Is 6'1 a manlet now?
Let's be honest, everyone is 6'1 + now. Get that fucking manlet chart reworked lad
>>28100559
>be 5"11
>be shortest guy on campus by at least 2 inches
it hurts
>>28100559
By the end of the century, 6'1" might be the worldwide average for me
At weight height is someone a womanlet?
>>28101210
Anything below 6ft for a woman
>>28101210
5'8 is queen of womanlets
>>28100559
yes, literally cant be considered tall. 8th graders are that height these days
>>28101210
5'9 is probably the shortest a woman should ever be, but that's already stretching it. you need to still have proportionately long legs if you don't want to look retarded or poor.
the only girls i've met who could pass socially an be 5'9 or shorter are asians.
>>28100559
Memes aside, will humans still be growing past the average height?
just a few hundred years ago people were like 5'5 average, but once you get to 6'0+ you start seeing downsides with health.
it doesnt seem like evolution favors being tall but women, environment, nutrition and medicine all seem to advocate and help in growing
>>28101372
>hundred years ago
>evolution
you're a dumb cunt, but yes humans will keep growing as we understand nutrition, distress and exercise better as they relate to height.
>>28101372
>>28101449
downsides: cancer
upsides: wet trembling pussy whereever you go
i prefer the pussy, who wants to live when they're 100 anyways lmfao nerds
>>28101449
>>hundred years ago
>>evolution
get some reading comprehension
>>28101523
get some reading glasses you thick spaka
>>28101485
anything and everything can be considered a cancer risk. the standard distribution will just shift and suddenly if you're 5'10 you statistically have a lower lifespan than the 6'3 guy.
we don't know enough about cancer specifically but we're pretty sure that getting taller isn't because of increased damage or deformation in general. if anything, we have less stress on the body and we extend the lives of deformed people to the point that they can become part of the statistics.
