How to rate female attractiveness.

[Echo419]

So we got to talking about this on another forum and I thought I'd share it here. so here we go.

basically we have here 25 criteria. where did I get these and why them? I chose these so that you don't necessarly have to be in front of the person in order to reach a total. ie: breath isn't on here while it is very important unfortunatlly I'll probably never get close enough to Jessica Alba to know if she has funky breath or not. thus it is left out of the equation.

The variables:
odd twitches, annoying voices, weird haircuts, heights, widths, densities, depth, bone structure, hair color, length and texture, skin tone(not the racist kind Mike so relax), lipid content, eating habits, teeth, sag, ocular prowess, energy, culinary competence, degree of sanity, gullibility, social capital, affinity for clingyness genetics and style. now "style" is a vague thing. this is that X factor such as the way she dresses and/or her attitude. thus this will count for 2 singular values.

here's how it goes. we are operation on a 10 point max system. since there are 25 qualitites to rate each has a maximum score of 0.4. so if all 25 values yeild a 0.4 it will total a 10.

now some people won't like the 0.4 value. they might favor a 0.3 or 0.5 total. in my opinion the 0.4 forces us to make a rating more decisively as with a 0.3 or 0.5 many people will default to the middle score such as a 0.2 in the 0.3 scale. this prevents the "cop out" in my opinion.

I know what you're thinking, "How the hell am I supposed to rate X celebs affinity for clingyness?". to which I answer, "the way you rate anything else. take all the info you have and make your best hypothesis." as I said before this isn't perfect. but it will most certaintly settle many "how's hotter" questions you may be waffeling over in your head. having trouble deciding between 2 girls you're seeing? with my system you will be able to look at a quantative difference between the 2 in order to help you make the best decision possible.

you're welcome.

[IPD]

are you a chick? this is how a real guy does it:

would fuck
or
would not fuck

[Echo419]

are you a chick? this is how a real guy does it:

would fuck
or
would not fuck

of course that is the most basic scale but you have to agree that some look better than others. this is meerly a way to quantify it.

[j2k4]

Fuck first, or quantify first?

Quantification/qualification happens at leisure, over some elbow-bending.

[sergechronos]

are you a chick? this is how a real guy does it:

would fuck
or
would not fuck

Fuck, marry, kill. /end

[Echo419]

Fuck, marry, kill. /end

doesn't marriage make you want to kill someone?

[Vantage]

OP tldr but:

[sergechronos]

doesn't marriage make you want to kill someone?

Touche.

While I like the idea of the system, admittedly somewhat useless for celebs given such a lack of information to go on for some categories, it does indeed provide a qualitative way to assess real life women that you meet and interact with daily. Certainly an interesting way to assign numerical values for sure though.

[IPD]

Touche.

While I like the idea of the system, admittedly somewhat useless for celebs given such a lack of information to go on for some categories, it does indeed provide a qualitative way to assess real life women that you meet and interact with daily. Certainly an interesting way to assign numerical values for sure though.

no shit. clinginess? and wtf is "ocular prowess"? how good her fucking eyes are? why do we care? are we all fat & ugly so we want legally-blind supermodels to date?

[sergechronos]

are we all fat & ugly so we want legally-blind supermodels to date?

Yes. I felt that was fairly obvious. It's the American Dream (TM)

Some of us don't need your damn judgements on our fat and ugliness IPD. If Giada De Laurentiis happened to lose her vision in a horrible lemon accident and start dating me, I'd still rate her a .4 for ocular prowess.