When i was 16 yo i liked this girl

>height =/= attractiveness either.
it's a quite important factor though haha

thought experiment: 2 guys with exactly the same face and body except one is taller. Most girls I know go with the taller one.

Girls are shallow and insecure baboons that's why.

then what do you suggest short guys do then

Don't ask women that. The suggestion is usually to hide and die.

Where is /that poster/ who keeps posting in these kind of threads saying all manlets should be castrated and turned into traps?

find a short ugly girl who is willing to settle? idk dude. Just don't expect us to have sex with you out of pity or something.

Short girls are the ones most obsessed with tall men. It's odd. Taller girls seem less bothered.

Anyway, short men including in anti-body-shaming campaigns when?

again with the "ugly" shit, even though short girls can be cute. also, there are short guys with good looking faces, attractive bodies, well paying jobs and good personalities, why should they have to settle because of some arbitrary number?

>why should they have to settle because of some arbitrary number?
because they are less attractive
what don't you understand

>50934208
so youre saying a 6'4" bumfuck loser who lives with his parents and jacks it to hentai all day is more attractive than a 5'8" or so guy with a well paying job, confident personality, nice place, and fit body?

Attached: 1458905904705.jpg (250x241, 7K)

Height shouldn't a factor for attraction unless youre a actual midget. Maybe if girls picked men based on their personalities and things they can control they wouldn't be miserable whores.

no
I'm saying an average looking 6'4 guy is better than an average looking 5'8 guy

we can't control who we are attracted to

how tall are you, for reference then

5 original feet and 7 original inches

>we can't control who we are attracted to
You can retard.
>I'm saying an average looking 6'4 guy is better than an average looking 5'8 guy
Why exactly? Because you're insecure and think "he's tall he's so manly" like a braindead monkey

you're a shallow whore lmao. and i say this as a 6'1" dude

Attached: gdhvjmwswo221.jpg (683x670, 44K)

>You can retard.
how? even better: why?
>Because you're insecure and think "he's tall he's so manly" like a braindead monkey
that's indeed how most girls I know think and humans are indeed monkeys. What's wrong with going by your natural instinct

Women can't be shallow, user. Only men can be shallow.

>humans are indeed monkeys. What's wrong with going by your natural instinct

Attached: 1531077658530.png (645x729, 77K)

>be 5'7''
>live in lanklet country
>ex gf was 5'9'' and dated another taller girl about the same height
>dated over 15 different women in 2 years time
>popped the cherry of a tindergirl last night
>regular sex on first date
I really couldn't care less about being a manlet. I have other shit to make up for it so it doesn't really bother me that much. I'm MUCH more worried about losing my hair though. Being a bald manlet would be game over for me.

>Would you want to be fucked by a kid?
i'm into shotadom so i want a 10yo to force me to rim him

good argument. Now answer my question. Why would I go through the hassle of changing what I'm attracted to if that were possible? Just because YOU can't get laid?

>we can't control who we are attracted to
>muh its only natural argument

well you know what, yeah, i am attracted to big busts and big asses.

does that mean i will choose a girl soley for that? fuck no. even if i had to choose between two of the same girl, with one having a big ass and big bust, i'd still choose based on who i connect with the most. you know why? because relationships are more than just physical, you need the emotional connection too.

the difference between us and animals is that we don't have to go by our 'natural instincts'. we choose our partners based on how much we can connect, not on what arbitrary, physical features their body has.

you fucking whore

Attached: 1474326970055.png (600x600, 354K)

If a short girl dates a tall guy after a while she'll get tired of it because it's impractical.

>What's wrong with going by your natural instinct
I have a natural instinct to rape any women i see does that mean I do it?
>how? even better: why
By using your brain. The tall guy did nothing to earn it and could be an asshole. The average height guy could be a real man. But girls pic the tall guy because they are stupid and insecure

Devito must be the world's oldest baby to you

In what way is it impractical?

Very edgy. However: more realistically you're super desperate and would immediately settle for any girl that gave you attention.

>with one having a big ass and big bust
I think the height equivalent for men is face rather than curves. Would you really settle for a hideous girl who you connected with more rather than a 9/10 model who you connected with averagely?

>I have a natural instinct to rape any women i see does that mean I do it?
Rape is illegal. Being attracted to tall men isn't.

>Devito must be the world's oldest baby to you
he's definitely unnatractive yes.

So is a 5'7 guy okay or do you just need him to be WAY taller than you?

>The tall guy did nothing to earn it and could be an asshole.
just because I like tall guys doesn't mean I don't use any discretion. If he is an asshole I won't choose him. There are plenty of other tall men

>posts 40 seconds apart

hmmm

Attached: 1474406531373.jpg (590x578, 31K)

Well statistically that's not what happens girl care more about height then personality that's a fact. And it's with women are inferior beings who never progressed mentally

Found the larping lanklet virgin. At 6'4" you will find next to no guys who are even average looking, most are ugly. You can't compare those two heights in attractiveness, the 5'8" guy will always btfo the 6'4" guy in looks.

