Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[tao]

congrats man ! very nice read.
when you dont need to do all the work and when the woman just wants you for you physically, one of the best feelings in the world.
combined with the swag when you were short, you invincible my man

[Stand taller]

Just to be clear, by the word experience you mean sleeping with, intercourse, right?  Alone together without clothes on in the same room or bed, and not simply making out, etc.  That just isn't too clear from the rest of what you're telling here.

And if so you had 28 partners by 35 and before LL?  Not too bad of a number I guess, all things considering, quite a bit above the average.

No, not 28 sexual partners. To be exact, 29 sexual experiences. This includes sex, bj's, making out etc. Don't want to get into specific lay count, because that is not the point. The point is the difference from then and now.

And remember guys, ignore the trolls. Don't engage and give them fuel.

[Stand taller]

congrats man ! very nice read.
when you dont need to do all the work and when the woman just wants you for you physically, one of the best feelings in the world.
combined with the swag when you were short, you invincible my man

Thanks dude! With most women it is still work, even for the best looking men out there have to put in some effort. Difference now is that, I get my foot in the door easier and I am "allowed" to stay for longer. I am "allowed" much more wiggle room in what I say and do. In the past the rare times women would actually stay when I approached them, they would usually after a while have to go to the bathroom and never return. That has yet to happen to me, and most of the times I am the one now leaving first if I am not interested. I think you are on to something about the "swag" we develop when short that is an advantage, but on the flip side. Many of the insecurities I developed over the past 25 years don't just disappear in seven months either.

[dz93]

No, not 28 sxxual partners. To be exact, 29 sxxual experiences. This includes sxx, bj's, making out etc. Don't want to get into specific lay count, because that is not the point. The point is the difference from then and now.

Right, no worries.  So that number wouldn't include these kinds of experiences when they are part of a more serious long-term relationship either I suppose (I'd bet most people don't tend to count and remember each instance in those kinds of circumstances, lol).

[Stand taller]

Right, no worries.  So that number wouldn't include these kinds of experiences when they are part of a more serious long-term relationship either I suppose (I'd bet most people don't tend to count and remember each instance in those kinds of circumstances, lol).

The number includes every women I have ever had a sxxual encounter with like sxx, oral-sxx or making out. Every women I ever had sxx with, ever did anything oral with or ever made out with is included. Sure, most people probably wouldn't have that remember off hand. But for the sake of measuring the difference in success I sat down tried to recollect and wrote them all down. There are probably a few that are missing, sure. But the point is not to be super precise, rather to illustrate the difference in change. At this rate I'll have close to 100 after in a year. So if I from the age of 13 - 35 had 29 or 35, that really doesn't matter if I can have close to 80-90 in a year, agree? 80 a year over 22 years is 1760 sxxual encounters. Even if we take away half of those years for being in relationships and half the number to simulate a more sustainable rate we're still looking at 440 sxxual experiences over the same period. which is 15 fold vs 29ex or 13 fold vs 35ex. Either way, a massive difference.

[Temoc]

If it's all true you're just a very good looking dude and you've now crossed the height threshold.
IMHO, height works in two ways as it relates to attraction. There is a minimum threshold where a certain girl(or the majority of them) will not look at you. In most western countries I'd say it's about 5'7" to 5'9", even if girls will say it's 5'11"(180 cms) or 6". After that threshold you will become more attractive the taller you are, up until a point, but with diminishing returns.
Going from 5'9" to 6'1" will make you more attractive than going from 6'1" to 6'5" and so on. It probably makes no difference after 6'5" or so.
Some girls may not like really tall guys but most wouldn't care.

And by the way, I'm 5'11", 180cms, I didn't get LL yet*, maybe I will never will, but I don't get random 20 something girls approaching me. I'm 32 and I did date girls that were younger than me(my GF is 27) but I have to work hard for it.

*My reason has nothing to do with girls but both my parents and the rest of my family are really tall and it really affects me mentally.

