What’s funny is they seem to have the same size feet.
After copulation, the female eats the male to gain energy for her offspring.
Or, you know, just sits on my face. Like, anytime she wants…
Yeah I’d sniff her farts too.
I do not envy the headache you will have when you awake. In the meantime, rest well and dream of large women.
Does sniffing large lady farts cause headaches?
Please🥺
Down bad
For Americans who have the height mode of their brain stuck in “Freedom Units”:
Anna Smrek is roughly 6’ 9"
‘Short King’ is roughly 5’ 3"
…
For data nerds:
Going by total data for the whole globe, all people:
https://www.gigacalculator.com/calculators/height-percentile-calculator.php
Anna is … off the charts, one of if not the actual tallest adult women in the world, literally breaks the calculator.
Anna would be at… the 99.9(8/9)% percentile of men by height, which means that if you use 8.2 billion as a world population, there are at most approximately 1.6 million men as tall or taller than her.
EDIT: I forgor to divide by two, women vs men, so uh, 800k.
===
‘Short King’ is under the 1st percentile of men (0.77), he is shorter than 99.3%+ of adult men.
‘Short King’ would be at about the 25th percentile of women by height, which means he is actually still as tall or taller than 25% of women, approximately 2 billion.
EDIT: I did the same forgor /2, so, 1 billion, thanks to FundMECFSResearch for catching my error!
===
Average global male height ~= 178 cm / 5’ 10"
Average global female height ~= 165 cm / 5’ 5"
…
Possibly also relevant:
https://www.gotquestions.org/how-tall-was-Goliath.html
If you use a more reasonable and realistic measurement of cubits and spans, and go with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament/Torah…
Goliath, the mythical warrior felled by David and his sling, whose name is now just a common euphemism for ‘giant’…
Yeah he was only about 6’ 6", or about 198 cm.
So…Anna could probably roughly rest her nose on the top of Goliath’s head, without bending her neck (or at least not much).
…
Another fun addendum, for I guess dating data nerds?:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886913000020
(If someone can find a more recent study that specifically looks into this, I’d appreciate it!)
Broadly speaking, women prefer taller men more strongly than men prefer shorter women, by a factor of roughly 2.625x.
Women prefer, on average, a larger height difference between themselves and their partner (i.e. males being much taller than themselves) than men do. This effect is even more pronounced when examining satisfaction with actual partner height: women are most satisfied when their partner was 21 cm taller, whereas men are most satisfied when they were 8 cm taller than their partner.
In Freedom Units, thats roughly women being most satisfied with a man 8 inches taller than them, men being most satisfied with a woman about 3 inches shorter than them.
This means a 5’ 10" average guy will tend to be well satisfied with a 5’ 7" woman’s height, but she will tend to not be well satisfied with the man’s height, herself on average, ideally, looking for a 6’ 3" man.
Even if it was a 5’ 10" man and an [EDIT: Whoops, too many numbers, too fast, this would actually be a somewhat shorter than] average 5’ 3" woman, she’d still tend to ideally prefer a 5’ 11" man, on average.
So, to more accurately assess 'Short King’s realistic dating pool, we actually need to find women who are 8 inches shorter than him.
And that works out to women 4’ 7" or shorter.
Which is the 0.02 percentile… meaning that 'Short King’s realistic dating pool is at worst, just as small as the number of men who are as tall or taller than Anna.
Or, perhaps both Anna and Short King need to find partners who simply accept them and are satisfied by them via being uncommonly partner-height indifferent.
Good luck to both of them!
There’s also this picture
and this one
Nice how the metric system of the images says its either 206cm or 207cm and the imperial system is like maybe 6’9’’ maybe 6’11’'.
HER DAD’S TALLER. HOLY SHIT.
Please don’t give me new fetishes
I wonder if we will ever evolve to the point where we can talk about women online without some mad lad needing to sexualise them.
She would have to put pants on, at least.
So when you go to the beach, you are purving on every woman in a swimsuit or bikini?
Also yes.
Yes
But it’s paramount that we ban the 5’5" trans girl who has testosterone lower than cis girls from playing volleyball because…reasons.
Stop making shit up to fit your narrative. It detracts from the actual issue.
What am I making up? This woman almost certainly has athletic advantages far greater than the vast majority of the trans athletes people get so apoplectic about.
Stop making shit up to fit your narrative. It detracta (sic) from the actual issue.
Yes. Her being born that way is completely fair. As she was born that way. Same goes for Caster Semenya.
Taking drugs to “alter” is against all sports.
But hey, South Park said it best.
If someone has ADHD and takes medication - as directed - to help them focus on their training regiment, would that make you as upset? It’s certainly a drug to “alter,” as you say.
I suppose if all could take adderall, then it wouldn’t be an issue.
I think you are missing the point of competition though.
It’s funny because you’re so close to understanding why sports aren’t fair right here. There’s all kinds of diseases, mutations, nutrition, upbringing, etc. that have bearing on the results of competition but you’ve chosen this random line in the sand of trans athletes to get up in arms about, wonder why that is? I wonder why Lebron spends 1.5 million on his body annually, look how fair we are guys!
Please loose the condescending tone.
Sports are of course both fair and unfair. But i find your example hilarious. LeBron James? Ah yes, the boy raised in a shithole, dirt poor by a single mother, but happened to both be exceptional at both working at his craft AND was lucky with the gene lottery.
There isn’t a better example of the greatness of sport, but you try to twist it to be a negative 😂
It’s as far from a random line in the sand as can be. Born men are not to compete against women. As long as there has existed womens sport, this rule exists implicitly, by definition.
You clearly don’t know much about the sport. Women’s net is far lower because there’s a significant physical power difference between men and women. It’s not just about average height.
Sure. There are differences in musculature and such. But after a period of hormone therapy, those muscular differences disappear. When this is pointed out, transphobes inevitably move the goalposts and start talking about larger bone/frame size. Or they’ll spread lies about how trans women must have larger frames and thus be a danger to their cis peers. Well here’s this cis woman, with a massive frame size, who could utterly stomp all over the vast majority of trans female athletes. And she’s allowed to play.
But people just make ignorant assumptions and assume that the athletic performance of trans women is anything remotely like the athletic performance of cis men. They start with that conclusion and work backwards from there.
Well then you’d have to allow for added criteria that this fictional transgender person do tests to corroborate that they don’t have an unfair advantage over their peers.
I have literally nothing against trans people but there have been at least one case where a trans person had an exaggerated unfair advantage. This case of one “Lia Thomas”, who went from 462 in male rankings to 1 in female rankings. So yeah, I do believe that these extra controls should be performed.
You’re repeating right wing propaganda. Here’s a breakdown of Thomas’s actual performance before she was hounded out of competition:
https://www.pinkmantaray.com/resources/lia
And even if you could prove there was some advantage in swimming events, why would you immediately go to the bigoted solution of banning people from competing? That’s what makes this so clear that this isn’t about sports, it’s about bigotry. If you can prove that trans women have some advantage in individual swimming events, fine, give them a handicap to cancel it out. That way you can still respect everyone’s human rights and dignity, even if you do prove that there is some advantage.
But you have never once in your entire life seen a Republican politician propose using handicaps rather than bigoted bans. Because it’s not about fairness, it’s about bigotry.
I’d have to read it more carefully but it does seem that the article you shared is right. I think I should research the topic a lot more to have a better understanding of when it’s fair or not to let a trans person compete. Perhaps it’s not unfair at all and I’ve been falsely led to believe that it is by the media I’ve watched.
And even if you could prove there was some advantage in swimming events, why would you immediately go to the bigoted solution of banning people from competing?
To rephrase your question: “why would you ban someone from competing if they have an unfair advantage?”. Do I really need to answer that? It’s not about being bigoted or not, it’s about being fair.
But you have never once in your entire life seen a Republican politician propose using handicaps rather than bigoted bans. Because it’s not about fairness, it’s about bigotry.
Don’t make this about US politics. I’m not or want to be a US citizen. My comments are not due to a US Republican/Democratic/Whatever bias. If there’s a bias, it’s my own. Don’t complain about people putting others in boxes and then turn around and do the exact same thing.