What does height have to do with fathers?

Devito is pure sex, everyone knows that.

His entire career has been built on mocking his height.

Attached: giving her the dd.jpg (464x485, 68K)

>implying we didn't already know women go by looks.

Yeah, no shit anons, like what is even this argument.
Of course women prefer taller guys, men and women have opposing dating standards, you shouldn't also judge every person just by them, because just like you think that there's something else about attraction, there's also girls who think so, just don't go pursuing shitty thots with daddy issues, they'll probably cheat and drain all of your money/time.

Men have wide and varied tastes. You have leg men, ass men, breast men, feet men, etc. Even among those, take breasts for example, some like flat, some like big and saggy, etc. On the other side of the coin, women, being the members of the meme gender, only ever want the same things. NPCs, the lot of you.

>like what is even this argument
Just funny hearing roasties try to explain their degenerate behaviour. Meanwhile these dumb cunt probably still think they are decent humans for being so shallow and vapid

Trust me user, women drool over 6'ft and above, no matter how they look, it depends of the country of course. I'm a 3rd worlder so anyone avobe that is a fucking god among women.

It's about the hypocrisy, more than anything. Think of all those bodyshaming and discrimination campaigns that women keep going on about.

6'1" is the best height for me. 5'7" is definitely a no.

no?

>Well statistically that's not what happens girl care more about height then personality that's a fact
if it's a fact I want to see you prove it

>At 6'4" you will find next to no guys who are even average looking,
I know plenty of attractive tall men

it has to do with evolutionary biology. It takes virtually no effort for a man to get laid and have kids so they want to fuck every possible girl. Cavewomen have to endure 9 months of pregnancy and finally labor too if they had sex during the wrong day of the month.

>Meanwhile these dumb cunt probably still think they are decent humans for being so shallow and vapid
would I be a better person if I just fucked indiscriminantly? If I did that you would call me a slut. Women are apperently either shallow (if they have any sense of standards) or sluts (if they want to apease men) There is no winning for us.

Most people spend the majority of their childhoods literally looking up to their fathers.
Girls identify men taller than them as their father figure, specifically the figure of authority that only existed in their minds as children.

>roasties
There ya go mate, how hard is it to neglect blonde busty bitches? Like, i understand it makes us pp hard but once you date and fuck with a thot, you finally understand how shallow these types of gals are, and if that isn't an issue; then yeah, women prefer taller guys, world news i guess

how much do you weigh and what would you rate yourself

>would I be a better person if I just fucked indiscriminantly?
Thats already what you're doing. You see a tall guy and throw him your pussy like a whore. You only care about looks you are a shitty human

110 pound 6/10 I guess. Maybe 7/10.

>You see a tall guy and throw him your pussy like a whore.
no I don't. Why do you assume that?
>You only care about looks
nope. I care about both looks and personality.

>Women are apperently either shallow (if they have any sense of standards) or sluts (if they want to apease men)

standards as in actual standards, like wanting a man who is confident, funny, smart, hard working

not bullshit roastie height requirement """""""""""standards""""""""""""

Loooks is the defining factor you made that clear. Personality doesn't matter if he's short you dumb hole

post pic of yourself if you think you're such hot shit

There's too much research lmayo, like, why would you even give an argument about the discussion without already knowing the fact that most women are by default attracted to taller men?
Just by you saying that anything around 5'7" is a No go, just proves user's point, user said that he would really prefer the girl with the most emotional connection, and the actual fact that 50% of marriages end up on cheating and 70 to 80% of those who cheat are women, just says that women have a really insane bias towards taller men to the point of cheating.

5 7 and 110 sounds rail thin
Why do you self flagellate here on r9k
t 6ft

>it has to do with evolutionary biology.
Exactly why you are all low-talent meatbags. You're only supposed to be breeding sows. Giving women any power in society is a mistake.

isn't this statement kinda debunked and found false?

im good.

>standards as in actual standards, like wanting a man who is confident, funny, smart, hard working
those are definitely amongst my standards.

>not bullshit roastie height requirement """""""""""standards""""""""""""
would you date a -1/10 burn victim who is confident, funny, smart and hard working?

>There's too much research lmayo
okay link me to a paper.

>5 7 and 110 sounds rail thin
yeah

>You're only supposed to be breeding sows
There is no "supposed" to in evolution. If you think like this, men are "supposed" to be nothing but providers to women and children.

