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