[pirateboy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
< 1

I don't believe in the bell curve for rating women, by the way. I'm easily repulsed by nasty ladies.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's another big issue with these polls. people get worked up because they think someone is a 2 (meaning 80% are better looking) while others think she's a 4 (using the normal distribution, meaning 1 sd below average) and really they mean about the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true. pirateboy sees no difference between the two in the mcdonald's pic and the 3 1's in the OPs pic #3 and he's FOS.

If he was forced to choose to bang one of them on the threat of death, he'd certainly mentally rank them quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im with him, there is no difference between a chick that is 250, and a chick that is 200, Im not banging either one of them, they are both ones. Pirateboy is right.

[/ QUOTE ]

guids,

did you miss the part about "threat of death"?

[/ QUOTE ]

ya I did, its retarded to bring crap like that up. in real life when does that happen? why put retarded conditions on it? IRL, if I am unwiling to sleep with a chick she is going to be a 1. There is no "degrees" of ugliness. there are ugly chicks, and then there si the rest fo the population that you can catagorize.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nicely put, and my sentiments exactly.

There can be a girl who I wouldn't bang who could be a 3 or 4, because she has redeeming qualities, but is overall an ugoh.

However, the 3 girls I ranked 1s are fat AND ugly. When a girl is fat, there's a breaking point where it all meshes together in terms of nastiness. The girl in the OP is overweight and can obviously look somewhat attractive if she lost it. Thus, a 3.