It might suck to be a poor assed 3rd worlder but at least women haven't started any feminist movements, still, it doesn't matter how the culture is, bias toward 6ft chads will always exist lmao, honestly mate why even deny it as a women, how hard is it to admit that maybe 90% of women go by Looks/Height >>> Anything else

>5'10
Am I doomed? A girl told me I was tall once but I feel so short

>There is no "supposed" to in evolution.
Pedantry is the mark of a small mind.
> men are "supposed" to be nothing but providers to women and children.
This is true, though. It just so happens that is what makes men transcendent and beautiful in form, where as women are stuck in their evolutionary niche.

livescience.com/58607-mens-looks-may-matter-more-than-personality.html
There. Actual research, with practical experiments, personality does matter, to a minimal extent.

>would you date a -1/10 burn victim who is confident, funny, smart and hard working?

why do you always pull out the most extreme of analogies?

since when is being short comparable to being hideous, or ugly, or a fucking burn victim?

>looks
>taller guys
Why are you contradicting yourself? Do women go for looks or tall guys which one?

You're a gay man. Your opinion doesn't count.

That's what lanklet virgins keep telling themselves

How do I know if I'm at least moderately attractive?

I actually didn't think you were this retarded, i mean, you just said you wouldn't date a -1/10 burn victim, i'm sure you wouldn't date him regardless of him being 6ft tall.

>Pedantry is the mark of a small mind.
It's not pedantic, pedantry would be if I corrected a minor mistake, but I mean to show that your entire point is fallicious. Evolution knows no agenda. You are wrong in assigning an ideology to it.

>why do you always pull out the most extreme of analogies?
to show that you also care about looks though I agree this wasn't the classiest choice I could have gone with.

>since when is being short comparable to being hideous, or ugly, or a fucking burn victim?
I find that that's the best way to get it through to you guys. Height as a feature of attraction to women is not analogous to how men perceive tits and ass but how they percieve face..

im not

interesting. Still, I don't really see what's wrong with this. You are not entitled to sex.

Does that matter? I'm a man, i don't care, i stopped dating cute retarded girls when i realized looks don't actually matter.
Call me a liar, but actually connecting with your mate matters a lot.

how many 6ft chads have you fucked. i wanna jack off

No idea. My gf always tells me that short guys are absolutely a no-go, i just can't understand.

On the opposite, even though i have preferences in matter of physycal attractiveness, my only no-go is if she's overweight: overweight people are disgusting. But that's something they have control on

I have had sex with 5 men in the past and I guess most of them were above 6 foot.

women like this remind me why i'm going to die alone and likely kill myself in the next few years

what were they like personality wise and looks wise

>Does that matter?
Didn't you read the link user posted?
>looks don't actually matter
Of course they do.
They matter to me, it'd be hypocritical to pretend the opposite, and they obviously matter to girls too.
I'm just wondering because I'm obviously not ugly but I also never really interacted with women enough to know if they found me attractive or not.
Man I just wish I'd get one or two genuine compliments from girls who aren't my mom, that'd be such a huge ego boost

>It's not pedantic, pedantry would be if I corrected a minor mistake, but I mean to show that your entire point is fallicious. Evolution knows no agenda. You are wrong in assigning an ideology to it.
Then you are dumber than I gave you credit for. Yes, it's being pedantic. This is a dumb semantics game to avoid the actual point. You should know what I mean, without me going on for a paragraph about the particulars of evolutionary biology. I can't use words like optimization either, as it would be _technically_ wrong as a direct analog. But it is a sort of optimization, and although nothing "choose" the outcome, there are only certain configurations that can ever be successful under adequate pressures. So this is what I mean by "supposed" to be. This is all pointless, though, because it's obvious you're being difficult for it's own sake.

The sex robots and male-only asexual reproduction can not come fast enough.

honestly, get a grip you fucking manlets. listen to what the fembot says and just die alone, you're not attractive sorry

Attached: 1477841674917.jpg (399x385, 29K)

pretty okay

>This is a dumb semantics game to avoid the actual point
Your "actual point" seemed to be that due to women's monopoly on being able to birth children they should be confined to doing nothing but birthing children and that's wrong.
>there are only certain configurations that can ever be successful under adequate pressures.
Human civilization has thrived since women's emancipation
The elligible working population doubled leading to increased productivity. Until the industrial revolution it was more beneficial for society if women stayed home and took care of the kids, yes, but now that we have government institution and health care that take care of us it's economically more advantageous to send women to work.

>Your "actual point" seemed to be that due to women's monopoly on being able to birth children they should be confined to doing nothing but birthing children and that's wrong.
No. Again, I gave you too much credit. I'm saying that's all you're good for. Whether you _should_ be or not is an ethical debate that's outside of the purview of my point.

>Human civilization has thrived since women's emancipation
Prove causality.

