![eyebagcel](/data/avatars/l/3/3192.jpg?1681346821)
eyebagcel
overdosed on media and phenopill
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2019
- Posts
- 1,649
- Reputation
- 1,916
if you’re above 6’2 and not slaying, you need to NTMAXX not LOOKS MAXX
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
damage control to make women look less shallowMost girls in the comments are actually disagreeing with her telling her face can make up for height but height can't make up for face
Jfl
cuz they’re in highschool they’ll probably change their opinion when they’re college age like herMost girls in the comments are actually disagreeing with her telling her face can make up for height but height can't make up for face
Jfl
Yea you're probably rightcuz they’re in highschool they’ll probably change their opinion when they’re college age like her
if you’re above 6’2 and not slaying, you need to NTMAXX not LOOKS MAXX
How so? They are still equally shallow, just in a different way lmao.damage control to make women look less shallow
recognizing a beautiful face still signals somewhat higher intellect than just going for height. that's like going for a bish because she got big tits.The disconnect in opinion comes from the way each individual woman conceptualizes "height".
When she says "looks can't make up for height", the woman in OP's post is thinking about men so short they are undateable (whatever her preference may be, let's assume it's 6 feet for argument's sake).
Thus, since this is a REQUIREMENT, all men who don't meet this requirement are automatically rejected - looks cannot make her change her mind about the guy since he's below the height threshold. At a certain height, your face is irrelevant because your height dooms you; this does not however mean that she doesn't care about face or that height is the only thing that matters, only that below a certain height requirement your face is irrelevant, while the same isn't true for height.
The complex thing here is that facial looks aren't as easy to measure/define, while height is a simple number. So, while she may actually have an undefined "face threshold" too, it's quite hard for her to have a face requirement while it's really easy to have a height requirement. Therefore, a good height may positively impact her judgment in a less predictable way, since she doesn't have a simple number she can look at to decide whether said guy's face isn't good enough for her - "height can make up for looks".
How so? They are still equally shallow, just in a different way lmao.
high T traitthat's like going for a bish because she got big tits.
Exactly this, this is why is normal for a girl to compliment a guy by saying “oh you’re so tall” but much less often for a girl to randomly say to a guy “oh you’re so hot”. Height cannot be argued so it’s socially acceptable to be complimented on itThe disconnect in opinion comes from the way each individual woman conceptualizes "height".
When she says "looks can't make up for height", the woman in OP's post is thinking about men so short they are undateable (whatever her preference may be, let's assume it's 6 feet for argument's sake).
Thus, since this is a REQUIREMENT, all men who don't meet this requirement are automatically rejected - looks cannot make her change her mind about the guy since he's below the height threshold. At a certain height, your face is irrelevant because your height dooms you; this does not however mean that she doesn't care about face or that height is the only thing that matters, only that below a certain height requirement your face is irrelevant, while the same isn't true for height.
The complex thing here is that facial looks aren't as easy to measure/define, while height is a simple number. So, while she may actually have an undefined "face threshold" too, it's quite hard for her to have a face requirement while it's really easy to have a height requirement. Therefore, a good height may positively impact her judgment in a less predictable way, since she doesn't have a simple number she can look at to decide whether said guy's face isn't good enough for her - "height can make up for looks".
How so? They are still equally shallow, just in a different way lmao.
i said the same thing about measure part before. i see a potential in you greycel.The disconnect in opinion comes from the way each individual woman conceptualizes "height".
When she says "looks can't make up for height", the woman in OP's post is thinking about men so short they are undateable (whatever her preference may be, let's assume it's 6 feet for argument's sake).
Thus, since this is a REQUIREMENT, all men who don't meet this requirement are automatically rejected - looks cannot make her change her mind about the guy since he's below the height threshold. At a certain height, your face is irrelevant because your height dooms you; this does not however mean that she doesn't care about face or that height is the only thing that matters, only that below a certain height requirement your face is irrelevant, while the same isn't true for height.
The complex thing here is that facial looks aren't as easy to measure/define, while height is a simple number. So, while she may actually have an undefined "face threshold" too, it's quite hard for her to have a face requirement while it's really easy to have a height requirement. Therefore, a good height may positively impact her judgment in a less predictable way, since she doesn't have a simple number she can look at to decide whether said guy's face isn't good enough for her - "height can make up for looks".
How so? They are still equally shallow, just in a different way lmao.
if you’re above 6’2 and not slaying, you need to NTMAXX not LOOKS MAXX