[zozbot234]

> ... Are you that out of touch with how much most women in the USA are deeply ingrained with associating their natural beauty with their own worth? ...

Just because you don't want to phrase things like that to anyone does not mean they don't happen to people. What you said is just more evidence that our culture/"folk" worldview conflates physical attractiveness and general relationship-worthiness; you're taking this conflation at face value, just in a slightly different context, and saying that it's thus impossible to work on being more valued in the context of a relationship. (After all, how many people really want to date someone they don't find physically attractive? That's why she's bawling her eyes out - you've just said to her face that you wouldn't have wanted to date her in the first place!) Which doesn't make all that much sense now, does it?

(I'm not saying that your attitude is not common. It is both very common and quite dysfunctional. Including, of course, for the women who are drawn into putting so much reliance on their physical attractiveness, and so little on everything else that could make them more appealing and desirable. This is, by the way, a common complaint from feminist(!)-leaning folks - it's neither some sort of secret nor something that has ever marked anyone as "out of touch".)

> ... and no one should rely on that as a mechanism ...

It's not like you've proposed any alternative in this thread. You've even said that some non-trivial fraction of guys are basically seen as undateable, so even a fairly low chance of success would still be better than that.