I meant that a high Appearance might attract people, but not make them fall in love. Paris Hilton is more fuckable than Girl Next Door, but not nessecarily more lovable. Whether you are lovable or not depends on other things, that in my oppinion cannot be covered by stats.Andrew02 said:I don't see how you could assert this after you've posited that Appearance causes obsession, not love.Ormseitr said:I think this is the difference between fuckable and lovable.
At the moment I am trying to clear my head from yesterday's alcohol binge, so I may be a little less than coherent in my understanding of things. But as I understand it I didn't try to dispute anything you said. Just to add an argument and clear some things up. I'm pretty sure we agree.Andrew02 said:Appearance doesn't affect Bitchy Airhead status. Universal definitions of beauty are inadequate to whatever task you attempt to use them for. I believe you have not understood the point of the passage you have responded to. Nothing you have said counters anything I have attempted to say at all.
Yay!Andrew02 said:If anything, it just reinforces the point I was trying to make. Your discussion of personality based traits (i.e. bitchy airhead) even helps my assertion that Charisma and Manipulation are equally susceptible to personal and cultural differences.
Yes. Using the rules as presented in the book, Â Appearance as a personality trait would probably make a difference (I forget what the passage was about, but I think I would agree anyway), but in real life looks doesn't make the difference between people falling in love or not. Looks attract, something else makes people fall in love. Am I making sense now?Andrew02 said:In a raw contest of attributes which the passage existed to serve as an example for, Appearance does make the difference.Ormseitr said:But what really makes the difference is not looks.