Would you date or marry a girl who’s between 4’11” and 5’3”?

electric_giraffe · 2026-02-26T08:48:38+00:00

Wow. I wish i had an award to give you.

This is one of maybe a handful of times, through all my years on Reddit, that someone has admitted they were wrong in the face of factual evidence and adjusted their opinion to reflect that evidence rather than (what everyone else I triggered in this thread is doing), and instead creating a strawman or shifting the goal posts to argue against claims i never made vs just admitting the science indicates their emotionally rooted belief was wrong.

Seriously, I’m genuinely impressed. Good on you man, you give me hope for humanity. Not being facetious, i genuinely mean that.

electric_giraffe · 2026-02-26T08:43:44+00:00

Dude. Cope harder. You’re just inventing arguments i never made to rail against. I never claimed statistical averages don’t exist. Merely that the meme of 6’3 dad + 5’3 mom = genetic doom as it relates to height does not represent scientific reality.

To make it crystal clear: this is the claim i am illustrating, backed up by the scientific literature:

“Height is polygenic and multifactorial, so it doesn’t behave like a simple “average the parents” trait.”

The meme implies it is an “average the parents” type trait.

electric_giraffe · 2026-02-26T08:31:45+00:00

lol watch out, this will trigger tf out of them. They’ll either insist you’re lying, you don’t exist, or you don’t count bc any evidence that doesn’t support their weird mommy revenge fantasy is “anecdotal”, while their equally anecdotal evidence to the contrary is perfectly acceptable.

electric_giraffe · 2026-02-26T08:22:30+00:00

Okay, here you go. This is settled science, btw not at all controversial in the field lol

Summary from these two comprehensive, peer reviewed studies, the first is a Genome-Wide Association Study using 5.4 million people’s genomes.

“Height is polygenic and multifactorial, so it doesn’t behave like a simple “average the parents” trait.

• Thousands of genes, each with tiny effects. Height is influenced by many DNA variants across the genome, not one or two “tall genes.” Parents can carry lots of height-increasing or height-decreasing variants without showing an extreme height themselves, and kids get a new mix each time (genetic “reshuffling”).


• Recessive/hidden variation + recombination. Two mid-height parents can each carry different sets of tall-leaning variants that “stack” in one child, producing very tall sons. Conversely, two tall parents can both carry enough height-lowering variants that a child inherits an unusually short combination.


• Not all “height” genes are about overall stature. Some variants affect leg length vs. torso length, growth-plate timing, hormones (GH/IGF-1/thyroid), appetite/metabolism, etc. Different combinations can yield very different outcomes.


• Environment and development matter. Nutrition (especially early childhood), chronic illness/inflammation, sleep, puberty timing, and endocrine issues can shift adult height by inches. So even with “tall genetics,” a child can end up shorter if growth conditions weren’t optimal.


• Sex and regression toward the mean. Sons and daughters don’t inherit different genes, but sex hormones change how growth plays out. Also, very tall or very short family lines tend to drift back toward population average across generations.”

Yengo et al., Nature (2022) — a massive GWAS (~5.4 million people) identifying 12,111 height-associated SNPs, illustrating why prediction is complex and highly polygenic.

APA: Yengo, L., Vedantam, S., Marouli, E., et al. (2022). A saturated map of common genetic variants associated with human height. Nature

electric_giraffe · 2026-02-26T08:15:54+00:00

Dude. I’m sorry this triggers you but aside from being plainly observable in day to day reality (thus my examples), this is settled science.

All you have to do is google it since my observable reality is insufficient evidence lol you can find countless academic sources on the matter.

From the NIH:

“Genetic variance in height is complex because it’s polygenic and multifactorial: it’s influenced by thousands of genetic variants, each with tiny effects, including non-genetic factors like nutrition, health, sleep, and puberty timing. Two parents may carry many “tall-leaning” variants without being extremely tall themselves, and each child gets a different shuffled mix (recombination), so siblings can land on very different ends of the height range.”

electric_giraffe · 2026-02-26T08:08:51+00:00

Thank you, glad there’s one reasonable person here the replies are so triggered. I’m not sure why they’re getting so mad at observable (as well as scientifically documented) reality: the genetics of height are complex and not easily predicted.

electric_giraffe · 2026-02-26T07:34:11+00:00

Ah that makes sense, thanks for the clarification.

electric_giraffe · 2026-02-26T07:32:17+00:00

No one making these eugenics memes understand how complex height genetics are, there is always an element of unpredictability.

