Post: #1

Quote:I’ve been posting pictures of different women on my Twitter with the question “Would you bang?” A few days after sharing a picture, I tallied up on the yes and no responses to calculate a rating on the 1-10 scale.

My methodology was simple: I took the number of yes answers and divided it by the number of total responses. I then added 0.5 points to every score because a lot of men on the internet act like they only bang supermodels (e.g. “2/10, pointy elbows”). We also have to account for the fact that many men confuse “Would you bang?” with “Would you put in a lot of work to bang?” The WYB metric only asks if you would fornicate without having to work for it. Let’s review the women from ugliest to hottest…

Article link: http://www.rooshv.com/11-real-ratings-of...ness-scale

Post: #2

This entire post appears really messed up from my mobile device, no photos just a bunch of links.

Post: #3

The RoK subforum is gone and now their appearing here in Everything Else. Maybe hes making changes to layout.

Post: #4

With all due respect...these ratings are completely ridiculous.

If the black girl is a 5, then I'm the Queen of England. She's a bit too made up for my tastes, but she's easily a 6 even on her worst day---no problems appearing in public with her.

The idea that the grannies in photos 5 & 7 are more attractive than the flat-stomached, curvaceous, young vixen in photo 4 is frankly delusional. Bish is built for doggystyle.

And I don't know a single man with options of any race in my large American city who would give the plain Jane in photo 9 an 8.4 rating. It's only possible to give this woman an 8+ if she's the first woman you have seen after a 12-month tour of duty in Afghanistan.

You could have gotten these ratings by having blind men pick random numbers and tossing them at the photos, to be honest.

Post: #5

I made changes to the RSS auto-poster. It went crazy and posted a lot of threads.

Post: #6

Thought I was losing my damn mind....

Post: #7

Yeah I would invent new positions to bang #2 in. I think 4 chan hit those ratings hard.

Post: #8

I mean it is personal preference. But I for one am very glad that other guys rate women like no2 a 5, because that means less competition for me.

Post: #9

#2 only got 5.0?

I wouldn't have any refractory period with that chick. Sweet Jesus.

WBAMAPMCBW
Would Bang And Marry And Produce Milk Chocolate Babies With

Post: #10

Somebody likes some thick-ass chicks. Dayum. Not my style at all.

Post: #11

Those rating are utter crap, are articles being ghost written?

Post: #12

Lot of dudes on Twitter apparently have a taste for some real plain ass, dumpy, vanilla looking chicks. I'll give my person ratings from 1-10:



7/10

I'm gonna catch some flak for this from all the puritans on the forum but lets look at the facts:

She's thin, long hair, big ole titties, curvy thighs, and tats and piercings give her some serious freaky slut factor that screams "I will eat your ass while I jerk you off." Basically got that porn start look. Would gladly bang every which way and take her on my arm to the fetish club/tattoo convention/Marilyn Manson concert. She's a little too fake/plastic looking especially in the face which keeps her out of the 8 category for me.



8/10

These thick thighs save lives for sure. She got that Jessica Rabbit hourglass curve. Titties, thighs, and ass for days with a sultry face (albeit airbrushed to hell). I bet fucking her would be like fucking a Dove chocolate bar. Would deposit untold amounts of loads into.



4/10

Disproportionate fobby looking Asian with a boring unnatractive face, and angle hides it but I bet she got a little gut too. I bet if I had an asian girl fetish I would be rating higher but realistically this girl is just boring and not very attractive. Would not bang.



5/10

If it weren't for the fact that she is shown here wearing next to nothing and likely sucking in her gut then she would really be a 4/10, but based on this picture I would indeed bang but would not care to tell the tale afterwards. Ugly hair really kills it for me, but her face looks decent and she's got decent curves to boot.



6/10

Plain looking older woman. Totally bangable and would not mind having her on my arm in public but certainly nothing to high five your buddies over. Looks like she would be unenthusiastic in bed.

http://www.rooshv.com/wp-content/uploads.../6.6-2.jpg

5/10

Thin, long nice looking hair, but very plain unattractive face and not many curves to speak of. Looks like she hasn't quite matured physically enough yet. Is this girl even 18?



5/10

If she had longer hair she might be a 6 but the middle-aged-mom-who-does-yoga look doesn't do it for me. That said, she got enormous fun bags and not a bad face. Would bang but would put zero effort into doing so.



5.5/10

Unattractive face/smile and looking like she got a flat ass. This is the kind of girl I would see at a bar/bus/sidewalk and never take a second look at. Very plain and pretty unremarkable. Would gladly bang if there was 100% zero effort on my part.



5/10

Decent face and long blonde hair, but has a bit of a dumpy body. Big titties look borderline not great. Like big tits are fun and all but these milkers are like Double-F's and she probably got bumpy pancake nips. Chubby but would bang in a pinch. Dog's got a harness she probably like to think of it as her "mental health companion" faux-service dog or some shit. Blegh



7/10

Pretty face, long beautiful hair, thin, got that "shy asian school girl" look. Wish I could see more body there but she looks good.



9/10

Hard 9. Sexy mixed girl with slutty little nip piercings. Would put babies in.

Post: #13

(05-31-2018 01:46 PM)DarianFrey Wrote:  #2 only got 5.0?

I wouldn't have any refractory period with that chick. Sweet Jesus.

WBAMAPMCBW
Would Bang And Marry And Produce Milk Chocolate Babies With

Dark and Milk Chocolate in this group do it for me, 2 & 11 WB with gusto.

Post: #14

I think this says more about the demographics of the followers than anything else.

Post: #15

(05-31-2018 02:27 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  

5/10

Decent face and long blonde hair, but has a bit of a dumpy body. Big titties look borderline not great. Like big tits are fun and all but these milkers are like Double-F's and she probably got bumpy pancake nips. Chubby but would bang in a pinch. Dog's got a harness she probably like to think of it as her "mental health companion" faux-service dog or some shit. Blegh

You got me in stitches here.

To be honest I'd happily bang away, but her arms and stomach betray a future fatty if she doesn't get ahold of her diet.

Mayne those torpedo tits, I'd make multiple deposits on 'em.

Post: #16

#2 would allow me to produce #11. Send me in, lads, and 18 years later you'll thank me.

Post: #17

Yeah, I don't know about these ratings.
Everyone has different tastes.

It just seems like people are rating white girls higher up the scale just because they are white.
They have the same body type as Asians or Black, but they get higher points.
It's a subconscious thing.

Post: #18

The caramel girl with the curly blonde hair is a solid 9. Makes the rest look like dirt. No.1 looks like a tranny. No.2 has a masculine head and the whites are all trash but that caramel mami... Ooooh wee she's fine.

Post: #19

Girl #2 is objectively better looking than every girl there on that list except for 11. If you think #2 is a 5, then please show me where a girl like #2 is fucking average and I will gladly quit working in Asia and return to banging strictly black girls who look that good. She has a perfect hourglass shape. No time in the gym can gift a girl with that. You're either born with it or without it. That's not fucking average. Also, she doesn't have a typical manly black girl face.

Anyway, I'm gonna let it go before I have a meltdown.

Post: #20

Would Impregnate#2 and make some more #11s for the forum. Thank me later.

Post: #21

(05-31-2018 02:27 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  

5.5/10

Unattractive face/smile and looking like she got a flat ass. This is the kind of girl I would see at a bar/bus/sidewalk and never take a second look at. Very plain and pretty unremarkable. Would gladly bang if there was 100% zero effort on my part.

All due respect, but I think your'e nuts The wholesome girl-next-door look is my bread and butter. Not into slutty looking women full of tattoos and wearing FMPs. Good to know most guys here see her as low SMV, because she's the only one here I'd bother to get to know in the real world. She would be a solid 8 in my opinion. I've never found wholesome girls to be boring in bed, in fact the fun part is bringing out their inner freak. Some of the most boring sex I've had was with slutty chicks, and vice versa. Put that girl in a thin sun dress and sandals, and I'd be all over that like white on rice.

The 9 sex machine with the pierced nipples at the bottom would be my "100% zero effort bang" but since there is no timeline where that would ever happen, no point in thinking about it.

Post: #22

^^^^^

An 8. What is special about that girl?

Absolutely nothing. That is basic, U.S. white chick. Which warrants the above rating. An 8 requires something special that separates her from the pack. Basic, U.S. white chick is a high school quarterback when an 8 is an all-pro.

Post: #23

I agree. Only #7 and #8 would I bother with.

#10 is probably an escort or something.

#1 will give you Hepatitis.

Post: #24

(05-31-2018 07:16 PM)Fortis Wrote:  Girl #2 is objectively better looking than every girl there on that list except for 11. If you think #2 is a 5, then please show me where a girl like #2 is fucking average and I will gladly quit working in Asia and return to banging strictly black girls who look that good. She has a perfect hourglass shape. No time in the gym can gift a girl with that. You're either born with it or without it. That's not fucking average. Also, she doesn't have a typical manly black girl face.

Anyway, I'm gonna let it go before I have a meltdown.

LOL.

Post: #25

(05-31-2018 07:45 PM)realologist Wrote:  ^^^^^

An 8. What is special about that girl?

Absolutely nothing. That is basic, U.S. white chick. Which warrants the above rating. An 8 requires something special that separates her from the pack. Basic, U.S. white chick is a high school quarterback when an 8 is an all-pro.

This an an average looking girl. IMO The woman I referred to is way above this girl:

If giving her an 8 is too much, then the 7.5 she got in Roosh's original post was probably dead on. 5.5 is just silly IMO. if you don't see the difference, and they all look the same to you, there is not point in trying to convince each other. The whole notion you can objectively rate women to a precise scale is sort of silly. Sure you can arrange them according to rough impressions, but that's about it. I think Roosh's post was actually pretty accurate in my eyes.