Hope springs eternal
To all my hairy brothers, read this and read this good. For every modern Sikh woman who rejects you for who you are and who you have chosen to believe, there is someone out there who will blow a puff of gentle breeze, parting midway your long flowing beard and reveal your tender loving heart. She will place a gentle wet kiss on your broken heart and as you writhe in pleasure, she will make you fall in love with her. I know she may be hard to find but hope, my brethren from turbanland, springs eternal in the human breast and trust me, that is for a reason.
This is in response to a comment made by a Sikh brother to one of my posts. I hear thy howl, brother. Keep faith. If Sikh women don't want you, there is no reason for you to want them either. Keep your faith and your dignity.
Years ago, I had read that Khuswant Singh had predicted that Sikhism would be extinct by the end of last century. That scared me at the time. Of course, he has been proven wrong many times over. But now sometimes, I tend to worry more. I know people would argue that it is a mistake to equate the whole philosophy of a religion with some dermatological appendage. Maybe so. But take a look at the 17 th comment to my post Kissed by a Rose and you would understand what I mean. Increasingly, more and more of us are showing our fingers to the outward symbols. But what is troubling is more and more of us don't care about the philosophy either: "I know Guru Gobind Singh's children died for their faith) who were cut into pieces because they wouldn't abandon the "path" but hey, that's what they wanted to do; it was their choice. It is not my choice so stop imposing it on me."
I understand religion is an intensely personal issue. It is a matter of belief and faith which should spring from within you and not be thrust down your throat. Sure. But are we doing a good job of teaching our kids about what our religion actually stands for? Do they think of us as a relic of an ancient past, clinging to a history that they don't care about or are they aware of the vivacious lively aspects of Sikh philosophy as well?
Whatever. It troubles my heart. Not that I care about how one random individual thinks. I don't consider it blasphemy either. But sitting on the sidelines, I take a sigh and utter a silent prayer that God give us wisdom.
On the personal front, things are going well. C has discovered that I don't snore although she hasn't fallen in love with me yet (although I have risen to the level of "sweetheart"). She tells me it is too soon. I agree. I tell her I may be hairy but I am still cute. She agrees to that. So, we are kind of even steven for the moment. Oh, BTW. She cooked something the other day and to my surprise, it was edible. Just kidding. It was actually sumptuous. Take it easy, babe.
Also, thanks TM for your nice comment. I have been telling people that for years but they wouldn't believe me.
This is in response to a comment made by a Sikh brother to one of my posts. I hear thy howl, brother. Keep faith. If Sikh women don't want you, there is no reason for you to want them either. Keep your faith and your dignity.
Years ago, I had read that Khuswant Singh had predicted that Sikhism would be extinct by the end of last century. That scared me at the time. Of course, he has been proven wrong many times over. But now sometimes, I tend to worry more. I know people would argue that it is a mistake to equate the whole philosophy of a religion with some dermatological appendage. Maybe so. But take a look at the 17 th comment to my post Kissed by a Rose and you would understand what I mean. Increasingly, more and more of us are showing our fingers to the outward symbols. But what is troubling is more and more of us don't care about the philosophy either: "I know Guru Gobind Singh's children died for their faith) who were cut into pieces because they wouldn't abandon the "path" but hey, that's what they wanted to do; it was their choice. It is not my choice so stop imposing it on me."
I understand religion is an intensely personal issue. It is a matter of belief and faith which should spring from within you and not be thrust down your throat. Sure. But are we doing a good job of teaching our kids about what our religion actually stands for? Do they think of us as a relic of an ancient past, clinging to a history that they don't care about or are they aware of the vivacious lively aspects of Sikh philosophy as well?
Whatever. It troubles my heart. Not that I care about how one random individual thinks. I don't consider it blasphemy either. But sitting on the sidelines, I take a sigh and utter a silent prayer that God give us wisdom.
On the personal front, things are going well. C has discovered that I don't snore although she hasn't fallen in love with me yet (although I have risen to the level of "sweetheart"). She tells me it is too soon. I agree. I tell her I may be hairy but I am still cute. She agrees to that. So, we are kind of even steven for the moment. Oh, BTW. She cooked something the other day and to my surprise, it was edible. Just kidding. It was actually sumptuous. Take it easy, babe.
Also, thanks TM for your nice comment. I have been telling people that for years but they wouldn't believe me.
posted by harry singh at 9:46 AM
45 Comments:
optimistic post harry! good for you.
I have reconciled with the fact that most interesting women(sikh or otherwise) are simply not interested in me.
Effectively, it means channeling the affection and sensitivity I have inside me to other people who want and need it -I now volunteer over 20 hrs a week serving and tending old people.
It has helped cleanse myself of bad feelings towards sikh women, and I have made peace with myself as well.
I will eventually marry somebody very simple through my family, ONCE I get rid of my negativism. it might take me a few years.
nanak dukhia sab sansar!
hear! hear!
love your blog, excellent writing with close-to-heart content!
I reckon this particular post is going to bring you far!
She will plant that "wet kiss" soon, she definately will!
I just recently discovered your blog, and it's great!
Brothers, don't be discouraged. Maybe many Sikh women aren't interested in true sardars, but there are those who are, and quality women too. I am single myself but I know this to be true.
The ironic thing is, I've had just as much interest from non-Sikh women as I've had from Sikh women. Sometimes, it seems many Sikh women just have a chip on their shoulders.
Guys, keep the faith - in yourself and in the belief that you WILL find your mate. Hundreds of years ago, our ancestors had their faith (and very survival) tested and challenged, but they maintained their dignity. Today, we have our own test. Let's honour our forefathers and do ourselves proud by rising to this challenge in "chardi kala".
Great blog, and one that I look forward to following. Best of luck to you, Harry.
get a life. do something important in life rather than blogging all day.
why do you some turban sikh men think having uncut hair is being hairy? shit lions are supposed to have flowing hair on their face....just dont put yourself down in such a manner. why arent sikh men stronger about all of this? i know rejection is difficult..but some think marrying a amritdhari girl is lowering standards? what is this crap? you are putting out exactlly what is being put on you. perhaps sikh men need to become amritdharis and not be just turbaned siks who want to live life as though they dont have a turban.
and this amrit person..trust me is not a sikh woman...and if it is she really hates herself. i gurantee you it is a hindu person..but im sure your smart enough to see beyond names and comments. extreme forces are against the sikhs..thats why turbaned sikhs need to become extreme too in their approach to life. harry you do sound like a kind soul...but you sound really hindufied..i mean sikh men are suppose to be tough...but gentle to those who deserve it. ppl like amrit and those bitches who dont shit about their identies arent worth pondering over.
