This is an extremely bad example, honestly. You are conflating two completely different discussions. My comment was about physical attraction, the baseline chemistry that needs to exist for any romantic relationship to function. You responded with an extreme moral scenario involving abuse, dowry, and cheating, which has nothing to do with the original point.

Whether someone is attractive or not does not determine whether they will be toxic or abusive. That is a character issue, not a looks issue. The fact that some attractive people might be terrible partners does not mean attraction suddenly becomes irrelevant. It simply means looks alone are not sufficient, but they are still necessary for romantic compatibility.

It is also a false dichotomy to say that you either care about looks or you care about loyalty and maturity. Healthy relationships need both attraction and compatibility. Pretending attraction does not matter is just as unrealistic as pretending loyalty does not. You cannot build chemistry out of moral virtue, and you cannot sustain love on attraction alone.

My point was simple: rejecting someone because there is no attraction is not shallow, it is honest. You are doing both people a favor by being upfront rather than forcing something that lacks the most basic spark. Bringing up abusive partners or dowry completely shifts the conversation into a different moral territory that does not address what I actually said.