I heard this on the news this morning, and wondered if this fluffy story was just a publicity stunt.

First, I’d just like to say that Robert Hintze is an asshole.

Secondly, I think that any dating site that limits who can sign on is just throwing money away. I’ve heard that E-Harmony cuts people who aren’t sufficiently jesus friendly. Is that true?

How low does your self-esteem have to be that you need to sign up with that kind of a website?  I mean, they couldn’t be playing on peoples’ insecurities more clearly.

I don’t think it’s any different than something like JDate, though.  It’s like advertising that if you really want to date an insecure asshole, there’s a website for that!

It’s different from self-identifying preference sites in the sense that it’s based on the idea that only a specific body type is beautiful and not a particular preference of its users.

On the other hand, their mean rhetoric may be for the best, insofar as it ultimately self-identifies less with “beauty” than “insufferable pricks.”

I met my current girlfriend (a terrific person in every way, including being as jesus-unfriendly as I am) on OK Cupid, at a total cost of $0.00. Who needs pay sites, even less obnoxious ones than BeautifulNarcissisticAssholes?

On the other hand, their mean rhetoric may be for the best, insofar as it ultimately self-identifies less with “beauty” than “insufferable pricks.”

Yup - and that’s why I have a hard time mustering any sympathy for the people who got booted.

...all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

This guy is a dick.

But at the same time, if I were trying to date online, I’d put right up front that I was interested in women size 10 or lower. The difference being that I wouldn’t think that larger women (or men) should be banned from the site because they don’t fit my standards.

The attitude reflected by sites like BeautifulPeople.com confirms that we as a society do not yet possess either the maturity or the ethics necessary to employ genetic engineering in a responsible manner.

I think a web dating site based on “beauty” is a little different than one based, say, on religion or political beliefs because “beauty” is almost entirely subjective. I guess the domain name PeopleWhoFitArbitrarySociallyApprovedStandardsOfAppearance.com was too long.

@Thessa, exactly.  I was just wondering whose standards for beauty they were using because an awful lot of “beautiful” people are just not attractive to me, and it’s not because I think they’re ugly, I just don’t find them attractive, they do not float my boat so to speak. 

I don’t get these arbiters of “beautiful.”  One of these idiots in the not so distant past made some claim as to “thin has always been the standard of beauty” or some such shit.  I think he got email bombed with links to renaissance paintings.  For days.

is this any different than any dating site that self-identifies a preference and does it matter?

I’ve rarely seen ‘preference’ sites use degrading or dehumanizing language against people who are not part of the self-identified group cathered to. That’s mostly a first to me. Even if I’ve seen a lot of ‘prude shaming’ by (mostly male) members of sites that show a preference for sexual encounters (alt.com, joueraveclefantasme.com) towards people who do not drop trousers to every man sending penis pics in PM, the site and admins themselves tend to have a much more respectful outlook towards the diversity of expectations from members. And religious sites can lay it on a bit thick sometimes about wanting to date ‘the saved’ exclusively. But nothing quite at this level of douchebaggery.

Furthermore, whether someone is Christian, African-American or Jewish is a lot closer to a consensual reality than whether someone is beautiful. I won’t deny that at the boundaries there’s sometimes a bunch of bickering about who gets to be in the in-group, but *most* people are willing to agree that if others self-identify with the in-group there’s a variety of valid subgroups that can be said to be part of the global group (sure many evangelicals have issues with Catholics being considered Christians, but I don’t think they’d deny them the right to be on their dating sites.. unless they’re cathering specifically to the wacko nuts crowd). Soulgeek is a dating site for geeks, but it has a rather all-encompassing definition and doesn’t try to keep out certain subspecies of geeks, assuming that members will work on that part of the triage.

Compare that to the mono-culture of this site’s definition of beauty as a criteria for admission on the site. I wouldn’t be surprised if we find out that the definition of beauty is very middle-to-upper-class Caucasian, and that if there are ethnically diverse members, they conform mostly to white beauty standards.

But I’d say it’s nice for all these egomaniacs to self-segregate outside of our Regular Joe/Jane dating websites. Anything that reduces my need to be exposed to these people is welcome.

I still feel a little iffy about most racial-themed dating sites as well.  I mean, I sort of grant that people do tend to choose partners based on race (whether or not they admit it), but I’m surprised that dating listing have always been so open about it - seeking SWF or whatever.

Eh, it’s hotornot.com reborn as a dating website.  I have no pity for anyone narcissistic or needy enough to join in the first place.

Come to think of hit Mr. Hintze’s actions and comments were probably intended to appeal to your average narcissist and drum up business.  Nothing screams “you are among the elect” like kicking a group of people out for some reason, thus reaffirming the rest of the subscriber’s “beautiful” status.

Apparently site membership is based on other members voting, thus the ‘ban’ was user-generated, not something that was top down from site administration.

People on so-called regular sites are frequently not at all shy about setting forth their clear limits on what they will and won’t accept.  This is just expanding that sort of “no fatties!” “no guys under 6’2”!” stuff into a specific site.

the mere existence of this site is disgusting. everyone involved, from proprietors to participants, needs to grow up. you’re not in high school.

“The attitude reflected by sites like BeautifulPeople.com confirms that we as a society <strike>do not yet possess</strike> will never possess either the maturity or the ethics necessary to employ genetic engineering in a responsible manner.”

FTFY…

Secondly, I think that any dating site that limits who can sign on is just throwing money away. I’ve heard that E-Harmony cuts people who aren’t sufficiently jesus friendly. Is that true?

I tried eHarmony briefly back when I was doing online dating.  There was definitely an emphasis on religion and traditional life choices that made me uncomfortable, though they didn’t cut me for being non-religious.  But what really pissed me off and caused me to cancel my account was the way they were steering me toward older men.  Most dating sites have a surfeit of middle aged men seeking much younger women and the way eHarmony seems to deal with it is to claim that their “experts” have determined that marriages between women and men at least 10 years their senior are most likely to work.  I could search among men who were older than I but eHarmony WOULD NOT LET ME pick from younger men.  I’m serious.  They WOULD NOT LET ME.

And they’re homobigots too.  Which I didn’t know when I signed up.

wanting to meet someone with a shared religious background is not the same as saying ‘no fatties.’ everyone has their values, and if shared religious values are important to you, cool. i don’t find that as shallow as throwing yourself into a popularity contest.

“but I’m surprised that dating listing have always been so open about it - seeking SWF or whatever.”

Anything that helps cull a dataset of ‘zomgenormous’ with as little wasted time and effort on everybody’s part is going to get used, so it’s not really that surprising that aspects which a lot of people will perceive as sticking points—sexual orientation, prior marriages, children, race, age, gender, smoking, drinking, dog-hating, etc.—will get listed just to get a better signal-to-noise ratio from respondents.

That having been said, stuff where people self-identify as x tends to be way less fraught than situations like the one under discussion, where the site itself bounced people for being insufficiently so.  It’d be like if JDate started kicking people off for admitting to liking bacon or once having wittingly eaten a cheeseburger.

Question for Pandas: Leaving aside the outlandish statements of Hintze in defense of his site’s actions, is this any different than any dating site that self-identifies a preference and does it matter?

To the first - is this any different?  Absolutely not.

Ultimately, no different than an athlete dating site or a people-from-Montreal dating site or a Fans of Michael Bobley dating site.  If you don’t meet their criteria for athlete (no chess players!), or artist fan (no Metallica Fans!), or Montreal resident (no you can’t just live near Quebec!), they cut you.  It’s their site and their rules.  Whatever.

Secondly, who the fuck cares?  I mean, it’s swell that we’ve managed to return to High School levels of discourse and I’m all for pointing out when someone is wrong on the internet, but the god damn site is called “Beautiful People”.  If you’re shocked that they’re being superficial, you haven’t even been trying to pay attention.

Honestly, I think this whole blow up is just an opportunity for people to remember that the site exists and reaffirm how much they are disgusted by it.  Hurray for that.  But the very fact that anyone is bemoaning the fate of the 5,000 former Heathers is the real tragedy.  This shouldn’t be news.  I couldn’t come up with a better Dog Bites Man story if I tried.

Secondly, I think that any dating site that limits who can sign on is just throwing money away. I’ve heard that E-Harmony cuts people who aren’t sufficiently jesus friendly. Is that true?

Not necessarily.  I shop specialty stores all the time.  I wouldn’t go to Walmart for wine or to Best Buy for food.  On a dating site, one of the more obnoxious points is weeding through all the chaff to find the wheat.  If you want to date a tall female tennis player from Kansas, why would you want to parse through a dozen Canadian hockey player and California computer nerd midgets?

A TallTennisGirlsFromKansas.com dating site would be ideal for you in a way OKCupid or Chemistry would not.

If you are specifically concerned with physical beauty, it makes sense to hit up a site that is - in and of itself - specifically concerned with physical beauty.  It’s niche and niche products have a history of doing well.

This sounds a little like a marketing gimmick to make the site sound more exclusive, although I have noticed that internet dating does seem more cruel sometimes.  People will say things to and about a person they meet on-line that they would probably never say in person.

I am definitely betting it is a marketing gimmick as this is the message you get if you go over there to browse the site:
Dear member,

BeautifulPeople.com has launched globally.
The launch is being extensively covered by the global media.

The huge media coverage is currently generating so much traffic on our servers that we have had to limit some users from using the site.
We are sorry for the inconvenience.

We’re excited to welcome you, so please check back later.

Thanks
The BeautifulPeople Team

Note:
If you just created a new profile and was forwarded to this page, your profile was registered correctly and you will be notified when the site is again accessible.

But getting back to Pam’s point:  The slam on fat people was unnecessarily cruel and speaks to the continued acceptance of of fat-bashing.  Why didn’t they single out people with big noses?  How about people with birth defect or who were disfigured in accidents?  “Can’t have our site marred by people with cleft palates and scars!”

Blackboc- that’s not really true.  If you read the article you’ll see that the guy states that they “received complaints” from their clients about these newly chubby members.

What I found stunning is that CNN didn’t even bring up, or even skirt around the obvious question:  what was the gender breakdown?

Because my guess, having been around this world a time or three, is that it was men reporting women, for the most part.

Donna, people with big noses, birth defects, or disfigurements, would not be on the site to begin with.  They have to be voted on, and a certain number of people have to rate them as beautiful.  Not attractive, beautiful.

DonnaDiva,
The fact that the slam was unnecessarily cruel is part, I think, of the marketing strategy.  By establishing that the people who are still members are absolutely NOT “fatties” they reinforce the ego boost of belonging to this site, which is, I think, the bigger draw to the type of narcissist that would find this site worthwhile in the first place.  Whether fat bashing is still mainstream (I think so) or not it is, was, and always will be with the crowd this site caters to.

The problem with the very concept of this site is that it self-selects for the hopelessly vain. Say what you will about sites like JDate (and I’ve heard there are many horror stories), there is at least a cultural logic to them, however warped. But something tells me I don’t think I’d want to date the sort of person who would want to be on this site.

AnglScarlett, I am assuming that the gender ratio of the site is pretty skewed towards men too, likely more so than most dating sites. I would even venture a hypothesis that many of the women on the site are possibly fake or paid. If there are fake/paid people allowed on the site at all, my guess is that the ratio of fake/paid women is higher than that of fake/paid men.

Regardless, if vapid pretty people only want to date themselves, then I am all for getting them out of my dating pool. I am sure that JDate does not openly insult non-Jewish people, stating that they don’t want [insert slur referring to non-Jewish people] wandering on the site, making it worse for the actual Jewish people. That is in poor taste and represents the quality of the members of the site, making me even happier that they are self-selecting to remove themselves from my dating pool.

If this was a marketing ploy, do we know the source for the original story? Was it this site putting out a press release or complaints from members that were kicked off?

Is the objectionable part of this story that people judge potential mates based on physical apperance, or that a website has the audacity to explicitly state it?

Personally, I wouldn’t be able to get over paying someone to find a date for me.

It’s such a burden looking at thumbnails, 20 at a time, to find pictures of attractive people to date.  Thank heavens for BeautifulPeople.com for sparing me such a painful task.

#34:

I can’t let this one slip by.

At one point I thought much the same thing, but I’ve suffered for years from crippling shyness and low self-image. Hell, even vain people have that problem, which is why something as odious as beautifulpeople.com exists in the first place. For many people, personal ads and dating websites is the only way to make a relationship happen—not everyone can stand to come out of their shell enough to approach someone who they want. Hell, that’s why Missed Connections exists on Craigslist.

I know it’s hard for normal, socially-high-functioning people to comprehend, but scorn for people who need some kind of intermediary to meet and interact with people isn’t just insulting, it’s fucking dehumanizing.

Judging by the two airbrushed models on BeautifulPeople.com’s front page, I’d say their standard of beauty probably matches 1:1 with my standard of boring.

Those people are not particularly attractive, they’re just particularly not-ugly.

Physically that is. Mentally they’re Quasimodos on a bad hair day.

keshmeshi, your comment reminded me of what my cousin said about her brother’s dating practices. He lives in Colorado and loves doing outdoorsy stuff (he was a ski instructor for a while). His newest girlfriend, who he met online, hates going outside. The cousin I was talking to (her brother didn’t come home for Christmas) indicated that he tends to date people that he chooses for looks, but doesn’t have anything in common with them, is too chicken to break up with them until it gets really late and then has a messy break-up.

Sure, looks are important - if you have everything in common with someone but can’t stand to look at them or be seen in public with them, then you have a problem - but they say absolutely nothing about how compatible two *people* are in a relationship, duh. The problem is that I doubt that many of these people regard their potential partner as a full and equal human being in the first place.

>‘ban’ was user-generated

hmm i wonder what can be done with this certainly nothing hilarious

I wonder how long it is until they get a lawsuit because somebody is too black or is ugly due to congenital deformities or use of mobility aids?

Creating a dating site (sight) based on attractiveness, is, although shallow and, I think, not very workable, understandable. Plenty of shallow narcissistic folk out there yearning to be admired!

What is nasty is the Site’s attitude to “fatties” or other non-society-accepted-beautiful people.  The insults, the obvious Publicity Stunt of kicking off 5,000 people, will repulse more persons than it attracts.  Or so I hope!

@41: Yeah. As iffy as I’d be about a Caucasian-only dating site’s legitimacy, any doubt would be removed regarding its worthlessness if it stated in bold font “No niggers or Japs allowed!” as a marketing argument.

Of course it’s different, because the people who got kicked off were deemed unattractive by a vote.  Which means that they’re probably smoking hot to some members who didn’t vote against them. The site exists mainly to reinforce the idea that people—-okay, men—-have an obligation to run their ideas of what is hot by all other men before they’re allowed to say that they find that hot.  It is, in other words, the sort of thing that would appeal to douchebags.

Most dating sites have men outnumbering women by 3 to 1 or 5 to 1. I’m guessing this one would be 10 or 15 to 1, at least.  Maybe higher.  It’s probably got nothing to do with actually getting laid and is all about men who, for whatever reason, want to subject themselves to strict homosocial policing of their sexual desires.

Personally, I wouldn’t be able to get over paying someone to find a date for me.

Yeah, skip the pointless rigamorale and just keep paying women directly to pretend they enjoy fucking you.

#35:

It’s such a burden looking at thumbnails, 20 at a time, to find pictures of attractive people to date.  Thank heavens for BeautifulPeople.com for sparing me such a painful task.

Well, it’s a bit absurd if only because it doesn’t take a beautiful person to upload a picture of Brad Pitt and slap his name under it.  More than anything, that’s why it’s really absurd.  Find some obscure model from the back end of the Victoria Secret catalogue.  Pick through a really old back issue of Maxim.  Browse any other dating site, grab up a few pictures of some other beautiful person contender, and plaster them all over your profile.  Congratulations, you win.

Rule 30.  There are no girls on the internet.  :-p

But yeah, it’s a niche market that proclaims to have the most impressive list of jpegs.  And it gets lots of publicity.  And there are plenty of gullible people.  So the site does well.  :-p

Well, you’ve got to admire the man for creating a site that attracts all the assholes and relieves the rest of us from the burden of dealing with them.

Still, though, I don’t see how this is worse than the sites that advertise Christian-only dating. Surely discrimination based on religion is just as bad and pernicious as discrimination based on appearance and weight?

I’m not entirely sure about this, and it probably depends on the site, but quite a few sites that specialize in a certain religion or ethnic group don’t actively forbid non-group members.  For instance I’m aware of several gentiles who are on J-Date.  I used to have a friend who frequented a Mormon site who insisted to me that I’d be allowed to join even though I’m not LDS.

I mean, it’s not like they can track you down and verify that you really are a member of whatever group.  And, as stated above, the more members the better.  Of course, if the site is full of people who ONLY want to engage in arranged marriages with South Asians of their own caste (for example), it’s unlikely that you’ll have success there if you’re a white guy looking for girls who look like Bollywood stars.  Which of course is why the use of a group identity like “beautiful people” is so stupid.

Is the objectionable part of this story that people judge potential mates based on physical apperance, or that a website has the audacity to explicitly state it?

