I can't speak for Mike but I always take looks into consideration. To an extent, the gun you chose is an extension of your own character. There are just way to many guns that are functional and attractive to choose "functional and ugly."
When it came down to deciding which plastic nightmare to choose I went with the one that was not only one of the best at filling my needs, but also looked best to me. 
Fair enough. But...nightmare?
"As much as I hate to admit it, the gun that fit the bill and did not cost an arm and a leg was the Springfield XD-9.
It has a 17 shot capacity, is SA striker fired, has a passive grip and trigger safety, has the potential for a light or laser sight, and only cost me $450.
All these features combined was enough to make me swallow my pride and admit that a gun I would not usually give the time to was the best choice."
Your comments above just strike me as being really haughty and somewhat immature. You hate to admit it and you had to swallow your pride to own such a gun. But like it or not, many of the polymer guns out there are not merely good, but actually excellent weapons, often times more durable and reliable than the metal framed competition.
I can understand someone not liking the idea of a polymer framed weapon and not owning any of them because they prefer steel, aluminum, titanium or scandium, but to say you're ashamed of owning one and that you had to swallow your pride makes you appear shallow and insecure - like you have a need to impress others with the guns that you own. That may not be the situation in your case, but that's the impression given.
