Jump to content

What's wrong with the "1 to 10" scale?

Don'tWannabeAWannabe

By Don'tWannabeAWannabe
in Dating

 Share
While the thread author can add an update and reopen discussion, this thread was last posted in over a month ago. Want to continue the conversation? Feel free to start a new thread instead!

Recommended Posts

rewe4reel Established Member

rewe4reel

Posted
Posted (edited)

Daniel Madr,

 

This is my idea of a "classic 10", what do you think?

 

 

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.enjoyfrance.com/images/stories/france/celebrities/Catherine-Deneuve-booed.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.enjoyfrance.com/content/view/2175/36/&h=390&w=462&sz=54&tbnid=mIen7nJ-83y_aM:&tbnh=108&tbnw=128&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcatherine%2Bdeneuve%2Bphotos&hl=en&usg=__lWEGFArVrYfucVux3CGKO78dbas=&ei=LhQITJ-oG4H48AbmtK29AQ&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&ved=0CBgQ9QEwAA

 

 

Here's another:

 

http://www.rexwallpapers.com/images/wallpapers/celebs/nicole-kidman/nicole_kidman_28.jpg

 

 

Tina Fey?????

 

BARRRRFFFFFFFFFF.....

Edited by rewe4reel
ADF Established Member

ADF

Posted
Posted

There's so much wrong with the 1 to 10 scale it is hard to know here to begin.

 

Let's start with the fact a numerical scale sounds like something you'd use to grade livestock, not describe fellow human beings.

 

Let's also note that people who use the 1 to 10 scale often use it to grade individual body parts, not the whole person. So, a woman is told that while her face is a 9, her body is only a 6. Sorry, you're not good enough for me.

 

The 1 to 10 scale emphasizes physical attributes to the total exclusion of other traits--e.g. sense of humor, charm, intelligence. Men who grade women according the 1 to 10 scale make it clear that women are just bodies to them, nothing more.

 

The scale itself is rather confusing, particularly within the middle ranges. Everyone understands that someone descibed as a 9 or 10 is gorgeous, while someone described as a 1 or 2 is homely. But what is the difference between a 5 and a 7? Between a 4 and a 6? Most of the scale is just meaningless.

Kamille Established Member

Kamille

Posted
Posted

 

And Deneuve is still as beautiful today. In fact, I even find her more beautiful as there's something gaunt about her face in the first pic.

Lakeside_runner Established Member

Lakeside_runner

Posted
Posted

There is universal scale of beauty independent of race, culture and time. Perverted ideas aside. And it is so, because certain features signify health.

Watch this...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X83Eez47mY&feature=related

 

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao: Runners with symmetric ears run faster than runners with asymmetric ones. :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

marsle85 Established Member

marsle85

Posted
Posted
Yes, the four "Sex and the City" chicks are all pretty hideous, esp. in close-up twenty feet high on the big screen.

 

Is there an uglier "celebrity" woman than Sarah Jessica Parker, aka "Mr. Ed"?

 

She's absolutely revolting. She must be a great actress because she sure didn't get famous on her looks.

 

Is it possible to have a negative score on this scale? I'd give her maybe a minus 3 or 4.

 

Dude. She looks absolutely amazing at 55. I'd hate to bring your mother into this... Stop being so shallow, she represents such a grander, more meaningful image than to appeal to 20 year olds looking to jack off at their computer screen.

 

http://images.teamsugar.com/files/upl1/2/20652/19_2008/sarah-jessica-parker-6.xlarger.xlarge.jpg

marsle85 Established Member

marsle85

Posted
Posted

 

 

Yikes, your like your women with angular faces. Ick. They look cold, I think women with voluptuous features are much more attractive.

Kamille Established Member

Kamille

Posted
Posted

As ridiculous as I find the scale, let's do a social experiment.

 

Here is, according to me, a picture of a perfect 10.

