Quote: (11-24-2014 03:42 PM)General Stalin Wrote:  

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.

Exactly we can all agree if a girl is attractive...but it's insanity when it comes to the details of how attractive.

The biggest reason I like the scale is not about ego.

It is how much I should trust the advice and results of other members.

If they throw up a few pics and put a number on them now when they give advice I can see what their game, city, and venues frequented can produce.

Stating 6-9 is much easier than the effort to secretly take pics of chicks in public constantly and post them.

I recommend some scale of grades or classes. WNB, WB and WBB (would bang brutally). Maybe a few more variations. It's nice and clean. Leaves little-to-none room for arguing and hating on each other. Too many young men have fought and insulted each other over what's a 7 and what's a WNB 2/10. It's about time we stop this quarrel.

Yes it's pointless, but it will not stop. Men like numbers. Men like to compete. Men will try to prove to other men (foolishly) that they have more numbers of higher ranked girls. Just that simple. I automatically discount 90% of claims from guys that alleged they banged a 9. You banged a Victoria Secret looking model? Bitch please. Now, there are a couple of guys I would believe, the rest are just lies.

Just like grade inflation at Harvard, pussy inflation is rampant. It has to be the male hamster because it's just so common.

I pretty much agree with el mech's scale. For me a 4 is the girl that causes what Krauser calls a "DNA tug." That feeling you get when you see a girl and you just go ballistic inside and want to impregnate her.

^ I agree with big ballerism. Had a guy send me a pic once of his 8. She was a 33yo 6.

In Santa Barbara I see maybe 20 8's in a really good week.

I don't buy guys going through 7s and 8s quickly unless they are in Russia, Ukraine, Colombia, Japan, Sweden, Norway and have extremely tight game or are a top 1% guy in the U.S..

I'm in favor of a tiered system, as Kai and Mech have proposed. Is it worth distinguishing between a 1 and a 5? Both are in the WNB category and there's no point wasting time categorizing them further. Same deal with 5-6 (iffy/would let blow), 6-8 (WB), and 8 and above (WB furiously). Don't get me started on fractional points.

Issues with rating a woman based on one cherry picked two dimensional image are always going to be there, as are personal preferences but for the most part a good body and face are obvious and not going to lead to massive discrepancies.

Quote: (11-24-2014 03:36 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

[quote='CimbomluBkk' pid='888661' dateline='1416860986']
Here is my example of a 7



Another 7- 7.5

This girl is brazilian!

Quote: (11-24-2014 04:02 PM)Travesty444 Wrote:  

^ I agree with big ballerism. Had a guy send me a pic once of his 8. She was a 33yo 6.

In Santa Barbara I see maybe 20 8's in a really good week.

I don't buy guys going through 7s and 8s quickly unless they are in Russia, Ukraine, Colombia, Japan, Sweden, Norway and have extremely tight game or are a top 1% guy in the U.S..

Jesus seriously 33yo 6 ?

Well you do have an advantage up in SB lots of hotties there.

But the number game will always be objective and tastes differ.

There are some good ideas for rating systems, thing is Menace is right about men competing and this never stopping.

Say it ain't so Tuthmosis. The author of the classic 1-to-10 ROK article is discrediting one of the most consistent topics of game shit-talking? Never thought I'd see the day.

I will go ahead and guess that your frustration is partially attributed to whatever your hater friends have said, but also the fucking absurd "What does an American 7 look like" thread. Dudes in there making 6s to 9s, 9s to 6s, and disturbing the natural order of the universe. Ensam's post is one of the only there of real value.

Quote: (09-28-2013 07:27 PM)Ensam Wrote:  

That thread had a lot of potential, and some dudes had it right, but for the most part it shows that some guys have truly warped views on beauty.

I don't see the problem with subjectivity entering the equation. The 1-10 scale allows us to distinguish between the gray areas el mechanico talks about. I'm partial to the 'asshole-able' reference, because that's absolutely on point. I'll go through the front door for a friendly 6 or 7, but the backdooral is reserved for 8s and above.

Every dude has his own scale. On mine, Sofía Vergara, especially in her younger days, is a 10. No doubt. Some idiots would say Katy Perry is a 6 because of some pic taken of her while she's taking a dump or whatever. I say she's an 8AW (AT WORST) because I'm straight. (really, I fucking love pale girls with dark hair)

.............................

As I was writing this post I think I've changed my mind. I thought, and still think, debating the 1-10 is a fun exercise. It serves to define your tastes. But we should strive to define our tastes further... to increase our beauty vocabulary.

Take a recent example. Friend of mine asks for my opinion on a regular in his rotation that's got prodigious ass and titties, 19 years old, and a round face. He admits he has a thing for round-ish faces. I do not.

I have a theory that he likes round faces because he has a massive, extremely defined man-jaw (no homo). The type of jaw bodybuilders get after cutting to below 10% body fat, except this motherfucker hasn't stepped in a gym in years. Doesn't even know what a bench press is. Whereas I have softer facial features. If I don't go to the gym. I get chubby cheeks and go from a diamond to round face shape.

Thus I hypothesize that according to his facial features, he's more tolerant of rounder faces than I am. I cannot possibly procreate with a round face, or else I'll produce a Mr. Potatohead. He should probably stay away from square jaws, lest he breed a Spongebob.

But I digress. Back to his round-face PAWG.

I explain "I'd bang her to oblivion. Dat ass. However... I prefer more angular facial features, with high-ish, defined cheekbones, thin nose, and an overall slightly more defined, yet soft-looking, facial structure."

I've had a lot of 1-to-10 debates with this buddy of mine, and I get the impression he believes I'm hating. But there's no denying that indeed we are BOTH guilty of at least one of two things:

1. overvaluing our conquests
2. having different tastes

In that case, I've decided to ease up a bit on the 1-to-10, and actually give a verbal, detailed explanation of what my preferences actually are, in the interest of precision and objectivity. I want to get in the habit of using better language.

Quote: (11-24-2014 03:08 PM)el mechanico Wrote:  

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.

Quote:Quote:

In one extreme case, a member rated a tranny a 7. Guys can't see past deceptive tactics well enough to make reliable ratings.

^ Wow Kamikaze that Mr. Potatohead thing is dead on.

I have a very angular and defined face with sharper features due to being half Polish.

I can respect beautiful angular face girls, but I love soft round faced girls. Couldn't have kids with an angular face bitch. Must be a genetic mixing.

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 personally like the 1-10 scale, but it's something I discuss lightly and with a sense of humor. It's with the inherent understanding that taste is subjective. To me, it's nothing but good fun to check out some chick with your wingman and either agree or disagree on her rating. It's not something to be taken very seriously.

For what it's worth, out of all the forum dudes I've hung out with, I haven't encountered any "big baller"-ism except in one, maybe two cases. If anything, there's a bit of reverse big baller-ism, where I see a member with a hot chick, easily an 8 in my book, and tell them "Damn dude, nice work. She's banging." and they're response is something like, "Eh, she's okay."

On top of that, perceptions change, and so do aesthetics. I'll use my last new bang as an example. When I first met her, I thought she was a 9.5. After I banged her, she dropped down to an 8.5, because I saw her the next morning without makeup. Plus she was kind of annoying.

One forum member that met her went all the way and called her a 10. Another forum member met her, and while he didn't say anything, I knew he wasn't impressed, I think largely due to his preference for tall white girls with pink nipples. But that subjectivity aside, I think the 1-10 scale is important because it gives context in conversation; "Yeah I met this girl at a bar, pretty cute but right off the bat she wants me to take her out to dinner. She's a 6 at best so there's no way that's happening." By identifying her as a 6, we all understand the context of what the guy is saying, "Worth fucking but not worth a dinner date." A 7 *might* warrant some appetizers, and an 8 you've been dating for 3 months that gives great head warrants a full blown omakase sushi meal. The number rating helps give context to these statements.

I think another factor is maturity. Most guys I hang out with are 30+, and none of us are really interested in impressing each other. Given that, when any one of us label a girl as an 8, it carries some serious gravity. If Fisto tells me a girl is an 8, I know I won't be disappointed when he inevitably sends me a picture of her butthole.

El Mech's 1-4 rating is pretty good, but it leaves out the girls that have that slightly unattainable status, as much as I hate to use that word. Let's be real; how often are any of us banging 9s? That doesn't mean they don't exist, and the 1-4 scale doesn't account for that.

Given how many people seem to think 5 means grotesque rather than average, I'd say it is a useless scale. And you'd have to specify the age, race, city, etc. that you are using as the baseline for the scale or it is meaningless. If it is all women, then basically anyone under 30 becomes a 7+. If it is all non-fat Norwegian women between 18-22, then even a 2-3 is bangable.

Quote: (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.

Quote:Quote:

and the 1-4 scale doesn't account for that.

Yeah it does it's a 4

Quote: (11-24-2014 04:52 PM)el mechanico Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

and the 1-4 scale doesn't account for that.

Yeah it does it's a 4

A girl doesn't have to be a 9 for me to eat her ass.

There is a pretty clear definition in the difference between an 8 and a 9 to me.

An 8 is a girl that I call "hot". A girl that's hot enough to model in some B-list publications, car magazines, etc, but when you're face to face with her she's got noticeable flaws.

