correlation at all). What makes a person attractive is the proportions of their whole body, not the porportions of one part of their body in comparison to some statistic. A girl isn't going to see a guy and think "oh wow, he has a 22 inch bideltoid, that is soo hot", she's going to look at his body and if his shoulders look wide on his body, she's likely going to find that attractive. (shoulder to hip ratio is a well-known attractiveness marker for men, but taller men also have wider hips).
I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise or tried to. I'm fairly certain that the argument (at least the way I mean it when I present it) is based on the underlined text, i.e. a person with a 22 inch bideltoid is statistically more likely to be tall and have other robust features (wrist circumference, ribcage width, etc) than not.
Sexual dimorphism isn't based on one feature, it's based on a SET of features which includes bideltoid breadth (and ribcage width, wrist circumference, the obvious height, and so on). It's a given that harmony and symmetry are desirable (I've said this in the past as well). JUST having a 22 inch bideltoid without at least some semblance of the other features will look incongruous and have an "uncanny valley" vibe to it, just like a guy who's 5'4" lengthening to 6'0"+ (or maybe even just 5'10") would look "off".
Saying "taller men are attractive because they have bigger frames" is like saying "a real car looks better than a model car because it's wheels are bigger".
I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't say this either. I said that it is statistically more likely for taller men to have more robust frames (which is scientific fact), and that by corollary it is therefore easier for a man to be attractive as he becomes taller (since growing tall, an attractive feature, will directly increase his likelihood of developing a robust frame, another attractive feature).
When in fact, wheels looks sporty and good on a car when they are big compared to the tyres and wheel well size. 20 inch wheels on a Ferrari look sporty, but 4 inch wheels on a Ferrari model will still look sporty. (because the whole car is much smaller, duh)
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I agree that from a purely geometric point of view, a short man with a conventionally robust frame is equally as attractive as a tall man with a robust frame... insofar as their frames are concerned, they have equal sexual dimorphism. The short man, however, is missing a crucial element of dimorphism, which is stature, and it's that aesthetic deficiency that renders him unattractive, because short stature is a death sentence in terms of dimorphism.
It's the difference between the Ferrari with the 20 inch wheels and the one with the 4 inch wheels. Sure, they both "look" sporty, but one of them is a car, and the other one is just a toy that looks like a car.
-
5’7 for the manliest possible look without being that short. 5’4 if you don’t mind being a bit short and/or looking a bit odd probably, but with nice facial aesthetics it won’t matter. At my height tho, I can’t do anything since I have a really small frame, gym is not helping I am just looking odd now, and ofc my problem is not my legs it is my body frame overall. It seems as if I have stunted my growth somehow.
-
5’7 for the manliest possible look without being that short. 5’4 if you don’t mind being a bit short and/or looking a bit odd probably, but with nice facial aesthetics it won’t matter. At my height tho, I can’t do anything since I have a really small frame, gym is not helping I am just looking odd now, and ofc my problem is not my legs it is my body frame overall. It seems as if I have stunted my growth somehow.
I am an inch above 5'4" and am above average regarding facial aesthetics, so I can state assuredly that this height doesn't repeal the unwanted traits that's rife in short stature (bobble head, small frame, high pitched voice, stumpy build, stunted body resembling prepubescence, neotenic features) which is antithetical to manliness. I wager the cutoff is 5'7", below and the undesirable aspects unfold exponentially.
-
I am an inch above 5'4" and am above average regarding facial aesthetics, so I can state assuredly that this height doesn't repeal the unwanted traits that's rife in short stature (bobble head, small frame, high pitched voice, stumpy build, stunted body resembling prepubescence, neotenic features) which is antithetical to manliness. I wager the cutoff is 5'7", below and the undesirable aspects unfold exponentially.
Do you know the saying "you're your own worst enemy" ? Really seems to fit you in way.
-
I am an inch above 5'4" and am above average regarding facial aesthetics, so I can state assuredly that this height doesn't repeal the unwanted traits that's rife in short stature (bobble head, small frame, high pitched voice, stumpy build, stunted body resembling prepubescence, neotenic features) which is antithetical to manliness. I wager the cutoff is 5'7", below and the undesirable aspects unfold exponentially.
Hmm interesting you say that about 5'7" I agree somewhat. I'm 5'7" myself and I feel based on my height...the short side of my families bloodline should have been eradicated. I'm first generation born in the US from my dads side of the family.
Not sure what pails of water they were able to sneak in the fields to stay alive in that third world place...But they shouldn't have even bothered. You don't get thirsty in hell.
Never understood why immigrant families ache so badly to rush and move illegally to a first world country just to struggle for the rest of their lives, get made fun of by native speakers and face a steep learning curve of culture that's gonna take up another smaller chunk of time in their lives to figure out.
-
Do you know the saying "you're your own worst enemy" ? Really seems to fit you in way.
Nah, I'm just more introspective than the average man.
Hmm interesting you say that about 5'7" I agree somewhat. I'm 5'7" myself and I feel based on my height...the short side of my families bloodline should have been eradicated. I'm first generation born in the US from my dads side of the family.
Not sure what pails of water they were able to sneak in the fields to stay alive in that third world place...But they shouldn't have even bothered. You don't get thirsty in hell.
Never understood why immigrant families ache so badly to rush and move illegally to a first world country just to struggle for the rest of their lives, get made fun of by native speakers and face a steep learning curve of culture that's gonna take up another smaller chunk of time in their lives to figure out.
