It is more important for a heterosexual woman to be sexy than a heterosexual man.

You have successfully met your BOP of this resolution 'Being sexy is important for both heterosexual men and heterosexual women." You have, however, completely failed to attack, any manner, the theory that "It is more important for a heterosexual woman to be sexy than a heterosexual man."The fact of men is this: Men compete to get women, it is apparent in all mammalian (especially primate) creatures. They compete via strength, via status, and (in humans) via financial security and the ability to flash off (yet still remain humble, arrogance isn't too hot). Men are all about competing with 'things' with 'what they've done' or 'what they've managed to earn' and the woman they end up with is similarly the 'woman they managed to get' and a large aspect of competing is how 'hot' she is. What evidence do I have? Well before World War two and the massive feminist uprising women were oppressed as hell. This is because men don't want to have to compete with them, it's because they wanted to keep them dependent on them and compete to get them, to own them so to say (financially). Men want to possess, they want to display not what they are, nor what they look like but rather what they look like AMONGST what they have earned (by any means necessary). Sure it's stereotypical but history has shown this nature o men all the time. Who were the greatest fighters? Men. Who were the nastiest criminals? Men. Who were the majority of inventors in this world? Men. Who were most philosophers? Men. Scientists? Men. Rappers? Men. Men, men, men again and again (a little rhyme for you). This is largely because their form and nature of competition was something difficult for the naturally SUBTLE and Hide and don't tell method of female competitiveness it's why women let men rule them for so long, they don't bother to compete physically, financially nor physically with men, this is rather unnecessary. Men ultimately compete with men (remember this resolution only applies to heterosexuals) women are only an obstacle perhaps in a working environment or in a domestic situation whereby she is able to keep your potential wife from marrying you.The fact of women is this: Women do not 'compete' they 'destroy competition'. Let me explain the massive difference between men and women and explain why women are often far more willing to share a man sexually than the reverse. I notice my opponent is male which makes it difficult to prove this without evidence, since it's pure theory based on probability but VERY STRONG and justified probability. I can't prove to you this is the nature of women unless you hear my reasoning without prejudice until the end. So women want to marry men who help them get what they want (or did before feminists protested, I'm not attacking them, I'm just saying the world was more raw and natural before them). See unlike men, who want a woman who they can feel proud of having 'earned' so to say, women want a man who makes them feel WORTHY of being earned in the first place. The very fact that the vagina is a hole/goal and the penis is an offensive weapon designed to dive into this hole is a very symbolic representation of the fundamental difference that women have to men. Women KNOW men want them badly, they know that mister Channing Tatum will be sexy as hell in bed and is rich and successful but ask a woman would you actually genuinely want sex with him? Many would scream NO WAY! He's too full of himself! He's interested in girls way above me! OMG! See, if you were to ask a guy if he genuinely would f*ck Cheryl Cole, many would say yes regardless of the fact they know she genuinely prefers men of great status and can get them, men just want to grab the hot one. Women's prioritising system is far, more complex than the man's (on average). They want a rich man, but would pick a poor sweetheart over a rich pr*ck any day(usually). They want a sweetheart but would pick a teasing cocky guy with a slightly sensitive streak than a sensitive, boring guy with a slightly arrogant streak (usually). Their system for choosing men is full of contradictions because that is exactly the issue. Women do not find men. Men find women. Yes I am sexist because it is so true. A woman's role in the species is to bear a child, ultimately, and to find a suitable mate to PROVIDE FOR HER while she does. While his duty is cut out for him PROVIDE PROVIDE PROVIDE! Hers is to convince him, by any means necessary that he should provide for HER and help HER GENES pass on as opposed to miss Lucy-Lou down the other end of the cave (excuse my caveman reference but I think it is very relevant). Ultimately if she isn't able to make him horny he wouldn't even want to have kids with her (he wouldn't be doing his probably ugly daughter any favours would he now?) As brutal as it sounds women do not compete instead they destroy the competitive streak in men by making them 'stunned' so to say. The only real way to do this is to be sexy as hell (unless she is intelligent enough to stun him in another way to make him look past her ugliness).I am a brutally honest rational madman. If what I say offends the norm's views of ethical discussion of the sexes then so be it. Please understand I am trying to find truth, to reach a conclusion, not to insult anyone but the only way to truly do so in this debate is to address a very hot and heated topic: Sexism.