Post: #1

I, for one, have come to the slow realization that the 1-to-10 scale for rating women is utterly useless. A few things have led to this conclusion:

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.

Guys rate their own catches high and others' low. Big-ballerism is rampant.
I have a couple of friends who routinely rate their own catches as "near-model quality" and everyone else's shit as unremarkable "6s." I used to get annoyed until I realized they really believe that shit. I can only conclude that they feel so good about what they've managed to get that they can't view their chicks objectively. Then, in order for their overblown ratings to continue to make sense, they need to downgrade other (your) chicks. You, of course, also occasionally run into dudes who are simply subconscious haters who diss on your catches simply out of jealousy. Lastly, you get guys who will hide behind travel or foreignness to validate their big-baller claims that "in XYZ-place-where-they-live, that girl would be a 6.5."

Most guys can't extrapolate.
There are several examples even in this forum, where if you don't show a guy a girl at her absolute best, they automatically grade her as sub-standard. They're unable to see through an unflattering image, an unpolished gem, or bad lighting for legitimate symmetry and beauty. They also have this distorted online scale where they'll rate a girl a 6 on the computer, while they would rate that same girl an 8 if they were to see her in person. I've heard guys say that a girl "can go from a 6 to 9 with some makeup and heels." That means she really wasn't a 6, or really isn't a 9, as far I'm concerned.

Conversely, guys are easily fooled by camera tricks.
On the other side of the coin, I see guys routinely overrate girls who are obviously slathered in makeup, have been touched up with Photoshop, or are sporting some rock-hard plastic titties. In one extreme case, a member rated a tranny a 7. Guys can't see past deceptive tactics well enough to make reliable ratings.

It's mental masturbation that breeds pointless arguments.
What difference, really, does a .5 make in the overall scheme of things? Things are certainly more complicated than 1 and 0, but is it even possible to agree on what's more-than-cute? How do you account for intangibles? There are "objective" 7s who I've enjoyed a ton, and objective 8s who I can't stand for more than 5 seconds. Some guys don't care if a giant ass is fake, but it's a deal-breaker for others (including me). Some dudes will drool over Asian girls with no body or sexiness.

I think it might be time to let go of the 1-to-10. What do you guys think?

Post: #2

Any caucasian blonde girl wth a slim body who doesnt have a deformed face is an automatic 6 for me.I dont see another member rating her 4 or 3.
We should keep the 1-10 scale.

Post: #3

(11-24-2014 02:53 PM)CimbomluBkk Wrote:  Any caucasian blonde girl wth a slim body who doesnt have a deformed face is an automatic 6 for me.I dont see another member rating her 4 or 3.
We should keep the 1-10 scale.

Interestingly, you're a prime example of some of the big-ballerism I mentioned above. In fact, you received a warning for being a hater.

Post: #4

Nope. Women can pretty much be rated on a 1-10 scale.

Personally speaking, I see what you mean. Most men play on their own relative scale...from WNB to hottest girl I've ever banged. You can see how this would vary guy to guy. And there are differences on individual levels for what guys consider a 7 vs a 9, but generally speaking, women, at least their physical beauty, are rated on an absolute objective scale.

Obviously in the 9-10 some might prefer blondes vs brunettes or bigger vs smaller tits and asses, and personalities, even those of celeb women we don't personally know, can skew men's ratings, but all in all thin and 7/10 WHR determines a woman's physical beauty for the masses.

Edit: You'd see similar trends for men's physical attractiveness, and could summarize it on a 1-10 scale, it's just that when you include all the other factors that make a man more or less attractive, looks mean a lot less. Even studies where they test women's horniness to erect men vs flaccid men skews the scale.

Post: #5

(11-24-2014 02:56 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(11-24-2014 02:53 PM)CimbomluBkk Wrote:  Any caucasian blonde girl wth a slim body who doesnt have a deformed face is an automatic 6 for me.I dont see another member rating her 4 or 3.
We should keep the 1-10 scale.

Interestingly, you're a prime example of some of the big-ballerism I mentioned above. In fact, you received a warning for being a hater.

Actually I think you misunderstood me, I got a warning for hating on another member. Yet hating on fellow RVF members is not my style, I was pointing out there that the guy could do much better, he looked like a decent looking tall blonde guy even though he cropped his face out.

Post: #6

I have had the same frustrations you have had on this Tuth. I usually wrote about hot women like this in my dating guide as an 8-10, without trying to isolate numbers too much. The reason why was because I would show some other manosphere guys pics of some Chinese girls I knew or met, and they would say Damn she's a 10! I would say no way bro she's just an 8. But if dude is from Wisconsin, nothing I will say made sense to him, numbers wise.

So if everyone gets up in arms over what is an 8,9, or 10, I just write 8-10 instead. Which is basically a very hot girl.

The only problem now is that you have the "10s don't exist", which is dumb, and the guys like you pointed out that cannot extrapolate well or at all. The 8-10 covered some things for conversation sake, but I cannot figure out a way to deal with the last part.

Post: #7

I said a couple years ago it should be 1 to 4

1. Untouchable (would not touch)

2. Blowjobable (would let blow usually a fatty or whatever)

3. Fuckable. (would fuck)

4. Assholeable (would do anything with including eating ass etc she is that hot)

As I pointed out many times these WNB trolls here really mean WNW (would not wack off to online) due to being able to click on a hotter girl which would = NO REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE.

Post: #8

I disregarded the 1-10 scale as useless a long time ago.

There are only two types of women: women you're attracted to and women you aren't.

I suspect the 1-10 scale has only persisted because we men like to quantify things.

Post: #9

I think we can all objectively agree on a girl being ugly when she's really damn ugly, but yeah. Agree with your post.

Post: #10

Well some guys were calling a meth head tweaker a 7 because she had blonde hair a few days ago

Post: #11

I am still partial to the boner test. A man who can acknowledges that for some reason an overweight woman with a unibrow passes his boner test will likely lead a happier life (in sexual terms) than competing with dude for the same 21 year old miss oregon in a bikini. He should enjoy his boner niche market and forget about the 1-10 scale as its mainly just to impress his friends...

Post: #12

for me it's pointless because 1-5 is WNB and 6-10 is WB and that's really what it comes down to for me.

Post: #13

Mental Masturbation

That's exactly what it is, I catch myself rating girls with .5's (like my last one at 7.75), whereas she could be simply labeled a 7 (maybe I'm just hard on myself).

Anyways I think you can rate on an objective scale to a certain point, then comes the guys who will pick out every detail to knock them down a point or boost them a point - this is where insanity lays.

I usually rate, blow me, fuckable, cute, hot/smokeshow similar to Mech's - I like his rating system.

But I think the 6-10 rating system should be the foundation of gauging a girls attractiveness since it's a pretty universal rating system.

Post: #14

Imagine if we had to put up pictures of our conquests I would like to see these 7s that guys casually get every week lol

Post: #15

Say what you will, but there has to be a designation for what it takes to successfully game cutish, very cute, hot, absolute stunner (6,7,8,9).

What we really need are a ton of more
pictures from the ground.

E.g. Girls that look like this (pic), takes this kind (examples) of game.

Among the members I *rarely see a 2 point difference on opinions unless it has to do with an obvious fetishism that has no correlation to universal beauty standards as TK states.

As repeated the meth chick...

Pre-drugs a 7.

Lowest anyone rated her is a 6 and HCE is in Croatia.

1 point difference isn't the end of the world.

If guys were fighting if a girl is a 4 vs. 8 that's now useless.

We are all smart enough to take the sum of small differences in opinion and average it out.

Post: #16

Another problem is body weight. Alot of us still have male hamster issues with ass. Like you pointed out about huge asses, lots of guys are still sprung on large asses to the point to where a young, petite, fresh faced woman is a literal 4 to them.

I still contend that part of redpill is getting rid and shedding any dependencies on putting vices/fetishes on a pedastal. A 6 with a huge ass is still a 6. She is not an 8, just because of some large ass. A fetish is not universal. If they privately want to rank her a 10 because she hits every fetish marker they have, go for it. I see women like that sometimes and personally I have to bite my arm and clutch my chest until she passes. She would do nothing for most of you and I know that. I do not put those fetishes into what I know to be universal and mainstream beauty standards. A woman with a large ass, DSLs, 35 years old, and huge fake tits is not automatically above younger, prettier faced, petite women, just because of a stupid fetish for those things.

Post: #17

I think it would be a good starting point if gentlemen were to agree before hand on what a 10 is or what a 6 or 7 is with pictures to compare.

The pointless factor when you think about it is that anything under 5 is useless.

Still, unless there's a better system, the 1-10 scale is the best method.

Post: #18

Here is my example of a 7



Another 7- 7.5



A 4-5



I'm sure most RVF'ers will be on par with me here.

Post: #19

a 1-10 scale is only useful to the man himself. otherwise in general population it's a wildly unquantifiable and totally subjective metric. some guys like blondes, some brunettes, some tall, some short, some skinny, some curvy, big tits, asians, whatever the list goes on.

as the poster above said, it's an offshoot of the analytical male desire to calculate and categorize everything and provide fodder for endless debate. I can quantify a girl as a "7" by my own standards and desires, but there is really no such thing as an "objective universal 7".

and there will always be the 2/10 wnb internet lotharios who criticize for the sake of it to skew the discussion further.

Post: #20

I have come up with a precise formula based on facial-morphology-biometrics which computes a woman's score to the nearest 1/1,000 of a point.

It is however proprietary and I am in the process of selling it to the People's Democratic Republic of Korea in their effort to erase imperfections from their nation.

Post: #21

^ He's been disappeared, but I agree with his pic ratings.

I am bad with judging if Asians are trannies in selfie pics so I am scared about #2. Real life is different. Hands, feet, jaw, shoulders, voice etc...

Post: #22

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



Another 7- 7.5



A 4-5



I'm sure most RVF'ers will be on par with me here.

The problem is, these are pictures, like every girl does, filter/angle/doctor them. It's impossible for all of us to be in the same room and judge the same girl in person.

Post: #23

(11-24-2014 02:48 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  I, for one, have come to the slow realization that the 1-to-10 scale for rating women is utterly useless. A few things have led to this conclusion:

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.

Guys rate their own catches high. Big-ballerism is rampant.
I have a couple of friends who routinely rate their own catches as "near-model quality" and everyone else's shit as unremarkable "6s." I used to get annoyed until I realized they really believe that shit. I can only conclude that they feel so good about what they've managed to get that they can't view their chicks objectively. Then, in order for their overblown ratings to continue to make sense, they need to downgrade other (your) chicks. You, of course, also occasionally run into dudes who are simply subconscious haters who diss on your catches simply out of jealousy. Lastly, you get guys who will hide behind travel or foreignness to validate their big-baller claims that "in XYZ-place-where-they-live, that girl would be a 6.5."

Most guys can't extrapolate.
There are several examples even in this forum, where if you don't show a guy a girl at her absolute best, they automatically grade her as sub-standard. They're unable to see through an unflattering image, an unpolished gem, or bad lighting for legitimate symmetry and beauty. They also have this distorted online scale where they'll rate a girl a 6 on the computer, while they would rate that same girl an 8 if they were to see her in person. I've heard guys say that a girl "can go from a 6 to 9 with some makeup and heels." That means she really wasn't a 6, or really isn't a 9, as far I'm concerned.

Conversely, guys are easily fooled by camera tricks.
On the other side of the coin, I see guys routinely overrate girls who are obviously slathered in makeup, have been touched up with Photoshop, or are sporting some rock-hard plastic titties. In one extreme case, a member rated a tranny a 7. Guys can't see past deceptive tactics well enough to make reliable ratings.

It's mental masturbation that breeds pointless arguments.
What difference, really, does a .5 make in the overall scheme of things? Things are certainly more complicated than 1 and 0, but is it even possible to agree on what's more-than-cute? How do you account for intangibles? There are "objective" 7s who I've enjoyed a ton, and objective 8s who I can't stand for more than 5 seconds. Some guys don't care if a giant ass is fake, but it's a deal-breaker for others (including me). Some dudes will droll over Asian girls with no body or sexiness.

I think it might be time to let go of the 1-to-10. What do you guys think?

Totally agree with all of this. I think it's ridiculous when guys argue about whether a girl is a 6 or a 7, as if there is some established scientific scale.
We have biological realities in terms of what we find more or less attractive in the broad sense but at the margins it is subjective.

Also you are right about how high someone will rate a girl whose photo has been obviously marketed to be sexy(maxim style photoshop with revealing clothing and suggestive poses) vs maybe a poor quality candid shot with a 90s disposable camera. One can not definitively compare two girls' pictures unless they were taken under identical conditions(unless there is an obvious drastic difference like one girl is a blob,) and even then we are talking about the margins where personal preference starts to come into play. For example, I'm not attracted to Asian girls so I would be might be predisposed to rate them a point or two lower than someone who has a thing for Asian girls would.

It's total mental masturbation and basically "junk science."

Post: #24

Unfortunately, and I hate to say it, the 1-10 scale is difficult in practice. Generally men can agree whether or not a girl is attractive or not, but to get specifics on how attractive, as Tuth said, calls upon a lot of discretion.

Using objective and universal characteristics like symmetry, physical fitness, hip-to-waist ratio, hygiene, etc. are decent points to go on, but everyone has a particular level of preference and ego that makes true objectivity impossible.

Men have been referencing the 1-10 scale for an awful long time so I don't see it going anywhere and everyone has a general understanding of it. Dispute over specifics is where men just get into a pissing contest.

Post: #25

I've mentioned this in another thread.

The beauty scale should be devoid of taste. Where I may have a ginger and asian fetish, another guy may like black girls.

The scale should only be between 1 and 8. The accuracy and precision increases. From of the "what does a 10" look like threads, some women are easily 7s in my book. Nothing too special about them in my opinion.

In fact, i've never really given a girl a 9 or 10 in my book. Only 8s. I don't think i've ever really met a true 9 or 10 before.