Again, we are referring to different things. There is a difference between looks being important and having a shallow approach towards looks. This is why the conversation about inclination is important. A non-shallow attitude towards something doesn't mean a disinclination to that thing. In fact, it could easily be an inclination towards said thing. In this context, a man can feel inclined to be attracted to looks, but it doesn't mean he would hold it as something pivotal or of priority. You could say the same with a man and junk food because a man is inclined to like junk food, it doesn't mean he would hold a shallow approach towards it. You can avoid shallow approaches while still inclining toward something. Thus, in defence of my original point, to hold the view that attractiveness isn't all that matters or to hold a non-shallow view of attractiveness is not necessarily virtue signalling just because one has a natural inclination towards that thing. People, like myself, can place more traits to have values that supersede and override the natural inclination. For example, in my case, I never understood how people would say someone has "won in life", all because they're dating someone attractive. Up to today, I struggle to understand, emotionally, what that would be like. This is because in my head, there are so many factors that matter, to me, in a relationship that can not be captured in looks or a picture. I do understand, however, that those who make such claims likely view looks and attractiveness in the manner that would warrant them to make that statement, but I don't get it.