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.
"one" and "ten" are words that have been in the English language since time immemorial.
What is the moral difference between "super hot" and 10?
It's a stupid argument. Yet more people trying to claim moral superiority. Are you people insecure about things you did in your past, or something?
One and ten are words used to measure quantity.
Moral difference? Why are you bringing morals into this?
As for stupid arguments, it's the one in defense of having such a scale. And if you want to talk about insecurity, look no further than people who still rely on scales the rest of us outgrew back in high school.
It depends on the sport. In college when I was running middle distance in track, I looked very much like the "toned" picture at 6'3 and 165 lbs, but when I started doing decathlon and adding strength for the throwing events I looked more like the "athletic" image at 195 lbs. When I stopped running 10 miles a day and lifting every morning, and after I aged 12 years, I am probably closest to "builtfat" now, at 220 lbs or so. My brother who was a nearly Olympic caliber swimmer was somewhere between "athletic" and "builtfat" back when he was setting school records. My cousin who is a cat 2 cyclist is spot on the "toned" look, and my fiancee's nephew who is a cross country star is dead on the "skinny" look. I agree about contact sports though. When body fat gets too low, practical strength and the ability to handle contact plummets. Guys that look like bodybuilders are very prone to injury in contact sports.
The best hitters in my competitive softball league are almost all builtfat, strongfat, or even chubby.
It absolutely does, which was my point. I neglected to mention distance running and swimming, which you're correct about...but there's a LOT of sports out there
Generally, the sub-10% (and especially the 6-8% that you see in the pictures) types would be more prone to injury as you mentioned, and lose a significant amount of strength as well.
Yes, people need a scale because the English language doesn't provide them with enough words already.
That's what I wonder. If I do notice a guy's physical appearance, it may occur to me to think he's good looking, or maybe not, but there aren't degrees of attractiveness that I assign.
For example, I think Jason Statham is HOT, and Johnny Depp, not in the least whereas a friend of mine feels the complete opposite about those two. It's neither here nor there, numbers don't factor into it, and what other people think of who I find attractive doesn't make any difference to me. Finding Johnny Depp unappealing doesn't make him a 2, it just makes him not of interest to me, so what's the point of a scale?
That's what I wonder. If I do notice a guy's physical appearance, it may occur to me to think he's good looking, or maybe not, but there aren't degrees of attractiveness that I assign.
Why stop at 1-10 scale with whole numbers? Let's add a couple decimal places. 5.5, 7.5, 8.25 LOL.
Agreed. I can understand a woman objecting to men having a rating system based only upon a women's looks. I think it is an over reaction on the part of said woman, but I can understand that perspective. The only reason a Denny would object so strenuously to such a rating system is because he is trying to claim moral superiority.
That's what I wonder. If I do notice a guy's physical appearance, it may occur to me to think he's good looking, or maybe not, but there aren't degrees of attractiveness that I assign.
For example, I think Jason Statham is HOT, and Johnny Depp, not in the least whereas a friend of mine feels the complete opposite about those two. It's neither here nor there, numbers don't factor into it, and what other people think of who I find attractive doesn't make any difference to me. Finding Johnny Depp unappealing doesn't make him a 2, it just makes him not of interest to me, so what's the point of a scale?
Johnny Depp and DiCaprio are UGLY! IMO the only reason they became instant heart throbs is because their first films to make a splash featured them in long hair and romantic garb. In ordinary life, they're not pleasant to look at.
Again, you seem to be missing the point. The issue isn't whether each gender judges the other on looks. Clearly they do. My question to you is why do you need an actual scale? The English language provides an awful lot of words to comment on someone's appearance already.
Why does it bother you so much?? If you don;t like the 1-10 scale, then don;t use it. I don't
Why does it bother people so much???? Folks sure are getting uptight about it!!
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.
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.
