Leigh 87 Posted December 7, 2014 Posted December 7, 2014 7 should be removed from this scale. EVERYONE says they are a 7. I reckon I am a legit 7 haha. Nice but not beautiful.
Leigh 87 Posted December 7, 2014 Posted December 7, 2014 Really? I don't see anything blatant there, just friendly chatting. I do that with everyone and nobody thinks I'm hitting on them hahahahaa! NOT just being friendly Phoe! That is exactly how I am with men I am wanting to date! I don't laugh and talk that much to men I AM NOT interested in!
Eternal Sunshine Posted December 7, 2014 Posted December 7, 2014 People seem to be confusing purely physical features and being sexually attracted. I'm attracted to guys that are 5-6 a lot, yet it still doesn't make me think that they are a 10. I can see a great looking guy that there is no spark with. It still won't make me think that he is not good looking. Lot of posts seem to have turned this into "how much I want to f... them" scale and are now talking about personality etc. Completely missing the point.
Haydn Posted December 7, 2014 Posted December 7, 2014 Quick, without hesitation: What would you rank your mint green vans on a 1-10 scale ...... Ready? Go! I wouldn`t rate Vans at all:p Now Lacoste......
braindamage Posted December 7, 2014 Posted December 7, 2014 Sure, a-z works too, the point was just to have a range where the location of any and every point is easily located by everyone. Everyone knows where f and q and s are. That's the point Indeed - but, as evident from this thread, distributions among the scale are seemingly very random when individuals are talking about their specific 'scale'. The whole point of an objective reference becomes kind of difficult when person A has a linear distribution while B has an exponential curve and C has a bell curve (heard them all on this thread). They no longer understand each other if '7' in A's scale has a different value than '7' in C's scale. The real bell curve of us all together probably exists but since none of us actually have it on paper it's intangible as well. That's why I think there may be some truth to the scale buts it's practical use for communication is very limited. A good scale is the same for everyone. Everyone has the same scale for degrees, kilograms, pascals, newtons etc. But we all have a different concept of '1-10' on this attractiveness scale and also of the numbers with respect to eachother. 2
2.50 a gallon Posted December 7, 2014 Posted December 7, 2014 For me, it was the Goldilocks syndrome. For me to be sexually attracted to a woman, she could not be less than a couple of inches shorter than me, say 5' 3", taller was preferred, but nothing above 5' 10", Weight, 110 - 125 depending on her height, bust size, C, and there bigger was not better, long hair, long legs, but not bird legs, more like dancer legs, alas most girls with great legs, have pan butts, and that was a turn off also. Add a beautiful or cute face I can kiss good morning to for the rest of my life. In short, what most would say was an 8 or a 9. Anything above or below, and there was nothing she could do to get me interested. I never once, when meeting a gal said to myself she's just a 4, or a 5.
Harradin Posted December 7, 2014 Posted December 7, 2014 Is she a 9.9 here https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.paperblog.com%2Fscarlett-johansson-smoulders-in-new-dolce-gabbana-ad-451214%2F&ei=gquDVMfSCoPUOd6ugagP&bvm=bv.80642063,d.ZWU&psig=AFQjCNG0yOEHZKCU8N9s7pct8-gd05eEog&ust=1418001564388381 or here? https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohanssonweb.org%2F2014%2F04%2F02%2Fscarlett-johansson-terrified-for-vanity-fair-makeup-free-photoshoot%2F&ei=0quDVLf0OYvqOJmigIgF&bvm=bv.80642063,d.ZWU&psig=AFQjCNG0yOEHZKCU8N9s7pct8-gd05eEog&ust=1418001564388381 Yes Like I said, she has an amazing body, but her face is just decent. But it's already well known that people tend to overrate celebrities just because their famous. Its not because she's famous, its because she's hot 2
elaine567 Posted December 7, 2014 Posted December 7, 2014 For me, it was the Goldilocks syndrome. For me to be sexually attracted to a woman, she could not be less than a couple of inches shorter than me, say 5' 3", taller was preferred, but nothing above 5' 10", Weight, 110 - 125 depending on her height, bust size, C, and there bigger was not better, long hair, long legs, but not bird legs, more like dancer legs, alas most girls with great legs, have pan butts, and that was a turn off also. Add a beautiful or cute face I can kiss good morning to for the rest of my life. In short, what most would say was an 8 or a 9. Anything above or below, and there was nothing she could do to get me interested. I never once, when meeting a gal said to myself she's just a 4, or a 5. So basically hot or cold. I think that is how many view dating. Yes I will go there. No I won't. Is it nothing to do with scales in reality, they either tick the box or they don't maybe?
Weezy1973 Posted December 7, 2014 Posted December 7, 2014 So basically hot or cold. I think that is how many view dating. Yes I will go there. No I won't. Is it nothing to do with scales in reality, they either tick the box or they don't maybe? My scale is definitely - attractive - unattractive - neutral. Most of my relationships have started with women I've been neutral about in terms of looks to start, but by getting to know them better and their deeper characteristics, became much more attractive to me. That would never happen with a women I found unattractive at the onset. And I've definitely lost any sense of attraction towards many women I've found physically appealing at the onset as well.
NJ123 Posted December 7, 2014 Posted December 7, 2014 Yes Its not because she's famous, its because she's hot As I said, in my opinion she has a great body with a decent face. She's nowhere near a 9.9 to me lol
Recommended Posts