Troll, Average, Model: How many different classifications of attractiveness? and . .

[matt_mcl]

1. I’m sorry, but no.
2. It could conceivably happen
3. Reasonably presentable
4. Yes, please. Cute enough to definitely make me take notice, but not intimidating. Often cute in a non-traditional way (geeky cute, attractive older guy, etc. - I may find them very attractive, but for some reason not intimidating.)
5. Very, very cute. I would hit on him in the right situation but would be very shy about it and fully expect to be told to get lost.
6. Extremely cute. Much too intimidating for me to hit on.
7. So extreme in some dimension of attractiveness that he is actually not attractive any longer.

FWIW, I rate myself a 3.5 on this scale.

I do make some concessions though for people who are probably fine in objective terms but don’t really do it for me based on my preferences, so someone could be “not my type” but I add a mental footnote that lots of other people would class them higher.

I do this too, as well as in reverse (I think they’re smoking even if others might not.)

[Illuminatiprimus]

@matt_mcl

FWIW, I rate myself a 3.5 on this scale.

Don’t we all?

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Illuminatiprimus

Don’t we all?

Ain’t that the sad, cold truth?

Which goes to the central problem in the “Ladies, let’s be honest” thread, where it has been suggested that guys who think of themselves as 3.5s are behaving with such clear and unmistakable offensiveness that almost any degree of hostile derision they receive is universally acknowledged to be merely fair, appropriate and just.

[Sublight]

1. Do not touch
2. Run-of-the-mill plain
3. Run-of-the-mill nice
4. Hot
5. Hypnotizing

5’s are those occasional people you might encounter once or twice in a decade, but never forget. So gorgeous they don’t quite seem human.

[Shalmanese]

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6.5, 7, 7.5, 8, 8.5, 9, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7, 9.8, 9.9

[Illuminatiprimus]

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

Ain’t that the sad, cold truth?

Which goes to the central problem in the “Ladies, let’s be honest” thread, where it has been suggested that guys who think of themselves as 3.5s are behaving with such clear and unmistakable offensiveness that almost any degree of hostile derision they receive is universally acknowledged to be merely fair, appropriate and just.

I haven’t read that thread but personally I think anyone who expresses such an opinion is a twat. If someone who you’re not in the least bit interested in shows they’re interested in you, a decent person (no matter how attractive they are) should express polite flattery with a firm but gentle rebuff, not openly derisive hostility. I also think this goes back to the problem the good looking have which is they often don’t need to learn to be nice people as others will let them get away with more due to their looks, so they don’t.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

Well, to be perfectly fair, some of the ladies whose views I charactered here would contend, I’m sure, that I’ve mispresented their positions, which seem to me frankly confusing and more than a little confused.But we should discuss this in that htread, and not here, at length, if you want to opine.

Now, you’re a pleasant-looking guy, as I can attest from close personal observation (hey, not THAT close!), and I’m thinking maybe we can issue little business cards that qualify someone as “nice-looking by majority vote” and that person can carry the card around to pass out to people he hits on whenever they start dishing out the hostile rejections. “I am SO entitled to hit on you–see, it says so, right here! I’m a 3.5!”

[Illuminatiprimus]

Isn’t that just kind of validating the stupid view of the women in question? You shouldn’t need to get a mandate from the people to show you’re interested in someone.

And thank you for the compliment, by the way.

[Jennyrosity]

I could probably get by with 4:

1. In the unlikely event of us being the only people left alive in a post-apocalyptic world, the species will remain unpopulated.
2. Meh, maybe, if he’s charming.
3. Lovely!
4. Too perfect, which in it’s own way is as off-putting as 1.

I consider myself as a 3, have gone out with 2s and 3s, and am married to a 3.

[JR_Brown]

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

Which goes to the central problem in the “Ladies, let’s be honest” thread, where it has been suggested that guys who think of themselves as 3.5s are behaving with such clear and unmistakable offensiveness that almost any degree of hostile derision they receive is universally acknowledged to be merely fair, appropriate and just.

@pseudotriton_ruber_ruber

Well, to be perfectly fair, some of the ladies whose views I charactered here would contend, I’m sure, that I’ve mispresented their positions, which seem to me frankly confusing and more than a little confused.But we should discuss this in that htread, and not here, at length, if you want to opine.

Now, you’re a pleasant-looking guy, as I can attest from close personal observation (hey, not THAT close!), and I’m thinking maybe we can issue little business cards that qualify someone as “nice-looking by majority vote” and that person can carry the card around to pass out to people he hits on whenever they start dishing out the hostile rejections. “I am SO entitled to hit on you–see, it says so, right here! I’m a 3.5!”

Responded to in the other thread, as requested.

JRB

[HazelNutCoffee]

“Unfortunate.”
“Okay.”
“Pretty good.”
“Eye-candy!”

A lot of people are framing their answer in terms of whether they would conceivably sleep with them or not, but for me that’s a bit different - the moment I meet a guy I think my brain kind of automatically sorts him into a “never ever” box or a “has potential” box, and then after a conversation or two the latter get sorted into “maybe if I were drunk” box and “I would like it to happen one day” box.

[shallora]

@Heropsychodreamer

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Yeah, I use the old standby 1-10 scale, too.

I use it kind of like the Richter Scale: Each higher numer is exponentially greater than the next. And also like the Richter Scale, while in theory a 10.0 woman is possible, in reality nobody’s actually seen one . . . with the possible exception of Alyssa Milano, of course.

[tdn]

@Shalmanese

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6.5, 7, 7.5, 8, 8.5, 9, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7, 9.8, 9.9

Warp speed, captain!

“I give her the highest rating I can possibly give a woman. A-minus.”
-Alfie

[Heropsychodreamer]

@tdn

Yep. Because I find a 2 to be twice as hot as a 1.

How about a scale of 1 to 4?

1. There’s not enough Viagra in the universe

2. I’d hit that but only at gunpoint

3. Yes, please!

4. Out of my league

There’s not a huge difference between a 1 and a 2, and there’s no such thing as a 4. So it it really comes down to “yes I would” and “no I wouldn’t.” Personality, compatibility, willingness, proximity, and beer goggles affect the rating, of course.

I disagree. A 1 has no redeeming quality. A 2 has at least one thing you can point to and say, “Nice.” Eyes? Teeth? Hair? There might be something!

Why is there no 4? 5 is your perfectly average girl, a 4 is just not quite there…maybe 1 quality you can’t get over. 3 is inbetween the just one good quality and that 1 thing you can’t get over. A 3 is like a 1 but with a couple things going for her.

Now for above 5:

10 is perfection, maybe never given out, or just once in a blue moon. 9 is the hottest girls you know, usually famous and almost perfect. 8 is the hottest girls you see in your everyday life. Rare, but still easily found. That leaves 6 and 7. 6 is girl next door cute, 7 is a bit better, but not the 8 category (hottest girl you’ll see today).

This post took 5 minutes to come up with…I really don’t even rate girls on this scale in my mind or otherwise…well, maybe the once a year perfect 10.

[UncleBill]

@Heropsychodreamer

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

But this one goes to 11!

[tdn]

@Heropsychodreamer

Why is there no 4?

The point of that is that there is truly no one who is out of your league. Sure, if she’s a supermodel and you’re a troll, you might have to work a little harder at getting her attention. But if you automatically dismiss her as unattainable, you’ve lost before you’ve even played.

It’s really kind of a personal philosophy. By removing that limitation, I’ve surprised myself a good number of times.

[gigi]

@Illuminatiprimus

I think the categories I would tend to use to describe someone are (in ascending order of hotness):

Fugly
No thanks!
Not my type/doesn’t do it for me
OK (average, no real opinion)
Nice/attractive
Fit (Hell yes!)
Extremely fit (way out of my league)

Hee, this made me check your location and sure enough, Britain. I hadn’t heard “fit” as a synonym for gorgeous/hot until “Happy-Go-Lucky”.

[Zebra]

Only two.
I won’t do them.

They’d never do me.

[Pazu]

@tdn

The point of that is that there is truly no one who is out of your league. Sure, if she’s a supermodel and you’re a troll, you might have to work a little harder at getting her attention. But if you automatically dismiss her as unattainable, you’ve lost before you’ve even played.

At least one Doper disagrees with you here (see post #58).

[Illuminatiprimus]

@Zebra

Only two.
I won’t do them.

They’d never do me.

I guess I’m in the first category then, because I think you’re quite attractive myself.