Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
The 1 to 10 Attractiveness Scale Is Utter Bullshit, and I’ll Prove It Right Now
Today, I’m going to explain why the 1 to 10 scale men use to rate women’s attractiveness is complete BS and is almost always inaccurate. I’ve talked about this topic before but never explained the reasons behind it. Though I consciously avoid using the 1 to 10 rating system in my writing, there are times that I have used it. This is because, sometimes, there is no other way to easily communicate certain topics.
-By Caleb Jones
The objection to this statement usually goes something like this: Yes, these ratings are objective BD, because science and biology clearly tell us that all men are attracted to things like facial symmetry and hip-to-waist ratio. But wait a minute. I never said facial symmetry and hip-to-waist ratio is bullshit. I said the 1 to 10 ranking scale is bullshit, because it is. Things like facial symmetry and hip-to-waist ratio have nothing to do with whether or not a woman is an “objective 9.” I’ll prove it right now.
The Experiment -
Take 25 young, hot girls off the street, all of whom are the exact same age, race, height, and hair color (in order to control for these factors), and all of whom have perfect facial symmetry and ideal hip-to-waist ratios for maximum male attraction. Got that? Good. Now, dress up these women in identical white outfits (to control for that factor), and line them all up against a wall in a big gymnasium in a completely random order.
Next, let in 100 random guys off the street and make sure they’re all the same race as the women (to control for that). Give them all note cards and tell them to rank each one of these women from 1 to 10. They can use tenth decimals if they need to (8.5, for example). Gather up all their rankings and enter them into a spreadsheet.
Do you know what you’ll find? There will be NO CONSENSUS WHATSOVER on which women are 10’s, 9’s, 8’s, or 7’s, even though they all have ideal facial symmetry and hip-to-waist ratios. Some of the guys will even rank some of the women as 6’s and 5’s. There will be huge arguments among these men as to which of these girls are 10’s (or 9’s, or 8’s). You’ll even see some men apply rankings of 10 to women other men will apply rankings of 7!
If facial symmetry and hip-to-waist ratio are all that matter, then all these guys should instead rank pretty close to the same as compared to the other guys in the room. But they won’t, because the 1 to 10 scale is completely subjective and complete bullshit, regardless of facial symmetry, hip-to-waist ratio, or any other biological attractiveness factor you can cite.
There is no such thing as an objective 10. If there were, all 100 of these men (or at least the vast majority of them) would select the same exact women as 10’s, yet that would not happen. My guess is about 40% at most would agree, the other 60% would give different rankings (though that’s just a guess based on conversations I’ve seen between men in real life and online).
There is no such thing as an objective 9, or 8, or whatever. These are all subjective within you. As I’ve explained before, 1 to 10 rankings only matter to you, within your own mind. I have my own, internal, 1 to 10 ranking system, as do you. I’m pretty consistent with my own internal rankings, but my rankings will probably conflict wildly with yours, and yours will conflict wildly with your best friend’s. The 1 to 10 scale is bullshit. Anyone saying that there are such things as an objective 10 (or 9, or whatever) is an idiot.
Then Where Do Men Agree?
If the 1 to 10 scale is bullshit, does that mean there is zero consensus among men over what is hot and what is not? Of course not. There is indeed consensus, and things like facial symmetry, hip-to-waist ratios, hip-to-bust ratios, body types, hair length, breast size, race, age, and other factors are indeed real and scientific in explaining what men find physically attractive.
Some men who dislike the 1 to 10 scale take the opposite extreme, and simply use a binary, yes or no system, often called the boner test. Instead of a 1 to 10 scale, these men use two categories, yes or no. Would I fuck her? She’s a yes. Would I not fuck her? She’s a no. Nothing else matters.
These men are doing the opposite of what the 1 to 10 scale lovers do. While the 1 to 10 guys think hard biological factors reliably explain 100% of everything 100% of the time, the binary guys think science doesn’t (or shouldn’t) matter at all. That’s incorrect as well.
I have seen a lot of decent looking guys bang a lot of really ugly women in my day. Seriously, dudes will fuck anything. If you operate under a binary scale only, you’ll likely end up having sex with average or ugly women, which is a bad idea, as I explained a long time ago here.
I have talked to literally hundreds of men on this topic, and if I were to consolidate everything these guys say into a scale that most men would agree on, something that would be closer to being objective (but still not quite), it would be this:
While there will be little across-the-board consensus on exactly who is a 10 or a 9, even if you control for all other factors as I did above, most men, not all, but most, will get a decent amount of consensus using the four categories of ugly, average, cute, or hot. These four categories are still technically subjective, but not nearly as subjective as the 1 to 10 scale. Most guys are going to agree on what an ugly woman looks like. Most guys are going to agree on what an average looking woman looks like. When you get to cute and hot, you will start to see more variances, but you’ll still see a lot of consensus.
Here’s an example. Look at pictures of Candice Swanepoel here. How many men are going to honestly consider her ugly? Virtually zero (though there will always be a rare few outliers). How many men are going to consider her average? Again, virtually zero. How many men are going to consider her just cute? Some, but not most. Most men, a big majority, are going to consider her hot.
I personally think she’s too tall, has legs that are way too long, and needs bigger boobs and bigger hips, but even I will admit that she’s beyond just “cute,” which makes her hot. Now, take a poll of 100 men looking at those same photos and ask them if she’s a 10. You’ll get no consensus at all. You’ll get all kinds of answers. Some guys will think she’s a 10. Others will say 9.5, others 9, and yet others 8, 7, or even less.
See what I mean?
With the categories of ugly, average, cute, and hot, you’ll get a lot of consensus. With the 1 to 10 scale, you’ll get almost none. Because it’s BULLLLLLLSHIITTTT.
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
J 2017-03-02 05:11:42
I can't remember if you mentioned it in one of your books or a blog post, but you advised your readers to do something that I've followed ever since... that is, when it comes to selecting targets for online dating, choose women that you think you would enjoy kissing. Like you said in this article, there are plent of women out there that I could fuck just because I'm a guy and can fuck just about anything with a wet hole. But when you narrow it down to girls you would actually enjoy passionate kissing with, you stop wasting your time on girls that are only fuckable and instead focus on quality. For me anyways, if a girl is attractive enough for me to desire that kind of intimacy, then she's probably at least an 8 on my scale, MAYBE a 7. There are too many options out there to waste your time on girls that are merely fuckable.
tddaygame 2017-03-02 05:16:39
I've always been saying that only 6-9 out of whole 10 points are usable. Below 6 are "would not bang". 6s are "would bang if easy/no effort and I wouldn't brag about it" (that would mean "average"). 7 is an attractive girl ("cute"?), 8 is hot and 9 is ridiculously hot ("universal acclaim", models, etc.). Every guy has it's other idea of a 10. For daygame much useful scale is to categorize girls either as 0s ("would not bang") or 1s ("fuckable"). With that very special place at 0.5 for sixes which are "fuckable under right conditions" (also known as "two-three beers").
Michal 2017-03-02 05:21:52
The scale I've seen somewere in the past and use: 7-girl you'd fuck 8-girl you'll go down on 9-girl you'll fuck after your buddy is done fucking her 10-girl you'll go down on after your buddy is done fucking her 😉
doclove 2017-03-02 05:23:03
Maybe we should use a 4 point scale then where one is ugly or homely, two is average or plain, three is cute or pretty and four is hot or gorgeous, or we could just use the four category terminology only or at least before we go to a 4, 10, 100 etc. number scale. It's worth a thought. What do you think?
Michal 2017-03-02 05:23:33
In terms of objective 10's I concider any women that can make a carrer of her looks alone.
Johnny Lionseed 2017-03-02 06:23:42
One thing I notice is guys not paying attention when using a 1-10 scale, which further blurs the lines. They'll say shit like, "Man, it sucks here, only sixes." But you do realize that 6 is above average, right? If 1 is ugliest, and 10 is the hottest, that means 5 is average. So if you're hanging out with a bunch of 6's and 7's, that's not bad. Roosh had something about this years ago that he called the 'Boner Test' which basically said if you could work a boner for her, she's hot enough. I don't necessarily agree, but no one can die that this is an objectively fair test of a woman's attractiveness, even if minimally. Also, regarding Michal's comment above me: Any woman who makes a career off of her looks is an objective ten? What about this one?
Johnny Salami 2017-03-02 06:32:19
How I apply these to my 1-10 scale: 4 or below: ugly 5-6: cute 7-8: Normal hot (the hotter girls you see on a regular basis; universally attractive.) 9-10: Off-the-charts hot (model, etc: hot enough to make a lucrative living off looks alone).
Ed 2017-03-02 07:03:37
Wow BD, did you go off the reservation here! I have seen you use the "scale" frequently. Come on man. The 1 to 10 is the male way to include ugly women into the conversation, and to legitimize their wife's, or girlfriends substandard appeal. "My girlfriend is a solid 7, but she is great in bed!" Right, you just lowered your standard dude. We all do it, except for maybe BD? Is 1 to 10 a stupid scale. yes, and it makes men look more stupid than the women it marginalizes. I have seen women who are not beautiful, but are compellingly sexy, and drew my attraction like a aphrodisiac. Would I marry these women, NO, and that is the oxymoron if you will. The cliche comes to mind here, "she is the marrying type", or something like that. Now BD do not launch on the marriage tirade, I'm talking about hormonal urge to make babies. Men are attracted for breeding thru hormonal urge, and it covers the spectrum. Base this idea against the idea that many, not all, super hot women are borderline breeding mates. I use my own example of when at a much younger age, and many more hot girls were available. There were many I wanted , but some that had an indescribable attraction to make babies with. Did I , no, but that urge was real. There are women that are hot, that a male would not make babies with. A stupid beta will try, but an Alpha 2 would walk away. Now, are there super hot breeders. yes, but I am talking about the variance of male attraction relating to basic hormonal drive. This is where the "1 to 10" scale came from.