People in Gurdaspur are way more smarter than these people ( Almost all these people who post their comments on this blog).
It is a shame that we all who migrated to US/UK/Canada fail to discover anything about other cultures. Above all, we have no patience to discuss our own backgrounds, experiences, and dreams. Probably too much ego is getting in the way ( It is sure is getting in my way to discover what is out there!)
ok..i don't know what state you're from...but i know that all the sikh girls i know really want to be with a sardar...so your comments on 'hairiness' and how girls aren't into that...don't make sense...to me
gurantee you it is a hindu person..but im sure your smart enough to see beyond names and comments. extreme forces are against the sikhs..thats why turbaned sikhs need to become extreme too in their approach to life.
hmm... Mr "I am always complaining" singh VS Mr. "kill all 'em hindus" Singh
amazing discussion. keep it up!
Harry, great blog, but pay no attention to some of these comments, u've started to attract some of the righteous jokers who have nuthin' better to do but to spoil a good thing and tell everyone else how they should live their lifes, and the fact that this clown is reading your blog must mean that he may have been wetting his chuddies all this time in anticipation of your next post..if you kids want to start this type of topics on a simple blog, why don't u go to jattworld or some other crap site to vent your anger and frustrations peace..
oh, and harry..keep up the good work..
Seriously dude! This IS nauseating. u really think this is a hindu conspiracy? U are seriously soo fucked up.
Harry. Cant u moderate your blog?
hey amrit, you suck
from
handsome keshdhareee
We see with our minds, not with our eyes. Through my experiences, I have come to understand the pressures that come along with looking different. It is not the religion, hair, or turban. If I had to wear a neon yellow shirt everyday, soon I would start blaming my shirt for my problems. Unless Brad Pitt also wore a neon yellow shirt…then it would be cool to have this shirt and I would get all the girls.
Basically, a lot boils down to what the media portrays as “hip,” cool, and in style. The messages our society sends us everyday of our lives. Now thin girls are in, fat girls are out. Turbans are totally out with all the association with Arabs/terrorism. We are so much influenced by the media that we do not even realize. Our tastes, likes/dislikes, who we want to hook up with, what we want to do, are very much influenced by our environment and the messages that are sent our way. Just think of the portrayal of African Americans in the media. Do you find black girls as attractive as white girls? Or Fat girls hotter than thin girls? I wonder why. And then you’ll tell me this is your choice.
Here’s a concrete example. Drug companies spend about 10% of their money developing a drug and then spend like 90% marketing their drug. Marketing is everything. You can sell almost anything given enough hype. Michael Jordan eats Ball park hot dogs, that’s what I eat too.
Maybe your saying to me, “Hey, I don’t buy into all that hype.” Give me a break, look at your clothes, the shit you like to buy, your aspirations, what you consider beautiful/ugly. What’s my point—if you think you are the shit, that peer pressure cannot bring you down, I challenge you the wear the turban and keep the beard. Experience the challenge of facing a billion dollar industry that portrays you as an outsider. I have been broken by the pressures of the society we live in. Don’t tell me that you “chose to cut your hair.” You couldn’t cut it, just like me. No choice is made in isolation. Recognize that we are bowing to the power greater than ourselves, the strength of the American culture/media. I’m not judging, I just want to point out the difference between the Sikh who chooses to keep his turban and the one who doesn’t. Both make a choice, both are slaves, one trades being a slave of the guru for becoming a slave of the media and pop culture(in terms of outer appearance).
TURBAN IS NOT BLAMEWORHTY, THE FLAW LIES SOMEWHERE ELSE
"Nach Na Jane Angan Teda"
A person who doesn't know how to dance blames the dance floor for bad moves rather than his skill.
PHYSICAL APPERANCE
Before blaming hair and turban for rejections, we must see in our physical appearance other things that are below average, e.g., facial features (Facial Shape, broadness of forehead, lack of curves and brilliance in eyes, shape of nose, well defined lips, height, and proportion of body i.e.(chest to waist etc).
SENSE OF FASHION
After this step, see if your sense of fashion is below average, i.e. do you dress well, are the colour combinations harmonious and sensible, is the style outdated, is the beard nicely combed or dressed, are there symytrical flaws in the beard or turban that can be removed by effort e.g does your turban look as flawless as Guru Gobind Singh Ji's in some pictures.
KESKEE WEARING SUPER MODEL
Turban or beard doesn't make a person look ugly, if he is already ugly becasue of the above mentioned flaws. Put a keskee on a holywood actress. She will still look beautiful, you will be able to see the sparkle in her eyes, teeth and all features despite turban. A Turban or a veil cannot conceal beauty.
I am sure, if you put a turban on Arnold, the greatest bodybuilder, women will still die for him because of excellence in his physique. Even if his turban is below average, this effect will be canceled out by his exceptional physique and overall he will still be considered excellent match (who will reject a 9 time MR Olympia-- only a fool).
TURBAN ON AN UGLY PERSON
Now put the same keskee on an ugly woman. She will not look more ugly than she already is becasue of the turban. But we will blame turban for her ugliness although the real ugliness is in her below the average mark features and physical proportions (which can be corrected to a large extent with human effort).
OVER 80% SHAVED PEOPLE ALSO GET REJECTED
Even shaved people find it hard to get a woman when they are below the average mark in their appearance. All women or men are looking for above average mark whether or not they can get it. So all the below average shaved people also get rejected. They don't have turban or beard to blame, so they realize that their features and proportions are flawed.
I have two cousins. One wears turban and the other does not. Both are Lawyers in Canada. Both can't find a girl friend or marriage partner. I am sure the turbaned cousin might be blaming turban and might also be thinking of removing it. But by removing his turban he will be putting himself in the position of his shaved cousin. So Mr Turban will still remain SINGLE like Mr Shaved UNLESS and UNTILL he removes physical flaws in his appearnce rather than removing turban.
THE MORAL
Don't blame only turban or beard for rejections, look at other weaknesses and correct them for acceptance.
Beauty or handsomeness is a potent force, so potent that rags cannot hide them, turbans cannot negate them.
(LIMITATIONS OF THIS DISCUSSION:
This discussion has not touched mental and moral aspects of handsomeness for space limitations and only focused on most important PHYSICAL aspects that form FIRST IMPRESSIONS on the beholder)
To above comment,
wow, you bring up very good points. But you must agree that a person w/o a turban will appeal to a larger pool of women even if he is still a beautiful person. However, your comment reminds turbaned people to focus on other aspects of their looks before criticizing the turban.
Anon who said this-
TURBAN IS NOT BLAMEWORHTY, THE FLAW LIES SOMEWHERE ELSE
"Nach Na Jane Angan Teda"
Please discuss mental and moral aspects of handsomeness.
Anon You said
"wow, you bring up very good points. But you must agree that a person w/o a turban will appeal to a larger pool of women even if he is still a beautiful person".
THIS IS MY RESPONSE
Large pool of women or men are only attracted to top 2% to 15% of the population. If you can push yourself in this range, it doesn't matter whether you wear a turban or don't.
OVERALL EFFECT COUNTS, LITTLE FLAWS DON"T
It is the overall effect that counts. Lets take an example to undersatnd HOW.
In this example ASSUME that a turban reduces attactiveness of an otherwise handsome face by 10% or 20 %.
EXAMPLE: Lets assign points for different personality variales in this example as follows:
Turbaned man:
Facial features (8 points out of 10, becasue of turban effect);
Physique (10 points);
Intellect (9 points)
Spirit/ morality (9 points)
TOTAL: 36 (i.e. 90% or A+ grade)
Non turbaned man:
Facial features (9 points)
Physique: (10 points)
Intellect (9 points)
Spirit/morality (9 points)
TOTAL: 37 (i.e. 92.5% or A+ grade)
RESULT:
In the result, both the turbaned and the non turbaned man have A+ grade, assuming that the turban reduces the attactiveness by 10% compared to shaved man ( achieving 80% instead of 90% points).
But both turbaned and the shaved man in this example fall in the category of top 2-15% (85% to 100%), so both of them will be attractive to large pool of women becasue the large pool of women are only attacted to TOP 2 to 15 % of men.
However if a turbaned man works a little hard and achieves 10 points in both intellect and morality, then he achieves the top position. But this top position is of no value because his shaved counter part will still be attarcted to a large pool, just as large as turbaned man becasue both are in TOP 15 % A to A+ range.
CONCLUSION:
Again, it is the overall effect of all features, physique and turban that counts. So turban is not blameworthy, the flaws lie somewhere else.
If we remove those flaws by human effort, then the turban negativity is reduced to a negligible amount AS SEEN IN THE ABOVE EXAMPLE. So negligible IS THE EFFECT that, it has no effect on overall grade, it still remains A+ for both shaved and turbaned person.
We have seen this theory mathematically. Now lets try in a non mathematical way:
NON MATHEMATICAL EXPLANATION:
1. Put a white nicely tucked keskee
on a blond super model's face and envision her walking past a crowd on the satge in measured elegant moves and pauses and smiles.
She will attract a large pool of men.
2. Now remove the white keskee from her face and let her do the same moves, smiles and pauses.
She will still attact a large pool of men.
WHY ? ONLY the overall effect matters. The powerful score on her facial and physical features will nullify any negative effect, IF ANY to such an extent that she will still be on an A+ range. Hence attarct a large pool of men STILL.
SO turban is not blameworthy, the flaw lies somewhere else. The sardari that comes with the title and the turban has not been established in the realms of
1. Features
2. Physique
3. Intellect
4. Morality
These flaws must be cured, turban is not blameworthy, the flaw lies somewhere else.
TO HARRY
I have posted the same post twice under anon name (#19 and #20), Can u remove #19 to avoid confusion.
Thanks
And remove this post also
I was trying to explain this to a lot of people but just could not put it into words................well done....i'll save this for future use ....
check this out anony,
you bring out some good points above, and I believe your theories have some validity regarding open minded people. Open minded people can look beyond clothes, jewelry, etc. and recognize true beauty. However, the majority of the world is not open minded and that is why your theory falls apart. Do not be upset, I will present solid evidence that you can replicate on your own.
My statement: People in America cannot simply look past the turban and hair/beard and recognize true beauty. To many Americans and American culture, the Turban and beard are deal breakers. For many of the Americans evaluating your looks, the Turban just doesn't bring down your looks by a few points, it throws you to the bottom, no matter how good looking you are.
Proof: Post a picture of a good looking man on HotorNot. If he wears a Turban, the standard deviation of his scores will be large, demonstrating that people are not able to simply take of a set number of "points" for turban and beard.
The turban/beard to Americans is not just cloth/hair as you present in your arguements. The Turban/Beard carry connotations in our society...the representation of the turban/beard in the media as being associated w/ terrorism. In your example, you mention the example of the model wearing a cloth of her head, yet in this case the cloth is not being associated w/ the meaning that the turban/beard has come to mean in America. Therefore, the analogy is not legitimate. Let that same model where a turban along w/ a shirt which says, "Hey, I'm a muslim." I wonder how hot people would think she was. When a white person wears a turban, they are not associated w/ terrorists, but brown people are. That's why your analogy is not reliable or practical. This is not just a matter of looks but of the value that society has placed on ethnicity and looks.
sorry this is getting long...One more example. The portrayal of black women in the media or lack there of makes black women less desirable to Americans than their "white" counterparts. Why? b/c the media dictates and influences the criteria you will use in your above equations to calculate beauty.
But overall, I like your view b/c it inspires me and I summarize it by saying
"Rags and a beard cannot mask true beauty."
In response to ID givelove:
This is the summary of your argument:
Majority of Americans or whites associate turban and brown skin with terrorism,
therefore,
majority of people dislike a brown turban wearing person even though they are super models.
In order to check the validity of this argument, you have to check
1. whether the premise support the conclusion
2. whether the premise itself is true fact.
1. So lets check first whether your premise support your conclusion. Note that the first part of your argument is premise and the part after the word "therefore" is your conclusion.
I note that there is no connection between the premise and the conclusion, therefore your conclusion is without foundation.
Your premise talks about ordinary brown people in truban, but your conclusion talks about brown supermodels in turban.
2. There is no need to check the truthfulness of the premise becasue it has no connection with conclusion but I will check it anyways:
So lets check your premise against factual reality. I think your premise is a true fact. Majority of people associate turban and brown skin with terrorism.
But we are not talking about ordinary people here. Ordinary people are rejected by majority of women regardless of turban and shaved face.
We are only concerned about supermodels, or the top 2 to 15 % of the people.
WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL ISSUE
The original question to which I responded was
"Will large pool of women dislike a turban wearing, but otherwise most handsome guy"
and My answer was
"turban will have a negligible effect IF THE GUY IS PERFECT 10 IN OTHER RESPECTS" such as Features, physique, intellect, morality"
Since a perfect 10 is so famous, majority of people will already know that he is not a terrorist. Assume that Sikhs have produced one Tiger Woods. Majority of people will already know that he is a Sikh golfer. So your argument that majority of people will still associate turban and brown skin with terrorism does not stand against factual reality.
Even if a person is not famous like Tiger Woods, the perfect 10 score will be so enchanting that the negative feelings of the beholder will be overpowered by his charisma and the beholder will will either already know about his little fame or will tend to get some more facts about him, not solely relying on categorization of turban and brown skin. Thus, your argument has no relevance to top 2 -15 % of turban wearing people of any colour and race with respect to Physique, Features, Intellect, and morality.
Getting perfect 10 only in intellect will fail you if you have below average physique etc. You got top overall in other respects also in order to attaract a large pool.
I hope this helps clarify my position.
My basic point is that most people in America cannot look past the Turban/beard for various reasons. However, you state that this is possible, stating the example of the "supermodel." However, there is no evidence to support this claim. When was the last time you saw a supermodel with a turban/beard? Even if your point was somehow true, how would it be applicable to the majority of people since a perfect 10 is oh so rare. You give Americans too much credit for being able to see beyond superficial appearance.
For example, on many TV shows, beautiful girls(10/10) can be made to look like geeks(ex. Sceech's Girlfriend on Saved by the Bell). When she was on the show they dressed her up as a nerd and only Screech thought she was hot. But then on Beverly Hills 90210, she was hot b/c they dressed her up nicely. Why couldn't people look beyond her geeky glasses before?(just like the turban)
Another ex. On some show, Tyra Banks dressed up ugly looking and they videotaped how she was being treated badly by men. Later on, she transformed back to her supermodel self and then the same man you had treated her badly was drewling over her. Why couldn't this man see that she was a 10/10 before? So you see, people are pretty superficial. I have taken your supermodel example and flipped it on you! Look how much ego there is in the world where we get so offened even when our theories are attacked slightly.
givelove, you wrote:
"However, there is no evidence to support this claim. When was the last time you saw a supermodel with a turban/beard?"
You mean, Just because no supermodel has ever displayed turban on stage means that there is no evidence to prove that a turbaned supermodel will be liked by a large pool of people.
So accordingly you will also claim that JUST becasue a police party cannot get evidence for a crime committed does mean that the no one has committed the crime.
Can you see the major flaw in your reasoning?
Lack of evidence only indicates that we have to wait for the evidence to prove a fact, this can never mean that the fact itself is false.
When we are unable to get evidence to prove a fact, the philosophers use logic and common sense to predict future.
2.YOUR EVIDENCE
You have given some examples from the movies where an unfashinable person got rejected even though she was 10/10.
But you forgot to mention one RECENT movie in which the heroine fell in love with a Chimp/gorilla, she even ignored his hairy body becasue he was so super in other respects.
This is called the overall effect, which certainly nullifies other negativities.
You also forgot to mention SEVERAL other movies wherein the characters recognized beauty in slums, rustic rags and poverty.
So it appears that you are trying to scew facts in support of your theory by only mentioning those facts that support it and concealing those facts that undermine it. THIS is called "intellectual dishonesty".
And finally, rather than attacking my argument with argument you are attacking my person by mentioning EGOISM. Bad character evidence is not relevant to the point you are trying to advance and this kind of evidence is frowned in acedemic circles.
hainji ki keha? Sikh women not interested in turbaned sikh men?
umm... u shouldnt tell my gf that
;-).
very incorrect. I am a turbaned sikh, I have a sikh girl friend, who likes me, and my turban. We are going steady...I hope to pop the question by the end of the summer.
So I am at least 1 counter example to your claim. there might be more.
----------this means my comment
"However, there is no evidence to support this claim. When was the last time you saw a supermodel with a turban/beard?"
You mean, Just because no supermodel has ever displayed turban on stage means that there is no evidence to prove that a turbaned supermodel will be liked by a large pool of people.
So accordingly you will also claim that JUST becasue a police party cannot get evidence for a crime committed does mean that the no one has committed the crime.
-----You keep on saying that a “supermodel” man w/ a turban/hair will be recognized for his true beauty and be “so enchanting that the negative feelings of the beholder will be overpowered by his charisma and the beholder will either already know about his little fame or will tend to get some more facts about him, not solely relying on categorization of turban and brown skin.” Given the size of the turban/beard population, I assume that there must be at least a few supermodels in this community. So why have I not seen a turban/hair person rise to the fame you state above? Why? This will not change until the attitudes of our society change. We are both right to some degree, you on the one hand say that true beauty will always be recognized but I hope you see that the definition of beauty is influenced by our society.
----------What exactly is reasoning? Given A, then B should be true.
---------According to your statements:
Given that you can still be considered a supermodel with a turban/beard and that there are gorgeous people w/ turban/beard, then there should be supermodels with a turban/beard.
---------How is there a flaw in this reasoning? Unless there are no gorgeous people who wear a turban/beard, unless you are wrong in stating that you can be considered a supermodel with a turban/beard, unless there is another variable not be considered such that anyone with a turban/beard has no interest in modeling? Give me a break, my reasoning is solid.
-----------In the movie examples you state below, it takes time for the characters to fall in love, there is not an instant attraction, they fall in love w/ the person, not with simply appearance. In all my discussions, I am talking about first impression and you must admit that the turban/hair currently have a negative impression to many Americans.
Lack of evidence only indicates that we have to wait for the evidence to prove a fact, this can never mean that the fact itself is false.
-----Lack of evidence means that you do not have evidence to support your claims at this point. Maybe you may be right in the future, but by that time, our society will have changed. The day there is a supermodel with a turban/beard, this will mean that society has reached the point where we can look past religious differences. Just as how black models are breaking ground in changing views and showing that blacks are beautiful too.
When we are unable to get evidence to prove a fact, the philosophers use logic and common sense to predict future.
--------Your logic is not based on any concrete events, history, or research. I, on the other hand, have provided an experiment that can be replicated to prove my point.
--------Go to HotorNot.com. Post a picture of a man who you meets all your criteria of being so breathtakingly beautiful with a turban/beard. Random people in America will rate this picture. You will find that his score will not be an 8/10. He will get many scores of 1 or 2, implying that he is butt ugly. He will also get high scores by people who can look past the turban/beard. However, you will find, by looking at the distribution of scores and the number of votes in each category, that the majority of Americans cannot simply look past the turban/beard on the first encounter.
2.YOUR EVIDENCE
You have given some examples from the movies where an unfashinable person got rejected even though she was 10/10.
But you forgot to mention one RECENT movie in which the heroine fell in love with a Chimp/gorilla, she even ignored his hairy body becasue he was so super in other respects.