>but now that we have government institution and health care that take care of us it's economically more advantageous to send women to work.
Women are a net financial drain over their entire working life. They collect more taxes than they earn, and despite earning less than men make on average are responsible for some 80% of consumer spending per household. So they are not only getting money from the government for having a vagina, but they are getting money from their domestic slave, too.

Attached: gp.png (741x393, 36K)

OP please respond
am I fucked (not in the good way)?

>I'm saying that's all you're good for.
in which way?

>Prove causality.
Not saying women caused the thriving per se. But doubling the workforce obviously has had positive effects on the economy. Women being active in the workforce has not led to our demise.

>Women are a net financial drain over their entire working life
They consume goods and services yes. Moreso than men, yes. Consumption is what makes the economy run. There is no benefit to society if money is not spent. How do you envision a capitalist economy in which no one spends money?

I wonder if the women in your pic is all women or all full time employed women, because ther are obviously still a lot of stay at home mothers and part time workers among women.

>but they are getting money from their domestic slave, too.
Women do a lot of unpaid work in the sense that they take care of kids and the house more than men. If you want to characterize the man's role in most families as "domestice slave" it's intelectually dishonest to not characterize the woman's role in most families as "domestic slave" too.

also: If your goal is really to optimize society I think there is a more fruitful characteristic you can discriminate on than gender, you can make a similar graph for race or certain genetic makeups, IQ etc.

>>I'm saying that's all you're good for.
>in which way?
The measurable ones.
>Women being active in the workforce has not led to our demise.
Neither have workers with Downs. It doesn't make it optimal.

>Consumption is what makes the economy run.
No. Consumption uses resources. It's in the fucking name.

>I wonder if the women in your pic is all women or all full time employed women,
It's national statistic, so likely everyone.
>because ther are obviously still a lot of stay at home mothers and part time workers among women.
You can investigate this if you want. The numbers are from australia, so you can find the data for part-time and stay at home, and figure if that constitutes all of the deficit. I'm too tired at the moment to care.

>If you want to characterize the man's role in most families as "domestice slave" it's intelectually dishonest to not characterize the woman's role in most families as "domestic slave" too.
It is the men that are bound by law to keep paying for kids they don't see. You rarely if ever see it the other way around. Not being able to dictate terms is what makes it slavery.

>also: If your goal is really to optimize society I think there is a more fruitful characteristic you can discriminate on than gender, you can make a similar graph for race or certain genetic makeups, IQ etc.
This exercise is not intended to be prescriptive. Frankly, I think trying to "optimize society" is a fool's errand. For one, there is no clear goal to optimize for, and two humans will likely be extinct or endanged in ~300 years anyway, maybe for the best.

>No. Consumption uses resources.
using resources and making the economy run are not mutually exclusive. There are also tons of renewable products and services and globally we're not even close to scarcity in any major resource.

>It is the men that are bound by law to keep paying for kids they don't see.
As far as I know only the US has their child support laws like that. And I don't agree with it either.

>This exercise is not intended to be prescriptive.
then what was your point to begin with? You wanted to say women are stupid and seem smart while doing it?

im decent height wise, 6'2, but im also a dicklet. would rather be a manlet with a big cock

>using resources and making the economy run are not mutually exclusive. There are also tons of renewable products and services and globally we're not even close to scarcity in any major resource.
I'm too tired to argue this, but it's the same flawed thinking that disasters "boost" the economy. No, people spend materials and labor to create things that already existed. Just because it generates local work doesn't mean anything was achieved. It doesn't matter how renewable the labor or materials were. It was a net loss, even if money exchanged a few hands.

>And I don't agree with it either.
What about at the government level? Remember that it's primarily men paying into the system. Just because it's abstracted behind taxes doesn't mean that it's not present.

>then what was your point to begin with?
That women are low-talent breed-bags.
>You wanted to say women are stupid
No. Women are also physically and mentally weak.

>What about at the government level?
in your words: not being able to dictate the terms is what makes it slavery. Because it's done with tax money people are able to dictate the terms more easily via democratic means. I'm opposed to the way child care is run in the US because it makes one individual "slave" to another. By paying any tax at all you're already a "slave" to the government so in my eyes it's less morally questionable. Also: paying child support from one individual to another is different from every citizen paying child support to every family. The latter is a way of ensuring more stable families, in the long run it's more expensive to have people breed themselves into poverty which would result in stealing and halt child development. Also tax based child support is proportional to income.

>Because it's done with tax money people are able to dictate the terms more easily via democratic means
The laws you oppose are also democratic. I'm not sure I see how one is different from the other in that regard, especially as the government acts as the middleman in both cases. The only apparent difference is now every useful citizen pays for the bastard, not just the dad.