The Attractiveness Compatibility Scale (ACS)

[Under The Radar]

With the constant OLD threads discussing the 1-10 scale, I thought it only appropriate to start this thread.

 

Years ago, my best friend at the time, came up with what we called the Attractiveness Compatibility Scale, or quite simply the ACS.

 

It was based purely on physical looks. Instead of rankings being from 1-10 they ranged from 1-99 (since nobody is perfect; hence no 100).

 

The scale did not take into account other factors such as income, what car you drive, sense of humor, kindness, etc...

 

Everyone in the world has a number based on the ACS. Now, everyone's ACS score factored in their current age. For instance, Brad Pitt at 48 years of age, would rank very high on the scale to other 40 year olds. IMO, he'd rank in the 90th percentile for his age group. However, he wouldn't rank nearly as high, just based on looks, to say, an 18 year old female in the 90th percentile for her age group. So obviously, the better shape someone keeps themselves in, as they age, the more relevant they will continue to be on the scale to THEIR age group (common sense). Everyone with me so far?

 

Anyway, his contention was that based on looks alone, no one could (generally speaking) expect to land a mate more than 2 points from their base score. So, the best a 5 could hope to hook up with was a 7 (and that would be pushing it). However, a 5 could easily, just based on physical appearance, land a 3.

 

Then, you had your Natural score and your Max score. Your Natural score was how you appear first thing in the morning naked, no clothes, no make up. etc... Your Max score consisted of enhancements like being very well dressed, muscular and toned from the gym, makeup and other accessories, etc... His contention was that one could improve their score by up to one point through "Maxing". So, the Natural 7 on the ACS could jump up to an 8 based on their lifestyle and dress code choices.

 

I thought I'd throw this out there because we all judge people (at first impression) on appearance. I realize that dating and LTR are based on so much more, but unfortunately physical appearance will always be at the top of the list for many people.

 

Of course, I put an end to the ACS when my friend started ranking all of our other friends . I should probably mention that his wife loathed the ACS (and yes, he ranked her too).

 

So, what are people's thoughts on the ACS? Sure, it is shallow, but we cannot deny that we all rank people in our heads upon first meeting them - especially in OLD.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Training Revelations

[Emilia]

I think the reason why it wouldn't work is the same as generally why leagues don't work: it's too subjective. While most will agree that Brad Pitt looks great regardless of his age (would beat most guys in their 20s), 90% of us who don't have filmstar looks would be harder to class.

[Under The Radar]

I think the reason why it wouldn't work is the same as generally why leagues don't work: it's too subjective. While most will agree that Brad Pitt looks great regardless of his age (would beat most guys in their 20s), 90% of us who don't have filmstar looks would be harder to class.

 

Hey Emilia,

 

I agree and disagree . I understand that attraction (based on just physical appearance) is to a degree subjective. My Brad Pitt example was just for ease of reference.

 

I believe most of us tend to view physical beauty within a balanced construct. In other words, an objective 7 on the ACS is likely to be viewed by most people (men and woman) as at least being a 6-8.

 

I don't like the scale or its implications in dating. However, it is here to stay and the rules of attraction aren't going to change (especially OLD) anytime soon.

 

If I'm a 67 on the ACS (which means I'm better looking than 66 other guys in a room of 100) it's reasonable I'm going to want a girl who ranks similarly on the scale. Pining for someone who was a 90 is clearly "shooting out of my league".

 

Humans are pretty shallow aren't we? Even the nice ones seem to get pulled into the ACS fray .

[sweetkiwi]

its an interesting system at the least. And i suppose everyone would have a different number depending on who is ranking who.

 

I tried pof and i only put up face shots. I literaly had men, lots, ask me if i was fat because i didn't have a full body shot.

 

I could've been upset. But instead i just put up a full body shot thats caption was, "so you know i'm not fat".

 

Sad but true. I don't have a physical type but there are things about a person physically that i'm not attracted to. Obviously this is before i know whether their personality overcomes the physical barrier.

 

And in online dating its a much quicker process. You shoot someone down in an instant because why not? Your inbox is overflowing anyway and you really like tall brunettes.

[verhrzn]

Hey Emilia,

 

I agree and disagree . I understand that attraction (based on just physical appearance) is to a degree subjective. My Brad Pitt example was just for ease of reference.

 

I believe most of us tend to view physical beauty within a balanced construct. In other words, an objective 7 on the ACS is likely to be viewed by most people (men and woman) as at least being a 6-8.

 

I don't like the scale or its implications in dating. However, it is here to stay and the rules of attraction aren't going to change (especially OLD) anytime soon.

 

If I'm a 67 on the ACS (which means I'm better looking than 66 other guys in a room of 100) it's reasonable I'm going to want a girl who ranks similarly on the scale. Pining for someone who was a 90 is clearly "shooting out of my league".

