Limb Lengthening Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"  (Read 6268 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

extremis

  • Newbie
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 88
Re: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"
« Reply #31 on: October 19, 2017, 03:03:52 PM »

It's absolutely insane how much delusion and naivete there is on this board. You'd think people who are willing to get their legs broken to get taller would be a little more realistic

Bullcrap. First, stop projecting like always, seems you're still the same. Second, what's the point of bringing up Mcgregor's height? You seem to be forgetting he lost to Mayweather during their fight. Mayweather is probably 5'6-5'7 at most in all honesty, and he has gotten massive respect for going blow for blow with all sorts of fighters. Now I know what you will say "this is boxing and not MMA." But the point stands in this thread that proper training is a big factor and not just size. If a novice 5'10+ MMA fighter faced off against a veteran 5'6-5'9 fighter I really doubt the novice would fair well (search up the Josh Neer vs Patrick Martin fight for a prime example). Yes size matters, but I doubt McGregor or Mayweather would even want to fight heavyweights anyways; they already have their reputations solidified.

First, Mayweather is 5'8", not 5'6" or 5'7". Second, if you'd watched any of his fights you'd realize that he most often wins by dancing around his opponents and making them tire out before he attacks them. That's hardly going "blow for blow" with them. McGregor and Mayweather wouldn't want to fight heavyweights because they know they'd lose. Their bottom line is winning bouts, which is what builds their reputation and makes them money. They are athletes first and fighters (distant) second

Third, obviously the 5'10" novice MMA fighter wouldn't fare (not "fair") well against a veteran 5'9" fighter. There's only an inch of difference between them. With that kind of difference, wingspan is much more important, and they're close enough to each other in height that their arm lengths will either be identical or slightly in either fighter's favor, but nothing significant.

But 5'6" veteran winning against the 5'10" novice? Maybe in a ring with a billion different rules and a ref, but in the street? I don't think so


What happened to "different people have different tastes"? Some women might drool over the tall heavyweight boxer hunk, others might find that body type totally unappealing or even be put off by such dudes. Some women might find the flyweight fighter cute. This fascination that dudes have with attracting the highest theoretical number of females is beyond me. Do you want to have sxx with 1000 women? You only need one girl who thinks you are the hottest guy in the world. To think that the only reason a man would engage in martial arts is getting pussy is so pathetic...pussy worshipping at the worst.

And MrDumbsome of course spouting his ridiculous nonsense as usual...he must be one of the most retarded posters in this forum, or at least be in the top 5.

I've seen your posts on this board, and honestly you're in no position to be calling anyone "retarded", especially when you're spouting asinine platitudes like "different people have different tastes" as if it's a fact instead of just a platitude that conventionally unattractive people use to console themselves. I suppose "personality" and "confidence" will make you as attractive as a tall male model too? Lmao

You also have no right to tell people what they "need". If you don't understand the "fascination" people have with being essentially worshipped based on their looks, fine. That's your problem. If you are satisfied with only being desired by a single woman and basically considered disgusting by all the rest, fine. That's you. Don't project your desires and preferences onto other people


Said a user on the other board. I actually agree to him to some extent. In the sense that if your only aspiration is to be a flyweight MMA champion, then it'd be pointless.

I personally aspire to be a giant slayer and if compete, it'd be in openweight divison. Mike Tyson and Ikuhisa Minowa have been my inspirations eventhough they're still 4-5" taller than me.

Meanwhile, martial artists such as Bruce Lee and Tony Jaa were trained to handle anyone of any height any weight any time any where and are seen as God without ever competing. It's something to aim for.

And you... it seems every other one of your posts you talk about wanting to be a "giant slayer". You keep using that term, and you keep bringing up people like Ikuhisa Minowa and this magical single fight where he "beat" a 7 foot tall guy... well, I'm looking at his recent bout history right now and it looks like the overwhelming majority of the time he fights someone significantly taller than him (6'+), he loses (and by KO or TKO at that): Justin Morton, Zilong Zhao, Oil Thompson, Shinichi Suzukawa, Jung Kyo Park, Hye Seong Sok... the list goes on, and again they're all 6' or above

In the rare cases he wins against 6 footers, it's by submission, in other words, NOT by KO or even TKO. You talk about "wanting to beat up other men", so I seriously doubt rolling around on the ground groping another man will make you look or feel like a "badass" especially given that in real life, as soon as you take the guy down to the ground his buddies will be on you stomping you out before you can say "kung fu". I've seen ONE (1) fight in Minowa's bout record where he beat a significantly taller opponent by actually HITTING him: his most recent fight against Dong Sik Yoon, who's 183 cm... and 45 (!!!) years old, which is practically a geriatric in the MMA world. So forget about yourself, it doesn't even seem like your hero is a "giant slayer"

This is all without mentioning that this guy Minowa is a professional who has probably been training since he was a little kid. Do you have years of background in any martial art or sport such as boxing? Have you ever even been in a real fight?
Logged

IwannaBeTaller

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 629
Re: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"
« Reply #32 on: October 19, 2017, 03:49:46 PM »

Look at this dude, coming into here as another new user and responding in a thread on the off-topic section of all places and calling posters he never conversed with before delusional. Why the hell are you here, chump? Let's handle your criticism step by step.

Quote
I've seen your posts on this board, and honestly you're in no position to be calling anyone "retarded", especially when you're spouting asinine platitudes like "different people have different tastes" as if it's a fact instead of just a platitude that conventionally unattractive people use to console themselves. I suppose "personality" and "confidence" will make you as attractive as a tall male model too? Lmao

The poster I was responding to you talked about women overwhelmingly "drooling" over heavyweight boxers like Anthony Joshua. Do you think that this is an honest, realistic representation of the entire female population? How many Instagram followers does Anthony Joshua have over someone like Justin Bieber? How many girls drool over Wladimir Klitschko vs. how many drool over an actor like Michael Fassbender? Clearly women's tastes are more diverse than just "raw, primal masculinity". Like it or not, that's how I see the world. Notice I didn't say women like ugly dudes, I said their attraction is more diverse than only the biggest, strongest heavyweight fighter.

And yes, personality and confidence play a massive role in attracting women. I don't see how one can deny that. I did not say looks don't matter. Do you believe acting confident, charismatic and c-o-cky will do no good? Or are you possibly a person that visits places like Sluthate.com and believes that without a positive canthal tilt, a perfect maxilla and "hunter eyes", you are doomed to die alone? LOL.

Quote
You also have no right to tell people what they "need". If you don't understand the "fascination" people have with being essentially worshipped based on their looks, fine. That's your problem. If you are satisfied with only being desired by a single woman and basically considered disgusting by all the rest, fine. That's you. Don't project your desires and preferences onto other people

No, it's true that I have no right to judge what other people need. It's just that most people eventually pair off with one partner and don't go around fking randos all their lives. Monogamy seems to be a form of partnership a big number of people all around the world crave. Do you deny that? If someone wants to pick up women and have casual sxx, they're allowed to do that. But again, the user I responded spoke of "attracting women in general" and that martial arts or working out is pointless if you're short. That's bull-sh-it.

"Being worshipped based on your looks" seems a bit boring and childish to me. Fine if you want that, but I believe most people grow out of that. What happens when you hit 40? And I don't believe that being short means you are considered "disgusting to all women". Again, that's just me. Of course you don't know it either.
Logged

Body Builder

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1051
Re: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"
« Reply #33 on: October 19, 2017, 09:46:17 PM »

Although Mayweather is no way 5.8 (he is 5.7 at max), extremis do some very valid points.

Iwannabetaller, LL like any other cosmetic procedure, has to do with looks. If you don't believe on looks or you don't think it matters after 40 or that character is more important blah blah blah then go to a forum to speak about philosophy.
Anyone who plans to do LL should really believe that height is the first or at least second most important trait in a man's appearance otherwise he is completely idiot to think about LL.
I truly believe it that's why I'll break my legs for the second time to do another one LL. If you don't believe it why you are here? I still can't understand and you haven't answered me even the other time I asked you.
Logged

Jack1066

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 378
Re: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"
« Reply #34 on: October 20, 2017, 09:55:55 AM »

.
Logged

IwannaBeTaller

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 629
Re: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"
« Reply #35 on: October 20, 2017, 01:07:16 PM »

Yes, Jack? Did you want to say something?  :D
Logged

Jack1066

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 378
Re: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"
« Reply #36 on: October 22, 2017, 10:09:03 PM »

Reading this thread I felt I should add my opinion, that as a bisxxual guy I can see what makes height classically attractive (although I prefer men of my own height) but also that it's overstated on this forum and for those who do have a height preference, it's not usually perhaps about looking for the biggest or tallest men, but about looking for men who fit into a certain range where they have an authoritative and dominant look about them but not in a clownishly exaggerated or overly explicit manner (let's say that a man's dating pool is probably biggest in the USA/UK in perhaps the 5'10"-6'3" range). Although I'm more attracted to men of close to my own height and not very muscular, I believe that for most women attraction does not work in a very different way, and most women would find hypermasculine and super ripped men a bit gross, preferring a guy of a closer to average build. I also don't think women are that nuts about muscles in general, although I guess as a 150 lbs slimish guy I don't attract those women anyway.

A lot of men seem to have an idea that women like hypermasculine men, but this is like saying that most men like big boobs and therefore would take a FF over a DD. It's not like that at all. Once you get past a certain point a lot of dimorphism is going to be off putting to anyone but the fetishists. This is true for facial features too- I think women tend to like softer features than men think they do, on average.

I think a lot of men here have the same mentality as women who genuinely think that anorexia looks good tbh.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2017, 11:19:16 PM by Jack1066 »
Logged

Jack1066

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 378
Re: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"
« Reply #37 on: October 23, 2017, 01:33:02 PM »

I was going to add: IDK about martial arts really. But I heard from a friend who trained in it that one of his instructors was a woman, 5'2" and 120 lbs, and she could beat men a foot taller and a 100 lb heavier. So I know reach and so on is important and so is weight, and as I said I know nothing about martial arts, but it seems to me that technique is very important and a lot of this stuff is pretty defeatist.

But anyway doing LL to train in sports would be a really dumb choice.
Logged

Android

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 758
Re: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"
« Reply #38 on: October 23, 2017, 05:26:20 PM »

I was going to add: IDK about martial arts really. But I heard from a friend who trained in it that one of his instructors was a woman, 5'2" and 120 lbs, and she could beat men a foot taller and a 100 lb heavier. So I know reach and so on is important and so is weight, and as I said I know nothing about martial arts, but it seems to me that technique is very important and a lot of this stuff is pretty defeatist.

I agree, and also really depends on the martial art too. For instance aikido utilizes the other person's momentum, so your height or strength doesn't matter as much. We also can't assume that every encounter will be against giants with advanced technique.

Martial arts is great for exercise, both body and mind, so I don't understand why it's being discouraged. I want to learn piano and I don't plan on becoming a professional pianist, so why should I care if my fingers aren't the perfect length?
Logged
5'4" and 1/4" (163.2 cm) | United States | early 30s | Pre-CLL

Jack1066

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 378
Re: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"
« Reply #39 on: October 23, 2017, 05:56:30 PM »

I think it might have been aikido. It was something Japanese that seemed to involve a lot of grappling. Of course having a lower centre of gravity can help in a fight anyway.
Logged

extremis

  • Newbie
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 88
Re: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"
« Reply #40 on: October 26, 2017, 04:05:31 AM »

Look at this dude, coming into here as another new user and responding in a thread on the off-topic section of all places and calling posters he never conversed with before delusional. Why the hell are you here, chump? Let's handle your criticism step by step.

