Posted on Jun 18, 2026, 8:25 pm
#1
I believe LL should be banned for anyone above 5'8" until the surgery becomes non-invasive one day.
Posted on Jun 18, 2026, 8:25 pm
#2
Discounting height neurosis. As in a tangible difference to your attractiveness and social perception. I believe below 5'7"-5'8" LL is a good idea, above that isn't necessary although still can yield positive outcome, say 5'9" to 6'0".
Posted on Jun 18, 2026, 8:25 pm
#3
Below 6'0" only, look at Alfonso. However, if I was 5'11" I wouldn't even consider it.
Regardless, to me I think LL is not logical if you're already taller than most people you see.
Regardless, to me I think LL is not logical if you're already taller than most people you see.
Posted on Jun 18, 2026, 8:25 pm
#4
Below 6'0" only, look at Alfonso. However, if I was 5'11" I wouldn't even consider it.
Regardless, to me I think LL is not logical if you're already taller than most people you see.
Exactly
LL at 5'11 is beyond me but to each their own I guess
Posted on Jun 18, 2026, 8:25 pm
#5
I believe LL should be banned for anyone above 5'8" until the surgery becomes non-invasive one day.
If it becomes non invasive it should still be restrictive because then everyone would get it and the short people would be short again
Posted on Jun 18, 2026, 8:25 pm
#6
I think this is individual, but it seems to me that men 178-179 and taller in most cases don’t have a height neurosis and wouldn’t go for this surgery
Posted on Jun 18, 2026, 8:25 pm
#7
Definition of logical: a tangible difference to your attractiveness and social perceptionI'm not gatekeeping anyone, people can do whatever they want. The everyone will get it is the point just for the sake of discussion.
For someone without height neurosis? Any height.
For someone with height neurosis? Any height.
And no dude, it shouldn't be fúcking restricted to anyone. "Everyone will get it." So they don't have a right to? Anyone should be able to get it. And it doesn't matter anyways, you're worrying about everyone getting it when it should really be your son's son worrying about technology getting to this point in the year 2100.
The same way you gatekeep people from getting CLL is the same way Paley used to gatekeep anyone above 5'5 from getting CLL. Then he realized someone 5'6 could also have height neurosis (shocker), and so can 5'7, 5'8, 5'11, doesn't even matter.
Posted on Jun 18, 2026, 8:25 pm
#8
Definition of logical: a tangible difference to your attractiveness and social perceptionIf LL became as easy as a keratin treatment everyone would do it and it wouldn't solve the problem of shortness and heightism, no solution for that
For someone without height neurosis? Any height.
For someone with height neurosis? Any height.
And no dude, it shouldn't be fúcking restricted to anyone. "Everyone will get it." So they don't have a right to? Anyone should be able to get it. And it doesn't matter anyways, you're worrying about everyone getting it when it should really be your son's son worrying about technology getting to this point in the year 2100.
The same way you gatekeep people from getting CLL is the same way Paley used to gatekeep anyone above 5'5 from getting CLL. Then he realized someone 5'6 could also have height neurosis (shocker), and so can 5'7, 5'8, 5'11, doesn't even matter.
There is no reason for a 6'4 guy to want to get to 6'7 apart from bball, just pointless so there is a point where LL isn't a rational choice
which is what I asked
Factoring in neurosis you could justify your argument
Posted on Jun 18, 2026, 8:25 pm
#9
Definition of logical: a tangible difference to your attractiveness and social perception
For someone without height neurosis? Any height.
For someone with height neurosis? Any height.
And no dude, it shouldn't be fúcking restricted to anyone. "Everyone will get it." So they don't have a right to? Anyone should be able to get it. And it doesn't matter anyways, you're worrying about everyone getting it when it should really be your son's son worrying about technology getting to this point in the year 2100.
The same way you gatekeep people from getting CLL is the same way Paley used to gatekeep anyone above 5'5 from getting CLL. Then he realized someone 5'6 could also have height neurosis (shocker), and so can 5'7, 5'8, 5'11, doesn't even matter.
For someone without height neurosis? Any height.
For someone with height neurosis? Any height.
And no dude, it shouldn't be fúcking restricted to anyone. "Everyone will get it." So they don't have a right to? Anyone should be able to get it. And it doesn't matter anyways, you're worrying about everyone getting it when it should really be your son's son worrying about technology getting to this point in the year 2100.
