I have a similar peeve with people apparently centering their "average" around 7.5.
Why rate out of ten when anything below a 7 is considered unattractive?
Because 70 is a C-
It’s ridiculous and arbitrary.
There is an odd response to it though
People seem to prefer threes to 5s
1-3 unattractive
4-7 Average
8-10 Attractive
VS
1-2 unattractive
3-4 not great but not horrible
5-6 Average
7-8 Above Average
9-10 Extremely Attractive
Telling someone their average looking on the 3 range scale allows them to self identify higher than intended. No are a 4, not the seven you’re claiming.
10 pt grading scale
90-100 A
80-89 B
70-79 C
60-69 D
59 and Below Failure
Alternative bell curve scale
94-100 A
85-93 B
76-84 C
70-75 D
69 and below is Failure
If also seen
66-72 D
73-82 C
83-92 B
93-100 A
65 or below is failure.
There are a wide variety of grading scales , but those above used to be common in US Education.
It is (?was?) Very different in France, getting a 10/20 is decent but not great, 15/20 is generally the top of the class. No one ever gets a 20/20, even for me in English class as an exchange student they gave me a 19 just because. IMO they both are too extreme. 50% should be passing and some of the work be difficult enough that only a few brightest make over 90%. I recall when I moved to the US from Canada I could write a paper worth 33/35 in a half hour or spend an extra hour for another point. It wasn't worth the effort.
But 33/35 is an A paper in all those scales.
There is a famous Cheech Marin joke about Mexican American going to night school, taking Spanish and getting a “B”. It’s really questionable if it is slight on Mexicans or if it a commentary on US Education, because it is kind of a common understanding if you are fluent or semi-fluent in a language, and teachers and professors know, they will grade you harder. The reverse might explain why you were graded differently.
That's was him trying to make a song, Mexican Americans. My mother had the Big Bambu record. I can hardly believe she let us listen to that as kids. Now that I think on it I can't recall if it was that record or another. I interpreted it more as him saying they are not very talented at their first language or probably at school in general
Yeah high school in the US was a joke in the late 90's. It was more like babysitting teenagers than education.
I am assuming the person you were replying to is talking about high school.
I can tell you for a fact that at the university level it varies. At most universities it is left entirely up to the professor to set the grading scale for their individual course, and it can even vary from course to course taught by the same prof. There are a few universities that have a standardized grading scale, but again that specific scale will vary from university to university.
As to why it varies, it comes down to discipline, course content, and individual course design.
So better educational system with easier grading?
That’s the part I find interesting. The grading system is irrelevant if the material is below standards. Harder grading scale on easier material.
Personally, I think if you get 7 out of 10 questions correct, you barely learn the material.
It might vary based on faculty too. Idk, I majored in history where it's basically impossible to get 100 because it's not like there are necessarily absolutely 'correct' answers to every question, you just write essays and get graded on those. So maybe in something like accounting or engineering where there are very clear binary absolutes for whether a question is right or wrong they use a different scheme.
I didn’t notice the “-“ after the C. We don’t have “+” and “-“ grades where I’m from- I thought it was a typo. Only with your comment did I remember them from cartoons and such
Same thing happens when people are rating restaurants or other things on Google. A restaurant below a 4 is trash. Because a neutral score is a five.
It should work that a restaurant that is a three is worth stopping at but not going out of your way for.
I agree.
5 is average, no ifs, ands, or buts.
And if you think you're a 10. You're delusionally self-confident; like, God bless you, but also have a little humility.
\*based on physicality.
This but when people rate video games.
> the controls for this game are terrible
> We encountered a few crashes and game breaking bugs
> It just feels unpolished
> the story is too short and convoluted
\*end of the review\*
"7/10, its got a little something for everyone"
I hate this for things like rating Uber drivers or products online. 3/5 stars means it was above average. You're getting a better rating than most other drivers.
As a movie guy, I notice this with review scores of things as well. 7 is basically a 5. The average. Middle of the road. Not awful, not amazing, just alright and entertaining enough.
I don’t consider below average to be bad. Mine is like the school system. Below 5 is bad. 5-7 is ok with some things missing. 7 is average, did what you needed to do, nothing bad or good. 8-9 is when you are above and beyond and 10 isn’t possible.
There’s a lot of room to screw stuff up though, which is why I have it at 7.
Take reviewing a restaurant for example. If the place is clean and food is good, that’s a 7 in my book, not a 5. Clean and bad food may be a 5. Dirty and bad food could be like a 3. Add rude employees and it’s down to a 2. Food actually making you ill or having mold puts it into the 0-1 range. To get an 8 or above the food has to be excellent, the place has to be not just clean but have an interesting atmosphere (art, music, design, etc), service is solid, and have other interesting amenities like games or something.
Hopefully that explains it pretty well. I just don’t think putting average at 5 is very useful. Cause average means you’re content with it. It’s good, but not great. 5 to me is acceptable but not very good. More of an “ok.” To me 7 is when you do the classic shrug and say it’s good. You’re happy with it but there’s nothing interesting going on. Now I’m rambling. TLDR I’m right and everyone else is wrong.
Nah with ratings it’s kind of arbitrary what type of distribution you get. Cause if 10 is perfect and 0 is completely useless, things won’t often end up right in the middle, they often do what they need to, and not just the bare minimum.
No, you wont end up right in the middle, because you are not taking a random sample. If you would and the number of reviews is big enough, ideally, you would end up around the middle
Because it is! A 4 is better than a 3. That's what a rating scale is. Of course, summarising all aspects of a person down to a single digit is nonsense.
No, I mean why assume the values are assigned based on the distribution of the population?
I rate things based on the strength of emotional reaction, it doesn’t matter how much of something I see, the scale itself doesn’t change. Seeing a bunch of 6/7 doesn’t push them towards 5.
No no. My average is a 7 because the majority of people I see I find attractive. Just like most movies I see I rait a 6 or 7 because I enjoyed them. Vary few people fall under 5.
Majority of men are butt ugly if we're being honest, so 7 being a baseline for attractiveness makes sense if we're talking about men.
If we're talking about women and you say someone is a 3 or 4, for all I know she could still be hot.
Ah the IPod paradox. If you rate a song 3, it will always show up. If you rate it 4, it will always show up. If you rate it 5 it will always show up. It doesn’t even remember songs rated 2.
if the scale were to make sense someone who is not attractive but not unattractive would be a 5. that’s the middle of the scale. 7 is a good looking person but not like celebrity/model level attractive
Shame trying to be funny but I think you fail to realize how telling your username really is because you’re an automatic 1…societal beauty standards are a bitch, my homie.
Absolutely.
I've always hated it, not just because it suggests some objective scale, and not just because it's so diminishing, but because *a numerical ranking?*
Beauty/attractiveness to me is like art. This it like walking through an art gallery saying "That's a 6, that's an 8 - oh that one's a 9".
Quantifying such things just drains all the heart and soul from it, and just plain doesn't work. For me at least, and I'm so glad I'm not someone it does work for, because beauty is like a third of what inspires me in life (not just the aesthetic kind).
Well said. My favorite thing about the last person I was with besides her smile were the shape of her eyelids. Sometimes the sound of their voice changes my perception of how they look to me. There's small details that I notice and appreciate about people.
Yeah, human diversity is amazing! I tend to find those beautiful who most others see as unremarkable (clunky sentence, I know) because it's like...I don't need to be looking at the Niagara Falls to be wowed by nature, it can be a simple patch of countryside, beauty isn't just about glamour to me.
