Manlet

jimgoose

Why not just leave the poor little twonks alone? I would've thought a "manlet" was a combination manifold and inlet, some sort of Unit Injection job.

Muise...

Magaggie wrote: »

This was done before: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=90057526

Such threads are a good c**t filter. And I'm not talking about short men.

If small man syndrome exists, then so does tall man syndrome, any kind of syndrome. It's difficult for some people not to box others off though.

I hadn't the heart to go looking for that head-desking thread, but I did think of it. Odd that if shorter men are over-compensating try-hards they're not the ones who start threads to **** for attention like chimps in a zoo.

urabell

Have a hard time believing a woman would want to mate with a man if he was under 5'9'', unless he was incredibly rich. Nobody wants to hand their kids the short gene.

JonKelleher

UCDVet wrote: »

Unless you are in the .00001% of the world's population that is a professional athlete - who cares about whether being taller or shorter gives you an advantage in sport?

If you aren't a pro, particularly if you are 25+, all you need to do is actually train/practice and you'll be able to more than compensate. I stayed active after college by doing club sports/pick-up games with co-workers and half of them are overweight. The bar is set pretty low.

Most people have regular jobs - and there is a positive correlation between height and income (note that there is a difference between correlation and causation). There is also a positive correlation between:

Race and income
Gender and income
Education and income
Social-economic background and income
Attractiveness and income
BMI (obesity) and income

So, again, if you didn't understand correlation and this bothered you, you'd want to make sure you are white, male, holding a PhD, with rich parents - raised in a nice neighbourhood, with a pretty face, who isn't overweight.

Race and Gender are the toughest ones.
Attractiveness, particularly for guys, is tough - but you can compensate by being well groomed and dressing well.

For most guys, between buying shoes designed to make you taller and changing your hairstyle - you can easily appear 3-4" taller.

Of course correlation != causation. I've looked more closely at male vs. female studies and, inevitably, as you account for more and more variables, the pay gap all but vanishes *(but I don't want to derail this thread. If you don't believe me Google a few times). For example, studies have shown that women tend to be worse negotiators. That doesn't mean 'the man' is paying them less, it means, when they were offered the job, they took it and their male coworker negotiated. Most statistics on male and female earnings won't consider differences in ability, because that's hard to measure.

I wouldn't be surprised if similar patterns emerged with height.

It's also worth noting that amounts we're talking about aren't incredibly large either. The shortest quarter of men earn 10% less than the tallest. And that's 10% pre-tax, so in a country like Ireland, for moderately high earners, the difference between being 'very short' (by internet standards - well below the manlet cutoff) and being 'quite tall' would be ~5% in take home pay.

Great argument, completely agree it is only a factor.

jimgoose

urabell wrote: »

Have a hard time believing a woman would want to mate with a man if he was under 5'9'', unless he was incredibly rich. Nobody wants to hand their kids the short gene.

They say the small jockey do have the big whip, bah!

JonKelleher

urabell wrote: »

Have a hard time believing a woman would want to mate with a man if he was under 5'9'', unless he was incredibly rich. Nobody wants to hand their kids the short gene.

Ditto.

Renegade Mechanic

jimgoose wrote: »

Why not just leave the poor little twonks alone? I would've thought a "manlet" was a combination manifold and inlet, some sort of Unit Injection job.

Been a while since fuel injectors were mounted halfway up the manifold:D

Either ports or head now:pac::D

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

urabell wrote: »

Have a hard time believing a woman would want to mate with a man if he was under 5'9'', unless he was incredibly rich. Nobody wants to hand their kids the short gene.

I've, erm, mated with two that I can recall. Neither of em rich, and both pretty good in bed as it happened. Don't think women give as much of a crap about the short gene, so really it's surprising that men are mating with short women.

Shakespeare's Sister

urabell wrote: »

Have a hard time believing a woman would want to mate with a man if he was under 5'9''

What's so small about 5' 9"?
I'm less than 5' 5" and I'm not even small (for a woman). 5' 9" seems grand and tall to me.

RayM

JonKelleher wrote: »

6'2. It doesn't help me Ray. I just got sick of manlets, and was curious as to whether other people share my disdain. Evidently, they do.

Most people here seem to think you're being very silly.

urabell wrote: »

Have a hard time believing a woman would want to mate with a man if he was under 5'9'', unless he was incredibly rich. Nobody wants to hand their kids the short gene.

I think that probably says quite a lot about your attitude towards women.

JonKelleher

Camdyn Easy Drill wrote: »

I've, erm, mated with two that I can recall. Neither of em rich, and both pretty good in bed as it happened. Don't think women give as much of a crap about the short gene, so really it's surprising that men are mating with short women.

That's why you are so defensive of them. Your progeny will be short too.

Muise...

Camdyn Easy Drill wrote: »

I've, erm, mated with two that I can recall. Neither of em rich, and both pretty good in bed as it happened. Don't think women give as much of a crap about the short gene, so really it's surprising that men are mating with short women.

I've never mated for gene-swapping purposes, but I have found some shorter gentleman quite a turn-on for all other sexy reasons.

_Redzer_

JonKelleher wrote: »

Great argument, completely agree it is only a factor.

Things are bad when the two of ye are agreeing with each other

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

JonKelleher wrote: »

That's why you are so defensive of them. Your progeny will be short too.

Has a lot to do with it yeah, your shíte talking and nastiness is the main reason though

urabell

http://i.imgur.com/HbwHN0T.jpg

Manlets, when will they learn?

LiveIsLife

I'd imagine the op has some serious self-esteem issues.

JonKelleher wrote: »

Completely agree. I could think of nothing worse, you've lost the genetic lottery.

Unless you're Brad Pitt you've lost the genetic lottery (although maybe he's too short). I'm sure people could pick apart several physical faults with you that weren't 'ideal', not to mention how dull and fragile your personality must be.

As for some of the comments on this thread, if you said black people get angry because of their skin colour or people wouldn't want to mate with them because they wouldn't want their children getting the black gene you'd be banned for racism. Says a lot more about the person doing the criticizing rather than whoever they feel the need to criticize.

jimgoose

Muise... wrote: »

I've never mated for gene-swapping purposes, but I have found some shorter gentleman quite a turn-on for all other sexy reasons.

Put that dwarf down, you marauding valkyrie!!

JonKelleher

LiveIsLife wrote: »

I'd imagine the op has some serious self-esteem issues.



Unless you're Brad Pitt you've lost the genetic lottery (although maybe he's too short). I'm sure people could pick apart several physical faults with you that weren't 'ideal', not to mention how dull and fragile your personality must be.

As for some of the comments on this thread, if you said black people get angry because of their skin colour or people wouldn't want to mate with them because they wouldn't want their children getting the black gene you'd be banned for racism. Says a lot more about the person doing the criticizing rather than whoever they feel the need to criticize.

Ray? Is that you Ray?

JonKelleher

Camdyn Easy Drill wrote: »

Has a lot to do with it yeah, your shíte talking and nastiness is the main reason though

And the fact that your progeny are going to be short too.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

JonKelleher wrote: »

And the fact that your progeny are going to be short too.

I heard you the first time dear.

Muise...

jimgoose wrote: »

Put that dwarf down, you marauding valkyrie!!

NEVER!!! And its Amazon Archer-Queen to you goose!

Seriously though, it must really bother the OP that loads of women fancy the short pants off Tyrion in GOT. :pac:

JohnMarston

Is this a way for 6+ footers who cant pack muscle mass to feel good about themselves? Im of average height, why bother feeling smug about something you have absolutely no control over, its pitiful tbh

urabell

JohnMarston wrote: »

Is this a way for 6+ footers who cant pack muscle mass to feel good about themselves? Im of average height, why bother feeling smug about something you have absolutely no control over, its pitiful tbh

Please tell me what height has to do with the ability to put on muscle mass other than the fact muscle mass is more attractive on a taller human.

JonKelleher

JohnMarston wrote: »

Is this a way for 6+ footers who cant pack muscle mass to feel good about themselves? Im of average height, why bother feeling smug about something you have absolutely no control over, its pitiful tbh

6'2, 202lbs, 11% BF, Oxbridge Masters-level education and retired C-suite executive at a top Aviation Finance firm, now working as a consultant. Google me if you like. Chew on that pal.

_Redzer_

JonKelleher wrote: »

And the fact that your progeny are going to be short too.

Both my parents are 5'6 and I'm over 6ft. Having short parents does not equal short children, neither does tall parents equal tall children.

Iwasfrozen

JonKelleher wrote: »

6'2, 202lbs, 11% BF, Oxbridge Masters-level education and retired C-suite executive at a top Aviation Finance firm, now working as a consultant. Google me if you like. Chew on that pal.

Why hasn't this guy been banned yet? Reported.

JonKelleher

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Both my parents are 5'6 and I'm over 6th. Having short parents does not equal short children, neither does tall parents equal tall children.

You are over 6th? What does that mean? Are either successful?

JonKelleher

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why hasn't this guy been banned yet? Reported.

Jealousy is a sin.

Arthur Beesley

urabell wrote: »

Have a hard time believing a woman would want to mate with a man if he was under 5'9'', unless he was incredibly rich. Nobody wants to hand their kids the short gene.

Michael D Hobbit must be incredibly rich, so.

JonKelleher

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Michael D Hobbit must be incredibly rich, so.

Angela Merkel is taller than him, has a better education than him and would probably beat him in a fight, she has a black belt in Judo.

El Guapo!

JonKelleher wrote: »

6'2, 202lbs, 11% BF, Oxbridge Masters-level education and retired C-suite executive at a top Aviation Finance firm, now working as a consultant. Google me if you like. Chew on that pal.

Locked your ridiculous trolling thread. Chew on that pal.