I dated a woman once who asked me to rate her attractiveness, numerically. I gave her a 1. 1? Yes, 1. Not wanting to insult her, I explained that my personal attractiveness scale only has two values: 0 and 1, and that it’s a yes/no binary scale. Since I’m evaluating women for long-term relationship potential only– I never have casual sex– there’s no difference, from my perspective, between a “7″ “girl next door” and a “9″ model. All else (including my subjective physical attraction to each) being equal, I’d rather date the former.
On the other hand, from an aggregate perspective, some people are more attractive than others, and there are more than two degrees of physical attractiveness in this regard. A “9″ has vastly different social experiences from a “7″, even if the difference in their attractiveness is relatively meaningless with regard to long-term relationships.
We can define female attractiveness, numerically, in the most straightforward way: the percentage of men who are physically attracted to her, before any interaction occurs. We thus define a “7″ as a woman who inspires sufficient sexual attraction (“1″, on the 0/1 scale) in 70% of men. This maps quite faithfully to most mens’ concept of what a “7″ or a “9″ is. What of the homely “3″? Thirty percent, really? Yes. In this definition, a 3 is a woman whom 30% of men seeking one-night-stands would be willing to fuck (if no more attractive options were available), and a woman whom 30% of men would consider attractive enough for a relationship, if she were otherwise qualified. Some men have low standards of physical beauty, or don’t care terribly much about it.
By this definition, what’s the distribution of female physical attractiveness within the general population? I believe a reasonably good model to be the following: P(z) = 1/(1 + 2^(0.3 – 1.5*z)), where z is a (0,1)-normally-distributed variable representing the woman’s relative physical attractiveness, within the pool of upper-middle-class U.S. young professionals, and P(z) is the probability that a man will find her sexually attractive. By this definition, we get the following correspondence between the familiar 0-10 scale and percentiles:
9.8 : 99.99th percentile (+3.96 sigma).
9.5 : 99.88th percentile.
9.0 : 99.0th percentile.
8.5 : 96.9th percentile.
8.0 : 93.7th percentile.
7.0 : 84.4th percentile.
6.0 : 72.2nd percentile.
5.0 : 57.9th percentile.
4.0 : 42.5th percentile.
3.0 : 26.9th percentile.
2.0 : 12.9th percentile.
1.0 : 2.8th percentile.
0.5 : 0.43rd percentile.
This seems to be fairly accurate for the population being modeled: urban, middle-class professionals, or “yuppies”. The general population, especially considering American obesity, is more strongly represented at the low end, and might have an average of 3.5-4.0.
Can we analyze men in a similar manner? Yes, but this measurement is more complicated. First, while sexual attraction is largely physical in men, and can thus be determined right away, womens’ sexual attractions are evaluated lazily, not eagerly, and involve a number of non-physical factors– most notably, sociosexual confidence and dominance, or “game”. Although men and women are similarly selective in terms of long-term relationships, and both require in-depth knowledge about the other person before being able to make a commitment, men know immediately if they are physically attracted to a woman. Women don’t. “The spark” or “chemistry” is generally not triggered by a man’s physical appearance alone. A certain set of social skills, also known as “game”, is required. Moreover, this attraction is felt by a woman for a man relatively rarely.
Here lies the dismal aspect of the male predicament. Although men and women are relatively even in overall “market value” when it comes to relationships, this is not true on the matter of physical attraction. An average young woman inspires physical attraction in nearly 45% of men, while a man capable of inspiring “the spark” in 45%– or even 25%– of women would be considered a star. We, therefore, can’t define a man’s physical attractiveness by the same scale, or we’d mostly be rated 0-3. Instead, we define a male “7″ as a man whose percentile standing corresponds to that of a female “7″, or a man in the 84th percentile of physical attractiveness. He’d be considered “equally matched” to a female “7″, but he definitely does not inspire sexual attraction in 70% of women– far from it.
What percentage of women can be expect to be physically attracted to him? If he’s of average social skill and confidence, about 5-6%. We’ll approximate a formula to represent this, and while I make no claim of the equation to follow representing any sort of platonic truth, it’s a damn good model.
We start our analysis by noting that it is virtually impossible for a man to be able to inspire sexual attraction in 70, 80, or 90 percent of women. I have a male friend who is extremely attractive, in excellent physical shape (5% body fat), and would easily be considered a “9″. A “natural” at game, he could even show Mystery a thing or two. How often is he rejected? A lot. His acceptance rate is about 55%. This holds true in nightclubs and “day game”, with gorgeous women and average ones (he’s rejected more often, it turns out, by women of mediocre looks). Forty-five percent of women feel no sexual attraction to him whatsoever. Other mens’ observations corroborate this: no matter how attractive and suave, it is impossible to break the 60% barrier. Exceptions may exist for celebrities, very high-ranking politicians and extremely wealthy men. Such outliers are irrelevant, for our purposes.