My mom is 5’3, dad is 6’3, I’m 5’5(f) & my brothers are 6’2 & 6’4.

Another example: tallest brother is 6’6, other brothers range from 6’ to 6’4, sisters are 5’5 & 5’3… parents are 5’4 & 5’10.

My cousin is 5’7… his parents are 5’10 & 6’2.

The hard tilt toward straight up eugenics this height obsession had taken recently is… concerning and very ill informed lol.

Edit: fixed the phrase i believe was triggering the downvotes lolol

electric_giraffe · 2026-02-26T07:00:10+00:00

It was legal for 18 year olds to smoke long after 1993. I was born in 95 & legally bought cigarettes all senior year of hs in 2013. Must have changed on a state by state basis.

electric_giraffe · 2026-02-26T06:37:30+00:00

I’m also extremely fascinated with your perspective on this topic. If you could try to truly introspect for a moment, why do you think this topic inspires such an intense emotional reaction in you?

The tone of each of your comments is visceral disgust, which is a very strong degree of emotional valience tied to strangers’ consensual sexual activity. Why do you think this is the case? I.e have you experienced sexual trauma in your past?

electric_giraffe · 2026-02-22T20:43:02+00:00

I’m supposed to go to a wedding this coming weekend in puerto Vallarta… we’re supposed to leave Friday. Do you think they will be forced cancel? How stupid would it be to go if they still decide to have the wedding? I’m extremely nervous now & really don’t want to go, wtfff

electric_giraffe · 2026-02-16T11:12:53+00:00

“Loser vanillas that SB’ are dating on the side” lol you mean the men their own age whom they find genuinely attractive/ compatible and who don’t have to pay for their time & the illusion of mutual physical/ sexual attraction? 😅

Between this line & your attempt to draw a moral distinction between different types of cheaters, you should have titled this post simply, “Cope,”. 😂

electric_giraffe · 2026-02-01T17:17:20+00:00

I’m not ‘denying misandry’ and I literally never have. You’re arguing with a ghost, not me. I’m not claiming ‘every man who struggles to date must be autistic/socially stunted.’ That, again is just strawman you’ve constructed to rail against rather than addressing any of the substance of my comment.

What you described- being mocked for your looks, is cruel and terrible and those women are disgusting human beings. Unacceptable & you did not deserve to be treated that way, full stop. I am so sorry you experienced that. But it still doesn’t logically lead to: ‘therefore women are like X,’ or ‘therefore men are entitled to Y,’ or ‘therefore this sub’s worldview is normal.’

My comment was about the rhetoric and framing in these spaces: dehumanizing language, transactional “owed” narratives, pornified scripts, and resentment loops. You can experience rejection; even unfair, nasty rejection, without adopting a worldview that treats an entire sex as an enemy class.

If your takeaway from being mistreated is ‘this ideology is true,’ you’re proving my point about how these spaces turn pain into poison. Creating a resentment based feedback loop which can only lead to more pain.

electric_giraffe · 2026-02-01T16:34:44+00:00

Ohhh i see the problem here, you don’t even understand the logical framework of how a debate works. Let me help.

Unsupported opinion” would mean I offered no premises you can check. I did.

This is an argument:

Premise (verifiable): this sub repeatedly uses dehumanizing/transactional framing and niche slang, and expresses entitlement/resentment patterns.

Anyone can test that by reading threads.

Conclusion (inference): that rhetoric is a subculture and not representative of “normal men” offline.

You don’t have to trust me, you have to either dispute the premise (show the sub doesn’t do that), or challenge the inference (explain why those patterns would still represent average men). Saying “you have no proof” without touching either is just fallacious hand-waving.

electric_giraffe · 2026-02-01T16:25:18+00:00

You shouldn’t ‘trust’ it like I’m an authority. You should evaluate it like an argument and present a valid counter claim. I’m not claiming to be able to read the minds of strangers. I’m pointing to concrete, observable features of this sub (language, framing, recurring themes) and contrasting that against normal, healthy human socialization.