I think it’s that the site has the nerve to make an executive decision.  On other sites that cater to a certain clientele, membership is open, and if nobody on the site wants to go out with you because you don’t meet their idea of what the site is about, then you don’t have a good experience on the site and go somewhere else.  For instance I could probably put up a profile on match.com, but since I’m not a traditional/conservative person looking for a serious marriage-oriented commitment, I’m unlikely to have much success.  On the other hand, someone who wears a Promise Ring and only listens to Worship Music is unlikely to have success at OKcupid.

it doesn’t take a beautiful person to upload a picture of Brad Pitt and slap his name under it.

It’s pretty easy to figure out when people are doing this.  The ultimate sign being that you agree to meet them and they show up and blatantly aren’t the person in their photograph.  There are, of course, other ways to tell - if it’s obviously a glossy retouched professional photo, if they don’t have ANY casual snapshots posted, if the photo doesn’t match the profile (“model” style shots but they claim to be an attorney, they claim to be 32 but the person in the photo looks 20…), etc. 

Of course, there’s also the possibility that you’ll find people who put up outdated photos of themselves, or photos that are real but “optimistic”, to say the least.  And folks who lie in their profiles.  I’m honestly not sure how beautifulpeople.com regulates this sort of thing.  It’s just a risk of internet dating, the same way that there are risks to being set up by friends, or giving out your number in bars, or however else people meet each other.

TheOpo: Casual hookups sites tend to have a type of account ‘confirmed accounts’ where you need to send a picture with an arbitrary phrase written on a sign, or a direct webcam contact with the admins, and in exchange you get vetted as being actually you on your pictures (the admins keep the confirmation pics so they can verify if you go and erase all your pics to replace them with ‘improved’ ones). It tends to increase your hit rate, for obvious reasons.

zifnab wins as “most sane commenter”.  So someone was rude on the internet.  Stop the presses!  But, I bet there’s all sorts of supporters of “transgressive relationships” here, but when the transgression offends THEM, omfg, katiebarthedoor.  Pam is offended!  People who volunteer to get rated by other people are being excluded! JFC.

I’ve been told by “Internet Experts” that the early days of the internet were fueled by Porn. That slowly changed, and now there are more Dating Sites than porn sites. So I have been told. What they have in common is LOTS of lonely or maladjusted men.

Is it different than preference based dating sites? In principle, probably not. Does it matter, though? Absolutely. Because while the principle might be the same, the reality is starkly different.

Just look at the obvious comparison of dating sites for “fatties”. These sites exist because mainstream dating sites are already hostile environments for people who don’t meet standards of beauty. I’d suggest that is the case of most preference dating sites. While this site might technically be preference based, its the preference that represents the status quo. It owes its existence not to the necessity of finding a little corner to call its own but out of the bitterness of privilege that inspires seething resentment that those “other” people exist at all. This is not a site born out of a need to be oneself but out of an irrational hatred that others are themselves.

What is nasty is the Site’s attitude to “fatties” or other non-society-accepted-beautiful people.  The insults, the obvious Publicity Stunt of kicking off 5,000 people, will repulse more persons than it attracts.  Or so I hope!

You know, while I would hope that’s what happens, I’m just not sure.

Consider NYC’s Studio 54 in the 1970s or Las Vegas’ Rehab @ the Hard Rock Hotel today… clubs that became wildly popular and trendy specifically because they have a policy of only allowing people that they deem to have the right look to get past the velvet ropes.  The whole reason country clubs and social athletic clubs exist is so that rich people have a place to congregate where they don’t have to be around us

For the extremely shallow beautiful people out there, the institutional disdain towards their perceived “less thans” is not a bug, it’s a feature.

Anyway, I saw this story yesterday, and my reaction is basically “whatever”.  Assholes will always behave like assholes, and some asshole will always figure out new clever ways of making money off his fellow assholes by creating “services” like this website.  Not much you can really do about it except make fun of these losers and point out just how vapid and shallow their existences really are.

I don’t think this site meets the ADA and civil rights requirements, as it is doing nothing to protect users from being deselected for protected reasons.

The insults, the obvious Publicity Stunt of kicking off 5,000 people, will repulse more persons than it attracts.  Or so I hope!