Appealing to seniority is pathetic and childish. The fact that you've been here longer than me doesn't mean you're infallible or above reproach.

Quote
The poster I was responding to you talked about women overwhelmingly "drooling" over heavyweight boxers like Anthony Joshua. Do you think that this is an honest, realistic representation of the entire female population?

Certainly not the entire female population, but that doesn't mean a very sizable portion of the female population wouldn't find him heavyweight boxers more attractive than smaller, lightweight boxers.

Quote
How many Instagram followers does Anthony Joshua have over someone like Justin Bieber? How many girls drool over Wladimir Klitschko vs. how many drool over an actor like Michael Fassbender? Clearly women's tastes are more diverse than just "raw, primal masculinity". Like it or not, that's how I see the world. Notice I didn't say women like ugly dudes, I said their attraction is more diverse than only the biggest, strongest heavyweight fighter.

If by "diverse" you mean some women like top percentile men in raw, primal masculinity while others like top percentile men in looks and still others want top percentile men in height, etc

If that's the case, that hardly looks like "diversity" to me. If some people demand a Ferrari, others demand a Porsche, others an Aston Martin, and still others a Rolls-Royce, then that might present the illusion of a "diversity" in tastes, but in reality, every one of those people has the same "tastes": they all want luxury cars

Quote
And yes, personality and confidence play a massive role in attracting women. I don't see how one can deny that.

Really?

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-017-0092-x

Quote
Prior research investigating the mate preferences of women and their parents reveals two important findings with regard to physical attractiveness. First, daughters more strongly value mate characteristics connoting genetic quality (such as physical attractiveness) than their parents. Second, both daughters and their parents report valuing characteristics other than physical attractiveness most strongly (e.g., ambition/industriousness, friendliness/kindness). However, the prior research relies solely on self-report to assess daughters’ and parents’ preferences. We tested four hypotheses investigating whether a minimum level of physical attractiveness was a necessity to both women and their mothers and whether physical attractiveness was a more important determinant of dating desirability than trait profiles. These hypotheses were supported. Women and their mothers were strongly influenced by the physical attractiveness of the target men and preferred the attractive and moderately attractive targets. Men with the most desirable personality profiles were rated more favorably than their counterparts only when they were at least moderately attractive. Unattractive men were never rated as more desirable partners for daughters, even when they possessed the most desirable trait profiles. We conclude that a minimum level of physical attractiveness is a necessity for both women and their mothers and that when women and their parents state that other traits are more important than physical attractiveness, they assume potential mates meet a minimally acceptable standard of physical attractiveness.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/per.2087/abstract

Quote
We evaluated five competing hypotheses about what predicts romantic interest. Through a half-block quasi-experimental design, a large sample of young adults (i.e. responders; n = 335) viewed videos of opposite-sxx persons (i.e. targets) talking about themselves, and responders rated the targets' traits and their romantic interest in the target. We tested whether similarity, dissimilarity or overall trait levels on mate value, physical attractiveness, life history strategy and the Big Five personality factors predicted romantic interest at zero acquaintance and whether sxx acted as a moderator. We tested the responders' individual perception of the targets' traits, in addition to the targets' own self-reported trait levels and a consensus rating of the targets made by the responders. We used polynomial regression with response surface analysis within multilevel modelling to test support for each of the hypotheses. Results suggest a large sxx difference in trait perception; when women rated men, they agreed in their perception more often than when men rated women. However, as a predictor of romantic interest, there were no sxx differences. Only the responders' perception of the targets' physical attractiveness predicted romantic interest; specifically, responders' who rated the targets' physical attractiveness as higher than themselves reported more romantic interest.

So, according to research and science, the "massive role" personality and confidence play in attracting women is... no role at all.

Quote
I did not say looks don't matter.

Saying that abstract metaphysical nonsense like "personality" and "confidence" matter "as much" as looks, almost as much, or even at all is equally as ludicrous as saying looks don't matter.

Quote
Do you believe acting confident, charismatic and c-o-cky will do no good?

Refer to studies above.

Quote
Or are you possibly a person that visits places like Sluthate.com and believes that without a positive canthal tilt, a perfect maxilla and "hunter eyes", you are doomed to die alone? LOL.

This is an ad hominem attack and will therefore be ignored

Quote
No, it's true that I have no right to judge what other people need.

Concession accepted

Quote
It's just that most people eventually pair off with one partner and don't go around fking randos all their lives.

[Citation needed]

Quote
Monogamy seems to be a form of partnership a big number of people all around the world crave. Do you deny that?

Marriage rates have been declining, and divorce rates climbing, since the beginning of the industrial era

http://www.bentley.edu/impact/articles/nowuknow-why-millennials-refuse-get-married

25% of millennials are likely to never marry, and that number is going up rapidly.

Marriage was a form of social contract whereby men who weren't particularly attractive secured a mate by offering resources (money, shelter, etc) in exchange for exclusive (theoretically, assuming your wife doesn't cheat) reproductive rights. Today, it's no longer necessary for women to marry to secure money and resources; even very young women can get their own, often VERY easily. In 2017, making money as a woman is as easy as putting on some makeup and a shirt showing some cleavage, setting up a Twitch.tv account, and playing video games on camera. If she's really good looking, become an "instagram model" or "patreon model" and get paid to post selfies.

I don't deny that "most people get married", even today. The fact that 25% of millennials will never marry implies than the remaining 75% will. That's 3 in 4, easily a majority.

However, the fact that "most people get married" does NOT automatically mean that "monogamy is something people all over the world crave".


Quote
If someone wants to pick up women and have casual sxx, they're allowed to do that. But again, the user I responded spoke of "attracting women in general" and that martial arts or working out is pointless if you're short. That's bull-sh-it.

You say it's B.S. based on your own personal belief that most men "work out" (I see we've "zoomed out" from just martial arts at this point) for some purpose OTHER than attracting women. That's dubious at best, unless you want to claim that the overwhelming growth in gym attendance in the 21st century, as well as the development of "lifting culture" among young men in the West (especially in the U.S.), is due to the fact that every young man suddenly wants to become an IFBB pro bodybuilder?

That's just asinine. Yes, some men do go to the gym for "health" reasons. However, these men generally tend to be older, and do not shoot for "bodybuilder" physiques with low body fat levels intended to display "six pack" abs, vascular arms/chest/legs and so on. Most YOUNG men who go to the gym do so because they believe that being "ripped" will make them more attractive to women. Particularly, it is this "folk wisdom" that "women love guys who are ripped/have abs/etc" that drives young men who are conventionally unattractive due to having unattractive faces, short height, being a racial minority, and so on, to "work out", erroneously believing it will "compensate" for their physical shortcomings.

That is, if you are a short man and you work out expecting your "ripped" body to "make up" for your short height, you are absolutely wasting your time. Ditto for ugly men who want to make up for their unattractive faces.

Again: it is not pointless to work out for health purposes, but most young men who work out aren't interested in that. They want to attract women, or get stronger for various reasons (in OP's case, to "beat up" other men). In both cases, it is more likely than not a waste of time.

Quote
"Being worshipped based on your looks" seems a bit boring and childish to me. Fine if you want that, but I believe most people grow out of that. What happens when you hit 40?

You're not in a position to be calling anyone childish. I'm assuming you're past your 20s and therefore my senior, but I'd never know it if you didn't constantly talk about "growing out of" things and such. You're incredibly petty and immature, and reason like a naive newly pubescent kid, based on emotion instead of logic


Quote
And I don't believe that being short means you are considered "disgusting to all women". Again, that's just me. Of course you don't know it either.

Sure I don't know it, the same way I don't "know" whether jumping off a bridge will kill me or not. However, I can use statistical evidence and other scientific methods to discern the most likely conclusion based on available data and deductive reasoning.

Based on the data we have in this case (anecdotes, studies, so forth), we can say being a short man is at the very least a SERIOUS drawback when it comes to a woman's perception of a man's sxxual attractiveness, and a complete deal breaker at worst.

Are there women who do NOT find short men extremely unattractive? Sure. There are women who have fetishes for short men, just like there are women who have fetishes for men with small penises, men with strong body odors, etc. These are called statistical OUTLIERS, because their numbers are small enough to be considered negligible relative to the norm. How do we know they're outliers? Because of the overwhelmingly negative anecdotes that short men have regarding their dating/sxxual lives, the overwhelmingly negative portrayal of short men in modern media and mainstream society (insecurity, "Napoleon complex", "angry little guy", etc), and the existence of boards such as these, wherein an overwhelmingly MALE user base congregates to discuss their plans to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a barbaric, permanently crippling surgery involving breaking their legs and slowly pulling them apart, all the while being rendered immobile and suffering serious pain for months on end, with the ultimate goal of "not being short" anymore.

So no, I don't "know" that the overwhelming majority of women find short men disgusting, but I believe it, and that belief appears to have a more solid foundation than your belief that they don't find them disgusting, which seems to have no basis other than your wishful thinking.
Logged

Jack1066

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 378
Re: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"
« Reply #41 on: October 26, 2017, 10:43:12 AM »

You are literally quoting articles which say that so long as a guy is of average attractiveness personality matters most of all (the males of average attractiveness were rated above the attractive ones when their personality profiles were more desirable), and then saying personality and confidence play "no role at all". Maybe it is hard if you are very short or ugly, but this extremely black-and-white incel mentality that only looks ever matter and that only "top percentile males" are attractive to women is self-destructive and untrue. It makes a lot of men bitter and unable to focus on improving themselves in ways that matter, like becoming interesting and self-confident.

I also say black-and-white, because I know I can be an 8 to one woman and a 4 to another. I've been told I am unattractive in no uncertain terms by some women (often because of my height) only to be told by other women that I'm very attractive. And I don't see a model when I look in the mirror.

I'm 5'8" and pretty average looking and while I don't turn heads I've never had any real problems with women that weren't self-caused. I admit though that my height at least is already within what most women would generally see as an acceptable range (seeing as we are speaking anecdotally). But this is definitely not a "top percentile range" and I would be very surprised if I was anywhere near top percentile in anything at all.

You're also not realising that for every below-average height man that does LL there are a bunch of short men happy with their height who'd never consider LL, too?

I saw a survey in which 55% of men below 5'8 said they were happy with their height. So sure, almost half say they're not, and that's quite a lot! But more than half is still the majority. It's not like all short men find themselves written off from life because they don't have a few inches on their heads.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2017, 12:59:31 PM by Jack1066 »
Logged

IwannaBeTaller

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 629
Re: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"
« Reply #42 on: October 26, 2017, 01:53:30 PM »

Appealing to seniority is pathetic and childish. The fact that you've been here longer than me doesn't mean you're infallible or above reproach.

This is first and foremost a forum about limb lengthening surgery. A new poster bursting into the off-topic section and as his very first action responding to a discussion that happened between other posters and scolding them for how wrong they are is at best "weird" and at worst pretty bad manners. I know this is the internet where all good morals are thrown overboard, but that doesn't stop me from pointing it out.

Quote
Certainly not the entire female population, but that doesn't mean a very sizable portion of the female population wouldn't find him heavyweight boxers more attractive than smaller, lightweight boxers.

And there's another, probably also sizeable part of the female population which doesn't find heavyweight boxers attractive at all.

Quote
If by "diverse" you mean some women like top percentile men in raw, primal masculinity while others like top percentile men in looks and still others want top percentile men in height, etc

I don't think Bieber is an example of an extremely attractive guy. That's just me, and of course professional photography and professional styling helps him, but there's other guys who look better than him and didn't get so popular. It's probably "talent" and the right marketing that got him where he is, and yes, of course he isn't really an ugly person. Other men are not tall or "top percentile" looking either and found their niche, like Johnny Depp. And I also believe that saying "top percentile for looks" is BS. Like, human attractiveness cannot be quantified like height or strength. It's a very diffuse, fluid attribute.

Quote
So, according to research and science, the "massive role" personality and confidence play in attracting women is... no role at all.

^ Read what Jack said. And yeah, the importance of personality is really high from my personal experience and observation. Do you really believe all the self-help books that exist are just BS? Do you really believe attractiveness is all that matters?

Quote
Marriage rates have been declining, and divorce rates climbing, since the beginning of the industrial era

But 75% of young people are still expected to marry? And out of the 25% who don't, how many are expected to live in monogamous relationships? So yeah, I do believe (based on science and again, personal observation) that most people in the West crave a special partnership with one person. For those men who rather want to have casual sxx all their life, yeah, being unattractive or being relatively short (depends on how short) will make it harder...but also not impossible.

Quote
You say it's B.S. based on your own personal belief that most men "work out" (I see we've "zoomed out" from just martial arts at this point) for some purpose OTHER than attracting women. That's dubious at best, unless you want to claim that the overwhelming growth in gym attendance in the 21st century, as well as the development of "lifting culture" among young men in the West (especially in the U.S.), is due to the fact that every young man suddenly wants to become an IFBB pro bodybuilder?

That is, if you are a short man and you work out expecting your "ripped" body to "make up" for your short height, you are absolutely wasting your time. Ditto for ugly men who want to make up for their unattractive faces.

Well, working out or martial arts can increase your confidence, which plays a big role in attracting women and also increasing success in your general life, including your career. It can also increase your physical well-being and your satisfaction with your body. I doubt that we can scientifically conclude that "expecting your ripped body to make up for your short height is wasting your time". What is short? Is it pointless for a 5'6'' man to work out? How about a 5'9'' man? Would a 5'2'' woman ever find a 5'6'' guy attractive (4 inches of height difference), and would she find him also attractive if he's chubby or skinny compared to him being very fit? It's pretty difficult to find a universal answer for all these questions, we can't test it in a lab and there are thousands of factors involved.

Quote
You're not in a position to be calling anyone childish. I'm assuming you're past your 20s and therefore my senior, but I'd never know it if you didn't constantly talk about "growing out of" things and such. You're incredibly petty and immature, and reason like a naive newly pubescent kid, based on emotion instead of logic

Please explain to me how I was immature. You're saying I'm reasoning based on emotion instead of logic. Are you a happy person? Do you believe your logical "truth" that women find short men disgusting will give you peace and satisfaction? Please answer truthfully.

Quote
Based on the data we have in this case (anecdotes, studies, so forth), we can say being a short man is at the very least a SERIOUS drawback when it comes to a woman's perception of a man's sxxual attractiveness, and a complete deal breaker at worst.

Again we need to ask how short this hypothetical man is. I agree there are (serious) drawbacks, especially when your height starts to be lower than the female average (for example), however I don't believe that physical activity, working out or (there you go, I mention it) martial arts are pointless or that all hope is lost.

Quote
So no, I don't "know" that the overwhelming majority of women find short men disgusting, but I believe it, and that belief appears to have a more solid foundation than your belief that they don't find them disgusting, which seems to have no basis other than your wishful thinking.

Here's one source: http://www.theloop.ca/when-it-comes-to-sxx-short-guys-have-the-last-laugh/
And my other basis is my own observation. Just go outside and see what kind of men are in relationships with women. Totally average, non-spectacular dudes of varying heights. Go have a look outside a school at 2 p.m. or so and observe the parents picking up their kids. Are all the men "either in the top percentile of looks, raw masculinity or height"? Hardly.

I was once kinda at the point where you are now. Soaking up statistics of short discrimination in dating, respect, income, etc. Viewing all people in percentile charts. However, the real human world is a lot more complex and fluid than these statistics. It's okay to feel bad about being short, and there's something that can be done about it if all hope is lost. However, religiously holding on to your lookist beliefs is not gonna bring your happiness. That's my two cents.
Logged

extremis

  • Newbie
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 88
Re: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"
« Reply #43 on: October 26, 2017, 02:15:56 PM »

You are literally quoting articles which say that so long as a guy is of average attractiveness personality matters most of all (the males of average attractiveness were rated above the attractive ones when their personality profiles were more desirable),

???

From the first study:

Quote
Our results indicate that a minimum level/moderate level of physical attractiveness is a necessity to both daughters and mothers, but not necessarily that above average attractiveness is equally important to both daughters and mothers. In fact, although women very slightly preferred the attractive man to the moderately attractive man as a dating partner for themselves, mothers preferred the moderately attractive man to the attractive man as a dating partner for their daughters. It is possible that once the necessity of attractiveness is met, women may prefer the luxury of exceptional attractiveness (see Li et al. 2011) more than their mothers do.

I CTRL + F searched BOTH studies for your quote ("males of average attractiveness were rated above the attractive ones..."). NO results found in either paper. The closest I could find was this quote from the first study:

Quote
Women and their mothers were strongly influenced by the physical attractiveness of the target men and preferred the attractive and moderately attractive targets. Men with the most desirable personality profiles were rated more favorably than their counterparts only when they were at least moderately attractive.

Note that the word "average" does not appear anywhere. The phrase used is "moderately attractive". The study concludes with

Quote
We conclude that a minimum level of physical attractiveness is a necessity for both women and their mothers and that when women and their parents state that other traits are more important than physical attractiveness, they assume potential mates meet a minimally acceptable standard of physical attractiveness.

"Minimally acceptable standard of physical attractiveness" does not necessarily mean "average" - in fact, the paper's wording and conclusions lend much more credence to the assertion that "minimally acceptable standard" means "good looking", NOT "average". You have zero evidence to substantiate that what was meant was "average looks" other than your own wishful thinking.

Beyond the paper's wording, what evidence do I have to substantiate that "minimally acceptable standard of physical attractiveness" means "good looking" and NOT "average"? Well, taking a look at THIS study done by OkCupid:

https://theblog.okcupid.com/your-looks-and-your-inbox-8715c0f1561e

According to the chart titled "Female Messaging & Male Attractiveness", which graphs the messages sent by women to men according to the men's attractiveness, the researchers at OkCupid draw THIS conclusion:

Quote
As you can see from the gray line, women rate an incredible 80% of guys as worse-looking than medium.

Taking a look at the graph itself, we can see that this "80% of guys" includes men who are "average looking". So there's absolutely NO REASON to believe that a woman's "minimal standards of attractiveness" means "average looking" when they consider "average looking" men to be unattractive.

Quote
and then saying personality and confidence play "no role at all".

Again, these statements are based on statistical evidence, which, when PROPERLY interpreted (i.e. without twisting words and wiLL Forumully misrepresenting researcher's findings to match your just-world hypothesis), support the aforementioned statements.

Quote
Maybe it is hard if you are very short or ugly, but this extremely black-and-white incel mentality that only looks ever matter and that only "top percentile males" are attractive to women is self-destructive and untrue.


[Citation needed]

Quote
It makes a lot of men bitter and unable to focus on improving themselves in ways that matter, like becoming interesting and self-confident.

[Citation needed]

Quote
I also say black-and-white, because I know I can be an 8 to one woman and a 4 to another. I've been told I am unattractive in no uncertain terms by some women (often because of my height) only to be told by other women that I'm very attractive. And I don't see a model when I look in the mirror.


I've been told that Santa Claus has a workshop at the North Pole where he and thousands of little elves put together toys to deliver to young boys and girls across the world on Christmas. That doesn't mean it's true.

Do you have any evidence to support the assumption that their claims were true? How many women that told you you're "very attractive" did you have sxx with? How many were overtly flirtatious with you, took you out on dates and paid for it, made obvious sxxual advances toward you?

Quote
I'm 5'8" and pretty average looking and while I don't turn heads I've never had any real problems with women that weren't self-caused. I admit though that my height at least is already within what most women would generally see as an acceptable range (seeing as we are speaking anecdotally).

You defeat your own point here. 5'8" isn't "short" anywhere other than a few select countries in northern Europe. Assuming you are white, you are well within one standard deviation of the average white male in the U.S. (5'10").

Quote
But this is definitely not a "top percentile range" and I would be very surprised if I was anywhere near top percentile in anything at all.

Okay.

Quote
You're also not realising that for every below-average height man that does LL there are a bunch of short men happy with their height who'd never consider LL, too?

Define "happy with their height". Are there men all over the U.S. and everywhere else that are well below the height of an average man in their country who "live with" their heights and have careers, hobbies, etc - That is to say, can you be a male who is SIGNIFICANTLY shorter than his peers and not develop severe depression, height neurosis, and so on? Sure.

But do I believe for a second that in 2017, the age of individualism, that these men are "happy" with their height? Absolutely not. To make such an assumption is a total non-sequitur. If you can prove to me that these men would reject the opportunity to be average height or taller at no cost or risk to their finance, health, etc, THEN I'll believe that they are "happy".

Quote
I saw a survey in which 55% of men below 5'8 said they were happy with their height. So sure, almost half say they're not, and that's quite a lot! But more than half is still the majority. It's not like all short men find themselves written off from life because they don't have a few inches on their heads.

Self-reporting is a very poor and scientifically unreliable means of deriving accurate information about a person's beliefs, attitudes and sentiments

How many of those men below 5'8" reported that they were "happy" because they didn't want to embarrass themselves by saying they're unhappy, thereby outing themselves as "insecure little guys"?

How many have acclimated to being depressed about their short height and now perceive their sub-par and unhappy lives as being "happy" (dysthymia)?

And so on.

And again, you need to stop speaking for and about "short men" as if you know what it's like to be one. You are NOT short. You do not, and cannot, possibly understand the experience of being a short male. It's easy to spout platitudes when you're an outsider looking in. Life is very different when you're actually EXPERIENCING something as opposed to passing judgment on the experience as an observer.
Logged

Body Builder

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1051
Re: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"
« Reply #44 on: October 26, 2017, 02:32:46 PM »

Extremis is right. Anyone who don't see the things he mentioned in his everyday life is either delusional or not short enough.
Jack1066 at 5.8 (which is an inch less than my current, after LL height) you are not short. If you were 5.6 or less you would have a different point of view. I was short and I know what I am talking about and how 3 inches changed my life and how another 3 will make me exactly how I wish I would be all of my life.

No, I can't believe that 55% of short men are ok with their heights. If someone is ok with having almost no chance on dating, less chances to succeed in work and prejudice in anything you do and daily humiliation (that has to do more with really short men) then he is a mental case. And I can't believe that the majority of short men are ok with a bad quality of life or are mentally unstable.
But most of them are not doing LL either because they don't have knowledge about it or they don't have enough money or simply because they don't have the guts to face the risks and do it.
If LL was so easy like a boobjob then I am sure that the vast majority of "happy" short men would have change their heights to at least average ones.

So people 5.7+ telling that being short is not bad is like a model telling that it is not bad to be an obese woman.
You don't know how bad it is and your opinion simply does not matter. After all, the thing that we are all here speaking about a so extreme procedure to gain a few inches is a proof of how important it is to not be short.

Extremis all your points are valid. Do LL and everything will be different.
Logged

extremis

  • Newbie
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 88
Re: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"
« Reply #45 on: October 26, 2017, 04:32:45 PM »

This is first and foremost a forum about limb lengthening surgery. A new poster bursting into the off-topic section and as his very first action responding to a discussion that happened between other posters and scolding them for how wrong they are is at best "weird" and at worst pretty bad manners. I know this is the internet where all good morals are thrown overboard, but that doesn't stop me from pointing it out.

Correction: This is first and foremost a PUBLIC forum about limb lengthening surgery. That means anyone is allowed to join in discussions at any time insofar as they remain within the scope of the subject matter discussed. You're neither the owner of this board nor any more important than any other poster, and you have zero right to lecture or demand that others show obeisance to you before they respond to your posts. Get over yourself.

Quote
And there's another, probably also sizeable part of the female population which doesn't find heavyweight boxers attractive at all.

[Citation needed]

There's plenty of studies suggesting women find sxxually dimorphic traits that convey dominance, such as skeletal frame size, jaw width, eye shape, chin width, and the like attractive. These traits are fairly common in heavyweight boxers. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together in that case.

Quote
I don't think Bieber is an example of an extremely attractive guy. That's just me,

We're talking about what attracts women. You aren't one, so this isn't relevant. There are literally dozens if not hundreds of vines, videos, instagram and twitter messages, etc of young women desperately trying to get Justin Bieber's attention, literally bursting into tears of joy when they see him in person, let alone the ones that get to touch him, kiss him on the cheek or (God save them) GET kissed by him.

Quote
and of course professional photography and professional styling helps him, but there's other guys who look better than him and didn't get so popular. It's probably "talent" and the right marketing that got him where he is, and yes, of course he isn't really an ugly person. Other men are not tall or "top percentile" looking either and found their niche, like Johnny Depp.

Johnny Depp isn't top percentile, but isn't ugly either. And yes, he found his niche... because he's a top percentile actor. And top percentile in wealth as a result of it. Nobody said you can't be talented as an average or unattractive man. But being talented doesn't make you PHYSICALLY attractive.

A good number of women like Bruno Mars' songs and consider him an extraordinarily talented artist, but the number of women who would consider him more physically attractive (and would genuinely prefer to have sxx with him) than a conventionally attractive man the likes of which you can find on the "dirty daddies" instagram page or a male model magazine is, based on all available evidence, vanishingly small by comparison.

Quote
And I also believe that saying "top percentile for looks" is BS. Like, human attractiveness cannot be quantified like height or strength. It's a very diffuse, fluid attribute.

BZZT.

Attractiveness and beauty are not "subjective", nor are they "in the eye of the beholder" as age old adages like to assert. This is nothing but a coping mechanism used by unattractive people to spare their own psyche the damage that would be incurred by accepting that they are physically undesirable to the opposite sxx - in that respect these "sayings" are much the same as a child pulling a security blanket over its head so it can feel safe while it sleeps at night.

Attractiveness and beauty are based on geometric and biological evolutionary axioms, such as angularity, symmetry and sxxual dimorphism:

https://www.goldennumber.net/beauty/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2814183/

Quote
In four experiments, we tested the existence of an ideal facial feature arrangement that could optimize the attractiveness of any face given its facial features. Participants made paired comparisons of attractiveness between faces with identical facial features but different eye-mouth distances and different interocular distances. We found that although different faces have varying attractiveness, individual attractiveness is optimized when the face’s vertical distance between the eyes and the mouth is approximately 36% of its length, and the horizontal distance between the eyes is approximately 46% of the face’s width. These “new” golden ratios match those of an average face.

Quote
For beauty perception of facial images, beauty analysis is handled as a regularized regression problem. The beauty model is defined as a beauty score function that maps a facial image into a score representing how attractive the face is. To fully explore the contribution of geometric feature in facial beauty, we focus on the geometric features (i.e. facial shape) such that the beauty score function can be modeled easily. This choice is made with consideration that the geometric features are essential and invariable, and closely related with facial beauty, while other features like texture, skin and hair color are easy to be changed by general makeup. Since the geometric features cannot represent the whole information of a face and the raters’ decision on the attractiveness of a face may also be disturbed by those easily changed facial features (e.g. skin), thus constructing a computational beauty model directly on the geometric features is not suitable. To solve the problem, we define the geometric beauty score as the supremum of the all faces’ beauty scores under the given geometric feature and other possible features. To learn the proposed geometric beauty score function, a Hessian energy based semi-supervised manifold weighted regression is presented in this paper.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1690211/

Quote
Using photographs of men's faces, for which facial symmetry had been measured, we found a relationship between women's attractiveness ratings of these faces and symmetry, but the subjects could not rate facial symmetry accurately. Moreover, the relationship between facial attractiveness and symmetry was still observed, even when symmetry cues were removed by presenting only the left or right half of faces. These results suggest that attractive features other than symmetry can be used to assess phenotypic condition. We identified one such cue, facial masculinity (cheek-bone prominence and a relatively longer lower face), which was related to both symmetry and full- and half-face attractiveness.



Quote
^ Read what Jack said.

Read and debunked, point by point.

Quote
And yeah, the importance of personality is really high from my personal experience and observation.

Your "personal experience" is neither substantiated nor relevant. Your "observations" conflict with those of multiple researchers and scientists.

Quote
Do you really believe all the self-help books that exist are just BS? Do you really believe attractiveness is all that matters?

Do I really believe that people who peddle feel-good platitudes to the gullible masses (who eat it up because it gives them hope) could possibly be doing it because it makes them a lot of money? Gee, I don't know... LOL

Are you serious, mate? Are you sure you're an adult? Use your head.

Quote
But 75% of young people are still expected to marry? And out of the 25% who don't, how many are expected to live in monogamous relationships?
So yeah, I do believe (based on science and again, personal observation) that most people in the West crave a special partnership with one person.

Rising infidelity rates, as well as the popularity of sites such as AshleyMadison (a "dating site"-type service marketed to married people who want to have an affair), disagree with you

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/health/28well.html

Quote
But detailed analysis of the data from 1991 to 2006, to be presented next month by Dr. Atkins at the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies conference in orlandoflorida, show some surprising shifts. University of Washington researchers have found that the lifetime rate of infidelity for men over 60 increased to 28 percent in 2006, up from 20 percent in 1991. For women over 60, the increase is more striking: to 15 percent, up from 5 percent in 1991.

The researchers also see big changes in relatively new marriages. About 20 percent of men and 15 percent of women under 35 say they have ever been unfaithful, up from about 15 and 12 percent respectively.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/28/what-happened-after-ashley-madison-was-hacked

Quote
At the time Krebs received his tip-off, Ashley Madison claimed to have an international membership of 37.6 million, all of them assured that their use of this service would be “anonymous”, “100% discreet”.

That "claim" is actually inaccurate by now, as membership has been steadily increasing ever since the site was hacked and the identity of those 37.6 million members was revealed. The premise of the site (cheating on your spouse) is SO popular that conservative countries such as South Korea and Singapore have BANNED the site.

So again, your position is anti-science.

Quote
For those men who rather want to have casual sxx all their life, yeah, being unattractive or being relatively short (depends on how short) will make it harder...but also not impossible.

Saying that something that has a statistically negligible chance of happening is attainable because it's "not impossible" is asinine and irrational. It's "hard" for a person to win the lottery, but "not impossible" - does it then make sense for me to waste tons of money playing it, because after all, it's "not impossible" for me to win?

Quote
Well, working out or martial arts can increase your confidence, which plays a big role in attracting women

I love how even though I've DEMOLISHED this point over and over again and you've yet to provide a single shred of evidence to back it up, you KEEP REPEATING IT as though it's an established fact

I guess this is a case of "A lie told a thousand times becomes the truth"? LOL

Quote
and also increasing success in your general life, including your career.

There's no reason being "ripped" or working out on a regular basis would improve your career prospects at all. Nobody at any job I've ever had cares about either my physique or those of my coworkers, even those who are larger than me. Get real. Don't make things up just to prop up your point.

Quote
It can also increase your physical well-being and your satisfaction with your body.

Physical well-being, sure. Satisfaction with your body? I don't think so. If anything, "bodybuilders" and other fitness enthusiasts are MUCH MORE likely than "average people" to feel dissatisfied with their physique - casual browsing through Bodybuilding forums such as Bodybuilding.com's Misc will show an astounding amount of what psychiatrists would call "body dysmorphic disorder" (a condition which is increasingly incorrectly and overly diagnosed today, but this is just to get a point across) and other pop-culture physical insecurity phenomenons such as "bigorexia"

Quote
I doubt that we can scientifically conclude that "expecting your ripped body to make up for your short height is wasting your time".

If by "scientifically conclude" you mean cite studies that researched women's reactions to short "ripped" men vs their reactions to tall men, tall men that worked out, and short men that DIDN'T work out (control), then NO, we can't.

Obviously we don't have a double-blind, controlled study for every exact possible social situation that might occur. The good thing that thanks to a little something called DEDUCTIVE REASONING, we don't NEED to. When considering a situation, we can use facts established by related studies and/or data and use them, as well as a few reasoning tools such as Occam's Razor, to draw the most likely conclusion.

Taking the "ripped body on a short man" example:

Based on research, studies, evidence, what are some things we KNOW?

1) In general, women are heavily biased against short men.

2) In general, that bias persists even when short men are

- WEALTHY, FAMOUS, and "INTELLIGENT":

http://i.imgur.com/DxJ0VmR.jpg

Also refer to already-mentioned cases such as Robert Downey Jr. and Tom Cruise

- HAVE LARGE PENISES: https://www.livescience.com/28537-ideal-penis-size-depends-on-height.html

Quote
When the researchers controlled for shoulder-to-hip ratio, they found that a larger penis had a greater effect on attractiveness for taller men. It's possible that a larger penis just looked more proportional on a taller man's body, the researchers wrote, or it could be that women were biased against shorter men to the extent that even large genitals didn't help.

So we know that wealth, fame, "intelligence", and penis size, ALL of which are things that "conventional wisdom" dictates women find attractive, do not change a woman's negative perception of a short man based on his height.

Is it reasonable, then, to assume that being "ripped" to "make up for" being short (another piece of "conventional wisdom") would be any different? Absolutely not. In fact, the reasonable conclusion is that being ripped will have the same effect as the other things - that is, no effect at all.

Quote
What is short?

We can use a number of definitions here. A scientific one:

Being one standard deviation shorter than your same-sxx peers (i.e. <5'7" for a male in the United States)

Or a colloquial, more "casual" one:

2) Being at or below eye-level with women in your country as a man

You will note that both definitions are comparative - that is, they are based on your stature RELATIVE to the stature of those around you. This is of course because things can only ever be big or small, tall or short, etc by comparison (i.e. if you were the only human on earth, it would be impossible to tell if you were "short" or "tall" because there would be no other humans to measure you against). That does not make the definitions any less functional or valid.

Quote
Is it pointless for a 5'6'' man to work out? How about a 5'9'' man? Would a 5'2'' woman ever find a 5'6'' guy attractive (4 inches of height difference), and would she find him also attractive if he's chubby or skinny compared to him being very fit? It's pretty difficult to find a universal answer for all these questions, we can't test it in a lab and there are thousands of factors involved.



Quote
Please explain to me how I was immature. You're saying I'm reasoning based on emotion instead of logic.

Because you are. Just look:

Quote
Are you a happy person? Do you believe your logical "truth" that women find short men disgusting will give you peace and satisfaction? Please answer truthfully.

First of all, "Happy"? What does happiness have to do with any of my arguments, or any of yours? What you're doing now is called a PSYCHOGENETIC FALLACY:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/219/Psychogenetic-Fallacy

You are insinuating that I am unhappy, dissatisfied with life, and that this somehow means my arguments must be false or mistaken.

While it is not incorrect to say that I am unhappy and dissatisfied with my life - and again, I'd like to remind you that this a board where men plan to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to have their legs broken apart and stretched over a period of months, risking permanent athletic potential loss and months if not years of their lives in recuperation, all to get taller, so if there's anyone here who isn't profoundly unhappy with their lives, I would advise that person to go spend their time elsewhere, as it is wasted here - I have done nothing but present arguments based on scientific evidence and data, and the farthest I've strayed from that is the use of deductive reasoning and the logical principles to arrive at reasonable conclusions where no formal research exists.

Meanwhile, all YOU have done is respond with your personal opinions, psychological coping mechanisms, and appeals to faith with zero foundation in reality. You haven't refuted a single one of my points with anything approximating scientific evidence.

Quote
Again we need to ask how short this hypothetical man is. I agree there are (serious) drawbacks, especially when your height starts to be lower than the female average (for example), however I don't believe that physical activity, working out or (there you go, I mention it) martial arts are pointless or that all hope is lost.

And again I need to ask what you mean by "pointless"? "Pointless" for what? OP mentioned he wants to be a "giant slayer" and be able to "beat up other men" by physically overpowering them. Realistically speaking, as a 5'5" man, "martial arts" is not going to allow you to do that (I sincerely hope you aren't going to claim otherwise), so in his case, it is pointless.

Pointless for attracting women?

Here's one source: http://www.theloop.ca/when-it-comes-to-sxx-short-guys-have-the-last-laugh/


Quote
And my other basis is my own observation. Just go outside and see what kind of men are in relationships with women. Totally average, non-spectacular dudes of varying heights. Go have a look outside a school at 2 p.m. or so and observe the parents picking up their kids. Are all the men "either in the top percentile of looks, raw masculinity or height"? Hardly.

"Being in a relationship" with a woman doesn't necessarily mean she finds you more attractive than every other man she sees, or even that she finds you attractive at all. Plenty of women start relationships with men for attention, money, validation, and so on. Again, a simple Google search will provide countless examples of this.

Quote
I was once kinda at the point where you are now. Soaking up statistics of short discrimination in dating, respect, income, etc. Viewing all people in percentile charts. However, the real human world is a lot more complex and fluid than these statistics.

I'm glad to see that despite being "past that point" now, you're still (for whatever reason) lurking and posting on a board for cosmetic limb lengthening surgery, and feel intelligent and superior enough to condescend to others who are clearly more in touch with reality than you

Quote
It's okay to feel bad about being short, and there's something that can be done about it if all hope is lost. However, religiously holding on to your lookist beliefs is not gonna bring your happiness. That's my two cents.

The only one "religiously holding on to" their beliefs is you. You reject scientific evidence and substitute your own personal delusions. I'd rather be unhappy with my eyes open than happy by deluding myself. And in the first place, I'm not looking for "happiness", whatever that means. I'm looking for ways to get taller.
Logged

Bleda

  • Visitor
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
Re: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"
« Reply #46 on: October 26, 2017, 04:39:41 PM »

Snap
Logged

Jack1066

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 378
Re: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"
« Reply #47 on: October 26, 2017, 04:45:14 PM »

1) I took moderately attractive to mean averagely attractive as opposed to actually attractive. Maybe you are right and it means actually attractive vs very attractive. But you have to bear in mind how online dating is a complete meat market and I don't tend to find 80%+ of the women I see attractive. Yes, it did say that moderately attractive men with better personalities did better than more attractive men with worse personalities.

2) I am specifically talking about women I've wanted to date or dated, and it's not like I've ever been rich (I'm literally close to the bottom 10th percentile for income in the UK atm, around £10,000 a year). Yes, women who have paid for dates, or women who have approached me first. I usually pay half of what my partners pay, sometimes more, sometimes less. When people get into relationships or when they date someone they are normally attracted to the whole package, unless they don't care at all about whether the person is an ahole, potential abuser or extremely boring. All of which smart and well-adjusted people do care about.

3) You've literally said that women are only attracted to a handful of deviations in appearance which include "the tallest" or "the most masculine" or "the best looking". I call that an incel mentality, because that's exactly what incels tell themselves, and judging by my own anecdotal experience I don't really think it's true. It's not that the tallest, best looking men aren't going to have an easier time of it, but it's also not like 80% or even 30% of all men are doomed and will only be found attractive by a proportionally tiny number of women, that's insane.

4) Seeing as we're speaking anecdotally, becoming more self-confident in my late teens did a LOT more for my dating life than anything else I've ever done, although it had diminishing returns past a certain point.

5) "Happy with their height" I took to mean they wouldn't change it if they were offered it. I felt like that a few years back. I liked my height because it was part of what made me who I am. It might have been different if I was 5'5". However I think it is possible and I think it shows tunnel vision to some degree when you can't see that.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2017, 06:37:03 PM by Jack1066 »
Logged

Jack1066

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 378
Re: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"
« Reply #48 on: October 26, 2017, 04:48:32 PM »

But the most important thing, really, is that many people are much more interested in someone's personal qualities than what they look like in developing a relationship. Not every woman is a superficial gold digging bitch lol
Logged

IwannaBeTaller

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 629
Re: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"
« Reply #49 on: October 26, 2017, 06:26:54 PM »

Yes extremis, everyone in this forum is in one way or another unhappy with their height, but not everyone is a generally unhappy, depressed human being. Some are just curious, others are vain and others turn away after some time. There are certainly different ranges of unhappiness. You, from your couple of posts, appeared to me as a very unhappy, depressed person, which is why I'm telling you what I learned from my several years of dealing with my body neurosis: be very wary of scientific "truths" in the fields of attractiveness, sxx and mating. They can show tendencies, and we can acknowledge that these tendencies existed at the time of the study and within the observed sample size. But they should not control your whole life, and you should not assume that all people or all women "are like this".

I also see that you twist some of the findings and tendencies to feed your negativity. For example, the OkCupid study you mentioned also showed that despite rating most men as below average, women still messaged a lot of those men they deemed as below average looking, while men mostly messaged the women they rated as above average. You accept the truth that many unspectacular men are in relationships, but to rationalize your belief that "you have to be in the top percentiles of height, looks or masculinity" you irrationally conclude that most of these women are simply not attracted to their men and only marry them for provisioning. So you can see how many of these findings can be twisted to suit a certain agenda, yours being to confirm a negative, bleak outlook on your life.
Logged

Jack1066

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 378
Re: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"
« Reply #50 on: October 26, 2017, 06:41:12 PM »

^This is one reason I find this forum a toxic place. Some of this stuff starts to suck me back into body-image based neurosis before I realise again that my life is actually fine haha
Logged

Bruce Wayne

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 344
Re: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"
« Reply #51 on: October 26, 2017, 08:52:00 PM »

It's absolutely insane how much delusion and naivete there is on this board. You'd think people who are willing to get their legs broken to get taller would be a little more realistic

First, Mayweather is 5'8", not 5'6" or 5'7". Second, if you'd watched any of his fights you'd realize that he most often wins by dancing around his opponents and making them tire out before he attacks them. That's hardly going "blow for blow" with them. McGregor and Mayweather wouldn't want to fight heavyweights because they know they'd lose. Their bottom line is winning bouts, which is what builds their reputation and makes them money. They are athletes first and fighters (distant) second

Third, obviously the 5'10" novice MMA fighter wouldn't fare (not "fair") well against a veteran 5'9" fighter. There's only an inch of difference between them. With that kind of difference, wingspan is much more important, and they're close enough to each other in height that their arm lengths will either be identical or slightly in either fighter's favor, but nothing significant.

But 5'6" veteran winning against the 5'10" novice? Maybe in a ring with a billion different rules and a ref, but in the street? I don't think so


I've seen your posts on this board, and honestly you're in no position to be calling anyone "retarded", especially when you're spouting asinine platitudes like "different people have different tastes" as if it's a fact instead of just a platitude that conventionally unattractive people use to console themselves. I suppose "personality" and "confidence" will make you as attractive as a tall male model too? Lmao

You also have no right to tell people what they "need". If you don't understand the "fascination" people have with being essentially worshipped based on their looks, fine. That's your problem. If you are satisfied with only being desired by a single woman and basically considered disgusting by all the rest, fine. That's you. Don't project your desires and preferences onto other people


And you... it seems every other one of your posts you talk about wanting to be a "giant slayer". You keep using that term, and you keep bringing up people like Ikuhisa Minowa and this magical single fight where he "beat" a 7 foot tall guy... well, I'm looking at his recent bout history right now and it looks like the overwhelming majority of the time he fights someone significantly taller than him (6'+), he loses (and by KO or TKO at that): Justin Morton, Zilong Zhao, Oil Thompson, Shinichi Suzukawa, Jung Kyo Park, Hye Seong Sok... the list goes on, and again they're all 6' or above

In the rare cases he wins against 6 footers, it's by submission, in other words, NOT by KO or even TKO. You talk about "wanting to beat up other men", so I seriously doubt rolling around on the ground groping another man will make you look or feel like a "badass" especially given that in real life, as soon as you take the guy down to the ground his buddies will be on you stomping you out before you can say "kung fu". I've seen ONE (1) fight in Minowa's bout record where he beat a significantly taller opponent by actually HITTING him: his most recent fight against Dong Sik Yoon, who's 183 cm... and 45 (!!!) years old, which is practically a geriatric in the MMA world. So forget about yourself, it doesn't even seem like your hero is a "giant slayer"

This is all without mentioning that this guy Minowa is a professional who has probably been training since he was a little kid. Do you have years of background in any martial art or sport such as boxing? Have you ever even been in a real fight?

You have no idea about what you're talking about. Size matters more in a ring fight.
Logged
25 years 4 months | Pre-CLL

Starting height : 167cm | Goal : 172cm | Dr. Giotikas

"My anger outweighs my guilt."

extremis

  • Newbie
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 88
Re: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"
« Reply #52 on: October 27, 2017, 08:11:01 PM »

1) I took moderately attractive to mean averagely attractive as opposed to actually attractive. Maybe you are right and it means actually attractive vs very attractive. But you have to bear in mind how online dating is a complete meat market and I don't tend to find 80%+ of the women I see attractive. Yes, it did say that moderately attractive men with better personalities did better than more attractive men with worse personalities.

Already demonstrated that this is not the case. "Averagely attractive" is an oxymoron in the first place; you can't be "averagely attractive" any more than you can be "averagely tall". That's senseless. You're "unattractive", "average", or "attractive". We can add superlative qualifiers like "VERY attractive" and so on, but these don't change the "bottom line" - a person who is "VERY attractive" is an attractive person. A person who is "mildly unattractive" is an unattractive person.

[quote2) I am specifically talking about women I've wanted to date or dated, and it's not like I've ever been rich (I'm literally close to the bottom 10th percentile for income in the UK atm, around £10,000 a year). Yes, women who have paid for dates, or women who have approached me first. I usually pay half of what my partners pay, sometimes more, sometimes less. When people get into relationships or when they date someone they are normally attracted to the whole package, unless they don't care at all about whether the person is an ahole, potential abuser or extremely boring. All of which smart and well-adjusted people do care about.[/quote]

[Citation needed]

All evidence and research I've presented clearly suggests otherwise

Quote
3) You've literally said that women are only attracted to a handful of deviations in appearance which include "the tallest" or "the most masculine" or "the best looking". I call that an incel mentality, because that's exactly what incels tell themselves, and judging by my own anecdotal experience I don't really think it's true. It's not that the tallest, best looking men aren't going to have an easier time of it, but it's also not like 80% or even 30% of all men are doomed and will only be found attractive by a proportionally tiny number of women, that's insane.

Again, all evidence and research I've presented suggests otherwise. If you want to challenge that, you're going to have to present concrete evidence in favor of your claim. Note that your personal anecdotal evidence is neither substantiated (you have no proof it happened), nor relevant (a sample size of 1 is not scientifically valid material)

Quote
4) Seeing as we're speaking anecdotally, becoming more self-confident in my late teens did a LOT more for my dating life than anything else I've ever done, although it had diminishing returns past a certain point.

"We"? I've included SOME anecdotes in my posts, but the majority of my views and claims are based on scientific evidence. The reason for this, and I'm bolding this for emphasis, is that claims made on the internet with no proof to substantiate them have zero value in a dialectic procedure

Quote
5) "Happy with their height" I took to mean they wouldn't change it if they were offered it. I felt like that a few years back. I liked my height because it was part of what made me who I am. It might have been different if I was 5'5". However I think it is possible and I think it shows tunnel vision to some degree when you can't see that.

Again, you defeat your own point, and I once again repeat to you that you aren't short. 5'8" is NOT short unless you live in a place where the average male height is 6'+, such as the Dinaric Alps or the Netherlands.

And again (it's getting tiresome having to repeat common-sense things to you): the statistical evidence does NOT support the idea that ACTUALLY SHORT men (i.e. NOT YOU) would not change their heights in a heartbeat if they had the opportunity. If anything, assuming that because "it is possible" that short men MIGHT not choose to be taller if they had the chance, that they really wouldn't go through with it, is much more indicative of tunnel vision and denial on your part than it is on mine.

AGAIN, I have data to back up my beliefs and claims. You don't. It really is that simple. I can't believe I even have to say this.

Quote
But the most important thing, really, is that many people are much more interested in someone's personal qualities than what they look like in developing a relationship. Not every woman is a superficial gold digging bitch lol

[Citation needed]

Quote
This is one reason I find this forum a toxic place. Some of this stuff starts to suck me back into body-image based neurosis before I realise again that my life is actually fine haha

Ahhhh. Okay. I think I'm starting to see why you "reason" and think the way you do, and come to the (scientifically unsupported) conclusions that you do. By any chance, did you visit a psychologist or other """mental health specialist""" to "help" you with your "body-image based neurosis"? Or perhaps turn to "self-help" books and forums online?

I'd be willing to bet you did. Your thought process reeks of coping mechanisms and delusion-as-defense. Textbook behavioral psych 101.



Yes extremis, everyone in this forum is in one way or another unhappy with their height, but not everyone is a generally unhappy, depressed human being. Some are just curious, others are vain and others turn away after some time. There are certainly different ranges of unhappiness. You, from your couple of posts, appeared to me as a very unhappy, depressed person, which is why I'm telling you what I learned from my several years of dealing with my body neurosis: be very wary of scientific "truths" in the fields of attractiveness, sxx and mating. They can show tendencies, and we can acknowledge that these tendencies existed at the time of the study and within the observed sample size. But they should not control your whole life, and you should not assume that all people or all women "are like this".

It seems to me that the only thing you "learned" is how to delude yourself with comforting lies and "positive affirmations" to protect yourself from suffering severe insult to your ego, self-esteem, and general psyche, which would eventually lead you to becoming a "very unhappy, depressed person". As mentioned earlier, this is called delusion-as-defense in psychology. It is one of the 3 D's of basic psychological defense mechanisms. The other 2 are "denial" and "distortion" (sound familiar?)

https://blogs.psychcentral.com/humor/2015/11/defense-mechanism-is-denial-distortion-delusion/

In a certain way, it's an understandable course of action. It's hard to face reality head on, especially when that reality is unkind, unfavorable or otherwise not beneficial for the self. But on the other hand, people like you, or as a better example, Jack, a man who isn't even short but tries to convince short men that being short isn't a big deal, are probably a big part of the reason why the best recourse for height increase we have in 2017 is a barbaric surgery involving breaking your legs and spreading them apart with a magnetic nail.

Consider the case of androgenic alopecia (male pattern baldness). These people are much more realistic about the importance of the source of their "insecurity" (hair), and are much more aware and accepting of the way not having it affects the way people perceive them (including but not limited to their attractiveness). And in their case, new treatments and potential cures are announced every other day, and at this very moment there are 6 potential cures (not treatments, CURES) for male pattern baldness awaiting release from 2019 to 2022.

If there weren't so many people like you running around proselytizing this cult-like humanist idea of looks, height and so on not mattering, or being less important than scientifically accredited research demonstrates it to be, we could have a similar amount of scientific interest in height increase. It's every bit as big of a deal as hair loss, but because of this coping nonsense that "height isn't everything", "personality and confidence are what's important" and other BS, short men get shamed into silence when they vocalize their desire to get taller, getting called "insecure little guys" and accused of having a "Napoleon complex" (not that there's anything you CAN do that won't get you accused of this as a short man).


Quote
I also see that you twist some of the findings and tendencies to feed your negativity. For example, the OkCupid study you mentioned also showed that despite rating most men as below average, women still messaged a lot of those men they deemed as below average looking, while men mostly messaged the women they rated as above average. You accept the truth that many unspectacular men are in relationships, but to rationalize your belief that "you have to be in the top percentiles of height, looks or masculinity" you irrationally conclude that most of these women are simply not attracted to their men and only marry them for provisioning. So you can see how many of these findings can be twisted to suit a certain agenda, yours being to confirm a negative, bleak outlook on your life.

Let's see

1) unattractive men are able to enter relationships

2) women either aren't as attracted to those men as they would be to men who are conventionally attracted to them, or aren't attracted to them at all, but will settle for them in order to secure resources/attention

I don't see anything contradictory about these beliefs. I'm confused as to why you're acting as though pointing this out constitutes a "gotcha!" moment. I'm not "twisting" anything to "feed my negativity". If anything, you're twisting the results to feed your irrational optimism. Given the findings of the studies and available data, concluding that women settle for men they don't find attractive in order to obtain money, validation and attention is much more reasonable than believing the Disney-Pi


You have no idea about what you're talking about. Size matters more in a ring fight.

Ok "giant slayer", go ahead and find some 6'6" guys to "beat up". I'm sure your mystical kung fu powers will let you teleport behind them and executive the five-finger buddha palm of death and beat them to a pulp while Michael Bay-esque explosions go off in the background to the tune of Pantera music.

I'm sure you won't just get a brutal reality check when they pick you up, body slam you into the ground, and curbstomp you into unconsciousness.
Logged

google42

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 220
Re: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"
« Reply #53 on: October 27, 2017, 10:39:10 PM »

Already demonstrated that this is not the case. "Averagely attractive" is an oxymoron in the first place; you can't be "averagely attractive" any more than you can be "averagely tall". That's senseless. You're "unattractive", "average", or "attractive". We can add superlative qualifiers like "VERY attractive" and so on, but these don't change the "bottom line" - a person who is "VERY attractive" is an attractive person. A person who is "mildly unattractive" is an unattractive person.

[Citation needed]

All evidence and research I've presented clearly suggests otherwise

Again, all evidence and research I've presented suggests otherwise. If you want to challenge that, you're going to have to present concrete evidence in favor of your claim. Note that your personal anecdotal evidence is neither substantiated (you have no proof it happened), nor relevant (a sample size of 1 is not scientifically valid material)

"We"? I've included SOME anecdotes in my posts, but the majority of my views and claims are based on scientific evidence. The reason for this, and I'm bolding this for emphasis, is that claims made on the internet with no proof to substantiate them have zero value in a dialectic procedure

Again, you defeat your own point, and I once again repeat to you that you aren't short. 5'8" is NOT short unless you live in a place where the average male height is 6'+, such as the Dinaric Alps or the Netherlands.

And again (it's getting tiresome having to repeat common-sense things to you): the statistical evidence does NOT support the idea that ACTUALLY SHORT men (i.e. NOT YOU) would not change their heights in a heartbeat if they had the opportunity. If anything, assuming that because "it is possible" that short men MIGHT not choose to be taller if they had the chance, that they really wouldn't go through with it, is much more indicative of tunnel vision and denial on your part than it is on mine.

AGAIN, I have data to back up my beliefs and claims. You don't. It really is that simple. I can't believe I even have to say this.

[Citation needed]

Ahhhh. Okay. I think I'm starting to see why you "reason" and think the way you do, and come to the (scientifically unsupported) conclusions that you do. By any chance, did you visit a psychologist or other """mental health specialist""" to "help" you with your "body-image based neurosis"? Or perhaps turn to "self-help" books and forums online?

I'd be willing to bet you did. Your thought process reeks of coping mechanisms and delusion-as-defense. Textbook behavioral psych 101.



It seems to me that the only thing you "learned" is how to delude yourself with comforting lies and "positive affirmations" to protect yourself from suffering severe insult to your ego, self-esteem, and general psyche, which would eventually lead you to becoming a "very unhappy, depressed person". As mentioned earlier, this is called delusion-as-defense in psychology. It is one of the 3 D's of basic psychological defense mechanisms. The other 2 are "denial" and "distortion" (sound familiar?)

https://blogs.psychcentral.com/humor/2015/11/defense-mechanism-is-denial-distortion-delusion/

In a certain way, it's an understandable course of action. It's hard to face reality head on, especially when that reality is unkind, unfavorable or otherwise not beneficial for the self. But on the other hand, people like you, or as a better example, Jack, a man who isn't even short but tries to convince short men that being short isn't a big deal, are probably a big part of the reason why the best recourse for height increase we have in 2017 is a barbaric surgery involving breaking your legs and spreading them apart with a magnetic nail.

Consider the case of androgenic alopecia (male pattern baldness). These people are much more realistic about the importance of the source of their "insecurity" (hair), and are much more aware and accepting of the way not having it affects the way people perceive them (including but not limited to their attractiveness). And in their case, new treatments and potential cures are announced every other day, and at this very moment there are 6 potential cures (not treatments, CURES) for male pattern baldness awaiting release from 2019 to 2022.

If there weren't so many people like you running around proselytizing this cult-like humanist idea of looks, height and so on not mattering, or being less important than scientifically accredited research demonstrates it to be, we could have a similar amount of scientific interest in height increase. It's every bit as big of a deal as hair loss, but because of this coping nonsense that "height isn't everything", "personality and confidence are what's important" and other BS, short men get shamed into silence when they vocalize their desire to get taller, getting called "insecure little guys" and accused of having a "Napoleon complex" (not that there's anything you CAN do that won't get you accused of this as a short man).


