Well if she loved me back, I'd choose the fake one. She's still real, she just has some plastic parts. And that means the list would also include eye candy. ;)

Fake chick, definitely. I'm not really into fake boobs, but if it's a packaged set, I'd much rather have fake boobs than an ugly chick.

I'll take fake...., unless they know how to really work it, then I may reconsider. ;)

Hmmm...would I rather go out with Joan Rivers or the lady from Britain's got talent...That's a tough one right there. I'd have to go with the Joan Rivers type. It's not an easy decision though, I guess it would really depend on the situation.

how can you be fake??? arent most girls already ugly so they say other girls are fake? face term being- Beauty? well idk

I wouldn't date that person in either situation, but I like genuine people more than I like fake ones... so obviously that would put ugly people before fake people.

I can appreciate genuine people more because it seems like people who don't fake things are rare and have to fight hard to not become fake. It also shows me that they don't place serious value on societal expectations, or that they don't do something just because someone else does it (or a lot of people do it). It's harder to put off a million people's actions as being fruitless than to carry on...

It's also important to adapt though. Say, you have an ugly person without a sense of passion or style vs an ugly person who is authentic and has a sense of style... the one with style or passion is better... but that's more of a "ugly on the inside" issue that matters a lot more to me than most people (or it would seem).

I would say ugly beacuse having fake stuff are sometimes ugly. And no one is truely ugly if you look at them and get to know them

It takes a lot of time and energy to create and maintain a "beautiful" fake appearance, and it usually shows in personal development.

A stereotypical "fake" woman allocates a lot of resources on: regular hair/nail appointments, working out, tanning, plastic surgery and recovery, buying clothes, etc. This is in addition to an intense daily ritual of remaking herself with cosmetics. The same applies to men, albeit to a somewhat lesser extent in many cases.

The amount of time spent on these activities leaves less for the things that make people interesting and unique such as hobbies or intellectual pursuits.

Also, most people who place priority on their appearance seem to rely heavily on it when dealing with others. If they're already attractive ("fake" in this case), it's easier to make friends and get dates, whereas those who are deemed conventionally unattractive often develop other skills that help them to relate to people. Thus the "ugly" ones are the funniest, or the smartest, or the most talented in some respect compared to their fake counterparts.

Of course there are exceptions, but conventionally unattractive people are generally much more interesting and have better-developed personalities than fake ones. I'd go for "ugly".

How ugly is ugly? I wouldn't date either one given the options.

If I think a woman is ugly, than I clearly do not love her. If a woman needs to be fake on the outside, then her image means more to her than anything else. Therefore, she can be fake in other ways(i.e love)

I feel this question creates a false dichotomy (that "fake" does not imply horrendously ugly).

I consider anyone that gets plastic surgery, a boob job and a fake tan to have irreconcilable character defects - selfishness, low self-esteem, being superficial, etc.

In addition, the number of people I would classify as "ugly" are exceedingly low.

Fake is ugly, usually. But ugly is also ugly, ...so neither.

My point is: If they are the "love of my life" I'm going to be attracted to them.

And there is a difference between fake and worked on.