An individual man’s maximum potential, in this regard, seems to scale roughly linearly with physical appearance, as it does (by definition) with women. Working formula: MP(r) = 0.6*r, where MP is the man’s max-potential probability of inspiring sexual attraction, and r is his attractiveness rating on the 0-to-10 scale, defined as above, divided by 10. A man with a 50th-percentile, “4.5″, physical appearance is theoretically capable of inspiring sexual attraction in 27% of women. By male standards, this is a rock star’s batting average. Clearly, the average man’s not a rock star. In practice, most men achieve only a tiny fraction of their maximum potential.
We introduce another factor into the model, which is a man’s social skills, confidence, and presence. Cynically, this element is described as “game” or, by Roissy, “psychosocial dominance”. It determines that fraction of a man’s maximum potential he actually achieves. We’ll rate it numerically on the same percentile scale as physical attractiveness– a man with 57th percentile of sociosexual confidence is a “5″; one at the 84th percentile is a “7″. A sociosexual “10″, if such a man existed, would be able to achieve the maximum potential given by the formula above. Most of us fall short and, sadly, the drop-off is steeper than linear. Somewhat arbitrarily, but based on experience, I’m going to assert that it’s cubic. That is, a man with “3″ sociosexual confidence (“game”) will inspire sexual attraction in 1/8 as many women as equally good-looking man with “6″ game, and 1/27 as many women as his counterpart at “9″. Thus, we have a set of working formulas for the probability of sexual attraction. In both formulae, r represents the person’s physical attractiveness on a 0.0-1.0 scale, as defined by percentile above; s represents sociosexual confidence on the same scale. P represents that probability that an opposite-sex heterosexual will feel sexual attraction for that person.
For women: P(r) = r.
For men: P(r, s) = 0.6*r*s^3.
Therefore, an average man (r = 0.45, s = 0.45) inspires sexual attraction in only 2.4% of women. Thirty-nine out of forty women will not feel “the spark” for him and will reject him. Ouch. For a somewhat above-average man like me (r = 0.65, s = 0.55) the percentage rises to 6.5%; high-beta, enough to get lucky once in a while. What of a 50-year-old man with average looks for his age (4.0) but absolutely stellar “game” (r = 0.4, s = 0.95)? 20.6%. That’s an “alpha” male.
Men exhibit sexual attraction to almost half of all women, while women feel “the spark” with only 3 to 10% of us. How does this reflect on the balance of power between men and women? That’s complicated. On first glance, it should seem that women utterly dominate. My “6.5″ female counterpart is sexually attractive to ten times as many men as I am to women. On a raw sexual market, you’d expect that women are substantially more powerful, and you’d be quite right. On the other hand, this gives the men who are able to create “chemistry” a major advantage– that of rarity. Though women feel sexual chemistry for a very small percentage of men, when they do, they feel it intensely.
When I met my last serious girlfriend, I was a 22-year-old virgin who had never had a long-term relationship, and had been treated badly by previous women I’d tried to date. My sociosexual confidence was at an all-time low: probably 3. Less muscular and twenty pounds lighter, I’d rate my physical appearance at the time as a 6. My expected batting average? 0.97%. I could expect 102 rejections before finding a woman who’d feel “the spark”. That sounds about right. When I found a woman, she was a gorgeous “8″. Eighty percent of men willing to have casual sex would fuck her (if they could) and 80% of men seeking long-term relationships would consider her sexually attractive. That number, for me, started at an abysmal 1% and rose (as my confidence grew) to a mere 5-7%. Obviously there’s a discrepancy, no? It didn’t matter at all. Everyone’s personal scale for sexual attraction is a 0/1 discrete scale, and, this time, I’d beaten the odds and come up as a “1″ for her. While she was in the relationship, none of these other men were of any interest to her.
Balance of power in a relationship isn’t determined solely by the number of alternative options. Especially, the relevant number isn’t the number of people who want to sleep with a person. It’s the number of people who want to sleep with that person, whom that person desires. In a relationship, it means nothing if nine-tenths of the male gender salivates over one’s girlfriend, if she feels absolutely no desire for those men, and if she does desire her boyfriend.