[Stand taller]

If it's all true you're just a very good looking dude and you've now crossed the height threshold.
IMHO, height works in two ways as it relates to attraction. There is a minimum threshold where a certain girl(or the majority of them) will not look at you. In most western countries I'd say it's about 5'7" to 5'9", even if girls will say it's 5'11"(180 cms) or 6". After that threshold you will become more attractive the taller you are, up until a point, but with diminishing returns.
Going from 5'9" to 6'1" will make you more attractive than going from 6'1" to 6'5" and so on. It probably makes no difference after 6'5" or so.
Some girls may not like really tall guys but most wouldn't care.

And by the way, I'm 5'11", 180cms, I didn't get LL yet*, maybe I will never will, but I don't get random 20 something girls approaching me. I'm 32 and I did date girls that were younger than me(my GF is 27) but I have to work hard for it.

*My reason has nothing to do with girls but both my parents and the rest of my family are really tall and it really affects me mentally.

I think your assessment here is pretty accurate regarding height and minimum threshold for attraction. There are a bunch of studies done on rejection rate at different heights. If I remember correct there seems to be a plateau from around 177 - 187cm. I think rejection rate base on height at 177cm is around 15% and around 5% at 187cm. Below 177cm there is a steep drop off where the rejection rate based on height at 165cm is like 85%. There is also a drop above 187cm, but not nearly as severe as the drop off below 177cm.

Remember though, this is a study based on what women said and not what they do. I think most women will be hard pressed to tell the difference between 177cm and 182cm for example, and on the other end I think most women may be doing virtue signaling when it comes to rejecting short men. I think the rejection rate at 165cm (my old height) is way more than 85%.

[finertoga]

If it's all true you're just a very good looking dude and you've now crossed the height threshold.
IMHO, height works in two ways as it relates to attraction. There is a minimum threshold where a certain girl(or the majority of them) will not look at you. In most western countries I'd say it's about 5'7" to 5'9", even if girls will say it's 5'11"(180 cms) or 6". After that threshold you will become more attractive the taller you are, up until a point, but with diminishing returns.
Going from 5'9" to 6'1" will make you more attractive than going from 6'1" to 6'5" and so on. It probably makes no difference after 6'5" or so.
Some girls may not like really tall guys but most wouldn't care.

And by the way, I'm 5'11", 180cms, I didn't get LL yet*, maybe I will never will, but I don't get random 20 something girls approaching me. I'm 32 and I did date girls that were younger than me(my GF is 27) but I have to work hard for it.

*My reason has nothing to do with girls but both my parents and the rest of my family are really tall and it really affects me mentally.

I think your theory is correct. With me I’ve noticed almost no women look at me unless they’re sitting down and can’t tell my height. It’s a bit of a mind f*ck, I’m 5’5.5” and I’m thinking the threshold is right around 5’7” in the US. I actually just bought 1.5” lifts so I’m gonna test the theory out and see what happens. I don’t think I’m as good looking as standing Taller, but I’d say I’m pretty good looking and can attract shorter girls more easily. So let’s see what happens I’ll update you guys.

[dz93]

There are a bunch of studies done on rejection rate at different heights. If I remember correct there seems to be a plateau from around 177 - 187cm. I think rejection rate base on height at 177cm is around 15% and around 5% at 187cm. Below 177cm there is a steep drop off where the rejection rate based on height at 165cm is like 85%. There is also a drop above 187cm, but not nearly as severe as the drop off below 177cm.

I'm assuming these figures are from this study since they seemed very familiar: https://www.gertstulp.com/pdf/Stulp%20et%20al%202013_Anim%20Behav_The%20height%20of%20choosiness.pdf

Keep in mind that in this study the women averaged 165cm and the men 179cm.  So if you are in a Nordic country, chances are that the mean for both genders is 2-3 cm higher than that, at least for people younger than 40. 

Sweden (182cm/168cm): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/apa.15129

Norway (181cm/167cm): https://www.vekststudien.no/download-the-growth-charts/

Which means you need to shift your own height down by that amount when looking at the figures in this study (Table A2 and A3).  So for your old height of 165cm, adjusted for the Nordics, the figures for the 162.5cm men is relatively speaking the right one.  Which means 165cm in Nordics are accepted by around 10% and 177cm around 66%.  Which is of course still a massive difference.