Well I live in a third world country and my paternal side of the family are known for their diminutive stature, we even have a saying that these caste of people tend to be shorter and manipulative, superstitious beliefs are not unusual here. What do you mean by your dad's side of the family? I didn't quite understood that.
I probably won't understand your circumstance , but I can imagine what would happen If my family moved onto the west. Still doesn't the positives of living there (economy, health care, freedom) outweigh the negatives?
-
Nah, I'm just more introspective than the average man.
Well I live in a third world country and my paternal side of the family are known for their diminutive stature, we even have a saying that these caste of people tend to be shorter and manipulative, superstitious beliefs are not unusual here. What do you mean by your dad's side of the family? I didn't quite understood that.
My dads side of the family has good facial structure, good athletic ability and solid muscle building genetics. However, they're all short Italians for the most part. Most of the men are 5'5"-5'8". I think Italians are just 3rd worlders and some have white skin, not pure white at all.
My moms side of the family is more traditionally "white" and they're taller and have been in America much longer. The men are usually around 6' (Which I would love to be myself) but slightly less athletic. (Still ideal opposed to the short man, compensating competitive syndrome)
I have several siblings and it's obvious who's inherited what side of the family more. The taller man tends to be less athletic and taller (representing my moms side)
The shorter man (Myself) tends to be much more athletic, shorter (Representing my fathers side) For example I can dunk a basketball at only 5'7" (However my 6'3"-6'4" wingspan plays a part for sure)
There are also many more traits that distinguish the two but these are the two most apparent besides looks.
I'm not sure it works this way but at the same time it definitely does because I can clearly see it.
Yes i'm legal lol. I'm just talking general as it pertains to the immigration.
-
My dads side of the family has good facial structure, good athletic ability and solid muscle building genetics. However, they're all short Italians for the most part. Most of the men are 5'5"-5'8". I think Italians are just 3rd worlders and some have white skin, not pure white at all.
My moms side of the family is more traditionally "white" and they're taller and have been in America much longer. The men are usually around 6' (Which I would love to be myself) but slightly less athletic. (Still ideal opposed to the short man, compensating competitive syndrome)
I have several siblings and it's obvious who's inherited what side of the family more. The taller man tends to be less athletic and taller (representing my moms side)
The shorter man (Myself) tends to be much more athletic, shorter (Representing my fathers side) For example I can dunk a basketball at only 5'7" (However my 6'3"-6'4" wingspan plays a part for sure)
There are also many more traits that distinguish the two but these are the two most apparent besides looks.
I'm not sure it works this way but at the same time it definitely does because I can clearly see it.
Yes i'm legal lol. I'm just talking general as it pertains to the immigration.
Still you have an appreciable Italian heritage, I don't think my family even has anything commendable cultural wise. Would you rather live in Italy? I don't even understand why you are complaining other than getting unlucky height genes. I was screwed before conception because of my expected short paternal genes (uncles are about 5'2"-5'6"), one thing we do have in common is that our maternal side of the family have tall men.
-
Still you have an appreciable Italian heritage, I don't think my family even has anything commendable cultural wise. Would you rather live in Italy? I don't even understand why you are complaining other than getting unlucky height genes. I was screwed before conception because of my expected short paternal genes, one thing we do have in common is that our maternal side of the family have tall men.
Italians are annoying and shxtty
Unlucky height genes are more than enough to be bitter about lol. Height neurosis is engrained and hyper focused in my mind and the idea of having to do externals scares me alot but is necessary and the only method I can afford.
In Italy I would still be short but their men are slightly shorter than the American "White" male.
What is your heritage? Wingspan?
Your profile picture creeps me out by the way.
-
Unlucky height genes are more than enough to be bitter about lol. Height neurosis is engrained and hyper focused in my mind and the idea of having to do externals scares me alot but is necessary and the only method I can afford.
In Italy I would still be short but their men are slightly shorter than the American "White" male.
What is your heritage? Wingspan?
Your profile picture creeps me out by the way.
It's fair to say both of us are unlucky since the men in our maternal side are of good height while both of us regressed instead of being taller than them, and you are right about being bitter, I always expected since I was of age 10 that when I would grow up I would be taller than most but that day never came and it instilled a disdain towards tall people and I am self aware of it but can't help but feel it while developed a proclivity to compare heights with people close to me like a person with OCD aka height neurosis.
My heritage is nothing noteworthy as I have said before, partially ashamed you could say so as to not disclose it, haven't measured wingspan but I would guess it's less than my height because of my short forearms. It's nothing deformed but it's noticeably shorter than the average person with my height, I probably inherited from my mother since she has this trait too.
My picture is of the famous billionaire reptile mark ZUCCerberg drinking water which stems from a meme, I found it amusing here is the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq9D7eL8IeI if you would like to see it.
-
My dads side of the family has good facial structure, good athletic ability and solid muscle building genetics. However, they're all short Italians for the most part. Most of the men are 5'5"-5'8". I think Italians are just 3rd worlders and some have white skin, not pure white at all.
My moms side of the family is more traditionally "white" and they're taller and have been in America much longer. The men are usually around 6' (Which I would love to be myself) but slightly less athletic. (Still ideal opposed to the short man, compensating competitive syndrome)
I have several siblings and it's obvious who's inherited what side of the family more. The taller man tends to be less athletic and taller (representing my moms side)
The shorter man (Myself) tends to be much more athletic, shorter (Representing my fathers side) For example I can dunk a basketball at only 5'7" (However my 6'3"-6'4" wingspan plays a part for sure)
There are also many more traits that distinguish the two but these are the two most apparent besides looks.
I'm not sure it works this way but at the same time it definitely does because I can clearly see it.
Yes i'm legal lol. I'm just talking general as it pertains to the immigration.
What a bunch of bs you wrote about Italy and Italians.
And correlating the status of "Italians" as 3rd worlders (in your conception) with the color of their skin? Really?
I guess all the tales about geography classes in the US are true. You do know Italy has only become an unified country in the last 147 years, right? There's no such thing as pure ethnic Italians, equal in genetics from south to north, from southwest to northeast. The same can also be said about the "whitest" part of Europe, i.e., Scandinavia.
Do you even know what alphabet you are using to write all that nonsense?
Hmm interesting you say that about 5'7" I agree somewhat. I'm 5'7" myself and I feel based on my height...the short side of my families bloodline should have been eradicated. I'm first generation born in the US from my dads side of the family.
Not sure what pails of water they were able to sneak in the fields to stay alive in that third world place...But they shouldn't have even bothered. You don't get thirsty in hell.
Italy, a third world country? Your paternal bloodline should have been eradicated? You do know you, yourself, are a member of that bloodline, right?
And here I thought you weren't just another lunatic in this forum.
-
I thought only Asian countries associated skin color with success, that is pretty backwards and racist. The real third worlders are in the country where I live, where population crises reached its limit, corrupted politics coupled with violence in the name of religion, herd mentality and if you dissent hope that you can recover swiftly from the beatings received afterwards.
I wish I had tenth of the portion of heritage and rich culture that the Italians have, and If I was born in Italy I probably wouldn't want to move to a "first world" country. Trust me you haven't even seen a pure third world country where more than half of the people you notice on the streets are plebeians, the disparity is yugeee between the rich and the poor that it's apparent from which class you come from just from your facial aesthetics, height and skin color (skin color only applies in a real 3rd wrld countries). I have ambitions to elude from this nightmarish sxithole otherwise I might as well forget about basic human imperatives and live like a slave.
-
What a bunch of bs you wrote about Italy and Italians.
And correlating the status of "Italians" as 3rd worlders (in your conception) with the color of their skin? Really?
I guess all the tales about geography classes in the US are true. You do know Italy has only become an unified country in the last 147 years, right? There's no such thing as pure ethnic Italians, equal in genetics from south to north, from southwest to northeast. The same can also be said about the "whitest" part of Europe, i.e., Scandinavia.
Do you even know what alphabet you are using to write all that nonsense?
Italy, a third world country? Your paternal bloodline should have been eradicated? You do know you, yourself, are a member of that bloodline, right?
And here I thought you weren't just another lunatic in this forum.
I know I have been there and am one myself. I like to disassociate myself with them in my head. I agree could be much worse.
I believe they are non aryan AND they’re third worlders. Not third worlders because they’re non aryan. Not that it matters or I even care if you thought that’s what I meant lol. Me personally, I would have preferred to inherit more traits from the other side of my family.
What’s the problem with the eradication comment? I’m fully aware of what bloodline I’m a part of.
-
@Johnson1111 He obviously meant that if your bloodline didn't exist, you yourself wouldn't either, so would you rather not exist? Isn't that a bit of a morbid assertion. Personally I get where you're coming from since I too wished that the dominant genes that manifested would have been from my mother's side, then I would probably been taller and more masculine. Are you racially discrepant compared to your cousins or relatives? Is that the reason for this resentment?
-
@Johnson1111 He obviously meant that if your bloodline didn't exist, you yourself wouldn't either, so would you rather not exist? Isn't that a bit of a morbid assertion. Personally I get where you're coming from since I too wished that the dominant genes that manifested would have been from my mother's side, then I would probably been taller and more masculine. Are you racially discrepant compared to your cousins or relatives? Is that the reason for this resentment?
I'm whiter than my dads side but not as white as my moms side. This is literal too as in i'm referring to my skin tone. I prefer to be 100% on my moms side.
I mainly want to disassociate from the small, mighty label that is put on that side of my family that i've inherited. That type of person disgusts me so therefor I disgust myself in many ways. I label myself with something that is completely out of my control. Probably the worst thing a man can do.
This is why i'm willing to trash my athletics which I excel at for a few inches. I'm not a circus show where I have to do X , Y , Z when I first meet people as if to say "Hey i'm smaller but don't get it twisted i'm worthy!" Or something of that nature.
Some people would call me crazy for wanting to do that and I agree to an extent. If I even recovered ONLY 70% i'd still be more than capable in an athletic environment.
When you say you'd be taller and more masculine half of that is simply not true. You'd APPEAR more masculine. In reality being taller means nothing when it comes to being masculine. But we can all agree that we are wired to think differently. We are wired to think wrongly.
Myloginacc might think that's a ridiculous way of thinking. All that matters to me is that I don't. Just like nobody can change his mind.
-
When you say you'd be taller and more masculine half of that is simply not true. You'd APPEAR more masculine. In reality being taller means nothing when it comes to being masculine. But we can all agree that we are wired to think differently. We are wired to think wrongly.
You are partially correct but to disregard an integral dimorphic characteristic of a man is illogical, a 5' man with a beefed up body will never be conventionally masculine regardless of a dominant/assertive personality, and will be seen as having Napoleon complex aka manlet syndrome. There is a criteria of masculinity and physicality plays a greater role relative to personality, in short you have to be at least average in terms of height to even be considered masculine by "women", only after then your personality will determine whether you're alpha or beta. You may agree to disagree but there are countless of studies regarding dimorphism and sexual selection.