Moreover, sexual attraction is far from the most important element of a relationship. It’s usually a necessary, but certainly not a sufficient, condition. A “4″ woman is sexually attractive to 40% of men, but forty percent of men are not inclined to hop into a relationship with her. In long-term relationships, men and women are not especially different in their preferences, even with regard to the weight they place on physical appearance, confidence, and social skill. So the balance of power within a relationship is not nearly as skewed as it is on a raw sexual market.
It’s time to draw some conclusions: what does all this mean?
1. Regarding women’s physical attractions, men have to worry about a factor (“the spark”) that women don’t. In the pursuit of long-term relationships, both men and women have to worry about many of the same things– intellectual, spiritual, sexual and romantic compatibility. On the other hand, women can take it for granted that, if they look good, a reasonable fraction of men will find them attractive. Men can’t. There’s an uncontrollable and random “spark” factor, induced by sociosexual confidence, that will put the woman’s sexual attraction to the man at zero if it’s not present.
2. Men can improve their situation dramatically by increasing their sociosexual confidence. It’s difficult to do this, because PUA gimmicks only offer a marginal benefit, but it can certainly be done by improving one’s social skills, learning to tolerate rejection, and developing confidence through experience in all areas of life. A man’s sociosexual confidence also tends to improve over the course of his life. For this reason, although a man’s physical appearance peaks in his late 20s, as it does for women, his overall attractiveness to women is likely to peak in his mid-40s, with his gains in sociosexual confidence sufficient to offset his (mild) physical decline. A man who improves his “game” from a lagging 4 to an average-plus 6, with no changes to his physical appearance, increases his “batting average” by 237 percent. His dry and single spells, if he maintains the same standards, will be three times shorter.
3. Women will date and marry men they do not consider attractive. It’s quite possible that men do this as well, but we’re sure, statistically speaking, that women do so. Let’s consider a bottom-feeding man with very poor physical attractiveness and sociosexual confidence– both of these at 1.5. He can be expected to inspire sexual attraction in a dismal 0.03% of women. We’d anticipate that such an egregious omega-male would almost certainly never marry, but they do. Some women recognize that they’re unlikely to attract a man who can inspire “the spark”, and settle for one who does not.
Moreover, although a “high beta” can only expect to attract about 8% of women, he’s not rejected for dates 92% of the time. He’ll get a lot of first dates, a few second dates, and possibly even a relationship or two, from women who don’t feel “the spark” but are willing to settle. These relationships, of course, are not to be desired, since they’ll end as soon as the woman does feels sexual urges toward another man.
4. Physical attractiveness of the “beholder”, as a factor in attraction, is overrated. I haven’t argued for, much less proven this, but it’s worth discussion. I never considered, as a variable, how attractive the “observer” is. A “5″ woman will be considered sexually desirable by 50% of men. Is there any definitive characteristic of those 50% of men? Are they likely to be the least desirable half? To the first question, the answer is yes. Some people are more selective regarding physical appearance than others, and the less selective men are likely to fall into the 50% “yes” set. To the second, the answer is, to a large degree, no. Is it harder to get an attractive person into a relationship? Yes, because she’s less often single and for shorter spells, and because she won’t waste her time in a relationship with a man to whom she’s not attracted. On the other hand, I don’t think the “beholder’s” attractiveness is a major player in the equation. I’m a high beta with a batting average around 7%, but within that 7 percent have been some very attractive women. Likewise, the “PUA masters” I know who bat 50% get rejected by unattractive women as often as by beautiful ones.
5. Moderately attractive (6-8) women can improve their position by being more assertive. A female “3″ is sexually attractive to 30% of men; a “7″, to 70%, and a “9″ to 90%. I wouldn’t want to be the “3″, but I don’t see a substantial benefit in being the “9″ over the “7″. Although the “3″ is sexually viable to a reasonable share of men, these tend to be men with low standards. On the other hand, only 20% more men find the “9″ attractive than the “7″. As for these men, what does it say about a man if he can only “get it up” to a Victoria’s Secret model? Not good things. So I’d argue that the healthiest and most desirable men are likely to be in the 60th-80th percentile for sexual selectivity, and therefore available to most of the “7″ women.
However, the “9″ will be approached much more often than the “7″– possibly 5 or 10 times more often. This is because men tend to massively overrate general attractiveness (as opposed to their personal assessment) on the dating market. The “7″, more infrequently approached, might believe she’s significantly less attractive. This is not the case, and if she pursues men she finds attractive, she’ll find that her odds are good– by male standards, extremely good.
6. Men: If you want to know if you’re alpha… Estimate your percentile standing within the young (22-35) middle-class urban professional male population for physical attractiveness and sociosexual confidence. (Ignore your IQ and how much money you make.) Use the percentile chart above to infer a 0-10 score. Divide each by ten, and use the above formula to predict the percentage of women who will be sexually attracted to you. That formula, posted here for convenience, is:
P = 0.6 * r * s^3, where r is your attractiveness and s is your sociosexual confidence, both on a 0.0-1.0 scale.
Multiply that number by 100 to obtain a percentage. Interpret the result as follows:
0.0 – 0.09% : Omega. Find a fetish and play to it. Maybe chop off an arm.
0.1 – 0.99% : Gamma. Go here to learn about your likely fate.
1.0 – 2.99% : Low beta. You’re me at 21. You kinda suck. Work out a bit and mid-beta status may not be too far out of reach.
3.0 – 5.99%: Mid beta. You’re me at 23. There’s nothing wrong with you, but you’re very average. You should be able to find love at some point in your life, but your dry and single spells are going to be long and grinding.
6.0 – 11.9%: High beta. This is where I am, at 26. It’s probably the best range in which to land if you don’t want to turn into a douchebag.
12 – 19.9%: Low alpha. Don’t get too full of yourself, but life doesn’t exactly hate you. Also, I could learn a few things from you. Wingman applications are open.
20 – 39.9%: Alpha. You aren’t going to read anything I have to say to you, so the sentence I am typing is irrelevant, and not worth compl
40 – 60%: Super alpha. Venus fly traps and plants like this get wet when you walk past them.
60.1 – 100%: Utter fucking moron. It’s impossible to break the 60% barrier. The formula doesn’t allow it! Learn math.
This was absolutely hilarious. I especially like the alpha scale at the bottom.
I’m probably a 7. I think I was an 8 before but having two kids took it’s usual toll.
Definitely agree with this:
The “7″, more infrequently approached, might believe she’s significantly less attractive. This is not the case, and if she pursues men she finds attractive, she’ll find that her odds are good– by male standards, extremely good.
I was going through a bit of dry spell once and complained to my aunt and she said, “If you want a date just go ask for one.” Revolutionary advice. This is the same woman who told me, when I complained about mistreatment from a boyfriend, “He’s not your husband. If you don’t like the way he’s treating you, leave him and find someone better.” I took her advice and dumped him. Better than Ann Landers.
So I put it to the test even though I didn’t think it would work. I went shopping in the pedestrian zone and stopped at a cafe. Most of the tables were occupied and then I saw this cute guy sitting alone, drinking a coffee with steamed milk (I avoid men with whipped cream — it just seems decadent), reading “The Elegant Universe”. Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner! So I just walked up and asked if I could sit down. He put his book aside, smiled widely, and offered up the seat. We went out to a really nice Indian restaurant afterwards (he was reluctant to end the conversation). We went out on a few more dates before it sort of fizzled.
That was the beginning of my “If you want a date just go ask for one.” phase. I’d say that 7 out of 10 guys I approached responded in kind. Even the ones that turned me down did so sort of reluctantly. In my experience, most men, when offered the chance to date an attractive woman, will accept.
You have to factor in the fact that I tended to approach men that I assumed would have something in common with me.
Is he reading an interesting book, highbrow newspaper, or a quality magazine? If he’s reading the Economist, Computer Times, or Scientific American it’s usually a safe bet?
Is he walking leisurely along the riverbank on a Saturday morning?
Does he drink cappuccino (with steamed milk, of course) and people-watch on Sunday afternoon?
Does he prefer to take the train rather than drive?
Is he dressed nicely but not ostentatiously?
Is he absorbed in a particularly interesting Matisse at the gallery?
Is he engaged with a friend in a fascinating discussion about the introduction of the Euro and it’s influence on the dollar as reserve currency?
I’d also venture the theory that the 7 will be seriously approached more and more often as she gets older, if she ages well. At least that’s been my experience. Perhaps because the men in her league are becoming more mature and confident?
Don’t you hate when you use tags and forget the closing one?
[Ed: Fixed it. --Cless]
Oh, and before the race-theorists chime in, I’d like to add that I am black and the vast majority of men I approached were white (both in America and in Germany). Being black did not seem to be a significant handicap, at least among my subset.
Sir, you have crossed over into geekdom from nerdom. the one to ten rating system is one thing but this is a whole ‘nother universe. Personally, I rate women on whether or not I would find them pleasing to paint: being in southern NJ, there are very few.
On the subject of “the spark,” I’d like to quote Arawn from a different comment thread:
I really agree with this. It is precisely the case for how most healthy long-term relationships develop. I was not initially attracted at all to my fiance, but over time that attraction grew so strongly that instead of a discrete 0 vs. 1 attraction, he is off the charts at infinity.
Women’s K-selection drive is (supposed to be) stronger, and so the initial “spark” indicative of the r-drive is actually counterproductive to mate selection.
One other thing: sociosexual confidence is not the same as a generalized confidence. Women should be more discerning about the second type, more indicative of husband-quality men, and ignore the first kind of confidence.
Some men are incredibly confident about their abilities to perform (art/music/math/science/etc.), lead groups, fix things, put things together, defend themselves should a real fight comes up, etc. but not nearly as confident about attracting a woman. If young women stopped fixating on flashy, player-style confidence and started looking for real, substance-backed confidence, the dating scene would look a lot better.
Exactly. If we use fire as a metaphor then “spark” does lighten up a fire with flames up high, but it usually dies quite quickly. It’s like throwing a match stick into some flammable material: it’ll ignate instantly, burn fiercely and die quicly leaving only ashes.
On the other hand, slowly growing attraction is like setting a camp fire. It takes some time, it produces more heat and when the flames are gone it leaves smoldering coals that can stay warm for a very long time and by throwing little more wood in, there’s gonna be flames again.
I strongly prefer latter on. And this kind of attraction doesn’t really need anykind of “spark” and that’s why even if people do start relationships without “sparks”, it doesn’t mean they are settling for a spouse to whom they are not attracted and will leave him as soon as some urges to have sex with other guys appear. I mean, yes, some do, but not all. And “urge to have sex” is not a thing that entices many to leave they spouses, not even to cheat. I think most of us will feel strong interest in some other men (and men to women) during a long relationship but even though we cannot always choose to whom and when we are attracted to someone, we can choose to act or not to act according to that attraction. People in life long marriages simply don’t let their animals insticts lead them astray but stick with their spouses.
I totally agree, Hope.
Sir, you have crossed over into geekdom from nerdom. the one to ten rating system is one thing but this is a whole ‘nother universe.
Is nerddom a higher or lower plane than geekdom?
I always knew he was there. Anybody who writes sentences like: Finally, K-selective attraction is holistic, driven by attraction to the person as a whole, rather than to a set of attributes. is a total nerd. A lot of men I know wouldn’t even be able to define “holistic”. And who else would discuss libido using the phrases “K-selective” and “r-selective”?
Hahaha, ecology and genetics explaining Game – I love it.
Crazy natural, with a lot of cash? Likely r-strategist, as well.
Serious, studious beta, looking for a wife? K-strategist all the way.
Oh, and I wish hot black women would approach me in cafes. I need to move out of the snowstorm that is San Diego.
My husband said I’m an 8 but that’s including a half-point for my butt. LOL. But this is from a guy who thinks that American men are all closet homosexuals for thinking women like Jennifer Aniston and Paris Hilton are hot (I have to agree with him there.)
His beauty-scale (add up the score and then divide by 10 — let’s keep it simple) is a bit different from the typical American male, I think:
Figure (frontal)
1 Obese
2 Overweight
3 Anorexic
4 Skinny
5 Plump
6 Skinny and Curvy
7 Plump and curvy
8 Thin and Pear-shaped
9 Thin Hourglass
10 Thin Super-hourglass
Figure (lateral) Note: breasts and behind are not judged based on size but should be high, full, and firm and proportional to her figure.
2 No behind, no breasts
3 No behind, nice breasts
5 No breasts, nice behind
9 Nice behind, nice breasts
10 Oh, hell yeah!
Femininity (facial features and physical proportions)
3 Masculine
5 More masculine than feminine
7 More feminine than masculine
10 Feminine
Novelty
3 Plain Jane
5 Girl Next Door
9 Take a Second Glance
10 Stop and Stare
Hair Color (light-colored hair is a detriment because they look awful without makeup)
3 Albino-blond
4 Red
6 Honey Blond
7 Light Brunette / Dirty Blond
8 Black
10 Dark Brunette
Facial Symmetry
3 Assymmetrical
5 Normal
7 Nicely-proportioned
10 Nearly perfect
Smile
1 I never smile so that I don’t frighten people
3 I have slightly crooked teeth
6 I have a pleasant smile and nice teeth
8 I have a cheerful, attractive smile and nice teeth
10 I am complimented regularly on my beautiful smile
Height
3 Under 5’1”
5 5’3” to 5’1”
10 5’4” to 5’8”
5 5’8” to 5’10”
3 Over 5’10”
Skin
2 Severe acne or scarring
4 Dry and starting to wrinkle
5 Minor acne and slightly oily
7 Flawless but dry (ages fast)
8 I break out a bit when I have PMS
10 Flawless with a slight glow
Appearance
1 I look like a homeless person
3 I wear velour jogging suits to the mall
5 Slunge: half slut, half grunge
6 I shop at the GAP. I sometimes wear mascara and lipgloss.
8 I dress stylishly but a bit slutty. Too much makeup.
10 I dress stylishly and conservatively. Minimal makeup.
According to his scale, I’d be an 8 and Jennifer Aniston would be a 6. So, it sounds about right for him.
What do you think?
There’s nothing wrong with Paris or Jennifer. All men have different tastes, doesn’t make them closet anything. I think there are models who look uberfeminine and are thin. Eva from ANTM is one.
The quiz is cute and is your husband’s perception of beauty. I’m sure each man would have a different result.
Attraction is soo varied. Some men love a skinny, grundgy girl, some want plump and some men go insane for the thin, cute, girl next door.
According to this quiz, I rate 9.2. I can now declare myself a goddess. lol Totally joking.
“Oh, and I wish hot black women would approach me in cafes. I need to move out of the snowstorm that is San Diego.”
Why don’t you approach one in a cafe? She won’t bite, I promise.lol
There’s nothing WRONG with Paris or Jennifer but they’re not really “something to write home about” are they? From the circus surrounding them you’d think they were hotness personified. Whereas if you just saw them on the street you’d say, “Oh, she’s cute.” and keep walking. If you noticed them at all. That’s what’s so baffling to him. All the hype. But you see that he’s not exactly partial to blonds.
Yeah, each guy would have a different scale. That’s what I find so stupid about the whole “scale” thing. Sometimes my guy friends would go all crazy over some woman and declare her a “solid 9″ and then I’d see her and think “What?”
The quiz is cute and is your husband’s perception of beauty.
I think it’s basically the “I’m hot for Halle Berry” quiz. Or the “I dream about Beyonce and Kim Kardashian mudwrestling” quiz. LOL.
Unfortunately, I don’t look like that so I only get an 8.9. I need to get out of my “plumb and curvy” rut.
Did you really get a 9.2? Damn. You’re hot.
I think with Paris, it’s her face. I think she has a beautifully symmetrical face. Her body is a matter of preference, which I happen to think is great. But what do I know, I’m not a man.lol
8.9 is great! Since this was designed by your husband, obviously you meet the criteria.:)
Yeah, it was 9.2 but no, I’m not “hot”.lol More like the girl-next-door – Gabby Union meets Sanan Lathan. More wholesome, less hot. I think the two 10′s of dress conservative, minimal makeup and the smile put it over the edge.
“If you had to rate my appearance on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the best, what would I be?”
You trying to give that man a heart attack?!lol That’s the question every man dreads.
I’m like you – a sucker for quizzes. Facebook has some great ones, which a lot of times are frightenly true.lol
“I need to get out of my “plumb and curvy” rut.” I’m Sure that’s not true.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aceandvis/paris-hilton-001.jpg
Hmmm… I’m looking and I just don’t see it. And the poor thing has no behind at all. Well, to each his own.
You trying to give that man a heart attack?
I crack up every time I picture his facial expression.
More like the girl-next-door – Gabby Union meets Sanaa Latham. More wholesome, less hot.
Yeah, yeah. Right. Sorry to disappoint you but Union+Latham is pretty much the definition of “hot”. It’s like “hot squared”:
http://orvillelloyddouglas.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/gabrielle_union_002.jpg
http://abagond.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/sanaa03.jpg
I’m Sure that’s not true.
My score gets dragged down by the jet-black hair and plumpness. One more dress size down and I can at least check in as “thin hourglass” but my chest will never make it back to “Oh, hell yeah!” status. *sigh* What we don’t sacrifice for our children.
Need to keep up the treadmill activities.
I purposely left off BMI as I have a 32 BMI. I’ve gone from a size 16 and 180 lbs to a size 10 and 179 lbs. Yup. Just weighed myself last night. Don’t ask me how that is even possible. I could get it to 178 if I leaned WAAAAY back while standing on the scale. LOL. The last time I was a size 8 I weighed in at 176 lbs. I weigh a ton for some reason unbeknownst to me. BMI is a load of crap.
