Post: #26

(05-17-2011 12:43 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  You are referring to the mean/average in regards to actually population. Which is COMPLETELY relative. Which is the mistake I think alot of guys make skewing their scales.

??? I don't know what you mean...

My personal scale:
1-4=different levels of uglyness, 5=average, 6=slender and nice-looking, 7=very pretty, 8=elegant beauty, semi-professional model quality,
9=professional runway model quality, 10=world class beauty

The majority of the population where I'm from (Central Europe) is in categories 4-6. The prettiest girl in your university seminar is likely to be a 7. From time to time you see an 8 on the bus or in your local grocery store or so. 9s and 10s are so rare that you only see them once in a while on the street.

Just for the record: For most European males, the short, fat ass Latinas posted in the 10-thread on this forum would only make it to a 4 at maximum (=not bangable, not kissable, not even when you're absolutely full of alcohol...).

Post: #27

(05-17-2011 01:24 AM)bars Wrote:  So, how do you classify this pair?

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-a...1393_n.jpg

5 on left, 6.5/7 on right (assuming her teeth aren't fucked up which could be the case here)

Post: #28

(05-17-2011 02:05 PM)Bronze Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 12:43 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  You are referring to the mean/average in regards to actually population. Which is COMPLETELY relative. Which is the mistake I think alot of guys make skewing their scales.

??? I don't know what you mean...

My personal scale:
1-4=different levels of uglyness, 5=average, 6=slender and nice-looking, 7=very pretty, 8=elegant beauty, semi-professional model quality,
9=professional runway model quality, 10=world class beauty

The majority of the population where I'm from (Central Europe) is in categories 4-6. The prettiest girl in your university seminar is likely to be a 7. From time to time you see an 8 on the bus or in your local grocery store or so. 9s and 10s are so rare that you only see them once in a while on the street.

Just for the record: For most European males, the short, fat ass Latinas posted in the 10-thread on this forum would only make it to a 4 at maximum (=not bangable, not kissable, not even when you're absolutely full of alcohol...).

Kman wrote that the mean has to reflect the mean of the actual population. Which skews peoples scale. ie someone from miami scale is prb diff from a guys scale that is from hicktown s. dakota. Also alot of ppl skew their scales by using "preference".

So what i am saying is beauty and attractiveness are person independent and are solely based on THEIR PHYSICAL traits. Has nothing to do with the "population" or "location". Only diff being there is ALOT more 7-10's in miami than s. dakota.

Also in regards to preference i like latina & middle eastern women the best. Im not attracted to black women and asian women on a whole. But I certainly know what a hot black or asian women looks like.

Post: #29

Naturally, there's controversy over what a 5 means. The debates over the 1-10 scale have been going on since time immemorial. I bet early men grunted at each other over this shit while pointing at asses in poorly illuminated caves. This is why guys are always trying to come up with more precise systems.

Some guys think there's no such thing as a 10. Other guys say a 5 describes "an average-looking" chick. For others, a 7 is an average chick. Still others claim that anything below a 5 is butt-ugly. Some dudes are super strict. Others ridiculously generous.

For the purposes of this post, I was using the middle-of-the-road, common interpretation. A 5 is a girl with serious flaws that you would still bone, but probably with three-quarters chub because she almost doesn't pass your boner test (BT). She's fuckable, but in a pinch, and barely. A 6 is getting close to being cute, but still has a major problem or two. A 7 is certifiably cute, with no major issues. An 8 is kinda hot. A 9 is smoking. A 10 is perfection, and generally impossible without the aid of camera tricks and photoshop.

I use fractionals (.5) to distinguish further. A 7.5 is super cute, but still not "hot." But that opens another discussion.

That's my rough guide.

(05-16-2011 08:23 PM)rakishness Wrote:  What do I consider a 5? The best looking girl you will see in adams morgan this weekend excluding the club DISTRICT.

To me, the one on the right is a perfect example of a nickel piece. No question that she's kind of ugly, but there's a chance she has a decent little ass and probably looks alright naked. I'd take one for the team.

(05-16-2011 09:06 PM)FretDancer Wrote:  

(05-16-2011 08:38 PM)houston Wrote:  Tuthmosis I would fuck the shit out of those 2 older ladies u posted but I have a thing for MILFS so I might be biased.

Rakishness - is that the average dc girl? Disgusting

Gotta agree with this too. I also have a thing for chicks with glasses so that would be a very good boost in my scale to the girl with glasses.

I see what's going on here. You guys are being seduced by those older broads' plump, "speckled" tits. And I don't blame you, but the reason I classified them as 5s is that they have some serious flaws--plural. Their physiques are obviously less-that-tight, their faces are weathered, and their hair is short. A decade or more ago, these broads were probably solid 7s or even 8s. To be fair, they're probably 6s today, since most of their problems are attributable one cause: the tragic aging process. They're otherwise proportional.

(05-16-2011 09:09 PM)kickboxer Wrote:  In order from left to right



6, translucent beast, 5

That redhead might be alright. There's a good chance she's dumpy from the waist down, but there's no way she's a 5 in my book--just on the face alone. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this is the best picture she's ever taken, I'd say she's a 6 at worst, more likely a 7 overall.

Post: #30

(05-17-2011 02:26 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  Kman wrote that the mean has to reflect the mean of the actual population. Which skews peoples scale. ie someone from miami scale is prb diff from a guys scale that is from hicktown s. dakota. Also alot of ppl skew their scales by using "preference".

So you prefer a scale like when a girl just walks by and you think spontaneously "Hm, neither good nor bad", then she's a 5. When you think "Hm, not flawless but kind of cute overall" she's a 6. When you think "Really pretty" she's a 7. Etc.

In this kind of scale the "means"/"average" plays no role.

Did I get you right?

(I'm just asking because I never thought of THIS kind of scale. However, my scale wouldn't change much this way...)

Post: #31

(05-17-2011 03:09 PM)Bronze Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 02:26 PM)Dash Global Wrote:  Kman wrote that the mean has to reflect the mean of the actual population. Which skews peoples scale. ie someone from miami scale is prb diff from a guys scale that is from hicktown s. dakota. Also alot of ppl skew their scales by using "preference".

So you prefer a scale like when a girl just walks by and you think spontaneously "Hm, neither good nor bad", then she's a 5. When you think "Hm, not flawless but kind of cute overall" she's a 6. When you think "Really pretty" she's a 7. Etc.

In this kind of scale the "means"/"average" plays no role.

Did I get you right?

(I'm just asking because I never thought of THIS kind of scale. However, my scale wouldn't change much this way...)

Pretty much when I see any grl I can give her a numerical number in terms of attractiveness instantly.

And yes a girl that is neither ugly nor attractive is a 5. Pretty much she walks by and I think nothing positive or negative of her.

With this scale/thought the "average" does play a role. Only its the average of the attractiveness scale, not the average of the particular city or location im in. Understand. Thats why alot of guys get different numbers and scales because they try to factor in other equations (location, preferance ect.) On top of that some guys just are not a good judge of talent and attractiveness.

Your personal scale is decent but you are making it too complected by using terms like elegant, model/runway quality. There is models esp runway models that are ugly. I mean there is red neck hick chicks living out of trailers that are 8 in terms of physical attractiveness (body & facial composition). Also you are using personal preference when in your definition of a 6 u say is "slender & nice looking". Slender has nothing to do with attractiveness. Although being slender will give you a higher probability of being attractive based solely on the fact that you cant be attractive and be fat (don't confuse fat with thick).

Post: #32

hahahahah I fucking love this forum. 'translucent beast' is the funniest phrase i have heard in a long while.

Post: #33

A 5 for me is an average chick. Considering an average girl in Toronto is pretty ugly, I prefer 7s and above.

Post: #34

More nickel pieces:

       
       

Post: #35

truthmosis,

those top 2 are 5'ish. the middle one looks like a man, and the bottom one is fat imo. lol

Post: #36

Top left has definite 6 potential

Post: #37

(05-17-2011 01:24 AM)bars Wrote:  So, how do you classify this pair?

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-a...1393_n.jpg

Red is a 3, white is a 6.5

Post: #38

(05-16-2011 08:23 PM)rakishness Wrote:  What do I consider a 5? The best looking girl you will see in adams morgan this weekend excluding the club DISTRICT.

Asian is a 5, Black girl is a 2, white girl is a 3

Post: #39

(05-16-2011 09:09 PM)kickboxer Wrote:  In order from left to right



6, translucent beast, 5

5, 2, 3

Post: #40

(05-17-2011 04:39 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  More nickel pieces:

5
5
2
4

Post: #41

(05-17-2011 04:39 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  More nickel pieces:

7, 6
5
4

Post: #42

Is it a bad idea to post photos of girls you know?

Post: #43

(05-17-2011 06:27 PM)Amour Fou Wrote:  Is it a bad idea to post photos of girls you know?

no! post away!

Post: #44

What about these:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_6g5yk...G_1206.JPG

Post: #45

(05-17-2011 06:52 PM)Amour Fou Wrote:  What about these:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_6g5yk...G_1206.JPG

Middle blonde could be a 7 depending on what the body is like, the one to her immediate right and my left is a 5.5 and the rest are 4.75's...

Post: #46

(05-17-2011 06:52 PM)Amour Fou Wrote:  What about these:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_6g5yk...G_1206.JPG

The outer two look like legit 5s to me. The inner-blonde is a potential 7, even 7.5, depending on the body. The other inside girl is the biggest question mark. She could be as low as a 6 (if she has a dumpy body) or a 7 if everything checks out.

If you have more pictures of these same girls, it would be interesting to see other angles to nail down the numbers. But, don't want you outing yourself in the process if, as you say, you know these broads.

Post: #47

Some guys here give simply unrealistically low numbers for acceptable or even attractive girls.

I ask myself how this comes. Do you have a "model only" game? No guy I've met so far (even the top looking "natural" guys with tight game) can afford to have a "model only" game.

For example, the readhead who was voted a 3 by Luckystar. If she's slender (you can't figure that out on the picture 100%), no guy I know (not even the top guys) would turn down a sex offer from her IN REALITY (whatever guys might say about her on an internet forum).

Tell me about the girls you game, if this is an ugly (not average, but ugly) woman for you. How come that your standards are so much higher than the REAL-LIFE standards from every guy I know?

Do you have field reports on this forum? I'm really curious.

(The girls far left and far right on the "foursome" picture are beasts, though.)

Post: #48

(05-17-2011 06:52 PM)Amour Fou Wrote:  What about these:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_6g5yk...G_1206.JPG

If your numbers dont match than ur scale is off imo...

Far left: 5ish - looks alittle shubby, even still i wouldnt be like eww or damn that girl is ugly if she passed me on the street. Technically I might have to drop her to 4.5 bc I will fuck a 5 and im pretty sure i would not fuck her at all.

Inside Left: 6-7 If the body is REAL good than I might could bump her up to 7.3 Def looks cute to me.

Inside Right: 6-6.5 Her nose looks big. If her nose was normal id might give her a 7

Far Right: 4 This grl is slightly ugly

Post: #49

(05-17-2011 06:52 PM)Amour Fou Wrote:  What about these:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_6g5yk...G_1206.JPG

2,5,7,3

Post: #50

(05-17-2011 07:38 PM)Bronze Wrote:  For example, the readhead who was voted a 3 by Luckystar. If she's slender (you can't figure that out on the picture 100%),

Seems pretty clear to me....she's fat.

no guy I know (not even the top guys) would turn down a sex offer from her IN REALITY (whatever guys might say about her on an internet forum).

Probably true. Most guys would hit almost anything. In my life, there's been a few attractive girls that I've told to put their clothes back on. If I don't like what I'm seeing or hearing, she becomes garbage to me pretty quickly. I have the discipline to reject pussy based on principle.

How come that your standards are so much higher than the REAL-LIFE standards from every guy I know?

Because the average guy has low standards. Example - The 'How to attract older women in their 30s, 40s, and 50s?' thread