>>41559
>I fucking WISH relationships were looksmatched.
Why?
Your obsession with looks is incredibly unhealthy.
Maybe you should become a porn producer or something.

>Two, the vast majority of people overrate women's looks and underrate men's
Huh, that's weird, because here you/the other anon said:
>>41462
>If you take, say, chico lachowski and you ask 100 women whether he is attractive or not, the vast majority of them, if not all of them, will say yes.
>This is because there some are features that are universally considered attractive and are signifiers of good gealth and high quality genes.
If men are generally rated lower, and women generally rated higher, shouldn't that just be normal, according to that other definition?
Really weird how, now that's suddenly somehow bad or incorrect, whereas just five minutes ago what the average person rates somebody was meant as a base for an "oBjEcTiVe BeAuTy RaTiNg".

Make it make sense.

>When I go outside and I see couples, I take a mental note of their "levels"