Gina is back!

Ive read "Rhondas personality makes her so much hotter to me" like a hundred times on forums....


GDP youre losing it lately. You approach arguments with the mentality that your subjective perceptions are so embued with truth that anyone who disagrees has fringe, invalid positions...or doesnt exist at all. Stop being a weirdo.

Human sexual attraction is inherently subjective and its bizarre to see you cling to the notion that physical attraction is a rigid, mathmatical process entirely disconnected from personality judgments, based only on quantifiable attributes shared by all,with no influnce from emotional or social judgements. Are we in a sci fi flick arguing sexuality with an android or what?

have to admit i like rondas personality too. that factors in. Gina may be hotter but i'd still rather tap ronda

I'm seeing the difference between liking a person (their sum) versus what they look like. Not rocket science.

oggy420 wrote:

have to admit i like rondas personality too. that factors in. Gina may be hotter but i'd still rather tap ronda

It's right here, he likes Ronda as a person better, but Gina is hotter....

GDPofDRC wrote:

oggy420 wrote:

have to admit i like rondas personality too. that factors in. Gina may be hotter but i'd still rather tap ronda

It's right here, he likes Ronda as a person better, but Gina is hotter....

Yeah but if it wasn't for Ronda's profession and personality, it wouldn't even be a question. It would be a land slide. But other factors come into play, just by human nature. IF we are talking about women who we know nothing about, have never heard talk before then things change. But we can't unlearn what we know, it's naturally factored in.

I was a fan of Gina's fighting but she had plenty of wholes in her game and her ground game is not in the same league as Ronda. Ronda is equally at a disadvantage on the feet but i think she could get that fight to the ground and put Gina in a whole lot of trouble. Im picking Ronda to beat Tate too. And the truth is Gina didn't like that beatdown she took from cyborg. Can't blame her, and im not blaming her for going to make movies either, but im a fight fan i could care less how amazing the movies she makes are, i'd still rather see her fight. And Bruce Lee was the man he can do whatever he wants he earned it!

yea man i think of it like this

there are 2 girls you want to fuck

they are both attractive

i dont always want the girl who is necessarily more attractive. Honestly i judge their looks and style to make an assumption about what their personality is like, and what they are like to fuck lol.

GDPofDRC wrote:

I'm seeing the difference between liking a person (their sum) versus what they look like. Not rocket science.

But what the human brain perceives that person to look like is still influenced by other factors and data.


We ask 100 women to rate my looks knowing im a broke ass dude and id get one score, ask another hundred women to rate the same pic under the impression I am a wealthy motorcycle designer and youd get an average that is higher.

Only in a true vacuum of all information that provide insights or suppositions about the people in question would experiments yeild results that youd like.

and that equals overall hotness haha

just physical appearance isn't really what "hotness" is to me. There is more to the equation.

This isnt rocket science. This is social science.


This is why aesthetic worth changes over time. Why sideburns were hot in the 70s. Lame in the 90s. Chicks made judgements subconciously about the culture and social class of the dude and ergo his worth as a mate and provider. This actively influences the concious perception of the phyisical appearance

Fyi I am posting from my phone and its having issues and correcting mistakes is a painstaking process so excuse spelling errors and simple sentences.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

GDPofDRC wrote:

I'm seeing the difference between liking a person (their sum) versus what they look like. Not rocket science.

But what the human brain perceives that person to look like is still influenced by other factors and data.


We ask 100 women to rate my looks knowing im a broke ass dude and id get one score, ask another hundred women to rate the same pic under the impression I am a wealthy motorcycle designer and youd get an average that is higher.

Only in a true vacuum of all information that provide insights or suppositions about the people in question would experiments yeild results that youd like.

The vacuum you are referring to is what I call honesty.

Opposite of the rich/poor example you're running where money brings out a reaction which doesn't have anything to do with what you honestly look like.

Here's a test. Of these two girls, who you know nothing about, which one do you think looks better?


They look the same to me.


Then you find out the one on the left thinks MMA is lame, you need to bank 5 figures a month to talk to even her at the bar, and is for the illegalization of all drugs and alcohol.
The one on the right wants to bring you a cold one you can enjoy while she twists one up you for while you enjoy the best of Pride Fighting Championships together.


Now when you look at them, who looks better?




If you said one over the other.... you have let your feelings replace your eyes.

Nothing wrong with letting one's heart do the talking on overall preference. But the reality is they look equally hot still.

They still look the same to me.

They are identical photos of the same human. The example purposely represents a scenario the arguments that I and the consensus do not argue. Nothing more needs said.


Why do aesthetic preferences change over time? Why do chicks find guaged ears, eye liner, and girl pants hot today, while baggy pants, messy hair, flannel was what got dudes laid in 92.

I dont think id ever have this debate with anyone who has studied human sexuality or psycology. This is bizzare.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

They are identical photos of the same human. The example purposely represents a scenario the arguments that I and the consensus do not argue. Nothing more needs said.


Why do aesthetic preferences change over time? Why do chicks find guaged ears, eye liner, and girl pants hot today, while baggy pants, messy hair, flannel was what got dudes laid in 92.

I dont think id ever have this debate with anyone who has studied human sexuality or psycology. This is bizzare.

Who lied to you

Yeah it's all about the feathered hair.

Quote :

Physical attractiveness refers to a person's physical traits which are perceived to be aesthetically pleasing or beautiful. The term often implies sexual attractiveness or desirability, but can also be distinct from the two; for example, humans may regard the young as attractive for various reasons, but without sexual attraction. There are many factors which influence one person's attraction to another, with physical aspects being one of them. In many cases, humans attribute positive characteristics, such as intelligence and honesty, to physically attractive people without consciously realizing it.

Quote :

People make judgments of physical attractiveness based on what they see, but also on what they know about the person. Specifically, perceptions of beauty are malleable such that information about the person's personality traits can influence one's assessment of another person's physical beauty. A 2007 study had participants first rate pictures for attractiveness. After doing distracting math problems, participants saw the pictures again, but with information about the person's personality. When participants learned that a person had positive personality characteristics (e.g., smart, funny, kind), that person was seen as more physically attractive.[179] Conversely, a person with negative personality characteristics (e.g., materialistic, rude, untrustworthy) was seen as less physically attractive. This was true for both females and males.

GDP, these come from the wikipedia article on physical attractiveness. This demonstrates that the consensus doesn't agree with you at all. Can you site any research that disputes the consensus? Or are you challenging the universally accepted, basic notions of physical attractiveness based on your own perception of your own perception of attractiveness solely?

...

Not that a picture would have saved your horrible, unthoughtful premise you defended a lot longer than you should have, but epic fail none the less.

It's ok, in the past my pride kept me in debates I had no chance of winning ever too. We all do it. Keep ya head up my whikka.

You already answered my question several posts up . . . Keep copy pasting your wiki.

Then tell me how hot your fat gf is because of her inner beauty. I'll believe you.

1. I dont have a fat girlfriend

2. I dont have a girlfriend

3. Ive dated enough fattys to know they really dont have inner beauty.

4. Whoever says fatgirls give good head is a mufuckin liar my nigga.

I left out the theoretical part, but i do concur.

You guys just don't know the right fat bitches. You have to starve them for a couple days then promise to take them out to a buffet after they polish the ole knob. Your toes will curl in under 15.3 seconds.

haha i agree fat bitches give good head is a myth

You guys need to find fatter bitches. Plenty of them here in Oklahoma. Or maybe you guys are missing the required equipment. Footlong cockmeat sammy.