>>13666884I'm not leaving this thread until you concede defeat and admit that you were wrong dipshit. It's such a stupid hill for you to die on.
>Women still think the big arms themselves look good but wish they had legs to balance out.No they would laugh at those proportions. Distribution matters.
>There is no circumstance where cankles look good themselvesNo shit because they would probably be obese if they have cankles.
>why would you make up a second analogy if the first one was right? Oh yeah it wasn'tBecause you were too stupid to get the first one lol
>HAHAHA you perma virgin. Women naturally do have hair around their assholes.Yes, as most mammals, humans have hair over most of their body. But that is still beside the point that longer, thicker hair being found anywhere else on the body where it would be viewed as unattractive does not make the hair on the top of the head itself unrelated to attractiveness because what's attractive is distribution and nothing more.
>If you were not a 24-7 porn consuming coombrain you would know this.Bite me
>It's not unattractive in the sense men are naturally turned off from it. You have reprogrammed yourself to think hair on women below the neck is weird because you look at so many airbrushed women and shaved assholes. The EXACT same way men today find hair on women's legs gross but at one point did not care.I guess the trend in humans losing body hair over time is arbitrary and that humans shave, trim, wax their hair for reasons unrelated to attractiveness, huh.
>so your nonsense "long lush hair on asshole" argument is again, a false and wrong analogy exposing you are a complete moron.Um no honey that's just simply not correct. Fat, just like hair, distributed to the wrong areas is also unhealthy so unfortunately you have again failed to counter my argument-destroying analogies. Just give up, it's so much easier :)
