Quote: (05-26-2017 01:26 AM)CleanSlate Wrote:
Quote: (05-26-2017 12:23 AM)Jagnum Wrote:
If I’m in a given place and there are roughly a thousand girls, 1000 will be 6s, 100 will be 7s, 10 will be 8s, and 1 will be and 9. It’s exponential.
Exponential yes, but let's fix your math a bit.
Out of a thousand girls, at least 50% will be a 5 or below. That leaves the remaining 500 that could be 6s or above -- which is actually very generous for the U.S. It's realistic in places like SEA.
400 out of those 500 will be 6s. Out of the remaining 100, maybe 80 will be 7s, 19 are 8s, and one 9.
In the West, the bell curve will be squeezed further to the left.
Actually the attractiveness matrix to women is not running along the standard deviation graph.
Why?
Because I make the argument that most women when young (16-22) and slim or in shape (some need workout, but if BMI is goo) and having grown out hair, putting on some makeup for the ugliest ones - that most of young slim long-haired women are at least 6s - at least in Western countries. Of course you have other tribes which are less aesthetically pleasing (or they are not up to your type).
But seriously - most young women when slim and young and some makeup can be 6s. The sexual market however is fucked up because even some weight pushes a close 6 to a 5, cutting hair short lowers her look again. I know a mid 6 who decided once to cut her hair short. That 20yo girl instantly dropped 1-2 points and becamse a 4-5, despite having big pretty eyes and a slim body. She later regrew her hair and luckily stepped off the carousel and got into a LTR with a cringe-worthy, but very lovable Beta all by age 23. But of course that is Eastern Europe - in the West she would be riding hard the carousel until there is no tomorrow.