This girl (pic related), the most beautiful woman I have met. Similar interest to those of mine...

This girl (pic related), the most beautiful woman I have met. Similar interest to those of mine. She is awesome and original. Problem, she is 9/10, (10/10 when you look at her body) and I am 3/10. Is there any hope?

Attached: 346600BD-E9CA-4EA7-A4EA-9A698CD7D8DE_854.jpg (854x1280, 169K)

No. You don't get a top tier girl and offer nothing in return.

Improve yourself, then come back with the same question

Unless you're rich and accomplished, nope. Even still there are better looking men who are rich and accomplished. That's life. Good looking women are inherently worth a shit ton more and don't really have to do shit.

>Is there any hope?
Donald trump looks like a 4-dimensional mushroom from another galaxy and he still managed to bang a 11/10.

So yeah. There's hope.

Jow Forums tier logic. Lookism is for brainlets.

This. OP I know plenty of 8/10 9/10 10/10 girls who date total uggos because they have social status, humor or charm. Female sexuality does not revolve around looks. You have more of a chance of attracting a beautiful woman being an ugly guy with buckets of charm than you do being a handsome guy with autism, for instance.

I mean physically when I say 3/10, I am not referring to my personality or personal traits. If I can offer any of that except looks, is there a chance?

Donald Trump is a billionaire and the president of the United States. OP is probably a NEET or something not much better.

You think that might make a difference?

Yes, but what effort do you put into your physical looks at all?

Ignorant incels pretend these women do nothing, but they're the ones buying expensive skin care regimens, doing meme cardio at gyms, getting the best shampoos conditioner and haircuts, and eating little to no junk food

If you have a great personality but wear the costco new balances your mom bought for you 3 years ago, a cheap hoody, greasy unwashed skin, and overgrown hair, she will see you as someone who doesn't have any self value and will deem your personality incompatible with hers

Did you not read what I said? If he's not good looking he better offer something substantial. Money is most important, confidence/charm is close behind. You think women wouldn't choose a better looking guy who had similar charm/cash? This thought that women aren't visual beings is such stupid horseshit.

>You don't get a top tier girl and offer nothing in return.
Having similar interests/things in common typically does that.

Please read

This
Anyone can have things in common, and only underagers think that romantic compatibility is based off of mutual interests.

>and only underagers think that romantic compatibility is based off of mutual interests
Romantic compatibility is solely chemistry and mutual interests. Only underagers think looks are the main factor.

No, you can have 0 hobbies in common and still be a great match

It isn't about mutual interest, it's about how well your temperaments balance out, shared ethics, moral values, how well you communicate, "love language", and willingness to compromise.

As long as there are cauldrons there is hope.

>No, you can have 0 hobbies in common and still be a great match
That only happens in the movies.
>It isn't about mutual interest
It's about chemistry and validating each other. Much of which is derived from mutual interests.
>it's about how well your temperaments balance out, shared ethics, moral values, how well you communicate, "love language", and willingness to compromise.
Those are things in common.

You'll never get a girl like that because you only want her for her looks and she knows that. All pretty girls do.

That doesn't happen in movies, i've been happily married for years and we started out with 0 common hobbies

Those aren't "things in common" either. It's "things that work together". My wife plans ahead, i focus on short term, together we balance each other out. I am calm and don't care about a lot, my wife has anxiety and cares about everything. We don't have these things in common, we work together.

>i've been happily married for years and we started out with 0 common hobbies
People who just met normally don't have hobbies together.

>It's "things that work together"
Which are things in common.

>My wife plans ahead, i focus on short term, together we balance each other out. I am calm and don't care about a lot, my wife has anxiety and cares about everything.
Anecdotal bias.

>We don't have these things in common, we work together.
But you definitely have a lot of other things in common. Otherwise, your relationship would be nonexistent, or more akin to those traditional marriages you see in religions -- where one of the partners have virtually no say in the matter (or it's a domestically abusive marriage).

We had 0 hobbies in common nearly the entire time. The thing that brought us closer was teaching each other new things

It's really obvious you're inexperienced. Having opposite personalities is literally the OPPOSITE of having things in common.

I'm prepared for your next post being a larp about your extensive experience with women.

>We had 0 hobbies in common nearly the entire time.
Then your relationship would not exist. Or one of you is trapped by the other, and I don't think it's the man.

>The thing that brought us closer was teaching each other new things
The irony.

>Having opposite personalities is literally the OPPOSITE of having things in common.
Opposites don't attract. That's been repeatedly proven.

Trump wanted to be a NEET, too. But he wanted to bang an 11/10 chick.

Sometimes you can't have everything you want in life. You have to settle for one, even if it means becoming the president just to bang a hot girl.

The guy asked if there's hope for him. There is.

What does that mean?

It means don't give up trying before you've exhausted every possible resource.

I don't think anyone has ever described him in a more sympathetic light than this.

You seem autistic, friendo.

Having complementary personalities means having traits that, whether different or similar, function well when put together with those of your counterpart. Different doesn't necessarily mean opposite.

Having complementary traits that work together IS having things in common.

>Different doesn't necessarily mean opposite.
By that logic, gigantic doesn't necessarily mean large.

>9/10
your taste is 3/10

Gigantic means large, but large doesn't mean gigantic.

This is basic relational logic, user. This is literally what they test when checking for autism.

That's still pedantry and logic chopping (a fallacy mind you) and utterly wrong. Not to mention
>Gigantic means large, but large doesn't mean gigantic.
is deductive failure.

what? yes it does. large and gigantic are essentially the same word. unless you're basing the difference off of embellishment and subtleties. but that's just nitpicking details that are so trivial you can't even call them different.

Attached: samus-confused.png (358x372, 219K)

The implication was opposite means different, but different doesn't mean opposite.

Complementary items can be similar, but they can also be different. The key idea in a complement is that the two pieces fit together: this can be possible via reflection, but is also possible via jigsaw-like completion.

Except under relational logic large does mean gigantic. You're probably thinking of prepositional logic.

Attached: 1271831900760.jpg (674x707, 221K)

>The implication was opposite means different, but different doesn't mean opposite.
Pedantry and logic chopping.

>Complementary items can be similar, but they can also be different.
Binary opposition.

>The key idea in a complement is that the two pieces fit together
Which means said pieces are commonalities in that respect.

>this can be possible via reflection, but is also possible via jigsaw-like completion
Those are still examples of commonalities.

If I'm the set of all odd integers and my partner is the set of all even integers, together we make the set of all real numbers. This makes us complementary while literally having no elements in common.

All integers* not real numbers, dammit. Changed the premise but forgot to change the conclusion.

>If I'm the set of all odd integers and my partner is the set of all even integers, together we make the set of all real numbers.
False analogy. And quite the opposite of your relationship; given the details provided thus far.

>This makes us complementary while literally having no elements in common.
You guys wouldn't have any interest in each to begin with if that were true.

The point is that two parts which are fundamentally different but complementary do not have to be opposite (which, admittedly, odds and evens aren't a great analogy for since a lot of people probably think of them as opposite). Better comparison might be something like [1,2,4,7] and [3,5,6,8,9,10] comprising the integers 1-10 collectively - not opposite, not similar, but complementary.

Different analogy: peanut butter and chocolate, or sweet and salty. Different but not opposites and work together well.

You seem autistic. You know people and relationships cannot be compared to objects, right? That's a big fallacy. Also, does chocolate teach peanut butter to be more sweet?

> You wouldn't have gotten together if you weren't similar

> Having improved the weaknesses of your counterpart with your own strengths makes you similar

>The point is that
... that whatever point you try to make is easily diminished by faulty comparisons.

>two parts which are fundamentally different but complementary do not have to be opposite (which, admittedly, odds and evens aren't a great analogy for since a lot of people probably think of them as opposite). Better comparison might be something like [1,2,4,7] and [3,5,6,8,9,10] comprising the integers 1-10 collectively - not opposite, not similar, but complementary.
At this point, it's tangentialising off into a completely different topic, and growing dangerously nonsequitur.

>peanut butter and chocolate, or sweet and salty. Different but not opposites and work together well.
Two objects that easily mix and contradict whatever opposition they have to each other.

You're basically saying that these different yet complementary items stop being different because they are complementary.

>Having improved the weaknesses of your counterpart with your own strengths makes you similar
... not him, but it sort of does, and indicates you guys are enough alike each other to be able to pull this off. people who are truly opposite can't be in the same room with each other.

Attached: confusion.jpg (852x480, 22K)

Or that they weren't intrinsically different to begin with, genius.

Attached: consider-the-following.png (600x600, 240K)

Certainly the case here in chemistry.

OP never said he and his were opposite, he said they were different - which they were, based upon his description - and became more similar through engagement with one-another. I'm not debating this point.

The other user took different to mean opposite and said this doesn't work because opposites don't attract. My point is that being different doesn't make you opposites.

>My point is that being different doesn't make you opposites.
except in the context of this thread, or rather what it devolved into, it kind of does. particularly in the context of relationships, even platonic, where any semblance of differences usually prevent them from functioning, and become about as good as being opposites.

Asking if you have a chance means no. Insecurity is gay.

A bad dragon dildo and a realistic dildo are both still dildos