AD1980 Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 (edited) Sorts of like some not all men that judge women on a 1-10 scale or are you just either attracted to someobdy or your not Edited October 28, 2009 by AD1980
Lizzie60 Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 Nope.. never.. I either like his face or not.. simple as that.
JustLooking123 Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 Nope. If I have a scale, it's attractive, unattractive, or neutral.
aerogurl87 Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 No either you're usually cute or ugly. Sometimes there are the rare "in betweens" but usually it's one of the two.
Author AD1980 Posted October 28, 2009 Author Posted October 28, 2009 No either you're usually cute or ugly. Sometimes there are the rare "in betweens" but usually it's one of the two. Really?? I think most of the population u see waking down the street everyday are in betweens Rarely do u see someone whos breathtaking or downright hideous
threebyfate Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 Nope, they're either attractive to me or not. If their personalities are compatible, they just get more and more attractive!
Ruby Slippers Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 No. And I have a low opinion of anyone who uses such a scale.
looking4 green grass Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Nope, don't use one. Either he's good looking to me, or he's not.
crosswordfiend Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 I imagine there are other rating $cale$ that apply...
threebyfate Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 I imagine there are other rating $cale$ that apply...Beyond some of the women on LS, IRL, I've yet to hear a woman rate a man on a scale. It's pretty much, he's hot or not, cute or not, attractive or not, handsome or not.
aerogurl87 Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Really?? I think most of the population u see waking down the street everyday are in betweens Rarely do u see someone whos breathtaking or downright hideous Cute means you're dateable from just a looks perspective and ugly means you're not. So yes, for me it is a rarity to find the in-between type of guy who in the right light looks cute but other times, eh can't really be too sure...
Awesome Username Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 1 - Not happening. 2 - I don't know, maybe. I might give you a chance. 3 - He is so fine, my ovaries just exploded. I seem to only have three numbers.
Ruby Slippers Posted November 1, 2009 Posted November 1, 2009 I imagine there are other rating $cale$ that apply... Beyond some of the women on LS, IRL, I've yet to hear a woman rate a man on a scale. It's pretty much, he's hot or not, cute or not, attractive or not, handsome or not. I think crosswordfiend means that women tend to rank men based on income/financial resources, rather than appearance. I agree with you that they never discuss it, but I am sure some women rank men in this way in their minds, just as some men rank women's appearance on a scale. Both are slimy and rooted in selfish ego-related concerns, IMO.
tkgirl Posted November 1, 2009 Posted November 1, 2009 1 - Not happening. 2 - I don't know, maybe. I might give you a chance. 3 - He is so fine, my ovaries just exploded. I seem to only have three numbers. :laugh:
cognac Posted November 1, 2009 Posted November 1, 2009 Cute means you're dateable from just a looks perspective and ugly means you're not. So yes, for me it is a rarity to find the in-between type of guy who in the right light looks cute but other times, eh can't really be too sure... I am definitely one of those in between guys. In some lights I look very handsome, in others I do not. It's actually insane how much difference the type of lighting makes on my facial features, in some I have very fine and cut features and in others i look like jack black.
xXMarlboro_ManXx Posted November 1, 2009 Posted November 1, 2009 I am surprised by the answers here. I think most men either use or at least know of the 1-10 scale. Everyones taste is different but I think a man can picture what person looks like by giving her a number value. Ex. If I said that I saw two 8's walking by most guys will have a general guess of how they look. I guess most women use the binary scale (0/1) either "date" or not "date". So this proves it men are more shallow than women because our shallowness has a higher degree of accuracy.
Thornton Posted November 1, 2009 Posted November 1, 2009 I have a 3 point scale, like many other posters. There is a line I will not cross in the sense that no amount of positive traits will encourage me to date someone who I find physically repulsive. If someone is on the right side of that line then I'll give them a chance, and this is when someone's positive traits can make a huge difference in how attractive I find them. Then there's the "wow" category of breathtakingly beautiful people - but such people begin to slide down the scale if they have negative personality traits, making them merely eye candy and not a serious option for dating. So my scale is as follows: 1) No way, not in a million years 2) Possibly, depending on their personality (could move UP the attractiveness scale if I like them) 3) Wow! (could move DOWN the attractiveness scale if I don't like them) In my experience, categories 1 and 3 are extremely narrow, and most men fit into category 2.
Recommended Posts