You can see a particular graph from the study illustrating the drop-off you're mentioning here, just again remember to shift your own height down by 2-3 cm when placing yourself on it:  https://iili.io/J72ZaxR.png

[TheDream]

https://www.gertstulp.com/pdf/Stulp%20et%20al%202013_Anim%20Behav_The%20height%20of%20choosiness.pdf

We show that sexual conflict at the level of preferences is translated into choice: women were most likely to choose a speed-dater 25 cm taller than themselves, whereas men were most likely to choose women only 7 cm shorter than themselves. As a consequence, matches were most likely at an intermediate height dif- ference (19 cm) that differed significantly from the preferred height difference of both sexes.

25 centimeters is a 10 inch difference.

So if you are 5 foot 9 you would most likely only satisfy a woman who is 4 foot 11?
And if you are 5 foot 11 you would most likely only satisfy a woman who is 5 foot 1?

Jesus that is ridiculous.

[Kintaeryos]

25 centimeters is a 10 inch difference.

So if you are 5 foot 9 you would most likely only satisfy a woman who is 4 foot 11?
And if you are 5 foot 11 you would most likely only satisfy a woman who is 5 foot 1?

Jesus that is ridiculous.

Not sure I buy it tbh, that would mean that a 6'3 man would have the ideal height for women up 5'5, which definitely isn't the case based on what I see irl, virtually all women would see 6'3 as very solidly tall (the ideal male height imo). Even 6'1 is still seen as a good height by most women, it can't be "too short" for any woman above 5'3 when US female average is 5'4. What I get from that study is that 6'0-6'2 is the optimal range for women if the average male height is 5'10.5, with anything above 6'3 beginning to become too tall for a lot of women. Add 1 inch to that for taller countries and you get 6'1-6'3.

But either way I hope all these claims of insane heightism by women you see online are just black pill/incel exaggerations cause otherwise this stuff is getting out of control and won't be socially sustainable in a few years. Makes me question the morality of doing LL tbh, do I really want to put my wallet and body through hell just to please entitled women with insane expectations and no sense of reality and statistics? Like, why the fk do you need your partner to tower over you like like a giant? 10 inches is almost the difference between Shaquile O'Neal and the average man in a tall country, that is insane. It astounds me that 6'0 went from being seen as one of the best male heights to not even close to ideal in my lifetime.

[Kintaeryos]

https://www.gertstulp.com/pdf/Stulp%20et%20al%202013_Anim%20Behav_The%20height%20of%20choosiness.pdf
https://iili.io/J72ZaxR.png

So based on the study and graph 180-190 cm is the good range if the average male height is 179 cm, making it 183-193 in tall countries. Did I get that right? But in order to scale the study's results to different countries shouldn't the average male height of the country where it was conducted (US I think) be used instead of the average height of the men in the study? The women that took part in it are used to the male height distribution they see in their daily lives, not the one the men in the study happened to have, and that's where their ideas of "ideal height" and "tallness" come from. Unless average male height in the US is also around 179 cm.

[dz93]

So based on the study and graph 180-190 cm is the good range if the average male height is 179 cm, making it 183-193 in tall countries. Did I get that right?

Yeah, that's my thinking.

But in order to scale the study's results to different countries shouldn't the average male height of the country where it was conducted (US I think) be used instead of the average height of the men in the study? The women that took part in it are used to the male height distribution they see in their daily lives, not the one the men in the study happened to have, and that's where their ideas of "ideal height" and "tallness" come from. Unless average male height in the US is also around 179 cm.

The sample sizes in the study are most likely large enough to be statistically representative of the populations where they were measured, so it should make little difference if it's the "daily population", or "just" the "study population".  But the study breaks down the participants into race/ethnicity, with caucasians being the majority in it, so that should be taken into consideration.  Population/health statistics (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_03/sr03-046-508.pdf) show an average height of 178 cm for non-Hispanic white males aged 20-40 in the US (Table 11), which means this speed dating study's average of 179cm is decently spot on at least for that segment of the population.  The age average of participants was also within this range.  For a country like the US I think you need to shift this study's figures according to your state or area's average height, because using the country's average as a whole can become too broad (like it would be to simply average all EU countries together for instance).

So of course the actual, practical, real-life average will depend on where you live, since the US is such a diverse country it's hard to generalize across all of it, the average heights will depend on which state and even neighborhood you live in.  So if you know your area (let's say for instance California or Florida) has a lower population-wide average of for instance 176cm for men because of more ethnic diversity, you just shift the figures like I described for Nordic countries earlier, but in the opposite direction instead.  Same way it doesn't make sense to use Germany's averages if you live in Portugal, but people's speed dating height preferences could probably still relatively speaking be the same.

Just as a disclaimer I'm not a statistician by any means (pun intended), but I can say it's much easier to confidently do this numbers shift for the Nordic countries since they are way less diverse than the US and thus are more in line with the sample population from this study.

The average-relative way I interpret that graph and the numbers in the study is:

Average male height or taller = Neutral to positive effect and not _that_ much difference per cm of increase.

Up to 10 cm shorter than average male height = Slightly more competition with every cm, tilting up towards doubling/tripling it at the lower end though, since we're getting closer to the average female height.

More than 10 cm shorter than the average male height = Competition increasing much more dramatically with every cm.

Basically, when someone's shorter than at least 90% of men (the 10th percentile and below) is where it is much more difficult.

[Stand taller]

One of the studies I have read is very nicely laid out in this video. There are also links in the description of the video, and I'll also link it here:

Video:


Study:
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.gertstulp.com/pdf/Stulp%20et%20al%202013_Anim%20Behav_The%20height%20of%20choosiness.pdf

I have plotted the data that represents height and acceptance from the study.

Height cm   Height feet   Acceptance rate %
142,24   4'8                   5
144,78   4'9                   5,5
147,32   4'10                    6
149,86   4'11                   6,5
152,4   5'0                   7
154,94   5'1                   7,5
157,48   5'2                   8
160,02   5'3                   9
162,56   5'4                   10
165,1   5'5                   15 - OLD HEIGHT
167,64   5'6                   25
170,18   5'7                   35
172,72   5'8                   52
175,26   5'9                   67
177,8   5'10                   87 - NEW HEIGHT
180,34   5'11                   94
182,88   6'0                   98
185,42   6'1                   93
187,96   6'2                   94
190,5   6'3                   78
193,04   6'4                   68
195,58   6'5                   55
198,12   6'6                   42
200,66   6'7                   35
203,2   6'8                   34

According to this study I should have experienced a 6 fold in  attraction, but in reality the increase is much bigger. What that tells me is one of two things, or maybe both. The study is very generalised and is based on what women say, and not what they do. May studies have shown that women will virtue signal when asked about preferences, much more so than men. I think that the numbers from around 172cm and upwards are probably decently accurate, while the rejection rate below what is probably much higher. Either one of these is true, or both. I am guessing both. There might also be a multiplication factor for above average looking men, where below a certain height (a hard threshold) they are as invisible as average or even below average looking men. I mean there is probably are difference because of looks, but in relation to men at average height this difference is probably negligible. Where as above that threshold, good looking men will have unlocked their potential.

Let me expand. Let's say based on the chat above acceptance rate for men at around 165cm actually is 5% and not 15% as the study says. And let's say that good looking men will have an acceptance rate twice that of average looking men. In the grand scheme of things, that difference between average and good looking men at 165cm isn't that great because the pool of women is already very small.

[TheDream]

According to this study I should have experienced a 6 fold in  attraction, but in reality the increase is much bigger. What that tells me is one of two things, or maybe both. The study is very generalised and is based on what women say, and not what they do. May studies have shown that women will virtue signal when asked about preferences, much more so than men.

I don’t think the study is saying you should become more attractive. It is simply saying you have a larger dating pool.

That means if height is a filter in dating 6 times more women would now actually consider you as a mate by looking at your qualities while before they wouldn’t even consider you but just instantly reject you.

