Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-08-2011, 01:40 PM
 
1,140 posts, read 2,140,016 times
Reputation: 1740

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LaoTzuMindFu View Post
I have to say though, what is listed there as 9s really should be pushed back to 7s. Maybe they are 9s by midwest standards, 10s by southern standards, but they are barely 7s by Los Angeles (and my personal) standards.

I was listening to a woman talking about guys - and rating then 9 out of ten, 10 out of ten etc - I found it irritating to listen to. I have to say the woman was totally ugly, had no hope in hell of finding anyone attractive - and to speak in such a way. You get the with same guys making comments like the above - but in reality that have never in their life actually managed to get a date with some genuinely good looking - so they resort to this, making comments about other looks.

I felt saying - have you ever considered the fact that YOU might be a 5 out of 10?

 
Old 09-08-2011, 01:41 PM
 
232 posts, read 633,141 times
Reputation: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaoTzuMindFu View Post
I have to say though, what is listed there as 9s really should be pushed back to 7s. Maybe they are 9s by midwest standards, 10s by southern standards, but they are barely 7s by Los Angeles (and my personal) standards.

I don't really rank like that, but can understand the scale. That chart was probably made by 1 or 2 white guys as pointed out and of course is not scientific in the least. I'd think the 6's and a lot of the 7's should be 5's and the 5's should go down to 4's and 3's. Really I am more of a yes/no guy...but from the chart, you'd have to be at least a 6 to be considered for a ride. A 10 is the girl I marry.

Facial structure can be hidden by fat, amazing how some people have a totally different looking face once they drop weight. Most of us have a jawline and angular face that might be considered attractive...but it's buried under fat. Add 40lbs to some of the "8's" and even their faces will look like it ranks no higher than a 3 from the neck up. One of my friends I don't see often dropped a ton of weight and really leaned out and I almost didn't recognize him.

For the OP, I agree, many women place themselves much higher on the scale than they are. This is especially true of "curvy" women...most of which are just fat. Rolls of skin is not "curvy".
 
Old 09-08-2011, 01:45 PM
 
1,140 posts, read 2,140,016 times
Reputation: 1740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herc130 View Post
I don't really rank like that, but can understand the scale. That chart was probably made by 1 or 2 white guys as pointed out and of course is not scientific in the least. I'd think the 6's and a lot of the 7's should be 5's and the 5's should go down to 4's and 3's. Really I am more of a yes/no guy...but from the chart, you'd have to be at least a 6 to be considered for a ride. A 10 is the girl I marry.

Facial structure can be hidden by fat, amazing how some people have a totally different looking face once they drop weight. Most of us have a jawline and angular face that might be considered attractive...but it's buried under fat. Add 40lbs to some of the "8's" and even their faces will look like it ranks no higher than a 3 from the neck up. One of my friends I don't see often dropped a ton of weight and really leaned out and I almost didn't recognize him.

For the OP, I agree, many women place themselves much higher on the scale than they are. This is especially true of "curvy" women...most of which are just fat. Rolls of skin is not "curvy".

Didn't really like any of them
 
Old 09-08-2011, 01:47 PM
 
977 posts, read 1,815,895 times
Reputation: 1913
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyking View Post
I was listening to a woman talking about guys - and rating then 9 out of ten, 10 out of ten etc - I found it irritating to listen to. I have to say the woman was totally ugly, had no hope in hell of finding anyone attractive - and to speak in such a way. You get the with same guys making comments like the above - but in reality that have never in their life actually managed to get a date with some genuinely good looking - so they resort to this, making comments about other looks.

I felt saying - have you ever considered the fact that YOU might be a 5 out of 10?
Ha ha! I've read that something like 80-90% of people consider themselves above average in looks. It's the same thing with respect to intelligence, driving ability, and all kinds of other areas of life.

We humans are delusional. I guess we have to be otherwise a lot more of us would be suicidal.
 
