How attractive do you think you are? 1-10

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm 174 lbs at 6'0, so i'm not ripped, but i have good definition.

what i'm saying is that i think i'm way above average, but i'm still only a 7. 10s are brad pitt/josh harnett outliers. 9s are the hottest people you've ever met. 8s are people who consistently turn heads because of their attractiveness and are usually the most attractive person in the room.

i think to be an 8 you need to know very few people more attractive than yourself and even to be a 7 you need to be the most attractive person in a group most of the time.

i have doubts this is true of most of the people voting 7 and 8.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree. My scale is more more like a school grading scale. A 7 is average, and most people are in that group, They may have some facial and body flaws, but no more than anyone else really. Most people who don't let their bodies go to hell can muster a 7, at least in their youth.

An 8 is above average and covers a broad range, from a little better than average all the way into shading into pretty darn good looking. An 8 isn't model-beautiful, and can even have body flaws, but they're a step above the crowd. Often an 8 is a much lower number in a disguise which will be rudely revealed by adding an extra 10 or 20 pounds or an extra few years or a little poorer skin texture/coloration due to taking poor care of oneself. Many a 5 started out as a perfectly good 8.

9's are genetic celebrities. They hit the lottery and there's little disagreement about it among the people looking, even if a particular "type" is not to one's taste. They are more than just good looking; they are exceptional. Liking someone or being infatuated with them can easily render someone a 9 who doesn't deserve to be there, but to others the junk in the trunk or unfortunate nose will leave no room for argument that the object of another person's lust and devotion is not a 9. 9's have broken through to the realm of the unarguable.

10's are so exceptional they could probably make a living off it, and in one way or another, they often have a chance to. They are often prized as salesmen, marry young and "well," or sometimes coast through life on a bit of a different cloud than others by virtue of their genetic good fortune. 10's are so good looking that their looks can actually isolate them and make them seem a little inhuman, unreachable, even intimidating to men and women alike, or breed reflexive resentment among some of the less gifted. Looks that rate a 10 are more or less a loaded gun always firing, and can disrupt a social situation if their effect is not defused. When you see a 10, you'll know it, and probably remember it for a while.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
strangers smile at me on the street

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
wtf

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this not common among most people? I always finded myself exchanging smiles or nods or whatever with strangers as I walk down the street.

[/ QUOTE ]

In Hawaii or parts of Oregon, yes. In L.A., no. In New York, f*ck no.

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored] LA and NY

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[Alobar]

blarg, why is a 7 average on your 1-10 scale instead of a 5? Why have way more lattitute in ranking ugly people than attractive people?

[Victor]

i used to be an 8 easily. now im likely a 4. abusing your body will catch up with you and theres not much you can do about it.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
blarg, why is a 7 average on your 1-10 scale instead of a 5? Why have way more lattitute in ranking ugly people than attractive people?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugliness or even averageness covers a huge range in comparison to being attractive. Attractiveness starts out as a narrow category and just gets narrower really rapidly, so you only need a few numbers to rate it. Whereas being average -- or worse -- covers almost everybody, especially people who are at least past their early to mid 20's. You need plenty of numbers for that. There's a real depth and variety to ugliness that beauty doesn't have to bother with.

[derosnec]

8.2 on Hot or Not

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
There's a real depth and variety to ugliness that beauty doesn't have to bother with.

[/ QUOTE ]

interesting. I view it oppositely. I think think there are more shades of attractive than ugly. I can see subtle differences in beauty, but to me ugly is just painted with one big brush.

[Blarg]

You can look at it either way I guess. To me, once they reach a certain level of attractiveness, it really doesn't matter how much more attractive they get -- it's like they've passed the looks audition, and the rest is nitpicking. Some fine distinctions can be made, but they seem less and less important and can almost immediately veer into the ridiculous. Much of what you wind up talking about can even simply be a matter of personal taste rather than a "useful" critique.

I even find ugly people to sometimes be more memorable by far than good looking ones. This may have something to do with living in L.A. for 20 years, where all the world's most beautiful women come to be waitresses -- er...movie stars. After a while, especially all the dyed blondes really start to look alike and just blend into a dyed blond haze.

And there aren't too many ways for a nose to be great, but so many ways for it to be average or ugly. Beauty seems to have a narrow and sometimes ungenerous variety in comparison to averageness or ugliness, which can have huge variety. Beauty is much more about conformity to a very narrow ideal, unless one starts to get politically correct or something and gets less ruthless in the rating.

You ever see a bunch of blond sorority girls gathered together, where every one of them looks alike? And then you see the next sorority house and all those girls look just like the last house you passed by? There's a Stepford quality to beauty that ugliness doesn't have. It can be a cramped little thing in which differences mean less and less, and noting them veers more and more toward the absurd.

[JasonK]

I voted 8, but if the average here is 7 then I'm changing to 10.

[PokerBob]

i am a 10.