 

Humans are pretty shallow aren't we? Even the nice ones seem to get pulled into the ACS fray .

 

If the scale means guys will stop whining that they can't get 9, and date their equivalent 4-5 ladies, then fine.

 

If the scale means guys will continue whining about how women are shallow, and that THEY are allowed to be shallow because see, WOMEN are shallow..... then ugh.

 

I (and other female posters) have explained over and over that women don't grade men on a point scale by looks. Yes, even on OLD. What you're DOING in the picture usually has a lot more to do with what responses you'll get from women than how you actually look. OKCupid has multiple studies backing this up.

 

Yet guys continue to insist that women think like them (judging women by appearance alone on a point scale.)

 

To all of it I say.... what the hell ever.

[Emilia]

Hey Emilia,

 

I agree and disagree . I understand that attraction (based on just physical appearance) is to a degree subjective. My Brad Pitt example was just for ease of reference.

 

I believe most of us tend to view physical beauty within a balanced construct. In other words, an objective 7 on the ACS is likely to be viewed by most people (men and woman) as at least being a 6-8.

 

Hello!

 

This is the bit I disagree with. Brad Pitt is a good example because I think he is seen by many as very attractive. When I read male comments about the female form here for example though, most guys disagree when it comes to mere mortals like the rest of us. There is also quite a difference between a 6 and an 8

 

I don't like the scale or its implications in dating. However, it is here to stay and the rules of attraction aren't going to change (especially OLD) anytime soon.

 

If I'm a 67 on the ACS (which means I'm better looking than 66 other guys in a room of 100) it's reasonable I'm going to want a girl who ranks similarly on the scale. Pining for someone who was a 90 is clearly "shooting out of my league".

 

Humans are pretty shallow aren't we? Even the nice ones seem to get pulled into the ACS fray .

 

I don't mind about shallow, I just think that we don't all see the same thing. My type (what I'd call an 8 or 9) will be definitely some women's 6 just because I don't care for height and many women do. I care more for physique so their 8 just because he is tall would be only a 6 for me.

 

That would probably translate to a 15-20 point difference on your scale.

[Under The Radar]

its an interesting system at the least. And i suppose everyone would have a different number depending on who is ranking who.

 

I tried pof and i only put up face shots. I literaly had men, lots, ask me if i was fat because i didn't have a full body shot.

 

I could've been upset. But instead i just put up a full body shot thats caption was, "so you know i'm not fat".

 

Sad but true. I don't have a physical type but there are things about a person physically that i'm not attracted to. Obviously this is before i know whether their personality overcomes the physical barrier.

 

And in online dating its a much quicker process. You shoot someone down in an instant because why not? Your inbox is overflowing anyway and you really like tall brunettes.

 

 

Yep, OLD INCREASES superficiality in people.

 

I look more like Freddy Prinze Jr. than Brad Pitt. So, if muscular blondes is your thing, I'm definitely getting "deleted" under someone's preferences.

 

Of course, IRL a multitude of attraction criteria presents itself beyond simple physical appearance. Obviously, for a LTR to succeed, your going to need far more than physical attraction. Animal magnetism will only take you so far .

Edited November 12, 2012 by Training Revelations

[sweetkiwi]

its true. I have a bad girl look and am definately not delicate so i hardly got asked on any real dates. When irl i get asked out a lot, but i prefer to initiate contact.

 

I got asked for a lot of naked pictures though. Charming.

[Under The Radar]

If the scale means guys will stop whining that they can't get 9, and date their equivalent 4-5 ladies, then fine.

 

If the scale means guys will continue whining about how women are shallow, and that THEY are allowed to be shallow because see, WOMEN are shallow..... then ugh.

 

I (and other female posters) have explained over and over that women don't grade men on a point scale by looks. Yes, even on OLD. What you're DOING in the picture usually has a lot more to do with what responses you'll get from women than how you actually look. OKCupid has multiple studies backing this up.

 

Yet guys continue to insist that women think like them (judging women by appearance alone on a point scale.)

 

To all of it I say.... what the hell ever.

 

 

Hey Verhrzn,

 

I don't know about the other guys, but I don't whine about the scale. To me, it "is what it is". I was just curious what other people here thought about something so shallow (yet, seems so real).

 

I agree that people should be realistic about what potential partners they ask out. TBH, I'd much rather date a 6 on the ACS with a 9 personality than the opposite. However, in OLD, much of our selection criteria is based on a picture. Even with a few e-mail exchanges it is difficult (to say the least) to gauge compatibility/interest.

[verhrzn]

Hey Verhrzn,

 

I don't know about the other guys, but I don't whine about the scale. To me, it "is what it is". I was just curious what other people here thought about something so shallow (yet, seems so real).

 

I agree that people should be realistic about what potential partners they ask out. TBH, I'd much rather date a 6 on the ACS with a 9 personality than the opposite. However, in OLD, much of our selection criteria is based on a picture. Even with a few e-mail exchanges it is difficult (to say the least) to gauge compatibility/interest.

 

I disagree that selection is based entirely on pictures. There are plenty of men online that I had found very attractive til I looked at their profile. The prospect of spending even one date talking about nothing but hockey made me instantly look any attraction to them.

 

I have also done OLD searches by key words according to interests, like books or video games or design. Very handy ways to see who has similar interests to mine (a lot of married men apparently .)

 

Girls actually read profiles of guys they find attractive. Crazy I know! Whereas most guys seem to shoot off a message just from the girl's picture, and read her profile when/if she responds.

[sweetkiwi]

it just depends on the person and what they're really looking for on a dating site. Some people just like dating. They're not looking for anything beyond 3 dates with one person unless it means sex. Both genders.

 

I on the other hand wanted a nice guy not within my circle of fiends. So yes. I could weed out a percentage, the bottom 40, before ever looking at their profiles.

 

I got a lot of emails. I'm not a ten. I'm just an attractive woman. Thats all it takes to be picky on old. And i'm not like this irl at all. I.ve dated men most people would consider 3 to 4 points under me. But everything else made up for it.

 

Online you only have pictures and a constructed profile. I tried to make mine personal but most men didn't even bother to ask about my obvious hobbies.

 

Most men only scored me on a scale and thought they could talk their way into my pants. Without dates.

[Negative Nancy]

really like tall brunettes.

 

 

 

If the scale means guys will stop whining that they can't get 9, and date their equivalent 4-5 ladies, then fine.

 

No, not fine, because those guys would just settle and secretly still pine for the 9s. And as you and I know, as soon as the 9 - or maybe even a 7 - shows interest, the guy's gone.

[Ami1uwant]

There is fact behind this idea....

 

 

Science of Sex Appeal : Videos : Discovery Channel

 

Science of sex appeal on discovery talked about this.

 

Based on looks people tend to stay in their own league. There are reason they go out of their league. If people are scored a 1-99.....people tend to stick with +/- 15 points from their score.

 

Some will find partners outside their score based on other reasons such as money, power, or their own insecurity. A women who is a high score will go with a man with a much lower score but he makes up for it because he will take care of her financially. She may be sick of guys in her league cheating on her so to avoid that she dates someone who is much lower than her because she feels he wont cheat on her.

 

There are other weights in the decision such as wanting someone with common interests and other things.

[AlexDP]

I think the reason why it wouldn't work is the same as generally why leagues don't work: it's too subjective. While most will agree that Brad Pitt looks great regardless of his age (would beat most guys in their 20s), 90% of us who don't have filmstar looks would be harder to class.

 

There are certain characteristics almost everyone finds attractive. I think of symmetry for instance. So in a way you could come up with an objective number. But it doesn't seem to work that way. It's the peculiarities that seem to make the difference.

[Under The Radar]

I disagree that selection is based entirely on pictures. There are plenty of men online that I had found very attractive til I looked at their profile. The prospect of spending even one date talking about nothing but hockey made me instantly look any attraction to them.

 

I have also done OLD searches by key words according to interests, like books or video games or design. Very handy ways to see who has similar interests to mine (a lot of married men apparently .)

 

Girls actually read profiles of guys they find attractive. Crazy I know! Whereas most guys seem to shoot off a message just from the girl's picture, and read her profile when/if she responds.

 

 

Verhrzn,

 

I'm not saying selection is only based on pictures (well, for some it is ). What I am saying (especially in OLD) is just "getting your foot in the door" will usually revolve around "your score". Not in all cases, but in the vast majority of instances it's true.

 

I mean, how many people will respond to a profile with no picture? If the profile alone was so enticing then the English Literature/Journalism experts would have the most options. Most people, including me, look at the photos first AND THEN consult the written profile. If the pictures are not attractive to that person then they will delete and not read the profile.

 

Some guys (and I suppose girls) only care about the pictures. Most people care about both, but without physical attraction there is little motivation to browse and analyze someone's personal summary.

 

I don't like being "scored" anymore than the next person. I'm not narcissistic or full of myself. I see the ACS for what it is. A lot of people are shallow in the dating world. Even regular folk, like us, want an attractiive partner. Of course other qualities help with attraction, but not on first impression (like in OLD).

 

The women I've usually found to be the most attractive were friends I got to know over time. They "grew" on me in terms of physical beauty over time because I enjoyed other aspects of who they were. HOWEVER, in OLD we don't have that luxury because we're looking at a PICTURE with hundreds of other choices a "simple click away".

 

Don't worry, I'll be teaching a course on the ACS in the near future at my local university. Remember, it will be math intensive, so make sure you have all of the prerequisites fulfilled .

[sweetkiwi]

i love math math. And yes beauty is symmetrical. As a make up artist, among other things, its very important to have a not only a symmetrical face but one that follows certain rules of placement and spacing.

 

I'm sure the same is true for bodies. Of course there are the few who like their partner with one eyebrow or

mismatched pecs.

 

But we're talking about online dating. Where you are instantly judged based on your profile picture a majority of the time.

 

I mostly got men asking for nude pictures. Not men who wanted to talk to me. Some did. But even most of those ended up asking for naked pictures at some point.

 

And i'm not even a ten!! So the scale is there. As unfair as it may be. Its not going away. You can scoot around it to find something real. But thats only if one out of a hundred guys isn't just trying to have sex with you.

 

And if one out of five of those isn't so gung-ho on a relationship with you that he ends up creeping you out and pushing way too hard.

[FitChick]

The Golden Ratio is a more objective rating system for the face. You can upload a photo and try it yourself. I haven't yet. Report back!

 

You body should be in proportion.

 

And some people just don't care!

[Under The Radar]

There is fact behind this idea....

 

 

Science of Sex Appeal : Videos : Discovery Channel

 

Science of sex appeal on discovery talked about this.

 

Based on looks people tend to stay in their own league. There are reason they go out of their league. If people are scored a 1-99.....people tend to stick with +/- 15 points from their score.

 

Some will find partners outside their score based on other reasons such as money, power, or their own insecurity. A women who is a high score will go with a man with a much lower score but he makes up for it because he will take care of her financially. She may be sick of guys in her league cheating on her so to avoid that she dates someone who is much lower than her because she feels he wont cheat on her.

 

There are other weights in the decision such as wanting someone with common interests and other things.

 

 

Ami1uwant,

 

Thanks for posting; I sent you back a PM. I have not seen the Discovery Channel's take on the ACS, but I'll have to check it out .

 

Yes, SOME scale has existed since the dawn of mankind. My friend and I came up with an easy to reference name for it back in the day (our early twenties). There was no denying certain universal "rules" in the dating world.

 

Even the ancient greeks sought physical perfection in their artistic representation of human beings. Back then, Michael Angelo's "David", was widely considered the epitome of the "perfect" male.

 

Yes, there are tons of grey areas in the dating world, but to deny that EVERYONE doesn't utilize the scale in some capacity is dense. It's a living, breathing, evolving, thing my friends .

[Under The Radar]

Yeah, I would agree that symmetry is an important aspect to percieved beauty. Back to the Greeks, they always accentuated certain parts of the body in their artistic representations. Generally, in the male statues, the shoulders, obliques, and calves would be over developed. To THEM, that was sexy, athletic, and exhibited health.

 

Steve Reeves, the prolific and iconic bodybuilder from the 1940's was widely considered the "perfect man" at THAT time. He spent years honing his physique so that his calves, arms, and neck were all exactly 18 inches (while maintaining a 29 inch waist). He was striving for the Greek ideal and IMO attained it. Go ahead, Google him if you get a spare minute. I'm not gay (at least not yet ), but I'd put him easily in the 90th percentile for ANY age. There are stories of both women AND men following him around on the beach in awe of his physcial beauty.

 

Anyway, the ACS is in full effect whether we like it or not; don't shoot the messenger .

 

Oh, and while were at it, we all want healthy offspring (if you are interested in having a family). So, having a strong, toned, and functional body goes a long way in sending "attraction signals" to the opposite sex (having young/ vibrant skin, proportional facial features, etc...).

[Under The Radar]

I tried it, said I was a 6.5 out of 10. Its not very accurate, because it all comes down to how exactly pin point perfect you are with placing the dots. I guarantee you could have 10 people upload the same photo....each of them setting the dots slightly in a different spot, and getting 10 different scores.

 

 

6.5!!! Not bad my friend, not bad at all

 

You can be my wingman anytime.

[Under The Radar]

I hadn't seen pictures of Steve Reeves since childhood, but on a whim I decided to Google his image (after my last post). I don't know how it happened, but MY panties got wet

[Eternal Sunshine]

The Golden Ratio is a more objective rating system for the face. You can upload a photo and try it yourself. I haven't yet. Report back!

 

You body should be in proportion.

 

And some people just don't care!

 

Purely based on face, I got 8.57. I consider myself way worse looking than that...

[ThaWholigan]

I got an 8.02.

 

Apparently my nose is too wide and ears too long

[Under The Radar]

I got an 8.02.

 

Apparently my nose is too wide and ears too long

 

 

Cool.

 

Another definite wingman.

 

The exotic British accent will be a nice touch!

[threebyfate]

I wouldn't take the Golden Ratio too seriously since Shania Twain is purported to have the perfect face.

 

She is very pretty but...