Post: #126

Personally, I use the fish scale. Hotties in the ocean, uglies in the river.

For example, a barracuda is a skinny, bitchy hot girl. A flounder in a thicker, but stil pretty chick. A salmon can go between the ocean and river.

In the river side, a trout is towards the top. The ugliest fast chick is an african lungfish.

I'll have to put up a diagram.

The unicorn is at the top, despite not being a fish. It's a rare, mythical creature that spooks easily. A unicorn sighting must be verified by two people.

Post: #127

Tuth maybe we should ask non RVF guys to score the entire current Dallas Cowboys cheerleader roster, then ask RVF guys to score the same roster to see if there is in fact a bunch of bigballerism around here or if the same issues exist regardless of the group of guys.

It may not answer anything but we could at least get closer.

Post: #128

(11-26-2014 01:53 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  When the last time you saw a Hollywood film and thought - "I really want to fuck that woman!" - in the sense that she's hot and sexy? For me, after Megan Fox in the first Transformers movie, there was a wait of a few years until Margot Robbie from Wolf of Wall Street turned up.

We are on the exact same page man. I started developing this theory a few years ago...maybe 5-6 years ago, when there was this huge agenda to push Jennifer Aniston down our throats as the most beautiful woman ever. Girls in my social circle would avidly talk about her with some sort of goddess admiration, due entirely to her tabloid presence and association with Brad Pitt.

Hollywood puts these women in their late 30s to late 40s on a pedestal because they need someone to market that American spinsters can relate to. Any woman under the age of 30 or with any exotic sex appeal would instantly be torn down and labelled a trashy whore, which is ironic consider how many dicks the average 30-something has had inside of her.

Jennifer Aniston, Gwyneth Paltrow, Lucy Liu...they're all in the same category for me. Highly bangable milfs. And for anyone that wants to bring up the argument of, "Well, when they were in their heyday it was a different story..." this is Jennifer Aniston in her early 20s:



Cute as a goddamn button for sure, and an enthusiastic WB from me. But about as girl-next-door as they come, with zero exotic sex appeal.

Post: #129

The 1-to-10 scale is the right scale.

Anything more fine grained is too fussy; anything less fine grained is too sparse. The 10 scale has the right mouthfeel; you declare a girl to be a 7, and it feels right to say it, know it, and write it.

You can't rate bitches on some superfine 100 point scale like you rate wines. You're looking at legs, tits, and ass, not a "hint of peach"; the scale has to have speed and dispatch and a certain cutting vulgarity. There will be time to judge wines with affected minute precision when all that pussy stuff no longer matters, which is I guess between the ages of 30 and 95 for the average intelligent white dude, LOL.

But you can't go coarser than 10 either. Binary scales or wannabe-down-to-earth yes/no/maybe scales are just not expressive enough. The shades of difference between a pallid and plain freckled Zanesville high school 6 -- 6 by virtue of being on her 18th birthday and worth nailing just because; and a UVA 20 year old shortie brunette 7 who has a hot ass and nothing wrong with her -- those shades make all the difference in the world. A man cannot walk the streets without the intuitive yet expressive 1-10 scale at his disposal to swiftly judge the pussy that presents itself to him.

A rating of pussy is like a sentencing, in a legal sense; each and every slut is on trial and you are the judge, jury and executioner. You sentence her to be a 7, and that is what she is; the sentence can later be commuted to a 7.5 under extraordinary circumstances (a new pair of fake tits which make an already fine mixed race MILF superb in her pornographic sleaze) -- but in most cases, the initial sentence stands. The fact that different jurisdictions use different sentencing guidelines does not detract from the usefulness of the full range of sentences that are available. You cannot run your court if the only possibilities are life or death, and you cannot run it if there are 100 different meaningless ways to sentence the bitch.

You use the 10 scale and you run a just and expeditious court and are content at the end of the day that all the greatly useful 6s, 7s and the occasional 8 have been judged and sorted out each to her own place under the sun. You rest your gavel then and call it a day.

Post: #130

Just curious, but who invented the scale? Was it Mystery? Or were people rating bitches as soon as they could count?

Post: #131

It works in the sense that it allows guys to quantify things when talking about women.

It's pointless when choosing a mate. If someone says "well, she's not quite an 8, more like a 7.6", then he has problems. Either WB or WNB.

Post: #132

(11-26-2014 05:42 PM)Pride male Wrote:  Just curious, but who invented the scale? Was it Mystery?

Post: #133

^ CRR I have problems.

@Pride_male yeah Mystery created it, little known fact I'm surpised you knew.

Post: #134

Don't we want men to rate women differently from one another?

If I meet a girl who is a ten to me, but everyone else thinks she is a six, then I only have the competition I'd normally have for a six. It's easier for me to get my personal ten.

Unless part of the fun for is showing off the hot girl you got to everyone else and having them say. "wow, she's a ten. Congrats dude."

It seems like the scale has much more to do with bragging rights than personal happiness.

Post: #135

The main point of the scale for me is that it pinpoints where woman is in the social pecking order. It's not about how hot I personally find a woman.

A 7 is attractive but nothing special. She gets hit on the most because guys aren't so intimidated by her. She is about one in five of women.

An 8 is at the top of most small or local groups, and can make her living with her looks e.g. flight attendant, drinks girl, small-time model. She is often "hot" (sexy) rather than beautiful. She is about one in 20 or one in 30 girls.

A 9 is at the top of the whole society. She is often beautiful rather than hot, but can be "super hot". She is one in 500 or one in 1000.

All of these have very different mentalities.

I've never banged a true nine but I have found that 8s do not give me better sex or an overall better experience than 7s or even some of the 6s.

Post: #136

An observation on the 1-10 scale:

I have never seen a guy rate a woman below a six.

As far as I can tell the ratings go 10/unicorn, 9, 8, 7, 6, who cares.

No man will ever rate his lay as anything less than a six.

The vast majority of women - especially in America - are a six or below. You just don't notice because unattractive women don't register on our radar as sexual possibilities.

I seems like if we want a better rating system, we just need to worry about the space between 9 and 6, because anything less than that is a no man's land where if sex happens, no one shall ever speak of it in public.

Post: #137

Maybe a 100 pieces of actual live ass is in order to get a taste. Then you can rate.

Post: #138

Another problem with the 1-10 scale is that the same girl will move downward after you've railed her a lot. For example, the first time you set sight on a pretty girl you'd give her a solid 8, but after fucking for a while you see her as a 7. So is she an 8 or a 7?

Like mechanico, I've been using a sort of 4-point scale:

1. WNB - would not bang under any circumstance. 1-6

2. WB - would bang if it required very little effort. ~6-7

3. WD (would date) - would take her out on 3 standard dates to get the bang ~7-8

4. WNAFA (would not ask for abortion) - she's so hot I would not ask her to abort a love child in case I accidentally impregnate her so that my genes would attach itself to her strong genetic profile. ~9+

Post: #139

(11-26-2014 10:55 PM)Roosh Wrote:  4. WNAFA (would not ask for abortion) - she's so hot I would not ask her to abort a love child in case I accidentally impregnate her so that my genes would attach itself to her strong genetic profile. ~9+

What scares me is I know what my level for #4 was in the past...it wasn't high enough.

Post: #140

(11-26-2014 10:55 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Like mechanico, I've been using a sort of 4-point scale:

Oh great, now that's going to go to his head.

   

Post: #141

(11-26-2014 10:42 PM)runsonmagic Wrote:  No man will ever rate his lay as anything less than a six.

Area code time:

I got with a:

Two different 604's (shoulda left after the clothes came off) the type where the face is fairly cute and with clothes on they look pretty decent, clothes came off, two of the worst bodies of flab rolls and hidden fat and strech marks I have ever seen so I'd put them at 4's just for the body tragedy.

Just naked handjob, fingering (she was a virgin):

21yo 407 (F size tits though unreal and perky, blasted on them after, great ass too... couldn't stomach seeing her more times to get the bang)

42yo 516 (decent body for her age, but old face especially in sun light a drunken SNL that was just too easy)

During a spring break I tried to fuck a big fattie 404 (wouldn't try now lol) unsuccessful to get in my first vacation Airbnb logistics bang. Cousin was with me still gives me shit about it to this day. I was dirty sexting her it was disgusting.

Post: #142

Roosh totally jacked up my scale but it's ok.

If you look back it's actually my family scale and also 40 years old.

We can coin it as the " Youngstown scale" any recognition of the area would really help.

Post: #143

(11-24-2014 05:08 PM)Andy_B Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 02:48 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  It seems we have to account for taste after all.
Beauty is more-or-less objective, so I used to have a fantasy that we could come up with a more-or-less objective standard for talking about women. And while I, and others, have accounted for some degree of personal taste in their versions of the scale, there seems to be such a massive difference in ratings everywhere the subject comes up (including the forum) that I'm starting to think it's impossible. Guys also have a fundamental misunderstanding of the scale's purpose, saying such ridiculous things as a "Washington DC 7" or calling for a "binary scale" where 1 means bang and 0 means WNB. End of story.

There is such thing as objective beauty, but not objective sex appeal. Objective beauty comes down to measurable factors like:

- Facial symmetry.
- Hip/waist ratio.
- Lack of noticeable facial blemishes.

... Things where there are obvious standards that transcend culture. We can more or less describe an objective standard for facial aesthetics, for instance, because statues and paintings depicting beauty from all era show a preference for the same qualities: symmetry, high cheekbones, large eyes, small nose, etc.

However we can only say this about a relatively small "package" of features that make up maybe half of what we call 'sex appeal'.

Other qualities like:

- Skin color.
- Body weight (I know I'll get flak for this but BMI is not an objective measure).
- Hair color.
- Eye color.

... Have no objective standard.

A girl who is 99th percentile on the objective scale of beauty may come out as low as a 5 to an individual guy's sex appeal scale because she's too skinny, too fat, too blonde, too asian, etc.

Let's take the waist hip ratio for instance. It's generally been observed that 2:3 is around an ideal ratio for most men. But a girl can be at a 2:3 ratio at 110 pounds or at 200 pounds. Two girls who both meet the ratio can also look completely different for a variety of other reasons. So the 'objective' standards only make up a portion of what guys look at. Many of the metrics end up being necessarily subjective ones, race and hair color being perfect examples.

You forgot to add: ''sexual dimorphism'' which is linked with facial symmetry:
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArti...ne.0002106

These are the universal standards of beauty that occurs regardless of culture and species.

Post: #144

(11-25-2014 11:39 AM)frenchie Wrote:  

(11-25-2014 11:36 AM)TravelerKai Wrote:  Say Tuth, since this is like a meeting at our RVF office, who is going to get on the whiteboard with a dry erase marker and make brainstorming columns for the issues, challenges, a roadmap, goals, takeaway items, etc.

Tuth during the meeting

Dont forget, we all get to order indian food after the meeting.

Post: #145

The only problem with a four point scale is that we humans, at least in the modern world, are inclined towards a decimal system (base 10). So, as nice as a 4 point system is in efficiency, it will never express how we truly feel about a girl at any given time like a base 10 system.

And yes, it should be accepted that our base 10 system is truly subjective.

Post: #146

I think most guys are trying to think of beauty too objectively. I don't see a girl and think 'damn she has a symmetrical face'. I see a girl and think 'wow she has a beautiful/hot/pretty/fucked up face'. I dont see a good hip to waist ratio, I see a nice/perfect/frumpy body. Same with everything else. Only then do i put a number on her as a whole. I see Kate Upton and i see a 9, I see Katy Perry and I see an 8.5. I think there are much better ways to describe girls looks without numbers

- Disfigured/burned etc (1-4)
- Would accept blowjob if no effort had to be put in and no one found out (5)
- Would bang if no one found out (6)
- would bang and bring out in public (7)
- would show off (8-9)
- perfect looking (10, these do exist, just very rare, I've seen 2-3 in my entire life, incredibly subjective)

This is more if a sliding scale, so i do think if people are being reasonable, the 1-10 scale works just fine. In real life people's perceptions are never far apart. I think girl A is a 9 and my friend thinks she is a 7 because he prefers girls taller and tanner. Big whoop, we would both still smash.

Post: #147

(11-26-2014 10:55 PM)Roosh Wrote:  1. WNB - would not bang under any circumstance. 1-6

This is when you know a guy has been out of the U.S. for a long time.

Post: #148

(11-26-2014 02:53 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 11:22 AM)Pride male Wrote:  Why dont you put members to the test? I think almost every man knows a 9 when they see one. Put up a list of women and ask guys to rate the. Pretty sure everyone would agree. Heartiste has done it before. Personally I will bang 4s and up.

There are, literally, hundreds of threads that have put members "to the test" about this. All they've proven is precisely the opposite of you're saying: there's massive disagreement about what constitutes any given rating--hence this whole thread wondering out loud whether it's time to let go of the numerical scale.

Yeah but what would you replace it with? Although there's a lot of variability, there's no other way of using text to communicate some kind of quantitative measurement of a woman's attractiveness.

Post: #149

(11-28-2014 04:48 PM)Veloce Wrote:  

(11-26-2014 10:55 PM)Roosh Wrote:  1. WNB - would not bang under any circumstance. 1-6

This is when you know a guy has been out of the U.S. for a long time.

Tell me about it. We're over here fighting over scraps, wrestling over 6s.

Post: #150

There's only one scale/test for me: The boner test.

Easy Y/N