Kurt 2017-03-02 07:24:44
I don't see how you can logically reconcile "everyone has their own personal 1-10 scale" with "binary yes-no is not a good idea for evaluating women". Isn't the yes-no decision just another way of saying "I'll get down with any woman over a X/10"?
Alejando 2017-03-02 08:36:58
When you are in pain, doctors may ask you to rate your pain from 1 to 10. Different people may assign different numbers to certain pain, but it doesn't mean that the 1-10 scale is complete bullshit. Should doctors stop using that system?
Omar 2017-03-02 08:43:28
I think I have one additional category which is the "Beautiful" category. There is the hot girl who just talks to your animalistic side. There is the cute girl who is not so much an animalistic attraction but also someone who you wanna cuddle and kiss. Then there is the beautiful girl who has that classic aesthetic beauty who you wanna look at all day long. I think it happens with guys also. There are men considered cute, others who are considered hot (not necessarily because of looks, maybe they have the bay boy aura), and then there is the classically handsome ones.
Roberto 2017-03-02 08:44:11
Isn’t the yes-no decision just another way of saying “I’ll get down with any woman over a X/10”?I broadly agree with this. The question is where you have your cut-off point. The "boner test" is an obvious one and easy enough to apply, but there are plenty of women that I could fuck but that I wouldn't choose to. As for a 1–10 scale, I agree that it is subjective, and in terms of who you fuck it's again a question of where you have your cut-off point. But all gradings of attractiveness – personal, artistic, musical – are subjective. My 6 might be your 8, but at the same time my 9 might be your 7. But there is likely to be some agreement – it I rate someone a 9, it's not likely that there will be too many guys who would put her at 3, assuming my tastes are reasonably mainstream, and vice versa. To be honest, usually I've heard the 1–10 scale used, and used it myself, in pretty casual conversation. It's a short-hand guys use to rate (or sometimes excuse) their wife or girlfriend or to give a crude idea of the woman who they're seeing tomorrow night or who they banged last night. Also it's used to give an idea of the standard of talent at a pick-up joint. Personally, I've never taken it too seriously, and if someone told me "my new woman is an 8" and when I met her I thought, "Mmm, no she's not, she's a 5 or a 6", I wouldn't take him to task for it. (But I guess I might if he was just having casual sex with her, that's true.)
johnnybegood 2017-03-02 08:54:09
Every guy has a different definition of the '1-10 scale' anyway. Also, yes, there is a degree of subjectivity. Some guys will apply personality or 'mommy issues' or whatever else to the scale. Some people really like certain archetypes like "blonde baywatch bimbo" or "manic pixie Zooey Deschanel type" ... and thus will rate them higher than what they would judge as 'objective attractiveness.' Let me just say this --- there is a huge difference in the 7/8/9/10 bullshit which is largely meaningless, but I gotta say ... there is a LOT of agreement among men about who is hot & fuckable, and who is not. There are plenty of hot women in my social circle where ... it's the same 1-3 women every time that men follow around like lap dogs. Meanwhile, if you've ever been on Tinder, there are seas of fatties and freakshows that most men with action going on would not consider "hot" by most stretches of the imagination. There's no reason to put a 'number' on a woman. She's fuckable or not, like you said. Some women --- they are objectively "hotter" than others -- for instance - can they easily get a modeling contract -- sad but true. "Objective hotness" shouldn't be the sole measure of a woman, in my opinion. There are women who were not models who were far sexier and made me much hornier and were better in bed/ more fun ... than some 'objectively hot' model chick who is annoying and a turn-off in bed. But ... I'd say a typical man can somewhat accurately put women in a general ballpark, as superficial as that seems.
Roberto 2017-03-02 10:03:51
There are women who were not models who were far sexier and made me much hornier and were better in bed/ more fun … than some ‘objectively hot’ model chick who is annoying and a turn-off in bed.All of this is certainly true. And again, it's subjective, at least up to a point.
Gil Galad 2017-03-02 10:09:59
I think 90% of all the problems and misunderstandings linked to binary versus continuous, or relative versus deterministic visions of beauty, or really anything about human nature, get solved if you acquire the reflex to visualize a bell curve, every single time. Just dump the scale or the binarity and visualize a bell curve. Suppose I made the general claim "straight men prefer women with a 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio". The real claim, in its non-simplistic version, is that the preference of straight men falls in a bell-shaped stat distribution with 0.7, plus-minus a small margin, being the value where you're gonna find the biggest amount of men (biggest doesn't mean more than 50% since you'll have more than just two categories, but it often is). Seriously, every stupid byzantine debate made into a dead-end by "look at this exception that proves you're wrong" and "look at these stats that prove the stereotype is 100% true" pseudo-arguments is dramatically moved forward if the debaters make the effort to visualize a bell curve, and you'd be surprised what little proportion of the population have this unimpressive habit. Then we can argue about how steep or wide the curve is, etc. I really wanted to talk endlessly about 7s and 8s and 9s because I'm one of those guys who do obsess over decimals and stuff, but until further notice this is my contribution.
Blackdragon 2017-03-02 10:55:12
I can’t remember if you mentioned it in one of your books or a blog post, but you advised your readers to do something that I’ve followed ever since… that is, when it comes to selecting targets for online dating, choose women that you think you would enjoy kissingIn my books, yep. That's specifically for online dating so you don't get caught up in the usual screening shit of "Would she make a good girlfriend/wife?" "Is she hot enough?" Etc.
Maybe we should use a 4 point scale then where one is ugly or homely, two is average or plain, three is cute or pretty and four is hot or gorgeousSounds good to me. I'd use such a system. Most men won't adopt it though.
Wow BD, did you go off the reservation here! I have seen you use the “scale” frequently. Come on man.I directly addressed that in the article. Go re-read it. Slowly.
The 1 to 10 is the male way to include ugly women into the conversation, and to legitimize their wife’s, or girlfriends substandard appeal.True, that's one of the reasons for it, but there are many others.
I don’t see how you can logically reconcile “everyone has their own personal 1-10 scale” with “binary yes-no is not a good idea for evaluating women”.Because if you follow a binary system, you will end up fucking uglier / more average looking women, making you more susceptible to oneitis when a hot one comes around. This is a very common problem I've seen happen with many men.
Isn’t the yes-no decision just another way of saying “I’ll get down with any woman over a X/10”?Exactly, which is why usually, most men (not all, but most) will end up banging tons of subjective 6's, then get oneitis for the subjective 9 that comes along. Not good. One of the reasons I've never had oneitis in at least the last 10 years is because from the very start, I made a pact with myself that I would only have sex with women who were subjective (to me) 8's or higher, and no one else. Rarely have I deviated from that, and it worked. When you're up to your ass in (subjective) 8's, 9's and even 10's aren't any big deal. But if you're binary banging 5's or 6's, a 8 or a 9 is a huge deal.
When you are in pain, doctors may ask you to rate your pain from 1 to 10. Different people may assign different numbers to certain pain, but it doesn’t mean that the 1-10 scale is complete bullshit. Should doctors stop using that system?No, quite the opposite; that's an example of the 1 to 10 scale working as it should. They're asking you to rate your own pain with your own number. They're not asking you to rate someone else's pain when they inflict the exact same amount of pain on you. The 1 to 10 scale is a good system, just not one where you're assigning it to external, subjective characteristic like how hot a girl is.
I think I have one additional category which is the “Beautiful” category. There is the hot girl who just talks to your animalistic side.Haha! Yes, there is a difference between "hot" and "beautiful," but that's an entirely different topic; I could write a whole blog post about that. In terms of the ranking of hot and beautiful, they're usually about the same, it's just that you'll be in the mood for one or the other at different times, and at different times of your life (speaking generally; there are many exceptions).
Let me just say this — there is a huge difference in the 7/8/9/10 bullshit which is largely meaningless, but I gotta say … there is a LOT of agreement among men about who is hot & fuckable, and who is not.Exactly.
Craig James 2017-03-02 11:39:04
Replacing the 1-10 scale with 4 categories of varying degrees of hotness (or lack thereof) does nothing but make the rating scale less granular (i.e. more constrained). This is the same as changing the scale to only include the following increments: 2.5 (ugly), 5.0 (average), 7.5 (cute), 10.0 (hot). You will always get more consensus when the options are reduced, but you trade it for a loss in accuracy. Therefore, I don't agree that this proves the 1-10 scale is BS. It just shows that it's subjective, as any means of attempting to measure an abstract quality will always be, which you admitted several times. By making the incremental units of measure larger you reduce variance, but that doesn't make the return value less subjective. Analogously, when dealing in objective measurements (i.e. pressure, flow, temperature, etc.), limiting the incremental values results in less accuracy, not more. Instead of getting a reading of 3.44 psi, you will get a reading of 3 psi. The accuracy and value of the measurement is degraded. The same is true when measuring a woman's hotness. The only difference is the medium of measurement.
FD 2017-03-02 12:19:21
Ha, I have a subjective 3-levels scale, close to your 4-level : would not fuck no matter what would fuck, sure, why not would love to fuck I agree the 1 to 10 is bullshit, for even more reason than you do: people don't agree on whether it is a Gaussian distribution (ie, lots of 5-6, some 3-4-7-8, very little 2-9, virtually no 1-10) or not (ie, 10% 1s, 10% 2s, ..., 10% 8s, 10% 9s, 10% 10s) people don't even agree on where the acceptability line is (is a 5 fuckable or not ?) people don't agree on how to take age into consideration : are there as many 8s in their 20s than in their 50s, for instance ? If i say that 38 yo woman is an 8, am I saying she is more beautiful than most woman, or just more beautiful than woman their own age ? When you add these factors to the fact the scale is highly subjective, as you say it, you can be sure the scale is completely useless, in practice.
OnAMission 2017-03-02 14:49:51
I will throw in my vote for the four point scale.
iop 2017-03-02 16:39:41
I object to this! How are you ever rating the ensuing less than ten out of ten?
