D
Deleted member 7725
Kraken
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2020
- Posts
- 19,440
- Reputation
- 37,494
** Read the whole thing before replying. All of my mentions of 5'9" are barefoot and completely unfrauded. I'm not talking about a 5'6" small framed peanut-skulled wimp who larps as 5'9" **
So a lot of retards have been trying to exaggerate my views or take things I say out of context. "5'2" iS iDEaL heIGHt bRo".
I never said 5'9" is ideal on its own in the absence of any correlating features. I have always said 5'9" is ideal height for all around aesthetics and having ONS. I've said this since I first joined a year and a half ago and would only post here once a month. If someone is 5'9" with skinny wrists, bad frame, long unproportional skull and body, terrible gymmaxxing potential, etc. then it's completely over for him. 99% of 5'9" men don't have any of these issues, compared to like 75% of men 6' and 99% of men > 6'5".
When it comes to having ONS, girls want a really good face and body. You need masculine width and proportions as that's what girls are looking for in ONS. At 5'9", you'll have good facial proportions and robustness since you're not too short to where you will have a wimp skull, and not too tall where you will have a long narrow skull (or sometimes ogre too).
All of the height studies only take height on its own. They don't take their faces, frames, proportions, bodies, etc into account so they are inherently flawed. Girls will imagine a hot guy who fits all their facial/body/proportions criteria and then basically just manifest an arbitrary height number to them because of social standards for women to date tall men without calculating what it will do to their aesthetics.
Taller guys will have longer faces, less robust features, worse frames, worse proportions ie. unproportionally long skinny legs, wide hips, skinny long forearms, small-looking skull, narrow face, etc. People who don't have these issues and are perfectly proportional and aesthetic are like 1/10,000,000. Obviously girls will be attracted to them since they're so exceedingly rare. He'll still get bested by someone with a better looking face regardless. Compared to like 99% of 5'9" men fitting this criteria it's not a fair comparison.
Also your dick size will appear smaller in comparison to your height, so you will likely not get callbacks or word might spread around.
Only person I've seen come close to this is Francisco Lachowski, but he never tried to gymmaxx and probably would've had difficulty doing it without roids and would easily develop inbalances, unlike his 5'9" counterparts.
Stable LTR boyfriend vs ONS comparison:
So a lot of retards have been trying to exaggerate my views or take things I say out of context. "5'2" iS iDEaL heIGHt bRo".
I never said 5'9" is ideal on its own in the absence of any correlating features. I have always said 5'9" is ideal height for all around aesthetics and having ONS. I've said this since I first joined a year and a half ago and would only post here once a month. If someone is 5'9" with skinny wrists, bad frame, long unproportional skull and body, terrible gymmaxxing potential, etc. then it's completely over for him. 99% of 5'9" men don't have any of these issues, compared to like 75% of men 6' and 99% of men > 6'5".
When it comes to having ONS, girls want a really good face and body. You need masculine width and proportions as that's what girls are looking for in ONS. At 5'9", you'll have good facial proportions and robustness since you're not too short to where you will have a wimp skull, and not too tall where you will have a long narrow skull (or sometimes ogre too).
All of the height studies only take height on its own. They don't take their faces, frames, proportions, bodies, etc into account so they are inherently flawed. Girls will imagine a hot guy who fits all their facial/body/proportions criteria and then basically just manifest an arbitrary height number to them because of social standards for women to date tall men without calculating what it will do to their aesthetics.
Taller guys will have longer faces, less robust features, worse frames, worse proportions ie. unproportionally long skinny legs, wide hips, skinny long forearms, small-looking skull, narrow face, etc. People who don't have these issues and are perfectly proportional and aesthetic are like 1/10,000,000. Obviously girls will be attracted to them since they're so exceedingly rare. He'll still get bested by someone with a better looking face regardless. Compared to like 99% of 5'9" men fitting this criteria it's not a fair comparison.
Also your dick size will appear smaller in comparison to your height, so you will likely not get callbacks or word might spread around.
Only person I've seen come close to this is Francisco Lachowski, but he never tried to gymmaxx and probably would've had difficulty doing it without roids and would easily develop inbalances, unlike his 5'9" counterparts.
Stable LTR boyfriend vs ONS comparison:
Last edited: