Post: #101

(01-14-2019 07:44 PM)Delta Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 01:15 PM)corsega Wrote:  

(01-13-2019 12:54 AM)Delta Wrote:  or my locale is horrific.

Jesus, if you're not seeing girls like this where you are located, it's definitely that.

These types of girls are a dime a dozen in San Francisco. Similar types like me first all the time but I generally swipe left.

If you were out here, you would be getting 20+ matches a week of girls of similar quality.

This may be because you inadvertently posted my "type" (in-shape, smiling, not trashy looking) with the latter 3, but these are all easily top 10% of girls I see online, and as far as in-person, unless I go out night gaming, I'll go months on end without coming across a new girl anywhere near this attractive.

Online, a right swipe on any girl that looks like these is a 1 in a thousand Hail Mary for me. I'll match with them every now and then, but getting one that seems remotely interested in meeting happens about once every couple months... and that's combining every app I use (i.e. all the popular ones). If I was just using Bumble let's say, I'd be lucky to meet 2 girls per year of this caliber. And, I'll reiterate what corsega already knows for everyone else- I'm in very good shape, my photos do really well on Photofeeler, and I have a lucrative career.

So this is why it's mind-blowing for me to see people claim these girls are 6's and easily attainable for someone who's got his shit together. I knew my locale wasn't the greatest, but geez, I never imagined it was orders of magnitude worse than SF.

Dude where the fuck do you live? Starkesville Alabama or Warrenton Pennsylvania, Holy Shit!!! How do the bars and shit look when you go out??

Post: #102

^I have no reason to believe my location is especially bad for not being a major city. Seems like you guys who game in big cities with lots of young transplants are spoiled by it, and have no idea how much different the market is elsewhere. Awhile back I did a little study on match.com data, and found that online dating ratios are FAR less skewed in trendy major cities.

Where I am, if you go out to the coolest/trendiest bars on a Saturday night, girls like the supposed "6's" posted in this thread aren't super rare, but the ratios are abysmal (I'd estimate ~3:1) and also I fucking hate those places. On dating apps, you see some girls like that just due to the sheer number of participants, but they are the absolute creme de la creme. Online girls who aren't at all fat generally feel unattainable, even those with below average faces. And I say that as a man who isn't at all fat and has some well-defined muscle.

By the way does anyone agree with Cation's "6's"? His are even hotter than corsega's to my eye.

Post: #103

(01-16-2019 02:36 AM)Delta Wrote:  ^I have no reason to believe my location is especially bad for not being a major city. Seems like you guys who game in big cities with lots of young transplants are spoiled by it, and have no idea how much different the market is elsewhere. Awhile back I did a little study on match.com data, and found that online dating ratios are FAR less skewed in trendy major cities.

Where I am, if you go out to the coolest/trendiest bars on a Saturday night, girls like the supposed "6's" posted in this thread aren't super rare, but the ratios are abysmal (I'd estimate ~3:1) and also I fucking hate those places. On dating apps, you see some girls like that just due to the sheer number of participants, but they are the absolute creme de la creme. Online girls who aren't at all fat generally feel unattainable, even those with below average faces. And I say that as a man who isn't at all fat and has some well-defined muscle.

By the way does anyone agree with Cation's "6's"? His are even hotter than corsega's to my eye.

The photos of girls he posted are taken by professional photographers in a club with girls that are wearing club makeup.

Also, the girls he posted are Slavic, whereas mine are American (there's different looks standards per country IMO).

I'd say if you remove both of those they're all pretty much equal, though I think the first and last girl he posted are probably 6.5s.

Post: #104

This is who I would consider a 7-7.5
I have another picture but for some reason it won't attach into my post.

Post: #105

Rate these 2 groups of women



and these 2

Post: #106

Those women aren't the youngest, so for me that knocks them back compared to what they may have been at 18-20. First photo - all of them are about 5-6 to me - I'd bang all of them, but wouldn't pursue them so they'd have to offer it on a plate. I wouldn't be seen in public where people know me with any of them. Second photo, blonde is a 4, curvy one could be a 7. The photo isn't very clear though.

Post: #107

(01-17-2019 08:36 AM)quaker13 Wrote:  Rate these 2 groups of women



and these 2

Would need more photos/less makeup for more accurate ratings, but just based on those two photos:

Photo 1:
4.5, 6.5, 7, 6, 6.5

Photo 2:
8, 6

Post: #108

Last 2 pics

Post: #109

^ everyone is a 5 except half face girl in black, she's a 6.

Post: #110

Suddenly, this turned into a "pick out the 7-8 amongst a field of sub-sevens" thread.

I suppose that is the subconscious desire of OP and the natural direction for the thread to take.

Post: #111

(01-18-2019 06:09 PM)Max RNR Wrote:  Suddenly, this turned into a "pick out the 7-8 amongst a field of sub-sevens" thread.

I suppose that is the subconscious desire of OP and the natural direction for the thread to take.

No, it is just the unwillingness of the forum members to respect the topic.

Damn shame.

However, all of that doesn't prevent you from posting your 6s & 7s.

Post: #112

Based on the unrealistic assessment of women in this thread I couldn’t help myself but to pull from my archives. I came to the conclusion that I’m Either fucking with low level aesthetic trash or some of these dudes are insanely delusional. Which one it is only time will tell

Post: #113

5/6 is plain.

By definition.

The vast majority of guys posting 7's and 8's and claiming they're 5's and 6's are spending the bulk of their time masturbating to anime porn. Guaranteed.

Post: #114

By which definition are 6s plain?

Post: #115

The blonde chick in corsega's first post 2nd pic is a good example of make up inflation

In that pic she is a 6. Cute and definitely on the sexual radar, but not close to the 8 she is with. She looks like a typical white bread Midwest nervous chick.

With make up and dolled up, she could pull off being a 7.

WB.

Post: #116

(01-18-2019 10:12 PM)quaker13 Wrote:  Based on the unrealistic assessment of women in this thread I couldn’t help myself but to pull from my archives. I came to the conclusion that I’m Either fucking with low level aesthetic trash or some of these dudes are insanely delusional. Which one it is only time will tell

Out of interest what do you rate the women that you posted as?

With the exception of the curvy one I'd say 5-6 is a pretty reasonable assessment (and there's nothing wrong with fucking women in this range at all). But there has to be room left on the scale for the 7-9s. A 7 to me is very attractive, a girl that you'd be proud to be seen anywhere with.

Post: #117

(01-17-2019 05:03 PM)corsega Wrote:  Would need more photos/less makeup for more accurate ratings, but just based on those two photos:

Photo 1:
4.5, 6.5, 7, 6, 6.5

Photo 2:
8, 6

The one you rated 8 has fat legs, a big butt and a manly face. I wouldn't go above a 5. The blonde however could easily be a 7 if she had better fashion sense.

Post: #118

(01-19-2019 05:26 AM)Kieran Wrote:  

(01-18-2019 10:12 PM)quaker13 Wrote:  Based on the unrealistic assessment of women in this thread I couldn’t help myself but to pull from my archives. I came to the conclusion that I’m Either fucking with low level aesthetic trash or some of these dudes are insanely delusional. Which one it is only time will tell

Out of interest what do you rate the women that you posted as?

With the exception of the curvy one I'd say 5-6 is a pretty reasonable assessment (and there's nothing wrong with fucking women in this range at all). But there has to be room left on the scale for the 7-9s. A 7 to me is very attractive, a girl that you'd be proud to be seen anywhere with.

The first chick posted with the best fitting dress i'd give an 8. She's pretty god damn striking in person despite being in her late 30s. She can easily hold her own with younger girls.

The second girl is also an 8 in my mind. She can't take a bad pic to save her life. Her Mom is from Bali dad is from Germany. She has an amazing body and a killer smile.

The third chick in the red dress and blond hair I'd give a flat 7, but dressed up she's a 7.5

Post: #119

These are 6s in my book. Basic college white girls with no special features. I think age is relevant to this discussion, the older you are the lower you standards get I’d say. I think you can’t expect to get fresh early 20s women in the Anglo countries if you are 40+ . Outside of the Anglo sphere I think age matters much less

Post: #120

(01-06-2019 01:58 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  6





7

4 and a 5 imo

Post: #121

(01-19-2019 01:42 AM)Cation Wrote:  By which definition are 6s plain?

Quote:plain1Dictionary result for plain
/pleɪn/Submit
adjective
1.
not decorated or elaborate; simple or basic in character.
"good plain food"
synonyms: simple, ordinary, unadorned, undecorated, unembellished, unornamented, unpretentious, unostentatious, unfussy, homely, homespun, basic, modest, unsophisticated, penny plain, without frills; stark, severe, spartan, austere, chaste, bare, uncluttered, restrained, muted, unpatterned, patternless, everyday, workaday
"her plain black dress"

2.
having no pretensions; not remarkable or special.
"a plain, honest man with no nonsense about him"
synonyms: straightforward, unpretentious, simple, ordinary, average, unassuming, unaffected, honest-to-goodness, ingenuous, artless, guileless, sincere; cracker-barrel

What is the average of 1 and 10?

Post: #122

6 is above average.

Post: #123

(01-26-2019 05:01 AM)Cation Wrote:  6 is above average.

Maybe he's chasing some mythical 11. 6 would be the median average on that scale. He'll never find her, but whatever.

Post: #124

It's personal opinion. That girl does nothing for me. I fucked a beauty pageant who would be considered a 10 but was a 7 in my book. The sex sucked. So I understand op

Post: #125

The rate of the girl for me is the sum of rate of Body+Face.
Since we already pretty much agree on most of girls faces rate i won't be discussing that.

Rate of Body: Ass+Boobs+Waist.+Optimal weight.(Not fat/Not very lean that all her bones are obvious)

Ass:The bigger the better, Ass that bounces when slapping.

Waist:The wider, the more attractive she is for me the easier for me to get a boner. I personally think its one of the most underrated aspects.

Boobs:Big enough for me to hold on to with my palm and my fingers. Not so big that i can't hold on them efficiently and not small either.Natural/No implants are on complete different level than fake ones.

   

Her face is a SOLID 9 in my book.

Her boobs , are not so small , and not big for me to consider optimal.

She is pretty lean , doesn't reach optimal weight.

Her waist isn't optimal also.

   

Her ass is definitely small , not so small tho , but not optimal.

However her hygiene , smooth skin,hair,teeth..etc.. saves her body rate for me to up to a 6.5.

Her overall rate: 7.5 , a Solid 7 or a Soft 8.
So whether u are talking about the face I would rate her 9/9.5
The body a 6.5
Many factors considered while rating a girl definitely changes her overall rate.