there are a lot of people with good height (everything over 172/173cm) who thinks that ll will be the solutions of all their problem, when in fact their problems are more related to their social skills, ll is way more useful for very short people (under 167) to become normal and stop being defined by only their height
Quote from: NailedLegs on October 24, 2023, 03:55:10 AMPast 6'2", your romantic chances actually go down!bumble data shows that past 6'6 is where chances start going down - https://medium.com/@whitep/women-have-hilarious-height-requirements-for-men-according-to-bumble-992862ba7772
Quote from: short but sweet on October 24, 2023, 02:58:41 PMbumble data shows that past 6'6 is where chances start going down - https://medium.com/@whitep/women-have-hilarious-height-requirements-for-men-according-to-bumble-992862ba7772
only paid users in bumble can use filters, it's not a useful study, only the most braindead women will pay a dating app
Quote from: Rellec on October 24, 2023, 03:43:18 PMonly paid users in bumble can use filters, it's not a useful study, only the most braindead women will pay a dating app
I think it has a large enough sample group for the data to be statistically valid.
a bogus and unreal study.
Quote from: short but sweet on October 24, 2023, 02:58:41 PMbumble data shows that past 6'6 is where chances start going down - https://medium.com/@whitep/women-have-hilarious-height-requirements-for-men-according-to-bumble-992862ba7772
These heights are only for basketball players. Everything over 6.3 is too tall to have any further benefit and the difference with the average height woman will be abnormally huge. I too believe that after 6.2 a man has no benefit to become taller. Even at these heights many women would prefer a 6ft man conpared to a 6.2 one.
What is common is women to not like short men and usually prefer a tall man (anything more than 6ft) compared to an average one (5.8-5.11). However LL have way too much risks for anyone close to upper limit of average height compared to the benefits it may give even if everyrhing goes fine. An 5.10 man for instance will have much more benefits by using the 50-60k euros that LL needs to something else (like a good car or some investment) and have his full sports abilities conpared to becoming 6.1 ft with less money and abilities. And of course the risk to become crippled.
Thats my 2 cents.
I did my surgery exactly one year ago roughly. I was 174.5cm and did 7.5cm on Femurs (LON), so Im about 182cm today. I live in a scandinavian country so I kinda just became average. Like people have mentioned above, I think the taller you are the more "underwhelming" it is. But for me its more like, I no longer notice height. It doesnt matter if I put on shoes that give me extra 3cm or whatever, I dont even notice the difference. People to me now are only short or huge. No in-between. I also dont think about height at all. I had enough of a complex about my height to do this surgery and now all those feelings feel like a lifetime ago. I think if you dont have a massive issues with dating because of your height and its more of a confidence thing you're not really going to see a major change in the quality of your life. It was like that for me.
Don't get me wrong, Id do it all over again. But then again I think I went into it just with the expectation of curing my height body dysmorphia. I just never wanted to feel small ever again and I haven't since.
Quote from: short but sweet on October 24, 2023, 02:58:41 PMbumble data shows that past 6'6 is where chances start going down - https://medium.com/@whitep/women-have-hilarious-height-requirements-for-men-according-to-bumble-992862ba7772
Why the Bumble data, specifically 6'6" being the best height for dating, is false:
I cannot find the source on Bumble's website or their social media profiles. Anyone could've made the graph, faked it, then posted it online to 'stir the pot'. Luckily, there is a "source" on the bottom left leading to Statista. I looked on Statista, which is where the source is apparently from and found this: https://www.statista.com/study/94080/online-dating-bumble-users-in-the-united-states/
Who is Statista? A private company founded in 2007, headquarted in Germany. They are NOT a government organization, they are NOT owned by or work for Bumble, they are a private company specalized in data gathering and visualization, collected via online surveys, then sold mainly to business customers, lecturers, and researchers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statista and https://www.statista.com/aboutus/
How did they aggregate the data? It says this: "The report is updated quarterly and is based on data from the Statista Consumer Insights Global survey, an international survey that covers more than 15,000 brands across 56 countries."
So what is the Statista Consumer Insights Global Survey? Well, it says here: https://www.statista.com/global-consumer-survey "Our Consumer Insights Surveys are conducted as interactive online surveys. Respondents in each country are sampled according to representative quotas for age, gender, and region." So it was conducted via an online survey? By an outside company that IS NOT Bumble themselves?? So ANY ONE OF US on this website could make a company, conduct some online questionnaires, then pass that off as legitimate and factual information??
Here's one of their Survey Questionnaires, "Statista Consumer Insights Global 2023 Questionnaire - International Version (English) June 2023": https://de.statista.com/download/Statista_Global_Consumer_Survey_Questionnaire_EN.pdf
SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT...
We have a PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH STUDY by Psychologists from the University of Gronigen, NH, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, NH, University of Pennsylvania, USA, and University of Alaska, USA...versus a private company doing online questionnaires which IS NOT peer reviewed nor held to the same rigorous standard, nor cited by any other study or researcher...and you're going to trust the online questionnaire??
Haha. Hilarious. I'm not believing that crap AT ALL.
Hey everybody...go ahead and comment what your favorite flavor ice cream is. I'm doing an online poll. Then I'm going to pass it off as a legitimate source and charge people 495$ to access it. LOL.
What a freakin' joke!
Quote from: Body Builder on October 24, 2023, 09:27:56 PMThese heights are only for basketball players. Everything over 6.3 is too tall to have any further benefit and the difference with the average height woman will be abnormally huge. I too believe that after 6.2 a man has no benefit to become taller. Even at these heights many women would prefer a 6ft man conpared to a 6.2 one.
What is common is women to not like short men and usually prefer a tall man (anything more than 6ft) compared to an average one (5.8-5.11). However LL have way too much risks for anyone close to upper limit of average height compared to the benefits it may give even if everyrhing goes fine. An 5.10 man for instance will have much more benefits by using the 50-60k euros that LL needs to something else (like a good car or some investment) and have his full sports abilities conpared to becoming 6.1 ft with less money and abilities. And of course the risk to become crippled.
Thats my 2 cents.
Agreed. I always believed, even prior to learning about the statistics, facts, and limb lengthening, that somewhere between 6'2" and 6'3" was the perfect male height. And now, we can see the studies back that up. After 6'2"-6'3" you are so tall that everything is a hindrance. Hitting your head on things, clothing that doesn't fit, can't fit into cars or airplanes comfortably, just too tall in a world not made for you for it to be worth it. If a woman isn't interested in you, and you're 6'2"...it's not the height that's the issue!
You must be logged in to post a reply.