Post: #26

I strictly use the 2/10 WNB number!

Post: #27

(10-08-2012 09:54 AM)Aliblahba Wrote:  I strictly use the 2/10 WNB number!

A.K.A The Golden Ratio of Poon

Post: #28

I think I shall start abiding by a quaternary system. It makes a lot of sense to me. Starting at 0 stars, heading to 3, respectively:

• Unfuckable.
• Passes the boner test. Bangable, but not necessarily exciting.
• Either hot face or hot body. Attractive, and exciting.
• Hot face and hot body. Stunning/top tier. Very exciting.
  

I think once you get to 3, there's really no point distinguishing, because then it comes down to things unrelated to physical attractiveness (ie; personality, manners, etc..) - for me at least.

It also allows for the relief of dry spells etc, without having to get too nuanced. It doesn't matter if she's a 4 or a 5, she's just bangable enough to get you out of your rut. Not a fuck for the scrapbook full of memories, just something you pounded.

It then further promotes the ability to distinguish between hot and "dayum, that bitch is bangin'," without getting caught up in senseless in between ratings. You can differentiate between memorable and "god dammit I'm awesome."

A 2 is what you're aiming for at a minimum when you're not in any kind of rut, and a 3 is what you're aiming for when you're slaying like this guy

Post: #29

I use the 1-10 scale, its as objective a scale as we can use when describing female beauty absent a photograph. The binary scale isn't a scale at all. Its called banging women you want to bang and not banging women you don't want to bang. Everyone does that.

Just because you group girls in the 1-10 scale differently doesn't mean that you still don't use the 1-10 scale. I happen to group girls 1-5.5, 5.5-6, 6-7, 7-7.5, 7.5-8, 8-9, and 9-10. A 5.5-6 I would bang if drunk, a 6-7 I wouldn't put much effort into but would bang sober. I would bang a 7-7.5 for about a month or two before getting bored, I would consider a LTR with a 7.5-8 but be tempted to cheat and move up. Could love an 8-9, would subconsciously sabotage my own efforts at not knocking up a 9-10. I would also eagerly anticipate seeing how my Heidi Klum/Kate Upton mothered progeny turned out.

This does not constitute its own scale however, its simply my grouping of the pre-existing scale.

Post: #30

(10-08-2012 04:30 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

(10-07-2012 01:12 PM)XXL Wrote:  not interested / neutral / interested

what is the difference between 'neutral' and 'not interested'?

not interested = girls i find unattractive from the get go [negative/toxic/ugly/stupid/lame/prude/etc]

neutral = girls who have potential but i need more time to get interested [or disinterested]

it's looks + personality, not only looks

Post: #31

(10-09-2012 12:55 AM)Architekt Wrote:  I think I shall start abiding by a quaternary system. It makes a lot of sense to me. Starting at 0 stars, heading to 3, respectively:

• Unfuckable.
• Passes the boner test. Bangable, but not necessarily exciting.
• Either hot face or hot body. Attractive, and exciting.
• Hot face and hot body. Stunning/top tier. Very exciting.
  

I think once you get to 3, there's really no point distinguishing, because then it comes down to things unrelated to physical attractiveness (ie; personality, manners, etc..) - for me at least.

It also allows for the relief of dry spells etc, without having to get too nuanced. It doesn't matter if she's a 4 or a 5, she's just bangable enough to get you out of your rut. Not a fuck for the scrapbook full of memories, just something you pounded.

It then further promotes the ability to distinguish between hot and "dayum, that bitch is bangin'," without getting caught up in senseless in between ratings. You can differentiate between memorable and "god dammit I'm awesome."

A 2 is what you're aiming for at a minimum when you're not in any kind of rut, and a 3 is what you're aiming for when you're slaying like this guy

I pretty much go by this system. Though I label mine No, yes when drunk (or in rut), yes, fucking hell yes

Post: #32

I run a binary system, I think this gets me more sex, but lower quality girls.

Post: #33

I break em down into categories:

Not even for free (meaning they're lying in the bed next to you naked and you still wouldn't hit it)

Hit it if its zero effort

Hit it but not sport it: (she's not that hot but she's got huge tiits or ass or something)

Sportable (she's fine enough to be seen in public for DHV) Can't been seen in public rolling around with an average chick...its just not gonna happen, I'd rather be seen rolling dolo.

Post: #34

(10-07-2012 03:49 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  Binary doesn't make sense because it never actually just comes down to just "would you bang?" There are all kinds of nuanced questions that you don't even realize are running through your head, when you want to think you're deciding between two or three choices.

Would you do any real work to bang?
Would you bang if you were on a cold streak?
Would you bang more than once?
Would you mind if your friends knew that you banged?
Would you bang over some other chick?
Would you bang, given the rest of talent available at this conference, school, retreat, out-of-the-way bar?
Would you bang if she came and grabbed your dick?
How much would you enjoy banging?
How much work would you do to bang?
Would you just bang, or would you eat her pussy and even her asshole?

Some chicks "you wouldn't bang," you would bang if the circumstances or context were a certain way. This is why you need a more relativized scale. Binary is false illusion players who fancy themselves I-don't-give-a-fuck minimalists pretend to use, when in reality they're operate a complex logic better explained by a scale with way more than two or three categories.

my bangs are secretive so that I don't have peer pressure judging. I hit a so so lizard back in Toronto and I bumped into her with one of my friends. After we exchanged a terse greeting, he said to me "Dude, you hit that?" in dismay.
I thought she was alright (binary wise) so I didn't understand why he was so aghast.

Post: #35

I rate 0-6 as unrateable and then 7-9..no 10s. I don't get too hung up on intricacies in between whole numbers. I'd say, "She's about a 7 and some change" then move on. If she < 7, then it's "unratable" then move on.

Post: #36

A friend of mine sets himself a standard, and not so much a rating system. He says if he'd be embarrassed to walk through the mall holding hands with the girl, then its a no bang.

This keeps him from getting lazy and dropping quality. I've adopted this mindset. It hit home because in the past, I've banged chicks, and found every way possible to not go on a date, but rather have them just come by the house. I've been there, and got the look from other girls. I'd have made the front cover of Dating Down Monthly. This leads to less bangs, but acts as QC.

And at least in my case, banging average girls takes away the fire of the hunt. Bang a 5 for a couple of nights, and see if you are hungry enough to hit a high end venue to tackle top talent. For me at least, it won't happen. I go a week without sex or jerking off, and I become a fucking beast.

Post: #37

(10-11-2012 12:37 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  A friend of mine sets himself a standard, and not so much a rating system. He says if he'd be embarrassed to walk through the mall holding hands with the girl, then its a no bang.

This keeps him from getting lazy and dropping quality. I've adopted this mindset. It hit home because in the past, I've banged chicks, and found every way possible to not go on a date, but rather have them just come by the house. I've been there, and got the look from other girls. I'd have made the front cover of Dating Down Monthly. This leads to less bangs, but acts as QC.

And at least in my case, banging average girls takes away the fire of the hunt. Bang a 5 for a couple of nights, and see if you are hungry enough to hit a high end venue to tackle top talent. For me at least, it won't happen. I go a week without sex or jerking off, and I become a fucking beast.

A man still needs to eat, even if the only source of food is a McDonald's.

Post: #38

(10-11-2012 06:49 PM)soup Wrote:  

(10-11-2012 12:37 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  A friend of mine sets himself a standard, and not so much a rating system. He says if he'd be embarrassed to walk through the mall holding hands with the girl, then its a no bang.

This keeps him from getting lazy and dropping quality. I've adopted this mindset. It hit home because in the past, I've banged chicks, and found every way possible to not go on a date, but rather have them just come by the house. I've been there, and got the look from other girls. I'd have made the front cover of Dating Down Monthly. This leads to less bangs, but acts as QC.

And at least in my case, banging average girls takes away the fire of the hunt. Bang a 5 for a couple of nights, and see if you are hungry enough to hit a high end venue to tackle top talent. For me at least, it won't happen. I go a week without sex or jerking off, and I become a fucking beast.

A man still needs to eat, even if the only source of food is a McDonald's.

Sex isn't sustenance. When you realize that, your life will improve.

Post: #39

(10-11-2012 12:37 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  A friend of mine sets himself a standard, and not so much a rating system. He says if he'd be embarrassed to walk through the mall holding hands with the girl, then its a no bang.

I have almost an identical quality-control test, except with the holding-hands part--since it not something I do. That said, there's still relativity above that cut-off line (hence the rating system).

I've been spotted with both nice-looking and less-than-stellar talent in the past. Needless to say, being seen with cute-ass chick--especially by male-feminist haters or other chicks--really pumps you up. One thing that happened to me one time were some guys giving mad props for a chick I didn't think was a big deal. They were these guys who work at a local restaurant, and they were giving me very obvious thumbs-up and funny-faces in front of the girl. I told her that I felt much better about hanging out with her now that I'd gotten the okay from the Guatemalans, or some shit like that. I didn't like that it appeared to go to her head. On the positive side, they got me hyped up enough that I went home and smashed a second time that night.

I recently got clowned by some people for being seen with a "mousy" girl. She was this ultra-nerdy chick, who under all those clothes had a sick-ass body: plump ass, small waist, and top-shelf tits. From the distance at which they spotted her, the un-discerning viewer would not be able to tell the difference.

Sadly, she turned out to be a prudish virgin.

Post: #40

Quote:Agreed. And I have seen more than a few times where the man rates the girl on their responsiveness instead looks...

Girl completely ignores the man: she was a 5
Same girl says hello and gives a smile: Fuck yeah, she was a hot bitch 8.5

Exactly!