Such a stunt would attract the exact kind of customer this guy wants to attract.  Feeling, empathetic people might demand too much, or check their monthly statements.  I have a feeling the same kind of person who would look at such a policy and think, “There’s the place for me!” is also the kind of person who would pay heavily to be a part of such a group, or is young and/or stupid enough that you could charge them a 19.99 monthly membership fee 14 or 15 times a year.

I remember when I used to go to HotorNot and it always seemed to me that women had far lower average ratings than the men.  But not for any clear reason.  I mean, a lot of ugly guys were 8s and a lot of pretty girls were 6s.  And while that may be “my opinion,” my sense of beauty isn’t really far off of the general trend. 

So ... why?  Well ... my theory was that A.) men will rate women more harshly, and B.) women will rate other women (and usually poorly, out of a sense of competition).  But women aren’t so harsh in their assessment of men (in general) and other straight men would probably not rate straight men.

I would guess that if someone was getting rated down, it was probably women, and it could be men or it could be other women doing it.  I would be surprised if the victims of the site cuts were men.

gosh, i think you’re being terribly harsh. shallow people need a place too. lol

I remember when I used to go to HotorNot and it always seemed to me that women had far lower average ratings than the men.  But not for any clear reason.  I mean, a lot of ugly guys were 8s and a lot of pretty girls were 6s
Checking a bunch now, I got an average of 8.4 for the girls and 8.6 for the guys, though it seemed like the few “really low outliers” were women (there were no guys below 7, while the lowest woman was 4.4).  As far as I can tell, women are marked on a pretty straight “fat = bad, letting us look down your shirt = good” rubric.  Harder to tell for the men.  I didn’t count, but the women seemed to have much higher numbers of people rating them (a few thousand, rather than a few hundred), I’d certainly believe that it’s mostly straight men rating/straight women in photos.

If the beatifulpeople story is an advertising stunt, it’s almost certainly only to attract men, but don’t most dating sites only charge men to join anyways?  (I think eHarmony charges both - SugarDaddyDating, advertised on the sidebar while I was looking at Hotornot, only charges men.  I don’t know about any others, but I’d assume they’re like SugarDaddy.  Though in SugarDaddy’s case, it’s obviously more fair, since SugarDaddies have more ability to pay.)

Anyone else notice this in the “About” page?

“To become a member, applicants are required to be voted in by existing members of the opposite sex.”

(emphasis added)

So, BeautifulStraightPeople.com would probably be a better name.

I’d suggest that is the case of most preference dating sites.

Long dead thread, but I thought I’d rebut.

No, it’s generally not.  There may be some sites for groups on the extreme fringe or who are generally considered undesirable to date and thus find little success on more mainstream sites.  But by and large most of the special interest dating sites I’m aware of were created for and by members of those communities for reasons of mutual interest. 

Then again, OKCupid recently released somewhat discouraging data breaking down some of their demographics, so I suppose it’s possible that some people turn to websites for their specific group because they feel rejected by mainstream sites.

whetstone (4):

It’s different from self-identifying preference sites in the sense that it’s based on the idea that only a specific body type is beautiful and not a particular preference of its users.

Right; politics and ethics aside, I’d like to be able to judge for myself whether I find someone physically attractive.

chareth (11):

site no one’s ever heard of until this story

I’ve heard of it. Evidently we go to different sites. Or you have an ad-blocker installed.

BlackBloc (12):

whether someone is Christian, African-American or Jewish is a lot closer to a consensual reality than whether someone is beautiful. I won’t deny that at the boundaries there’s sometimes a bunch of bickering about who gets to be in the in-group, but *most* people are willing to agree that if others self-identify with the in-group there’s a variety of valid subgroups that can be said to be part of the global group

JDate, at least, doesn’t seem to exclude non-Jews. Now, if you indicate on your profile that you’re not Jewish, you’re not going to find much success (particularly if you’re a man looking for women), but as far as I know you’re welcome to give it a shot.

seeker (18):

People on so-called regular sites are frequently not at all shy about setting forth their clear limits on what they will and won’t accept.

I have my doubts as to how much they really meant it. Even if you say “no guys under six foot two,” you’re not likely to reject someone otherwise absolutely perfect, but a few inches shorter than you like (at least, I’m not).

chibi (23):

everyone has their values, and if shared religious values are important to you, cool.

So what makes it a value when it’s religion and shallow when it’s size? What’s the difference?

Um, how would BeautifulPeople.com even know that someone became a “fattie” after the holidays (or even that someone’s photos are genuine in the first place)?