Post: #51

The only good rating system would be one based on %'s. For example a 10 is in the top 10%, etc. Even with preferences , one can usually do comparison rating based on society standards. For our purposes we need to use American society.

Post: #52

Yes, the 1-10 scale is pointless.

1. Taste is subjective. A 7 to me is an 8 to Roosh, which is a 6.5 to Ali.

2. It's not a valuable scale. If anything, it makes men more worried about approaching attractive women.

3. It's part of the pedestal.

4. Generally, men aren't honest with each other about how attractive women they sleep with are. For example, if a guy says "I fucked an 8 last night," she's probably a 5 or a 6. Subtract two to three points off the attractiveness claim.

If I find her attractive, I approach her. I think the 1-10 scale is really just a source of mental masturbation and pointless position jockeying.

Post: #53

The 1-to-10 scale has serous flaws, but so do other rating systems, like the binary scale.

I think the 1-to-10 scale makes sense when you understand what a guy considers a 3,5, 7, 10, etc...the problem is when a guy has a particular fetish or preference since then he will rate what he likes higher than it should be.

Maybe a 1-to-5 scale would work better: 1-WNB under any circumstances (hideous), 2-WNB unless extremely drunk & desperate (ugly), 3-probably WB (average), 4-WB (attractive), 5-WB without condom (Hot).

Although even this scale has problems.

In the end, pics are best since it removes the need to rate.

Post: #54

I was only thinking about this earlier.

One of the big problems is whether we try and apply a linearly progressive scale to the numbers or whether they are points on a bell-curve.

I actually think this is where a lot of the confusion lies.

On a related note I feel really sorry for guys who cannot appreciate beauty in all races, hair colours etc; the world is full of lots of very beautiful, very fuckable women!

Post: #55

(11-24-2014 04:46 PM)Veloce Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 04:31 PM)WalterBlack Wrote:  There’s also huge "Asian inflation" and "blonde inflation".

I’ve heard non-Asian American guys say Lucy Liu is hot, whereas to my Asian friends she’s very average.

Everybody has different tastes.

I'm non-Asian American and I'd say she's certainly no higher than a 7.

In fact, I just googled her, she's got a weird face. I'd say 6.5. And I've very openly admitted to having Asian goggles, or "Asian inflation".

There was that article, 100 hottest asian girls of Instagram...those girls are all way more banging than Lucy Liu.

I've heard Chinese girls describe her as cross eyed. You can walk on the campus at USC or UCLA and see hotter Asian women than Lucy Liu. Or go out to eat in K-town...

A couple of years ago, I met this Japanese actress (Eriko Tamura) in person once at a bar Koreatown – she’s got flawless skin and a pretty good figure. She was hanging out with an acquaintance of mine.



She’s not super hot, but she would get a lot of attention in certain parts of LA. I bet some non-Asian Americans would give her 8/10. In Koreatown, she wasn’t even the best looking woman at the bar I was at. I’m sure you know this already, but there’s some very hot Korean women in LA.

I’ve been to Tokyo and she's not better looking than most of the women I saw there either.

Still WB though...

Post: #56

(11-24-2014 05:14 PM)Dusty Wrote:  Then there's the area code rating system. First digit is her face rating, second digit is a binary rating of WB/WNB, third digit is her body rating.

Thus a 518 would be a girl with a 5 face, who you would fuck, and has an 8 body.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph...e%20System

This is pretty great actually. Slightly more complicated but exponentially more accurate.

Post: #57

^^^^

In UK we call plain girls with hot bodies “paper bag jobs”, as in you have to put a paper bag over her head to bang her.

If they’re REALLY ugly we call them “double paper bag jobs”, as in you have to put a paper bag over her head, and one over yours too!

Prime example of a double paper bag job is here

Post: #58

(11-24-2014 05:14 PM)Dusty Wrote:  Then there's the area code rating system. First digit is her face rating, second digit is a binary rating of WB/WNB, third digit is her body rating.

Thus a 518 would be a girl with a 5 face, who you would fuck, and has an 8 body.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph...e%20System

Dare I say... the cumulative score nicely solves some problems I've had ranking my past girls. In spite of messing up the area code analogy, I'd still keep the 0.5 increments in the interest of precision. Excluding the middle binary WB/WNB term, of course.

8.5 + 1 + 6.5 = 16 out of a possible 19 is my crowning achievement. You may say "Kamikaze, that's fucking stupid and obfuscated. Also, you have no game, I only bang 19s." I say "Shaddap."

This is oddly satisfying. Imma update the rankings on the excel spreadsheet of my previous conquests. It'll only take a minute.

Post: #59

^ I like the area code the middle number is a nice separation to read easier.

Post: #60

(11-24-2014 05:14 PM)Dusty Wrote:  Then there's the area code rating system. First digit is her face rating, second digit is a binary rating of WB/WNB, third digit is her body rating.

Thus a 518 would be a girl with a 5 face, who you would fuck, and has an 8 body.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph...e%20System

Why do you need the second digit though? A man could bang what another man would not. For example, you and I can both agree on that her face is 5 and her body is 6. She can be 526 to you but if I'm a thirsty dude she is 516 to me, thus a girl whose beauty is objective can have 2 different area codes in the eyes of 2 men with different level of thirst. When you are rating face and body, the WB digit seems unnecessary.

Post: #61

I'm fully aware that I add a point or two for certain characteristics that would actually take away a point or two for other men. Take a six, and dress her in cosplay, and she jumps to an eight in my book. It's totally illogical, and I wouldn't try to pass her off as an objective eight to anyone else, but my dick isn't in this for objectivity.

Likewise, there are certain traits that subtract points for me. I was on a date with an objective nine who started ranting about "those stupid men's rights activists who won't shut the fuck up." I ended up walking away from an easy lay in disgust. Physically too - some guys are into giant asses, and I just find that weird. Location also makes a huge difference. I've definitely stooped in cities with bad gender ratios, and made my standards unreasonably high in better areas.

When I talk to friends about it, I'll separate objective and personal rating. "She's objectively a seven, but she's a personal eight, because I give +1 for dark hair."

This is also why in his book Dataclysm, the founder of OKCupid points out that girls with tattoos and piercing get more messages than objectively hotter women with higher attractiveness ratings. A few flaws makes a girl seem more approachable, like a diamond in the rough. Guys look at a Suicide Girl and think she has less competition. "Well, she's objectively a six, but she's my personal ten." They assume that there is less competition for these women. In reality there is MORE competition for them. This also explains why Suicide Girls seem stuck up in comparison to how objectively attractive they are. Their style gets them more attention than a preppy blond. It also explains how if you're into more traditional beauty, you might have better odds going for your personal ten, then stooping to a girl covered in piercings and tattoos.

The conclusion he draws is that you should accentuate the things that might make someone rate you a one because one persons one is another's ten. I find I have certain interests that immediately turn some women off, and make others instantly interested me. This explains why girls do things that make them "unattractive" - they are self-selecting for a certain type of guy who is into that look. Girls with tattoos and piercings aren't interested in a nice regular guy, they want hipster dudes - who are also self-selecting for suicide girls. It's not just in every society that the men and women deserve each other, but every social group and subculture.

Post: #62

This rating system actually makes way more sense.

Post: #63

(11-24-2014 06:22 PM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 05:14 PM)Dusty Wrote:  Then there's the area code rating system. First digit is her face rating, second digit is a binary rating of WB/WNB, third digit is her body rating.

Thus a 518 would be a girl with a 5 face, who you would fuck, and has an 8 body.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph...e%20System

Why do you need the second digit though? A man could bang what another man would not. For example, you and I can both agree on that her face is 5 and her body is 6. She can be 526 to you but if I'm a thirsty dude she is 516 to me, thus a girl whose beauty is objective can have 2 different area codes in the eyes of 2 men with different level of thirst. When you are rating face and body, the WB digit seems unnecessary.

The second digit is either a 0 or 1, never a 2.

Above or below a certain level, the second digit is redundant. It's helpful to have for those "on the fence" cases.

Post: #64

While I'm amused by the Area Code System, it raises the same exact problems as in my original post. For example, I can already see dudes calling everything of theirs 818s and all of your shit 626s. Furthermore--and as others have pointed out--the middle digit is superfluous, made obvious by the other two.

The problem isn't that we don't have enough digits in the system, it's that having a (numerical) system at all is a problem.

Post: #65

(11-24-2014 06:47 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  While I'm amused by the Area Code System, it raises the same exact problems as in my original post. For example, I can already see dudes calling everything of theirs 818s and all of your shit 626s. Furthermore--and as others have pointed out--the middle digit is superfluous, made obvious by the other two.

The problem isn't that we don't have enough digits in the system, it's that having a (numerical) system at all is a problem.

Any suggestions then?

Pics seem to be the only alternative to a numerical system.

Post: #66

(11-24-2014 07:06 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  Any suggestions then?

Pics seem to be the only alternative to a numerical system.

I don't know for sure, but I think we'll have to go the way of hippie colleges who did away with letter grades back in the 1960s and 70s in favor of narrative grades. Narrative assessments are the future. Just describe the bitch in a couple of sentences.

You can't pull out pictures every time, at every conversation, even with smart phones the way they are.

Post: #67

As long as a dame has a decent enough figure and face then she's worthy of the D in my book. Dont' give a damn if another man considers her a 5,6 or a 7.

Post: #68

(11-24-2014 06:47 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  ...I can already see dudes calling everything of theirs 818s and all of your shit 626s.

Who cares what anyone says about your shit. I like the scale because I can empirically distinguish MY shit. To me that's the fun in it.

Call me a big baller, but I like to invest in girls who have at least one jerkable quality, be it face or body. The scale has served me well to rank my own notches, and pursue above a certain baseline that won't fucking depress me if I DO get the bang.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm about to 'watch a movie' with a round-faced 20yo 617.

Post: #69

(11-24-2014 07:30 PM)Kamikaze Wrote:  I like the scale because I can empirically distinguish MY shit.

In that case, you can use whatever scale your heart pleases. But, traditionally, the scale was so you could discuss bitches with other guys. I don't bother rating my own girls to myself, which seems unnecessary. I just know in my head how much I enjoy banging them, being around them, and how much I'm hoping to run into someone I know when I'm walking down the street with her.

Post: #70

The scale is very subjective.

80% of all my friends are all ass guys. I'm not. I dont know what it is but ass in general doesn't do anything for me. I'm big on tits but I don't really like anything over C's so I end up drooling over slim skinny chicks. Girls with those "curves" and body assets aren't the 9s to me that they are to most guys.

I am most certainly one of those guys who drools over an Asian with no body.

Post: #71

(11-24-2014 04:06 PM)Runner2k Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 03:29 PM)CimbomluBkk Wrote:  Here is my example of a 7



Another 7- 7.5

This girl is brazilian!

I have a mexican friend that looks very much like her. I WB.

The scale is pointless because I would rate her an 8. Someone else might give her a 7. Who the fuck cares?

You either WB or WNB. Your dick has no ego.

Post: #72

Heres my take on this, doodled this at the office:



1 is ideal, optimal, almost flawless.

2 is above average, outstanding.

3 is average. Commonplace. Top of the bell curve.

4 is below average. Not something you aim for.

5 is unacceptable. No excuses, unforgivable.

Above the red line lies what is acceptable for you as a man. What you like, what you aim for.

Anything below the blue line is unacceptable. You would hate yourself. You would be ashamed.

While some man might say that they would never have sex with a woman below their ideal standards, the truth is that saying that does not makes them more manly, and having sex with a woman that is below someone elses standards does not makes you less of a man.

One of my close friends has an ugly girlfriend. Shes not unpleasantly looking, shes just has nothing that could be considered sexually attractive. But she has an incredible personality, is always cheerful and fun and does everything in her means to make my friend happy. And my friend is happy, who am I to judge?

Then, on the other hand, I know another guy who has a hot girlfriend. The guy is a simp and has absolutely no game. The girl is a golddigger that admits to being with him because it convinences her. She hits on other men while he is around, and im pretty sure she fucks other men when he is not. She is always grumpy, complaining, bitching. She is uneducated, boring, and dull. She is so dumb we once had her convinced that waves are caused by people splashing the water on the other side of the ocean.

But the dude is happy because he can parade her around and feel like a big baller. Once again, who an I to judge?

I am not the one fucking any of those girls. I can only be bothered with the ones I do.

Let them take the boner test. If the sex is good and they are cool to be around, feel free to take them to bed. What anyone else thinks is their problem.

Post: #73

The scale is useful. If it was "utterly useless" so many guys would not be using it. It's not perfect, and it shouldn't be considered a highly accurate method but it can be used to approximate quite reasonably how good looking a girl might be. A lot of guys do not use the scale very well but that doesn't render it useless. A 9 better look like a 9, a 10 speaks for itself. Once you get to the numbers below that things become more a matter of personal taste but if it's an 7 or a 8 one shouldn't feel disappointed.

I will say however that context of the scales usefulness is limited to certain scenarios, but it is there. If for example a buddy asks me to join him for a double date because his girl is coming with her friend and I know what a 6/7 is to him then at least I won't be disappointed.

Post: #74

Great thread.

I agree that the old 1 to 10 scale leaves a lot of room for subjective variation.

As I was reading this thread, it suddenly hit me that this problem has historical antecedents. It is the very same one that used to plague the world of coin-collecting. Before the advent of a neutral, universally-recognized "grading" system, the numismatic world had a variety of conflicting appraisal systems.

Then the "Professional Coin Grading Service" was established. It rated coins on a scale of 1 to 70. Here are the criteria:

http://www.pcgs.com/grades/

I'm only half-jokingly going to offer a similar solution. What we need is an appraisal service for women. A universal standard that is generally accepted by everyone.

Before the metric system in France, there was a chaos of competing systems of measure. Then a committee was set up to "hit reset" and start with a whole new system. Hence the meter was born.

So, that seems the only logical way to replace the current, highly subjective 1-10 scale.

Don't laugh...but I would suggest that the RVF offer itself as a new, universal "appraisal service" or "grading service" for feminine beauty. It's wonderful in its simplicity...isn't it? Think of all the problems it would solve. You can now "appraise" a woman "sight unseen" across the world, and everyone will know what you're talking about. It's the equivalent of having a neutral appraisal done. Everyone will know what everyone is talking about.

Someone--or a committee here--should draw up a truly objective, rational "grading scale" and offer it to the world as the new standard.

Post: #75

(11-24-2014 08:36 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  Then the "Professional Coin Grading Service" was established. It rated coins on a scale of 1 to 70. Here are the criteria:

http://www.pcgs.com/grades/

I'm only half-jokingly going to offer a similar solution. What we need is an appraisal service for women. A universal standard that is generally accepted by everyone.

Yes, I think that we should rate women based on "luster."

Seriously, though, I have a pretty simple system.

If I can get a boner with her and I like the way she looks more with clothes off than clothes on (so, no fatties) and her personality doesn't suck, then she's welcome to come sleep with me anytime that she wants to put out.

If she expects to be my public girlfriend and be seen in public with me, she had better have some combination of looks and personality that renders her exceedingly attractive in most peoples eyes.

Once we get to the girlfriend stage, we needs to be someone who improves people's opinion of me when we are seen together. I call this marketing.