Looksmaxxing Forum Logo

Join 58,000+ 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.

Register Log in
  • 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

Register to hide this ad
shredded4summer said:
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
Click to expand...
so does that make you subhuman?
 
shredded4summer said:
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
Click to expand...
Bad logic n***a. Just because you define it that way doesn’t mean that's how it works
 
shredded4summer said:
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
Click to expand...
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (Looksmaxxers: 0, Guests: 1)
Back
Top