[Distant Light]

(11-29-2014 03:32 PM)Emancipator Wrote:  

There's only one scale/test for me: The boner test.

Easy Y/N

Boner Test sucks IMO...

I like to view things as having certain "ideal" types (and fetishes) and basically every chick is like a dart trying to hit the bullseye.

In 2013, after being around so many gorgeous women you start to realize there is a certain level of hotness where the chick is just HOT and there is no need to debate or compare 2 hotties.

Sametime, I learnt chicks who are attractive and have a certain "look" but not my ideal I can't bang...Took home a latin hipster with an AMAZING ASS didn't do the things I love to do to say Eastern Euro model types...Although I do love colombian plastic chicks. (Festish)

There is NOTHING better than banging your ideal types...

Which is why I can appreciate beauty but at the sametime not be sexually interested. Flipside, there are some "looks" think rural slavic that to most are highly unattractive that I am highly attracted too.

It's to the point I prefer sleep over sex with a cutie.

[kaotic]

It's happening again in this thread:

http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-42814.html

[POASTER]

In these hard economic times young millennial men should have a money-oriented scale

1. "Would not pay anything, don't want to be seen in public with her"

2. "Would take her to Chic Fil-A or In-n-Out"

3. "Would take her to dinner and a movie"

4. "Would take her to a fancy steakhouse"

5. "Would deplete my savings account and take out more students loans for her"

[HighSpeed_LowDrag]

(11-26-2014 04:57 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

The 1-to-10 scale is the right scale.

Anything more fine grained is too fussy; anything less fine grained is too sparse. The 10 scale has the right mouthfeel; you declare a girl to be a 7, and it feels right to say it, know it, and write it.

This post basically sums up my opinions on the whole scale issue - in the absence of any system that can define our target subjects better, it'll stay relevant simply because it's quick, clean, and offers a modicum of accuracy with a dash of pedestal-annihilating chauvinism.

Though, I think that the area-code system, coupled with a sliding verbal modifer to identify the level of effort you would put into obtaining said bang, is ultimately a better quantifier, and should be the standard used - essentially, combining El mech's/Roosh's scale with the Area Code scale.

You have the standard area code system [rating of body][WB/WNB][rating of face], plus the sliding scale:
WNB
WB (on same night, but would not date)
WD[number of dates you would be willing to go on to secure the bang]
WLTR(would give serious consideration to LTR'ing the girl. Assuming at this point you would take as many dates as necessary to secure the bang.)

In deference to El Mech's suggestion, call it the "Youngstown-Area Code scale."

eg.

505 - 5 body, 6 face, WNB.
716,WB - 7 body, 6 face, WB on same night, but not hot enough to date.
817,WD4 - 8 body, 7 face, would be willing to give 4 standard dates to bang.
9110,WLTR - 9 body, 10 face, would LTR.

I think this scale expresses fairly well the three main considerations any guy has when seeing a girl: body, face, and level of effort willing to put in.

Incidentally, the scale also would raise the level of attractiveness that a girl would have to exhibit in order to be a proper target for daygaming (since the assumption is that daygame goes slower than nightgame, since you have to put in dates.)

What do you guys think?

HSLD

[Advent Persona]

I have no idea what a 6 is, especially after I've seen some guys on here rate top-tier women 6s, then rate similar women 9s when it could very well be the same woman with different clothes on.

1-10 scale advocates should be able to tell me visually what the difference is between a 9 and a 10. Or a 7.5 and 8. Is there any need for such precision?

Here's what I use, Adjusted for Demographic:

Top-tier
Mid-tier
Low-tier


All I need to know, is what you think a top-tier girl of a specific demographic looks like, and what a low-tier girl of that same demographic looks like.

Top-Tier Japanese








Mid-Tier Japanese








Low-Tier Japanese




Keep it simple.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(11-26-2014 10:55 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Like mechanico, I've been using a sort of 4-point scale:

1. WNB - would not bang under any circumstance. 1-6

2. WB - would bang if it required very little effort. ~6-7

3. WD (would date) - would take her out on 3 standard dates to get the bang ~7-8

4. WNAFA (would not ask for abortion) - she's so hot I would not ask her to abort a love child in case I accidentally impregnate her so that my genes would attach itself to her strong genetic profile. ~9+

I think that most guys have a similar 4-point system.

Though to be fair I found the 1-10 scale remarkably accurate when I looked at the broad statistical assessments, when many guys for example here have cast their votes:

It rather looked like a standard deviation, where the average was indeed mostly accurate.



The 1-10 scale is more or less an approximate tool - usually not very helpful in pics, as real-life attraction can be significantly lower or higher.

And on another note - I found the least experienced or fat guys to be the most idiotic in their assessments of some girls. Some of the buggers I met had an impossibly high standard while having bedded a handful of girls and being highly overweight. On the other hand I met plenty of xxx-Players who fucked everything from models to fatties and they have no shame talking about having fucked the fat-folds of a 250 pound monster.

[Dagnasty]

If her chin were a little smaller and her teeth weren't fighting each other, she could hang with your mid-tier group. In fact, in most of the USA - she gets an 8+ - maybe even a 10/10 in some parts of the South.

(11-30-2014 08:39 AM)Advent Persona Wrote:  

Low-Tier Japanese

Keep it simple.