The looks scale, how do guys rate?

[Skeptical]

Looks isn't everything I guess. There is personality! There are some gorgeous looking men and women who as soon as they speak you just wanna shut them up.

[searock]

lol who knows? They might just be settling for me. Pretty girls can be good people, too.
It's not like every guy has unlimited options.

So we are talking about guys that are so desperate not to be alone that they would settle with partners they are not attracted to just so as to not be alone? Why would we even care about people so desperate?

Plus I don't wanna be with someone that doesn't find me attractive--I'd rather be alone than be seen as second-rate.

I'll explain myself a bit better: if a guy is interested (i.e. attracted to) in a girl that isn't conventionally attractive, there's a good probability that (a) he is not immature and (b) he is genuinely interested in her, not just because she fits into certain beauty standards but because of who she is and what she, in particular, looks like (therefore not just how close she is to those standards).

Of course I don't mean that guys that are attracted to conventionally attractive girls are shallow or immature, just that there is a good probability that if a guy is attracted to a girl that is not conventionally attractive, it means he is mature enough to realize that those standards don't always work - and in fact very often fail - at correctly describing all the nuances of physical attraction.

I also don't mean that if a guy shows interest in a girl that isn't conventionally attractive it must mean that he is genuinely interest in more than just sleeping with her. He may just be attracted to her and want to sleep with her and nothing more. I just think the chances are lower than for conventionally attractive women.

[HDBadger]

Basically, I still don't understand why this silly scale is in the least offensive...to anyone. I mean I think we can all agree that we all find some people better looking than others. The scale just assigns a (subjective) number to that evaluation. Seriously, that's it. It's not a conspiracy to harm women.

Any dude that sees a woman as nothing *but* a number or a physical object is a jerk. No doubt about that.

But saying one girl walking in the bar is an 8 and another is a 6? That's not harming anyone.

That guy in GQ is a 9. I'm a 5. See, it's not that bad!

[HDBadger]

One other thing I'll add, and maybe this debate has to do with the disconnect between how men and women view physical attraction.

Physical attraction is *relatively* uniform across most males. By that I mean, if you put 10 guys in a room with 10 women, the guys would more less agree on the level of physical attractiveness of the women. Again, talking only about looks here, nothing more. Of course there would be some differences in opinion, but, basically, the guys would agree on who was hot or not.

I'm not a woman, but it seems to me that women might rate the guys much differently.

Maybe that's why women don't like the scale. They simply can't relate to how guys can neatly categorize women as "hot or not."

I can literally look at a woman for four seconds and determine my level of physical attraction to her.

This says nothing, of course, about all the other more important qualities that determine whether or not a relationship will work.

[Ugly_Swan]

Basically, I still don't understand why this silly scale is in the least offensive...to anyone. I mean I think we can all agree that we all find some people better looking than others. The scale just assigns a (subjective) number to that evaluation. Seriously, that's it. It's not a conspiracy to harm women.

Any dude that sees a woman as nothing *but* a number or a physical object is a jerk. No doubt about that.

But saying one girl walking in the bar is an 8 and another is a 6? That's not harming anyone.

That guy in GQ is a 9. I'm a 5. See, it's not that bad!

lol I don't think it's bad either-- even I judge girls, and I'm a girl myself.

Plus--women are judgy of guys, too =/ so any typical/judgy girl that goes on about women being objectified is a hypocrite...

