I’m familiar with two ways to rate a girl’s appearance: the binary scale and the 1-10 scale. The binary scale tells only says if a girl is bangable or not, but doesn’t describe the degree of bangability like the 1-10 scale, which my circle of man friends prefer using.
We calibrate the 1-10 scale by starting with 7, a rating that describes girl-next-door cuteness. She has no major flaws and is girlfriend material for 90% of guys. The problem with 7’s is one of relativity: while out with one you run into a handful of girls who are better looking than her. In most men this stirs thoughts of “Can I do better?”
An 8 is very cute. The relativity problem disappears but one of personality emerges instead. The hotter a girl is, the less she has had to work on her personality to be liked by others. Because her looks have been enough to get her what she’s wanted throughout her entire life, she does not have the training or desire to go the extra mile to please and engage you.
A 9 is what most men would describe as “hot.” Getting a 9 seems to be more luck and timing than skill because—besides celebrities—there is no man who consistently gets them. The personality problem you had with an 8 is multiplied with a 9 in logarithmic fashion.
The only difference between a 9 and 10 is makeup, clothing, lighting, or photoshop, so therefore 10’s do not exist naturally in the wild. Describing a girl as a 10, or dime piece, is unreasonable since you are admitting that the girl is perfect, something that no human is.
A 6 is a girl who is cute when she works at it, but her flaws are easier to notice. Still, it’s a respectable rating. Anything under a 6 means you need to drink alcohol to get aroused for sex, especially when you get into the “monster” range of 3 and below. Every man has banged a monster in his life, because men are unable to resist free, no investment sex.
Except me, of course. :paranoid: