Post: #1

This is Remy LaCroix. Not really my type at all. (although I think i've dated a few chicks like her).



This her hula hooping, and she went from 6.5 status to 9

Post: #2

This is a picture/gif post,

Share the wealth.

WIA

Post: #3

(09-29-2014 09:47 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  from 6.5

Here's my gif:

Post: #4

Was thinking the same. Tough standards I like it.

I'd give her a low 7 first photo. Only because the make up isn't good and her face looks a bit plain. 8+ for the GIF her make up and hair are both much better it is amazing what these can do for women yet it's maddening most are too ignorant to optimize their look.

There are so few legit 8s I see around though it gets tough to break them into half points. Then it just goes 8+, 9. The end.

Post: #5

A picture can't convey nubility as readily as a video can, let alone a sighting in the flesh.

Go to a college campus with an abundance of 19 year olds and you'll understand. Some of the girls are not hot "on paper," but their youthful appearance is intoxicating.

This girl has an incredible hourglass shape to her hips and waist - you just know she moves in a mesmerizing way from that photo alone.

Post: #6

She's hot in both. I'd rather spank her than rank her.

Post: #7

I think 99% of men will agree she is an 8 in the first picture. That's one big difference between men and women, we rate women about the same.

Post: #8

She's quite hot in both. I don't understand the need to posture about her being plain or average in the first photo. We have nothing to prove here.

Personally while the gif is indeed sexier overall, I find the long colored socks in the first picture to be more of a turn on than this hula hoop thingy.

Post: #9

Agree that she's a 6.5 in the first pic.

Not sure if this is irrational but girls always get +1 or +2 when they're blowing me. I really think "she's never looked so beautiful" and when I want to remember a girl I've banged looking her best, I always picture what she looked like with my cock in her mouth.

Post: #10

(09-29-2014 11:58 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  A picture can't convey nubility as readily as a video can, let alone a sighting in the flesh.

Go to a college campus with an abundance of 19 year olds and you'll understand. Some of the girls are not hot "on paper," but their youthful appearance is intoxicating.

This girl has an incredible hourglass shape to her hips and waist - you just know she moves in a mesmerizing way from that photo alone.

Anytime I go to a university campus / student area, I feel like a teenager again with raging hormones (combine it with a warm day and flesh on show and I feel like I'm on heat. There's just something about them, even if they aren't particularly beautiful. I'd much rather have an average 18 year old than a beautiful 30 year old. There's truly nothing else like it in the world for me.

Post: #11

The girl is anywhere between a low 6 and low 7.

Anything outside of that interval is pushing it. I would personally agree with the 6.5 assessment.

Post: #12

6.5, fuck off! Next she will be in the Would you hit it thread

Post: #13

Its not her looks that define her for me but her slutty look. She has the perfect slutface that would not make me feel bad if I cockslapped her hard and gave her red eye.

That and she has a nice butt.

Post: #14

(09-30-2014 04:42 AM)OnlyMarryInTajikistan Wrote:  The girl is anywhere between a low 6 and low 7.

Anything outside of that interval is pushing it. I would personally agree with the 6.5 assessment.

Agreed.

She has fat legs/hips and her face is wrong somehow. Maybe eyes too small/forehead too big? Her lips are definitely too thin…not very sexy.

Hair is thin and non existent breasts.

All these minor imperfections combine to lower her score.

Either way she's average at best.

Post: #15

(09-30-2014 03:27 AM)Wayout Wrote:  I think 99% of men will agree she is an 8 in the first picture. That's one big difference between men and women, we rate women about the same.

Not me, plain face, no thigh gap.

If she had a great face, full lips, bigger eyes, cheekbones-- and the soft thighs-OR- a killer willowy legs with thigh gap and very trim thighs-- I'd agree.

Very sweet and charming looking however.

Post: #16

(09-29-2014 11:58 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  A picture can't convey nubility as readily as a video can, let alone a sighting in the flesh.

Go to a college campus with an abundance of 19 year olds and you'll understand. Some of the girls are not hot "on paper," but their youthful appearance is intoxicating.

This girl has an incredible hourglass shape to her hips and waist - you just know she moves in a mesmerizing way from that photo alone.

I was going to write something similar, and not just concerning youth but femininity itself. It's really hard to tell how attractive a woman is in the flesh from just seeing a photo. It's really a poor indicator in a lot of ways - one simple one being personality through movement and expressions (the hula hoop video shows plenty of personality). And we haven't even got into voice and speech mannerisms yet.

There's far more to attraction than how a girl looks in a one-dimensional photo, or their looks "on paper" as you put it. Even on a completely visual level, breathing life into the girl does wonders (and not always in her favor either).

I often find it hard to take guys seriously when they go back and forth on a photo rating. Not only is it long proven to be a conversation that doesn't get anywhere, but put that girl in front of them and then see how they react. The difference between photographic images and real life is drastic. Anyone who has dated online should know that for themselves already.

Beyond All Seas

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Kipling

Post: #17

To put this thread back on track, I find the tooth gap can be pretty damn sexy

Post: #18

Broke busted bitches wearing dirty white sneakers.

Post: #19

ok, this:



it's the combination of the movement and the knowing smile

Post: #20

Post: #21

I find that a lot of guys can't "extrapolate" from a picture as good as others. Unless the picture is a total glamour shot, they can't make the leap from snap-shot to what she would look like in 3-D or in motion. This is very common in the Internet age, where we see so many pics of chicks online, that we've almost developed a different scale for pictures on your screen versus what that girl would look like in real life. WIA needed to see the girl hoola-hooping in order to recognize that she's hot. He couldn't make that conclusion based on a less-than-ideal picture where she's wearing some stupid, unflattering, non-matching lingering and is trying so hard to look sexy that she looks retarded. Even though her pose is not doing her any favors, you can see from her hips that she has a massive ass and she has a cute-ass, trouble-maker face.

You see a similar principle at play in the tendency of a lot of guys to overrate their own bangs, while low-balling others' catches. I have a friend like this. He's a great guy but, god love him, he rates all his chicks at "near-model level" while calling everything else a "6 at best."

I can extrapolate. If you show me a girl in a picture or, better yet, multiple pictures--even if it's/they're not the most flattering--I can make an accurate educated-guess as to how she actually looks. Perhaps this is why I've met several girls online who actually look a lot better than their profile pics, when the opposite is almost always the case (being SIF'd or having them look at least a half a point worse).

For guys who can't extrapolate. This is what Remy LaCroix looks like more dolled up and with a better photographer. Still 6.5?

   

Post: #22

(09-29-2014 09:47 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  This is Remy LaCroix. Not really my type at all. (although I think i've dated a few chicks like her).



This her hula hooping, and she went from 6.5 status to 9

A lotta nitpicking going on in this thread, maybe we are a little desensitized at this point

HOWEVER

Not a one here that wouldn't fuck this chick

©Future - I'm just being honest

Post: #23

(09-30-2014 09:52 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  Still 6.5?

Videos of her are available everywhere. She is undoubtedly between 6 and 7. The only people I expect to disagree are those who live in countries with mostly ugly women, so they are using a local scale, comparing to what they are used to seeing, and not a global scale. A Russian 7.5 in the UK would be rated by many as a 10, whereas in her own country she is average or even below average.

A 6.5 is still very bangable, it is hardly an insult. Tens of thousands of men still masturbate to her.

Post: #24

I thought she looked good in the first photo. Not fat. Nice skin. Big hips. I wouldn't complain. She has a dopey expression but so what. Only missing a rack.

Post: #25

Let's be honest here, I would fuck that little tart through the mattress. Then have her make me a sammich!