Let's see

1) unattractive men are able to enter relationships

2) women either aren't as attracted to those men as they would be to men who are conventionally attracted to them, or aren't attracted to them at all, but will settle for them in order to secure resources/attention

I don't see anything contradictory about these beliefs. I'm confused as to why you're acting as though pointing this out constitutes a "gotcha!" moment. I'm not "twisting" anything to "feed my negativity". If anything, you're twisting the results to feed your irrational optimism. Given the findings of the studies and available data, concluding that women settle for men they don't find attractive in order to obtain money, validation and attention is much more reasonable than believing the Disney-Pi


Ok "giant slayer", go ahead and find some 6'6" guys to "beat up". I'm sure your mystical kung fu powers will let you teleport behind them and executive the five-finger buddha palm of death and beat them to a pulp while Michael Bay-esque explosions go off in the background to the tune of Pantera music.

I'm sure you won't just get a brutal reality check when they pick you up, body slam you into the ground, and curbstomp you into unconsciousness.

From seeing this post and your other posts It seems you like to write a lot.

 If you disagree with someone, Arguing this much on a limb lengthening forum about height is not gonna do much. Literally everyone agrees here that height matters and there's no need to keep pointing out why it's important. If some people can be comfortable with their height and decide to be more optimistic then let them, it has no effect on you. Writing essay like posts won't accomplish anything. This is a leg lengthening forum not a debate forum.
Logged

MrHandsome

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 277
Re: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"
« Reply #54 on: October 27, 2017, 10:41:56 PM »

At 5'6 you are not going to make it in the industry. I live in California and 5'6 won't cut it period.
Logged

extremis

  • Newbie
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 88
Re: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"
« Reply #55 on: October 27, 2017, 10:43:22 PM »

From seeing this post and your other posts It seems you like to write a lot.

 If you disagree with someone, Arguing this much on a limb lengthening forum about height is not gonna do much. Literally everyone agrees here that height matters and there's no need to keep pointing out why it's important. If some people can be comfortable with their height and decide to be more optimistic then let them, it has no effect on you. Writing essay like posts won't accomplish anything. This is a leg lengthening forum not a debate forum.

I was responding to the responses of other posters to my posts. That's the way a public forum works.

If for whatever reason the content of my posts makes you uncomfortable, feel free not to read them. Nobody is forcing you to.
Logged

google42

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 220
Re: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"
« Reply #56 on: October 27, 2017, 10:55:15 PM »

I was responding to the responses of other posters to my posts. That's the way a public forum works.

If for whatever reason the content of my posts makes you uncomfortable, feel free not to read them. Nobody is forcing you to.

I read most of your post and its not uncomfortable to me so don't worry about that. I'm just saying that its kind of a waste of time to say the same thing again and again. plus, no one will probably change their mind by posts like this. People will keep thinking about what they think is right to them.
Logged

IwannaBeTaller

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 629
Re: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"
« Reply #58 on: October 28, 2017, 10:26:17 AM »

...

It's not "mental delusion" if you simply interpret scientific research and sociological findings in a different manner than you would like to see. Actually, I've already given two examples of how you twisting facts to suit your beliefs on the world (OkCupid and average men having relationships) could be "mental delusion" on YOUR part. In other news, some women are also relatively "unattractive" and are genuinely happy that a man was willing to be in a loving relationship with them, and their men are equally happy about that. Do you refuse to believe that?

I don't believe that our ways of putting a positive, less morbid spin on the way things are has hampered development on "height increase". It would be very detrimental to an individual if he were to cry and whine about his unhappiness with his height all day instead of gaining some confidence and self-respect and growing a backbone. We can still hope and wait for scientific revolutions while at the same time realizing that it's not hopeless and futile to live a successful life as short(er) men.

Where in your studies does it say that men have to be in the top percentiles of anything to be considered attractive? Where does it say that 80% of men are not being found attractive by women? Where does it say that "moderately attractive" does not mean "averagely attractive" ? Please don't link to OkCupid to prove these claims, because not all women in the world are on OkCupid and neither are all men, and women still messaged the men they deemed as unattractive.

Anyway, you don't have to take anything from the outloook on the world I personally have, which includes acknowleding most of your findings. I was at the point where you are now and I can say that I'm a happier, more productive person than 3-4 years ago. If you wanna be miserable instead, be my guest.
Logged

extremis

  • Newbie
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 88
Re: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"
« Reply #59 on: October 30, 2017, 03:38:23 AM »

It's not "mental delusion" if you simply interpret scientific research and sociological findings in a different manner than you would like to see.[\quote]

It's "mental delusion" if you interpret scientific research and sociological findings in a radically different manner from what it is in reality just to suit your irrationally optimistic belief system.

Quote
Actually, I've already given two examples of how you twisting facts to suit your beliefs on the world (OkCupid and average men having relationships) could be "mental delusion" on YOUR part.

And I debunked your "examples". Getting messages from women doesn't prove you're their first choice (i.e. they find you more attractive than other men) or that they're attracted to you at all. Being in a relationship with a woman doesn't prove those things either.

You're beginning your entire argument by making 2 assumptions:

1.) If fact that a woman messages you on a dating site or enters a relationship with you, then she MUST find you more physically attractive than any other man available to her, or physically attractive in general

2.) Although there exist other possible reasons why that woman might show interest in you or enter a relationship with you BESIDES finding you physically attractive, these reasons cannot be the explanation for why she did so; the explanation MUST be the one that fits your belief system (in other words, you are right and I am wrong, because you say so and if you say so and believe it, it must be true)

This is ANOTHER logical fallacy on your part - this one is called BEGGING THE QUESTION or CIRCULAR REASONING:

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/begging-the-question/

Quote
An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove. Such arguments are said to beg the question. A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already accept its conclusion.

See 2) above. Your reasoning sounds correct to you, because you believe you have already decided in your mind that you are right and there is no possible way you could be wrong.

Let me save you some time on your next response, because I've already more or less gauged the kind of person you are from the way you respond to my arguments:

NO, I am NOT doing the same thing (circular reasoning) just because I refuse to accept your delusional point of view. My arguments and beliefs are based on SCIENTIFIC AND STATISTICAL EVIDENCE AND BEHAVIORAL STUDIES, not my personal biased beliefs, blind faith, irrational optimism, or pure anecdotal accounts (what your arguments are based on).

So don't bother waste your time trying to claim this in your next response to me, because all that would happen is I'd repeat what I just said and then point out to you that you just committed yet ANOTHER logical fallacy, which would be the TU QUOQUE

Quote
In other news, some women are also relatively "unattractive" and are genuinely happy that a man was willing to be in a loving relationship with them, and their men are equally happy about that. Do you refuse to believe that?

Relatively "unattractive" women have little to no difficulty finding relationships in the modern day. Google "Pig woman experiment". "Love" BS will be ignored until you can substantiate that it is more than oxytocin and dopamine reactions in the brain. Keep it scientific. I am not going to sit here and debate about your feel-good new-age platitudinous Disney-Pixar sophistries with you.

Quote
I don't believe that our ways of putting a positive, less morbid spin on the way things are has hampered development on "height increase".

You are wrong, it is that simple. Bald and balding men suffer the exact same type of psychological stress, depression, and suicidal ideations as short men. Check their MANY, MANY support forums that double as cure/treatment research forums and you'll see what I mean. Facially unattractive men are the same. Check Jaw surgery forums and other cosmetic surgery forums.

The only difference between short-statured men and the men on these forums is that the former try MUCH harder to delude themselves and downplay the importance of height so as to spare themselves the insult to their self-esteem that accepting what a big deal height is would cause.

Quote
It would be very detrimental to an individual if he were to cry and whine about his unhappiness with his height all day instead of gaining some confidence and self-respect and growing a backbone.

Read my earlier statement about "love". I've already addressed your appeals to "confidence", "personality", etc in previous posts. I'm not going to repeat myself. I will ignore any further comments and references you make to "self esteem", "personality", and other platitudinous nonsense until you substantiate their existence and importance with scientific evidence.

Quote
We can still hope and wait for scientific revolutions while at the same time realizing that it's not hopeless and futile to live a successful life as short(er) men.

It's incredibly presumptuous of you to use this language. For MANY people who end up on forums for limb lengthening surgery, their height is a direct cause of unhappiness and lack of what they would call "success" in various aspects of their life (sxxual, career, interpersonal, etc).

Telling them to "grow a backbone", "gain some confidence", and other platitudinous psychobabble BS as if it's their fault that they've been discriminated for their stature is unhelpful, insulting to their intelligence, and extremely condescending. Victim-blaming doesn't fix anything. Scientific research, and breakthroughs that result from it, DOES.

Quote
Where in your studies does it say that men have to be in the top percentiles of anything to be considered attractive?

Do you know how to read a graph? Read the OKCupid study again. Look at the graph.

Every other study I've linked literally says outright that women preferred the most attractive men in a group. I'm not going to baby you and quote the studies again. Read my posts again. Actually READ the quotes. Don't just skim, decide I'm a "delusional incel", and respond with condescending BS.

Quote
Where does it say that 80% of men are not being found attractive by women?

See above. Read the OKCupid study. Look at the graph.

Quote
Where does it say that "moderately attractive" does not mean "averagely attractive" ?[\quote]

Um, in the Oxford English Dictionary?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/attractive

Quote
attractive
ADJECTIVE

1Pleasing or appealing to the senses.
‘an attractive village’
‘foliage can be as attractive as flowers’
More example sentences
1.1 (of a person) appealing to look at; sxxually alluring.
‘a stunningly attractive, charismatic man’

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/average

Quote
1.2 Having qualities that are seen as typical of a particular person, group, or thing.
‘the average lad likes a good night out’
More example sentences
1.3 Mediocre; not very good.
‘a very average director making very average movies’
More example sentencesSynonyms

It's like asking "Where does it say GIRLS can't be BOY scouts?"

Give me a break mate.

ATTRACTIVE is one thing, AVERAGE is another thing. You can't be "AVERAGELY ATTRACTIVE". This statement is grammatically incorrect. It's like saying something is "coldly warm". It doesn't make sense.

Quote
Please don't link to OkCupid to prove these claims, because not all women in the world are on OkCupid and neither are all men, and women still messaged the men they deemed as unattractive.

LOL

"WHERE DOES IT SAY ALL THAT? BUT DON'T LINK ME TO WHERE IT SAYS IT!!!"

You're like that one spoiled cousin everyone has that started crying and threw a tantrum every time he'd lose at a game, so you have to change the rules of the game to make it easier for him to win.

Honestly, grow up or stop responding. I'm not wasting my time debating with a manchild.

Quote
Anyway, you don't have to take anything from the outloook on the world I personally have, which includes acknowleding most of your findings. I was at the point where you are now and I can say that I'm a happier, more productive person than 3-4 years ago. If you wanna be miserable instead, be my guest.

I honestly don't care "where you are". You're delusional. Drug addicts are happy too when they indulge in their drug habits. It doesn't mean they're right or that their lifestyle or belief system is valid.

Giving me a moral ultimatum and condescending to me saying I'm going to be "miserable" if I don't accept your delusions as reality is just laughable. I'll gladly keep being "miserable" on planet earth. It's better than being "happy" in la-la land.
Logged

IwannaBeTaller

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 629
Re: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"
« Reply #60 on: November 01, 2017, 11:00:32 AM »

Dude, learn to format your posts, they're a pain in the ass to read.

