Post: #51

(08-16-2011 08:41 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  Someone who gives her a 5 or 6 is in their own lala land and doesnt hold the basic standards of beauty which I outlined numerous times.

What makes you think you're entitled to outline the basic standards of beauty for the whole world? You probably dealt with less than 5% of the world's population (and I'm being very generous here), and know no more than ten cultures (again being very generous here). Yet you somehow write off everyone who doesn't agree with your subjective and ridiculous standards. This is just ignorant.

Post: #52

(08-17-2011 06:34 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(08-16-2011 08:35 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  I lost count how many times you mentioned your preference for rating women.....
We are already at a crossroads of disagreements there lol as like I already mentioned ones personal preference alone has no bearing on generally accepted universal beauty.

The whole point of this discussion was to prove that there is no such thing as "accepted universal beauty", and that you wrongly believe that the same things which are important for you are as important to anyone else.

Quote:You might like flat chested women, but most men will laugh at that notion and just write you off.

You have some bad tendency to project your thoughts at everyone else, and you're doing it again. How many men you have talked to out of ~3B Earth population? Get off your high horse, if you think something is good it is nothing but your personal opinion. Everything else is just your speculations.

Like I already pointed out and broke down the GENERAL ACCEPTED UNIVERSAL TRAITS of beauty. Nothing anyone can say will make me think otherwise. Everyone knows a fat bitch is ugly. I dont give a shit if some dumbass guy claims they are hot. Im gonna write him off point blank.

Now I didnt say EVERYONE ADHERES and LIKES these universal traits. Because clearly there are people that like the opposite of what most men generally find attractive.

The only real debate here is how far we can quantify and rate these attributes in women. Like Athlone said we can all agree to a certain point but after that its subjective. I think we can break it down further. He does not. But using that same logic you can say everything is subjective making nothing quantifiable.

This is a forum. We all have thoughts and opinions. We debate or discuss them. If someone doesnt agree with me Im not gonna lose any sleep over it. We are all different and will have varying opinions. Nothing new.

I will agree to this much though, different cultures have different universal traits of beauty. You go to africa and some cultures find women with huge gapping perciengs attractive, or go to parts of India I believe and they like the insanely stretched neck. The ones I outlined are for US and western cultures.

Post: #53

I gotta wonder if guys who argue over this stuff don't have Asperger's or some other social disorder.

Aesthetics are in large part subjective. I like thicker girls and darker girls. It'd take a really hot white chick for me to view as a 7. You can use your Asperger standards on facial symmetry and hip to waist ratio. I just don't care much for white girls.

LOL at even caring if some dork will "write me off" because of my unique preferences. OMG!

Most guys who fight over ratings are just worried about OTHER MEN. They want to be able to brag that they banged an "8" or whatever. I'm far more interested in banging chicks than impressing other dude's with the quality of my bangs.

Post: #54

(08-17-2011 06:50 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  Like I already pointed out and broke down the GENERAL ACCEPTED UNIVERSAL TRAITS of beauty. Nothing anyone can say will make me think otherwise. Everyone knows a fat bitch is ugly. I dont give a shit if some dumbass guy claims they are hot. Im gonna write him off point blank.

Are you an Objectivist/Ayn Rand follower? Because you sound pretty unhinged and outraged that other men don't share your aesthetic standards.

Post: #55

MikeCF

Thickness is a trait of attractiveness to many men. I mean unless your talking about fat thickness lol

Im not outraged or anything. I dont expect everyone to view things as I do. I said my piece like the other posters said theres.

Sometimes you just gotta agree to disagree. Nothing more nothing less.....

Post: #56

(08-17-2011 07:00 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  MikeCF

Thickness is a trait of attractiveness to many men. I mean unless your talking about fat thickness lol

See, that's the issue. I like BBW Brazilians. I also enjoy petite little yoga girls.

How does one rate them using the same scale?

You can't, which is why this stuff is amusing fodder but certainly nothing to bug out over.

Post: #57

(08-17-2011 07:03 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(08-17-2011 07:00 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  MikeCF

Thickness is a trait of attractiveness to many men. I mean unless your talking about fat thickness lol

See, that's the issue. I like BBW Brazilians. I also enjoy petite little yoga girls.

How does one rate them using the same scale?

You can't, which is why this stuff is amusing fodder but certainly nothing to bug out over.

the same way someone can rate kim kardashian and a runway model the same number. Two completely diff type women...

Post: #58

The attractiveness scale is a path towards misery. It's mostly only intellectual masturbation -- whether a female 10 is top 1%, .001%, or 0%. A hot chick is a hot chick. Most men aren't fucking them, be glad if you are. The chances of you consistently bagging near flawless girls are slim, so you'll pigeonhole the hot girls you are fucking as 7s or 8s and feel inadequate.

Hot is hot, pussy is pussy.

Post: #59

(08-18-2011 01:21 AM)mangadooza Wrote:  The attractiveness scale is a path towards misery. It's mostly only intellectual masturbation -- whether a female 10 is top 1%, .001%, or 0%. A hot chick is a hot chick. Most men aren't fucking them, be glad if you are. The chances of you consistently bagging near flawless girls are slim, so you'll pigeonhole the hot girls you are fucking as 7s or 8s and feel inadequate.

Hot is hot, pussy is pussy.

Truth.

Kim Kardashian doesn't much do it for me (she's a whore, her skin isn't that nice, she's too short, her shoulders are too broad and there's already significant cellulite forming on her knees, upper arms and lower ass), but I can't justifiably see any way she scores lower than a 7 (and can understand some people giving her the 8).

She's what, 32? Like it or not, put her in a room with 100 other 32-year-old American girls and she's hotter than 90 of them.

Post: #60

(08-18-2011 01:49 AM)Nonpareil Wrote:  She's what, 32? Like it or not, put her in a room with 100 other 32-year-old American girls and she's hotter than 90 of them.

That's a fairly low standard to match. Most Thai trannies would be hotter than an average 30yo American chick.

Post: #61

(08-17-2011 06:50 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  Like I already pointed out and broke down the GENERAL ACCEPTED UNIVERSAL TRAITS of beauty. Nothing anyone can say will make me think otherwise.

That's where your problem is - you fall into a typical fetishist trap thinking of your personal subjective preferences as "GENERAL ACCEPTED UNIVERSAL TRAITS of beauty". Not really different from this thread.

Post: #62

(08-18-2011 05:50 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(08-18-2011 01:49 AM)Nonpareil Wrote:  She's what, 32? Like it or not, put her in a room with 100 other 32-year-old American girls and she's hotter than 90 of them.

That's a fairly low standard to match. Most Thai trannies would be hotter than an average 30yo American chick.

Well of course; the average American 32 year old is what? A 3? But that's the metric by which she is measured.

A better question: Is the 10-point scale an absolute (as in worldwide) or relative (as in differing by region)?

I think it's both. My feelings on appeal by race have been made known, but then again I've done some traveling and try to keep up on things. A guy who never leaves his basement and doesn't do anything might call Kardashian a 10 for all we know; limited by experience.

Post: #63

(08-18-2011 05:56 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(08-17-2011 06:50 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  Like I already pointed out and broke down the GENERAL ACCEPTED UNIVERSAL TRAITS of beauty. Nothing anyone can say will make me think otherwise.

That's where your problem is - you fall into a typical fetishist trap thinking of your personal subjective preferences as "GENERAL ACCEPTED UNIVERSAL TRAITS of beauty". Not really different from this thread.

How is that when I personally dont like slender petite long legged women AKA the opposite of my PREFERENCE, but recognize it is an attractive trait.......?

Post: #64

(08-15-2011 01:24 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  My scale is a little different, but similar. In brief:

10: Perfection. A goddess floating through the world. Extremely rare. I've seen, in person, maybe two or three of them in the past five to seven years. One was in Israel, the other was at fit-model convention in Los Angeles, I almost got into a car accident trying to see the third one.

9: Extremely hot. Your day-to-day hot girl with nothing obviously wrong with her.

8: Extremely cute to certifiably hot.

7: Cute.

6: Almost Cute.

5: Fuckable. Slightly embarrassing to be seen with, but not humiliating.

4: Almost-to-barely fuckable. You'd hit it in a serious pinch, but it'd be seriously embarrassing to be seen with her in a way that implied you're hitting it.

3: Straight-up unattractive.

2: Fugly.

1: Repulsive/Sub-Human.

0: Cock.

I find this scale the most similar to my own, except that my 5 is probably closer to your 6/7. IMHO a 5 should be the absolute center of the scale, therefore if a 1 is sub-human and a 10 is a "goddess". A "5" should be an "average" chick and you shouldn't even be slightly embarrassed to be seen with her but you can't brag either.

If i'm even slightly embarrassed to be seen with her than she must be below average and therefore not a 5.

Post: #65

^^^

I agree. 5 is average. She doesnt draw any attention to herself. good or bad. so I dont see how she would be embarrassing just to be seen with her. Certainly nothing to brag about.

Post: #66

(08-18-2011 09:17 PM)Nonpareil Wrote:  A better question: Is the 10-point scale an absolute (as in worldwide) or relative (as in differing by region)?

I think it's both. My feelings on appeal by race have been made known, but then again I've done some traveling and try to keep up on things. A guy who never leaves his basement and doesn't do anything might call Kardashian a 10 for all we know; limited by experience.

Yes, it is both. In my opinion the ends of the scale are pretty much absolute (i.e. your personal definition of 10 or 1 doesn't really change through your life). However as you see more women, especially in the foreign countries, the middle of the scale is adjusted; for example before coming to US I'd rate the majority of Russian chicks as 5; now I'd rate them at 7.

However this doesn't even matter. If you read The Game, you know about the chick named Katya which turned Mystery into wreck, and caused some major damage among who some considered top pickup artists in the world. This looks like a pretty high bar to me, and I assume you'd also expect to see something spectacular. Well, here she is:



Don't know what your reaction is, but first time I've seen her picture mine was "what the HELL?" She looks like one of my drug user girlfriends back from my teens, who eventually died from overdose. Now I'm no way even close to the top PUAs, but at this moment I wouldn't fuck her unless she approached me and got me wasted. She's a classic 4 at my scale. However life is what it is. It is actually amazing how different our perceptions of feminine beauty are.

Post: #67

(08-18-2011 10:39 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  How is that when I personally dont like slender petite long legged women AKA the opposite of my PREFERENCE, but recognize it is an attractive trait.......?

This is just one of the attractive traits, which is mandatory for some men, important for others, and not relevant for the rest.

But I appreciate your thoughts, there is a big change from "trait X are mandatory for any 10 to have" (which is false) to "trait X is attractive to some, or even most men" (which is true).

Post: #68

(08-19-2011 04:58 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(08-18-2011 10:39 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  How is that when I personally dont like slender petite long legged women AKA the opposite of my PREFERENCE, but recognize it is an attractive trait.......?

This is just one of the attractive traits, which is mandatory for some men, important for others, and not relevant for the rest.

But I appreciate your thoughts, there is a big change from "trait X are mandatory for any 10 to have" (which is false) to "trait X is attractive to some, or even most men" (which is true).

I never said any of these traits are mandatory or relevant for every man. Obviously there is some / a small amount of men that just dont like what most men find attractive. AKA they like skinny girls, flat chested girls, obese hippos, chicks with faces that look like they been ran over by a simi, chicks with no ass, ect. Im talking amout the MANY traits that MOST men will find attractive. Nothing more, nothing less.

Post: #69

On Kingmaker Roosh often asks male callers how they rate themselves, and then advises them to engage women at least one point lower. How is that best evaluated? Does it generally refer just to appearance, or does it account for game or other factors?

Post: #70

I think most of us would struggle to place other males on a 0-10 scale, never mind ourselves. A fairly good indicator is the standard of female you attract. If most 7s find you fairly attractive, most 8s and above consider you below them and most 6s and below sigh for you, it's quite fair to assume you're a 7 yourself.

Post: #71

Sir, there is an error in your assessment, I reckon.

Girls who are sixes don't sigh for guys who are sevens.

Post: #72

OK, since we're getting technical, what point difference would make a woman sigh for you, according to you?