Deus ex Pianoforte said:
That's a real long post, man. No wonder it took you two days to respond.
ooohhhh ****, youre a fvcking genius man, by looking at my post, you could tell that I did in fact spend 2 days to type all that out? how the fvck did you do that? how the fvck did you figure me out? your so smart man. lol :crazy:
Which is why looks don't mean s'hit. Everyone has different tastes, including women for short, fat, ugly, bald men.
So let me get this straight, your saying that because women hove different tastes in what they consider good looking, this is somehow proves that looks dont matter in getting layed? really? how does that work genius? explain the logic for me please. Becuase, to me, such a conclusion doesnt make any god damn logical sense. So becuase men too have different tastes in what they consider good looking in a woman this means looks dont mean **** (for a woman trying to get a guy)? yeah, Im a bit confused here, maybe you can explain this for me.
Well, there goes that one.
money, fame, cars, revenge on her ex, motivated to piss her parents off, the list goes on..etc. THe theory isnt concearned with these cases nor does it try to explain them, theyre artificial hook ups, who cares about those.
The list does go on, you're right. In fact, I may devote an entire series to itemized lists of qualities that trump looks. I understand that any hook-up that isn't based exclusively on looks is an "artificial hook-up", but the Theory is just going to have to live with that. After all, you're the only one not concerned with evidence that destroys your argument.
This doesnt destroy the argument, the argument only focuses on hook-ups where the woman and man are mutually genuinely attracted to eachother. I guess you forgot about this part right? oops. cases where the woman is after the man's cheese does not qualify as genuinely attracted to him (to his wallet, yes). Any hook-up that occurs due to a calculated motive on the woman or man's behalf to achieve a hidden goal would not constitute authentic mutual attraction, and would be artificial. WHO CARES ABOUT THIS! any guy who wants to artificially hook-up with a girl just needs some cash and a prostitute, or just go and rape a woman. What this board cares about and what the theory is concerned with are how a man naturally hooks up with a chick where she too feels genuine attraction for him. So please, dont bring your bull**** examples of some guy who got used by a gold digger as evidence that looks dont matter. we are talking about genuine mutual attraction here, not gold diggers.
damn dude, where do you live?, what parrallel universe are you in cus I wanna go there, women over there must be just giving themselves away to anyone who wants ass.
This "parrallel(sic) universe" is known as California. Where did you get the statistics from 100% of the female population, btw? I know you wouldn't make such a bold statement without having the evidence to back it up.
in Your last post, you told me you do see fugly guys with hot *****es and told me I should get out more. I then asked you to confirm that you do see fat obesse blobs disgusting and hairy all over with hot *****es. and this is your response?
so then thats a no... I thought so :nono:
okay, something tells me this chick you talked to on wednesday was either not good looking or average looking.
She was about a 7.5.
she was
about a 7.5? only about a 7.5? lol. Im pretty much certain you exaggerated it a little, she probably was really a 6.5 or a 7. Hate to break it to ya, but slightly above average looking chicks arent in really high demand, and will take what they can get.
You still have failed to provide sufficient evidence to give the looks theory trouble. Everything youve presented is reasonable consistent with the looks theory.
sorry buddy, try again, try and fight the truth, yes fight it, fight it!!!
Im sure its a different culture with a totally different standard of beauty.
You ever been to California, God_of_getting_layed? We are one of the most committed left-wing states in the Union. We house the capital of the entertainment industry, and USA's capital of plastic surgery. We are known for shows like Baywatch, the O.C., Laguna Beach, and Beverly Hills 90210. If you are going to contest that California has a totally different standard of beauty (in your own words), you should book a plane ticket ASAP so you can, you know, actually know what you're talking about.
yeah, incase you didnt realise, I was being sarcastic when I said that. I was basically implying that just becuase we dont live in Cali dont mean we dont know what the women are like over there. The variance in women as you go from state to state in the United States is pretty much non existant. you go to texas, and you meet a group of hot women, they wont be any different than hot women from Cali or Georgia or NYC. In otherwords, your full of **** when you said that only you would know about the women over there in Cali and that they some how prove the looks theory wrong.
Since they get lots of ass, that qualifies them as PUAs dont it?
Nah, there's much more to differentiate AFC's from DJ's than notches on the bedpost, believe it or not.
right...what ever you say genius.
