[skulled]

The thing with such scales is that they are not really objective and across the board for everyone. One man's 7 is another man's 5 and so on, simply because although one can try to be as objective as possible it is not really possible to be a 100%.

Whenever you try to rate a girl on any such scale there will always be variances because your rating of the girl is completely dependent on what pushes your buttons and you cannot completely avoid this.

That said it is fun to see how everyone else is rating the girls, and it is pretty interesting that even some of the decent ones are getting low numbers. But I can bet those numbers are a little higher in another scenario, like when you are actually out and about to approach the same (or same kind of) girl and not just rating her from a photo on the computer

(05-17-2011 04:39 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

More nickel pieces:

6, 4, 3, 3

The first (top left) could be bumped up to 6.5/7 under the right circumstances, but she definitely has potential

(05-17-2011 06:52 PM)Amour Fou Wrote:  

What about these:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_6g5yk...G_1206.JPG

2, 4, 6.5, 3

Although the second from right (my left) could definitely be bumped up to a 5 if she lost some weight and probably more if it weren't for the big nose.

[Gunner]

(05-17-2011 06:52 PM)Amour Fou Wrote:  

What about these:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_6g5yk...G_1206.JPG

4 maybe if I were totally wasted but I doubt it, 7 if the body checks out, 6.5, 5

[Gunner]

What about this(just the red one, the other is a child):

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-a...8805_n.jpg

[Dash Global]

(05-17-2011 11:32 PM)bars Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 06:52 PM)Amour Fou Wrote:  

What about these:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_6g5yk...G_1206.JPG

4 maybe if I were totally wasted but I doubt it, 7 if the body checks out, 6.5, 5

how in the hell do u give the far right a 5?!?!? looks like a trans lol I would feel uncomfortable/embarrassed hanging out with her in person. she is a def 4!

[skulled]

(05-17-2011 11:37 PM)bars Wrote:  

What about this(just the red one, the other is a child):

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-a...8805_n.jpg

4, maybe 4.5 in the right circumstances.

[OGNorCal707]

(05-17-2011 06:52 PM)Amour Fou Wrote:  

What about these:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_6g5yk...G_1206.JPG

I would rate the far left as a 5, the middle two as 7's, and the far right a 4. Some of you guys are tough critics. I do agree that a lot of it depends on your location, a girl who is an 8 in my town would only be a 6 down in LA or Santa Barbara. Also, it's good to take a woman's body into consideration too, which can be hard to do from some of these pics, (I think one of the mature women posted had a kind of busted face, but massive round tits and possib. a nice fat ass as well, which may help her rate higher by my standards).

[azulsombra]

(05-17-2011 06:52 PM)Amour Fou Wrote:  

What about these:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_6g5yk...G_1206.JPG

from left to right, 5, 6, 7, 4

Are these brazilian or argentina chicks?

[Bronze]

(05-17-2011 11:16 PM)Luckystar Wrote:  

(05-17-2011 07:38 PM)Bronze Wrote:  

For example, the readhead who was voted a 3 by Luckystar. If she's slender (you can't figure that out on the picture 100%),

Seems pretty clear to me....she's fat.

no guy I know (not even the top guys) would turn down a sex offer from her IN REALITY (whatever guys might say about her on an internet forum).

Probably true. Most guys would hit almost anything. In my life, there's been a few attractive girls that I've told to put their clothes back on. If I don't like what I'm seeing or hearing, she becomes garbage to me pretty quickly. I have the discipline to reject pussy based on principle.

How come that your standards are so much higher than the REAL-LIFE standards from every guy I know?

Because the average guy has low standards. Example - The 'How to attract older women in their 30s, 40s, and 50s?' thread

Wow. You are a really successful player. I'm impressed.

If you could post a picture of a (white) real-life girl you've banged or you've had a date with, this would be great. Preferably one in the HB 8-10 category. Or please post a link to your field reports here on this forum. I want to learn something.

[Gmac]

A lot of skewing going on here. You guys realize there is still a huge disparity from MUCH uglier women and the (in my opinion) 4-7s up there:



What about this one?