This is called the overall effect, which certainly nullifies other negativities.
You also forgot to mention SEVERAL other movies wherein the characters recognized beauty in slums, rustic rags and poverty.
So it appears that you are trying to scew facts in support of your theory by only mentioning those facts that support it and concealing those facts that undermine it. THIS is called "intellectual dishonesty".
-------If using data and examples to support your claims is considered intellectual dishonesty, anyone who has ever argued their viewpoint would be dishonest based on you judgment b/c for every example, there is always a counterexample. It must be left to the people to decide whose examples are more concrete.
--------The movies you mention above do not take away from my point and in fact support my claims further. In the movies above, there is not instant attraction, the “beauty in slums, rustic rags and poverty” takes time to be recognized and the person who recognized the beauty usually has an open mind. And the person who recognizes the beauty is not the average person. The key in all these movies is that the inner beauty is recognized. However, in all the previous discussions, we have been talking about outer beauty.
-----------Check this out: “the heroine fell in love with a Chimp/gorilla, she even ignored his hairy body becasue he was so super in other respects”
--------See how you mention the word “ignore” above. The heroine had to ignore his hairy body, this means she had to look past his outer appearance according to you. This comes back to my main point that most Americans are not capable of looking past outer appearance as this heroine was able to do. This is the essence of our debate. You think that normal Americans can look past the turban/beard and recognize beauty and I tell you that only open minded, special people are capable of doing this.
---------Please prove me wrong and show me that beautiful turban/beard people appeal to a large pool of people instead of the select open-minded people.
--------I am pretty sure I have only attacked your weak arguments in this response. If you feel that I have attacked you as a person, I am sorry.
Hey everyone,
Please answer the following question.
Have you found in your experience that the majority of Americans can look past the turban/beard and recognize true beauty or can only open minded, unique Americans see past superficial appearance?
Be a Tiger Woods, achieve the success of MIcheal Jordan, attain the status of Bill Gates, Donald Trump, and then you will find out that women will look past EVEN your old age, what to talk of a turban.
Wrinkles of your turban are so small, IF ANY, compared to oldage wrinkles that supermodel wives of Trump and others ignored.
Again, it is the overall effect that conunts. The negativity of turban, IF ANY, or oldage wrinkles gets nullified in the face of overwhelming other aspects of ones person.
IT does not matter whether it happens instantly or takes time.
Your reasoning that most Americans would associate truban with terrorism even if that person is famous like a Holywood supermodel is flawed. It has no common sense basis. If one is a Sikh Holywood supermodel, people know that he is not a terrorist. But according to you people will still consider him in the category of terrorists.
One will attract a large pool based on overall effect, not merely turban or wrinkle effect.
I repeat: Note that most of the non turban persons are not attractive to most of the women. ONLY top 2 to 15% are attarctive to them; others are ignored; even they find it hard to get a girl friend. They don't blame truban for this but they know the flaw lies somewhere else.
Look at yourself. You are not attracted to all women, but may be only 2 to 15 % of them, who meet your beauty criteria. So would you blame turban for your rejection of all other women or other flaws in them.
If you think by removing turban you can be charming to a large pool, even if you are ugly in Physique,and Features etc, you are wrong. I gave example of my two cousins in this respect earlier. Both are lawyers, one wears turban one doesn't, bith have not found a girl friend in their entire life. The one with turban blames turban; the other without turban blames his own physical, featural flaws.
So my friend, Turban is not blameworthy, flaw lies somwhere else.
(all this discussion is based on the assumption that turban brings down your attractiveness, but this assumption might not be even true, becasue to some turban might be attarctive as revealed by some of the readers in this post. But even if Turban is not attractive to large pool, its overall effect is negligible, so removing turban will not make an otherwise ugly person, a handsome person; he will still be rejected by a large pool)
"But even if Turban is not attractive to large pool, its overall effect is negligible"
This is exactly the debate. You say that the overall effect is negligible. However, I do not agree with this.
I do not want to argue anymore b/c we will both site different examples. What we need now is a study. I am confident that the effect of the turban/beard can be quantified in a study. Otherwise, all discussion will be based on personal experience and observation.
I just want to point out one more thing. You have made the following statement:
"Note that most of the non turban persons are not attractive to most of the women. ONLY top 2 to 15% are attarctive to them; others are ignored"
Where did you even come up with this?
"Be a Tiger Woods, achieve the success of MIcheal Jordan, attain the status of Bill Gates, Donald Trump, and then you will find out that women will look past EVEN your old age, what to talk of a turban."
Of course this is true. But I thought we are talking about physcial attrativeness of the turban/beard? If you throw in the variables of age, wealth, personality etc. the effect of the turban cannot be determined.
I think I have synthesized your arguement below: Certain people are capable of having turban/beard without it affecting their attractiveness. And these people are the ones who are astoundingly rich or supermodels or who have amazing personalities. This is probably true, but applicable to probably a handful of people. But how is this relevant for the common man? Hey, if your a billionaire, people will want you even if you look like Donald Trump?
To givelove,
You ask, top people are attractive despite turban, but what about Common people.
My answer is common person is not attractive to a large pool.
This is true of Common man/woman with turban. This is also true in the case of common man/woman without turban.
It is the top 2-15 % who attract a large pool and rightly so, they deserve it. This serves the natural selection purpose: more economic resources, more chances of survival; and more healthy/handsome the body, more chances of survival against death and decease.
But it is possible for common people to get ahead and move in the upper 2-15% range. If they don't move then they should accept their own destiny.
This doesn't mean that common people won't get married. They settle for less when they cannot get much. Almost all in the end get married.
BUt only top 2-15%people attarct a large pool. This is true both turbaned and non turbaned persons.
The top 2 to 15 % data is my survey, which I conducted after reading an article. You can also check it. Just observe how many ugly/handicap/fat people attract a large pool. Then check how many handsome people on 4 criteria attract large pool. You will come close to the range that I mentioned.
You have perhaps forgotten that right from the begining, the creteria used was not only physical but it was moral and intlectual as well: Physique, Features, intellect, morality. We gave points for each item and the effect of turan was negligible.
Intellect or genius or inventiveness contains built-in wealth factor, its not empty knowledge that we call intellect. Intellect is convertible into money and power, just as physical strenght converts into more productive power.
One last point, it is a folly to base all our moves on scientific precision and data. Not every human activity has been quantified and nor is it possible and economical.
So the best way is to form an opinion based on ananology, common sense and quick surveys. Opinion is different from decision in that decision is based on scientifically precise evidence and opinion is based probabilities, experiences and some theoratically based evidence rather than complete evidence. E.g. Weather forecast is an opinion; Malaria will cause fever is a scientific decision.
We cannot wait for the future generations to generate data on Turban effect, we have to make our decisions today. So the best way is to form an opinion rather than decision.
"One last point, it is a folly to base all our moves on scientific precision and data. Not every human activity has been quantified and nor is it possible and economical."
With studies can we move from mere conjecture and opinion to accurate findings. Historians report what they see. Social scientists, psychologists, and researchers conduct surveys and studies to understand people in a more controlled setup or system. Both are important for developing a greater understanding. Either alone may not be sufficient. Your experiences and opinions are important but must also be compared w/ what surveys and tests reveal. Otherwise, we can never arrive at the truth if everyone just has their own opinions.
It is not possible to live life with scientific proof for every move one makes.
Idea about existence of God is opinion; it can never be proven with scientific precision. Does that mean that we should suspend belief in God untill scientific data is available. It is a folly to make every move based on scientific proofs
Foreign policy is mostly based on opinion because you can never know with scientific precision of moves of other governments; you don't have access to inside information with scientific accuracy.
Psychologists give their opinions with respect to a person's future behaviour.
Situations which require emergency responses all require formation of opinion to take immediate action.
Immigration officials make their choices to detain or release an alien upon arrival based upon their opinion because alien's background data is not immediately available to them.
When scientific proof is not available, people give theoretically anchored opinions and out of different opinions, the most convincing opinion is accepted by the bulk of society.
Scientific proof is reserved to those situations only where the effect of a move is grave on others; for eg, criminal courts where the liberty of a person is at stake so the test of guilt here is "beyond reasonable doubt"; Engineering pursuits where an equipment may pose hazard to users may also require scintific precison.
But things such as what kind of colour of a shirt is good; what kind of car is attractive; and so on are so trivial that opinion or common sense will suffice and engaging in scientific research will not be worthwhile and it will be a wastage of scare human resources that could be used in research to cure cancer, aids and other things that affect humanity seriously.
So it is a folly to make every move based on scientific proofs; its neither possible nor desirable.
So the best way is to form convincing opinions that are based on LOGIC, COMMON SENSE, SOUND REASONING, ANALOGY AND SO ON. These tools make opinion a solid and convincing opinion, which is very close to scientific truth. Such opinion is a tentative truth.
"So it is a folly to make every move based on scientific proofs; its neither possible nor desirable."
First all, I never said this. Let's not get off on a tangent.
"Large pool of women or men are only attracted to top 2% to 15% of the population. If you can push yourself in this range, it doesn't matter whether you wear a turban or don't.
"In this example ASSUME that a turban reduces attactiveness of an otherwise handsome face by 10% or 20 %."
Your statements above are not necessarily true. Examine the evidence below.
If you look at Sikh internet matrimonial sites, you will find that there are women who only want clean shaven men. Clearly the turban is not having a negligible effect in this case. And the turban/beard is thus a deal breaker as Dr. Phil would state, not a negligible overall effect as you state. Let us not get in an arguement over the percentage of women who feel this way. Nobody knows for certain. However, you must admit that if there are Sikh women who cannot look past the turban/beard, there will be other Americans who will not be able to look past the turban/beard as well.
I will leave it to the forum to discuss the prevalence of this attitude. You may think it is minimal but I believe this view is prevalent in our society.
GIVELOVE you said,
"If you look at Sikh internet matrimonial sites, you will find that there are women who only want clean shaven men. Clearly the turban is not having a negligible effect in this case. And the turban/beard is thus a deal breaker"
I say this:
If you also look at a muslim matrimonial site, you will find out that they only want muslim match AND IN MOST CASES WITHIN THEIR OWN SECT (SHIA, SUNNEE, KADIANEE, ISHMAILEE ETC).
If you look at a Hindu matrimonial site, majority of them want someone from their own religion and in many cases from their own caste.
So on with other sites.
If on a Sikh site you see women wanting to marry only clean shaven men that should not surprise you. This is how: Sikhs are around 20 million. Out of those may be 5 million (a guess) are from turban wearing families or turban brand of Sikh religion.
So in fact, those who are seeking clean shaven men are not from the turban wearing brand of Sikh religion. Therefore if they ask for clean shaven men, it should not surprise you BECASUE PEOPLE FROM OTHER RELIGION ALSO WANT TO MARRY WITHIN THEIR OWN RELIGION AND CASTE AND BRAND.
So when turban brand sikhs women seek turban brand sikh men, the turban is not a deal breaker, but it is a deal maker.
But even when you see a girl from clean shaven brand of sikhs marrying a turban brand Sikh (and many do), it should make clear to you that turban is not a deal breaker, but turban is a deal maker or else it should be clear that turban is not blameworthy, the flaw lies somewhere else.
Note 1: also even among shaved men, majority of them (85%) get rejected becasue they are not handsome so the flaw lies somewhere else, not in turban. Turban will have negligible effect if you are 10/10 in other respects)
Note 2: You must have noticed that I write "shaved men" rather than "clean shaven men" in my discussion becasue shaved men are not cleaner than unshaved or bearded men. If we write the adjective "clean" for shaved men, then we ought to write "clean beared man" clean "turbaned man " for bearded/turbaned men also.
GIVELOVE you said,
"If you look at Sikh internet matrimonial sites, you will find that there are women who only want clean shaven men. Clearly the turban is not having a negligible effect in this case. And the turban/beard is thus a deal breaker"
I say this:
If you also look at a muslim matrimonial site, you will find out that they only want muslim match AND IN MOST CASES WITHIN THEIR OWN SECT (SHIA, SUNNEE, KADIANEE, ISHMAILEE ETC). So they reject men from other sects and religions even though they are shaved. Thus shaved men also get rejected, NOT MERELY TRUBANED.
If you look at a Hindu matrimonial site, majority of them want someone from their own religion and in many cases from their own caste. So they reject men from other sects and religions even though they are shaved. Thus shaved men also get rejected, NOT MERELY TRUBANED.
So on with other sites.
If on a Sikh site you see women wanting to marry only clean shaven men that should not surprise you. This is how: Sikhs are around 20 million. Out of those may be 5 million (a guess) are from turban wearing families or turban brand of Sikh religion.
So in fact, those who are seeking clean shaven men are not from the turban wearing brand of Sikh religion. Therefore if they ask for clean shaven men, it should not surprise you BECASUE PEOPLE FROM OTHER RELIGION ALSO WANT TO MARRY WITHIN THEIR OWN RELIGION AND CASTE AND BRAND.
So when turban brand sikh women seek turban brand sikh men, the turban is not a deal breaker, but it is a deal maker.
But even when you see a girl from clean shaven brand of sikhs marrying a turban brand Sikh (and many do), it should make clear to you that turban is not a deal breaker, but turban is a deal maker or else it should be clear that turban is not blameworthy, the flaw lies somewhere else.
Note 1: also even among shaved men, majority of them (85%) get rejected becasue they are not handsome so the flaw lies somewhere else, not in turban. Turban will have negligible effect if you are 10/10 in other respects)
Note 2: You must have noticed that I write "shaved men" rather than "clean shaven men" in my discussion becasue shaved men are not cleaner than unshaved or bearded men. If we write the adjective "clean" for shaved men, then we ought to write "clean beared man" clean "turbaned man " for bearded/turbaned men also.
"If on a Sikh site you see women wanting to marry only clean shaven men that should not surprise you. This is how: Sikhs are around 20 million. Out of those may be 5 million (a guess) are from turban wearing families or turban brand of Sikh religion."
Now, by your own admonition, it is clear that not having a turban/beard opens you up to a larger pool of women, 15 million vs. 5 million.
"If you look at a Hindu matrimonial site, majority of them want someone from their own religion and in many cases from their own caste. So they reject men from other sects and religions even though they are shaved. Thus shaved men also get rejected, NOT MERELY TRUBANED."
I understand that the turban people are not the only one's who get rejected but turbaned people are getting rejected by their own community and by others for the mere fact of having a turban. I understand your arguements that "the flaw lies elsewhere." As you stated in your examples that people get rejected for not being the proper caste, just the same, people get rejected for the simple reason of wearing a turban even when "the flaw does not rest elsewhere."
"BECASUE PEOPLE FROM OTHER RELIGION ALSO WANT TO MARRY WITHIN THEIR OWN RELIGION AND CASTE AND BRAND."
So don't you see that even being a 10/10 in looks is not good enough if you you don't meet someone's criteria of religion/caste(in our discussion, if you have a turban/beard you are being rejected for having the turban/beard by the "non-turban brand of Sikhism(according to your definition of this phenonmenon)."
I want to point out that Sikhs that come from families who have the turban or don't, both reject the turban but I don't know with what frequency. Just b/c a girl's father has a turban, this does not mean she will want to marry a man w/ a turban.
Your last commentary contradicts your previous post. You acknowledge that there exist defined groups that are looking for certain characteristics in their mates. The turban/beard places you in the group of turban wearers just as being a particular brand of Muslim or Hindu(according to your post).
"So in fact, those who are seeking clean shaven men are not from the turban wearing brand of Sikh religion."
Therefore, no matter how hard you "work" as you stated previously, you will most likely only be appealing to your particular group.
"So when turban brand sikh women seek turban brand sikh men, the turban is not a deal breaker, but it is a deal maker."
So if there are only 5 million turban seeking women, not having the turban should expand your pool of women to 15 million before accounting for other factors.
However, the turban is not to blame in this state of affairs. It is the pereceptions and ignorance that exists in the world that is to blame. You are too harsh on the man w/ the turban who gets rejected. Yes, it is possible that the turban is playing a role in rejection or some character flaw that you allude to. I agree that the turban should not be the scapegoat, but it must be recognized that the representation of the turban in our environment has not been ideal to say the least. The greater flaw is in our society that cannot look past appearance and religion.
Givelove,
Assuming that world population is 6 billion,
A musilim will say because of being muslim he is not attractive to 4 billion people of the world.
A Hindu will say he got rejected by 5 billion people for being a Hindu.
A sikh will say I got rejected by 5.99 billion people BECASUE OF MY TURBAN.
So Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs all cannot be attractive to large pool.
So according to you, it will be a good idea to convert to Hindu or Islam in order to attarct larger than 15 million pool.
But you forgot that within these larger pools there is no gurantee that you will be accepted by larger pool if you fall below average in other criteria of beauty/handsomeness.
So even after converting to other religion, you will fall in the situation of my two cousins if you are below average in other aspects. You will still remain unattractive to the large pool.
Taking off turban will not automatically make you attractive to large pool, YOU GOT TO BE 10/10 or above average IN OTHER ASPECTS ALSO
THEREFORE, I again assert TURBAN IS NOT BLAMEWORTHY, THE FLAWS LIE SOMEWHERE ELSE.
If you don't have flaws eslewhere, you will generally attaract/marry the best of the best in the pool you are related to (Hindu, Muslim etc).
If you don't have flaws eslewhere and you wear turban, you will generally attract/marry the best of best the best in 5 million pool.
In the end, the above mentioned muslim, hindu, and turbaned sikh will get the best of the best generally.
Assuming that The best of the best in each pool has equal qualitative beauty, you will not achieve more beautiful bride by converting to larger pool religion.
I conclude, Turban will have negligible effect in finding a beautiful wife if you are above average in other respects.
So the best way is to convert your other flaws, rather than coverting turban and religion because convertion will not achieve the purpose if you have flaws somewhere else.
we are definitely making progress. Now I just have to show you the effect of population size.
Consider this theoretical argument:
Let's say that a certain percentage of your given pool will find you attractive based on your relative degree of "hotness." Multiply this percentage by the size of your population and you will get the absolute number of women who find you attractive.
Now let's see how this is relevant for a sikh turban bearded man in America. Even if he is very attractive to Sikh women who want a man with a turban/beard, since the size of this female population is so small in the US, he is therefore attractive to a relatively small number of women.
Now take the example of your shaved cousin. Since there are a greater number of women who desire a man with cut hair, even if he appeals to a smaller percent of his population(even if he is uglier), since the size of this group is much larger, quantitatively, more women will be attracted to him. I am not talking about the quality of the partner one may find, I am talking about numbers as we have been doing all along...remember how you were saying that you can move yourself up into a category to be attractive to a large pool of women. Well, this seems to only be true if your group is also large.
We are at the crux of why Harry and other turban/bearded men find it difficult to meet girls who desire turban/beard...simply there are not many out there. So you have to search hard or get lucky and meet somebody open minded.
"Assuming that The best of the best in each pool has equal qualitative beauty, you will not achieve more beautiful bride by converting to larger pool religion."
I definitely agree w/ this. Assuming the within group model is correct, the quality of your partner should not differ even if you switch groups. However, the larger the group you are in, just based on probabilities, it should be easier to find your partner.
"A sikh will say I got rejected by 5.99 billion people BECASUE OF MY TURBAN."
