If you were in an arranged marriage situation...
would you rather:
have your mate be a shallow supermodel and spend time developing a deeper personality with them
or
have your mate be an interesting, but physically less attractive person... but have a lot of money for physical modifications?
you know, like if he was just like all the way there but had a little something to remind me of the good old days.
8 comments:
determining the 'depth' of somebody's personality is a very judgmental process in the first place.
i refuse to believe that an adult has no opinion or lacks 'depth' i think alot of it might be formitive, as in, the girl might fall into the whole 'airhead' paradigm, but i think deep down, you don't life for 21+ years (i wouldn't go for anyone below this age) and have no 'depth' to your personality or your mind. Its there it might just take on a different form than is widely respected.
also, looks are so relative (very obvious statement). Just becuase they are attracTIVE doesn't mean that you will be attractED to them. And more so than often i think supermodels that people sweat are pretty wack.
seye, you're just too picky.
man up and play the game.
I agree with Seye.. I think deep down the shallow model would be interesting, ultimately. Plus, plastic surgery is gross. So I'd pick No. 1.
i'd pick number 2, but i wouldn't let them use the money for plastic surgery because i'm against that.
but i'd rather them be interesting
what does "physically less attractive" mean?
and to WHOM is the person attractive or not....the general public? or me?
i just don't like the assumptions that the game insinuates.
i am a firm believer in the cliche that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and 'attractiveness' is very much socialized depending on your culture.
not to mention that tastes and opinions vary so widely that i almost feel this question is unanswerable.
I pick everyone else having balls and answering the question
(#3, 1 + 2=3)
how do you answer an invalid question?
i guess i'll say N/A
Post a Comment