Fat skews the scale pretty bad. I've give the first a 1 and this one a 2.5.

Amour Fou Wrote:  

What about these:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_6g5yk...G_1206.JPG

From left to right: 4 | 5 | 6.5 | 4

To me, anything below a 5 fails the boner test and is unattractive/undesirable to me. 5 is "doable" but is not going to be seen in public with me afterward... and anything above just gets marginally better per half point, whereas 8.5-9.5 is model status. 10s don't exist. Roosh came up with a different point scale (somewhat a joke I'm pretty sure) that went up to 70 something points. As complicated as it is, things like arm fat and short hair always come into play.

[Mystik]

If 5 = doable then



3,4,6.5

Its very hard to find a 5.

[Gmac]

(05-18-2011 06:21 AM)Mystik Wrote:  

If 5 = doable then

3,4,6.5

Its very hard to find a 5.

I'd put the middle one in with the 5s, maybe 4.5.

[Luckystar]

(05-17-2011 11:37 PM)bars Wrote:  

What about this(just the red one, the other is a child):

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-a...8805_n.jpg

5,3

[Dash Global]

(05-18-2011 06:21 AM)Mystik Wrote:  

If 5 = doable then



3,4,6.5

Its very hard to find a 5.

4, 5, 6ish

[Luckystar]

(05-18-2011 03:23 AM)Bronze Wrote:  

Wow. You are a really successful player. I'm impressed.

If you could post a picture of a (white) real-life girl you've banged or you've had a date with, this would be great. Preferably one in the HB 8-10 category. Or please post a link to your field reports here on this forum. I want to learn something.

Bronze, I am not a player or an expert (guys like Mixx, G, Roosh and Fisto are more advanced than me). What I am, is a world class asshole and I don't think women are special.

Unlike most guys, I don't love women. I love sex. And that's what I chase.

There's a difference.

[Luckystar]

(05-18-2011 04:42 AM)Gmac Wrote:  

5 is "doable" but is not going to be seen in public with me afterward... and anything above just gets marginally better per half point, whereas 8.5-9.5 is model status. 10s don't exist.

Agreed. A 5 is something you would do if you are hard up for action. A slumbreaker if you will. You'd never want to be seen in public with it.

[Luckystar]

(05-18-2011 06:21 AM)Mystik Wrote:  

If 5 = doable then

3.5,5,5.5

[Moma]

(05-18-2011 04:42 AM)Gmac Wrote:  

A lot of skewing going on here. You guys realize there is still a huge disparity from MUCH uglier women and the (in my opinion) 4-7s up there:



What about this one?



Fat skews the scale pretty bad. I've give the first a 1 and this one a 2.5.

Amour Fou Wrote:  

What about these:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_6g5yk...G_1206.JPG

The big ting with the cigarette is a zero. And the other one has a 6 face but the body brings it down to 4. I might fcuk it if I was really horny and it was really dark.

The ting with a cigarette doesn't qualify as female to me. Whoever sleeps with that has thrown the towel in and might as well sleep with dudes.

[kerouac]

A lot of guys just come off sounding arrogant on these kinds of posts. It reminds me of those guys who say they only bang 9s and 10s and when you see that 9 or 10 she looks more like a 5 in real life, so instead of breaking down your "fine" taste in women by rating them like 3s or 4s how about you guys start posting actual 5s, which in my book means the lowest quality girl you could get yourself to bang with a few drinks in ya.

So, here's my definition of a 5:




Ok, but really, the lowest I'll go is this:


The top row are the 5s, that would necessitate a few drinks in me and a good body and good personality.

The bottom row have a subtle, more feminine, looks that would require not as many drinks, so they would jump from between 6 to 7.5.

[Moma]

(05-18-2011 10:39 AM)kerouac Wrote:  

Ok, but really, the lowest I'll go is this:


The top row are the 5s, that would necessitate a few drinks in me and a good body and good personality.