BMI is wrong if you’re muscular, and black women tend to be able to be heavier without getting fat. I bet Michelle Obama, for example, is over 160 pounds, even though she isn’t the least bit overweight.
On the other hand, I’m probably in the most muscular 15% of white men, and when I get to BMI 26-27 (191-198# on 6′) I am definitely overweight. So for me, it’s a good indicator.
Yeah, I read that somewhere. But it still doesn’t answer my mystery of being able to basically lose 1/2 a person and still be the same weight. *scratch head* It’s bizarre. Even being muscular couldn’t explain that, could it? I am pretty buff, though.
I calculated wrong. I’m 5’4″ (just call me Shorty) and weigh 179. That makes me a 30.7 BMI. Just squeezing in at obese. I’m just going to try not to think about that as it is too depressing.
BMI is wrong if you’re muscular, and black women tend to be able to be heavier without getting fat.
True.
“Just squeezing in at obese.”
Whatever!lol Is that a joke? What Cless said is true. I’m sure you carry it well.
No, that’s not a joke. BMI over 30 is obese. I have a WHR of 0.66 and a flat stomach. I’m pear-shaped, I suppose.
Whatever. I look good, I run 3 miles every morning, and my husband likes it. So who cares? Let me stop obsessing over my BMI and go cook dinner. Ciao.
Fitness is more important than weight from a health perspective. People who are actually fat but exercise (not to say you’re fat, because you don’t sound like you are) are healthier and less likely to die early than thin, out-of-shape, people.
Thanks. I’m over it, I really am. Really, I am. I am NOT going to obsess about my weight. At all. It’s irrelevant. Completely inconsequential. Really. Doesn’t bother me a bit…
Because I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and — gosh, darn it — people LIKE me.
LOL.
Hmmm… My score is too high. I’m thinking you’d have to double-weight some of the categories and then divide by 15. Hair color and clothes isn’t as important as figure, for example. (This is actually really fun! I’m like a list-junkie.)
Okay, new weighted quiz that gives me a more realistic 8.13:
Figure (frontal)
2 Obese
4 Overweight
6 Anorexic
8 Skinny
10 Plump
12 Skinny and Curvy
14 Plump and curvy
16 Thin and Pear-shaped
18 Thin Hourglass
20 Thin Super-hourglass
Figure (lateral) Note: breasts and behind are not judged based on size but should be high, full, and firm and proportional to her figure.
4 No behind, no breasts
6 No behind, nice breasts
10 No breasts, nice behind
18 Nice behind, nice breasts
20 Oh, hell yeah!
Femininity (facial features and physical proportions)
6 Masculine
10 More masculine than feminine
14 More feminine than masculine
20 Feminine
Novelty
3 Plain Jane
5 Girl Next Door
9 Take a Second Glance
10 Stop and Stare
Hair Color (light-colored hair is a detriment because they look awful without makeup)
3 Albino-blond
4 Red
6 Honey Blond
7 Light Brunette / Dirty Blond
8 Black
10 Dark Brunette
Facial Symmetry
6 Assymmetrical
10 Normal
14 Nicely-proportioned
20 Nearly perfect
Smile
2 I never smile so that I don’t frighten people
6 I have slightly crooked teeth
12 I have a pleasant smile and nice teeth
16 I have a cheerful, attractive smile and nice teeth
20 I am complimented regularly on my beautiful smile
Height
3 Under 5′1”
5 5′3” to 5′1”
10 5′4” to 5′8”
5 5′8” to 5′10”
3 Over 5′10”
Skin
2 Severe acne or scarring
4 Dry and starting to wrinkle
5 Minor acne and slightly oily
7 Flawless but dry (ages fast)
8 I break out a bit when I have PMS
10 Flawless with a slight glow
Appearance
1 I look like a homeless person
3 I wear velour jogging suits to the mall
5 Slunge: half slut, half grunge
6 I shop at the GAP. I sometimes wear mascara and lipgloss.
8 I dress stylishly but a bit slutty. Too much makeup.
10 I dress stylishly and conservatively. Minimal makeup.
I would say that I like:
Figure: Solidly average. Medium-sized breasts, fit, slightly more muscular than average.
Feminity: I actually like tomboys, but I tend to prefer the solid middle here– feminine, but not too much so.
Novelty: Girl next door is fine. Once I start falling for a girl, her face makes sparks fly out of my ass even if I see 50 others like it every day.
Hair color: on white girls, I like dirty-blonde hair. On Asians and blacks, I like the dark hair.
Facial symmetry: symmetrical, obviously.
Smile: should be pretty but not fake-looking. Out in California, you see teeth that look like something Steve Jobs made; iTeeth?
