Reasonable Standards

Dude shut the fuck up nobody cares and you're probably gonna die alone anyway

File: 1489767309994.jpg (48KB, 800x480px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 800x480px

If we were not in Kali Yuga, yes.
Now you have to deal with pic.

>>36724310
>5'7.5
>having standards
Lmao when will they learn?

File: 1372729515514.png (31KB, 271x288px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 271x288px

>>36724350
>implying the Kali Yuga isn't going to end soon

>>36724310
>if I try
imho, this is a real killer here in your supposed objectivity. Had you have real confidence, no way you'd be writing that.
So yeah, go try and better yourself.
Or kill yourself for being a manlet, your call.

Her thighs are too big
Her breasts are too big

Disgusting

File: SRC 3810.jpg (210KB, 750x936px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 750x936px

>>36724350
What's this graph from? And does it mean women that're 80% attractive want 95% attractive guys? Is it just based on looks? Is this from a dating site?

File: IMG_6307.jpg (700KB, 2592x3888px) Image search: [Google]

700KB, 2592x3888px

>>36724338
This, and the fact that OP took the time out of his day to write a long ass essay on a Polynesian forum board to tell other losers about what he likes. Don't you have anything better to do OW PEE?

File: SRC 3812.jpg (102KB, 1024x1008px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1024x1008px

>>36724386

Look at my pic. Women's dating pools are shown next to height. But women think a man's height is 2 inches taller than he actually is so I'd fall under the 5'9.5 category.

>>36724457

Confident = "Yes I'm confident"
Somewhat confident = "I can be somewhat confident if I try"
Unconfident = "I'm unconfident"


Also read what I said to the other guy.

File: SRC 3783.jpg (776KB, 1143x1500px) Image search: [Google]

776KB, 1143x1500px

>>36724519
Actually it's mostly copypasta from a long time ago. But keep trying to troll.

File: Height 1.jpg (480KB, 2400x1790px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 2400x1790px

>>36724598
Whoops this is the pic.

>>36724598
Confident = No need to even say a damn thing about it
Unconfident = the rest

>>36724310
I don't know what you should do. I'm in a similar situation.

Just don't lower your standards too much. It will end up lowering your confidence at the end of the day and make you miserable.

Also, if the halo effect has any merits, unattractive women have worse personality and/or habits, so don't sell yourself short.

Keep working on yourself man and focus on some good long-term goals/hobbies!

File: SRC 3766.jpg (620KB, 1280x1670px) Image search: [Google]

620KB, 1280x1670px

>>36724686
You're entitled to your opinion.

>>36724697
Thanks anon.

>>36724598
>I'd fall under the 5'9.5 category
lmao, I hope your ego thrives off of that because I see that as the third leg of the stool you're standing on, and it's bound to break

>>36724598
>so I'd fall under the 5'9.5 category.
>5'9.5
>having standards
Lmao when will they learn

>clinging to that half an inch
What a sad fucking manlet.

>>36724598
>height is 2 inches taller
No. Women rate men BASED on this 2 inch addition. That means all of those height stats are already adjusted for in their eyes.
Its a perception thing not an actual physical change on your end.

Its like having 2 exact ferrari's but ones black and the others red and you drive them down the highway at 90mph when the speed is 80mph. A cop will pick off the red one because human minds attribute red with speed doesn't mean they're actually faster. Now apply the same logic to ALL males and they still have a view of height they just assume they're taller than they are.

Tl;dr all those heights have the 2 inches added on already as background radiation and those stats came out. Use the one for your height range.

File: 1295245876668.jpg (49KB, 540x720px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 540x720px

>In shape enough to enjoy hiking/camping
>Zero/Minimal tattooing
>Acts their age. It's kinda sad when 30 years are still getting falling-down drunk on the weekend and dyeing their hair stupid colors
>No mental illness beyond minor depression/SAD
>No horrible genetic illnesses(since I want kids)
>Has post-secondary education and a job
>Exes kept at arm's length and doesn't lead on orbiters

File: 20170501181511_1.jpg (178KB, 933x981px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 933x981px

>>36724310
>not 3d
already having fun with her

File: SRC 3760.jpg (208KB, 722x634px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 722x634px

>>36724895
I've measured my height at 5'7.5

>big boobs
>AND Big ass
>AND slim waist
Good luck kid

>>36724310
Sorry op. At just two inches below average height, you are reduced to a 3/10 man at the most. No women will have genuine affection for you so you must lower your standards significantly.

>>36725016
Then you're in the 5'7" category.

>>36725016

this is my ideal woman, pale skin, red hair. If I leave Burger Land I will encounter more women like this right? I am only 5'5 though, so i guess i am a living joke to all?

File: 1492760669600.jpg (19KB, 228x221px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 228x221px

>>36724598
>those tattoos
why are women so good at fucking ruining shit.

>>36725389
Nah.
Percentage-wise the occurences would be the same but comparing populations 1% could be 1000 in non-burgerland but in burgerland its like 25,000 as a very shit example.

There will be less men your height so you'll be screwed even more in that category as you'll stick out more and less women per capita like that specimen. You're basically taking your odds and doubling down on a blatantly losing hand.

>>36724310
Lol you are far below average and you want a 6/10?

Guess you'll never learn

>>36725404
Even if she didn't have a "ruined" body would it matter? You don't stand a chance at getting it so what does it matter that she has something you dislike?

>>36725404

idk man, i'm a pretty liberal guy but, I become a fucking muslim when it comes to women getting tats. Especially finger tats and arm sleeves. It's fucking disgusting. Should be against the fucking law.

>>36725016

reverse image search shows she is a chubster. I'd still hit it.

>>36725491

man, i just want a tall grill. Maybe a 6 foot girl will go for me seeing as she is also looked over (lol) by intimidated guys

>>36724428
How? In fire?

File: 4IJbOYC.jpg (32KB, 449x800px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 449x800px

>>36725717

Yeah, my brain always parses them as bruises or dirt at first.

Incidentally, the way Liberal girls look has really made me question my ideology. I mean, when I see flabby 30 year old women with dyed hair and retarded tattoos it makes me think I should settle down with a nice Conservative girl...

File: SRC 3761.jpg (230KB, 969x1020px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 969x1020px

>>36725271
I don't get what you mean. They asked women which height they want. They gave answers that lead to those stats. But women always think a guy is 2 inches taller than he is. Those women that say "At least 6 feet tall" actually mean "At least 5'10".

>>36724310
I just want a girl who's pretty, nice, and intelligent. A hot bod would be nice, it would have to be pretty bad for it to be a dealbreaker. Even girls with mental illness are cool as long as they are "chill".

>>36726160
Depends. Remember the scales average at -2/10 to your blank/10 for chicks AND they can afford to hold out for guys relative to their height. The only time it would get iffy would be if they tried to also holdout for a +2.

>>36726237
No. See they've grown up with the 2 inch addition. Ita already calculated in their minds.
So if you show them men and say pick the best lookers and out comes this 5'11"-6'2" thats the heights they want by visual aesthetics. They weren't hand a piece of paper and told to imagine these guys. In person they'd SAY they're 6'1"-6'4" but in actuality they're 5'11"-6'2".

If you were in that study you'd still have ended up in the 5'7" range because thats how physically tall you actually are even if to they're minds you looked 5'9".

Again, they're solely judging you by your visual aesthetic not by a number on a piece of paper. You'd fit in the 5'7" category because thats exactly the category the 5'7"s got parsed into.

>bunch of virgins (or gtfo) discussing height like they know something

>>36726870
>manlets never learning

>>36726870
I always wondered.
If i'm a shut-in NEET who hates the world and women in general as well as having several severe mental issues and can't contain my spaghetti in any social situation at all but an NOT a virgin by some insane miracle am i still a robot?

>>36726870
>I fucked a hooker that means I know more about dating than you
failed normies hilarious

>>36724310
Men always have to date down 5 points unless they're a 10/10 Chad, dumbass. Best you should expect is a 1/10. If you're 5/10 or less, you get nothing.

>>36726931
imo if you lost your virginity from either paying for it or just extremely odd circumstances you are still a robot, anon.

If you are a chad shut-in that can get laid, but choose not to. idk, you are probably not a robot.

>just want a girl that isn't fat and wont cuck me
>told my standards are to high

>>36727291
If you're OP?
Yes. The second you want a healthy BMI and an above average face you're trying to play outside your league.
The whole cucking thing is across the board an issue but arguably case-by-case.

File: SRC 3717.jpg (138KB, 1152x2048px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1152x2048px

>>36726662
But the study I showed didn't have the women pick out men. It had them state the specific height they liked. Whenever women say they like 6 feet guys it means 5'10. You're assuming they're attracted to the aesthetic of 6 feet tall guys, but they're not. They're attracted to the aesthetic of 5'10 guys who they think is 6 feet tall.

>>36727021
Any proof though?

Here's one debunking 80/20:

Sure you can say it's self-reported and women give a lower number of sexual partner than their actual number, but guys have been shown to give a higher number than their actual number. So that plus the significant gap between men and women disproves the 80/20 rule.

Also women are harsher when rating men's looks, but they're much more likely to go for a guy who they see as mediocre or unattractive. It seems like women are going for more than physical looks. So women aren't as picky as suggested:

https://theblog.okcupid.com/your-looks-and-your-inbox-8715c0f1561e

>>36727789
Here's the 80/20 link:

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/09/14/hookinguprealities/sex-and-the-pareto-principle/

>>36724598
>that one on the right
thiCCC