Post: #76

(01-07-2019 04:47 PM)firat113 Wrote:  If you guys ever want to know how ugly you are, without going on Tinder, post your scores below.

Why does this and the chart for women suggest that hygiene is "appallingly bad" if you're a 4 or below? Are ugly people also necessarily so retarded that they don't know how to use a shower? Or are they just assumed to be so depressed they have utterly given up on staying clean? And apparently for this chart even a 5 is also lacking money for soap and has sadly no comprehension of personal style.
If I had lost at the genetic lottery (going by that chart my face is probably a fairly satisfied "ruggedly handsome" 5 - body several points higher, particularly in my age range) I think I would at the very least try to do whatever I could to not make things worse. Like taking showers and using deodorant for a starter. Maybe buying some decent clothes and shoes.

Post: #77

(01-08-2019 01:14 PM)MikeS Wrote:  

(01-07-2019 04:47 PM)firat113 Wrote:  If you guys ever want to know how ugly you are, without going on Tinder, post your scores below.

Why does this and the chart for women suggest that hygiene is "appallingly bad" if you're a 4 or below? Are ugly people also necessarily so retarded that they don't know how to use a shower? Or are they just assumed to be so depressed they have utterly given up on staying clean? And apparently for this chart even a 5 is also lacking money for soap and has sadly no comprehension of personal style.
If I had lost at the genetic lottery (going by that chart my face is probably a fairly satisfied "ruggedly handsome" 5 - body several points higher, particularly in my age range) I think I would at the very least try to do whatever I could to not make things worse. Like taking showers and using deodorant for a starter. Maybe buying some decent clothes and shoes.

The chart for men was clearly created by a straight man. Several examples are obscure gamblers that no woman or gay man would know, defeating the entire purpose.

A good situation is when a girl is a 7 to most guys but has one or more exceptional features in areas you really care about because she could be as attractive or more attractive to you long term than a girl that is an 8 to most men but lacks in your areas of preference.

Post: #78

Since my previous post showcased white 6's, I thought I'd include a latina 6. What do you think?
       

Post: #79

(01-09-2019 12:07 AM)Aenema Wrote:  Since my previous post showcased white 6's, I thought I'd include a latina 6. What do you think?

I'd say 5.5 due to weight. 6 if she lost 15lbs.

Post: #80

this is cringe thread.

Post: #81

(01-08-2019 02:15 PM)jcardial Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 01:14 PM)MikeS Wrote:  

(01-07-2019 04:47 PM)firat113 Wrote:  If you guys ever want to know how ugly you are, without going on Tinder, post your scores below.

Why does this and the chart for women suggest that hygiene is "appallingly bad" if you're a 4 or below? Are ugly people also necessarily so retarded that they don't know how to use a shower? Or are they just assumed to be so depressed they have utterly given up on staying clean? And apparently for this chart even a 5 is also lacking money for soap and has sadly no comprehension of personal style.
If I had lost at the genetic lottery (going by that chart my face is probably a fairly satisfied "ruggedly handsome" 5 - body several points higher, particularly in my age range) I think I would at the very least try to do whatever I could to not make things worse. Like taking showers and using deodorant for a starter. Maybe buying some decent clothes and shoes.

The chart for men was clearly created by a straight man. Several examples are obscure gamblers that no woman or gay man would know, defeating the entire purpose.

A good situation is when a girl is a 7 to most guys but has one or more exceptional features in areas you really care about because she could be as attractive or more attractive to you long term than a girl that is an 8 to most men but lacks in your areas of preference.

It's such a nasty graph for several reasons:

At least 1/3rd of the below score 5 men are ethnic guys. Except for the meth head and the ginger the below score 5 "white guys" look a bit Jewish. So this definitely reinforces the white supremacy of sexual market value (even works abroad: try being white in the Philippines versus Middle Eastern?).

Most of the below 5s are late-30s and older (Howard Stern is pretty old).

Most of the above 5s are guys who seemed to stop aging after age 29 (because of money + photoshop + and sure some natural genetics) and white guys are really over-represented above score 8.

