Dealing with beautiful women and our rating scale.

[mahon83050]

http://www.sosuave.com/articles/perfect.htm


While this article makes some good points and is helpful, I don't think it is completely accurate. While most people have there preference for height, hair color, hair texture etc, maxillofacial and cosmetic surgeons do say there is a universal standard for beauty and it is called "FACIAL BALANCE". Facial balance is a perfectly symmetrical face


For example, we can divide an aesthetically pleasing face into 3 vertical and 5 horizontal equal proportions

I do not care who you are, but 95% of men would agree that women like Catherine Zeta Jone, Natalie Portman, Monical Belucci and others are beautiful and ALL would NOT get anything less than a 9 by ALL MEN.

Most men would not find a woman with a double chin, wide face, gummy smile or large/bulbous nose more attractive than a woman whose faces adhere to the 3X5 rule above.

While I do understand that men (including myself) might rate a woman who does not a "perfectly balanced" very high on the scale do to a "certain look" that she has, I am not sure if this article is true or believable.

E.G. I was in Atlantic City last week and this Russian girl was working behind the counter of an Ice Cream shop. This girl was blonde/blue eyes, nice body, clear white flawless skin, with nice teeth, perfect cookie cutter nose and her upper and lower jaws matched perfectly. I guarantee ANY/EVERY male who saw her would rate her a 9 or 10, nothing less!!

 

[~attrACTION~]

This thread is counterproductive. What really is your point?

For example, we can divide an aesthetically pleasing face into 3 vertical and 5 horizontal equal proportions

You really are making things more complicated than they need to be.

I do not care who you are, but 95% of men would agree that women like Catherine Zeta Jone, Natalie Portman, Monical Belucci and others are beautiful and ALL would NOT get anything less than a 9 by ALL MEN.

Well, guess I am in the 5%. I don't find Cathrine Zeta Jones or Natalie Portman very attractive. Zeta reminds me of my mom, and Natalie Portman looks like a man.

Most men would not find a woman with a double chin, wide face, gummy smile or large/bulbous nose more attractive than a woman whose faces adhere to the 3X5 rule above.

Not necessarily.

For example, this woman has a somewhat large nose, and somewhat of a chin: http://www.vg.no/bilder/edrum/1145423181495_935.jpg, but I find her a lot more attractive than those women you mentioned.

E.G. I was in Atlantic City last week and this Russian girl was working behind the counter of an Ice Cream shop. This girl was blonde/blue eyes, nice body, clear white flawless skin, with nice teeth, perfect cookie cutter nose and her upper and lower jaws matched perfectly. I guarantee ANY/EVERY male who saw her would rate her a 9 or 10, nothing less!!

So what? Did you approach her? What's the point of talking about it, really?

There is no such thing as a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10. Do you like Mercedes Benz cars? Well I actually don't. I don't think they are nice-looking like most people. I prefer BMW any day. It's called subjectivity. Same thing applies to women believe it or not, and just about any thing that is supposed to have visual appeal. That's why we don't all live in the same color houses. That's why people wear different clothes. That's why eat different foods, live in different places, work at different jobs. Stop thinking everyone thinks exactly the same.

Stop the rating crap. Your opinion is totally different from my opinion. I personally don't like blondes in general. That woman may have been "symmetric" or whatever, but symmetry doesn't turn me on. I like a woman with sex appeal, and a nice thick ass. We all have preferrences.

By the way, the main article was great. Maybe you should read it again.

edit: The fact that you remember some chick from LAST WEEK in such detail to re-describe her to everyone here (even though you took no action to talk to her), is plain wrong. You are so stuck on physical beauty it's stopping you from taking action.

Look, behind that pretty face/ass she is nothing. She has nothing on you. She's working at an Ice Cream shop, meaning she is going NOWHERE in life. You have a decent job? Well then you are automatically a notch above her. Looks are just the top layer.

Don't you remember to never judge a book by it's cover?

 

[Call_Me_Daddy]

I don't think it is completely accurate.

No sh*t. Welcome to reality. Lots of things are useless and complete bullsh*t.

For example, we can divide an aesthetically pleasing face into 3 vertical and 5 horizontal equal proportions

So now I'm supposed to think about this crap?

First there is the scale from 0.000 to 9.999 (there is no 10.000). Now there's this bullsh*t.

Can't you geeks just take a freaking break? What ever happened to "she's hot", "she's okay" and "run! ruuun!".

Beauty is not a number. Its in the eye of the beholder. There is no scale and no measurement however much you tools want to find one.

I do not care who you are, but 95% of men would agree that women like Catherine Zeta Jone, Natalie Portman, Monical Belucci and others are beautiful and ALL would NOT get anything less than a 9 by ALL MEN.

Too bad they don't exactly fit in with the whole algorithm for beauty.

While I do understand that men (including myself) might rate a woman who does not a "perfectly balanced" very high on the scale do to a "certain look" that she has, I am not sure if this article is true or believable.

You mean its a complete fabrication. Yes. I agree.

I guarantee ANY/EVERY male who saw her would rate her a 9 or 10, nothing less!!

Depends. Some guys like anorexic chicks, some guys like women with a little meat on them. And some guys just like porkers, which is really messed up.

But like I said, there is NO FVCKING FORMULA. You may tink there is, but its an illusion. Your mind creates that so you can make decisions better. You're an analytical type and you need to measure everything and think in numbers.

You nerd.

 

[Call_Me_Daddy]

There is no such thing as a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10. Do you like Mercedes Benz cars? Well I actually don't. I don't think they are nice-looking like most people. I prefer BMW any day. It's called subjectivity.

I rate the Benz Corporation to be about a 8.312 +/- 0.210 and the BMW to be a paltry 7.998 +/- 0.340.


But those are my numerical ratings. Why do you not also posses them?

Surely your subjectivity of the manufacturers must have an absolute scalar measurement with bounds (0.000 to 9.999 being most common).

 

[Phyzzle]

I don't find Cathrine Zeta Jones or Natalie Portman very attractive. Zeta reminds me of my mom, and Natalie Portman looks like a man.

You guys are hilarious.

I swear, if I posted a picture of Angelina Jolie on this board, saying she was my girlfriend, everyone would say "she'd be a 7 without those fata$$ lips. I give her a 6, tops."

Look at any thread ever made about "is this chick hot"? The answer is always "she's a 7, maybe." I guess all of you live in LA and eastern Europe, and are swarmed with beautiful chicks, I duuno.

 

[~attrACTION~]

I guess all of you live in LA and eastern Europe, and are swarmed with beautiful chicks, I duuno.

Good guess. I live about 5 minutes from the beach in California.

I see a fat person maybe once a week.

I rate the Benz Corporation to be about a 8.312 +/- 0.210 and the BMW to be a paltry 7.998 +/- 0.340.


But those are my numerical ratings. Why do you not also posses them?

Surely your subjectivity of the manufacturers must have an absolute scalar measurement with bounds (0.000 to 9.999 being most common).

Yeah, well for me, BMW is about 8.742 and Mercedes is around 8.231, overall. The front lights on the Benz are more symmetrically divided than the ones on the new BMWs, Mercedes loses about .4 points for that. Haha.

 

[Call_Me_Daddy]

You guys are hilarious.

What's hillarious?

That there are those of us that don't say "Gee GOLY she's a 9.018!". "Gee WHIZ! That means she's att-RACTIVE!"