 

And about the link Daneilmdr posted... Really, I'm going to take Joan River's opinion on beauty? And a plastic surgeon's? The thing is, all their ideal of beauty are contextualized: it's Hollywood glam. The only thing I can agree on is that yes, usually, symmetry is more attractive. But even then, the most photogenic models of the two in the fashion industry selection had the least symmetrical face.

DanielMadr Established Member

DanielMadr

Posted
Posted

 

That's pretty ****ty picture but Catherine Deneuw is probably 10. Megan Fox too and Sophie Marceau too.

 

Nicole Kidman is fine but nothing like Natasha Henstridge or Sienna Miller.

 

Actually Sienna Miller in Layer Cake....10.5

 

Tina Fey is not baaaarf, come on. She is 5 at worst. It depends on your age though.

 

What I don't get...Scarlet Johanson a super hottie??? No way.

Jersey Shortie Established Member

Jersey Shortie

Posted
Posted

I think Sarah jessica Parker is very pretty.

 

Alot of those women posted have had alot of work done.

Green Established Member

Green

Posted
Posted

The 1 to 10 scale just ends up being rude and pointless. IF one guy calls a girl a 10 another guy may think she is a 6... so the only point a 1 to 10 scale serves is rude convo between two or more people and then they can debate their disagreements... Look its not like there is any kind of math or rubric used....

 

Unles you are going to tell a girl she is perfect whats the point.. hey babe you are a 9/10... youd be a 10 but your boobs arn't big enough or your ass isn't round enough... its really silly

 

I say just ask yourself DO I FIND THIS GIRL ATTRACTIVE... don't worry about what other people think or how she compares with other women.

 

What I find attractive isn't necesarily going to be what the next guy finds attractive.

DanielMadr Established Member

DanielMadr

Posted
Posted
As ridiculous as I find the scale, let's do a social experiment.

 

Here is, according to me, a picture of a perfect 10.

 

And about the link Daneilmdr posted... Really, I'm going to take Joan River's opinion on beauty? And a plastic surgeon's? The thing is, all their ideal of beauty are contextualized: it's Hollywood glam. The only thing I can agree on is that yes, usually, symmetry is more attractive. But even then, the most photogenic models of the two in the fashion industry selection had the least symmetrical face.

 

Can't say. He looks nice but I really can't tell. :D

 

You have to filter everything especially Joan Rivers.

Actually I find most Hollywood beauties just not that hot. I know much hotter girls and EVERYONE would consider them hot.

 

Models? Forget it. They have to look interesting and they are picked by women and homosexuals....they look like 16 year old boys most of them.

 

Victoria Secret models...are better.

 

The most attractive girls I know would not make it to TV or model industry. They have round faces...not photogenic feature for camera but damn healthy-attractive in real life.

somedude81 Established Member

somedude81

Posted
Posted

I actually use two different 1-10 scales for women.

 

The first scale rates their presentation. It covers, their body type, clothes, hair, make up, etc.

 

The next scale would be them au naturel. No make up, no hair products, no clothes.

 

Women can actually move up or 3 or so points from how she changes form au naturel to presentation.

 

In school, the girl I was pursuing was a 6 at best. Her clothes were terrible (ugly shirts, jeans too big, bad shoes) she never wore makeup and her hair was frizzy and often unkempt. But she was a very pretty girl. I'm sure she'd be absolutely gorgeous if I saw her come out of the shower. I'd say physically she was an 8, but because of how she presented herself she brought herself down to a 6.

 

The converse is obviously possible. You can take a homely looking girl, Give her some nice clothes, good hair and makeup, a pushup bra and she can instantly improve a few points. Though when she's naked and without any product her points would be lower.

marsle85 Established Member

marsle85

Posted
Posted

 

What I don't get...Scarlet Johanson a super hottie??? No way.

 

 

I like Scarlet because her appearance is the most real to me. Pretty face:

 

http://josh-wyxl.itmblog.com/files/2009/05/scarlett_johansson.jpg

 

and slammin, REAL body:

 

http://thebosh.com/archives/upload/2006/10/sexy-scarlett.jpg

 

Plus, something about her is very unbridled and sexy.

 

http://www.sitesmexico.com/imagenes-2009/scarlett-johansson-sexy-3.jpg

DanielMadr Established Member

DanielMadr

Posted
Posted
I like Scarlet because her appearance is the most real to me. Pretty face:

 

http://josh-wyxl.itmblog.com/files/2009/05/scarlett_johansson.jpg

 

and slammin, REAL body:

 

http://thebosh.com/archives/upload/2006/10/sexy-scarlett.jpg

 

Plus, something about her is very unbridled and sexy.

 

http://www.sitesmexico.com/imagenes-2009/scarlett-johansson-sexy-3.jpg

 

Compared to Sienna Miller....nada.

 

S. Johanson the best looking women in hollywood = media bubble just because some journalist groped her. It is injustice to really beautiful actresses. Her compared to silver screen stars of 1920s....joke.

 

But we shouldn't care about Hollywood that much, anyway.

Mme. Chaucer Established Member

Mme. Chaucer

Posted
Posted
Theres nothing wrong with it, just ignore the women speak.

 

The difference is many guys are perfectly find with dating a 2/10 or 3/10.

 

For women 18-30, it's unthinkable to even talk to a man unless he is a 8/10+, or "HOT". Who cares if hes abusive, a druggie, lives with his parents, no job, as long as hes "HOT" and I can show him off to my friends, its worth!! ( :rolleyes: )

 

 

Well ... you've already well established your situation with the ladies, so I would not think that you'd be a very reliable barometer for the way women think and behave.

 

For the record, any guy who's interested in what women think is stupid if he "ignores women speak." If you DON'T care, ignore away.

Mme. Chaucer Established Member

Mme. Chaucer

Posted
Posted
But it's much easier for a girl to look hot compared to men.

 

1. Don't be fatty foods.

2. Wear make-up.

 

Guys have to go to the gym regularly.

 

Men can be fatty foods? They could certainly wear makeup, if they wanted.

rewe4reel Established Member

rewe4reel

Posted
Posted
Dude. She looks absolutely amazing at 55. I'd hate to bring your mother into this... Stop being so shallow, she represents such a grander, more meaningful image than to appeal to 20 year olds looking to jack off at their computer screen.

 

http://images.teamsugar.com/files/upl1/2/20652/19_2008/sarah-jessica-parker-6.xlarger.xlarge.jpg

 

 

She looks remarkably like:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/MargaretHamiltoninTheWizardOfOz.jpg

 

 

(Separated at birth, perhaps?)

rewe4reel Established Member

rewe4reel

Posted
Posted
Men can be fatty foods? They could certainly wear makeup, if they wanted.

 

In that case, I be....doughnuts!!!!

marsle85 Established Member

marsle85

Posted
Posted
Compared to Sienna Miller....nada.

 

S. Johanson the best looking women in hollywood = media bubble just because some journalist groped her. It is injustice to really beautiful actresses. Her compared to silver screen stars of 1920s....joke.

 

But we shouldn't care about Hollywood that much, anyway.

 

Disagree, I tried comparing sexy photos- Miller looks artificial in many... tries to pull off girl-next-door look but fails. What do I know, I'm a chick.

rewe4reel Established Member

rewe4reel

Posted
Posted
Compared to Sienna Miller....nada.

 

S. Johanson the best looking women in hollywood = media bubble just because some journalist groped her. It is injustice to really beautiful actresses. Her compared to silver screen stars of 1920s....joke.

 

But we shouldn't care about Hollywood that much, anyway.

 

 

Wrong decade...try the 1940's and now you're talkin'.....

 

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/041012/041012_veronicaLake_vmed_11a.widec.jpg

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...