Was James Dean /fa/ even though he was a manlet?

>>11110395
yes

>>11110395
The fact that he was small matched well with who he was overall so of course. If Clint Eastwood was smaller it'd be weird. Some people look better one way or another, and general standards are generally shit.

He was 5'8. Fuck off.

>>11110863
that's manlet size

>>11110863

WHEN

>>11110863
That's modern day manlet, but probably not a few decades ago

anyone can be /fa/ in cinema as long as you can hide their height with visual tricks

>>11110863
>5'8"
>not manlet
sure

>>11110863
>>11112182
>>11112311
>>11112774
>>11112780
It's not, dumbasses. Manlet is 5'7 or less.

>>11113187
5'8 manlet confirmed.
in 2016, i would say 5'9 is manlet cut off point

>>11113196
I'm 5'9. Nice try, though.

James Dean got more pussy than everyone in this thread combined.

>teenagers still arguing over what height constitutes a manlet

You people are seriously damaged.

File: damaged .jpg (42KB, 660x350px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 660x350px

>>11113287
>DAMAGED

File: cm.jpg (11KB, 583x128px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 583x128px

>>11113196
LMAO

>>11113196
>69"