Deus ex Pianoforte said:
You completely distorted my quote, which explains why it may sound "soooo (was it 3 or 4 O's?) stupid" to you. Variance in taste destroys your theory for the simple fact that some women like being seen with ugly men, for whatever reason. Maybe they think good-looking guys are arrogant. Maybe they think ugly guys make them look deep, and interesting. Who knows? You and skip are saying that no ugly man will ever be able to date a hot woman, which just simply ain't true. So in short, yeah. If you extrapolated that "looks don't mean s'hit to men" from my quote of "women have different tastes", then you really do need to quote that.
there you go again. an no, it doesnt destroy my theory. but it does make you look really stupid. lets break it down:
1. you explain the statement with "some women actually like/want uegly men". This is a very stupid explanation. there are no women who want an ugly man. theres no women that say "the uglier the better!". there may be some weirdo women like this, but these mentally retarted women make up a very small and negligable percentage of the female population. hey, I can find a woman who has a fetish for amputees, but again, these weirdos make up an astronomically small percentage of the female population. The point is, its stupid to say women like ulgyness, in general, women just arent like this. and thats what we are ultimately debating,
what the typical woman is like, not what minority weirdo women are like. you have a habit for taking "minority weirdo" women and using them as an example to model the typical woman. thats like me trying to explain human anatomy, and instead of using a typical person, I use some mutant with one eye, no @sshole, one arm, 3 fingers, 7 toes etc who make up like less than .001% of the population. its stupid.
2. and again, variance doesnt destroy the theory,this is why you have egg on your face. even if a significant percent of the population did actually prefer ugly men (which the dont, but just what if), the looks theory would still hold true. what would be considered ugly, ie. huge nose, acne etc obviously would be a turn on to these women who seek uglyness. so it begs the question, "is he really ugly to her?", well if she likes his fat titties, big noes, acne, then it must be attractive to her. and if she doesnt like guys who could be models, then its becuase they "didnt look ugly", either way, you see preference in mate selection by the woman based primarily on the way he looks, not how he acts. this is what the looks theory says.
remember, the looks theory says that woman's tastes are subjective, you must be good looking to her, even if it means you need to be a fatass if that is what she likes. it doesnt state you must be objectively attractive to the entire population. <---this is the part you just cant seem to grasp. its no wonder your against the theory.
2. I noticed you didnt say "0% of women are shallow", this is your way of admitting that some women are in fact shallow. which then means that youre admitting that some women do require looks.
Obviously. Some women are shallow, and would much rather have a good-looking guy over an ugly guy. Some women would rather have a rich guy over a poor guy. Tall over short. Fat over thin. Mohawk over shaved head. Dark and disturbed over friendly and happy. Blonde over brunette. White over black. Dude, the list goes on and on and on and on and ON. You missed the entire root of the debate, as you got caught up with calclating how many eggs I have on my face due to saying that women have different tastes in men. The POINT is, that none of these qualities are REQUIRED to get a hot woman. THAT'S the point. Saying "looks matter" is like saying "hair color matters!."
you make it seem like all women are totally different, and im equally likely to find a shallow one as one totally opposite. as if its just a matter of preference. nope, it doesnt work like that. theres something called typicallity. there is a typical type of woman out there, most women are this type. then there are minorites that deviate from this type. the more they deviate, the less common they are.
think of a normal distribution.
the typical hot women is shallow to some degree, and cares about looks alot. these typical shallow women make up the bulk of the hot female poplulation. these are the women we are concearned with as most of the women we encounter will be this type. these are the women the theory focuses on, not the negligable weirdo minorities. why focus on the minorities? youll be encountering them least.
Notice how Im right
