Post: #1

Picking a 10 is easy. What do you guys consider a marginally serviceable prospect?

In other words: what do you consider "a nickel piece"?

Post: #2

See, my *scale* is different, placing a lot more value on 8-10. Where an 8 is rare, and very good looking, a 9 adds in a personality, and a 10 has money (that she'll spend on me) or status that can help me in some way.

So, a 5 to me, is a bang-able prospect. This is your "average" girl, that your buddies wouldn't make fun of you for taking home.

I fail to see why most guys have #s 1-5 mean ugly, and some wouldn't touch a 6 on their scales, unless wasted. Makes zero sense to have a scale that has half the numbers represent the same thing.

I generally get my scale by just subtracting 2 from what other guys have ranked her.

Post: #3

(05-16-2011 06:33 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  Picking a 10 is easy. What do you guys consider a marginally serviceable prospect?

In other words: what do you consider "a nickel piece"?

A young woman who...

a) is of relatively slender or normal built. (Chubby girls don't deserve a 5. The absolute maximum a somewhat chubby girl can get is a 4, and the maximum a real fatty gets is a 2.)

b) has an average face. Neither attractive nor unattractive.

The lowest category of bangable women is a 6: slender body and kind of cute face.

Post: #4

Post: #5

This girl is 5-6ish in my scale.

   

Post: #6

(05-16-2011 07:28 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Here are some more to get the discussion lubricated:

       
       

Post: #7

What do I consider a 5? The best looking girl you will see in adams morgan this weekend excluding the club DISTRICT.

Post: #8

Tuthmosis I would fuck the shit out of those 2 older ladies u posted but I have a thing for MILFS so I might be biased.

Rakishness - is that the average dc girl? Disgusting

Post: #9

I'd put the MILF in the green top through a wall, but thats just me.

A 5 for me is usually a slightly chubby girl with a cute enough face and the benefit of having a nice ass or big tits so at least the chub brings something to the table. I'm a bit of a romantic so I put a lot of weight on a girls face, a really cute face will go a long way for me but only to a certain extent.

Chef In Jeans
A culinary website for men

Post: #10

Eh... now see, this is where I vary, looking at Tuth's pictures, I only see one 5. Then I see two old ladies, ranking at a 3 and a 4, and then I'm not sure if the girl on the bottom is a girl or a tranny in a turtleneck from that pic.

Post: #11

(05-16-2011 08:38 PM)houston Wrote:  Tuthmosis I would fuck the shit out of those 2 older ladies u posted but I have a thing for MILFS so I might be biased.

Rakishness - is that the average dc girl? Disgusting

Gotta agree with this too. I also have a thing for chicks with glasses so that would be a very good boost in my scale to the girl with glasses.

Post: #12

OMG, is that what D.C. has to offer? That's terrible, the asian girl gets a 5, the other two are in 3 territory.

My scale is pretty simple, a 5 is the lowest I will bang. It's what it should be, a plain chick with an average body and face. You can take her home and feel good about yourself......but not great.

Also, any girl can get a .5 upgrade for cooking/cleaning
or oral ability. However, this cannot ever equal to more than a 1 point upgrade.

Post: #13

It hit me that if we're talking about mildly bangable, I should really log into POF

Chef In Jeans
A culinary website for men

Post: #14

In order from left to right



6, translucent beast, 5

Post: #15

If I ever get my shit together, I would make a great wingman considering my idea of what makes a woman attractive seems to be radically different from most people's. I like girls very well endowed (the "curvy," porn-starish build) and you guys seem to prefer more of a slender, willowy "model" build. I make exceptions, of course.

NO MILFS EW GROSS

EIther you guys have high standards or I have low ones. (probably both.) As I judge girls by this scale: No, Maybe, Yes, and I MUST HAVE YOU. All these girls (NOT THE MILFS THEY REMIND ME OF MY MOM) look fine to me. Except for glasses girl. And jailbait. And those three with the teeth thing. And Ugly Betty in the middle, kickboxer.

OH LORD CHAD DARING WHO IS THAT RED-HEADED GODDESS does she weigh 300 pounds and is missing her legs and that's why she's a 5?

Post: #16

I agree with mr. GM

Post: #17

So, how do you classify this pair?

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-a...1393_n.jpg

Post: #18

(05-17-2011 01:24 AM)bars Wrote:  So, how do you classify this pair?
http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-a...1393_n.jpg

I'd say 5 (our left) and 6 (our right). They're both average and bangable, although the left one has a weird smile/nose that puts me off a bit.

Post: #19

Come on, many chicks users post here are in the 7 category (except the fatty with glasses and the minority girls posted here, who are ugly).

Just walk down the street and see what most real-life girls look like, and you will recognize that most women in this thread are above average.

By the way, you can find some really ugly girls in the "10-thread" here.

Post: #20

I second the post above.
For a scale to be useful, the mean (which is 5) has to match the mean of the real population.
You can have very high standards for whom you assign a 10 rating, but the mean has to be 5.
So when you walk out on the streets today, take a note what the women look like and the average of that has to be a 5 - and she is much uglier than most of the pics above. That's in the US, except Miami, NYC, etc.
Now, elsewhere in the world, it's somewhat different

Post: #21

(05-17-2011 11:57 AM)K-man Wrote:  I second the post above.
For a scale to be useful, the mean (which is 5) has to match the mean of the real population.
You can have very high standards for whom you assign a 10 rating, but the mean has to be 5.
So when you walk out on the streets today, take a note what the women look like and the average of that has to be a 5 - and she is much uglier than most of the pics above. That's in the US, except Miami, NYC, etc.
Now, elsewhere in the world, it's somewhat different

You are referring to the mean/average in regards to actually population. Which is COMPLETELY relative. Which is the mistake I think alot of guys make skewing their scales.

You must rate solely on attractiveness of that individual on a scale of 1-10.

Read my thread on this

/thread-2785.h...ight=scale

Post: #22

(05-16-2011 08:02 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(05-16-2011 07:28 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Here are some more to get the discussion lubricated:

The milf on the top right I would rate a 6. There is something about her that would make me put out a little bit more..I like her face and her speckled tits...The other milf is a 5 and the top left and bottom right fail the boner test - they are unstuffable.

Post: #23

(05-16-2011 08:23 PM)rakishness Wrote:  What do I consider a 5? The best looking girl you will see in adams morgan this weekend excluding the club DISTRICT.

Asian is 6. Her two friends are 4. I just can't see anything attractive about them.

Post: #24

(05-16-2011 08:23 PM)rakishness Wrote:  What do I consider a 5? The best looking girl you will see in adams morgan this weekend excluding the club DISTRICT.

I rate the asian and the black lizard exactly at a 5. Asian lizard (better face, not seeing much from the body, suspect something scrawny but she will win me over with the face. Black lizard (maybe an ass and some heavy breasts -size of nipples can win or lose the comp, face - worth a kiss).
The other chick, can only be a platonic friend unless she comes out with a sleeper (a hidden smoking body) which will put her in standings to pass the boner test.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying any of them are ugly, they are just not to my liking.

Post: #25

those chicks are 4's..... 4.5 absolute best i can give them.