The "number scale" of attractiveness

[bebe23]

I agree with those who think it's stupid and useless, I'm not kidding, I can't even wrap my mind around it. Sure I think there are people who are almost superhumanly gorgeous, those who are very attractive, good looking but not hot, plain, ugly, etc, but the ranges between all of those is so huge and varied that there is no way of assigning a number, I just don't get it!!

 

This. I can't believe the emphasis placed in this is this forum. In my whole life, no one I've ever met spoke in this way, and labeled people with numbers. And what you supposedly are, it varies and changes throughout your life. If you count the entire human population, I guess most 1's would be those who are now elderly? But it wouldn't make them feel bad because they were higher in youth? Or does this only account for younger people making up the dating market?

 

In my life I've probably been everywhere between 3 and 7 due to my weight going up and down, and age. I might have been a 7 or maybe an 8 around the years 1992-1994 because I had lost a good deal of weight, 30 pounds, and I was in my early 20's and had a cute face. I gradually put most of it back on making me a 5 for most of my adult life, I guess. My husband's probably a solid 6 'at his age' but I think he was an 8 in his twenties (to me).

[GravityMan]

One of the biggest reasons why some people are unhappy with themselves and their lives is because they compare themselves to others - in looks or anything else. It leads to unnecessary stress.

 

The "number scale" perpetuates that.

 

OTOH, there are some guys who use the number scale in a more non-serious manner when hanging out with their buddies. For example, comparing which of the three Hollywood actresses is the hottest. That's not such a big deal; typical guy-talk over beers and chicken wings.

[xxoo]

One of the biggest reasons why some people are unhappy with themselves and their lives is because they compare themselves to others - in looks or anything else. It leads to unnecessary stress.

 

The "number scale" perpetuates that.

 

Exactly.

 

The idea that one must be better than average to be valuable is harmful. The average baby, child, and adult is pretty damned amazing and special to those who love them.

[most_distant_galaxy]

One of the biggest reasons why some people are unhappy with themselves and their lives is because they compare themselves to others - in looks or anything else. It leads to unnecessary stress.

 

The "number scale" perpetuates that.

 

This is so true!

 

In my humble opinion, it's best to be average: you can be invisible when you choose by keeping a plain appearance, or you can get yourself noticed by dressing up, fixing hair, makeup.

[Imported]

There are people that look better than people that are attractive enough and people that look worse than people that are not attractive at all. These things also change with time and how well you take care of yourself.

 

Personally I don't walk around putting numbers on people for how attractive they are, but I do recognize that there are differences. Like in college, there were tons of attractive girls and there were also girls that were stunningly attractive. They stood out in the sea of all the attractive girls. It's like a traffic jam of high end BMW's, Mercedes, Corvettes and Audi's and then you see a Ferrari.

 

Also, it's in comparison. So a girl that is average when there are millions to compare to, could be above average if you're working on a small island with a low population of mostly below "average" looking women. I've been there and a totally plain looking girl on the mainland was the most attractive girl there.

[Phoe]

Ugh. This isn't what I wanted lol.

 

I know that the number system is ridiculous. I personally wish it didn't exist but it does, and it's widely used and therefore referencing it when talking to others can be useful, because its a reference that can be easily understood.

 

This thread isn't about "the number system is juvenile and stupid and ugly and people who use it are absurd lololol"

 

This thread is about how different people view attractiveness along that scale, and what their views do to alter that scale, personally.

 

Like I've said, I find most people are good looking, which means that "average" is definitely a good thing.

 

Those who disagree with me, put "average" in a different place than I do.

 

I find the concept of different people having different values that effect the subjectiveness, interesting, and I can't learn anything about other people's ideas when the thread is bogged down with "the number system is stupid" posts.

[Phoe]

For example, if I changed the whole thread title to being about the subjectiveness of attraction and how you personally view it, and we just talked in terms of average, or below average, or attractive and unnattractive, I bet nobody would get all up in arms and fussy about the terminology, like they did with the number system.

 

But using those terms of terminology is rather vague and far more subjective than a scale of evenly spaced points on a line. Numbers are easily understood. Everyone is aware of the scale, and referencing it while discussing attractiveness helps eliminate any vagueness that comes from using regular terminology.

 

I can't think of any other way to reduce vagueness.

[veggirl]

People don't want to be considered average. They want to be special. Hence the 7....it says "I'm above average but I'm not reaching SO much that you should be expecting SUPER HOT".

 

Anyway I disagree that there's a huge variance. Sure SOMEONE might think your 10 is a 4 and vice versa but that's not too likely.

[Phoe]

People don't want to be considered average. They want to be special. Hence the 7....it says "I'm above average but I'm not reaching SO much that you should be expecting SUPER HOT".

 

Anyway I disagree that there's a huge variance. Sure SOMEONE might think your 10 is a 4 and vice versa but that's not too likely.

 

In my view, because most people are decent looking, 7 IS average, because it's the most common, and it's still a good thing!

 

I used benedict Cumberbatch as an example before. He's perfection in my eyes. Some women think he's completely ugly! Definitely a big variance there from woman to woman.

[xxoo]

 

Like I've said, I find most people are good looking, which means that "average" is definitely a good thing.

 

Those who disagree with me, put "average" in a different place than I do.

 

I don't disagree with you that most people are good looking. Most babies are absolutely adorable. Most children are smart (every time a child's brain learns to decode written text--the most normal thing in the world--I am amazed by it). Most adults are good looking and easily attract sex partners. The average human is amazing.

 

What I disagree with is rating that normal wonderfulness as an arbitrary "7". It makes no sense to me. But the whole scale makes no sense to me.

[Phoe]

Phoe, the reason I think this thread makes people uncomfortable is because people don't like feeling judged. I think a lot of those people don't want to think about others giving them a rating lower than they believe they are. I also think it screws with their whole "attractiveness is subjective" line. I think a lot of average people like the idea that to someone, they are the most beautiful person in the world. The number scale tells them they are a 5. Big difference.

 

But no one is being judged, and the whole point of this is to discuss the subjectiveness to see how other people think!

 

No person is a 5 to everyone. There's gonna be variance. And seeing HOW or WHY people are viewed differently from person to person, helps us understand the subjectiveness.

 

The numbers are just an easy reference point. Everybody knows what number comes next in the order of 1 through 10

[Phoe]

I don't disagree with you that most people are good looking. Most babies are absolutely adorable. Most children are smart (every time a child's brain learns to decode written text--the most normal thing in the world--I am amazed by it). Most adults are good looking and easily attract sex partners. The average human is amazing.

 

What I disagree with is rating that normal wonderfulness as an arbitrary "7". It makes no sense to me. But the whole scale makes no sense to me.

 

Yeah, it's clinical, but 7 out of 10 is a reference that is easily understood. Everyone can get what that means, without vagueness.

 

Using other terms is vague, and yes often vagueness can be good, but this is simply for discussion purposes.

 

I don't use numbers IRL. I don't look at people and think of numbers. I don't use numbers in conversation. I only use it on this forum, because it's easily understood.

[NJ123]

Most people do not get rated at a 7 like some of you want to believe. Over half the United States is obese & obese people do NOT normally get rated a 7 or higher. Than there's a percentage that are just seen as unattractive by the majority of people. That's just being realistic.

[braindamage]

One thing I'm curious about, is how some folks idea of the median level of attractiveness works, along the scale.

 

The 'beauty bell curve' is what you get when you start combining the attraction concepts of 100s, 1000s or any large amount of persons to supress odd outliers by shear numbers. What it is for individual A or B is rather meaningless since it is indeed very subjective. And by that the bell curve's practical use becomes rather pointless since what matters is what an individual finds attractive.

 

It also doesn't necessarily have to come with numbers, I might as well make it range from A to Z with M as the average.

[xxoo]

Yeah, it's clinical, but 7 out of 10 is a reference that is easily understood. Everyone can get what that means, without vagueness.

 

Using other terms is vague, and yes often vagueness can be good, but this is simply for discussion purposes.

 

I don't use numbers IRL. I don't look at people and think of numbers. I don't use numbers in conversation. I only use it on this forum, because it's easily understood.

 

So, are you thinking of this similarly to a grading scale, where 75% © might be average? Because the bell curve for grading is really a 5 point scale, with C in the middle (A, B, C, D, F).

 

I suggest we all start using the grading system. I'm a strong A-.

[Anela]

Phoe, the reason I think this thread makes people uncomfortable is because people don't like feeling judged. I think a lot of those people don't want to think about others giving them a rating lower than they believe they are. I also think it screws with their whole "attractiveness is subjective" line. I think a lot of average people like the idea that to someone, they are the most beautiful person in the world. The number scale tells them they are a 5. Big difference.

 

 

I don't think that I've ever given a man a number, based on his looks (or even his personality). I know that I'm not stunning, but who wouldn't want to feel attractive?

 

Five/six years ago, I read a blog post from a guy who was into the PUA way of doing things - he and a friend, sat in a busy public place, and rated the girls who were passing them by. They didn't keep it between themselves, they wrote the numbers down, and held them up for the girls to see as they walked by. The girls with higher scores tended to smile at them, but they also subjected the girls with lower scores (in their minds) to feeling like s**t, as they had to get past their table to get somewhere.

[Danda]

I see it as a linear scale, I guess, and a very subjective one, since it's all about the person's perspective.

 

01 - No matter what I just could not be attracted to them sexually.

02 - It would be extremely difficult for me to be attracted to them sexually.

03 - Every other aspect of chemistry would need to be favorable, and even then, it'd be more like tolerating sex with them.

04 - If the rest of the chemistry aspects are great, I can get into sex with this person.

05 - I find this person cute if I consider them, even if unsure of chemistry yet.

06 - I find this person attractive, I notice them, but nothing insane.

07 - This person is pretty damn attractive, might be entertaining the occasional dirty thought even if I don't know them at all.

08 - This person is hot. Totally have had dirty thoughts about them, possibly while masturbating.

09 - This person is so sexy they make me really nervous when they're around.

10 - If this person were to touch me I might have a heart attack.

 

So I guess for me the scale is a tool I might use to describe how attractive I find someone. But I can't apply it to on behalf of anyone else.

 

It's not like, "That guy is a 5."

 

It's like, "That guy is a 5 for me," while my female friend says, "Meh only 3 for me," and other female friends says, "Oh that's an 8 for me. Watch my drink and wish me luck, ladies."

[Phoe]

The 'beauty bell curve' is what you get when you start combining the attraction concepts of 100s, 1000s or any large amount of persons to supress odd outliers by shear numbers. What it is for individual A or B is rather meaningless since it is indeed very subjective. And by that the bell curve's practical use becomes rather pointless since what matters is what an individual finds attractive.

 

It also doesn't necessarily have to come with numbers, I might as well make it range from A to Z with M as the average.

 

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

[Phoe]

So, are you thinking of this similarly to a grading scale, where 75% © might be average? Because the bell curve for grading is really a 5 point scale, with C in the middle (A, B, C, D, F).

 

I suggest we all start using the grading system. I'm a strong A-.

 

I personally don't look at it like grades, but I'm sure some do, and knowing that some people see it similar to grades is one more example of understanding different viewpoints about it.

[Imported]

Looks are not subjective, unless you're comparing people in the same level on the scale to each other. An 8 to a 5 is not subjective. Unless you can't do better than a 5 yourself. Then it's rationalized.

Edited December 6, 2014 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
removed appalling and mean photo

[NJ123]

I see it as a linear scale, I guess, and a very subjective one, since it's all about the person's perspective.

 

01 - No matter what I just could not be attracted to them sexually.

02 - It would be extremely difficult for me to be attracted to them sexually.

03 - Every other aspect of chemistry would need to be favorable, and even then, it'd be more like tolerating sex with them.

04 - If the rest of the chemistry aspects are great, I can get into sex with this person.

05 - I find this person cute if I consider them, even if unsure of chemistry yet.

06 - I find this person attractive, I notice them, but nothing insane.

07 - This person is pretty damn attractive, might be entertaining the occasional dirty thought even if I don't know them at all.

08 - This person is hot. Totally have had dirty thoughts about them, possibly while masturbating.

09 - This person is so sexy they make me really nervous when they're around.

10 - If this person were to touch me I might have a heart attack.

 

So I guess for me the scale is a tool I might use to describe how attractive I find someone. But I can't apply it to on behalf of anyone else.

 

It's not like, "That guy is a 5."

 

It's like, "That guy is a 5 for me," while my female friend says, "Meh only 3 for me," and other female friends says, "Oh that's an 8 for me. Watch my drink and wish me luck, ladies."

 

lol the real world don't work like that either normally. Unless you're a male model looking guy most women want the guy to initiate the first move. Rarely does the woman ever do it.

[xxoo]

I see it as a linear scale, I guess, and a very subjective one, since it's all about the person's perspective.

 

01 - No matter what I just could not be attracted to them sexually.

02 - It would be extremely difficult for me to be attracted to them sexually.

03 - Every other aspect of chemistry would need to be favorable, and even then, it'd be more like tolerating sex with them.

04 - If the rest of the chemistry aspects are great, I can get into sex with this person.

05 - I find this person cute if I consider them, even if unsure of chemistry yet.

06 - I find this person attractive, I notice them, but nothing insane.

07 - This person is pretty damn attractive, might be entertaining the occasional dirty thought even if I don't know them at all.

08 - This person is hot. Totally have had dirty thoughts about them, possibly while masturbating.

09 - This person is so sexy they make me really nervous when they're around.

10 - If this person were to touch me I might have a heart attack.

 

So I guess for me the scale is a tool I might use to describe how attractive I find someone. But I can't apply it to on behalf of anyone else.

 

It's not like, "That guy is a 5."

 

It's like, "That guy is a 5 for me," while my female friend says, "Meh only 3 for me," and other female friends says, "Oh that's an 8 for me. Watch my drink and wish me luck, ladies."

 

Yes, that scale works for me!

 

No one I've ever felt "09" for has every looked like a male model or something. Just average looking men (normal attractive) who had that sumthin'-sumthin' that made me wobbly

[ThaWholigan]

lol the real world don't work like that either normally. Unless you're a male model looking guy most women want the guy to initiate the first move. Rarely does the woman ever do it.

They do in my experience.

[Phoe]

 

Looks are not subjective, unless you're comparing people in the same level on the scale to each other. An 8 to a 5 is not subjective. Unless you can't do better than a 5 yourself. Then it's rationalized.

 

I personally see examples in the 1,2,3,and 4 areas alone that I would move up, and I haven't even looked at the 5 and up area.

 

The 4th one in 2 would definitely be more than a 2 to me. Definitely.

 

All very subjective. Even the maker of that very list is doing so on subjectiveness.

Edited December 6, 2014 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[Phoe]

To me, the 6,7,8 category could be just about totally interchangeable. They're all good looking.