| 11/25/2007 |
I WANNA BE YOUR BOYFRIEND
|
So this article totally pisses me off. It comes off as very superficial and shallow. Citing the King Of Queens as an example of a mismatch couple, an attractive woman with a less-than-attractive man. (Kevin James unattractive? wtf?) But seriously... putting sexual preference and celebrity couples aside... when you look at real life couples you can find 'mismatched' pairs all over the place. Maybe he's dating out of his league. Maybe she's a pauper dating a prince. Outward appearance 'mismatches' (this word is starting to really bother me) are, obviously, more noticeable, but I would think that personality 'mismatches' are more common.
In my opinion, the article is insinuating that if ugly doesn't find ugly or is pretty doesn't find pretty then somehow the universe is askew.
Universe: "Dammit... there goes another one of my Pretties. Now who am I going to find to date this loser?"
Now of course not everyone thinks this way. Not everyone has a set of match-making rules that they have to follow. You hear just as many successes involving opposites attracting as you do same-type successes.
The article touches on the how it's more common for women to keep up on beauty regimens. So you are more than likely to notice an less-than-attractive guy with a pretty woman. The flip side being there are not enough metrosexual men for women to flaunt. Now the truth of such a statement is open to debate if you honest have nothing better to do. To me that just goes to support the superficial attitude that you have to look a certain way. Like most things in life, there needs to be moderation. Enough commonalities and differences to make a good balance. In the end, beauty is skin deep; money is fleeting; status and influence wane.
Am I so naive to think that such high school-like tendencies should disappear after high school?Labels: rant |
|
I posted this @ 11/25/2007 04:52:00 PM.............Need a link?..........
|
|
|
|
|
|
