165 is the minimum

[joao]

There is no scientific consensus that points to 170 cm as an absolute "minimum" for attractiveness. While there are psychological thresholds and stated preferences, real-world data regarding sexual partners (like the Chapman University study) debunks the idea that men under 170 cm are "out of the game."
Here is what the science says about the 170 cm mark and why that number appears so often:

1. The 170 cm Threshold is Cultural, Not Biological​

Often, 170 cm (or 5'7" in the US) is cited because it is the point where a man moves from being statistically "short" to being "low-average" in most Western countries.

• The Reality: There is no statistical "jump" in the number of partners when a man moves from 168 cm to 171 cm. Women’s behavior regarding partner count is the same for men who are 165 cm as it is for those who are 175 cm.

2. The "Taller Man Rule"​

The most famous study on preferences (Stulp et al., 2013) shows that the strongest biological "rule" isn't a fixed number (like 170 cm), but rather that the man is taller than the woman.

• Since the average female height is around 160–162 cm, a man at 165 cm already satisfies this biological requirement for the majority of women. The 170 cm mark is just a larger "safety margin," not a minimum requirement for success.

3. Preference vs. Reality​

Speed dating studies show an interesting discrepancy:

• Preference: If you ask a woman, she might say her "minimum" is 170 cm or 180 cm.
• Real Action: When choosing a real partner, if a 165 cm man has a handsome face and confidence, she often ignores her stated height preference. Face and personality "override" height criteria in practice.

4. The Only Study with a "Minimum" (but it’s much lower)​

The only studies showing a drastic drop in the number of partners refer to men below 160–163 cm. Above that, you enter the "plateau" where success is determined by facial beauty and status.
Summary: There is no scientific proof that 170 cm is the minimum. If you are 165 cm with shoes and have a handsome face, you are statistically in the same success group as men who are 175 cm or 180 cm. The "170 cm minimum" is an internet myth that is not reflected in the actual number of partners men have.
Would you like me to show you how confidence and posture can change height perception by up to 3 or 4 centimeters without needing special shoes?

 

[Don_and-idk]

There is no scientific consensus that points to 170 cm as an absolute "minimum" for attractiveness. While there are psychological thresholds and stated preferences, real-world data regarding sexual partners (like the Chapman University study) debunks the idea that men under 170 cm are "out of the game."
Here is what the science says about the 170 cm mark and why that number appears so often:

1. The 170 cm Threshold is Cultural, Not Biological​

Often, 170 cm (or 5'7" in the US) is cited because it is the point where a man moves from being statistically "short" to being "low-average" in most Western countries.

• The Reality: There is no statistical "jump" in the number of partners when a man moves from 168 cm to 171 cm. Women’s behavior regarding partner count is the same for men who are 165 cm as it is for those who are 175 cm.

2. The "Taller Man Rule"​

The most famous study on preferences (Stulp et al., 2013) shows that the strongest biological "rule" isn't a fixed number (like 170 cm), but rather that the man is taller than the woman.

• Since the average female height is around 160–162 cm, a man at 165 cm already satisfies this biological requirement for the majority of women. The 170 cm mark is just a larger "safety margin," not a minimum requirement for success.

3. Preference vs. Reality​

Speed dating studies show an interesting discrepancy:

• Preference: If you ask a woman, she might say her "minimum" is 170 cm or 180 cm.
• Real Action: When choosing a real partner, if a 165 cm man has a handsome face and confidence, she often ignores her stated height preference. Face and personality "override" height criteria in practice.