The bottom row have a subtle, more feminine, looks that would require not as many drinks, so they would jump from between 6 to 7.5.

Dude, I hate to be a party pooper but those are pictures of the same women. The top three are exactly the same as the bottom three. There has just been some image doctoring to give their faces a more rounded and thus, a more feminine look.

[Moma]

I'd fcuk a 5 sober.

A 4.5 would be done under the influence of alcohol. A 4, I'd most likely opt to go home and wank instead.

If you guys would only fcuk a 5 when drunk then that means she is not really a 5.

Any event that generates a 5 (average, neutral) should mean something you don't mind doing if you have nothing else lined up.

Below 5 should mean something you don't like doing. For example, I don't like cold porridge but if I am really hungry and there is nothing in my cupboard, I will.

I don't like fecal matter. Unless, I'm pushed to a point of eminent death, it's not in my thought pattern as nutritional consumption.

As an example, that woman with the cigarette was EXTREMELY unattractive. Since the lack of sex will not directly kill me, she can not be an option. She give me the same sexual excitement as a man does..which is NOTHING.
I'd rather wank over erotic literature than even direct an erection towards that.

[kerouac]

(05-18-2011 11:11 AM)Moma Wrote:  

(05-18-2011 10:39 AM)kerouac Wrote:  

Ok, but really, the lowest I'll go is this:


The top row are the 5s, that would necessitate a few drinks in me and a good body and good personality.

The bottom row have a subtle, more feminine, looks that would require not as many drinks, so they would jump from between 6 to 7.5.

Dude, I hate to be a party pooper but those are pictures of the same women. The top three are exactly the same as the bottom three. There has just been some image doctoring to give their faces a more rounded and thus, a more feminine look.

Ya, I know, I'm just pointing out the difference between bangable and more-easily-bangable. The best thing about alcohol is that after a few drinks the bangable girls become much-more-bangable like the bottom row

[kerouac]

(05-18-2011 11:19 AM)Moma Wrote:  

I'd fcuk a 5 sober.

A 4.5 would be done under the influence of alcohol. A 4, I'd most likely opt to go home and wank instead.

If you guys would only fcuk a 5 when drunk then that means she is not really a 5.

Any event that generates a 5 (average, neutral) should mean something you don't mind doing if you have nothing else lined up.

Below 5 should mean something you don't like doing. For example, I don't like cold porridge but if I am really hungry and there is nothing in my cupboard, I will.

I don't like fecal matter. Unless, I'm pushed to a point of eminent death, it's not in my thought pattern as nutritional consumption.

As an example, that woman with the cigarette was EXTREMELY unattractive. Since the lack of sex will not directly kill me, she can not be an option. She give me the same sexual excitement as a man does..which is NOTHING.
I'd rather wank over erotic literature than even direct an erection towards that.

This is why I like my friend's approach towards women, he uses the "binary system." So a girl is either a 1 or a 0, much like Roosh's boner test. A girl is either bangable or not. When you're hooking up with girls that's the only qualifier that should really matter.

Relationship/LTR material is when you start looking at her intricacies. So really, unless you're planning on getting in a relationship with a particular girl, the only worthy question is... is she bangable. I think this thread could be a good indicator of what exactly we find bangable, but not our ideal.

[kerouac]

Here are some girls of OKCupid I think I could bang:

no question







These are just a few that showed up first, but I think these would be in the bang-without-too-much-alcohol level (depending, of course, on the personality)

[Gmac]

(05-18-2011 12:09 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

Here are some girls of OKCupid I think I could bang:

These are just a few that showed up first, but I think these would be in the bang-without-too-much-alcohol level (depending, of course, on the personality)

That's about the quality level of the girls I'm meeting regularly on OKC (a few are slightly below), which isn't bad at all. 5-7 range.

[Luckystar]

(05-18-2011 12:09 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

Here are some girls of OKCupid I think I could bang:

no question







These are just a few that showed up first, but I think these would be in the bang-without-too-much-alcohol level (depending, of course, on the personality)

7
7.5
5.5
5
4.5
5.5
6