<p>I still maintain that a frameshift in units implies that some people don’t fall within the 1-10 scale. =)</p>
<p>None of us handsome he-mans are complaining about our weekly catches.</p>
<p>Also, in case you guys haven’t noticed, this is not a secluded campus. You also have the ghetto babes from oakland + richmond and the trendy babes from SF. There’s plenty to go around.</p>
<p>Having not visited College Confidential for quite some time, I was a little surprised to find that this thread was still alive and well. I hadn’t considered reading it before, but now, noticing both its longevity and popularity, I decided to read a few of the posts, some made as early as April, some more recent. I must say, this seemingly shallow topic has turned into a very interesting discussion. (Referring specifically to vicissitudes earlier query of what constitutes shallowness, and another poster’s use of syllogism to “prove” that looks-based discrimination is necessarily superficial. Blondeonblonde had some good ones too.)</p>
<p>I would say, Berkeley has ugly girls, like any other school, perhaps more of them. But really, who cares? If someone doesn’t want to take the time to look particularly attractive to the opposite sex, more power to them. Theoretically, that shouldn’t stop anyone from having an active sexual life. If ugliness is in any way genetic, the unattractive individuals’ very existence proves this.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that certain admissions standards ensure that the female student population of Berkeley is of a particularly high intellectual calibur, not exactly a demographic that buys into underlying conventions of “hotness,” such as slender physiques, characteristic submissiveness, and (possibly) faked stupidity*. I would hope that Berkeley males, faced with their own insecurities, also demonstrate such fortitude. In this way, the two respective halves of Berkeley’s student body are perfect for each other.</p>
<p>*Some wouldn’t quickly describe “hotness” the way I have described it. The point I’m trying to make here is this: most people, and particularly males, have a unified understanding of what is hot and what isn’t- an ideal, if you will. It often discriminates against diversity, and it usually has sexist (and sometimes racist) overtones. (Fat girls and tomboys almost never make the “hot” list. Sounds like white girls at Berkeley do not fare much better.) My theory is, most “Berkeley chicks” are intelligent enough not to conform to this standard.</p>
<p>I would hardly say that a concern about looks is superficial, save the extreme case of choosing a college based on no other factors. While the literal interpretation and connotation of the word “superficial” may suggest that being concerned with physical attractiveness is a negative quality, we sometimes forget there is a reason why some people look better to us than others. Our biological purpose in life, after all, is simply to have progeny. Since we can only have “relations” with relatively few individuals, a method of prioritizing and choosing the best possible mate(s) for the survival of the species has been hard-wired into our brains since the beginning of sentient life itself. To deny ourselves its existence and importance is to make us something less than human. Only when we get carried away by it do problems arise.</p>
<p>yet it is a contradiction to choose the “best possible mate(s) for the survival of the species” when all is based upon the outer skin. Not to mention, the inhumanity of a purpose solely focused on the idea of “selfish genes” furthermore based upon physicalities.</p>
<p>Nice try? It sounds nice.</p>
<p>I think it’s really cute that on the berkeley board half the boards (such as discussions about the “christian-ness” of westminster house and whether the girls at berkeley are hot) evolve into multi-page extensive arguments involving semantics and the such. :)</p>
<p>You know, I find it’s mostly girls and guys with not-so-good-looking girlfriends who don’t complain about the girls or defend them and it’s the single guys who complain about the girls…hmm I wonder why that is? :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, when one judges another by her appearance it’s not entired “based upon the outer skin.” For example, when I see someone who’s obviously overweight, her skin still looks pretty much the same. It’s all the fat underneath the skin that makes her unattractive. You might be turned off by her physical appearance, but there’s also a good chance that you’re turned off by the thought that she probably just eats and lies around all day, doing nothing. Someone who is healthy, active, and outgoing is inherently more attractive. So I think there is some validity to the argument that we pick “the most fit.” Why do many guys dislike the anorexic? They’re skinny, which is good, right? It’s because they are sickly skinny, to the point of looking diseased. Sure, some guys put a lot of weight on appearances, but it’s because appearances can tell you a lot more than what’s on the outside, from health to choice of lifestyle to fashion tastes and personality.</p>
<p>^^ some guys like the extra baggage on girls. =p</p>
<p>Are you referring to yourself? ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you implying that you’re hot?</p>
<p>vicissitudes: mmm, gotta love cottage cheese. =p</p>
<p>Hey, whatever floats your boat my friend.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>sorry to bump, but i read an article kind of contradicting that traditional wisdom. now the question is, do the girls at berkeley have fat organs?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18594089/[/url]”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18594089/</a></p>
<p>tropical triceps, I’m implying that I’m really looking forward to Berkeley.</p>
<p>so if this is how it is at berkeley, what about at the other top schools?</p>
<p>Girls in berkeley suck, unless ur into the whole christian thing, otherwise, forget about it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Haha, well, my post was pretty badly written, but the main point is that appearances can tell you a lot about a person. If you see a fat person, chances are she can be somewhat lazy/dull/enervated. If you see a fit person, chances are she’s more outgoing, has more energy, etc. Now, does she actually have fat organs that’s unhealthy? Ehh, maybe. Who knows. But we can’t really tell just by looking. So we make a reasonable conjecture.</p>
<p>What does organs have anything to do with how the girls are here??? I mean, there is a big mix of people in berkeley, especially the bay area and you will see a ton of people of all cultures and mixes, but I mean, if you got some superman vision and was wondering if someone had big organs, then I have no idea why???</p>
<p>Yeah, I think we’re getting way too technical here. Besides, Berkeley has lots of cute girls. I see them every day. Just don’t expect supermodels swarming the streets and you’ll be fine. Lower your expectations a little and you’ll be pleasantly surprised.</p>