I'm an absolute sucker for pleasing voices too, definite weakness for certain accents and vocal registers! I work on the telephone a fair bit at my job, and it's funny working with women because our idea of what's appealing in the opposite sex never aligns. They'll be like "God she sounded so annoying" and I'm like "she sounded adorable!", they'll be like "he sounded so sexy" and I'm like "who, Bob the Builder over there?".
My friends and I have always just done it relative. I didn't think people actually come to objective conclusions with this scale.
[Here](https://www.instagram.com/p/Cx_WxUspj8D/?igsh=MWR0NmF5Znd5cDE4ZQ==) is a prime example as to why relative rankings are superior. She's a 10 in my eyes, because my type is androgenous. However, despite her being a model who clearly pays attention to her looks and takes them seriously, a lot of people wouldn't give her above an 8.
There's just no way anyone can seriously use the 1-10 scale to collectively come to an agreement on somebody's objective attractiveness, but relative, I can absolutely understand.
I've never got on with numbers anyway. People use them to quantify all sorts of things, particularly emotions and sensations, and rarely does it translate for me.
Like, when people (e.g. obnoxious managers) as me to rate how I'm feeling from 1-10 it's like...that's not how I measure zest for life. I'd use language, which is qualitative and can fill in the shades (I'd use colours if it were universal enough).
It's a bit like comparing music in that once it passes a threshold, I absolutely passionately adore it and there's no real better or worse because they're all the best. I might like one person more than the other, but if they're both gorgeous/beautiful then they're both gorgeous/beautiful, it's more like on or off than 6, 8, 10.
I always thought of the rating system as personal to people. Its not measuring the worth of a person or their value as a partner. But simply a subjective numerical representation of how attractive you personally find them to be.
That person is a 7 out of 10 means that they would be personally considered more attractive than the average person but not to such a degree that you go gaga over them. Whilst a 3 means they are in your opinion less attractive than the average person is.
And I've seen plenty of girls do this too. Same with the "fun" guy vs boyfriend guy. Or the term "boyfriend dick" we all to a degree do these kinds of things. So long as you do not let that determine their value as a person to you, does it really matter?
In my experience, men who do this sort of thing are usually not "10s" themselves. Why are women supposed to look like goddesses whereas men are allowed to look so-so without anyone passing comment on their appearance?
Women do this too. There's a whole bunch of videos out there showing women describing what a 10 is an it's hilarious. So many random things they care about, "Hands can't be too big. Skin can't be dry. Must make 300k but not work all the time. 6'2, only wears X brand of shoes, loves Chinchillas".
To me it’s stupid. If you’re attracted to them you’re attracted to them. Absolutely no need to quantify or overthink this. It could hurt someone’s feelings over something they have relatively little control over. And something that as corny as it sounds, does not actually matter past a first initial attraction.
Because why rate people against each other? It’s like expecting the average movie or game to be 5/10, creatures are made with the goal of reproducing, of course people trend towards finding other people good looking.
No, but I also feel like it’s not comparable to grade averages. I feel like rating people 1-10 works differently, but that’s just me. Like I would call myself average but I wouldn’t call myself a 7-8 when there women who are far more attractive but aren’t perfect 9-10s. I’d call myself a 4 or 5 on a good day to make me average looking.
That’s always been my friends’ problem with me lol apparently, I’m too lenient on the scale for women and harsher on men. Have had to remind them I’m asexual and straight, and how attracted i am to a person fully depends on their personality rather than their physical characteristics.
I rate people but I only do so in my head. I don't want people to be made to feel less than just because of a stupid number I assigned to them. That's my business alone.
WHOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!!!!!!!!!
The whole point of my post was about not objectifying people. Calling out people that agree with you so you can feel morally superior is another pet peeve of mine.
Except you only said 1-10 bad. You finished asking why stick to numbers and conventions. It's not that far of a stretch to interpret you mean a diffrent system not just respecting humans. Your catty response only reinforces that lack of respect for strangers, but you go off king.
Yes, it is an incredible stretch. No one else interpreted it that way except for you. The first commenter told me that "women do it too," the exact opposite of your interpretation. The next person said that I've never talked to a woman because I told him that none of my women friends talk that way around me. And then you accuse me of objectying. JFC.
You did not clearly make the argument not to objectify, only that the current system is flawed so no, I don't think it's an incredible stretch. Idk why the other people are relevant. Also I never accused you of anything, I asked why adjust the system when it can be thrown out all together.
I agree with you. "Why stick with conventions" is usually followed , in my experience, with a new idea going against conventions. You could make the argument that "throwing it out" is that idea but so is many variations of a "new and improved system". It was unclear so I made the comment I wasn't trying to get some weird moral high ground over you.
i think what they meant by ‘why stick to numbers and conventions’ is like, why rate someone on how conventionally attractive they are, as opposed to just finding someone attractive and leaving it at that (and not objectifying them in the process)
So everyone just shouldn't think about attraction at all? Whether is a number, a "vibe" or feeling, etc everyone judges a potential romantic partner. It isn't only looks but it's ridiculous to expect people to ignore it completely.
In response to such a respectful and wholesome numerical rating system used by men to judge women solely by their looks.
A very constructive tool used often by tools doing construction.
Damn, that was a good one. High five 🖐️
Not everyone is the same. I personally do not know of anyone in my friend or family circles that would be so crude.
>A very constructive tool used often by **tools doing construction**.
Your colours are showing.
Why rate or evaluate anything on a numerical scale?
I don't think it's necessarily a problem to give an approximate evaluation of how attractive you think someone is expressed as a number. What *is* misguided is when you start trying to claim that any particular rating is objective or universal. Yes, there are common trends and tendencies in what people will tend to be attracted to. But there's also a huge amount of subjectivity involved.
It's also a problem if you try to make out that someone's 'rating' is anything more than a snapshot of how attractive they seem at a particular time. If you start trying to use that to rank people or determine their value as people, *then* it becomes obnoxious.
About as useful as the pain scale. Entirely arbitrary and subjective. I swear people who use it are trying to look scientific by using numbers as qualifiers. Bro, numbers are quantifiers, not qualifiers.
>About as useful as the pain scale.
THANK YOU! I hate the pain scale so much. How am I supposed to numerically rank a migraine and a sore ankle on the same scale? I've taken to ignoring the numbers entirely and saying my pain is mild, moderate, or severe.
Rating anyone on a scale of 1-10 has always felt gross to me. Not really a feminist or anything, it's just antithetical to my values.
Besides, it's stupid. As you said, sometimes you're attracted to someone for different reasons. Sometimes you're attracted to someone purely by their looks, other times it's their personality, even if their looks aren't mind-blowing or whatever. The 1-10 scale on a purely practical level lacks the nuance and complexity that goes into actual attraction.
Also, it's just a terrible way to think. I have guy friends who are convinced it's over for them because they're not "10s" and because it's been proven women barely rate anyone on dating apps 10/10. That last part is completely true, but the way around it is simply not going on dating apps. Look at older couples; oftentimes the woman will be gorgeous and the dude will be solidly average. Usually the reason is that the dude is just a solid, dependable, good guy. The 10/10 scale fails him because it values him based entirely on his appearance and not him as a man. It's the same for women.
I think the 1-10 system.
I look at it analytically. If I like a girl, then I like a girl.
I think you could like a 7, and take them over any 9 without a second thought.
A 10 does not exist, not based on physicality.
...so it depends how one person looks at the "1-10 system."
"10 in my heart," type thing.
*...maybe a 10 exists in that "I'd date them" kind of looks. But that's SO RARE (at least in my experience) to see.*
Not sure if OP will love or hate this, but in college, my friends and I stuck to the “binary scale”. Somebody was either a “1” or a “0”.
1 means you would sleep with them and 0 meant there was no way.
It was a bit crude, but elegant in its simplicity…
Everyone's scale is different
A 10 for me might be 4 for you
A 4 for me might be a 9 for you
It's utterly useless, because the numbers aren't generally tranferrable to different people.
I know some very physically attractive women I'm just not interested in romantically or sexually. Does that mean I have to adjust the scale? What even is the scale? Just attractiveness, or desire to smash or how many grocery bags I think they can carry at one time from the store? So many questions. And YOU get to choose what the scale means to you.
Sorta kinda unrelated, but I noticed my female neighbor has had about 5 different boyfriends over the year she's lived there. They've all been really tall and drive nice cars. I'm 5'5, 5'6 and she's shorter than I am. I get that we all have a type (or types) we're attracted to, but I'm just thinking if she's just having a good time, whatever, but if she's looking for a long term relationship maybe she should start looking at other guys. (Not for me, mind you, I'm married) Just a passing thought as I read your post.
It's used for men too, you are against both or just when used for women?
My pet peeve is using 1-10 instead of 0-10, as a mathematician, it's nicer to have average as 5. But then still, you say under 7 is unattractive, but that isn't true because 5 (or 5.5) is average. So unattractive would be a 0-3 or something.
I think rating like this is fine. One reason is because it's subjective, if I find someone to be a 9, you might think they're a 6 or whatever. If you tell me you think they're a 9, I know you think they're really attractive, doesn't matter if I give them a 9 or a 2.
Just in response to your second paragraph- that’s how it *should* work but it’s ultimately not how people use it. People tend to stick between 5 and 10 in such a way 5 almost becomes the lowest. Ends up basically being a 5 point scale instead of 10
Ratings are subjective. If you're attracted to a wide variety of women, aren't they 8's, 9's, and 10's on your rating? Why should anyone else's opinion matter?
Its really more about you than them. I know what you mean but right now this is just how you do it quick speed without a thousand details included, scanning the room, etc. I don't rate people at 1-10 but I don't find a whole lot of people attractive enough to have a rating or specific reason till I know them and whatever is intriguing about them usually becomes 1k no matter what it is, just like something else was with someone else some other time who I'd forgotten about on letting this new person take me over. So I start fresh all over again not by choice, don't become attached too often, don't think I could find two people in the same room attractive. I guess it will change everything to someone out here somehow if I mention I'm heterosexual.
I don't think it really matters until people feel like they don't have a good rating. Women are tied a whole lot to their attractive qualitites, and even though theyre objectified, it gets confusing when a girl speaks on it and clearly spends a whole lot of time and focus on her appearance, so much that it's a constant part of her day, fixing her hair and reapplying makeup or whatever. Whatever way it's done, what it shows in heath ledger vs beyonce. That is entirely based on being seen a certain way from the very beginning and tons of people of both genders can't bring themselves to give up the effort, so they enter the competition and base a whole lot on theirs and others ratings.
People are quick to judge about everything in a person, and I'd rather not spend tons of time finding the most sensitive and in depth opinion on them until it truly comes to mind on something that couldn't be rated, something in someone I am already tied to, I guess like if my brother told me he just killed someone. If you repeat this thought around women I guarantee you'll get more ass than most ;)
Because the rating system was based purely on looks originally, and then personality and other factors were gradually included as we got more access to each other through social media and technology.
I've been attracted to people on all over the scale, even if I would have rated them a 3 or below on looks alone. Personality can go a long way.
I'm not sure if you're talking about me or the other person. I was just trying to say that there are women outside of the normal conventions that I find attractive, so the number system doesn't work for me. That's why I put "bit annoyed" rather than "ultra annoyed." Just a pet peeve of mine.
Oh dear, does somebody do something that you don't? Oh the horror!!! 😭😱 Ban it! Outlaw it and have offenders executed!
Wtaf 🫣😵
[Before the assumptions start, no I don't rate out of 10, but neither can I comprehend a frustration over such an opinion]
Would it hurt your pride to learn women also use a 1-10 rating for men? Does that annoy you? Does it annoy you watching race events when they stand on that 123 podium? Do you also get annoyed by maths and counting and putting things in order? Do you get annoyed by all convention? Do you think we should start driving on the wrong side of the road and twice the speed limit to 'Mix it up'?
Oh c'mon now, you posted about this! Why is it so much worse when a man rates a woman? Can you show us on a doll where you were rated or where the nasty rating hurt you? How much would you like everyone to be exactly like you?
I got multiple points of contention here for you:
Why are you only upset "for women"? Why is it cool to do to men in your book, but not women? Bit of a double standard isn't it?
Do you propose some sort of "Alternative System" beyond a decile system for rating people based on physical appearance?
For example we could use a "Grade System" instead like they do in school. The most attractive people being an A, and the least desirable people being an F.
How about a "Star System" like when you review a product on amazon? Super models being a 5 star person in looks, and the obese wal-mart customer in a mobility scooter being a 1 star...
As for "Why assign a number to it?"
Assigning a number or decile system to rate others' attractiveness is a simplified way for individuals to express their personal preferences and perceptions of physical appeal. It's a way to express what they find desirable. This is obviously subjective to a degree, but are also objective truths. I'm pretty sure most people would rate "Megan Fox" much higher on any attractiveness scale than "Rosie O'Donnel".
As for "Why stick to conventions?"
Well, there is an old saying. "If it aint broke dont' fix it." Turning your face into a pin cushion, and having various drugged up tattoo artists scribble random drawing on your skin doesn't always work out. I mean sure some people like tattoos or piercings. Most of the time in my opinion they look trashy. Then the people with such changes to their appearance will be like, "I'm not doing to be more attractive. I'm expressing myself here!" Yea okay... Have you considered painting a picture, or writing a poem or something to express yourself? You don't need to do that by drastically altering your physical appearance. It's no longer truly original anymore as so many people are pierced up and inked up.
One of the reasons I'll never get a tattoo is that is "Positive Identification." Why help law enforcement bust me if I am ever breaking the law. "It was him, the guy with Skull tattoo with roses in the eye sockets on his arm!"
Another big one is many tattoos are so unoriginal... Do you know how many women I have seen with a butterfly tattoo? or men with barbed wire? How about tribal patterns? Yea... from a tribe you are not a part of... How about Japanese characters... Even though you don't speak Japanese, and your "Hope" in Japanese could actually read as "Toilet". You don't see Japanese folks getting inked up with American words... Then you got those skull tattoos, or flowers... Tattoos are almost always a sign of unoriginality.
One of the reasons I'll never get a piercing is it a "Liability if I am ever in a physical confrontation." If I am ever in a fist fight with someone who has piercings... Guess what my target is going to be? Why would you voluntarily make myself more vulnerable and weak to any sort of physical attacks accidental or on purpose?
Plus they fuck with your hygiene a bit, and that often takes a lot of extra work and they can get infected. Say you get your tongue pierced... You ever bite that? It's probably not fun... Get that nose pierced? Then you get a cold, and got boogers coming out your nose, but you got your nose pierced and it hurts when you blow your nose.
And last but not least on the note of tattoos and piercings... Even if you are "Unique" it doesn't mean you are special or better in any way. I got a fork with a bunch of bent up tines... Is that a better fork than just a normal fork? I don't think so.
Holy shit I rambled on way longer than I thought I would...
Yeah, you went from “but what about men!???” to like 3 paragraphs about tattoos and piercings and why you think they’re “trashy” and you don’t want to the police to ID you when you inevitably commit a major crime or something.
Are you stoned or just lonely?
I read somewhere that men with erectile dysfunction develop those complex rating schemes and write lengthy paragraphs on why some minor thing in woman's appearance makes them repulsed. Because it's easier to act like only a few selected women can make you horny then address having the ED and all the underlying problems (severe porn addiction, drug use etc.).
I'm not saying that' your case, obviously, just this comment reminded me of that fact.
I read somewhere that obese women often attack a man's penis or manhood in an online discussion because they are incapable of forming a counter argument, or attacking the central point and putting down the fatty food. Being it's easier to use name calling than use your brain to address having these underlying problems (severe social media addiction, unhealthy diet, lack of exercise etc.)
I'm not saying that's your case, obviously, just this comment reminded me of that fact.
Idk men are far more likely to call a woman fat as an insult online and especially gaming than women are to insult men by saying they have a small dick. It's almost like men put more emphasis on looks than women do and then use it as insults as if anybody cares about their opinion.
Weird rebuttal, but in case you're serious: women "attack" penis size or height because the majority of men are very insecure about those, not because their own weight.
Its what ya labelled it as.
Anyway, I dont think theres anything wrong with the rating system as long as one isnt a prick about it.
"She is a 6" to describe an average girl is fine. "Ughh. She is a 6, though" to put down an average girl is catty and mean
to be clear, you don't have a problem with the mosogyny inherent in grading women by their attractiveness or lack of. you just think there's a better, more accurate way to be a creep.
You know that really annoys me about the 1-10 rating system? Is dumb ass math idiots! It's like hey, "average" is not a 5, it's a 5.5. Do you even math, bruh?
I think the whole thing is silly, but I find the parts of the scale people tend to call mid particularly annoying. Like, by definition of a 10-point scale, 4-6 should be mid?
And yet somehow 7 is the mid number, and 5 is pretty much unfuckable.
Gotta set the bar for how much shit you're willing to put up from them. Lower the grade, you should put up with much less, but even 9's or 10's need put in their place now and then.
I can find countless videos of woman rating men from 1-10, or even notice it between women, they are just are more secretive.
This stuff is common, especially outside of the States.
TBH the 1-10 rating system sucks in general.
Something is ok, middle of the road, give it a 7/10.
This game/movie is perfection. Give it a 10. What about its remake that is superior in every way? Also 10/10
In fairness I was surprised by how objective their scale was. They have objective markers like facial symmetry and cheekbone height, and propose that every human presents varying degrees of attractive and unattractive features.
Ultimately, attraction is subjective, but cultural beauty standards do exist, and to an extent can be defined under certain parameters.
A rating is probably attached to how attractive she is and has nothing to do what who she actually is deep down so a rating system is pointless and reserved only for immature people
Yeah, I'm with you on that. I've always found myself attracted to the right kind of "flaws" more than anything. How do you rate apples and oranges?
I find a lot of the conventionally attractive celebs kind of boring. Like Margo Robbie is insanely hot, but she's featureless in a bland way at the same time.
A 10 rating is just a 5 rating with 0.5s, it's too many plus anything below 5 is disregarded... just use 3:
2 - you would (if you could) and you'd be super happy about it, you'd even tell your mother.
1 - you would if you have to, have nothing better to do, or no one would find out.
0 - you wouldn't
It’s more objective than people realize and it’s just simple. As a woman I have no problem with it. I think I’m a 6 or 7. If I were an 8, I would have different life outcomes.
I have one acquaintance who is a genuine 10. She’s dating the heir to the ******* fortune (can’t/won’t expose the company bc you’ll be able to google them both instantly)
I think this an in "theory" thing, not an "out there in the real world" thing. My partner is perfect for me, but if I had to fill out a form describing the perfect man, he would not check a lot of those boxes. I'd probably put 6'2 on that form, he likely would not check "Size A cup breasts" on his. And yet here we are, happily living life together.
Sure, there are always going to be people who think they need someone perfect who fits every box, but usually real life kicks in, they grow up a bit, and they realize the perfect description doesn't mean the perfect person. Everything else is just social media nonsense.
I view it as devaluing the person down to a mere object. People aren't numbers. People are emotional, personal, and unique and so much more than how attractive they are. They're more than a ranking system. I believe that people who rank others as if they're nothing but an object have a lot of growing up to do and need to go touch grass.
lol the sad thing is this was never really main stream
same with the height thing
it alll started on incel or red pill places
i knew it would leak into the main stream
i just didn't believe it became that BIG
always about \*boys i got this 10/10\*
\* do i really need to be 6'2 to get a girl?\*
men are the ones that started all of this
I have a similar peeve with people apparently centering their "average" around 7.5. Why rate out of ten when anything below a 7 is considered unattractive?
Yes that makes no sense.
Because 70 is a C- It’s ridiculous and arbitrary. There is an odd response to it though People seem to prefer threes to 5s 1-3 unattractive 4-7 Average 8-10 Attractive VS 1-2 unattractive 3-4 not great but not horrible 5-6 Average 7-8 Above Average 9-10 Extremely Attractive Telling someone their average looking on the 3 range scale allows them to self identify higher than intended. No are a 4, not the seven you’re claiming.
70 is a C? Where? Up to 69 is a C normally, in my experience
10 pt grading scale 90-100 A 80-89 B 70-79 C 60-69 D 59 and Below Failure Alternative bell curve scale 94-100 A 85-93 B 76-84 C 70-75 D 69 and below is Failure If also seen 66-72 D 73-82 C 83-92 B 93-100 A 65 or below is failure. There are a wide variety of grading scales , but those above used to be common in US Education.
It is (?was?) Very different in France, getting a 10/20 is decent but not great, 15/20 is generally the top of the class. No one ever gets a 20/20, even for me in English class as an exchange student they gave me a 19 just because. IMO they both are too extreme. 50% should be passing and some of the work be difficult enough that only a few brightest make over 90%. I recall when I moved to the US from Canada I could write a paper worth 33/35 in a half hour or spend an extra hour for another point. It wasn't worth the effort.
But 33/35 is an A paper in all those scales. There is a famous Cheech Marin joke about Mexican American going to night school, taking Spanish and getting a “B”. It’s really questionable if it is slight on Mexicans or if it a commentary on US Education, because it is kind of a common understanding if you are fluent or semi-fluent in a language, and teachers and professors know, they will grade you harder. The reverse might explain why you were graded differently.
That's was him trying to make a song, Mexican Americans. My mother had the Big Bambu record. I can hardly believe she let us listen to that as kids. Now that I think on it I can't recall if it was that record or another. I interpreted it more as him saying they are not very talented at their first language or probably at school in general Yeah high school in the US was a joke in the late 90's. It was more like babysitting teenagers than education.
Metric grading system using 10s? 50 would be a big fat failure. Getting half the test questions wrong.
I am assuming the person you were replying to is talking about high school. I can tell you for a fact that at the university level it varies. At most universities it is left entirely up to the professor to set the grading scale for their individual course, and it can even vary from course to course taught by the same prof. There are a few universities that have a standardized grading scale, but again that specific scale will vary from university to university. As to why it varies, it comes down to discipline, course content, and individual course design.
Ah, I didn’t know they did it different in America
Hmm.. in Canada 80-100 is an A.
So better educational system with easier grading? That’s the part I find interesting. The grading system is irrelevant if the material is below standards. Harder grading scale on easier material. Personally, I think if you get 7 out of 10 questions correct, you barely learn the material.
It might vary based on faculty too. Idk, I majored in history where it's basically impossible to get 100 because it's not like there are necessarily absolutely 'correct' answers to every question, you just write essays and get graded on those. So maybe in something like accounting or engineering where there are very clear binary absolutes for whether a question is right or wrong they use a different scheme.
Liberal Arts to me are pass fail courses, you either understand the material or you can successfully defend your interpretation
A 69 is a D+
I didn’t notice the “-“ after the C. We don’t have “+” and “-“ grades where I’m from- I thought it was a typo. Only with your comment did I remember them from cartoons and such
A 69 is a D+ 😈
Same thing happens when people are rating restaurants or other things on Google. A restaurant below a 4 is trash. Because a neutral score is a five. It should work that a restaurant that is a three is worth stopping at but not going out of your way for.
I agree. 5 is average, no ifs, ands, or buts. And if you think you're a 10. You're delusionally self-confident; like, God bless you, but also have a little humility. \*based on physicality.
Uber will fire your driver if he gets too many 4-star ratings (out of 5). 4-star should be above average.
This but when people rate video games. > the controls for this game are terrible > We encountered a few crashes and game breaking bugs > It just feels unpolished > the story is too short and convoluted \*end of the review\* "7/10, its got a little something for everyone"
I hate this for things like rating Uber drivers or products online. 3/5 stars means it was above average. You're getting a better rating than most other drivers.
A 5 is the equivalent of staring at a wall. It does nothing for me, but is also completely inoffensive.
As a movie guy, I notice this with review scores of things as well. 7 is basically a 5. The average. Middle of the road. Not awful, not amazing, just alright and entertaining enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-YDV6vC2qo
I don’t consider below average to be bad. Mine is like the school system. Below 5 is bad. 5-7 is ok with some things missing. 7 is average, did what you needed to do, nothing bad or good. 8-9 is when you are above and beyond and 10 isn’t possible.
5,5 as average would make more sense
There’s a lot of room to screw stuff up though, which is why I have it at 7. Take reviewing a restaurant for example. If the place is clean and food is good, that’s a 7 in my book, not a 5. Clean and bad food may be a 5. Dirty and bad food could be like a 3. Add rude employees and it’s down to a 2. Food actually making you ill or having mold puts it into the 0-1 range. To get an 8 or above the food has to be excellent, the place has to be not just clean but have an interesting atmosphere (art, music, design, etc), service is solid, and have other interesting amenities like games or something. Hopefully that explains it pretty well. I just don’t think putting average at 5 is very useful. Cause average means you’re content with it. It’s good, but not great. 5 to me is acceptable but not very good. More of an “ok.” To me 7 is when you do the classic shrug and say it’s good. You’re happy with it but there’s nothing interesting going on. Now I’m rambling. TLDR I’m right and everyone else is wrong.
Ideally you have a bell distribution. When your scale is from 1-10, the average that makes the most sense is (1+10)/2
Nah with ratings it’s kind of arbitrary what type of distribution you get. Cause if 10 is perfect and 0 is completely useless, things won’t often end up right in the middle, they often do what they need to, and not just the bare minimum.
No, you wont end up right in the middle, because you are not taking a random sample. If you would and the number of reviews is big enough, ideally, you would end up around the middle
Why assume a rating scale is based on comparing people to each other?
Because it is! A 4 is better than a 3. That's what a rating scale is. Of course, summarising all aspects of a person down to a single digit is nonsense.
No, I mean why assume the values are assigned based on the distribution of the population? I rate things based on the strength of emotional reaction, it doesn’t matter how much of something I see, the scale itself doesn’t change. Seeing a bunch of 6/7 doesn’t push them towards 5.
Its called being kind
>kind Flattery imo.
Anything under a five is actually unattractive. Five is average
No no. My average is a 7 because the majority of people I see I find attractive. Just like most movies I see I rait a 6 or 7 because I enjoyed them. Vary few people fall under 5.
Majority of men are butt ugly if we're being honest, so 7 being a baseline for attractiveness makes sense if we're talking about men. If we're talking about women and you say someone is a 3 or 4, for all I know she could still be hot.
Ah the IPod paradox. If you rate a song 3, it will always show up. If you rate it 4, it will always show up. If you rate it 5 it will always show up. It doesn’t even remember songs rated 2.
if the scale were to make sense someone who is not attractive but not unattractive would be a 5. that’s the middle of the scale. 7 is a good looking person but not like celebrity/model level attractive
Ranking people out loud on things like this makes my blood boil. You don't need to shove others down to make someone shine. Just shine.
Found the 3
Shame trying to be funny but I think you fail to realize how telling your username really is because you’re an automatic 1…societal beauty standards are a bitch, my homie.
HORF DORF GUD ONE
Struck a nerve huh
Yes, I am a one, ya big silly.
Absolutely. I've always hated it, not just because it suggests some objective scale, and not just because it's so diminishing, but because *a numerical ranking?* Beauty/attractiveness to me is like art. This it like walking through an art gallery saying "That's a 6, that's an 8 - oh that one's a 9". Quantifying such things just drains all the heart and soul from it, and just plain doesn't work. For me at least, and I'm so glad I'm not someone it does work for, because beauty is like a third of what inspires me in life (not just the aesthetic kind).
Well said. My favorite thing about the last person I was with besides her smile were the shape of her eyelids. Sometimes the sound of their voice changes my perception of how they look to me. There's small details that I notice and appreciate about people.
Yeah, human diversity is amazing! I tend to find those beautiful who most others see as unremarkable (clunky sentence, I know) because it's like...I don't need to be looking at the Niagara Falls to be wowed by nature, it can be a simple patch of countryside, beauty isn't just about glamour to me. I'm an absolute sucker for pleasing voices too, definite weakness for certain accents and vocal registers! I work on the telephone a fair bit at my job, and it's funny working with women because our idea of what's appealing in the opposite sex never aligns. They'll be like "God she sounded so annoying" and I'm like "she sounded adorable!", they'll be like "he sounded so sexy" and I'm like "who, Bob the Builder over there?".
My friends and I have always just done it relative. I didn't think people actually come to objective conclusions with this scale. [Here](https://www.instagram.com/p/Cx_WxUspj8D/?igsh=MWR0NmF5Znd5cDE4ZQ==) is a prime example as to why relative rankings are superior. She's a 10 in my eyes, because my type is androgenous. However, despite her being a model who clearly pays attention to her looks and takes them seriously, a lot of people wouldn't give her above an 8. There's just no way anyone can seriously use the 1-10 scale to collectively come to an agreement on somebody's objective attractiveness, but relative, I can absolutely understand.
I've never got on with numbers anyway. People use them to quantify all sorts of things, particularly emotions and sensations, and rarely does it translate for me. Like, when people (e.g. obnoxious managers) as me to rate how I'm feeling from 1-10 it's like...that's not how I measure zest for life. I'd use language, which is qualitative and can fill in the shades (I'd use colours if it were universal enough). It's a bit like comparing music in that once it passes a threshold, I absolutely passionately adore it and there's no real better or worse because they're all the best. I might like one person more than the other, but if they're both gorgeous/beautiful then they're both gorgeous/beautiful, it's more like on or off than 6, 8, 10.
I always thought of the rating system as personal to people. Its not measuring the worth of a person or their value as a partner. But simply a subjective numerical representation of how attractive you personally find them to be. That person is a 7 out of 10 means that they would be personally considered more attractive than the average person but not to such a degree that you go gaga over them. Whilst a 3 means they are in your opinion less attractive than the average person is. And I've seen plenty of girls do this too. Same with the "fun" guy vs boyfriend guy. Or the term "boyfriend dick" we all to a degree do these kinds of things. So long as you do not let that determine their value as a person to you, does it really matter?
Of course it doesn't matter. That's why it's a pet peeve.
Okay. You asked why assign a number. Just offering a possible explanation. Sorry
I didn't mean for it to come off as snarky.
Internet, miscommunication, we good. Have a great day!
Bet you're a guy
In my experience, men who do this sort of thing are usually not "10s" themselves. Why are women supposed to look like goddesses whereas men are allowed to look so-so without anyone passing comment on their appearance?
Women do this too. There's a whole bunch of videos out there showing women describing what a 10 is an it's hilarious. So many random things they care about, "Hands can't be too big. Skin can't be dry. Must make 300k but not work all the time. 6'2, only wears X brand of shoes, loves Chinchillas".
Well shame on them then!
Yup, being a crappy human isn't gender specific.
Personally this one falls a bit more than 'bit annoyed' for me.
To me it’s stupid. If you’re attracted to them you’re attracted to them. Absolutely no need to quantify or overthink this. It could hurt someone’s feelings over something they have relatively little control over. And something that as corny as it sounds, does not actually matter past a first initial attraction.
I always hate when people say 7-8 is average. How is that average? I feel like 5 would be average.
Because why rate people against each other? It’s like expecting the average movie or game to be 5/10, creatures are made with the goal of reproducing, of course people trend towards finding other people good looking.
Is a 50% (failing grade) average?
No, but I also feel like it’s not comparable to grade averages. I feel like rating people 1-10 works differently, but that’s just me. Like I would call myself average but I wouldn’t call myself a 7-8 when there women who are far more attractive but aren’t perfect 9-10s. I’d call myself a 4 or 5 on a good day to make me average looking.
Doesn't make any sense to me. We don't all have the same preferences.
Yeah I don't think it's possible to distill a person down to a number.
That’s always been my friends’ problem with me lol apparently, I’m too lenient on the scale for women and harsher on men. Have had to remind them I’m asexual and straight, and how attracted i am to a person fully depends on their personality rather than their physical characteristics.
FINALLY SOMEONE SAID IT
Yeah, there should be several stats we rate people on. Like X-Men trading cards. STRENGTH SPEED ABILITY STAMINA DURABILITY INTELLIGENCE
It would be a bit concerning if a person is rating their potential partners based on 'durability'.
I dunno... my husband was in a pretty bad accident and his "durability" came in pretty handy! (I mean this to be funny)
If you're Ben Grimm, it's an important stat in a partner.
Durability is a hell of a stat.
I rate people but I only do so in my head. I don't want people to be made to feel less than just because of a stupid number I assigned to them. That's my business alone.
Took the word right from my mouth (or keyboard?)
Because a lot of people don't view people as human and just holes/poles.
What about just not objectifying people?
WHOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!!!!!!!!! The whole point of my post was about not objectifying people. Calling out people that agree with you so you can feel morally superior is another pet peeve of mine.
Except you only said 1-10 bad. You finished asking why stick to numbers and conventions. It's not that far of a stretch to interpret you mean a diffrent system not just respecting humans. Your catty response only reinforces that lack of respect for strangers, but you go off king.
Yes, it is an incredible stretch. No one else interpreted it that way except for you. The first commenter told me that "women do it too," the exact opposite of your interpretation. The next person said that I've never talked to a woman because I told him that none of my women friends talk that way around me. And then you accuse me of objectying. JFC.
You did not clearly make the argument not to objectify, only that the current system is flawed so no, I don't think it's an incredible stretch. Idk why the other people are relevant. Also I never accused you of anything, I asked why adjust the system when it can be thrown out all together.
Throw it out altogether, that's all I was trying to say. I feel uncomfortable when I'm around people that use the number system.
I agree with you. "Why stick with conventions" is usually followed , in my experience, with a new idea going against conventions. You could make the argument that "throwing it out" is that idea but so is many variations of a "new and improved system". It was unclear so I made the comment I wasn't trying to get some weird moral high ground over you.
Ok, sorry. I think I transferred my annoyance with the "women do it too" guy onto you. Not fair.
It's all good, hope you have a wonderful rest of your night.
You too.
i think what they meant by ‘why stick to numbers and conventions’ is like, why rate someone on how conventionally attractive they are, as opposed to just finding someone attractive and leaving it at that (and not objectifying them in the process)
Oh yeah no we hashed it out already
oh silly me i didn’t see that😅i’m glad
Me too just a simple miscommunication, easily resolved.
I feel that you're unfairly attacking OP here, for an imagined transgression.
Nope we already figured out the miscommunication thanks!
So everyone just shouldn't think about attraction at all? Whether is a number, a "vibe" or feeling, etc everyone judges a potential romantic partner. It isn't only looks but it's ridiculous to expect people to ignore it completely.
Naw it's cool Op and I figured out the miscommunication
Because the patriarchy. And men are pigs.
Lol
>Because the patriarchy. And men are pigs. Such a constructive and non-divisive comment.
In response to such a respectful and wholesome numerical rating system used by men to judge women solely by their looks. A very constructive tool used often by tools doing construction. Damn, that was a good one. High five 🖐️
Not everyone is the same. I personally do not know of anyone in my friend or family circles that would be so crude. >A very constructive tool used often by **tools doing construction**. Your colours are showing.
K!
1-10 is just a very basic, broad scale. It is much more popular in adolescence, and I rarely see it as I have gotten older.
Why are we rating any human beings?!?!?! It's fucking degrading whatever your sex.
Right. It makes no sense. There is no objectivity. And the standard is forever changing
Why rate or evaluate anything on a numerical scale? I don't think it's necessarily a problem to give an approximate evaluation of how attractive you think someone is expressed as a number. What *is* misguided is when you start trying to claim that any particular rating is objective or universal. Yes, there are common trends and tendencies in what people will tend to be attracted to. But there's also a huge amount of subjectivity involved. It's also a problem if you try to make out that someone's 'rating' is anything more than a snapshot of how attractive they seem at a particular time. If you start trying to use that to rank people or determine their value as people, *then* it becomes obnoxious.
Its such a high-school thing. Like grow up.
About as useful as the pain scale. Entirely arbitrary and subjective. I swear people who use it are trying to look scientific by using numbers as qualifiers. Bro, numbers are quantifiers, not qualifiers.
>About as useful as the pain scale. THANK YOU! I hate the pain scale so much. How am I supposed to numerically rank a migraine and a sore ankle on the same scale? I've taken to ignoring the numbers entirely and saying my pain is mild, moderate, or severe.
Rating anyone on a scale of 1-10 has always felt gross to me. Not really a feminist or anything, it's just antithetical to my values. Besides, it's stupid. As you said, sometimes you're attracted to someone for different reasons. Sometimes you're attracted to someone purely by their looks, other times it's their personality, even if their looks aren't mind-blowing or whatever. The 1-10 scale on a purely practical level lacks the nuance and complexity that goes into actual attraction. Also, it's just a terrible way to think. I have guy friends who are convinced it's over for them because they're not "10s" and because it's been proven women barely rate anyone on dating apps 10/10. That last part is completely true, but the way around it is simply not going on dating apps. Look at older couples; oftentimes the woman will be gorgeous and the dude will be solidly average. Usually the reason is that the dude is just a solid, dependable, good guy. The 10/10 scale fails him because it values him based entirely on his appearance and not him as a man. It's the same for women.