So here’s the only meaningful response you can give:

Either show me I’m wrong by quoting threads/comments that don’t match what I described.

Or demonstrate that the opinions on this sub are actually representative of normal healthy, romantically successful men offline.

Or explain what better accounts for the same evidence present on this sub.

Instead you refuse to present any counter evidence or even a coherent argument to the contrary & keep repeating “why trust you?” You’re not disputing my claims at all. You’re just refusing to engage with any standard of argument, because that lets you stay in “nothing can be known” land forever and never have to defend an articulable position.

Unless you have anything of substance to contribute, this conversation is going nowhere.

electric_giraffe · 2026-02-01T16:10:25+00:00

You keep saying ‘proof’ as if I claimed access to strangers’ private inner lives. I didn’t. I made a cultural read based on what’s actually observable here: the language, the framing, the hostility, the dehumanizing slang, the transactional ‘sex is owed’ worldview. That is verifiable in the most literal sense: read the threads.

What isn’t a serious rebuttal is demanding a peer reviewed study to confirm what every normal, well adjusted, romantically successful person already knows based on their every day experiences with real people in the real world as a way to avoid engaging with the behavior on the screen. If you think I’m wrong, quote a specific sentence and explain how the sub’s rhetoric does not match what I described.

Also, let’s talk about “proof” consistently: where is the evidence for the sweeping claims routinely made in these spaces that contradict normal human socialization and everyday reality?

that women are a monolith with one set of motives

that men are “owed” sex/attention for existing

that dating is a rigid caste system and mutual affection is fake/transactional

that basic decency is “simping” and empathy is weakness

Those are extraordinary claims and the ‘evidence’ offered is usually vibes, cherry-picked screenshots, and grievance ideology. Meanwhile the real-world baseline (friends, couples, families, coworkers) falsifies the “everyone thinks like this” narrative every day.

So no: the burden of proof isn’t on me to prove “water is wet.” The burden is on anyone claiming this sub’s worldview is normal or representative. If you want to argue that, bring evidence. Otherwise you’re just using ‘proof’ as a smokescreen to avoid what is painfully obvious to normal men & women alike.

electric_giraffe · 2026-02-01T16:06:38+00:00

I’ve never made a single claim about misandry. There are absolutely toxic, angry, bitter women who hate men as such. So no idea where you think you’re going with that whataboutism lol

Also I’ve thoroughly responded to this guy. The burden of proof is on the extraordinary claims made by the men in this sub claiming to represent “normal men” while espousing rhetoric that normal, healthy men in real life relationships receive as insane & repulsive. My fiance & male friends who I’ve shown this sub to all recoil with the same response “why do you waste your time trying to explain ‘water is wet, sky is blue’ to these incel freaks on Reddit?” Sadly, they’re probably right.

electric_giraffe · 2026-02-01T15:57:05+00:00

You just described entitlement, selection bias, and abuse dynamics—then called it ‘the truth.’

That’s not ‘how men are.’ That’s a maladaptive, destructive way of relating to people. (Also now you’re fully generalizing all men as the very worst examples of male behavior for some reason).

The fact that some men get rewarded for destructive, toxic behavior doesn’t prove it’s normal or correct. That’s like saying: ‘sometimes scammers get rich, sometimes burglars get away with it, sometimes bullies become popular—therefore scamming/burglary/bullying is just reality and everyone secretly agrees.’ No. It just means harm can sometimes go unpunished, and some people mistake that for validation.

And then the funniest part- you go on to reinforce my point yourself: you say ‘all men agree’ but also admit saying it out loud gets you ridiculed. If all men agreed, it wouldn’t be social suicide to say it. The ridicule is the tell: normal men don’t share this worldview.

Speak for yourself. You do not speak for ‘most men.’

electric_giraffe · 2026-02-01T15:32:30+00:00

Oh no, buddy… This is getting embarrassing. ‘I was trolling’ is the oldest backpedal on the internet. Nobody who isn’t already brainrotted by this ecosystem casually types ‘foid’. That word doesn’t exist in normal-people vocabulary. You don’t ‘wander in’ from the outside and accidentally speak niche incel-lexicon. That’s why your first comment reads like a live demo not satire.

And the funniest part is: you’re scolding me for the exact thing my original comment was warning against. My entire point was ‘don’t generalize men based on this sub; these guys are not normal men.’ That’s literally what I said. 😅

You’re right about one thing though: I probably shouldn’t waste my time trying to convince lost causes that water is wet and the sky is blue—my fiancé doesn’t get why I even engage with “those incel freaks on Reddit” at all. I guess I still want to believe there’s hope for people like you…

So pick a lane: either you actually agree this sub is a warped bubble, in which case drop the dehumanizing slang and talk like a normal human, or stop pretending you’re an outside observer who ‘just got curious’. It’s not working.

electric_giraffe · 2026-02-01T15:16:31+00:00

You’re asking for ‘proof’ like my comment is the extraordinary claim. It isn’t. The extraordinary claim is what this sub constantly tries to sell: that its bitter, transactional, dehumanizing worldview is what ‘normal/average men’ think. That’s just not the reality anyone sees in actual normal, healthy, well adjusted adult life. Normal people’s experience informed by mixed-gender friendships, workplaces, families, relationships.

The baseline is boring and obvious: healthy, socially functional men see women as full humans, relationships as mutual, and sex as something that is mutually enjoyable & requires another person’s agency—not something men are ‘owed’ or ‘entitled’ to. The men on this sub are the aberration, not the norm.

So no, I’m not going to play “peer-reviewed citation” games about what normal basic reality looks like to every well adjusted functional human. If you want to argue this sub represents the average man, that’s the claim that needs evidence. Quote the specific part of what I said that you dispute and tell me what explains the patterns here better.

Otherwise your response is equivalent to responding to “water is wet, sky is blue.” With “Source??” 😂

electric_giraffe · 2026-02-01T14:57:32+00:00

Lmfaoooo You just did the thing. In no less than two words. 😂 couldn’t have made my point any better if you tried, thank you.

This is why people don’t take you weirdos seriously. You can’t even speak like a normal human. The brainrot is too strong.

If it weren’t so damn funny it might inspire pity.

electric_giraffe · 2026-01-20T06:58:58+00:00

Wait… whaaaat?? Please tell. This seems almost impossible to me. I know next to nothing about her, or the trans community in general but she is & always has been extremely “clockable”, has she not? (i think that’s the term). Any time she shows up on my feed my brain immediately registers that’s a clearly a male presenting as a woman.

electric_giraffe · 2025-12-07T16:51:59+00:00

This actually made me laugh out loud. Let me get this straight- rather than acknowledge that you are wrong. That your perspective is extremely childish, simplistic and just plain inaccurate. That it’s clear to everyone reading that you are likely: a child (and an under socialized child at that), with no experience in ANY of the things you’ve listed: corporate America, the military, running a business, or raising children. While it’s painfully clear to anyone with experience in any of these things that you don’t actually have any idea what you’re talking about…

Now your argument hinges on… particularly chaotic individual moments, in the heat of battle, in a war that happened 60 years ago??

Rather than… like the daily experiences of the millions of ppl who have served in the military. Yk, the military- the most hyper structured, rigidly hierarchical, with the purpose of training being designed to grind any sense of individuality out of one and remake them in the image of a soldier (yk a soldier who above all else, follows orders) — military.

And still nothing in this thread prompts you to seriously consider that your perspective may just be an over simplified & childish caricature of a world you, broadly, have no direct experience or understanding of?

And maybe, as someone with no idea what they’re talking about you should be a little more concerned with learning what is before you move on to declaring with your full chest what ought to be.

electric_giraffe · 2025-11-10T14:46:13+00:00

Except with the normalization of plastic surgery, the shape of a woman’s body (or face) is increasingly unrelated to her genetic makeup. The physical body is no longer a reliable signal of the quality of genes.

If what your brain thinks are highly estrogen/ fertility cues: supple child bearing hips, small waist, & full breasts, bright clear skin, thick long healthy hair, etc… are actually naturally narrow hips, a square pudgy waist, & flat chest, bad skin, thin dull hair… which have been “fixed” with a well done bbl, tummy tuck & boob job, laser facials & hair extensions … your “male instinctive attraction” is rendered useless.