[Stand taller]

I don’t think the study is saying you should become more attractive. It is simply saying you have a larger dating pool.

That means if height is a filter in dating 6 times more women would now actually consider you as a mate by looking at your qualities while before they wouldn’t even consider you but just instantly reject you.

I mean those two things are of the same aren't they? Your dating pool becomes bigger because you before more attractive to more women, same same.

[TheDream]

I mean those two things are of the same aren't they? Your dating pool becomes bigger because you before more attractive to more women, same same.

Not exactly. When you go from an acceptance rate of 15% to an acceptance rate of 87% it does not mean your attraction level has increased from 0.15 to 0.87. That is, acceptance rate does not equal attraction.

Basically it means you wouldn’t get outright rejected immediately due to your height, thus the females would expend the time and energy to actually look at your different qualities and decide if they like you or not. These qualities which they evaluate is your attraction.

Imagine an algorithm:

If Male.height >= Female.height_threshold:
Female.evaluate_attraction(Male)
Else:
Female.discard(Male)

Now obviously the more time a male and female interact the more complex attraction becomes, and this does not hold. But for rapid dating like speed dating, night clubs or dating apps I feel this is an accurate approximation.

This is why I think height is becoming more and more fierce in modern dating, because young people do not spend time together in social groups in the mall etc. where natural attraction between a boy and a girl can arise across a wide spectrum of heights.

Modern dating is more fast paced with apps, speed dating, social media etc. so it converges towards this simplified model where height becomes a sort of filter criteria.

Now you can argue height itself is also a parameter in the attraction qualities themselves. But what they are quantifying in the study with acceptance rate is not attraction itself but simply how many women would evaluate your attraction at that specific height.

[finertoga]

Not exactly. When you go from an acceptance rate of 15% to an acceptance rate of 87% it does not mean your attraction level has increased from 0.15 to 0.87. That is, acceptance rate does not equal attraction.

Basically it means you wouldn’t get outright rejected immediately due to your height, thus the females would expend the time and energy to actually look at your different qualities and decide if they like you or not. These qualities which they evaluate is your attraction.

Imagine an algorithm:

If Male.height >= Female.height_threshold:
Female.evaluate_attraction(Male)
Else:
Female.discard(Male)

Now obviously the more time a male and female interact the more complex attraction becomes, and this does not hold. But for rapid dating like speed dating, night clubs or dating apps I feel this is an accurate approximation.

This is why I think height is becoming more and more fierce in modern dating, because young people do not spend time together in social groups in the mall etc. where natural attraction between a boy and a girl can arise across a wide spectrum of heights.

Modern dating is more fast paced with apps, speed dating, social media etc. so it converges towards this simplified model where height becomes a sort of filter criteria.

Now you can argue height itself is also a parameter in the attraction qualities themselves. But what they are quantifying in the study with acceptance rate is not attraction itself but simply how many women would evaluate your attraction at that specific height.

I don’t think it’s any different from a school application. Most top schools require a minimum 3.0 gpa, so if you are under this your application is immediately discarded and not even looked at. What the >3.0 GPA does is gives you the opportunity to have your application evaluated in more depth, but by no means is it a guarantee of admission.

In a similar light, as your algorithm shows if you are under the height threshold you are immediately rejected. But once you pass that minimum height requirement she’ll now take more time to evaluate you holistically. Because height is so quantitative it’s an easy filtering mechanism for women, and tends to be the first thing that’s evaluated to “weed out” the shorter men.

[Kintaeryos]

One of the studies I have read is very nicely laid out in this video. There are also links in the description of the video, and I'll also link it here:

Video:


Study:
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.gertstulp.com/pdf/Stulp%20et%20al%202013_Anim%20Behav_The%20height%20of%20choosiness.pdf

I have plotted the data that represents height and acceptance from the study.