My girlfriend and I moved in together about 6 months ago, after being together for about a year.We got a new place, one closer to both our work places than our previous locations.Before we moved in, we discussed how things would be paid for. At the time, she was earning more than me.Her suggestion, which I was fine with, was that we split all bils 50/50 - after all, we are both using half of everything. Fine by me.Additionally, we had talked about marriage, and she said she was a firm believer in prenups etc. Again, fine by me - I'm the same.Switch to about 2months ago, and I score a massive promotion and a bonus at work.All of a sudden, she's changed her mind about prenups, and thinks they're wrong, and also thinks we should both only be paying a percentage of the bills, relative to our respective incomes.I told her that "um, no, nothing is changing" and pointed out how I had to pay 50% when I was the lesser earner.She says that was only because she couldn't afford to pay more thana 50% because even though she earned more, she had more debt to pay off, and says I should do the "right thing" and pay more because I can afford more now.
Joe 2017-03-02 17:20:16
This article reminds me of a funny bit from the Patrice O'neal. It's funny, but actually makes more sense than the usual 1 to 10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rQ8f42l0vU
KryptoKate 2017-03-02 17:23:17
The more interesting question I would think you would ask yourselves is why men have any interest whatsoever in trying to establish and obtain agreement upon such a scale? Especially given that it is obviously not possible, for all the reasons provided. So why the constant attempts to not just peg sexual attraction to a precise numerical value, but also to obtain consensus, or at least the confirmation of other men? I have never once in my life heard a woman rank or rate men in this manner, though I have heard them discuss and admire (or not) men's appearance a million times. If I walked into a room full of 100 men I could instantly pick out the 5 who women would consider the best looking, and I could easily pick out which ones different of my friends would find to be their particular "types". It would never occur to me to assign a score and I certainly would not then argue about such score with other women. Who cares? You either both like the same guy (unfortunate) or you don't (better). How would our agreement upon a numerical score be relevant to anything? Likewise, it's perfectly obvious which girls get the attention and are sought after. And you all know whether or not you're attracted to someone so there is no reason for assigning a number to your own feelings. It's not as if your dick demands that you calculate a number before it works. So why do this? Are you actually confused about which girls you like, and which you like more or less? Confused enough that you need a scale to figure it out? No you are not. Instead, the desire to score women and obtain male consensus on such scores is about men establishing rank AMONG OTHER MEN. Youre obsessed with figuring out who's the coolest badass and where everyone ranks relative to each other so you need to score everything so you can see who can get what. Then if Doug's girlfriend is a 9.2 and Tom's is only a 7.9, well, then you all know that Doug is cooler and more important than Tom, and thats what you really want to know. If you dont set forth a clear acoring system then apparently none of you would know which women to brag about, or which ones youre supposed to be proud of versus ashamed of. It finally makes sensr...your desire to inanely discern the difference between an 8.17 and an 8.63 woman is NOT because that's a relevant or non-subjective distinction in matters of sex, but because an 8.63 IS relevant when you're obsessed with knowing precisely where each man ranks relative to each other. This explains why it is never the guys who seem to actually love women and be the most interested in sex who are obsessed with scoring women. They usually don't care. It's the guys who are most obsessed with their status who do this...the same guys who care a lot about having the biguest bonus or the most expensive watch or, oh I don't know...the biggestimated crowd size or poll ratings. It's really too bad you all can't just walk around wearing badges that show precisely and exactly who is most important and where everyone ranks, like they do in the military. That way you wouldn't have to bother with these arguments and could tell just by looking where everyone ranked. Perhaps you can design hats and assign a certain number of stars or buttons for each supermodel vs regular cute vs average chick you bang. Then there will be no question and everyone and you can all feel secure in your status and know what to do to get more badges. Lol! I assign WolfofGeorgeStreet to designing the system. I am quite sure he will design a system that clearly conveys each man's precise ranking on both a Gaussian distribution and in an absolute sense, and he'll work in appropriate rules so that one's hat badges are properly adjusted when one is in Sydney versus Toronto versus Omaha. We can't have the Omaha guy thinking he's a big shot just because he has more stars on his hat than anyone else in Nebraska, now can we?
Blackdragon 2017-03-02 17:30:08
All of a sudden, she’s changed her mind about prenups, and thinks they’re wrong, and also thinks we should both only be paying a percentage of the bills, relative to our respective incomes.Haha! I love how women do these 180's. Hilarious.
The more interesting question I would think you would ask yourselves is why men have any interest whatsoever in trying to establish and obtain agreement upon such a scale?1. Ego. 2. Men like to argue over numerical ratings of things; it's part of being a dude. (Just look at sports fans.) When I was 11 years old, I would have HOURS long arguments with my best friend over the different Transformers and who could beat who in a fight, based on their tech spec ratings of strength, endurance, firepower, etc. We men like that shit.
Lovergirl 2017-03-02 18:53:30
Lmao Kate!! I think very similarly when I read about men rating women and arguing about their numerical value. It's like wtf- who cares?! Either you are personally attracted to her or you aren't!! But you are right it's a rank thing I think- like comparing penises and something women just don't relate too. Women don't rank men. We don't compare rankings of men. We say I like him and think he's hot and other women either agree or disagree. Most often we can agree that they are or aren't attractive even if we have a different type and might not personally be interested. And they say women are the ones who complicate things....
Gil Galad 2017-03-02 19:09:30
If there wasn't her obvious signature in other aspects of the comment, I'd start to think that a different person is pretending to be KryptoKate. Kate, you've been strangely leaning on an unscientific why-are-men-so-bad in the last few articles' threads, it's not like you, and I remember smarter stuff last year and earlier. You used to view this stuff in terms of, you know, explainable sex-specific behavior, not from a judgy angle. I was obsessive about rating women's looks even in my deepest beta days in high school when I pedestalized women the most; it's got little or nothing to do with whether you love them or respect them. I'm pretty sure that other than factors related to upbringing and culture, a person's reaction to and rating of another person's appearance is the genes' way of betting (based on which visual trait may correspond to which genes) which person has a set of genes most likely to team well with their own half-DNA to make a "successful" offspring. So you rating a person near a 10 would be the equivalent of a "100% match" fingerprint test or something, just much more probabilistic. (and incidentally this is compatible with BD's view as it does lead to the non-existence of an objective 10, just to general patterns) Of course it gets much, much more complicated with how this works with which appearance invites friendship and what genes have to do with attraction between gay people, but I'm pretty sure the basis is there. Some mulling over eggs, sperm and parental investment might yield an explanation of why it's instinctually more important to men than women to rate and argue about rating; or it might just be the men are into objects, women are into people thing, and yes, that's "offensive and objectifying" toward women. I don't care because I laugh at the idea that anyone should be offended by the fact that men notice they have a body, which is an object.
KryptoKate 2017-03-02 19:20:30
I'm sure it was also a valuable skill back in the day when if you wanted to get a woman you didn't bother talking to her, you went and bartered over the price to buy her from her dad. And relative rank among men and who can beat up whom is very important in determining who gets to slaughter the other and then take the women as sex slaves. I suppose it makes sense bc for a long time the best way for men to get women was to barter with and purchase from, or fight and conquer, other men. Not by dealing with the women themselves or really having any concern whatsoever for their opinions on the matter.
Mark 2017-03-02 19:32:00
The thing that separates science from metaphysics, philosophy, pseudo science etc is that we don't just do thought experiments to test hypothesis but we do actual experiments in the real world. You offer as proof of your theory only your own thought experiment. That is fairly outrageous and not surprisingly you get the wrong answer. Back in the day you could actually find sites on the internet (e.g. hotornot) which allowed you to get thousands of people to rate pics you posted up of women (by pretending to be that women). What I found stunning is how universal and rock solid the rating for the photos were. You could see a distribution of the votes (for the person you were pretending to be) and the distribution did not change. Once 100 people had voted the rating would not change for 1000 or 10,000 votes the distribution stayed the same. (Since becoming a dating site hotornot has become completely unreliable). As long as you understand that the rating applies to a picture not to a person (the same person could produce photos with different but consistent ratings) and that the rating is actually a distribution, ie a 10 is someone who gets more ratings of 10 than of 9 or 8 etc while a 9 is someone who gets more 9s than 10 or 8s etc than the rating system is rock solid and universal. Indeed I found my own ratings of women only differed by at most 1 to 2 to the hotrornot scores (i.e. average rating) for the vast majority of photos. Further I could predict what the average rating would be (not my rating) and be out by no more than 1 for the vast majority of photos. Bottom line is if I think a women is a 10 the vast majority of men will agree with me that she is either a 9 or a 10 and very few will think she is a 5 (though they will exist).
Blackdragon 2017-03-02 20:15:14
The thing that separates science from metaphysics, philosophy, pseudo science etc is that we don’t just do thought experiments to test hypothesis but we do actual experiments in the real world. You offer as proof of your theory only your own thought experiment.That's true; I'm making an illustration and extrapolation.
You could see a distribution of the votes (for the person you were pretending to be) and the distribution did not change. Once 100 people had voted the rating would not change for 1000 or 10,000 votes the distribution stayed the same.I messed around with several of those sites a few years ago, and I did not quite notice the same thing you did, but I understand what you're saying. However, this doesn't disprove my point. It means that most men thought hot women were hot, just as I said in the above article. But it's not like the vast majority of men voted exactly 4.2 (hot or not had a 1-5 ranking if I recall) on a particular woman. That didn't happen.
Indeed I found my own ratings of women only differed by at most 1 to 2 to the hotrornot scores (i.e. average rating) for the vast majority of photos.Exactly. Hot or not used a 1-5 scale, so 1 to 2 points under that scale is equivalent of 2 to 4 points on the 1 to 10 scale. That's a wide margin. You're proving my point for me (unless I'm remembering hot or not incorrectly; there were many of those types of sites back then.)
Bottom line is if I think a women is a 10 the vast majority of men will agree with me that she is either a 9 or a 10 and very few will think she is a 5 (though they will exist).I agree, and said as much in my article, except I would say the vast majority of men would rate your 10 8-10, not 9 or 10. In other words, most would rank your ten as "hot" instead of "cute."
Lovergirl 2017-03-02 20:24:28
Beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. Tastes also change somewhat over time. You might think a woman of a certain age is not even close to being attractive until you are closer to that age yourself and so on. I still remember in college, feeling offended because this guy walked up to me and told me I was the "second hottest girl" at the school. I felt like, really, the SECOND hottest? What kind of backhanded compliment is that?! But now that I'm older and a little more aware of how guys think I can look back and see that he may have actually thought he was giving me a sincere compliment. It's just that, as a female, the idea that I was being compared or ranked lower than someone else was not cool. Just like a guy probably wouldn't like being told there was just one other guy that was more masculine than him or something. Some of the guys here think anyone over 30 is an old hag. Yet some men don't seem to feel that way. Just today I had a man at Walmart walk up to me and tell me he thinks I am gorgeous, lol. He was probably 50 himself but whatever I'm sure he wasn't totally blind haha. Another guy, closer to my age or maybe late 30s stopped me at the grocery store to tell me he liked my smile (also today- when I really wasn't looking my best because I was up late last night with a guy and barely got any sleep). I'm sure there are plenty of men that are not or would not be attracted to me. I am not saying that to brag just to point out that men see things differently. I have a friend that I think is super beautiful and a lot of men would think she was a 10 but others have said they don't find her that attractive (too skinny- though she's not THAT tiny just not as curvy as some guys apparently want).
FoH 2017-03-02 22:02:26
These men are doing the opposite of what the 1 to 10 scale lovers do. While the 1 to 10 guys think hard biological factors reliably explain 100% of everything 100% of the time, the binary guys think science doesn’t (or shouldn’t) matter at all. That’s incorrect as well.This is utter bullshit. Every point on the scale resolves into a binary anyway. Either you fuck her or you don't. It's not like these guys have zero ability to differentiate what's hot and what's "decent." They just don't give a shit. You're projecting some sort of non-existant self esteem issue on them (aw shucks, i'm not good enough to fuck hot girls, i'll just only settle for 6s, boo-hoo) when in reality they are just doing whatever (and whoever) they want, without some overly analytical horseshit clouding their minds. "Science" (in this case, various hypotheses for explaining the poorly understood phenomenon of human physical attraction) has nothing to do with their own personal opinions. Your "8 and up" framework? That's binary. It's a simple piecewise mapping. Let F be the "would Blackdragon fuck her?" function: F(x > 8 or x = 8) = 1 (yes) F(x < 8) = 0 (no) Binary! QED.
Blackdragon 2017-03-02 22:29:18
Every point on the scale resolves into a binary anyway. Either you fuck her or you don’t. It’s not like these guys have zero ability to differentiate what’s hot and what’s “decent.” They just don’t give a shit.Here comes Mr. Left Wing Science Troll again! You really need to try the decaf dude. I've never seen someone get so upset about such minor things. Anyway, what you just said didn't contradict anything I said. I said most men who follow a binary system end up fucking ugly or average looking girls. You're just saying why they do it. We don't disagree.
You’re projecting some sort of non-existant self esteem issue on them (aw shucks, i’m not good enough to fuck hot girls, i’ll just only settle for 6s, boo-hoo) when in reality they are just doing whatever (and whoever) they want, without some overly analytical horseshit clouding their minds.Yeah, and they're fucking less attractive women, at least usually (though there are exceptions).
Your “8 and up” framework? That’s binary.Correct. I never said I wasn't binary, but I'm one of those exceptions. The VAST majority of men who follow a binary system end up fucking ugly / average looking women, and frankly, they're often the first to admit this. I've always been an exception in this regard, and the reason for this is my standards were always a notch or two about "eh, I guess I'd fuck her."
Lovergirl 2017-03-03 02:48:28
I guess because men don't get the constant feedback regarding their own attractiveness that women do, this is how some of them actually try to determine their own value. If I can "get" a 10, then I am a more attractive man than someone who can only get 8.5's. The guy I used to see, and his male co-workers, used to always be rating the women they worked with and I thought it was silly. So he asks me what I would rate myself and I said "oh, I don't know, maybe a 7". He actually got UPSET about that and I didn't understand why at the time because I thought it was better to err on the side of humble than to be conceited. He said "no you're not, you're at LEAST an 8 or an 8.5, a 9 on a good day and I NEVER rate women as 10's". I thought he was upset because it made him think I had low self esteem or something but I think it was really more that if I would rate myself lower than he would, then it might be a reflection of his own value. This is probably also why the men who can get the most women tend to be the least concerned about the rating system- they have already been reasssured of their own value level by "getting" a wide variety of women. The scale then loses its necessity, in their own eyes.
Jack Outside the Box 2017-03-03 03:37:40
You're wrong here, BD:
Because if you follow a binary system, you will end up fucking uglier / more average looking women, making you more susceptible to oneitis when a hot one comes around.I follow the binary system - fuckable or not - and the women within the fuckable category are all identical from my view (in terms of physical looks). Sure, certain specific things may turn me on more than others (like big tits), but we're talking here about deal breakers only. So if I find what another man would call a 4 fuckable, she looks the same to me as another fuckable woman that other men would rate a 10. Sorry, but I don't see what other men see. In terms of visual appearance, I see them as fuckable or unfuckable. That's it. The thing that turns me on the most about women (assuming they are already in the fuckable category in terms of looks) is their attitude towards sex. The more of a sex-positive bad ass the woman is, and the closer her sexual lifestyle resembles that of a male player, the harder my dick gets! Bad ass female players (like my girlfriend) just drive me crazy. Other men have told me that, according to them, those types of women tend to be 4s, 5s, 6s, 7s, and maybe 8s. I have indeed noticed that the so called 10s, or hottest ones (according to other men) tend to be blue pill gold diggers, or self righteous Disney enthusiasts. In my mid-20s, I had sex with a couple of these "hot" women, and I instantly came to the conclusion that the so called "hottest" ones are almost never the best or most enthusiastic in bed. They tend to take sex for granted, have a sense of entitlement about it, and have medium sex drives at best. So no, I wouldn't get oneitis for a "put a ring on it" 9 or 10. When I was a beta, I'd be more likely to get oneitis for the "screw him and dump him" 6 or 7. Women using me as a dildo is such an incredible turn on, lol.
Dan 2017-03-03 05:31:34
This is way too funny. Back in the day I used to work as this little shop with a couple of other guys. We talked about girls a lot – since we had nothing much else to do during the 8 hour day – and quickly came to the same consensus about the 1-10 scale. We, by total independent invention, came up with almost the EXACT SAME scale you have 1: Would never fuck, even if no one found out, unless LOTS of alcohol was involved (maybe) 2: Would fuck, but wouldn't brag to our friends about 3: Would be stoked, and probably brag to our friends 4: Would be SUPER stoked The 1-4 scale served us through a long and fruitful friendship. Whenever a girl would walk out of the shop, the 3 of us would immediately look at each other and go "4", or whatever. As you hypothesized, there was a regular consensus, with the occasional surprise disagreement. Good times. Great minds think alike, I guess.
POB 2017-03-03 06:48:30
To me most guys use a 1-10 system in a skewed way only to justify banging sub-par or not that great chicks. That's why it's heavily subjective and 100% susceptible to emotions, not rationality. Deep down they know that the 8 they're advertising to their pals is in fact a 6 by his own standards. The yes or no system, although flawed from a "hotness" perception, at least is more consistent and real. Fact is from 1-10 any guy could rate their normal wives or GFs closer to Candice Swanepoel if they have NRE or oneitis, but a few months later feel she's not that "hot" anymore once their chemicals inside their brains start to fade. Also a lot of dudes may rate great women lower just because they feel they're not attainable to them. I've seen this many times and it's ridiculous. The only way a 1-10 system may be closer to something pratical is when guys do it exclusively for fun and not as metric to decide to fuck or not fuck a particular woman.
Dimwit 2017-03-03 09:34:06
"Next, let in 100 random guys off the street and make sure they’re all the same race as the women (to control for that). Give them all note cards and tell them to rank each one of these women from 1 to 10. They can use tenth decimals if they need to (8.5, for example)." Collect 100 ratings up to decimal points for each of the 25 girls and average them. According to science, math, and statistics, there will be a more objective rating on a scale from 1 to 10, and the error of the rating drops by a factor of a square root of the number of men, or 10, in this instance. This is used all the time in subjective sports such as figure stating. You can rank the technical aspect by counting the particular elements, but the dance itself is subjective. When 10 Judges give their marks, error drops by a factor of square root of 10. In other words, while 100 guys disagree with each other, they as a group will rank the girls just fine, 1000 guys will rank them even better. So, scientifically there is a scale you can assign to anything and measure it effectively, even if there is significant disagreement. In your example, the average rating of 1000000 guys will converge so precisely, you will be able to rank 25 girls on a 1000 point scale, giving each girl a 1-10 value, 5.88, for example. This is just pure math, so the above statement is 100% correct
Mayrick Dubois 2017-03-03 11:06:19
BD, your analysis of the 1-10 scale is correct. It is very subjective and not accurate. The ugly-hot scale is still somewhat subjective but would be more accurate then the other alternative. The interesting thing is, I never heard women use the 1-10 scale to describe men. However, I have heard them many times use the ugly-hot scale to describe a man's attractiveness. The 1-10 scale must be a mostly male description. Just like men, different women have different traits in men that they find attractive, so there is some objective difference. . Through my experience though, women seem to pretty much be in the same ballpark when determining a man's attractiveness or hotness. I assume women don't use the 1-10 scale because 1. It is inaccurate and 2.women don't think that way.
johnnybegood 2017-03-03 12:11:14
Yes, obviously the main reason of the rating score is ego, but it's also somewhat descriptive. Guys can "ballpark a girl" with some notable disagreements among buddies. Like, a very tiny percentage of males are going to call Emma Stone "a 5" ... or even if you were in the tiny minority that did think that, or wouldn't fuck her, you'd at least see and concede and KNOW your opinion was in the minority. You know there are legions of men that would fuck her. This is in stark contrast to Roseanne Bar or Rosie O'Donnell. Yes there are probably hundreds of guys that would fuck them too, but you know what I mean. 1 part is ego. Guy's like to brag about their "conquests" and who they fucked. One way of doing this is simply showing a picture of the girl on your phone (although I personally don't do this, friends do this to me). That's because "fucking a fatty" adds 0 points to your sexual prowess. Anyone can do it. Yeah that sounds chauvinistic but eh. But it's also purely descriptive. And it does have ramifications to reactions. Like if I see someone REALLY good-looking on Tinder, I know she'll be harder to bag than someone moderately good looking -- because of her options and volume of attention (this is stark contrast to in-person seduction where a bit more charm can be employed). I don't necessarily run my game differently, I just know odds are lower. As a male --- I personally cannot tell the relative attractiveness of other males to women. I know many men can, I personally cannot. I can make assumptions based on whether they are wildly deformed or have a six-pack, but I'm not great at assessing it. My only evidence is the attention of surrounding women, and how they treat the guy (barring other angles/ strengths they have). That said, there is somewhat a consensus among women about who the 'model-looking' guys are. It's not a dart-board, by any means. Same with men .... the exact rankings may differ in the details, but overall ... we know an Antonio Brown from a Cameron Meredith. We know a Tom Brady from a Jay Cutler. When it comes to stack ranking.
Ed 2017-03-03 12:33:52
All you beta's hiding as Alpha's need to look in the mirror. The Hotties you guys say you take, are not that. Really?? I have known too many 9/10s that were unapproachable in most cases, and very weirdly approachable by a few betas that had us Apha's scratching our heads. J O B hits the closest as the women with zeal for sex. I can tell you that is of far more value to a man than looks, and those women are almost always NOT 10's. This goes back to my statement about hormonal drive to make babies. That zeal in that woman you want when she is not at your side, that beautiful beast, is in fact the one you would impregnate if she asked you to. Now you will say no, not me, but that hot, sexual beast that hovers at 6 or 7, and can bring on an erection with a phone call, yes she is the baby making machine you are looking for. Now, BD is immune to all this, so he says, and yes he consistently bangs 10's, so he says. Hormonal drive throws his attitude in the ditch. Can it be done, yes, just like BD describes, but is it what your hormones pull you toward at 20 to 28 years old, NO The proof! Scads of good looking guys attached to 6's and 7's, honestly more 6's. That drive was the hormones looking to breed, and yes beta types fall victim to "first whiff " woman a lot. That woman that "seems" to be the sexual beast you seek, but you know deep down she is not. But you know you've seen, or had her somewhere. Does any of this have anything to do with monogamy, not in this discussion. The 6 and 7 class with sex drive like mine are the highest value in the toy box, but we males seek to change this equation in the "10" category, and it will NOT fit. The sexual beast is not that. She is more of a true woman than I can describe, but she is, and those that do keep "10" class woman use cliches like "high maintenance", or "it takes a lot to keep a woman like that". Total miscalculation my brothers, she is hard to deal with because she does not fit the breeding model you crave. Now BD will dive into this, but I will lay this one out there. BD has seen the "sexual beast" more than once if his conquests are as he says. I will venture to say this. None of those types were true 10's, and I will let him answer that.
Blackdragon 2017-03-03 13:56:18
I follow the binary system – fuckable or not – and the women within the fuckable category are all identical from my view (in terms of physical looks). Sure, certain specific things may turn me on more than others (like big tits)Then they are not all identical.
In terms of visual appearance, I see them as fuckable or unfuckable. That’s it.Wrong, and you just said it. If you see two women you'd fuck who look identical except one had big tits and one had a flat chest, you'd fuck both, but rate the big tit one higher. It's binary action, but not binary thought. I think that's where a few guys are getting hung up in this conversation. You can demonstrate binary action while not demonstrating binary thought.
To me most guys use a 1-10 system in a skewed way only to justify banging sub-par or not that great chicks.True. I don't know if it's "most" guys but it's a decent amount of them.
In other words, while 100 guys disagree with each other, they as a group will rank the girls just fine, 1000 guys will rank them even better.True.
The interesting thing is, I never heard women use the 1-10 scale to describe men. However, I have heard them many times use the ugly-hot scale to describe a man’s attractiveness. The 1-10 scale must be a mostly male descriptionI agree completely. As the women in this thread have already indicated, the 1 to 10 thing is a purely masculine concept. Women are actually much more binary on this stuff than men are, though it's complicated greatly by the fact that women are often very attracted or very turned off by completely non-physical traits, whereas us men don't hold non-physical traits nearly as high (unless a guy is going through a male provider hunter phase or similar odd time in his life).
This is in stark contrast to Roseanne Bar or Rosie O’Donnell. Yes there are probably hundreds of guys that would fuck them too, but you know what I mean.That made me laugh. I'm picturing the hundreds, actually thousands of men who would be happy to fuck Rosanne or Rosie. I know a few of these guys; they're hilarious. The funniest thing ever is to listen to a black guy talk about how badly he wants some huge fat chick walking down the street. I've had several of these conversations and they're awesome.
Now, BD is immune to all this, so he says, and yes he consistently bangs 10’s, so he says.Please don't misquote me. I don't constantly bang 10's and have never said anything even close to this. I fuck personal 8's and 9's. Historically, a personal 7 or 6 might pop in there briefly, but not in the last few years (my standards have grown). Personal 10's happen occasionally but not often or regularly. And yes, there have been times I've been sexually attracted to a woman who was maybe a personal 6 or 7 who, as an example, had an average face but my perfect female body. It's not a typical experience for me though.
Now BD will dive into this, but I will lay this one out there. BD has seen the “sexual beast” more than once if his conquests are as he says. I will venture to say this. None of those types were true 10’s, and I will let him answer that.If your contention is that 10's tend to be not as good in bed as less attractive women, I agree with you. This has indeed been my experience. My theory is that since 10's know they're 10's, they don't see any reason to "try" during sex, but that's just a guess.
joelsuf 2017-03-03 14:15:58
If you operate under a binary scale only, you’ll likely end up having sex with average or ugly women, which is a bad idea, as I explained a long time ago here.I'd like to know how there exists a connection between getting with average and ugly chicks and developing one itis? I understand that it would make a dude make rationalizations against getting with chicks who are more attractive (in a traditional sense), but where is the connection to one itis? If BD is arguing that the one itis is developed for a chick "out of his league" I would agree. But one itis for the average, meh and ugly chicks? Not too sure it works that way as I get with mostly average chicks and don't catch feelings for any of them. I agree with BD, I just would like some clarification. Anyways, also different things attract different people not just appearance. A traditionally attractive chick could act like a total stuck up, dominant, ratchet asshole and be unattractive to me while a well spoken, independent (BD's "independent" not feminist "independent") chick who is very kind, polite, horny, but is also slightly overweight could be much more attractive because of qualities other than appearance. That concept doesn't get explored nearly enough IMO.
Dimwit 2017-03-03 14:28:06
The binary scale and the ugly/average/cute/hot scales seem to be far more descriptive than 1-10 scale. So, how the fuck am I supposed to know what is the meaning of each number? I have seen some definitions in terms of normal distribution. But, how do you define a 10 depends on how many women on planet Earth you believe are a 10. In other words, 1-10 scale itself seems to be subjective. Define it clearly, and the rating of will converge. Just my opinion. Since it is undefined, it is garbage.
FoH 2017-03-03 14:32:54
This is just pure math, so the above statement is 100% correctThis is just pure bullshit. What you have described (the law of large numbers) is predicated on the assumption that all women have a "true" rating (expected value) to begin with. So it's circular logic. Nothing you have said proves that there exists a true rating for every woman. AND even if there was a "true rating" for every woman, there is still no proof that this rating is "objective." In order to prove that, you would have to find an inviolable causal relationship between the physical characteristics of every woman and her "true rating." This whole "objective" debate boils down to a circle jerk of men who have differing personal opinions trying to convince each other that their opinion is somehow "objective."
Ed 2017-03-03 16:03:58
Thank you BD for clarification, gives me hope I am not on the wrong track, again! I do think there is some plausible truth to my theory of the "sexual beast" hormonal drive we have so deeply buried inside our dormant Alpha male psyches. I also have found exactly what you suggest, that 10's do not have to try as hard. This is a symptom of betazation of males and spoilage from parents. The perfect looking girl thinks she is above so much, she fails to believe she has to work for anything that does not please her. The 6, 7, or 8 may feel typical "princess" minded thinking, but is grounded by life instances and frankly the 10's that cannibalize some women, and men alike. Now I certainly do not believe 10's are substandard, or unworthy of male attention. I love 10's, but that is not the topic. It is the "sexual beast", and that hormonal drive she sparks that reaches deepest into me. I have to leave 10's out of this discussion, for reasons you suggest as well as I. There are 10's that are not what I describe, and I believe that, but she is rare. Society, for the reasons BD has described previously has erased the best part of women, and men.
Blackdragon 2017-03-03 17:01:55
I’d like to know how there exists a connection between getting with average and ugly chicks and developing one itis?...If BD is arguing that the one itis is developed for a chick “out of his league” I would agree.That's all I'm saying. You fuck (personal) 4's, 5's and 6's and all is well... then one day a 8 or a 9 comes along and WHAM! Oneitis. I see it all the time.
Jonathan 2017-03-03 22:10:33
Hey blackdragon. I have about 5 women I see once per week. Most FBs. I have this 22 y/o however that seems to enjoy the fact that I see other women. Although I'm not really sure. At first I thought she was trying to do like all the other girls and ask about me seeing other girls and I would always deflect. I wouldn't lie, just avoid, and eventually I told her I do date other women. Now she seems to light up slightly when I talk about it although I always try to downplay and change the subject. She keeps asking me to see photos of the other women but I always say I don't have any on me, even though I do. I just try to deflect. She on occasion tells me about a guy or two she sees but always seems to find fault in the guys and tells me they don't measure up. Although who knows if she says the same thing to them as she does to me. But in the end who really cares anyway. She does praise me at times and show a lot of interest, but I think she's just young. My question is: she wants me to show her pictures of the girls I see and talk about them with me. Should I allow this, or should I just keep downplaying and avoiding. She seems to get a rise out of it, but I don't know if deep down she's doing reconnaissance for other reasons and feelings. Your advice?
Blackdragon 2017-03-03 22:28:45
Don_Quibollox 2017-03-04 02:42:03
@Jonathan Haha, you got the standard BD answer to such queries, and it's a good one. However, let's unpack this a little. Are you hoping this girl is bi-curious and will be open to threesomes? It wouldn't hurt to ask her. Lots of girls are bi or at least curious. Personally I think if she is then it would be best to try it out with a completely new girl. See BD's article on how to have a threesome. Still avoid showing her pics or giving out any info about your other FBs. Retain your outcome independence, though. If she blows up on you then you still have the others, right?
WolfOfGeorgeStreet 2017-03-04 06:40:53
I assign WolfofGeorgeStreet to designing the system. I am quite sure he will design a system that clearly conveys each man’s precise ranking on both a Gaussian distribution and in an absolute sense, and he’ll work in appropriate rules so that one’s hat badges are properly adjusted when one is in Sydney versus Toronto versus Omaha.Finally, the appreciation I deserve. I'm glad someone can recognize talent when they see it. In all seriousness though, the entire point of the rating system is because it helps when giving and receiving dating advice online by giving people a general sense of the girl/s you're dealing with and how to best approach dating them. Dating a Maxim model is going to be alot different than dating the cute girl next door and will absolutely require a different approach because the Maxim model obviously has more and higher value men chasing her and their entire world views are going to be totally different. Even though you might personally find the girl next door hotter on your personal rating system an objective rating is helpful as a guide for other guys giving advice and when giving advice it helps others understand where you are coming from. Imagine a guy giving out dating advice talking about all the "10's" he dates and how he tells them they're all beautiful, and buys them flowers on the first date, and just keeps telling them how gorgeous he thinks they are and has had a 75% success rate bedding girls over many dates... Only it turns out he has a fat fetish and really overweight women are his 10's. His advice would be useless and actually harmful to most men, hence the need for objective ratings.
WolfOfGeorgeStreet 2017-03-04 06:59:15
@BD and anyone else for that matter arguing against objective ratings, look here... https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2009/03/27/female-beauty-from-1-to-10-2/ View the results for thousands of votes. Note the rating from 1-10 for each girl that has the most votes, that's her objective rating and it's pretty damn accurate. Simple
JonnyMaddox 2017-03-04 09:48:55
Hey Dragon. I know this is not the subject here. But can you give me an advice for a more "sexual Fram"? I do cold approach in my city. But I have the feeling that many girls think that I want to be their boyfriend. One girl told me "Sry, I don't want to have a boyfriend right now." or "Sry I just met someone else" (over whatsapp). I'm a bit better now that a year ago, so I'm not nervous anymore and I'm more confident. And I also got 4 dates out of 40 approaches (and making out with one girl, but she was very need for it). But I don't want to be seen as only a guy who wants to get a girlfriend. Could you give advice on that? My plan is to use a bit of touching or holding hands with the girl, but it's not so easy during daytime and I have to experiment a bit to see what works and what not. Thx.
Blackdragon 2017-03-04 11:35:13
and anyone else for that matter arguing against objective ratings, look here…Exactly. That page is a great example of exactly what I'm talking about. On the prettier girls, there is no consensus whatsoever in terms of assigning a specific number. Thanks for the example.
I have the feeling that many girls think that I want to be their boyfriend.Many women use that as an excuse if they don't like you. I'll have much more to say about sexual frame in a about a month or so. Stay tuned.
Captain 2017-03-04 12:02:57
What someone finds attractive is hugely influenced by social programming. I tend to like Asian, Middle Eastern and Latin women in that order but am 100% open to any woman I find cute to hot. One of my buddies is South American and has been socially programmed to always prefer blond women even when they are objectively ugly. It is almost comical the level of blond thirst he has. He will hook up with ethnic women but according to his racist social programming their "bad blood" makes them unsuitable for a long term relationship. Kind of makes one cringe. Fortunately he is a great guy most ways and only shows his racism in the sexual marketplace.
Captain 2017-03-04 12:26:34
I'm gonna go against the grain here about only going for hot women. Pre-marriage/divorce I was only into almost model hot women. This resulted in me turning down lots of great, cute girls and led to me marrying a hot but dominant wife. My marriage/divorce convinced me that I would much rather be with women who are sweet than super hot and that its very rare to find both. I have since operated on the boner test principle and have never been happier in terms of my women life. Interestingly enough there have only been a couple of drunken mistakes with ugly women and overall I've gotten cute to hot women operating under the boner test principle. My OLTR is very sweet and for me, she is the sexiest woman in the world. Most guys would not even notice her on the street and probably say she was average or just slightly cute. In fact when I first met her that's what I thought and was more interested in her being much younger than her looks. But getting to know her revealed inner sexiness (and naked sexiness LOL). Pre-marriage me would not have even considered her. I am honestly much happier with her than any of the numerous "hot" women I have been with that turn other guys heads.
Blackdragon 2017-03-04 12:53:49
What someone finds attractive is hugely influenced by social programming.Correct, as I said here.
Pre-marriage/divorce I was only into almost model hot women. This resulted in me turning down lots of great, cute girls and led to me marrying a hot but dominant wife.Not all hot women are dominant. Many are submissive, many are independent.
I would much rather be with women who are sweet than super hot and that its very rare to find both.That's completely untrue and false Societal Programming. Read this. I agree that if you ONLY look at "perfect 10 supermodel" women and no one else, the bitchiness ratio goes up a bit. But the world is full of "super hot" women who are perfectly normal/nice.
My OLTR is very sweet and for me, she is the sexiest woman in the world.Great, you're doing exactly what I recommend; fuck women who are "super hot" to you and don't worry about what anyone else thinks.
WolfOfGeorgeStreet 2017-03-04 17:44:47
Exactly. That page is a great example of exactly what I’m talking about. On the prettier girls, there is no consensus whatsoever in terms of assigning a specific number. Thanks for the example.I'd hardly call the vast majority of votes falling within a +1/-1 distribution being 'no consensus', I'd say that's a reasonably strong consensus. It means if you rate a woman out of 10 most other men will rate her within 1 point of what you've rated her. Of course there's outliers, there always will be, like my previous example, some guys have fat fetishes etc. I wouldn't go as far as to say "With the 1 to 10 scale, you’ll get almost none. Because it’s BULLLLLLLSHIITTTT." at all. That post shows that it's not 'almost none', not if you look at the rating in terms of a distribution rather than absolute. Also by looking at the distribution you can get an accurate objective rating, which when giving dating advice to others is what's needed. It's obvious what the idea of this post is anyway. You're ether about to post a pic of PF, or are expecting one to get leaked into the manosphere. This post is a preemptive defense that you're going to point to when the attacks start rolling in to justify your earlier '10' rating. I think it's all silly anyway, and I actually couldn't care less what the rating is of girls who most guys date, but a man who sells dating advice is always going to have the quality of the women he dates held up to public scrutiny. Especially when he makes claims like 'I only fuck women who are 8+ on my personal scale', ok great, how do we know you don't have a fat or old chick fetish and all your personal 8's are porkers or chicks that look like they're pushing 50 that no other quality man really wants to compete for? I don't think you do have a fat/old fetish, but once you have 'dating guru's' using 'personal ratings' it's what we open up the door to, so having a reasonable grasp on an objective rating system helps prevent that.
Gil Galad 2017-03-04 18:33:26
I think we may be overlooking another underrated fact: sponatenous ratings of a woman by men may diverge initially, but the men who rate the most instinctively and who are the most subject to hype can also be relatively easily talked into revising their views, and I think what they say later when you've made them cool down is more important than their first rating. More than once, I've had the type of scenario where I tell a guy that one of the chicks he's drooling over is "a 7 at best" and he gets pissed, then I show him a large picture of her or we approach her in real life, and get him to reluctantly admit that, even by his standards, "yeah, that was the wonderbra, her tits are actually pretty deflated" or something along those lines. Someone above mentioned guys who are so obsessed with blondes that they hardly care about the rest provided the hair color and maybe eye color is right, and that too participates to creating many "fake tens". Then again, maybe it's the de facto situation that matters, not what these guys would say if you sobered them up. In the latter case, I do think that beauty, even in fine-grained ranking, becomes much more objective. There are softwares out there with a pretty high success rate that can take a plain face and make it look prettier to most users, using some math formula. On the overall however, I'd say that to have near universal agreement you can't get more accurate than a 3-point system: ugly, ordinary, attractive. For example, I'm somehow immune to Megan Fox and on a ugly/plain/cute/hot system, I'd consider her cute when most men will say 'hot'; but if the choice was limited to 3 options I'd say 'attractive' like everyone else. I may sound extreme when I say that a big proportion of VS models and Hollywood stars look almost unfuckable to me, but I stand by it, that and the fact that tons of girls next door blow many of them away. And no, I don't have a fat fetish or anything like that. I've named some of the chicks I find hot in the article about female celebs.
Captain 2017-03-04 20:08:54
I would much rather be with women who are sweet than super hot and that its very rare to find both."That’s completely untrue and false Societal Programming. Read this. I agree that if you ONLY look at “perfect 10 supermodel” women and no one else, the bitchiness ratio goes up a bit. But the world is full of “super hot” women who are perfectly normal/nice." Outside of English speaking countries there are tons of hot and sweet women. Inside the English speaking world however I have to disagree with you BD. Anglo men tend to put hot women on a huge pedestal. This usually has the effect of teaching hot women to use their looks to get what they want and often makes them completely spoiled bitches. I have traveled a lot and have known women from all over the world. Almost everywhere women are sweeter than in Anglo countries. So to be fair my tolerance for bad behavior is pretty low and American women (ugly through hot) tend to be much more spoiled and bitchy than most.
Blackdragon 2017-03-05 11:14:46
I’d hardly call the vast majority of votes falling within a +1/-1 distribution being ‘no consensus’, I’d say that’s a reasonably strong consensus.Incorrect. As just an example, take the cute blonde with the tits hanging out. Her ranks, rounded off, are: 10 - 10% 9 - 19% 8 - 28% 7 - 25% 6 - 11% 5 - 5% Were is the consensus? Exactly per my point in the article, there is consensus is that she's attractive, but there's no consensus on her specific number. Even her biggest number, 8, only has 28% of the vote. 28% isn't consensus; not even close. I rest my case.
It’s obvious what the idea of this post is anyway.Annnnnnd you're gone. It will be at least another year or two before I release any pics of PF, and I have no idea how I would know the timing of if or when pics are leaked, not to mention I've already stated the same opinion in the above article several years ago here. But more importantly, I already clearly warned you to stop trolling me by implying I'm lying to everyone in order to I sell books. That was your last warning, since I've been very patient with you and allowed you to have your say on here for a very long time. Apparently my success is so upsetting to you that you can't help yourself. Which is fine. I honestly think you're more suited to the more Heartiste-type blogs, not this one.
More than once, I’ve had the type of scenario where I tell a guy that one of the chicks he’s drooling over is “a 7 at best” and he gets pissed, then I show him a large picture of her or we approach her in real life, and get him to reluctantly admit that, even by his standards, “yeah, that was the wonderbra, her tits are actually pretty deflated” or something along those lines. Someone above mentioned guys who are so obsessed with blondes that they hardly care about the rest provided the hair color and maybe eye color is right, and that too participates to creating many “fake tens”.This is accurate much of the time, yes. I also think there is a strong knee-jerk factor when a guy first looks at a new woman. I've been guilty of this! I'm walking around, see a woman with long blonde hair, and think, "Oooo she's hot!" Then I will look at her a little longer, see that she's not that hot, and correct myself.
I may sound extreme when I say that a big proportion of VS models and Hollywood stars look almost unfuckable to meI'm close to that. I wouldn't go for as to say unfuckable, but the majority are either unfuckable to me or are reasonably unattractive.
Outside of English speaking countries there are tons of hot and sweet women. Inside the English speaking world however I have to disagree with you BD.I live in an English speaking country, and I know (and have met) many very attractive women who were not bitches. SP, dude.
POB 2017-03-06 07:52:40
I’m picturing the hundreds, actually thousands of men who would be happy to fuck Rosanne or Rosie. I know a few of these guys; they’re hilarious.I personally know three guys who only like to fuck very fat women. BTW none of them are black. One is a very close friend who's hitting his 40s and settling down for the third time with a fat woman. The other two are in their mid-20s and considered "beasts". The younger one capable of hooking up with 3-4 fat chicks in a single night (not joking). Mind you those girls are not chubby: they usually have at least 20 more pounds than him. But the best part is if you check their social media: it's full of very attractive girls who are constantly commenting and complementing them. Go figure.
Duke 2017-03-06 15:28:42
The other two are in their mid-20s and considered “beasts”.I'm curious what you mean by "beasts"? Are they jacked? Or just really "good" at getting with fatties?
The younger one capable of hooking up with 3-4 fat chicks in a single night (not joking)Is this through harem or ONS? How do these guys react when people give them shit (dude why are you with that fattie?) or weird looks, assuming they take these girls out in public of course? Are these girls even cute? If a guy is willing to chase fatties, why stop there, there's tons of ugly girls too. Sorry, I'm just trying to picture the possibility all of this.
Ol'Tex 2017-03-07 09:20:04
Jack Outside the Box says:
The thing that turns me on the most about women (assuming they are already in the fuckable category in terms of looks) is their attitude towards sex. The more of a sex-positive bad ass the woman is, and the closer her sexual lifestyle resembles that of a male player, the harder my dick gets! Bad ass female players (like my girlfriend) just drive me crazy.JOTB I enjoyed that response immensely. I could not agree with you more. To be honest of my MLTRs the ones I love the most with the most passion and think about often are all women who chased me hard once we started dating. Kinky as hell (submissive women) and so over-sexed I can’t believe my luck sometimes. Or more likely that the gym and red-pill/game work almost like magic. While I somewhat use the 1-10 scale in my thinking, I will give at least two points to an enthusiastic freak! I love the giving of pain and the exchange of pleasure, it makes me happy, I’m not giving that up.
I have indeed noticed that the so called 10s, or hottest ones (according to other men) tend to be blue pill gold diggers, or self righteous Disney enthusiasts. In my mid-20s, I had sex with a couple of these “hot” women, and I instantly came to the conclusion that the so called “hottest” ones are almost never the best or most enthusiastic in bed. They tend to take sex for granted, have a sense of entitlement about it, and have medium sex drives at best.My observation exactly, and something I keep in mind a lot. I have one “super hot” woman and one “hot” with massive breasts (a boob man’s wet dream) in my regular batch of MLTRs and honestly both of them are mediocre in bed at best, I always have to do all of the work, planning, and end up an example of Roosh’s “monkey dancer”.
John 2017-03-08 04:50:15
I think the 1-10 scale does have merit when it comes to subjective topics. So when a guy tells a story how he pulled that 9, does it really matter if I think she is a nine ? No. What matters is that he thought she was and how that affected his behavior/strategy etc. e.g. "Guys I need your help, i get so nervous around 10s!" Or, if we talk about "How to pick up 10s", does it really matter that we agree what exactly a ten is or is it sufficient that every single guy has a mental image of what a 10 is to him ? Also: in the pick up community it is often referred to as the HB scale (Hot Babe Scale). eg. HB10, which lead some people, me included, to the conclusion, that rating ugly women on that scale at all, is both academically (i.e. they are no HBs) and practically (Why rate someone, you wouldn't fuck, at all?) useless. So on my internal scale a HB1 is on the lowest end of what i would consider "fuckable", while a "normal 7" would be a 4 and a "normal 10" would be a 8, 9 or 10, depending. That leaves more range to space things out. I think most guys would agree that there is a world of difference between your small town ten and what should objectively be a ten, namely the hottest girl in the world. Which is also impractical since you are never going to meet that girl anyway, let alone fuck her.
Jack Outside the Box 2017-03-08 12:52:18
@Ol'Tex: First you say this:
JOTB I enjoyed that response immensely. I could not agree with you more. To be honest of my MLTRs the ones I love the most with the most passion and think about often are all women who chased me hard once we started dating. Kinky as hell (submissive women) and so over-sexed I can’t believe my luck sometimes. Or more likely that the gym and red-pill/game work almost like magic.And then you say this:
I love the giving of pain and the exchange of pleasure, it makes me happy, I’m not giving that up.Um.....ok, that is both creepy and borderline illegal. This makes you the opposite of me. The more sexually insatiable the woman is, the more turned on I am because I love giving women pleasure, which is the source of my pleasure. But you like giving them.....pain? The BDSM shit (which I'm totally not into) is one thing, but if you enjoy inflicting pain on women, you and I have opposite turn ons. Also, my women are only submissive in the bedroom. Outside of it, they are independent. I hate that platonic/submissive Disney shit. But in the bedroom, it's a huge turn on.
joelsuf 2017-03-08 19:41:34
The BDSM shitHey JOTB, I'd like your input on this. Some say that BDSM/Kink is feminist propaganda. Having dabbled in BDSM, I'd argue that it isn't entirely untrue. Many kinks that I've talked to aren't sex positive, they like the activity more than the sex itself. Thoughts?
Jack Outside the Box 2017-03-09 15:36:55
@Joelsuf: Although I've never attacked it because, unlike prostitution, no one tries to promote it or encourage it here, I've always been of the opinion that BDSM is largely for sick people, or people with severe psychological problems and various so called "mental illnesses." The concept of bondage, whipping, scourging, pouring how candle wax, physical abuse, drawing blood, deriving pleasure from pain (sadomasochism), tying up, chocking, losing consciousness, vomiting into each other's mouths, urinating, defecating, and so forth is not normal human or animal sexual behavior. These are all sicknesses and these people are deeply psychologically damaged and broken. As a libertarian, I think these things should be legal (even consensual murder should be legal, which would make morons think twice before clicking "ok" on a site's "terms of service"), but this community has no business promoting or encouraging such crap. The only connection to feminism that I can see is within the "affirmative consent" movement. Feminists who want to make "affirmative consent" the law of the land claim that all sex is rape unless it is first prefaced with autistic verbal procedures previously employed only by the brain damaged. Well guess what? The BDSM community came up with "affirmative consent" back in the 1970s as an inflexible rule within their circles. I actually talked to a BDSM dude a few years ago and he said, "I don't know what all the fuss is about. So called affirmative consent is something that you must practice if you're into BDSM. Otherwise, we'll kick you out. It has always been that way for us. It's not so bad. Although I agree that it would be annoying if we had to get verbal permission even just for vanilla sex." The only other connection I see is feminists pointing at the BDSM crazies to trash all sex-positive beliefs.
POB 2017-03-10 07:31:06
Are they jacked? Or just really “good” at getting with fatties?Good at getting fatties, really average dudes.
Is this through harem or ONS?By hooking up I meant kissing and some at night or parties. I'm not that close to them to know about their sex lives (but I guess they're at least getting some from the pool). If I remember correctly from my very early beginnings, it's not that hard to kiss, finger or get some extra from fatties if you are average looking. In that case it doesn't even matter if you don't know what you're doing.
How do these guys react when people give them shit (dude why are you with that fattie?) or weird looks, assuming they take these girls out in public of course? Are these girls even cute? If a guy is willing to chase fatties, why stop there, there’s tons of ugly girls too. Sorry, I’m just trying to picture the possibility all of this.Does not make sense to me as well. They just go out in the world, do it and don't really seem to care LOL.
joelsuf 2017-03-10 18:47:11
The concept of bondage, whipping, scourging, pouring how candle wax, physical abuse, drawing blood, deriving pleasure from pain (sadomasochism), tying up, chocking, losing consciousness, vomiting into each other’s mouths, urinating, defecating, and so forth is not normal human or animal sexual behavior.Funny that you would lump choking in with all that, seeing as Mike Cernovich has published tutorials on how to properly choke a chick before having sex with her, and I've seen a couple of similarities between the two of you. Other than that I agree. The Kinks I've met are nice people but I do agree with the view that the things they do are really fucked up and weird.
Feminists who want to make “affirmative consent” the law of the landI don't come across many of those nowadays. Even the "feminists" who I interact with and date and stuff don't really believe in affirmative consent.
Jack Outside the Box 2017-03-10 19:20:05
Funny that you would lump choking in with all that, seeing as Mike Cernovich has published tutorials on how to properly choke a chick before having sex with her,Then he is a sick man who needs professional help. He's promoting something that is illegal and bordering on sexual assault. It is disgusting and I completely condemn it. Why is it funny that I condemn it just because another dude, whom I have nothing to do with, didn't? I've noticed before that you enjoy lumping me in with, or connecting me to, others. Please stop it.
and I’ve seen a couple of similarities between the two of you.I've never even heard of the man, so I literally have no idea what you're talking about.
Other than that I agree.So you don't agree that choking is sick and that it's inherently within the BDSM mindset?
I don’t come across many of those nowadays.Then you haven't been paying attention to college campuses lately.
Even the “feminists” who I interact with and date and stuff don’t really believe in affirmative consent.Why are you interacting with or dating feminists? You're playing with fire. Piss them off even one time and they'll say you raped them. And in their mind, it will be true because their definition of rape (even without affirmative consent) bears no resemblance to any law that was ever on the books addressing the subject.
Don_Quibollox 2017-03-10 19:54:57
I think it's disappointing that such an astute commenter as JOTB gathers up all BDSM/kink activities and labels them as sick. It's a continuum. Your kink is not my kink, as the saying goes. Certainly many of the more extreme things that kinksters get up to are weird and repulsive to those who do not understand the motivations of those involved. But is a little light ass spanking sick, if both parties enjoy it? No? How about replacing the hand with a suede flogger? Is holding your girl's hands above her head as you fuck her sick? No? What about if those hands are held by soft ropes because she likes the feeling? Each person has to draw their own line. And that is where affirmative consent comes into BDSM. In this case, JOTB, your thinking is a bit too B/W.
Jack Outside the Box 2017-03-11 13:44:54
Certainly many of the more extreme things that kinksters get up to are weird and repulsive to those who do not understand the motivations of those involved.More relativism! Sigh. Dude, you can be open minded and tolerant of other people's lifestyles (and even be a libertarian like me who thinks it should all be legalized), but this doesn't mean that your own brain should completely fall out of your head to the point where you don't recognize objective insanity. Ever heard of "otherkin?" They are humans who think they are animals and want to be recognized as animals. If you call them humans, they say that's hate speech. Seriously, let's grow a spine and recognize the crazies as crazies, okay?
But is a little light ass spanking sick, if both parties enjoy it?I'm not going to condemn light ass spanking or hair pulling during sex (I've been guilty of it myself), but I do recognize the female motivations behind it, which I really don't like. The idea of simulated violence during sex (and even rape role playing, in the most extreme cases) is based on the woman (usually of a conservative/Disney orientation - they tend to be the most kinky) wanting the man to be her lap dog. It's like fencing/training with another man. She considers it training for when she wants him to beat up another man for her. By testing the man's capacity for violence in a controlled and simulated way during sex, the conservative/Disney woman is subconsciously assuring herself that he will be vicious towards other men on her behalf if need be. The most extreme version of this type of gold digger is a woman who wants to marry a serial killer in prison - she wants to sublimate his violence for her own purposes like a queen recruiting a slave. Other conservative women even try to provoke physical fights between their man and other men just to test how much of a protective tool he is. I understand that that is a far cry from some light spanking or hair pulling during sex, but the same subconscious motive applies, which is why, like I said, female conservatives, Disney enthusiasts, and gold diggers tend to be the most kinky in bed. I reject such mindsets because I'm insulted by the premise (although, I admit to being guilty of spanking some girls or pulling their hair during sex once in a while). Note: Simulated violence during sex should not be confused with aggressive passion.
No? How about replacing the hand with a suede flogger? Is holding your girl’s hands above her head as you fuck her sick? No? What about if those hands are held by soft ropes because she likes the feeling?Defining something out of existence via incremental changes (a trick college professors constantly employ) does not change the existence of that something. Motive is very important here. Personally, I think it should all be legal (even though many BDSM activities are illegal in America, despite being fully consensual), but in my mind, if you need to use artificial tools or devices during sex (not counting birth control) you've jump the shark for me. It's your life and you can do what you want, but sex really should be about two (or more) people's bodies, not some artificial shit that sometimes even threatens to replace your body. This is why I'm deeply insulted by artificial lubricants, K/Y (or whatever that's called), cherry flavored condoms/her pleasure condoms, etc... I'm the one who should be pleasuring her, not a piece of technology! As Bill Maher once said, "the only pleasurable sensation a condom should give you is the sensation that you are having sex without a condom." Amen. Fuck "artificial enhancements!" Leave those for old people!
Each person has to draw their own line. And that is where affirmative consent comes into BDSM.I agree. That crazy "community" definitely needs affirmative consent. If you're going to have exotic types of "sex" that are unknown in nature, you should probably have a safety word. As for the rest of us, we resent feminists trying to target the playfulness and joyfulness of sex by replacing it with an autistic bureaucratic routine.
Don_Quibollox 2017-03-11 17:53:52
@JOTB You realise you're coming across as a closet Puritan now? Disowned selves and all that ....
Jack Outside the Box 2017-03-13 13:06:50
@JOTB You realise you’re coming across as a closet Puritan now?If I have to sanction violent, criminal, or unnatural and pseudo-sexual pathologies which have nothing to do with sex per se, or healthy sexual expressions, in order to avoid the Puritan label, then that label has become so broad it has officially lost all meaning.
Disowned selves and all that ….I have no idea what this means.
Don_Quibollox 2017-03-15 22:51:36
I have no idea what this means.I found this little book very helpful, even though I find most Jungian concepts to be nonsense: https://www.amazon.com/Owning-Your-Own-Shadow-Understanding/dp/0062507540
Shirley Setia 2017-04-11 15:16:05
It is very much interesting to read the attractiveness scale given by boys. Very well written article. Now I am guessing my attractiveness scale... 😉
Walter 2017-05-25 14:21:38
The scale I’ve seen somewere in the past and use:7-girl you’d fuck8-girl you’ll go down on9-girl you’ll fuck after your buddy is done fucking her10-girl you’ll go down on after your buddy is done fucking herThat was hilarious. I wonder what an 11 would be (a girl you would go down on after a Gangbang?)
Entropy-7 2017-08-12 23:42:55
The thing is, if you want an objective answer, you don't ask a subjective question. So the question is not "Rate this girl [for you personally, incorporating all your own preferences and biases] on a scale of 1 to 10" but rather "How would most men (a plurality/majority/rough-consensus) rate this girl on a scale of 1 to 10 using the following criteria: . . .". My criteria look something like this: 5 - plain (not ugly) face and a plain body but still having a discernably feminine figure 6 - a pretty face OR a nice body us upgraded 7 - a pretty face AND a nice body, your classic, attractive girl-next door 8 - exceptional facial features and a great body I didn't expand this to go below 5 or above 8, but you get the idea. Having a number without a proper scale is useless. If it is 30 degrees out you don't know if it is freezing or sweltering unless you know if that is Farenheit (USA) or Celcius (everywhere else in the world). Even numbers with a set unit scale are almost useless without context such as BMI or P/E ratio. At best, the HB10 scale is a necessary evil to convey the general attractiveness of a girl in question, for the purposes of discussion or narrative, in an environment which is largely text-driven. The general practice in the manosphere is to not post pics or links of actual girls that guys are actually dating/fucking. The basic problem is that guys lose their objectivity and rate a girl they have been with absurdly high while others will be shitlords and rate a posted pic absurdly low (whether directly due to a loss of objectivity or just being crabs in a bucket).
Anon 2017-08-13 17:08:18
I don't agree with much of this article. It has been proven via polls that even when the average rating of a woman is, say, 7, almost all the votes she gets are in the 6-8 range, so just one point of deviation. Plus, Heartiste had a poll ranking women, not in accordance with a fixed point rating, but the ranking of the 10 women in the group. Almost all readers (thousands) came up with virtually the same ranking of the ten. Now some might say the full range was '1-10', while other may say it is only '4-9', but the ranking of these women *relative to each other* had very little disagreement. I agree that most women will see +1 or -1 ratings from their average...
Ikari 2017-11-03 19:50:44
Thirsty ass niggas on the internet calling every plane-jane he's desperate to dick a 9 doesn't make that shit so, honey. There is more science and research behind this scale than behind global warming.
ValterPF 2018-05-31 08:00:54
Great article as usual, kudos! And since I've already written a post about the effects of beauty (on my blog, in Italian), and how it's highly subjective, I've linked this post for a demonstration of its subjectivity. Thanks! The funny thing is, everybody who's claiming that beauty is indeed objective, is actually talking about his own taste. And he's (arrogantly, I'd say) assuming that his taste is right and everybody else's are wrong. Talk about inflated ego!