-
You are partially correct but to disregard an integral dimorphic characteristic of a man is illogical, a 5' man with a beefed up body will never be conventionally masculine regardless of a dominant/assertive personality, and will be seen as having Napoleon complex aka manlet syndrome. There is a criteria of masculinity and physicality plays a greater role relative to personality, in short you have to be at least average in terms of height to even be considered masculine by "women", only after then your personality will determine whether you're alpha or beta. You may agree to disagree but there are countless of studies regarding dimorphism and sxxual selection.
The whole alpha/beta talk is ridiculous to me. How would anyone ever TRULY prove it other than to focus on a mans performance in his life? Are we fighting in coliseums and killing for our food? I mean come on lol. And if you focused on performance there would be countless shorter guys that are more "alpha" than taller ones. So it obviously can't be that.
It's just false interpretation and social stigma that we are battling. Not reality. Men a few inches taller are NOT more "masculine" in any objective way other than how they're interpreted socially based on outdated biological wiring in our brains.
It's APPEARING more masculine so you can BE more masculine in the eyes of others. The goalposts are adjusted, and the definitions are twisted just like the word "racism" these days. We are just stooping down to the dumb game.
That's all being taller is and does for you. And that's admittedly important since no matter what other logical steps you take to be more "manly" you will be judged by your height first and foremost. So it's a smart move to play the game and want to be taller in this day in age since it's judged so heavily whether logically or not.
It's just weighing the pros and cons of doing LL. Athleticism and performance in physical tasks being the most heavily weighed thing in most peoples's minds aside from the obvious other risks negligence and the procedure itself present when they're deciding on the surgery. Most of us have accepted it now, inevitably some of us will regret it forever.
-
The whole alpha/beta talk is ridiculous to me. How would anyone ever TRULY prove it other than to focus on a mans performance in his life? Are we fighting in coliseums and killing for our food? I mean come on lol. And if you focused on performance there would be countless shorter guys that are more "alpha" than taller ones. So it obviously can't be that.
The argument could be made that since we don't live in the cave days where we would need to be taller and stronger to survive and protect (run faster, cover more ground), nevertheless height and long limbs are a vital health indicator, tallness is associated with better athleticism (there are studies on this), shorter guys may be stronger because of stumpy limbs capable of exerting more force but it's negligible, more often then not the taller guy might be stronger because of the large torso size, thicker bones.
It's just false interpretation and social stigma that we are battling. Not reality. Men a few inches taller are NOT more "masculine" in any objective way other than how they're interpreted socially based on outdated biological wiring in our brains.
And this outdated biological lust will stay for a long time before humanity finally evolves into a more sxxless cerebral logical beings, until then it's pointless to even vindicate about this. Maybe the society of first world countries does reinforce the taller the better theme but it's ingrained deeply and intrinsically onto human beings, take my third world country for example; here taller guys are seen as successful aristocrats despite nothing indicating of such.
It's just weighing the pros and cons of doing LL. Athleticism and performance in physical tasks being the most heavily weighed thing in most peoples's minds aside from the obvious other risks negligence and the procedure itself present when they're deciding on the surgery. Most of us have accepted it now, inevitably some of us will regret it forever.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15994722 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15994722) Short men prone to suicide as height decrease, a few cm increase in height led to a substantial drop in suicide rate.
https://www.redorbit.com/news/health/188666/short_height_linked_to_increased_suicide_risk/ (https://www.redorbit.com/news/health/188666/short_height_linked_to_increased_suicide_risk/)
All I can say is CLL probably saves hundreds of lives of men that might have killed themselves otherwise, it's just the way it is.
-
The argument could be made that since we don't live in the cave days where we would need to be taller and stronger to survive and protect (run faster, cover more ground), nevertheless height and long limbs are a vital health indicator, tallness is associated with better athleticism (there are studies on this), shorter guys may be stronger because of stumpy limbs capable of exerting more force but it's negligible, more often then not the taller guy might be stronger because of the large torso size, thicker bones.
And this outdated biological lust will stay for a long time before humanity finally evolves into a more sxxless cerebral logical beings, until then it's pointless to even vindicate about this. Maybe the society of first world countries does reinforce the taller the better theme but it's ingrained deeply and intrinsically onto human beings, take my third world country for example; here taller guys are seen as successful aristocrats despite nothing indicating of such.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15994722 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15994722) Short men prone to suicide as height decrease, a few cm increase in height led to a substantial drop in suicide rate.
https://www.redorbit.com/news/health/188666/short_height_linked_to_increased_suicide_risk/ (https://www.redorbit.com/news/health/188666/short_height_linked_to_increased_suicide_risk/)
All I can say is CLL probably saves hundreds of lives of men that might have killed themselves otherwise, it's just the way it is.
I agree with everything you wrote and i'm not turning a blind eye to the reality however the reality is clearly illogical and rigged.
And about the last part that is a fair assumption.
-
The whole alpha/beta talk is ridiculous to me. How would anyone ever TRULY prove it other than to focus on a mans performance in his life? Are we fighting in coliseums and killing for our food? I mean come on lol.