4. The Only Study with a "Minimum" (but it’s much lower)​

The only studies showing a drastic drop in the number of partners refer to men below 160–163 cm. Above that, you enter the "plateau" where success is determined by facial beauty and status.
Summary: There is no scientific proof that 170 cm is the minimum. If you are 165 cm with shoes and have a handsome face, you are statistically in the same success group as men who are 175 cm or 180 cm. The "170 cm minimum" is an internet myth that is not reflected in the actual number of partners men have.
Would you like me to show you how confidence and posture can change height perception by up to 3 or 4 centimeters without needing special shoes?

thank god im 171cm

 

[Quetila]

 

[kimorishi]

face influences ur height minimum imo

 

[buccalfatremoval]

Jfl im 190cm and still khhv

 

[joao]

View attachment 5003539

Why

 

[primal_shitmuncher]

Would you like me to show you how confidence and posture can change height perception by up to 3 or 4 centimeters without needing special shoes?

You don't even need the AI detector.

 

[joao]

Jfl im 190cm and still khhv

But if you are a normie you will get 7 if you are taller than 165

 

[Quetila]

Why

It’s fucking cope

 

[ZyzzReincarnate]

JoinedAug 14, 2019

 

[joao]

face influences ur height minimum imo

How

 

[joao]

You don't even need the AI detector.

Yes of course it is ai

 

[joao]

I never said it was not

 

[bratex2213]

There is no scientific consensus that points to 170 cm as an absolute "minimum" for attractiveness. While there are psychological thresholds and stated preferences, real-world data regarding sexual partners (like the Chapman University study) debunks the idea that men under 170 cm are "out of the game."
Here is what the science says about the 170 cm mark and why that number appears so often:

1. The 170 cm Threshold is Cultural, Not Biological​

Often, 170 cm (or 5'7" in the US) is cited because it is the point where a man moves from being statistically "short" to being "low-average" in most Western countries.

• The Reality: There is no statistical "jump" in the number of partners when a man moves from 168 cm to 171 cm. Women’s behavior regarding partner count is the same for men who are 165 cm as it is for those who are 175 cm.

2. The "Taller Man Rule"​

The most famous study on preferences (Stulp et al., 2013) shows that the strongest biological "rule" isn't a fixed number (like 170 cm), but rather that the man is taller than the woman.

• Since the average female height is around 160–162 cm, a man at 165 cm already satisfies this biological requirement for the majority of women. The 170 cm mark is just a larger "safety margin," not a minimum requirement for success.

3. Preference vs. Reality​

Speed dating studies show an interesting discrepancy:

• Preference: If you ask a woman, she might say her "minimum" is 170 cm or 180 cm.
• Real Action: When choosing a real partner, if a 165 cm man has a handsome face and confidence, she often ignores her stated height preference. Face and personality "override" height criteria in practice.

4. The Only Study with a "Minimum" (but it’s much lower)​

The only studies showing a drastic drop in the number of partners refer to men below 160–163 cm. Above that, you enter the "plateau" where success is determined by facial beauty and status.
Summary: There is no scientific proof that 170 cm is the minimum. If you are 165 cm with shoes and have a handsome face, you are statistically in the same success group as men who are 175 cm or 180 cm. The "170 cm minimum" is an internet myth that is not reflected in the actual number of partners men have.
Would you like me to show you how confidence and posture can change height perception by up to 3 or 4 centimeters without needing special shoes?

dnr, but 6,3 is minimum, Im 5'8 and its brutal I need to be htn, and get a Porsche so I can compensate thats why im grindmaxing

 

[iwannasleeponurlap]

There is no scientific consensus that points to 170 cm as an absolute "minimum" for attractiveness. While there are psychological thresholds and stated preferences, real-world data regarding sexual partners (like the Chapman University study) debunks the idea that men under 170 cm are "out of the game."
Here is what the science says about the 170 cm mark and why that number appears so often:

1. The 170 cm Threshold is Cultural, Not Biological​

Often, 170 cm (or 5'7" in the US) is cited because it is the point where a man moves from being statistically "short" to being "low-average" in most Western countries.

• The Reality: There is no statistical "jump" in the number of partners when a man moves from 168 cm to 171 cm. Women’s behavior regarding partner count is the same for men who are 165 cm as it is for those who are 175 cm.

2. The "Taller Man Rule"​

The most famous study on preferences (Stulp et al., 2013) shows that the strongest biological "rule" isn't a fixed number (like 170 cm), but rather that the man is taller than the woman.