Height: 5’4 to 5’9, but 5’7 is probably ideal.
Skin: should be clear. I like medium-dark skin color, but that’s flexible.
Dress: minimal or no makeup. Tank top, jeans, sandals, and a pony tail. I like women who dress down. It’s the girl I’m interested in, not the things she’s wearing.
Hmm… That was interesting. My fingers are itching to come up with a quiz for “Cless’ type” but I’m going to pretend I’m not actually that anal-retentive and refrain.
The categories are good, though, aren’t they?
My style (and favorite store) looks like this:
http://www.anntaylorloft.com/catalog/category_outfit.jsp?N=1200024&pCategoryId=3359&categoryId=246&Ns=CATEGORY_SEQ_246&loc=TN
I wear jeans sometimes, like when I take the kids to the playground (what else fits to sneakers?). I actually look really good in jeans but I find them uncomfortable. In summer I’m usually in a sundress or skirt with heeled sandals. At home I’m sometimes chilling in capris and a tank top or yoga pants and a sweater. I don’t do shorts. Ever.
My husband has a thing for style. But he’s European.
His way of complaining about my clothes is to say, “Hmm. Interesting outfit. Are you going native now?”
It’s funny because friends or relatives sometimes come over and when they see us they say, “Wow. Where are you going looking so fine?” And I’m thinking: I just wore this to clean the bathroom. LOL.
LOL about iTeeth. I know what you mean, though. The Hollywood smile. When I said beautiful smile, I meant more like this:
http://lh3.ggpht.com/hydmastipics/SJlwp6hKX1I/AAAAAAAAXI8/7Xr4JCBtIbU/s800/182046image009.jpg
Hah. I got 6,8 at your scale – I suppose that really is quite realistic. I asked my friend (male!) to rate me and he gave me 6 1/2 – 7-. I suppose I could do little better had I not been fat in my teen years.
But I think it is not mere looks that count. It’s also your posture, how you act, how you carry yourself etc. In short, it’s your charm or charisma. Of course it doesn’t affect on your beauty scale but it doest affect on your scale of attractiveness. Even a slightly plain person can be very very attractive if she has charisma. Some people just glow and it is very attractive.
Oh, of course. But that sort of thing is difficult to quantify.
You should have seen my husband’s face yesterday when I popped the question, “If you had to rate my appearance on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the best, what would I be?” He just sat there like a deer in headlights. “There is absolutely no right way to answer that question. That’s like asking, ‘Do you think I’m fat?’”
It took a LOT of convincing to get an honest answer out of him. When he came out with an “8″ he was actually cringing. I was like, “An 8? Really? I thought more like a 7, what with my not being blond or skinny.” Then he exhaled, “No, no definitely an 8, not a 7.”
LOL.
I don’t even know what those numbers mean, because I think everyone has a different scale.
Roughly in my mind, a 7 is a woman as attractive (to the general population) as I am, a 6 is one who is slightly less but I could still date, and an 8 is someone more attractive than I am, but with whom I’d still be well-matched. 9 and 10 are people I probably wouldn’t want to date because we’d be an obviously mismatched couple.
However, this assumes I know what other people think, which I usually don’t. My own scale– the only one that actually matters– is still the discrete 0/1.
Cless:
I like your binary scale approach. If nothing else, it’s a handy way to avoid arguments.
[...] on, Cless Alvein introduces a mathematical way to calculate male attractiveness: Men can improve their situation dramatically by increasing their sociosexual confidence. It’s [...]
Cless:
this is really smart. i did my econ graduate project using logit/probit models like the one you’re suggesting. it makes sense.
if you don’t mind, i may use your post in a future post of mine.
[...] ratings seems to show a symmetric, bell-shaped curve. This is what we’d expect, and I posted on this matter in October. An average woman is sexually attractive to about 45% of men; an 85th-percentile woman [...]
Its sure to get those crushed velvet sheets.even more crushed!
Je trouve ca supers, merci pour ce tres bon post !
[...] on, Cless Alvein introduces a mathematical way to calculate male attractiveness: Men can improve their situation dramatically by increasing their sociosexual confidence. It’s [...]
I don’t think your scales are really accurate. True, women are choosy about sex, but men are probably choosier about commitment. There are a number of women that I’d slum it with, but only a few, based on physical appearance alone, would I want to hold out as my girlfriend.
Attraction from 0.0 to 1.0. Also, “the spark”. Alvanista is an interesting name for a blog, keep up the good work, thanks, from Nero Estrada