Who is "we"? Maybe you don't physically fight for survival, but plenty of people around the globe still do. This isn't limited to soldiers or mercenaries either. I've been in more than my fair share of fights (again because of my height - nobody wants to fk with tall guys, EVERYONE wants to fk with short ones) throughout my life where I stood a very good chance of being killed, especially in my earlier youth (high school). I lost a good deal of fights I could've won if I had the extra leverage, arm length, and weight conferred by taller stature. I had to run for my life plenty of times, ended up bruised and bloodied plenty of times, barely escaped being hospitalized plenty of times.
I'm not the only one, either. Plenty of other short guys I knew had similar experiences, some even ended up attempting suicide because of it, and one succeeded.
And if you focused on performance there would be countless shorter guys that are more "alpha" than taller ones. So it obviously can't be that.
"Countless" is a strange word to use here. It isn't really fair to compare the top percentile short men to the bottom percentile tall ones. By that same logic, there are "countless" taller guys that are more "alpha" than shorter ones, since statistically speaking the average tall man will be stronger, have a longer reach, have superior leverage, and have a huge mass advantage over a short one.
ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, a tall man is highly statistically likely to perform better at any strength, power, or combat sport or endeavor than a shorter one. This is what matters.
I can think of very few sports or physical endeavors of any kind where being taller (at least up to a point) isn't a straight upgrade over being shorter. Irrelevant ones like jockeying and bodybuilding (only a "sport" in the most technical of ways, since it's really more of a beauty contest than an actual competition), maybe.
It's just false interpretation and social stigma that we are battling. Not reality. Men a few inches taller are NOT more "masculine" in any objective way other than how they're interpreted socially based on outdated biological wiring in our brains.
Whether it's "outdated" or not is irrelevant (even though it isn't, as I pointed out already). A fundamental part of how people define masculinity is physical power, and larger men have more of it on average because they are more massive. Period, end of story. No matter how much anyone wants it to be true, "masculinity" isn't defined on arbitrary made-up """personality""" bullsh*t like "confidence". It's defined based on PHYSICAL traits, like having a large penis, being highly dimorphic, having masculine facial features, etc.
You can say being taller has nothing to do with "masculinity" and instead define your own version of "masculinity", but then you're just making sh*t up (like you claim other people are). There is no reality independent of your surroundings. No man is an island. If I put a dress, a wig, high heels and make-up on and walk outside, I can think I'm the most "masculine" man on earth, but as far as anyone who sees me is concerned, I'm a nancy-boy homosexual and the farthest thing from masculinity, and it's their beliefs about me that's going to ultimately affect my quality of life, because it'll affect the way I'm treated in society, whereas my belief won't affect a thing.
And...
It's APPEARING more masculine so you can BE more masculine in the eyes of others. The goalposts are adjusted, and the definitions are twisted just like the word "racism" these days. We are just stooping down to the dumb game.
That's all being taller is and does for you. And that's admittedly important since no matter what other logical steps you take to be more "manly" you will be judged by your height first and foremost. So it's a smart move to play the game and want to be taller in this day in age since it's judged so heavily whether logically or not.
You appear to realize this yourself.
-
Who is "we"? Maybe you don't physically fight for survival, but plenty of people around the globe still do. This isn't limited to soldiers or mercenaries either. I've been in more than my fair share of fights (again because of my height - nobody wants to fk with tall guys, EVERYONE wants to fk with short ones) throughout my life where I stood a very good chance of being killed, especially in my earlier youth (high school). I lost a good deal of fights I could've won if I had the extra leverage, arm length, and weight conferred by taller stature. I had to run for my life plenty of times, ended up bruised and bloodied plenty of times, barely escaped being hospitalized plenty of times.
I'm not the only one, either. Plenty of other short guys I knew had similar experiences, some even ended up attempting suicide because of it, and one succeeded.
"Countless" is a strange word to use here. It isn't really fair to compare the top percentile short men to the bottom percentile tall ones. By that same logic, there are "countless" taller guys that are more "alpha" than shorter ones, since statistically speaking the average tall man will be stronger, have a longer reach, have superior leverage, and have a huge mass advantage over a short one.
ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, a tall man is highly statistically likely to perform better at any strength, power, or combat sport or endeavor than a shorter one. This is what matters.
I can think of very few sports or physical endeavors of any kind where being taller (at least up to a point) isn't a straight upgrade over being shorter. Irrelevant ones like jockeying and bodybuilding (only a "sport" in the most technical of ways, since it's really more of a beauty contest than an actual competition), maybe.
Whether it's "outdated" or not is irrelevant (even though it isn't, as I pointed out already). A fundamental part of how people define masculinity is physical power, and larger men have more of it on average because they are more massive. Period, end of story. No matter how much anyone wants it to be true, "masculinity" isn't defined on arbitrary made-up """personality""" bullsh*t like "confidence". It's defined based on PHYSICAL traits, like having a large penis, being highly dimorphic, having masculine facial features, etc.
You can say being taller has nothing to do with "masculinity" and instead define your own version of "masculinity", but then you're just making sh*t up (like you claim other people are). There is no reality independent of your surroundings. No man is an island. If I put a dress, a wig, high heels and make-up on and walk outside, I can think I'm the most "masculine" man on earth, but as far as anyone who sees me is concerned, I'm a nancy-boy homosxxual and the farthest thing from masculinity, and it's their beliefs about me that's going to ultimately affect my quality of life, because it'll affect the way I'm treated in society, whereas my belief won't affect a thing.
And...
You appear to realize this yourself.
What were you doing that in high school you had people basically attempting to kill you? Surely this isn't solely due to your short stature? Yes, shorter men being picked on in high school is common practice...But people attacking and physically fighting them for that reason? It's much more rare.
I mean theres not much for me to say about the definitions point. You're right about the masculine definition but at the end of the day I strongly believe that a focus on performance is a better marker to indicate whether someone is "alpha" or not than their height. I understand it's great that I can think that but it's simply not true....But
It's just that if anything tragically goes wrong as far as the LL procedure, or even my trips to a different country or the recovery process it will warm my coffin knowing that all I did was try to improve myself and level the playing field in a rigged society I didn't choose to be born into.
I think someone believing at a shorter height that they're very masculine because they're a high performance person and in great shape etc. is not someone deluding themselves. It's someone logically seeing that everything that SHOULD matter is in order and they've lived life the best they can with what they were given. It's something to be proud of, all of their accomplishments and achievements shouldn't be dwarfed nullified by their shorter stature.
This isn't the reality for me ^ I will always feel bitterness and resentment even at 5'6.5-5'7" towards loving family members who have done nothing but good for me. I cannot help it because mind wandering, what-ifs, psychological rumination.
I have discussed with my parents only out of everyone in the world and they would even want to help pay for me but told me to accept whatever happens that if i'm cripple etc. It was my choice and they couldn't talk me out of it. I will definitely be devastated more for them than myself if anything were to ever happen like that...Especially since they contributed money and worked hard only to help fix my psychological issues that are killing me but ends in a tragedy.
Due to this i'm heavily weighing whether I should pay for the process in full by myself and leave my family out of it. However it will take much longer and I will be older and older.
When I go through my procedure i'm gonna make a very detailed log and meet up with as many people here that are willing as possible. Sometimes i'd like to bring encouragement and happiness to many of the shorter communities of men but the reality is that the efforts are futile because it will never fix the problem and only worsen it. I can never help these people unless I could make them taller.
-
I've been in more than my fair share of fights (again because of my height - nobody wants to fk with tall guys, EVERYONE wants to fk with short ones) throughout my life where I stood a very good chance of being killed, especially in my earlier youth (high school). I lost a good deal of fights I could've won if I had the extra leverage, arm length, and weight conferred by taller stature. I had to run for my life plenty of times, ended up bruised and bloodied plenty of times, barely escaped being hospitalized plenty of times.
Brings back memories, all the fights that I have ever been in my life (all in highschool) was because the "other guy" wanted to take me out cause I seemed "easy", high school where nothing is censored, every human emotion/expression isn't being impeded by "societal standards", basically a jungle that comprises of a glorifying social hierarchy.
I was a social outcast and a nerd which didn't help a bit except when the other guys forced me to show my homework, help them cheat,etc. Soon being frustrated I made a ploy, I purposely failed so that accordingly my parents will admit me to board examinations instead of schools/colleges which thankfully succeeded after a little bit of convincing.
@extremis can you elaborate about the times you were going to get "killed" in your youth, sounds like a warzone dude I really want to know.
You're right about the masculine definition but at the end of the day I strongly believe that a focus on performance is a better marker to indicate whether someone is "alpha" or not than their height.
What do you mean by performance? Sounds like your talking about intellect rather than masculinity.
I have discussed with my parents only out of everyone in the world and they would even want to help pay for me but told me to accept whatever happens that if i'm cripple etc. It was my choice and they couldn't talk me out of it. I will definitely be devastated more for them than myself if anything were to ever happen like that...Especially since they contributed money and worked hard only to help fix my psychological issues that are killing me but ends in a tragedy.
Don't think so negatively, If you want to avoid any major complications/risks then you have to go to an expensive renowned doctor. Your issues should be dealing with the reactions of your relatives about your sudden growth spurt, It will be so embarrassing if they find out.
-
@ZUC
Would they really not believe if I told them I went through a bit of a growth spurt at 21-22? I agree to not think negatively but it's obviously easier said than done. I always try to think positively though.
-
@ZUC
Would they really not believe if I told them I went through a bit of a growth spurt at 21-22? I agree to not think negatively but it's obviously easier said than done. I always try to think positively though.
Depends on your presence between relatives/families, I mean you are going to be away for some time during surgery/recovery. Fooling them isn't going to be a problem if you are between 20-23 I think, and you should read the diaries of the patients that got their surgery done by the doctor you will be getting CLL from, might assure you or scare you who knows.
-
I'm not sure about Teppei Koike. But I googled him, my first impression of him is that this guy looks effeminate.
But being from SEA, I can think of a short guy off the top of my head that might be considered attractive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazril_Irham
Listed at 167cm on Google, but might actually be even shorter.
He's the one in the middle.
(https://www.thejakartapost.com/files/images2/p21-bnoah.img_assist_custom-498x368.jpg)
He's dated at least 2 taller women who are both celebrities themselves and half white.
(https://i.ibb.co/QbhjxGN/118215031-338185617588887-1829554110704619776-n.jpg)
One of whom appeared in one of his sex tapes which leads to him being imprisoned.
-
As I wrote in the thread about Neymar, height is not that important if you have a 9-10/10 face.
(https://www.nme.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/GettyImages-1153766743.jpg)
-
As I wrote in the thread about Neymar, height is not that important if you have a 9-10/10 face.
Nah if you're below 5'5 or so it really is.
-
The min height would be 178cm in my standards. Max would be 188 cm. 188 cm above is giant which sucks aesthetically.
-
Just wanted to leave my detailed comments before people start to list celebs who are under 178 and asking me "so you are telling us that they are not attractive?!?!"
Nope, you can be attractive at any height. I'm hot with my 173cm height, face wise. My physique isn't good. But most of the girls care about the face anyway.
Secondly, I said 178cm because under that, you'll be attractive but "kinda short". You might be told that if you were 1 2 inches taller, you'd be perfect etc.
At 178cm, that ends. At 178cm, you are not short at all. Literally at all. Even with 6'2 guys you won't look short. Because 178cm is the minimum height where the proportions start to seem taller. I have a lot of 178cm friends and they look 6ft from distance.
Summary, 178cm = literally not short, no comments like "If you were an inch taller, you could be modelling!"
-
@ O_99
OK, I guess you’re right. At some point, you may no longer be able to compensate. Not sure what the cut-off point is, though, probably 170 cm.
-
Just wanted to leave my detailed comments before people start to list celebs who are under 178 and asking me "so you are telling us that they are not attractive?!?!"
Nope, you can be attractive at any height. I'm hot with my 173cm height, face wise. My physique isn't good. But most of the girls care about the face anyway.
Secondly, I said 178cm because under that, you'll be attractive but "kinda short". You might be told that if you were 1 2 inches taller, you'd be perfect etc.
At 178cm, that ends. At 178cm, you are not short at all. Literally at all. Even with 6'2 guys you won't look short. Because 178cm is the minimum height where the proportions start to seem taller. I have a lot of 178cm friends and they look 6ft from distance.
Summary, 178cm = literally not short, no comments like "If you were an inch taller, you could be modelling!"
Im totally agree with you,thats how it works...183-188 sweet golden zone ,above 188 cm is where height doesnt matter and becoming a drawback
-
@ O_99
OK, I guess you’re right. At some point, you may no longer be able to compensate. Not sure what the cut-off point is, though, probably 170 cm.
I just saw a photo of Philippe Coutinho (who at least looks like he’s < 170 cm) and his wife and realized that what I wrote earlier is BS. The cut-off point might be lower for women who are short themselves.
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2018/12/02/00/6897202-6450951-image-a-148_1543711878713.jpg)
-
I just saw a photo of Philippe Coutinho (who at least looks like he’s < 170 cm) and his wife and realized that what I wrote earlier is BS. The cut-off point might be lower for women who are short themselves.
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2018/12/02/00/6897202-6450951-image-a-148_1543711878713.jpg)
Coutinho is 171.5cm and looks about that height. Not so short.
https://www.celebheights.com/s/Philippe-Coutinho-50650.html
-
If women went to such extremes to impress men....or fit in.
I think men are too obsessed with what women want and think and are too desperate for love and acceptance Both unmanly traits.I feel like this forum is turning into a black pill community.
-
Coutinho looks like 5'11 on that pic.
-
Coutinho looks like 5'11 on that pic.
“The former Liverpool midfielder, who stands at 5'6", has also had to wear a child-sized jersey in order for it to fit to his liking.“ (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-7805345/Philippe-Coutinho-wear-childs-Bayern-Munich-replica-home-shirt.html)
But regardless of whether he’s 5’6” or 5’8”, the photo in my previous post clearly shows that a short wife can make you look much taller than you actually are.
-
If women went to such extremes to impress men....or fit in.
I think men are too obsessed with what women want and think and are too desperate for love and acceptance Both unmanly traits.I feel like this forum is turning into a black pill community.
I think you should shut the fk up.
-
I think you should shut the fk up.
Dude you got problems way bigger than your height
-
Dude you got problems way bigger than your height
Not possible. No other problem is possibly bigger than my height. Hahaha
-
To be a hot guy for the vast majority of women, I think something about 5.9-10 is the minimum.
Maybe someone like Zac Effron at 5.8 is very hot for most of women but he has a perfect face and also from big screen women can't understand his real height.
I am sure that many of them wouldn't like him that much if they found out that they are taller than him with heels.
And many women are taller with heels compared to a 5.8 man.
So I think that 1.77 is a height that many women can think you as hot without caring for your exact height, although you are not very tall.
-
As long as you are taller than the women by atleast 3 inch or the same height for some women, have good body bone structure and build, fine jawline with good hair, you will be considered as handsome.
But if you are shorter than the women, no matter how good looking you are it will be near impossible to be considered as hot in their eye.
-
Why do u think only a good height can make a hot guy?
There r a lot of tall guys but most of them ain't hot.
Hot guys should be both tall and handsome in addition to charming personalities and excellent academic or occupation performances
-
Why do u think only a good height can make a hot guy?
There r a lot of tall guys but most of them ain't hot.
Hot guys should be both tall and handsome in addition to charming personalities and excellent academic or occupation performances
甄子丹，谢霆锋，梁朝伟，郭富城都不高。但是很火。
-
甄子丹，谢霆锋，梁朝伟，郭富城都不高。但是很火。
Actually the four celebrities you mentioned are at normal heights during those years in China.Chineses ain't as tall as you think those years except that 谢霆锋 is short.
-
Actually the four celebrities you mentioned are at normal heights during those years in China.Chineses ain't as tall as you think those years except that 谢霆锋 is short.
谢霆锋 is 170cm, no?
Actually they are still short compared to many other celebrities of that era 周润发, 任達華, 黎明. I'd say they are qualified as short.
-
If women went to such extremes to impress men....or fit in.
I think men are too obsessed with what women want and think and are too desperate for love and acceptance Both unmanly traits.I feel like this forum is turning into a black pill community.
Actually Korean women are the same with what you described Cuz of imbalanced ratio of males and females.They are always seeking for beauty and doing cosmetic surgeries and even LL(You can know it from interviews with Korean band girls).
I think I would rather live in a condition of more men and less women than less men and more women because throughout human history,women were always looked upon in any aspect,such occupation,intelligence quotient,strength and so on.Thus it's very hard for them to make livings.If in a country there were more women and less men,how could women live lives?But men were stronger than women in most of aspects.
So stop comlaint about why women are always strict with men.You can put yourselves on Korean women's shoes.Stopless cosmetic surgeries...difficulty making a living...enduring injustices and prejustices from men's families...That'll be far and far worse!
-
Absolutely having a shorter wife can help a "short" man look taller. Unfortunately when the short man stands next to an average height man the illusion of height goes away...
-
178 looks tall and real good with fit body and good clothes even suit will be good
176 is not considerd short lets say good height
182 is tall with fit body not very broad shoulders since we wanna to appear taller
the least hot one will be 178 cm with good clothes
184 is the height of legend were with simple phormone good clothes balanced manhood personality you can get miakhalifa within a blink
-
Actually Korean women are the same with what you described Cuz of imbalanced ratio of males and females.They are always seeking for beauty and doing cosmetic surgeries and even LL(You can know it from interviews with Korean band girls).
I think I would rather live in a condition of more men and less women than less men and more women because throughout human history,women were always looked upon in any aspect,such occupation,intelligence quotient,strength and so on.Thus it's very hard for them to make livings.If in a country there were more women and less men,how could women live lives?But men were stronger than women in most of aspects.
So stop comlaint about why women are always strict with men.You can put yourselves on Korean women's shoes.Stopless cosmetic surgeries...difficulty making a living...enduring injustices and prejustices from men's families...That'll be far and far worse!
The sex ratio in South Korea is normal, comparable to most Western nations.
-
Honestly, 5'8
Nobody has ever really brought up Mark Wahlberg's height
-
Honestly, 5'8
Nobody has ever really brought up Mark Wahlberg's height
Yeah, but it's so obvious in all the movies he plays with John Cena.
-
Yeah, but it's so obvious in all the movies he plays with John Cena.
He's still a hot guy though
Especially as he's taken care of his body his whole life.
Ideally a genuine 5'10 (178 cm during the day) though.
I am a good looking guy in only decent shape right now and 5'8
When I wear my 2 inch shoes I am treated like a hot guy.
I will see how I am when I have a good/very good physique
-
Would like to correct one think about this....i think 175 would be more likely coz....since i have had height dysphoria i have researched many things abt height and related aspects and also compared it with my own daily life....and it seems 5'9 is or 175cm is the min. to be a well proportionate muscular hot guy....i will give u some good examples of it and u can judge my opinion based on that..frank grillo, john boyega, connor mecgregor, dan bilzerian, and many more....and also the famous mr olympia frank zane....check out his photo standing alongside 6'2 Arnold Schwarzenegger i dn't see a stark diff. btwn em even height wise frank zane holds up pretty well and btw all this guys that i mentioned have very good facial structures and pretty much manly frames....and personally if i was a girl i wld definitely choose any one of this gentleman's over a 6 ft lanky or fatty ugly piece of ....but above 6'1 height really does start to dominate....all this opinions are not based on my current 171 height i didn't compare them with my height but more with the human species(world wide) as a whole like male height starting from 160 to 195....so there u go....something based on height observation.
-
I agree u are absolutely correct to the 100% but the discussion here is not abt tall or short its abt hotness....and yeah 5'10 is definately a good height even if u stand next to a 6'2 or 3 guy....example Sylvester Stallone standing next to arnold(even though sly wears shoe lifts😅 but who's counting).
-
Yeah u being 6 ft and the women being 6'1 r8....think thoroughly before u write anything bro.
-
Not to mention there is a good chance that their childrean will be also short and have to be lurking in this forum like us.
-
https://imgur.com/gallery/r2M5oly......zane with arnie..pretty close even with 13 cm height difference(175-188)
-
https://imgur.com/gallery/r2M5oly......zane with arnie..pretty close even with 13 cm height difference(175-188)
Frank Zane had a much better physique that Arnold couldn't even think about.
About 5.8-9 is my answer to the question.
-
if your face is good looking or go to the gym often it can be as low as 5'6-5'9. theres guys on Tiktok who attract alot of girls and college age women who are that height
-
if your face is good looking or go to the gym often it can be as low as 5'6-5'9. theres guys on Tiktok who attract alot of girls and college age women who are that height
Agree.
5/10+ face plus 6ft tall= hot guy
7/10 face plus 5'8= hot guy to enough girls
Assuming both are lean and in shape.
-
Tbh for this matter i do have a very good example in my real life....my best friend is short like me..he is my height..171cm but he is the one who has the most girls in our class....he impresses girls within minutes of introduction..including tall girls i believe the tallest he has been with is 5'10 and yeah he did bang her....and i also have a friend who is 6'1 has like not so good looking....ok type body but not athletic in any way and he has 1 gf who is way shorter then her probably like 5 ft....well my best friend is a charmer in many ways and he has got a naturally well built body and is in the army....he has a face like a model and a manly beard and broad shoulders and a mesomorphic body type tht's d reason he gets so many girls and technically he looks like shorter version of brown joe mangeniello....well my 2 cents will be..looks help u alot to attract ppl including girls but personality is wht impresses them and my best friend has got both of em....if my friend was like 6 ft tall he definitely had the potential to be an actor or model.