• Since the average female height is around 160–162 cm, a man at 165 cm already satisfies this biological requirement for the majority of women. The 170 cm mark is just a larger "safety margin," not a minimum requirement for success.

3. Preference vs. Reality​

Speed dating studies show an interesting discrepancy:

• Preference: If you ask a woman, she might say her "minimum" is 170 cm or 180 cm.
• Real Action: When choosing a real partner, if a 165 cm man has a handsome face and confidence, she often ignores her stated height preference. Face and personality "override" height criteria in practice.

4. The Only Study with a "Minimum" (but it’s much lower)​

The only studies showing a drastic drop in the number of partners refer to men below 160–163 cm. Above that, you enter the "plateau" where success is determined by facial beauty and status.
Summary: There is no scientific proof that 170 cm is the minimum. If you are 165 cm with shoes and have a handsome face, you are statistically in the same success group as men who are 175 cm or 180 cm. The "170 cm minimum" is an internet myth that is not reflected in the actual number of partners men have.
Would you like me to show you how confidence and posture can change height perception by up to 3 or 4 centimeters without needing special shoes?

just 1 cm

 

[kimorishi]

How

pass a certain point i think ur height would rule you out no matter how you look, but i believe that if ur lhtn you can get away with being 5'7/170 cm, but if ur like ltn probably not

 

[AgentAngularity]

Jfl im 190cm and still khhv

im 184 and also khhv, face matters much more

 

[reeven]

 

[dirittomarco]

holy cope

 

[Genioplaster]

I get that you're probably on the shorter side, so am I, but this is coping to the next level. In western countries the average female height is legit 165 to 168 (5'5 to 5'6), women aren't even gonna look at you unless you're at least 3 inches taller than them and that's excluding their perception of the number.

 

[TNTD1209]

There is no scientific consensus that points to 170 cm as an absolute "minimum" for attractiveness. While there are psychological thresholds and stated preferences, real-world data regarding sexual partners (like the Chapman University study) debunks the idea that men under 170 cm are "out of the game."
Here is what the science says about the 170 cm mark and why that number appears so often:

1. The 170 cm Threshold is Cultural, Not Biological​

Often, 170 cm (or 5'7" in the US) is cited because it is the point where a man moves from being statistically "short" to being "low-average" in most Western countries.

• The Reality: There is no statistical "jump" in the number of partners when a man moves from 168 cm to 171 cm. Women’s behavior regarding partner count is the same for men who are 165 cm as it is for those who are 175 cm.

2. The "Taller Man Rule"​

The most famous study on preferences (Stulp et al., 2013) shows that the strongest biological "rule" isn't a fixed number (like 170 cm), but rather that the man is taller than the woman.

• Since the average female height is around 160–162 cm, a man at 165 cm already satisfies this biological requirement for the majority of women. The 170 cm mark is just a larger "safety margin," not a minimum requirement for success.

3. Preference vs. Reality​

Speed dating studies show an interesting discrepancy:

• Preference: If you ask a woman, she might say her "minimum" is 170 cm or 180 cm.
• Real Action: When choosing a real partner, if a 165 cm man has a handsome face and confidence, she often ignores her stated height preference. Face and personality "override" height criteria in practice.

4. The Only Study with a "Minimum" (but it’s much lower)​

The only studies showing a drastic drop in the number of partners refer to men below 160–163 cm. Above that, you enter the "plateau" where success is determined by facial beauty and status.
Summary: There is no scientific proof that 170 cm is the minimum. If you are 165 cm with shoes and have a handsome face, you are statistically in the same success group as men who are 175 cm or 180 cm. The "170 cm minimum" is an internet myth that is not reflected in the actual number of partners men have.
Would you like me to show you how confidence and posture can change height perception by up to 3 or 4 centimeters without needing special shoes?

hopefuel but obvious manlet cope. Most foids you meet irl won't even consider below 175cm guys human