Here's some scientific evidence that personality matters in attraction I've found after some short Google research:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886915001336

Quote
Here we examined whether dispositional mindfulness predicted initial romantic attraction beyond the effects of physical attractiveness in a speed-dating experiment. Women were more attracted to men higher in dispositional mindfulness, beyond the effects of physical attractiveness. Men were more attracted to women who were more physically attractive, but female mindfulness did not influence male initial attraction. This is the first study to examine the role of dispositional mindfulness in predicting initial romantic attraction.

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/is_kindness_physically_attractive

Quote
As a vivid example, the researchers describe a male team member who was perceived as the slacker of the team and the main focus of negative gossip. It turns out that he was uniformly rated physically ugly by the other members of the team. In contrast was another member of the team, who worked so hard that there were discussions of him as a possible contender for the U.S. Olympic team. This guy was rated by everyone on the team as physically attractive. The most interesting thing is that this large difference in perceived physical attractiveness between the two crew members was not evidenced by the raters who did not know anything about the contributions of these two men.

Quote
In a third study, students in 6-week summer archaeology course rated each other on the first day of class on familiarity, intelligence, effort, liking, and physical attractiveness. The same students then did the same ratings again on the last day of class, after working with each other for the 6 weeks on a dig site, working 5 days per week and approximately 8 hours per day with each other. Consistent with the first two studies, non-physical traits (especially liking) contributed to final perceptions of physical attractiveness above and beyond the effects of the initial impressions of physical attractiveness.

Not too keen on the "women want dominance and status" school of thought myself, but decide for yourself:

http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jmtowsen/Publications/JT-male%20status%20&%20polygyny-Post%20Standard0001.pdf

Quote
Responding to the best-looking model in the fast-food costume, 60 percent of the men said they would be willing to date her, and half were willing to have sxx. Only 28% of the women said they were wiling to date, and 8 percent were willing to have sxx.

Women are turned off by domineering me, but they are attracted to men who appear successful and confident. The higher women move up the success ladder, the higher their socioeconomic standards for partners are.

...

"WHERE DOES IT SAY ALL THAT? BUT DON'T LINK ME TO WHERE IT SAYS IT!!!"

It's not "WHERE DOES IT SAY ALL THAT? BUT DON'T LINK ME TO WHERE IT SAYS IT!!!". It's simply an unfitting sample size selection. Do you understand how science works? Do you understand how sample sizes work? If we go outside and ask 50 random women in Hollywood a question and 30 of them say “X”, we cannot conclude that this means “60% of American women say X to this question.” It doesn’t work like that. We need a good enough sample size and a correct representation of socioeconomic status, age, ethnicity, people with and without internet access, etc. and cannot simply conclude that a random selection of people is representative of all people.

The women and men on OkCupid are not an exact representation of the entire female and male population. The partner selection in online dating is not equal to the partner selection of all females on the planet earth. Rating a simple photo of a man is not the same as meeting a real person and hearing this person talk, watching his body language and then rates his attractiveness. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

You failed to prove that "moderately attractive" meant "above average attractiveness" or "top 20% attractiveness" or whatever you believe to be. You admitted it was something that you personally concluded, but it did not say so in the study you linked. Since you like dictionary definitions, here's one for "moderate":

Quote
1.
kept or keeping within reasonable or proper limits; not extreme, excessive, or intense:
a moderate price.
2.
of medium quantity, extent, or amount:
a moderate income.
3.
mediocre or fair:
moderate talent.
4.
calm or mild, as of the weather.
5.
of or relating to moderates, as in politics or religion.

So "moderately attractive" can equally mean "of average attractiveness" for all we know.

The pig woman experiment was not a scientifically valid study, come on. We have no way of knowing if not all of those messages were just scammers. It does not prove that an ugly woman cannot be happy being with a man who's also not attractive. Again, look outside and see how all the couples out there look like. Are they all male models? Hardly.

There are multiple reasons why a woman could message a guy she does not find very attractive. I'm not looking for an answer to fit my belief system, I'm simply saying that this tendency exists. What do you make of it? How does it prove your belief that height matters a lot or that women cannot love a short man or whatever your belief is?

Quote
For MANY people who end up on forums for limb lengthening surgery, their height is a direct cause of unhappiness and lack of what they would call "success" in various aspects of their life (sxxual, career, interpersonal, etc).

Highly questionable and also unprovable. We cannot look into these people's lives and see if such a great extent of discrimination exists in these lives that makes it unable for them to succeed in the various spheres you mentioned. There is one poster here who once said "A loser before LL will still be a loser after LL", and I tend to agree with that. If you make this claim, we again need to ask "how short is 'short'" and at what height is the possibility to achieve things in life greatly hampered? Sure, a 5 foot man is likely to go through s-hit and also experience discrimination, but is it impossible for him to get a good job? Good friends? A good relationship with a woman? In any case, personality and developing backbone (not being a whiny bitch, not letting people walk over you - just like the example of yours with the "Napoleon complex" stereotype - not accepting people saying that about you) can help. As also evidenced by the studies I linked.

And a short person won't get tall from LL. Depending on what part of the legs you lengthen, you can achieve 2-3 inches or 4 inches on both segments, which - at great costs in time, money and physical health - can moderately improve your height. A 5'5'' man will never become tall with LL despite all the costs and risks involved. So even if we accept that height discrimination exists, and that life gets harder as you get shorter (to which I agree to an extent) we should look very critically at every person wanting LL, because a 5'4'' healthy dude becoming a 5'7'' semi-crippled dude is not by all means an improvement. Do you understand? Even if we go by your belief that "height is extremely important", LL is not always a guaranteed net benefit for the individual.

And I can only agree that I'm all for new methods of making people taller. If science finds new ways of doing that beyond LL, a lot of people could be helped, including "normally short people", actual dwarfs as well as people with medical conditions. It's just that this seems really difficult. Doing hair transplants or making hair grow again is one thing. But making people grow would probably involve transmuting solid bone into growth plate marrow. That's something really futuristic. I'm all for making it happen. But what can normal people like us do about that? How about some constructive, positive suggestions from you, instead of going into random forums and calling others delusional?
Logged

Bruce Wayne

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 344
Re: "There's no point of training in Martial Arts at 5'6"
« Reply #61 on: November 01, 2017, 11:10:02 AM »

Already demonstrated that this is not the case. "Averagely attractive" is an oxymoron in the first place; you can't be "averagely attractive" any more than you can be "averagely tall". That's senseless. You're "unattractive", "average", or "attractive". We can add superlative qualifiers like "VERY attractive" and so on, but these don't change the "bottom line" - a person who is "VERY attractive" is an attractive person. A person who is "mildly unattractive" is an unattractive person.

[Citation needed]

All evidence and research I've presented clearly suggests otherwise

Again, all evidence and research I've presented suggests otherwise. If you want to challenge that, you're going to have to present concrete evidence in favor of your claim. Note that your personal anecdotal evidence is neither substantiated (you have no proof it happened), nor relevant (a sample size of 1 is not scientifically valid material)

"We"? I've included SOME anecdotes in my posts, but the majority of my views and claims are based on scientific evidence. The reason for this, and I'm bolding this for emphasis, is that claims made on the internet with no proof to substantiate them have zero value in a dialectic procedure

Again, you defeat your own point, and I once again repeat to you that you aren't short. 5'8" is NOT short unless you live in a place where the average male height is 6'+, such as the Dinaric Alps or the Netherlands.

And again (it's getting tiresome having to repeat common-sense things to you): the statistical evidence does NOT support the idea that ACTUALLY SHORT men (i.e. NOT YOU) would not change their heights in a heartbeat if they had the opportunity. If anything, assuming that because "it is possible" that short men MIGHT not choose to be taller if they had the chance, that they really wouldn't go through with it, is much more indicative of tunnel vision and denial on your part than it is on mine.

AGAIN, I have data to back up my beliefs and claims. You don't. It really is that simple. I can't believe I even have to say this.

[Citation needed]

Ahhhh. Okay. I think I'm starting to see why you "reason" and think the way you do, and come to the (scientifically unsupported) conclusions that you do. By any chance, did you visit a psychologist or other """mental health specialist""" to "help" you with your "body-image based neurosis"? Or perhaps turn to "self-help" books and forums online?

I'd be willing to bet you did. Your thought process reeks of coping mechanisms and delusion-as-defense. Textbook behavioral psych 101.



It seems to me that the only thing you "learned" is how to delude yourself with comforting lies and "positive affirmations" to protect yourself from suffering severe insult to your ego, self-esteem, and general psyche, which would eventually lead you to becoming a "very unhappy, depressed person". As mentioned earlier, this is called delusion-as-defense in psychology. It is one of the 3 D's of basic psychological defense mechanisms. The other 2 are "denial" and "distortion" (sound familiar?)

https://blogs.psychcentral.com/humor/2015/11/defense-mechanism-is-denial-distortion-delusion/

In a certain way, it's an understandable course of action. It's hard to face reality head on, especially when that reality is unkind, unfavorable or otherwise not beneficial for the self. But on the other hand, people like you, or as a better example, Jack, a man who isn't even short but tries to convince short men that being short isn't a big deal, are probably a big part of the reason why the best recourse for height increase we have in 2017 is a barbaric surgery involving breaking your legs and spreading them apart with a magnetic nail.

Consider the case of androgenic alopecia (male pattern baldness). These people are much more realistic about the importance of the source of their "insecurity" (hair), and are much more aware and accepting of the way not having it affects the way people perceive them (including but not limited to their attractiveness). And in their case, new treatments and potential cures are announced every other day, and at this very moment there are 6 potential cures (not treatments, CURES) for male pattern baldness awaiting release from 2019 to 2022.

If there weren't so many people like you running around proselytizing this cult-like humanist idea of looks, height and so on not mattering, or being less important than scientifically accredited research demonstrates it to be, we could have a similar amount of scientific interest in height increase. It's every bit as big of a deal as hair loss, but because of this coping nonsense that "height isn't everything", "personality and confidence are what's important" and other BS, short men get shamed into silence when they vocalize their desire to get taller, getting called "insecure little guys" and accused of having a "Napoleon complex" (not that there's anything you CAN do that won't get you accused of this as a short man).


Let's see

1) unattractive men are able to enter relationships

2) women either aren't as attracted to those men as they would be to men who are conventionally attracted to them, or aren't attracted to them at all, but will settle for them in order to secure resources/attention

I don't see anything contradictory about these beliefs. I'm confused as to why you're acting as though pointing this out constitutes a "gotcha!" moment. I'm not "twisting" anything to "feed my negativity". If anything, you're twisting the results to feed your irrational optimism. Given the findings of the studies and available data, concluding that women settle for men they don't find attractive in order to obtain money, validation and attention is much more reasonable than believing the Disney-Pi


Ok "giant slayer", go ahead and find some 6'6" guys to "beat up". I'm sure your mystical kung fu powers will let you teleport behind them and executive the five-finger buddha palm of death and beat them to a pulp while Michael Bay-esque explosions go off in the background to the tune of Pantera music.

I'm sure you won't just get a brutal reality check when they pick you up, body slam you into the ground, and curbstomp you into unconsciousness.

You're fked man.
Logged
25 years 4 months | Pre-CLL

Starting height : 167cm | Goal : 172cm | Dr. Giotikas

"My anger outweighs my guilt."
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up