Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thursday, I enjoyed your thread and understand the point you were trying to make.
I chose A when I first started reading the thread earlier (before looking at your results.) I guess I chose her because she seemed like the "sex kitten" of the four. Before I read the responses I was also wondering if they were all the same person.
Here's the problem with the study. The quality of the photography affects the desirability of the subject in question. The photos are no longer up, but in two of the photos the graininess of the photo made it difficult to really get a good sense of the subject's attractiveness.
basically nine pages to say "don't judge a book by it's cover" and note that there is a dark side to attraction
meh. with enough vagueness we can make anything about everyone
don't shrug off the picture thing. when a quarter of your OP is clearly and factually incorrect it makes it blows the whole thread's credibility
a good response to such an error is something along the lines of "whoops my bad" rather than "no that's not important"
sorry to be a bit rough on you here, often i agree with what you post. but i feel this thread should go the way of the dodo bird
Haha although I agree with you that she should have her facts right, a certain lady bit my head off if I messed up an internet poll or article she does have a valid point. Which we all know. Don't judge a book by it's cover.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,047,835 times
Reputation: 11862
I still don't see what their looks have to do with them marrying serial killers. And no, there's no way I can be fooled into believing B and C are the same person. As someone else pointed out they just have the same name. And didn't most people pick A as most attractive?
Haha although I agree with you that she should have her facts right, a certain lady bit my head off if I messed up an internet poll or article she does have a valid point. Which we all know. Don't judge a book by it's cover.
While that is part of it, there was a stronger point to be made here - something for us to stand back and question while we fret over our looks and material things to be used in garnering a relationship or sustaining a marriage. What is it that we really want?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thursday007
Are these people simply rare, isolated incidences or do they actually display the core, raw needs of individuals in general? That simply feeling loved, given intimate, undivided attention, an abundance of one on one time supercedes any physical or material need or desire? Can we discern and this an apply this concept to seemingly 'regular' or 'normal' relationships? Have we forgotten how important these intangibles are against the pressure for material things?
While these women can be said to draw tremendous satisfaction from the high profile exposure they get and the fact they deem themselves a 'winner' when up against a number of other women and the validation it brings, there are intangibles at play here worth looking at.
.
(The pictures were removed solely because I certainly didn't want to look at them on my own picture file in my computer.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