This is partly why wearing the turban can be so traumatizing to Sikh men.
givelove,
There is a fundamental flaw in your statement/argument:
"However, the larger the group you are in, just based on probabilities, it should be easier to find your partnert".
MY FRIEND, The larger the group you are in, the larger competitors you have, so belonging to larger group will make no difference. The proportion of competitors will be same regardless of which group you are in.
Since your argument ignored the proportion of competitors and since it only focused on the number of available women, the argument is skewed towards the result you want to attain.
Therefore it will be as hard or as easy to find a woman in either group depending upon your own flaws. Turban has negligible effect, the flaw lies in other respects. CORRECT THOSE FLAWS AND YOUR WRINKLES WILL NOT MATTER MUCH TO THE LARGE POOL IN ANY GROUP JUST LIKE DONALD TRUMP'S WRINKLES DIDN'T MATTER TO ANY RACE OR GROUP.
My argument stands UNSHAKEN: turbaned man with 10/10 aspects will attract large pool no matter what race he is in. The statement is relevant in this context only, so don't implant this statement in other context as you errorneously did earlier.
"My argument stands UNSHAKEN: turbaned man with 10/10 aspects will attract large pool no matter what race he is in. The statement is relevant in this context only, so don't implant this statement in other context as you errorneously did earlier."
Your arguement is shaky b/c it needs many qualifiers. I have already discussed your above statement. Attraction is more complex that you make it out to be. A rating of 10/10 will depend on who is doing the judging. It will vary between person, culture, country, religion, etc. Who will decide whether a man is a 10/10? Will you use your criteria? The media's criteria? Islamic law?
Basically, for some women, a man with a turban/beard can never be a 10/10 no matter what he does. This is b/c of the large prejudice that exists against the turban/beard at the moment. However, over time this view can change through education and the postive portrayal of turban/bearded men in the media for example.
Furthermore, there is no evidence backing up you above statement. Mostly your opinion and hypothesis as you stated earlier.
You site examples of Tiger Woods, Donald Trump, implying that they have made themselves so attractive with their attributes that people are willing to look past their "flaws," such as Donald's "wrinkles." So I guess what your saying is that if a turban/bearded man is so successful and perfect in all other ways, only then will a large pool of people be willing to look past the "flaw" of the turban?
Though the overall competition in the larger groups may be more(more men and more women), the relative competition(competition in small group vs large group) should be similar. So the larger group still has the advantage of having more potential partners available. To some, having more potential partners is desirable.
My opinion is anchored in theoretical base, good premises, and valid reasoning from premises; A logically sound statement is a valid statement and therefore my opinion is valid; your opinion is anchored on invalid premises and therefore flawed reasonings.
Unless you correct those flaws, your argument is doomed.
I have given the flaws and would not repeat them again as you keep commiting errors again and again.
It was pleasure correcting your invalid thought processes. I benifited from this experience, thank you.
givelove said,
"So the larger group still has the advantage of having more potential partners available."
This statement errorneously assumes that large group has disproportionate number of women to men. e.g. being in a group of 1 billion people rather than 5 million people means more potential partners becasue in a group of 1 billion people there are 80% women and 20% men whereas in group of 5 million people there are only 20 % women and 80 % men, therefore being in a large group means more potential partners.
This assumption is wrong. If the premise is not ture, the conclusion is not flawed.
Secondly, the evidence you gave in support of your opinion that turban will completely undermine an otherwise handsome personality is from fictitious movies, whereas my evidence is from the real world, real people, real Trumps and Tiger Woods. My argument is by anaology: If Trump can be acceptable with his wrinkles , a young turbaned Sikh Trump can also be acceptable with his turban and poeple know from his fame that he is not a terrorist. As far common people, they are rejected in any group regardless of shaved or turban outlook becasue only 2 -15 % of the population is attaractive to the large population. This does not however means that common people don't get married eventually.
The variables I set for handsomeness are generally true, exceptions excepted. If you wanted to prove its untruthfulness then you should have come up with accpetable evidence, not fictitious movie facts.
If you wanted to prove your point, you should have come up with acceptable evidence, or accept the consequencies of your SERIOUSLY flawed argument which was either based on fictitious evidence or untrue assumptions , else invalid reasoning.
Lastly, Turban is not blamworthy, the flaw lies somewhere else. The effect of turban is negligible if one is 10/10 or closer in other respects. If you are not close, removing turban will not help your ugliness. Rather than removing trurban, you got to remove your ugly flaws, BECAUSE TURBAN IS NOT BLAMEWORTHY, THE FLAW DEFINATELY LIES SOMEWHERE ELSE.
(It was pleasure to have discussion with you. You have shown very good ettiquettes of debate. I had nothing against you, I have attacked/disputed your arguments only and not you as a person.
This discussion, which I started, is closed now as both sides had equal opportunity to pressent their sides.
I will look forward to have debate with you on some other topic. Thanks for your time, GOD BLESS YOU)
Yes, I think we have beaten this topic enough. However I feel compelled to correct your interpretation of the below statement.
"So the larger group still has the advantage of having more potential partners available."
"This statement errorneously assumes that large group has disproportionate number of women to men. e.g. being in a group of 1 billion people rather than 5 million people means more potential partners becasue in a group of 1 billion people there are 80% women and 20% men whereas in group of 5 million people there are only 20 % women and 80 % men, therefore being in a large group means more potential partners."
Let's assume that populations have a uniform distribution of men and women, 50% each. So in a population
of 1 billion, there will be about 1/2 billion women. Conversely, in the 5 million population, there will be 2.5 million women.
1/2 billion women is a larger number than 2.5 million women. That's what I mean when I say "So the larger group still has the advantage of having more potential partners available."
And by the way, I don't think Trump is as great as you think. I haven't seen any girls drewling over posters of the Donald. And I think Vijay Singh is way finer than Tiger.
peace out,
Trump has married 3 supermodels and he only picks supermodels. Can other even stand close to supermodels? Vijay is also a good golfer but that doesn't mean Tider Woods is not; the world has recognized him; if you don't then it will not change world recognition. And I never said Vijay is not a goog Golfer.
50/50 distribution means one man to one woman. For every woman in a large group there are 1/2 billion people after her. For every woman in a small group there are 2.5 million men after her. How does it increase your chances of getting more partners easily just by being in a lager group.
Not being in a larger group, but by being 10/10 or closer will increase your chances of getting the best of best; and the best of best in both groups has equal beauty. So being in either group will get you the best of best PROVIDED you don't have overcome ugliness critaria.
Okay See YoU again, on some other topic !
suno suno dunia ke logo..sabse bada hai mr gogo.
Post a Comment
<< Home