I don't think the major argument was over the scale being inherently bad--well at first that's what the argument was from some people--but then it morphed into looks versus personality and Ugly_Swan-bashing (aka me)

[michelle23]

But why cant you just say ya shes hot or shes not my type instead of insulting her with a number? Most women would view a 6/7 as an insult-not a compliment. Women wouldnt spend so much time shopping, dieting, getting their hair/makeup/tan/nails done if they just wana be viewed as "average" so by calling them that to ten other guys your insulting her. Thats my point. Its alot nicer to just say ya shes stunning or shes not my type. Putting a number on her is immature and degrading

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[Starnique]

Michelle, I think you're right, and it's probably a combination of things. People are more likely to casually date an unattractive person with no long term intentions, which leads to and imbalance in the feelings between the two. I do think life is easier in general for attractive people, but attraction does not necessarily gain you respect. Superficially things are easier, but being attractive has it's own set of problems. Consider the plight of very attractive women. Attractive women also have to deal with more jealousy/possessiveness and creeper/stalker/"nice guys". Many guys will show interest just because they're hot, and only want her for that. I know I've worked to nail a girl I wasn't all that interested in, just because she was hot, and then just stopped trying and rode it out until she got annoyed and left me alone. Doubt she(they) were too thrilled about it.

Ugly Swan, suit yourself, but denial isn't going to change your situation. I'm not worried about you, I could care less if you live or die.

This is true and it's hard to deal with sometimes because guys are attracted to you physically or sexually but sometimes they're not interested in getting to know the girl as a person. That type of attention gets old after while. Im over it and that's why chics should set certain standards and give it up later. Anyway being attractive is a good thing for a girl but sometimes guys really don't take you serious. You got to work harder at showing who you really are as a person on the inside vs the outside.

Anyway, carry on.

[BackUpOrGetStng]

But why cant you just say ya shes hot or shes not my type instead of insulting her with a number?

You give a number so you can see how hot your friend thinks she is. For the most part, we already know if our buddies would nail a girl. The rating isn't really even about the girl, it's about gauging our friend's physical desire for her.

[BackUpOrGetStng]

Hmm... but why would someone date a person they aren't attracted to in the first place? Sleeping around, even being friends with benefits, that I can understand, but actually dating them (even if with no intention of making it last long-term)?

I said "casually date", which I thought was obvious meant seeing someone with no long term intent. To answer your question of why? Because it's easy. I've slept with girls I wasn't attracted to simply because I was drunk, and they threw it at me.

I agree with this - but instead of "attractive" I would say "conventionally attractive", i.e. adhering to the current beauty standards. It's probably implicit anyway, but I think it's worthy to point out.

It was implicit(oh lookie, your favorite word again ), and certainly not worthy of pointing out. The world isn't going to walk on egg shells for you.

Ugh, you're one of those guys XD!

For a time I was. My better nature(who knew I had one) has been prevailing for quite some time now.

[searock]

I said "casually date", which I thought was obvious meant seeing someone with no long term intent. To answer your question of why? Because it's easy. I've slept with girls I wasn't attracted to simply because I was drunk, and they threw it at me.

So what? I'm sure even the girls you "casually dated" and then dumped because you weren't attracted to them enough weren't too happy about it either...

It was implicit(oh lookie, your favorite word again ), and certainly not worthy of pointing out. The world isn't going to walk on egg shells for you.

Again, if you're going to make fun of my english (as a non-native speaker), you might as well provide me with an alternative to that word, if it irks you that much. Anyway, I'm glad that's what you meant and I still think it was worthy of pointing out, since too many people seem to imply that attractiveness is a completely objective thing (which it clearly isn't).

For a time I was. My better nature(who knew I had one) has been prevailing for quite some time now.

Good for you.

[searock]

You give a number so you can see how hot your friend thinks she is. For the most part, we already know if our buddies would nail a girl. The rating isn't really even about the girl, it's about gauging our friend's physical desire for her.

I guess this is what is frustrating to some women, that they would be viewed *solely* as sexual objects by a bunch of strangers they don't even know - or worse, by a bunch of guys they do know. It is so ingrained in society and the media that women should exist primarily to be "pretty things to look at" or in other words objects of male's sexual desire. This is the difference - of course women see guys as objects of sexual desire too, but not *only* that. I mean: as a woman, if I see a guy that is very attractive to me walking down the street, the first thing I think is "wow, he's hot". But if I see a guy that is not so attractive to me, the first thing I think is not "wow, he's ugly (or "he's a 2" or whatever), not worthy of even meeting". I just see him as a random person. The fact that he isn't attractive to me doesn't make him less valuable (potentially) as a person. It's like when some guys say things like "forget about her, she's stupid. Unless she's hot, in that case I take back what I just said". I mean... what? Since when is being hot more important than anything else? I get it if you're a teenager, but as adults it's pretty sad.

On the more specific issue of numerical rating, I do think it's pretty immature and here pretty much nobody does it... must be a USA thing or something. Here guys just say "she's hot" or "not my type" (decent guys at least, jerks say "she's hot" or "she's hideous").

[michelle23]

You give a number so you can see how hot your friend thinks she is. For the most part, we already know if our buddies would nail a girl. The rating isn't really even about the girl, it's about gauging our friend's physical desire for her.

Well i know its important to men that their friends think their girl is hot but i just dont see why its necessary to rate her..



Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[michelle23]

This is true and it's hard to deal with sometimes because guys are attracted to you physically or sexually but sometimes they're not interested in getting to know the girl as a person. That type of attention gets old after while. Im over it and that's why chics should set certain standards and give it up later. Anyway being attractive is a good thing for a girl but sometimes guys really don't take you serious. You got to work harder at showing who you really are as a person on the inside vs the outside.

Anyway, carry on.

You just need to know which guys to avoid, keep your eyes open for red flags and follow your instincts. I find it easy... well i know ive been taken the past 5 years so a lot has prob changed since i was single but b4 i met him-i had my fair share of "nice guys" trying to be my "friend" and a few players too trying their luck but i saw through their crap

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[!Joe264!]

I have just seen one 10 in my hole life…I see her everyday…my girlfriend...

[dickriculous]

I guess this is what is frustrating to some women, that they would be viewed *solely* as sexual objects by a bunch of strangers they don't even know - or worse, by a bunch of guys they do know. It is so ingrained in society and the media that women should exist primarily to be "pretty things to look at" or in other words objects of male's sexual desire. This is the difference - of course women see guys as objects of sexual desire too, but not *only* that. I mean: as a woman, if I see a guy that is very attractive to me walking down the street, the first thing I think is "wow, he's hot". But if I see a guy that is not so attractive to me, the first thing I think is not "wow, he's ugly (or "he's a 2" or whatever), not worthy of even meeting". I just see him as a random person. The fact that he isn't attractive to me doesn't make him less valuable (potentially) as a person. It's like when some guys say things like "forget about her, she's stupid. Unless she's hot, in that case I take back what I just said". I mean... what? Since when is being hot more important than anything else? I get it if you're a teenager, but as adults it's pretty sad.

On the more specific issue of numerical rating, I do think it's pretty immature and here pretty much nobody does it... must be a USA thing or something. Here guys just say "she's hot" or "not my type" (decent guys at least, jerks say "she's hot" or "she's hideous").

Thing is, I hear about the parts in bold happening but I haven't actually met a guy who thinks that way since my mid-teenage years, and at that age there is virtually no difference between how likely boys are to do that to girls and vice versa. The second part in bold in particular I've actually never once heard a man say unless he was joking. I say shit like that sometimes too but I never expected anyone to take me seriously, and I certainly never expected anyone to take it as part of a big picture of dehumanization against women - that just sounds like the raving of some nutcase who thinks the world is out to get her.

Btw, on your final note it's one thing to say that 1-10 is "pretty immature". If that's all anyone ITT had been saying I wouldn't have cared enough to respond. What I have an issue with is this ridiculous idea that it's a patriarchal conspiracy against women. That point of view is so absurd that it shouldn't have even been worth acknowledging other than to be mocked. Yet it got thanked by four otherwise intelligent posters and kicked off 8 pages (so far) worth of people defending it.