The same way you gatekeep people from getting CLL is the same way Paley used to gatekeep anyone above 5'5 from getting CLL. Then he realized someone 5'6 could also have height neurosis (shocker), and so can 5'7, 5'8, 5'11, doesn't even matter.
Posted on Jun 18, 2026, 8:25 pm
#10
If it becomes non invasive it should still be restrictive because then everyone would get it and the short people would be short again
Not necessarily. After 6'4" or so, height starts to become a disadvantage. So worst case scenario, everyone would be tall and height no longer matters.
Posted on Jun 18, 2026, 8:25 pm
#11
Not everyone can be tall if a limit still exists on how much gain
Posted on Jun 18, 2026, 8:25 pm
#12
Not everyone can be tall if a limit still exists on how much gain
Ok, in that case, problems will still exist. But things will definitely be a lot better.
I don't believe many women 5'7" and above want to be taller even if they could. While men 5'4-5'6" do and will catch up with the women's heights.
And also how easy and cheap would it be? Gym is easy and cheap, but many people don't do it. Teeth braces are the same.
Posted on Jun 18, 2026, 8:25 pm
#13
Only reason tall height is considered attractive for a man is simply because of sēxual dimorphism rather than purely aesthetic sensibility, any other reason are corollaries i.e (big d!ck, fighting capacity, impression of being a leader, etc).
Humans aren't forgiving when it comes to men because of basic evolutionary principles such as sperm being cheap while eggs expensive thus men are treated as disposable in a non-scarce demographic environment (50-50 male to female), so anything out of the ordinary such as height is appraised rather critically.
There are chiefly two categories namely ordinary and extraordinary, the former grants nothing special while latter can either confer great benefits or doleful misery.
Since LL is an invasive debilitating surgery that haunts you for the rest of your life given that you lengthen beyond 2.5 cm, the rational choice is obviously if you're below the average height of your relative proximity which could be your country, peer groups, etc while suffering from heightism as result on a daily basis.
But to make an absolute judgement with regards to which point you would've to be an imbecile to consider it cannot be so easily determined since as we progress to post modernity the world will continue to gradually devolve to more superficiality as a consequence of technology and its vast ramifications on our social landscape.
In short currently the standard is already screwed which I refer to as the "hyper real" but as time goes on it'll get even more screwier than it already is. ]
Since it's all relative as time goes on we should always aim for what's currently in vogue such as six feet or 183 cm and not anything beyond because of the diminishing returns and mostly harmful nature of LL.
Humans aren't forgiving when it comes to men because of basic evolutionary principles such as sperm being cheap while eggs expensive thus men are treated as disposable in a non-scarce demographic environment (50-50 male to female), so anything out of the ordinary such as height is appraised rather critically.
There are chiefly two categories namely ordinary and extraordinary, the former grants nothing special while latter can either confer great benefits or doleful misery.
Since LL is an invasive debilitating surgery that haunts you for the rest of your life given that you lengthen beyond 2.5 cm, the rational choice is obviously if you're below the average height of your relative proximity which could be your country, peer groups, etc while suffering from heightism as result on a daily basis.
But to make an absolute judgement with regards to which point you would've to be an imbecile to consider it cannot be so easily determined since as we progress to post modernity the world will continue to gradually devolve to more superficiality as a consequence of technology and its vast ramifications on our social landscape.
In short currently the standard is already screwed which I refer to as the "hyper real" but as time goes on it'll get even more screwier than it already is. ]
Since it's all relative as time goes on we should always aim for what's currently in vogue such as six feet or 183 cm and not anything beyond because of the diminishing returns and mostly harmful nature of LL.
Posted on Jun 18, 2026, 8:25 pm
#14
Although the average male height in the US is 5'9.5", the more practical average is 5'10" for several reasons.
* 5'9.5" includes the old and elderly (age 60+), which brings down the average height. If you exclude them, that will bring the average closer to 5'10".
* Average height of white and black males (the tallest average heights by race) are 5'10", who combined make up the large majority of the US.
* Employers tend to hire taller candidates, so the workplace average height for males is closer to 5'10".
So 5'10" is the practical average. Then the average range for males in the US is between 5'9" to 5'11", so I can see how someone who is 5'11" (while not recommended) would want to get leg lengthening surgery to get out of the average range and break the 6 foot barrier into the tall range. Here are my takes on the benefits of LL by height range.