Old 09-08-2011, 01:53 PM
 
Location: The Hall of Justice
25,901 posts, read 42,720,278 times
Reputation: 42769
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
In the Midwestern burbs, those 4s would be real beauties.
Uh, no. Not around here, they're not.
 
Old 09-08-2011, 01:55 PM
 
Location: Tucson
42,831 posts, read 88,191,027 times
Reputation: 22814
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaoTzuMindFu View Post
I have to say though, what is listed there as 9s really should be pushed back to 7s. Maybe they are 9s by midwest standards, 10s by southern standards, but they are barely 7s by Los Angeles (and my personal) standards.
Oh, give us (the forum, not the women) a friggin' break, will ya?!
 
Old 09-08-2011, 01:56 PM
 
3,588 posts, read 5,732,035 times
Reputation: 4792
I felt saying - have you ever considered the fact that YOU might be a 5 out of 10?

That's exactly what I was thinking as I read some of the recently posts, marveling at their smugness. Waxing eloquent, and reaching ever higher for the just the right hyperbole to describe how ugly they believe some of these women are. Funny....no one has put a chart judging men's looks yet.

I guess Iceberg Slim the legendary pimp and judge of female flesh, is alive and well, judging from the number of his little misogynistic "lovechildren" on this thread.
 
Old 09-08-2011, 01:56 PM
 
1,140 posts, read 2,140,016 times
Reputation: 1740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broncos Quarterback View Post
Ha ha! I've read that something like 80-90% of people consider themselves above average in looks. It's the same thing with respect to intelligence, driving ability, and all kinds of other areas of life.

We humans are delusional. I guess we have to be otherwise a lot more of us would be suicidal.
I am not, but most people I know are delusional in some way - perhaps I am one of 10 - 20 Per cent.
 
Old 09-08-2011, 01:57 PM
 
1,133 posts, read 2,284,525 times
Reputation: 1247
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaoTzuMindFu View Post
OMG!! The attached photo is friggin' hilarious (please click on his post above for photo as it does not show up here) . OMG the 1s through 4s are not even from this planet. They could all play mutants in the next X-Men movie and not have to go through make up or wardrobe. They can just show up as they are. LOL. Think I have to go back and edit a post I made earlier about saying all women have to do is not be fat and they would have a chance. I really think I was wrong now. You can take any of those creatures on levels 1-4 and put a Kim Kardashian, Carmen Electra, or Sophia Vergara body on them and they would still be avoided like maggot infested skunk puke on a decomposing dead rat.

I have to say though, what is listed there as 9s really should be pushed back to 7s. Maybe they are 9s by midwest standards, 10s by southern standards, but they are barely 7s by Los Angeles (and my personal) standards.
Lol I'm with you.

1-4's are deformed / photoshopped and would not be rated.

5's / 6's would be the 1-4's.

7's would be the average 5's.

8's would be the 6's and 7's.

Most of those 9's would be 7's or 8's.

According to this chart my GF is a 10, which is flattering, but false.
 
Old 09-08-2011, 02:03 PM
 
70 posts, read 237,893 times
Reputation: 70
I am a woman that was married for 35 years, happily I might add. I don't consider myself to be very pretty, but my husband thought I was a doll right up to the time he passed away. Guess it's true what they say about beauty being in the eyes of the beholder. Sometimes guys, a not so pretty woman will be a better wife than a pretty woman because she will try harder. My husband's friends were so envious of him, thought he had it made, was always telling him that most men would cut off their right arm to have a wife like he had. I never bitched at him, always let him have his way in all things, never argued with him, the house was always spotless, the laundry done, his dinner ready when he came home, met him at the door with a cup of coffee, etc. Why? Because I strived so hard to be the best wife I could be as I knew I was so lucky to have him and didn't want to do anything to make him want to go away. My point is, looks are not everything. I am not looking for anybody, but am waiting for a guy to just drop in and swoop me up. I am very lonely.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Relationships

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:40 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top