Height cm   Height feet   Acceptance rate %
142,24   4'8                   5
144,78   4'9                   5,5
147,32   4'10                    6
149,86   4'11                   6,5
152,4   5'0                   7
154,94   5'1                   7,5
157,48   5'2                   8
160,02   5'3                   9
162,56   5'4                   10
165,1   5'5                   15 - OLD HEIGHT
167,64   5'6                   25
170,18   5'7                   35
172,72   5'8                   52
175,26   5'9                   67
177,8   5'10                   87 - NEW HEIGHT
180,34   5'11                   94
182,88   6'0                   98
185,42   6'1                   93
187,96   6'2                   94
190,5   6'3                   78
193,04   6'4                   68
195,58   6'5                   55
198,12   6'6                   42
200,66   6'7                   35
203,2   6'8                   34

According to this study I should have experienced a 6 fold in  attraction, but in reality the increase is much bigger. What that tells me is one of two things, or maybe both. The study is very generalised and is based on what women say, and not what they do. May studies have shown that women will virtue signal when asked about preferences, much more so than men. I think that the numbers from around 172cm and upwards are probably decently accurate, while the rejection rate below what is probably much higher. Either one of these is true, or both. I am guessing both. There might also be a multiplication factor for above average looking men, where below a certain height (a hard threshold) they are as invisible as average or even below average looking men. I mean there is probably are difference because of looks, but in relation to men at average height this difference is probably negligible. Where as above that threshold, good looking men will have unlocked their potential.

Let me expand. Let's say based on the chat above acceptance rate for men at around 165cm actually is 5% and not 15% as the study says. And let's say that good looking men will have an acceptance rate twice that of average looking men. In the grand scheme of things, that difference between average and good looking men at 165cm isn't that great because the pool of women is already very small.

I looked at the table at the end of the study, are you sure your summary table is correct? Some numbers are different and some heights are missing, either from yours or the one on the pdf.

[Stand taller]

Not exactly. When you go from an acceptance rate of 15% to an acceptance rate of 87% it does not mean your attraction level has increased from 0.15 to 0.87. That is, acceptance rate does not equal attraction.

Basically it means you wouldn’t get outright rejected immediately due to your height, thus the females would expend the time and energy to actually look at your different qualities and decide if they like you or not. These qualities which they evaluate is your attraction.

Imagine an algorithm:

If Male.height >= Female.height_threshold:
Female.evaluate_attraction(Male)
Else:
Female.discard(Male)

Now obviously the more time a male and female interact the more complex attraction becomes, and this does not hold. But for rapid dating like speed dating, night clubs or dating apps I feel this is an accurate approximation.

This is why I think height is becoming more and more fierce in modern dating, because young people do not spend time together in social groups in the mall etc. where natural attraction between a boy and a girl can arise across a wide spectrum of heights.

Modern dating is more fast paced with apps, speed dating, social media etc. so it converges towards this simplified model where height becomes a sort of filter criteria.

Now you can argue height itself is also a parameter in the attraction qualities themselves. But what they are quantifying in the study with acceptance rate is not attraction itself but simply how many women would evaluate your attraction at that specific height.

Sure, I completely agree with you assessment here. Acceptance rate is not the same as attraction level. But with that being said, I think in practice it will pretty much have the same effect. I think you will experience being almost six times more attractive vs before. Six times may sound very high, but considering you are starting from a low point of attraction it is not crazy.

Again, I agree they are not equal - but I think they will feel pretty similar.

[Stand taller]

I don’t think it’s any different from a school application. Most top schools require a minimum 3.0 gpa, so if you are under this your application is immediately discarded and not even looked at. What the >3.0 GPA does is gives you the opportunity to have your application evaluated in more depth, but by no means is it a guarantee of admission.

In a similar light, as your algorithm shows if you are under the height threshold you are immediately rejected. But once you pass that minimum height requirement she’ll now take more time to evaluate you holistically. Because height is so quantitative it’s an easy filtering mechanism for women, and tends to be the first thing that’s evaluated to “weed out” the shorter men.

Yeah, I think this accurately describes the reality of height in attraction.

[Temoc]

I think your assessment here is pretty accurate regarding height and minimum threshold for attraction. There are a bunch of studies done on rejection rate at different heights. If I remember correct there seems to be a plateau from around 177 - 187cm. I think rejection rate base on height at 177cm is around 15% and around 5% at 187cm. Below 177cm there is a steep drop off where the rejection rate based on height at 165cm is like 85%. There is also a drop above 187cm, but not nearly as severe as the drop off below 177cm.

Remember though, this is a study based on what women said and not what they do. I think most women will be hard pressed to tell the difference between 177cm and 182cm for example, and on the other end I think most women may be doing virtue signaling when it comes to rejecting short men. I think the rejection rate at 165cm (my old height) is way more than 85%.

Exactly, very few women can tell the difference between 177 or 182. They just want a guy who is comfortably taller than them, if they're average or short, or a guy who is slightly taller if she is tall. If the average western woman is 163, it's easy for her to tell that you're not very tall at 165. But if you're 170 it starts to become harder, and at 180 it doesn't really matter.
For example, I can't really tell if a guy is 195cm or 2m.
The trend about women only wanting guys who are above 180cms(in metric countries) or 6'(in imperial) is mostly bull  and also caused by 5'10"-5'11" guys claiming they're 6', so women think that average to slightly above average guys are always 6'+.

Sure, I completely agree with you assessment here. Acceptance rate is not the same as attraction level. But with that being said, I think in practice it will pretty much have the same effect. I think you will experience being almost six times more attractive vs before. Six times may sound very high, but considering you are starting from a low point of attraction it is not crazy.

Again, I agree they are not equal - but I think they will feel pretty similar.

Well, in theory, you can still attract 0 at your new height. I do know guys who are tall and can't get anything. So 6 times 0 is still 0. But in all likelihood it will increase your chances with girls a lot.

[Stand taller]

Exactly, very few women can tell the difference between 177 or 182. They just want a guy who is comfortably taller than them, if they're average or short, or a guy who is slightly taller if she is tall. If the average western woman is 163, it's easy for her to tell that you're not very tall at 165. But if you're 170 it starts to become harder, and at 180 it doesn't really matter.
For example, I can't really tell if a guy is 195cm or 2m.
The trend about women only wanting guys who are above 180cms(in metric countries) or 6'(in imperial) is mostly bull  and also caused by 5'10"-5'11" guys claiming they're 6', so women think that average to slightly above average guys are always 6'+.

Yeah that is all true. I remember when I was 165cm, I didn't even think about who of my taller friends where either 177cm og 182cm. Case in point, two of my best friends are these heights and I never ever though they where at different heights, the thought just didn't cross my mind. Now though, in shoes I am slightly taller than my friend who claimed to be 177cm. So I am now thinking that he isn't really 177cm and maybe around 175cm. And my other friend who is 182cm is just a little taller than me.

[/quote]
Well, in theory, you can still attract 0 at your new height. I do know guys who are tall and can't get anything. So 6 times 0 is still 0. But in all likelihood it will increase your chances with girls a lot.
[/quote]

True, true!

[finertoga]

I think your theory is correct. With me I’ve noticed almost no women look at me unless they’re sitting down and can’t tell my height. It’s a bit of a mind f*ck, I’m 5’5.5” and I’m thinking the threshold is right around 5’7” in the US. I actually just bought 1.5” lifts so I’m gonna test the theory out and see what happens. I don’t think I’m as good looking as standing Taller, but I’d say I’m pretty good looking and can attract shorter girls more easily. So let’s see what happens I’ll update you guys.

I tried out the 1.5 inch lifts when I went out, so I was 5’7” and man it made the biggest difference. I got way more looks from women and when I would be talking to them they were much more receptive than usual. I was actually invited back to a table to talk to two girls and I got their numbers, this type of thing would never happen at 5’5ish. I definitely think the threshold is 5’7”, while I was still short it seemed like most women would still give me a chance and I wouldn’t be immediately discarded.

I definitely believe standtallers experience now, I have no doubt 4-5 inches would be life changing, especially if I got this much benefit from less than 2 inches.

[Rellec]

True! I've always looked much younger than I am, so I am attracting women down to early 20s without a problem. I still have a full head of hair (though it is starting to thin up top) and very few grey hairs. If I am lucky I can still play at this game another 10 years.