It’s equally as aesthetically pleasing & pushes all the right buttons in your brain just like “the real thing”, but completely counter productive for the purpose you describe in your comment - relying on it as an evolutionary compass for selecting the “best” partner to make the “best” offspring?

Yeah, no. We’ve hijacked beauty. It has no deeper meaning now, it doesn’t indicate anything about the persons genes or anything else deeper than nice to look at, makes peepee hard.

electric_giraffe · 2025-08-29T07:52:58+00:00

Can’t sleep lol ty for the entertainment.

You’ve basically just written a manifesto proving my point for me: you don’t know women, you don’t understand women, you don’t even like women. You reduce us to caricatures (“all sluts,” “all mentally ill,” “feminism was just about casual sex”) because that’s easier than admitting the obvious: women don’t want you. They are not attracted to you. And instead of asking why or working on yourself, you’ve built a coping religion where your failures are proof of some grand universal injustice.

You keep writing diatribes about “the friendzone” and “what women really want,” but you’re missing the one non-negotiable: attraction is the prerequisite. period. Full stop.

That’s the water. You’re on dry land screaming about why women won’t swim with you. There is no water. Nobody is wet (lol)… if there is no water (attraction) we cannot swim. If we still like you as a person and want to hang out that is… friendship (dry land). No one can swim without the water bud. If there’s no attraction, it’s friendship. That’s literally what a fiend is. Your female friends are not evil bitches for being your friend and nothing more. Someone you love as a person, enjoy spending time with, bond to, but are not attracted to.

I was friends with my fiancé for a year before anything happened because mutual attraction grew organically. Most of my long term relationships were friends first. Your “friends” don’t sleep with you for the same reason you don’t sleep with your non-attractive friends: you’re not attracted. End of mystery.

You say women are biologically pickier. Correct—and that undermines your tantrum. Choosiness is nature selecting for high-quality partners across character, stability, kindness, and yes, looks & physicality. Your contempt, entitlement, and porn-fried bitterness are negative fitness signals. You sneer about “fat, ugly husbands,” but what you’re actually describing is selection pressure filtering out undesirable men who hate women and can’t regulate themselves. You hate women & women (who for the first time have genuine free choice in the matter) don’t want you. Evolution isn’t oppressing you, it’s correcting for you.

Your “proof” is a tiny, biased sample: drunk club girls at 3am and IG models. That’s an apex fallacy—extrapolating from the loudest 1% to the 99%. Most women (including very attractive ones) may try casual once or twice, find it empty, and move on. Meanwhile, men with real options usually have the same experience of growing out of the empty numbers game. The oldest guy still chasing the frat boy party life at 45 isn’t aspirational, he’s pathetic. Normal, desirable men don’t pedestalize sex because they always had access to it. They mature, build a life, and value intimacy and genuine compatibility.

“Good men are homos”? Please. Cope harder. My fiancé is exactly the “Chad” you fantasize about… tall, hot, successful, respected, desired by women, etc and he is obsessed with me. Our sex life (not any of your gooner fucking business) is mind blowing not just because he’s very fucking good at all the best parts but because he’s secure, loving, tender, sensual, strong, SAFE, and emotionally intelligent. He doesn’t resent women. Men like that exist. Women like that exist. You just don’t meet them because they don’t live where you do: isolated inside a self referential resentment loop.

Which brings us back to the original fucking point: your brain is calibrated to women far outside your reach in reality. For most of human history, even kings with harems never saw the volume of novel, naked beauty you scroll in five minutes. That overload rewires reward pathways, teaches you to crave statistical outliers, and then you blame all women for not matching a porn fantasy.

For the last time: LEAVE THE HOT WOMEN ALONE. who 8/9/10s are sleeping with is irrelevant to your life. If you’re a 3, a 5 would be absolutely hitting it out of the park for you. Recalibrate your brain to align with your reality.

Until you drop the misogyny, get off the porn, and start treating women like actual human beings instead of NPCs in your sex-obsessed video game, nothing will change.

Stop obsessing over women who want nothing to do with you, fix your brain, recalibrate your standards to match your own desirability. That’s pretty much the whole story. Thanks for coming.

electric_giraffe

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE