Join 45,000+ Looksmaxxing Members!

Register a FREE account today to become a member. Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox.

  • DISCLAIMER: DO NOT ATTEMPT TREATMENT WITHOUT LICENCED MEDICAL CONSULTATION AND SUPERVISION

    This is a public discussion forum. The owners, staff, and users of this website ARE NOT engaged in rendering professional services to the individual reader. DO NOT use the content of this website as an alternative to personal examination and advice from licenced healthcare providers. DO NOT begin, delay, or discontinue treatments and/or exercises without licenced medical supervision. Learn more

Chad and Stacys dont exist

shredded4summer

Humble Chad
Reputable
Established ★★
Joined
Feb 15, 2025
Messages
8,902
Time Online
11h 51m
Reputation
14,797
Location
Nature
Guild
Primal Hunting
To me chad and stacy is a face with 0 flaws. it feels wrong rating a face chad that is not perfect. at most i would say high cl. show an example of a chad or stacy I will probably rate them cl
 
To me chad and stacy is a face with 0 flaws. it feels wrong rating a face chad that is not perfect. at most i would say high cl. show an example of a chad or stacy I will probably rate them cl
so does that make you subhuman?
 
To me chad and stacy is a face with 0 flaws. it feels wrong rating a face chad that is not perfect. at most i would say high cl. show an example of a chad or stacy I will probably rate them cl
Bad logic n***a. Just because you define it that way doesn’t mean that's how it works
 
To me chad and stacy is a face with 0 flaws. it feels wrong rating a face chad that is not perfect. at most i would say high cl. show an example of a chad or stacy I will probably rate them cl
every face will have its flaws. I see it like this: if someone is already high cl, and I can’t really find any flaws, why not just call them Chad, or vice versa?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top