Since you lengthened 11,5cm which is a quite considerable amount in one segment, i wanted to ask you about your proportions. Do you think your femurs looks good? What about the knee height, isn't it too low after 11,5cm? Anyone ever commented about your proportions? I think that when sitting down your femurs will looks really long and maybe sticks out. And last question, what is your sitting height?

Thank you for sharing your experience with us, i'm around your height and i can't decide the amount of lengthening because i'm worried about proportions

[Stand taller]

I tried out the 1.5 inch lifts when I went out, so I was 5’7” and man it made the biggest difference. I got way more looks from women and when I would be talking to them they were much more receptive than usual. I was actually invited back to a table to talk to two girls and I got their numbers, this type of thing would never happen at 5’5ish. I definitely think the threshold is 5’7”, while I was still short it seemed like most women would still give me a chance and I wouldn’t be immediately discarded.

I definitely believe standtallers experience now, I have no doubt 4-5 inches would be life changing, especially if I got this much benefit from less than 2 inches.

It is great to hear about your experience with just wearing 1.5 inch lifts! I also think 5'7 is a threshold, but I also think that 5'8 or 5'9 may be another. And once you are 5'10 you are basically good for around 90-95% of women. Was told last weekend I wasn't a girls type, and I then asked what is your type. She replied "blond hair and 190cm tall". I have dark hair and just wasn't tall enough. You can't win em all!

At my old height I would never approach women, and but since May last year I've probably approached 100-200 women. Heck just last weekend I approached like 10-15 women.

[Stand taller]

Since you lengthened 11,5cm which is a quite considerable amount in one segment, i wanted to ask you about your proportions. Do you think your femurs looks good? What about the knee height, isn't it too low after 11,5cm? Anyone ever commented about your proportions? I think that when sitting down your femurs will looks really long and maybe sticks out. And last question, what is your sitting height?

Thank you for sharing your experience with us, i'm around your height and i can't decide the amount of lengthening because i'm worried about proportions

I've written a few posts about this in my diary, so go read that for detailed explanation and pictures. But basically I have very close if not identical porportions to my friends who are around my height. Both my seating height and knee height is normal for my height.

[short but sweet]

stand taller , do you plan to do tibias as well down the road ?

[Stand taller]

stand taller , do you plan to do tibias as well down the road ?

I can explain my thoughts this way. I knew that some day I wanted to do LLS no matter what. Going from 165cm to 177cm has changed my life. I think I could still benefit in dating and in business doing another 5cm on tibias. With that being said though, I think the cost/gain ratio is much lower compared to what I've already experienced. My goal moving forward is to get into really good shape with a body fat at around 15%. Then this year I would probably like to do a hair transplant. I could fly to Turkey next week and get it done for cheap, or I could save up some money and do it in my own city. There is clinic here where you don't have to shave you head, which sounds great - but it is like four times as much as going abroad. After that Maybe I'd like to do a beard transplant and other minor stuff. After all of that, I'll fly down to Freiburg and remove my nails. And then, I think I'll be good. I do sometimes (once in a blue moon) think about doing tibias, but it is not on my wishlist at this point in time.

[ax]

I liked reading your diary and it is what brought Dr Becker to my attention. I met him and was quite impressed by the whole setup. But I have a steep amount of anxiety about going through with it because I am not sure if he can handle any serious complications of the surgery (if they occur that is: there is a 2% chance of serious complications even under the best doctors).

He does CLL surgeries exclusively from what I could gather and does not do any regular orthopaedic department work. I have heard unverified reports that he does other plastic surgery, but that doesn't exactly build confidence about LL.

Did this not concern you presurgery? How did you convince yourself that it will okay to go ahead with him and what were your plans for the unforeseen event of a serious complication?

[short but sweet]

I can explain my thoughts this way. I knew that some day I wanted to do LLS no matter what. Going from 165cm to 177cm has changed my life. I think I could still benefit in dating and in business doing another 5cm on tibias.

very well put answer 
why only 5cm , and not 10 ?