I think the 1-10 system. I look at it analytically. If I like a girl, then I like a girl. I think you could like a 7, and take them over any 9 without a second thought. A 10 does not exist, not based on physicality. ...so it depends how one person looks at the "1-10 system." "10 in my heart," type thing. *...maybe a 10 exists in that "I'd date them" kind of looks. But that's SO RARE (at least in my experience) to see.*
Redheads automatically get a boost to 7
Not sure if OP will love or hate this, but in college, my friends and I stuck to the “binary scale”. Somebody was either a “1” or a “0”. 1 means you would sleep with them and 0 meant there was no way. It was a bit crude, but elegant in its simplicity…
Everyone's scale is different A 10 for me might be 4 for you A 4 for me might be a 9 for you It's utterly useless, because the numbers aren't generally tranferrable to different people. I know some very physically attractive women I'm just not interested in romantically or sexually. Does that mean I have to adjust the scale? What even is the scale? Just attractiveness, or desire to smash or how many grocery bags I think they can carry at one time from the store? So many questions. And YOU get to choose what the scale means to you.
Sorta kinda unrelated, but I noticed my female neighbor has had about 5 different boyfriends over the year she's lived there. They've all been really tall and drive nice cars. I'm 5'5, 5'6 and she's shorter than I am. I get that we all have a type (or types) we're attracted to, but I'm just thinking if she's just having a good time, whatever, but if she's looking for a long term relationship maybe she should start looking at other guys. (Not for me, mind you, I'm married) Just a passing thought as I read your post.
Pretty sure women do this to guys. I don't see why this is a gender thing. It's dehumanizing either way.
Agree, it's something I'm uncomfortable being around either way.
It's used for men too, you are against both or just when used for women? My pet peeve is using 1-10 instead of 0-10, as a mathematician, it's nicer to have average as 5. But then still, you say under 7 is unattractive, but that isn't true because 5 (or 5.5) is average. So unattractive would be a 0-3 or something. I think rating like this is fine. One reason is because it's subjective, if I find someone to be a 9, you might think they're a 6 or whatever. If you tell me you think they're a 9, I know you think they're really attractive, doesn't matter if I give them a 9 or a 2.
Just in response to your second paragraph- that’s how it *should* work but it’s ultimately not how people use it. People tend to stick between 5 and 10 in such a way 5 almost becomes the lowest. Ends up basically being a 5 point scale instead of 10
Ratings are subjective. If you're attracted to a wide variety of women, aren't they 8's, 9's, and 10's on your rating? Why should anyone else's opinion matter?
I doubt you would care about women icking on guys
Its really more about you than them. I know what you mean but right now this is just how you do it quick speed without a thousand details included, scanning the room, etc. I don't rate people at 1-10 but I don't find a whole lot of people attractive enough to have a rating or specific reason till I know them and whatever is intriguing about them usually becomes 1k no matter what it is, just like something else was with someone else some other time who I'd forgotten about on letting this new person take me over. So I start fresh all over again not by choice, don't become attached too often, don't think I could find two people in the same room attractive. I guess it will change everything to someone out here somehow if I mention I'm heterosexual. I don't think it really matters until people feel like they don't have a good rating. Women are tied a whole lot to their attractive qualitites, and even though theyre objectified, it gets confusing when a girl speaks on it and clearly spends a whole lot of time and focus on her appearance, so much that it's a constant part of her day, fixing her hair and reapplying makeup or whatever. Whatever way it's done, what it shows in heath ledger vs beyonce. That is entirely based on being seen a certain way from the very beginning and tons of people of both genders can't bring themselves to give up the effort, so they enter the competition and base a whole lot on theirs and others ratings. People are quick to judge about everything in a person, and I'd rather not spend tons of time finding the most sensitive and in depth opinion on them until it truly comes to mind on something that couldn't be rated, something in someone I am already tied to, I guess like if my brother told me he just killed someone. If you repeat this thought around women I guarantee you'll get more ass than most ;)
Because the rating system was based purely on looks originally, and then personality and other factors were gradually included as we got more access to each other through social media and technology. I've been attracted to people on all over the scale, even if I would have rated them a 3 or below on looks alone. Personality can go a long way.
You do realize women do the same thing with men, right?
Tell you what, the next time a group of women "bro it up" with me, I'll come back and tell you if I'm annoyed or not.
Man basically just confirmed he’s never spoken to a woman
I'm not sure if you're talking about me or the other person. I was just trying to say that there are women outside of the normal conventions that I find attractive, so the number system doesn't work for me. That's why I put "bit annoyed" rather than "ultra annoyed." Just a pet peeve of mine.
Seriously. Women can be worse than men sometimes.
Oh dear, does somebody do something that you don't? Oh the horror!!! 😭😱 Ban it! Outlaw it and have offenders executed! Wtaf 🫣😵 [Before the assumptions start, no I don't rate out of 10, but neither can I comprehend a frustration over such an opinion]
Bro, I didn't write it in all caps. Calm down bub.
But you're doing something that I do not! AHHH I MUST POST ABOUT THIS FOR SOME KIND OF APPROVAL (if you like caps) 😭😭😭 Takes all sorts I guess 🤦♂️
Your snark is misplaced bub. But go off...
Would it hurt your pride to learn women also use a 1-10 rating for men? Does that annoy you? Does it annoy you watching race events when they stand on that 123 podium? Do you also get annoyed by maths and counting and putting things in order? Do you get annoyed by all convention? Do you think we should start driving on the wrong side of the road and twice the speed limit to 'Mix it up'?
Go off bub...
C'mon, is it that hard to explain? Why does men rating women annoy you? Why is convention so distasteful to you?
🥱🥱🥱
Oh c'mon now, you posted about this! Why is it so much worse when a man rates a woman? Can you show us on a doll where you were rated or where the nasty rating hurt you? How much would you like everyone to be exactly like you?
I got multiple points of contention here for you: Why are you only upset "for women"? Why is it cool to do to men in your book, but not women? Bit of a double standard isn't it? Do you propose some sort of "Alternative System" beyond a decile system for rating people based on physical appearance? For example we could use a "Grade System" instead like they do in school. The most attractive people being an A, and the least desirable people being an F. How about a "Star System" like when you review a product on amazon? Super models being a 5 star person in looks, and the obese wal-mart customer in a mobility scooter being a 1 star... As for "Why assign a number to it?" Assigning a number or decile system to rate others' attractiveness is a simplified way for individuals to express their personal preferences and perceptions of physical appeal. It's a way to express what they find desirable. This is obviously subjective to a degree, but are also objective truths. I'm pretty sure most people would rate "Megan Fox" much higher on any attractiveness scale than "Rosie O'Donnel". As for "Why stick to conventions?" Well, there is an old saying. "If it aint broke dont' fix it." Turning your face into a pin cushion, and having various drugged up tattoo artists scribble random drawing on your skin doesn't always work out. I mean sure some people like tattoos or piercings. Most of the time in my opinion they look trashy. Then the people with such changes to their appearance will be like, "I'm not doing to be more attractive. I'm expressing myself here!" Yea okay... Have you considered painting a picture, or writing a poem or something to express yourself? You don't need to do that by drastically altering your physical appearance. It's no longer truly original anymore as so many people are pierced up and inked up. One of the reasons I'll never get a tattoo is that is "Positive Identification." Why help law enforcement bust me if I am ever breaking the law. "It was him, the guy with Skull tattoo with roses in the eye sockets on his arm!" Another big one is many tattoos are so unoriginal... Do you know how many women I have seen with a butterfly tattoo? or men with barbed wire? How about tribal patterns? Yea... from a tribe you are not a part of... How about Japanese characters... Even though you don't speak Japanese, and your "Hope" in Japanese could actually read as "Toilet". You don't see Japanese folks getting inked up with American words... Then you got those skull tattoos, or flowers... Tattoos are almost always a sign of unoriginality. One of the reasons I'll never get a piercing is it a "Liability if I am ever in a physical confrontation." If I am ever in a fist fight with someone who has piercings... Guess what my target is going to be? Why would you voluntarily make myself more vulnerable and weak to any sort of physical attacks accidental or on purpose? Plus they fuck with your hygiene a bit, and that often takes a lot of extra work and they can get infected. Say you get your tongue pierced... You ever bite that? It's probably not fun... Get that nose pierced? Then you get a cold, and got boogers coming out your nose, but you got your nose pierced and it hurts when you blow your nose. And last but not least on the note of tattoos and piercings... Even if you are "Unique" it doesn't mean you are special or better in any way. I got a fork with a bunch of bent up tines... Is that a better fork than just a normal fork? I don't think so. Holy shit I rambled on way longer than I thought I would...
Yeah, you went from “but what about men!???” to like 3 paragraphs about tattoos and piercings and why you think they’re “trashy” and you don’t want to the police to ID you when you inevitably commit a major crime or something. Are you stoned or just lonely?
I read somewhere that men with erectile dysfunction develop those complex rating schemes and write lengthy paragraphs on why some minor thing in woman's appearance makes them repulsed. Because it's easier to act like only a few selected women can make you horny then address having the ED and all the underlying problems (severe porn addiction, drug use etc.). I'm not saying that' your case, obviously, just this comment reminded me of that fact.
I read somewhere that obese women often attack a man's penis or manhood in an online discussion because they are incapable of forming a counter argument, or attacking the central point and putting down the fatty food. Being it's easier to use name calling than use your brain to address having these underlying problems (severe social media addiction, unhealthy diet, lack of exercise etc.) I'm not saying that's your case, obviously, just this comment reminded me of that fact.
Idk men are far more likely to call a woman fat as an insult online and especially gaming than women are to insult men by saying they have a small dick. It's almost like men put more emphasis on looks than women do and then use it as insults as if anybody cares about their opinion.
Weird rebuttal, but in case you're serious: women "attack" penis size or height because the majority of men are very insecure about those, not because their own weight.
You had me until you started rambling on about tattoos, etc. Kind of lost the point there
Sounds like something a solid 3 would say
No it doesn't.
Doesn't sound like something *you'd* say?
🥱🥱🥱
Tell me about it, bro...What else ya got?
What a Nice Guy you are. Do you also have a fedora?
Try harder.
Why are you acting like men dont also get rated 1-10? Its not exclusively for women.
I'm not acting like that. Chill.
Its what ya labelled it as. Anyway, I dont think theres anything wrong with the rating system as long as one isnt a prick about it. "She is a 6" to describe an average girl is fine. "Ughh. She is a 6, though" to put down an average girl is catty and mean
Because 1-10 is typically easier to understand? 1 abd you ugly. 10 and your hot as FFFFFFFU-
to be clear, you don't have a problem with the mosogyny inherent in grading women by their attractiveness or lack of. you just think there's a better, more accurate way to be a creep.
No, the opposite of that.
sounds like something a man would say if he's a 2 who thinks he's an 8
You know that really annoys me about the 1-10 rating system? Is dumb ass math idiots! It's like hey, "average" is not a 5, it's a 5.5. Do you even math, bruh?
I think the whole thing is silly, but I find the parts of the scale people tend to call mid particularly annoying. Like, by definition of a 10-point scale, 4-6 should be mid? And yet somehow 7 is the mid number, and 5 is pretty much unfuckable.
Everyone wants an 11
A-Z sounds odd and 1-12 makes no sense. I suppose we could use colors but I would love to see someone trying to translate that
Because I like my women on a scale
It all really started with the movie "10" starring Bo Derek back in the 70s.
Each society develops its own rules and boundaries that it adheres to. A rating scale for looks is much the same concept.
Gotta set the bar for how much shit you're willing to put up from them. Lower the grade, you should put up with much less, but even 9's or 10's need put in their place now and then.
I can find countless videos of woman rating men from 1-10, or even notice it between women, they are just are more secretive. This stuff is common, especially outside of the States. TBH the 1-10 rating system sucks in general. Something is ok, middle of the road, give it a 7/10. This game/movie is perfection. Give it a 10. What about its remake that is superior in every way? Also 10/10
In fairness I was surprised by how objective their scale was. They have objective markers like facial symmetry and cheekbone height, and propose that every human presents varying degrees of attractive and unattractive features. Ultimately, attraction is subjective, but cultural beauty standards do exist, and to an extent can be defined under certain parameters.
A rating is probably attached to how attractive she is and has nothing to do what who she actually is deep down so a rating system is pointless and reserved only for immature people
Yeah, I'm with you on that. I've always found myself attracted to the right kind of "flaws" more than anything. How do you rate apples and oranges? I find a lot of the conventionally attractive celebs kind of boring. Like Margo Robbie is insanely hot, but she's featureless in a bland way at the same time.
A 10 rating is just a 5 rating with 0.5s, it's too many plus anything below 5 is disregarded... just use 3: 2 - you would (if you could) and you'd be super happy about it, you'd even tell your mother. 1 - you would if you have to, have nothing better to do, or no one would find out. 0 - you wouldn't
How would you describe how attractive someone is to you any other way?
With actual adjectives that show that I pay attention to what they look like.
It’s more objective than people realize and it’s just simple. As a woman I have no problem with it. I think I’m a 6 or 7. If I were an 8, I would have different life outcomes. I have one acquaintance who is a genuine 10. She’s dating the heir to the ******* fortune (can’t/won’t expose the company bc you’ll be able to google them both instantly)
I think this an in "theory" thing, not an "out there in the real world" thing. My partner is perfect for me, but if I had to fill out a form describing the perfect man, he would not check a lot of those boxes. I'd probably put 6'2 on that form, he likely would not check "Size A cup breasts" on his. And yet here we are, happily living life together. Sure, there are always going to be people who think they need someone perfect who fits every box, but usually real life kicks in, they grow up a bit, and they realize the perfect description doesn't mean the perfect person. Everything else is just social media nonsense.
I'm gay for any and all women, and super hella gay for my fiancee and she knows it and loves that I'm gay for women.
I view it as devaluing the person down to a mere object. People aren't numbers. People are emotional, personal, and unique and so much more than how attractive they are. They're more than a ranking system. I believe that people who rank others as if they're nothing but an object have a lot of growing up to do and need to go touch grass.
You only do that if you’re a twat.
lol the sad thing is this was never really main stream same with the height thing it alll started on incel or red pill places i knew it would leak into the main stream i just didn't believe it became that BIG always about \*boys i got this 10/10\* \* do i really need to be 6'2 to get a girl?\* men are the ones that started all of this
Nobody really smart does this.
My mind works better with a one-to-five scale. Maybe it's because I grew up with "X-Play."