Post: #82

(01-09-2019 11:41 AM)BaatumMania Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 02:15 PM)jcardial Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 01:14 PM)MikeS Wrote:  

(01-07-2019 04:47 PM)firat113 Wrote:  If you guys ever want to know how ugly you are, without going on Tinder, post your scores below.

Why does this and the chart for women suggest that hygiene is "appallingly bad" if you're a 4 or below? Are ugly people also necessarily so retarded that they don't know how to use a shower? Or are they just assumed to be so depressed they have utterly given up on staying clean? And apparently for this chart even a 5 is also lacking money for soap and has sadly no comprehension of personal style.
If I had lost at the genetic lottery (going by that chart my face is probably a fairly satisfied "ruggedly handsome" 5 - body several points higher, particularly in my age range) I think I would at the very least try to do whatever I could to not make things worse. Like taking showers and using deodorant for a starter. Maybe buying some decent clothes and shoes.

The chart for men was clearly created by a straight man. Several examples are obscure gamblers that no woman or gay man would know, defeating the entire purpose.

A good situation is when a girl is a 7 to most guys but has one or more exceptional features in areas you really care about because she could be as attractive or more attractive to you long term than a girl that is an 8 to most men but lacks in your areas of preference.

It's such a nasty graph for several reasons:

At least 1/3rd of the below score 5 men are ethnic guys. Except for the meth head and the ginger the below score 5 "white guys" look a bit Jewish. So this definitely reinforces the white supremacy of sexual market value (even works abroad: try being white in the Philippines versus Middle Eastern?).

Most of the below 5s are late-30s and older (Howard Stern is pretty old).

Most of the above 5s are guys who seemed to stop aging after age 29 (because of money + photoshop + and sure some natural genetics) and white guys are really over-represented above score 8.

ok we get you don't like white men,

Post: #83

(01-09-2019 11:41 AM)BaatumMania Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 02:15 PM)jcardial Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 01:14 PM)MikeS Wrote:  

(01-07-2019 04:47 PM)firat113 Wrote:  If you guys ever want to know how ugly you are, without going on Tinder, post your scores below.

Why does this and the chart for women suggest that hygiene is "appallingly bad" if you're a 4 or below? Are ugly people also necessarily so retarded that they don't know how to use a shower? Or are they just assumed to be so depressed they have utterly given up on staying clean? And apparently for this chart even a 5 is also lacking money for soap and has sadly no comprehension of personal style.
If I had lost at the genetic lottery (going by that chart my face is probably a fairly satisfied "ruggedly handsome" 5 - body several points higher, particularly in my age range) I think I would at the very least try to do whatever I could to not make things worse. Like taking showers and using deodorant for a starter. Maybe buying some decent clothes and shoes.

The chart for men was clearly created by a straight man. Several examples are obscure gamblers that no woman or gay man would know, defeating the entire purpose.

A good situation is when a girl is a 7 to most guys but has one or more exceptional features in areas you really care about because she could be as attractive or more attractive to you long term than a girl that is an 8 to most men but lacks in your areas of preference.

It's such a nasty graph for several reasons:

At least 1/3rd of the below score 5 men are ethnic guys. Except for the meth head and the ginger the below score 5 "white guys" look a bit Jewish. So this definitely reinforces the white supremacy of sexual market value (even works abroad: try being white in the Philippines versus Middle Eastern?).

Most of the below 5s are late-30s and older (Howard Stern is pretty old).

Most of the above 5s are guys who seemed to stop aging after age 29 (because of money + photoshop + and sure some natural genetics) and white guys are really over-represented above score 8.

"White supremacy of sexual market value." I'm going to need this phrase explained to me, because on the face, it seems to be complete nonsense.

Post: #84

7/10: "cute" looking girl but not hot (that's 8/10). Decent-good body. Definitely bangable
6/10: 1 notch below lol. "Ok" looking, neither cute nor ugly. Sometimes kinda cute with some chubs. Not always bangable, depends on situation, how easy she makes it etc.

Post: #85

(01-06-2019 04:44 PM)corsega Wrote:  OK, let's turn this thread around with some objective considerations.

I've posted about this before, but I am in the process of creating a full spreadsheet with 1-10 ratings WITH body taken into account.

For questions like these, ratings can vary quite a bit by phenotype, so all races should be considered separately. Here are my 6s of each major phenotype:

Good lord man, you once told me it sounded like my standards were too lofty, but I'd happily give any of these "sixes" a shot without a nanosecond of hesitation.

None of them is even a little bit fat, which by itself, in 2019 America, puts their bodies comfortably within the top 20%. Even with plain faces they'd have to be considered 7's, which is where I'd peg the Asian. The blonde and the black chick have good faces too and could easily be called 8's. As for the first one, I can't get past the trashy vibe her b&w pic gives off, but she's definitely way above average in terms of raw attractiveness.

Most of the other alleged 6's posted in this thread I'd peg significantly higher as well. Either you guys are delusional or my locale is horrific.

Post: #86

Do you need to gain approval from other dudes in order to fuck girls?

Post: #87

There will be hell to pay if Tony G finds out Tom Dwan is considered more attractive than him.
What's with all the poker players in this thing? Patrick Antonius is there as well.

Post: #88

(01-13-2019 12:54 AM)Delta Wrote:  or my locale is horrific.

Jesus, if you're not seeing girls like this where you are located, it's definitely that.

These types of girls are a dime a dozen in San Francisco. Similar types like me first all the time but I generally swipe left.

If you were out here, you would be getting 20+ matches a week of girls of similar quality.

Post: #89

(01-06-2019 04:44 PM)corsega Wrote:  OK, let's turn this thread around with some objective considerations.

I've posted about this before, but I am in the process of creating a full spreadsheet with 1-10 ratings WITH body taken into account.

For questions like these, ratings can vary quite a bit by phenotype, so all races should be considered separately. Here are my 6s of each major phenotype:

You know, I actually can't pick fault with this, except to say the first one is an 8 for me personally. The rest? Would bang, but wouldn't make particular effort unless they showed exceptional personality.

Good Lord. Have I just become a big baller troll?

Good effort Corsega.

Post: #90

Corsega, thank you for putting the actual effort in finding/posting what you consider 6s. I agree with you on 3 out of 4 accounts, the blonde with red lipstick being a 7 in my book.

Bunch of guys here are off topic.

I will post my 6s and 7s later.

Post: #91

(01-14-2019 03:39 PM)Cation Wrote:  the blonde with red lipstick being a 7 in my book.

This is why no-makeup photos are essential. An ideal rating rubric would have a bunch of girls with no makeup on whatsoever.

Will never happen, though.

Post: #92

This thread is so lawl worthy.

First, the majority of 9s and 10s are just 8s who know how to use make up. Men getting fooled by make up game is standard course on this forum and it's a shame.

Will that 9 still look like a 9 after you romp her good and plenty and wake up next to her in the morning?
No of course not, she'll be an 8.

I've proposed this before and had all sorts of "reeing" because of it. Women should only be rated on a 1-8 scale. This does away with the nonsense you see in this thread where a guys 6 is clearly an 8. It also knocks down women on their make up game.

These half and half videos are terrifying.

Post: #93

(01-14-2019 01:15 PM)corsega Wrote:  

(01-13-2019 12:54 AM)Delta Wrote:  or my locale is horrific.

Jesus, if you're not seeing girls like this where you are located, it's definitely that.

These types of girls are a dime a dozen in San Francisco. Similar types like me first all the time but I generally swipe left.

If you were out here, you would be getting 20+ matches a week of girls of similar quality.

This may be because you inadvertently posted my "type" (in-shape, smiling, not trashy looking) with the latter 3, but these are all easily top 10% of girls I see online, and as far as in-person, unless I go out night gaming, I'll go months on end without coming across a new girl anywhere near this attractive.

Online, a right swipe on any girl that looks like these is a 1 in a thousand Hail Mary for me. I'll match with them every now and then, but getting one that seems remotely interested in meeting happens about once every couple months... and that's combining every app I use (i.e. all the popular ones). If I was just using Bumble let's say, I'd be lucky to meet 2 girls per year of this caliber. And, I'll reiterate what corsega already knows for everyone else- I'm in very good shape, my photos do really well on Photofeeler, and I have a lucrative career.

So this is why it's mind-blowing for me to see people claim these girls are 6's and easily attainable for someone who's got his shit together. I knew my locale wasn't the greatest, but geez, I never imagined it was orders of magnitude worse than SF.

Post: #94

(01-13-2019 04:19 PM)pirate Wrote:  There will be hell to pay if Tony G finds out Tom Dwan is considered more attractive than him.
What's with all the poker players in this thing? Patrick Antonius is there as well.

Scott Seiver would make a great 4 imo, don't know why they didn't include him

Post: #95

(01-14-2019 04:52 PM)corsega Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 03:39 PM)Cation Wrote:  the blonde with red lipstick being a 7 in my book.

This is why no-makeup photos are essential. An ideal rating rubric would have a bunch of girls with no makeup on whatsoever.

Will never happen, though.

If someone were to put in the time an effort, they could take screen caps from these youtube makeup videos of all the girls without makeup and create a more realistic chart based on facial features only.

Post: #96

(01-15-2019 11:03 AM)Aenema Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 04:52 PM)corsega Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 03:39 PM)Cation Wrote:  the blonde with red lipstick being a 7 in my book.

This is why no-makeup photos are essential. An ideal rating rubric would have a bunch of girls with no makeup on whatsoever.

Will never happen, though.

If someone were to put in the time an effort, they could take screen caps from these youtube makeup videos of all the girls without makeup and create a more realistic chart based on facial features only.

Or take 15 seconds to watch the video I post. You'll see the truth.

Most women are 6s and 7s. 8s without makeup are true 8s.

9s and 10s don't exist, without makeup.

Post: #97

As for the make up thing...I can only judge what I see. As simple as that.

Post: #98

Here's a few photos of 6's.

WB all gladly.

Post: #99

(01-14-2019 07:44 PM)Delta Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 01:15 PM)corsega Wrote:  

(01-13-2019 12:54 AM)Delta Wrote:  or my locale is horrific.

Jesus, if you're not seeing girls like this where you are located, it's definitely that.

These types of girls are a dime a dozen in San Francisco. Similar types like me first all the time but I generally swipe left.

If you were out here, you would be getting 20+ matches a week of girls of similar quality.

This may be because you inadvertently posted my "type" (in-shape, smiling, not trashy looking) with the latter 3, but these are all easily top 10% of girls I see online, and as far as in-person, unless I go out night gaming, I'll go months on end without coming across a new girl anywhere near this attractive.

Online, a right swipe on any girl that looks like these is a 1 in a thousand Hail Mary for me. I'll match with them every now and then, but getting one that seems remotely interested in meeting happens about once every couple months... and that's combining every app I use (i.e. all the popular ones). If I was just using Bumble let's say, I'd be lucky to meet 2 girls per year of this caliber. And, I'll reiterate what corsega already knows for everyone else- I'm in very good shape, my photos do really well on Photofeeler, and I have a lucrative career.

So this is why it's mind-blowing for me to see people claim these girls are 6's and easily attainable for someone who's got his shit together. I knew my locale wasn't the greatest, but geez, I never imagined it was orders of magnitude worse than SF.

You need to move to a big city. You would be getting these types of girls easily.

Culture varies a lot between suburban/rural/urbanized areas in the US.

I personally prefer the more suburban/rural archetypes (more focus on maximizing looks, femininity, taking care of themselves) vs. the city archetype (focus on career, intelligence, social issues).

Post: #100

(01-07-2019 04:47 PM)firat113 Wrote:  If you guys ever want to know how ugly you are, without going on Tinder, post your scores below.

no way in hell king of all blacks is a 5. He's a complete fatass but he isn't ugly or goofy looking