Philosophy and logic is fun. That's what I'd think too.

Empirically this doesn't hold up. Empiricism is a better arbiter of truth (not perfect though). If you don't experiment, then when it comes to dating: thought experiments aren't worth much. It turns out, it's much more complicated than that, as always.

For example, there are aspirational lies. I put on my bio that I meditated for 2 hours per day. This caught the attention of some matches and it wasn't actually the case, it was more like 45 minutes. The thing was, I put it on there to motivate myself to meditate more as before it I only meditated 10 minutes per day. When matches would ask "do you really meditate 2 hours per day?!" I'd tell them the truth. They all thought it was a clever way of creating social accountability and thus wasn't perceived as an ill-intentioned lie. Yet, it did hook some to make a right swipe on my profile. I guess clickbait falls into the same category, meaning that if you somehow satisfyingly deliver on the clickbait then it's fine.

Example 2: my photos were taken meticulously (understatement). When I told them that, all I heard was "but that's what you look like." It took hundreds of pictures to get those ones and they rated the best when asking for tons of feedback. My real genuine photos got no matches, these tailor made photos do. Yep, they look natural, but they're not. And matches didn't care that they didn't look natural as the pictures were delivering its promise: they showed how I looked like in real life. I think many non-photogenic people look more attractive in real life. We mistake that what we see on camera is what someone looks like, it's not the case. A 2D image is not a good substitute for 3D non-still images.