Below 5'6" - This is short, so it is most beneficial.
5'6" to 5'8" - Not quite short stature, but quite a bit away from the mean. Very beneficial.
5'8+ to under 5'10" - A little below average. Benefits start fading, but still fairly beneficial and helps get you over the mean and enjoy life being taller.
5'10" to 5'11" (maybe up to 5'11.5") - Average range. Not really recommended and only mildly beneficial in most cases, but if the person wants to do it to get past the average range and enjoy their life in the tall range, then that's their decision.
6'0" or taller - Not recommended or necessary at all, and no benefits with LL. If you can't get that dream job, command respect, or find a date, your height is not the issue. There is something else wrong with you, so find it and fix it.
* 5'9.5" includes the old and elderly (age 60+), which brings down the average height. If you exclude them, that will bring the average closer to 5'10".
* Average height of white and black males (the tallest average heights by race) are 5'10", who combined make up the large majority of the US.
* Employers tend to hire taller candidates, so the workplace average height for males is closer to 5'10".
So 5'10" is the practical average. Then the average range for males in the US is between 5'9" to 5'11", so I can see how someone who is 5'11" (while not recommended) would want to get leg lengthening surgery to get out of the average range and break the 6 foot barrier into the tall range. Here are my takes on the benefits of LL by height range.
Below 5'6" - This is short, so it is most beneficial.
5'6" to 5'8" - Not quite short stature, but quite a bit away from the mean. Very beneficial.
5'8+ to under 5'10" - A little below average. Benefits start fading, but still fairly beneficial and helps get you over the mean and enjoy life being taller.
5'10" to 5'11" (maybe up to 5'11.5") - Average range. Not really recommended and only mildly beneficial in most cases, but if the person wants to do it to get past the average range and enjoy their life in the tall range, then that's their decision.
6'0" or taller - Not recommended or necessary at all, and no benefits with LL. If you can't get that dream job, command respect, or find a date, your height is not the issue. There is something else wrong with you, so find it and fix it.
Posted on Jun 18, 2026, 8:25 pm
#15
Doing LL if you are more than 5.11 is insane, unless you live in a very few countries in the world where average is almost 6ft. Still I don't find any reason.
At 5.9-10 doing LL has some benefits on dating but nothing else. Still dating is important though.
At 5.7-5.8 LL has some strong benefits on dating and how tall people perceive you generally.
At 5.5-5.6 LL is important for all life's aspects to live normally without major drawbacks.
At less than 5.5 LL is NECESSARY to live relatively normal. I say relatively because if you are 5.3 lets say, even 1 surgery won't guarantee you not having drawbacks in a lot of instances. But still you will be much better.
In a few words, in 5.7 and under LL is crucial.
From 5.7 to 5.11 LL has some things to offer (the shorter you are the more it has of course, 5.7 has a lit of differences to 5.10 but still is somehow normal).
From 5.11 and over LL is a no.
At 5.9-10 doing LL has some benefits on dating but nothing else. Still dating is important though.
At 5.7-5.8 LL has some strong benefits on dating and how tall people perceive you generally.
At 5.5-5.6 LL is important for all life's aspects to live normally without major drawbacks.
At less than 5.5 LL is NECESSARY to live relatively normal. I say relatively because if you are 5.3 lets say, even 1 surgery won't guarantee you not having drawbacks in a lot of instances. But still you will be much better.
In a few words, in 5.7 and under LL is crucial.
From 5.7 to 5.11 LL has some things to offer (the shorter you are the more it has of course, 5.7 has a lit of differences to 5.10 but still is somehow normal).
From 5.11 and over LL is a no.
Posted on Jun 18, 2026, 8:25 pm
#16
Diff. countries have diff. height standards.
For example,for China,I think it's logical for one below 168cm to do LL.
For example,for China,I think it's logical for one below 168cm to do LL.
Posted on Jun 18, 2026, 8:25 pm
#17
You'd be a fool to to consider it if you are 5'11 or above
Even at 5'8 I am starting to think the time and risks are not worth it just to get to 5'10.5
If I want to feel 'bigger', far better to eventually get on TRT and take bodybuilding more seriously
Even at 5'8 I am starting to think the time and risks are not worth it just to get to 5'10.5
If I want to feel 'bigger', far better to eventually get on TRT and take bodybuilding more seriously
Posted on Jun 18, 2026, 8:25 pm
#18
Below 8ft
Posted on Jun 18, 2026, 8:25 pm
#19
Doing LL if you are more than 5.11 is insane, unless you live in a very few countries in the world where average is almost 6ft. Still I don't find any reason.I think over 172cm LL is not important at all. The merits will not be significant, but yeah I agree that at less than 5.5 LL is really necessary, since at that height you can't even live a normal life.
At 5.9-10 doing LL has some benefits on dating but nothing else. Still dating is important though.
At 5.7-5.8 LL has some strong benefits on dating and how tall people perceive you generally.
At 5.5-5.6 LL is important for all life's aspects to live normally without major drawbacks.
At less than 5.5 LL is NECESSARY to live relatively normal. I say relatively because if you are 5.3 lets say, even 1 surgery won't guarantee you not having drawbacks in a lot of instances. But still you will be much better.
In a few words, in 5.7 and under LL is crucial.
From 5.7 to 5.11 LL has some things to offer (the shorter you are the more it has of course, 5.7 has a lit of differences to 5.10 but still is somehow normal).
From 5.11 and over LL is a no.
Posted on Jun 18, 2026, 8:25 pm
#20
Check out the chart on this study:
https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=573743071&hl=en&sxsrf=AM9HkKkO2J9g5yOiloFVotrHAkkioxR1XA:1697450179589&q=womens+acceptance+of+potential+male+partners+based+on+male+height&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwicuunXpvqBAxVJm4kEHUblCQQQ0pQJegQIDBAB&biw=1120&bih=628&dpr=3#imgrc=ownS8Rgg6rWCbM
Further analysis of their data demonstrates the importance of every inch of height for men, as two inches of height gain for a man can be found to have the following results:
- A man in the 5'4-5'6" range will have more than double the potential number of female partners with 2" height gain.
- A 5'4" man will have 2.3 times as many potential female partners by gaining 2" height.
- A 5'7" man will have 1.86 times as many potential female partners by gaining 2" height.
- Benefits become insignificant past 5'10".
- Below 5'1" a 2" height gain also makes an insignificant difference, as even after 2" gain, a man at this height is still "too short" for most women to consider.
Because the few women who are willing to date a shorter men are also generally willing to date a taller man as well, the competition for women willing to date shorter men becomes extremely high. This means:
- A 5' man must "beat" over 12 men (most of whom will be taller) to get a girl accepting of his height.
- A 5'4" man will have to "beat" over 7 other men (most of whom will be taller) to get a girl accepting of his height.
- 5'10 to 6'4" men have the least competition as the demand for these men outpaces their supply, and statistically overall women must compete for these men rather than vice versa.
These studies may also be self reported (meaning men often lie about their height giving them an extra inch), meaning 5’10 could very well be 5’9 (or rounded to 5’10 with shoes)
https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=573743071&hl=en&sxsrf=AM9HkKkO2J9g5yOiloFVotrHAkkioxR1XA:1697450179589&q=womens+acceptance+of+potential+male+partners+based+on+male+height&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwicuunXpvqBAxVJm4kEHUblCQQQ0pQJegQIDBAB&biw=1120&bih=628&dpr=3#imgrc=ownS8Rgg6rWCbM
Further analysis of their data demonstrates the importance of every inch of height for men, as two inches of height gain for a man can be found to have the following results:
- A man in the 5'4-5'6" range will have more than double the potential number of female partners with 2" height gain.
- A 5'4" man will have 2.3 times as many potential female partners by gaining 2" height.
- A 5'7" man will have 1.86 times as many potential female partners by gaining 2" height.
- Benefits become insignificant past 5'10".
- Below 5'1" a 2" height gain also makes an insignificant difference, as even after 2" gain, a man at this height is still "too short" for most women to consider.
Because the few women who are willing to date a shorter men are also generally willing to date a taller man as well, the competition for women willing to date shorter men becomes extremely high. This means:
- A 5' man must "beat" over 12 men (most of whom will be taller) to get a girl accepting of his height.
- A 5'4" man will have to "beat" over 7 other men (most of whom will be taller) to get a girl accepting of his height.
- 5'10 to 6'4" men have the least competition as the demand for these men outpaces their supply, and statistically overall women must compete for these men rather than vice versa.
These studies may also be self reported (meaning men often lie about their height giving them an extra inch), meaning 5’10 could very well be 5’9 (or rounded to 5’10 with shoes)
You must be logged in to post a reply.