"Ugly" People Booted Off Dating Site
- Thread starter TimeLord
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't see anything wrong with that. I wouldn't date an ugly chick. Would you? Didn't think so. He just removed a bunch of junk that you won't have to search through to find someone you would actually go out with.
Fuck this. That's all I can say, really. Fuck this. Well, maybe more. Whatever the site is, even outside the internet, it pisses me off to no limit when people put others down and such because of what they look like. I don't see how it's any different to racism. That's putting people down because of what race they're born as. Yet putting people down because of what looks they're born with is mostly accepted.
Ugh.
Ugh.
What, so it's right that because people weren't lucky enough to be born with certain facial structure, what they're allowed to do should be limited?Togs said:
Okay so a dating site where the community takes a vote on how beautiful or not beautiful someone is that's fine, but "Shrek Virus"? "We have sincere regret for the unfortunate people who were wrongly admitted to the site and who believed, albeit for a short while, that they were beautiful,"? I think we have another contender for next years Douche Off.
Not very nice but it's their site, reputation and business to manage how they like. It's no different than restaurants seating people near the window to make them look busier, or nightclubs forcing long queues for entry to appear more popular. It's no different from nightclubs offering women free entry in order to get more paying men to visit. If we don't approve of something, don't validate it by giving them any money. They'll eventually change or dissappear and if they don't, do you really care?
I don't see the problem here. There's a dating site that's exclusive to ugly people, and if you're too good looking, they will either not activate an account for you, or kick you off the site. And there's plenty of sites that don't care what you look like. It's a privately owned site that tells people right up front what they're getting into, so I see no problem here.
/thread
/thread
But let's get off our pedestals of moral superiority for a second and get real: some people are extremely visually beautiful, while others aren't. This does not speak to their inner beauty or personality, this is just about physical attractiveness.
And let's also get real about the fact that some people are vain or have high standards and as such, will only consider dating other beautiful people (9s or 10s). This is a fact, even if it seems wrong to the rest of us.
And let's also get real about the rights of private services. They have the right to set whatever criteria they want. Because they're just ONE of MANY options. There are plenty of other all-purpose dating sites out there, why should we care if one is vain and shallow? If people want that sort of service, doesn't the site have a right to provide it? A strip club has the right to refuse ugly applicants because that feeds directly into their profits (clients don't want to see ugly women strip).
I understand and agree that this practice is shallow and disrespectful, but I also understand that there is nothing compulsory about it. We can choose from plenty of equal-opportunity dating sites, so there's no point in getting worked up about the few that have exclusive criteria or unusually high standards.
And let's also get real about the fact that some people are vain or have high standards and as such, will only consider dating other beautiful people (9s or 10s). This is a fact, even if it seems wrong to the rest of us.
And let's also get real about the rights of private services. They have the right to set whatever criteria they want. Because they're just ONE of MANY options. There are plenty of other all-purpose dating sites out there, why should we care if one is vain and shallow? If people want that sort of service, doesn't the site have a right to provide it? A strip club has the right to refuse ugly applicants because that feeds directly into their profits (clients don't want to see ugly women strip).
I understand and agree that this practice is shallow and disrespectful, but I also understand that there is nothing compulsory about it. We can choose from plenty of equal-opportunity dating sites, so there's no point in getting worked up about the few that have exclusive criteria or unusually high standards.
I think a lot of people here don't get that in order to get into the site you must put up a picture and members of the site vote ya or nay, these people got into the sight WITHOUT BEING VOTED IN, even if the were beautiful they would have been banned they can re apply and get in for real but they were banned because they were not voted in.
The site was for "beautiful people", its right there in the URL- the guys reply was douchey but its how it works- I mean how would we like it if this site was suddenly swamped by a bunch of jocks?JasonKaotic said:
And you can get as red in the face as you want mate, but its the way the world works- people are judged on silly, inconsequential things, whether it be hair colour, religion, class, race, parentage or a hundred other things. Its how the human mind has learnt to make sense of the world around it.
"A" as in one? I can name a few that are full of them.Dango said:
Anyway that's too bad but when you go to a "dating site" for "beautiful people" you should expect that there is going to be some douchebaggary afoot.
Besides beauty is completely subjective.
I afraid that's not right either...the only thing these 'beautiful' people are sure to pass on when they mate are their physical traits. These people may also smoke thus increasing their own chances for cancer and potentially changing their genes to pass on the trait to their children. That is just one example - and people who are termed ugly may be just as or more healthy than people who are termed as beautiful.Gustavo S. Buschle said:
(And this doesn't take into account the effects that, if beautiful people only mate with each other - the potential gene pool is decreased and birth defects may be MORE likely due to less diversity)
It's not so much the fact that people were taken off, but the way the guy in charge responds to it that makes me laugh, even though it's cruel "We have sincere regret for the unfortunate people who believed, albeit for a short while, that they were beautiful"
You thought you were beautiful, well you thought wrong! *applies skin moisturiser* BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
You thought you were beautiful, well you thought wrong! *applies skin moisturiser* BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
I dunno, I'm a straight male, so I'd like to think my opinion on his looks is reasonably objective and even I don't think he's that attractive, I think he looks exactly the same as you see him (well the muscular thing is a preference), but the first thing that popped into my head was "slimy" and that was before I realised who he was. But hey whatever we all know he's an ass, in person I can't imagine women would want to have a relationship with him even if they do find him attractive, heck I bet the people on beautifulpeople.com just all get on each others nerves, all of them thinking the others are arrogant cunts, while failing to see it in themselves.xXxJessicaxXx said:That's what I would say, I'm quite pretty albeit chubby and I have male friends who aren't attracted to me but I also have men who act like complete stalkers and think im the most beautiful thing in the world.inFAMOUSCowZ said:
Beauty is really subjective especially in humans.
I think what they are trying to do is call people 'conventionally attractive' Ie. what is most attractive in society atm. I am a history grad and I know that most tanned skinny girls who people think are gorgeous wouldn't have got a second look in the 50's. People preferred curvy pale girls becuase it showed that you were well off basically. You were well fed (in a time that people were still on rations) and you could afford to keep yourself out of the sun. It's just how the human brain works. But even then there would have been people who found the tanned skinny girls attractive, outside convention.
No but I'm annoyed that there are such websitespaynexkiller said:
Well personally I find him unnattractive, He's orange for a start, He's blonde and I prefer dark haired men he also had weasley eyes and looks mistrustful. He's also quite muscular and I like thin men.Goofguy said:
I'm sure there are plenty of women who like him though.
Bahahahaha
Sorry, but it's one of those, it's horrible but it's amusing situation.
He was sort of mocking in his apologies to people who believed they were beautiful...
Sorry, but it's one of those, it's horrible but it's amusing situation.
He was sort of mocking in his apologies to people who believed they were beautiful...
I think it's something around like -1000000 by now if we take everything like tht under consideration.Chrono212 said:
Ugly is not the same as sexually unattractive. Ugly people are considered ugly because of the proportions on their face, most these things can only be changed trough plastic surgery. Sexually unattractive people are people with sings that show they are not fit for survival. Also, most beautiful people are a result of mixing genes, so no, if beautiful people had kids with beautiful people it would not be a factor unless they are descendants of the same people i.e. If everyone from the same country would only have kids with each other. The cigarette example was not a very good one since cigarettes do not affect your gene pool, they do not affect how beautiful you are, only how sexually attractive.Herbsk said: