D
Deleted member 22354
ㅤ
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2022
- Posts
- 1,758
- Reputation
- 2,852
First of all, I am 6' and can larp to 6'3 with elevator shoes, before anyone says cope or smth like that. This also wont be a thread about muh increased risk of certain health problems (back pain and osteoarthritis) and muh risk of certain types of cancer, such as colon and rectal cancer or muh cardiovascular disease and stroke or muh shorter life span. This is water, everyone should know this by now.
In primal times, being tall will not have provided any significant evolutionary benefit for men. This is because the main method of survival and competition for resources was through the USE OF WEAPONS rather than through physical strength or size. In this context, taller and stronger men would not have had any distinct advantage in hunting or defending themselves against other humans or animals.
Additionally, taller men would not have had any inherent advantage in hunting or fighting animals with their bare hands. While strength and size can be beneficial in certain situations, the ability to effectively use tools and weapons would have been a more important factor in survival.
Furthermore, the concept of "averageness" suggests that individuals of average height and build would have been more likely to survive and reproduce. This is because they would have had a BALANCE OF BOTH STRENGTH AND AGILITY, making them well-suited for a variety of tasks and situations. In contrast, taller men may have been more prone to injuries and illnesses, which would have hindered their ability to survive and reproduce.
Taller men also do not have had any mating advantage because physical strength and size were not the primary factors that determined success in competition for mates. Instead, factors such as intelligence, social status, and the ability to provide resources would have been more important. Taller men do not have any inherent advantage in these areas and therefore would not have had any distinct advantage in attracting partners.
TLDR: Average height or slightly above average I ideal. Therefore 178-186 (5'10-6'1) is good and 182-186 (5'11.5-6'1) is ideal. Below 178 is bad and over 186 is bad (not as bad as below 178).
And dont comment and say muh face has no advantage in men competition either. A gl face stands for health and thus for good genes over more than one generation and correct development at the same time.
In primal times, being tall will not have provided any significant evolutionary benefit for men. This is because the main method of survival and competition for resources was through the USE OF WEAPONS rather than through physical strength or size. In this context, taller and stronger men would not have had any distinct advantage in hunting or defending themselves against other humans or animals.
Additionally, taller men would not have had any inherent advantage in hunting or fighting animals with their bare hands. While strength and size can be beneficial in certain situations, the ability to effectively use tools and weapons would have been a more important factor in survival.
Furthermore, the concept of "averageness" suggests that individuals of average height and build would have been more likely to survive and reproduce. This is because they would have had a BALANCE OF BOTH STRENGTH AND AGILITY, making them well-suited for a variety of tasks and situations. In contrast, taller men may have been more prone to injuries and illnesses, which would have hindered their ability to survive and reproduce.
Taller men also do not have had any mating advantage because physical strength and size were not the primary factors that determined success in competition for mates. Instead, factors such as intelligence, social status, and the ability to provide resources would have been more important. Taller men do not have any inherent advantage in these areas and therefore would not have had any distinct advantage in attracting partners.
TLDR: Average height or slightly above average I ideal. Therefore 178-186 (5'10-6'1) is good and 182-186 (5'11.5-6'1) is ideal. Below 178 is bad and over 186 is bad (not as bad as below 178).
And dont comment and say muh face has no advantage in men competition either. A gl face stands for health and thus for good genes over more than one generation and correct development at the same time.
Last edited:
