There was a ‘rate your looks’ thread recently where people rated themselves on 1-10. how do you define 1-10? my definition would likely be
1-2 multiple deformities and ugliness augmented by terrible hygiene. without bad hygiene, very few people are a 1-2 in my view. you need both extreme ugliness with bad hygiene. or an atrocious personality, but I’m mostly going by looks.
3-4 fairly unattractive to the point where you notice it, but if they have a good personality you can probably overlook appearances and find them desirable. moderately ugly.
5-6 not attractive or unattractive really. a few good and bad traits, but nothing too noticeable. you wouldn’t find yourself attracted to them just by looking at them. ie plain. but again, they aren’t unattractive either. forgettable and not someone you’d notice solely on looks.
7-8 their looks are the first thing you notice. they are pretty/hot/cute but it isn’t overpowering. imperfections still exist. 7 is somewhat attractive and 8 is quite nice to look at.
9-10 a person’s looks are so extreme it is all you notice. you find it intimidating and somehow almost unreal that a person can be that attractive. if they aren’t a total troglodyte you act like they just won the Nobel prize.
it isn’t an even distribution either. most people are 4-8 in my view. 1,2,9,10 are all fairly rare. most attractive people are 7-8 with a few 9s. some people are ugly, but mostly just forgettable when judging by looks. truly ugly and truly beautiful people are rare. I only see a handful of 10s a year.
The vast majority of people are a 5 and under; mostly due to the fact that older people (over 45) just don’t normally rate any higher than unless they are Madonna or Sandra Bullock types. Also, people 15 and under don’t get rated for two reason. One it isn’t fair because they may grow out or into something totally different at some point and two it’s just perverted.
6-7: People in decent shape but not workout addicts. What most people would consider “normal”.
8: A 7 with an outstanding personality and natural beauty.
9: Definitely someone who works out, eats right and cares terribly about their appearance. Smart cloths and witty, someone even a conceded person thinks is better than themselves.
10: Young Hollywood looks and charm. Double down on the charm.
Already well past that point, but I still have my eyesight. I’m a 4.4 realistically myself at best and never really truly expect to be above a five again without winning the lottery and being able to work out all day. There really aren’t a lot of women over 45 that I stop and turn around to look at and say wow I’d like to bag that one. Personality counts even more as you get older as does being realistic about the future.
Sorry but if I’m in a coffee shop, book store, bar, parking lot, gym, etc. and I see a stunningly beautiful/ugly woman, I have no practical way of discerning her personality. Gleaning context clues from the way she dresses, her accessories, etc. is not enough to go by. However, I will still have a reaction to how they look and that can at least be estimated, if not fully quantified.
Also my friends and I sometimes use an area code designation to rate women. First number is for the face, second is for the body, and third is for personality.
Wesley Clark, I like your scale summary very much.
I would say that in general being overweight is an important part of the scale rating though, which you didn’t mention explicitly. I’d say at best a severely overweight person could only be up to maybe a 5. Even if otherwise they have great hair, skin, smile, etc. I’d say that for every 2 or 3 BMI “points” you are overweight, you lose a point on the “league” scale. I know weight isn’t a big issue for a lot of people so this is just my opinion.
I go with a provisional rating before the person opens his/her mouth, and adjust it to a final rating after they do. It’s amazing how many people who start at 9 or 10 drop to below 5 right away during the first conversation, and conversely how many who start at 4 or 5 shoot right up to 9 or 10. Really, the difference is that great for me. I guess maybe I have a personality fetish.
I think part of the problem is that the distribution skews to the right. As skinny as someone can get, it can only get down to but so much. The upper bound potentially hits 1,000. The cutoff for “too skinny” might exist within a 30 lb range whereas “too fat” spans several hundreds.
Also, I don’t think it’s so much “fat” as “tight”. A bigger woman can be sexy if she is just big. However, once things start to sag, or have rolls on rolls on rolls is where it becomes unattractive. So really, the raw weight is not as accurate an indicator of “fat hotness” as it’s used.
I’ll chime in and suggest that a wonderful voice adds 2 points at least, and a terrible one subtracts one or two. I mean, Patrick Stewart is no slouch, but doesn’t that voice give him an edge?
I divide the opposite sex into three categories and then apply that to the arbitrary scale - 1 to 10 in this case. The groups are “wouldn’t in any circumstance” (I.e. a Penguins fan ); “if we were both available”; “I’d crawl over my wife, children and mother to get her”.
I rated myself a 3 in the other thread and would agree with the OP’s scale definitions, especially the personality components.
As a severely obese person, that will be the first thing someone notices about me, but I think I have a decent smile and friendly manner which helps overcome people’s initial reactions. At least, I think I have a friendly face!
And I do think you can tell personality quite quickly in others, bitchy resting face syndrome aside!
There really aren’t a lot of women over 45 that I stop and turn around to look at and say wow I’d like to bag that one. Personality counts even more as you get older as does being realistic about the future.
); “if we were both available”; “I’d crawl over my wife, children and mother to get her”.