A 9+ is a girl that is, for all purposes, nearly flawless. You'd have to go over her with a fine-toothed comb to pick out any flaws. Her hair is soft, her face is immaculate, she's got full lips, high cheekbones, perfect neckline and perfect ratio of torso, waist, hips, ass. Smooth, taut skin, perky tits, perky ass. No visible marks; stretch marks, excessive moles, zero scars. Tight, compact pussy with no excessive labia, tastes like freshly cut filet mignon from a steer not exceeding 3 months in age, ever so lightly spritzed with the winter's first Meyer lemon. Neutral, slightly sweet-ish breath. Pleasant, feminine voice in the Mezzo-Soprano range.

Needless to say, I've never banged a 9 by my standards.

Quote: (11-24-2014 02:48 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

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.

There is such thing as objective beauty, but not objective sex appeal. Objective beauty comes down to measurable factors like:

- Facial symmetry.
- Hip/waist ratio.
- Lack of noticeable facial blemishes.

... Things where there are obvious standards that transcend culture. We can more or less describe an objective standard for facial aesthetics, for instance, because statues and paintings depicting beauty from all era show a preference for the same qualities: symmetry, high cheekbones, large eyes, small nose, etc.

However we can only say this about a relatively small "package" of features that make up maybe half of what we call 'sex appeal'.

Other qualities like:

- Skin color.
- Body weight (I know I'll get flak for this but BMI is not an objective measure).
- Hair color.
- Eye color.

... Have no objective standard.

A girl who is 99th percentile on the objective scale of beauty may come out as low as a 5 to an individual guy's sex appeal scale because she's too skinny, too fat, too blonde, too asian, etc.

Let's take the waist hip ratio for instance. It's generally been observed that 2:3 is around an ideal ratio for most men. But a girl can be at a 2:3 ratio at 110 pounds or at 200 pounds. Two girls who both meet the ratio can also look completely different for a variety of other reasons. So the 'objective' standards only make up a portion of what guys look at. Many of the metrics end up being necessarily subjective ones, race and hair color being perfect examples.

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

Quote: (11-24-2014 05:07 PM)Veloce Wrote:  

Tight, compact pussy with no excessive labia, tastes like freshly cut filet mignon from a steer not exceeding 3 months in age, ever so lightly spritzed with the winter's first Meyer lemon.

That's beautiful, man.

im more of a binary scale kind of guy.

Is it a 1? If not, its a zero.

Quote: (11-24-2014 02:48 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

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

I'm a bit surprised to see this coming from you, but I believe you're correct.

The early community basically used the 10 scale to assuage the difficulty levels with approaching different girls. The higher the girl on the scale, the more difficult (supposedly) she was to pick up.

I generally find that this isn't true. In fact, some of the easiest and most friendly girls were some of the hottest I've interacted with.

What matters far, far more than her looks are three different things:

1. Your looks/game.

Basically, how "hot" and "cool" you are. If she doesn't consider you hot or cool enough for her, forget it. You don't have any chance. It's irrelevant whether she's a "7" or a "10."

2. Her sexual availability.

If she's not available or open to some new dick (IE: she has a boyfriend, she got fucked very well last night, etc.), you aren't going to get anywhere with her.

3. The context in which you meet her.

A bit more esoteric, but I think this is important as well. Some girls might be attracted to you but would consider it "weird" to meet a guy in a random public place or the like, and will likely flake on you later. Where she falls on the "scale" has nothing to do with it.

Focusing on where she falls on the so-called 10 scale could actually HARM your game. You will be creating imaginary barriers and get lost in analysis paralysis. I realized that the scale was useless last year, dropped it, and I'm far better off for it.

Quote: (11-24-2014 05:07 PM)Veloce Wrote:  

Quote: (11-24-2014 04:52 PM)el mechanico Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

and the 1-4 scale doesn't account for that.

Yeah it does it's a 4

A girl doesn't have to be a 9 for me to eat her ass.

There is a pretty clear definition in the difference between an 8 and a 9 to me.

An 8 is a girl that I call "hot". A girl that's hot enough to model in some B-list publications, car magazines, etc, but when you're face to face with her she's got noticeable flaws.

A 9+ is a girl that is, for all purposes, nearly flawless. You'd have to go over her with a fine-toothed comb to pick out any flaws. Her hair is soft, her face is immaculate, she's got full lips, high cheekbones, perfect neckline and perfect ratio of torso, waist, hips, ass. Smooth, taut skin, perky tits, perky ass. No visible marks; stretch marks, excessive moles, zero scars. Tight, compact pussy with no excessive labia, tastes like freshly cut filet mignon from a steer not exceeding 3 months in age, ever so lightly spritzed with the winter's first Meyer lemon. Neutral, slightly sweet-ish breath. Pleasant, feminine voice in the Mezzo-Soprano range.

Needless to say, I've never banged a 9 by my standards.

This post makes me want to go to Carrabbas for some reason

Prefer 1-100 scale myself.