[Ami5]

The girl on the right looks like a man!

[Bronze]

(05-24-2011 11:39 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

(05-24-2011 11:30 PM)SFTD Wrote:  

(05-24-2011 08:30 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

(05-24-2011 08:20 PM)Vesuvius Wrote:  

I guess I'm not a PUA. I'm a whore. I'd bang most of there girls, except that fat hootchie with the smoke. My dick has standards!

Yeah I would probably bang most of these girls when push came to shove, as long as I had to put in zero effort and there were no strings attached (being drunk would help too). I might be able to say no to some of the fatties since that's much more of a deal-breaker for me than a butterface. It's one thing to look at a girl and say you wouldn't hit it on an internet forum and quite another to imagine her naked in a bed telling you to come fuck her. In that situation do I walk away from most of these girls? I can't say I would.

By the way, here's what I consider a 5-6 (left). Yeah I hit it, but she made it really goddamn easy otherwise I wouldn't have put in the work.

How was her body? The clothes say there is something being hidden. If there is, 5, if not, I'd say 6.5.

Her body is fine, no issues there. For some reason her face looks better in that picture than it does in person though, trust me she's a 6 tops.

Here's a better picture. That's her boyfriend on the left

I would give this girl a 5 in the picture above, and a 4 in this picture. This good-looking guy is her boyfriend? I always feel pity for guys like him - good looks, probably no game, unattractive girlfriend.

A friend of mine used to work as a male model and is a solid 8-9 looks wise. His girlfriend is like this one, a 4-5.

[Tuthmosis]

(05-24-2011 08:30 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

It's one thing to look at a girl and say you wouldn't hit it on an internet forum and quite another to imagine her naked in a bed telling you to come fuck her. In that situation do I walk away from most of these girls? I can't say I would.

That's a powerful truth all of us are guilty of forgetting from time to time. Unless a girl is pretty nasty, it is hard to say no to a naked girl on your bed begging you to fuck her or, more realistically, a girl at a bar, near closing time, rubbing your chub through your jeans, commenting on its girth, and repeatedly asking you if "you live nearby." A scenario resembling that latter example happened to me a couple of months ago. The girl would probably be a good example of a 5 for this thread (mainly because of her unfortunate face; the body was quite reasonable). I didn't say no. (I also didn't say yes, per se.)

Also, the Internet has a tendency to "inflate" girl ratings. It's very easy to see hot ass online, so it distorts things. A girl you might give an unqualified 6, when you see her crossing the street in your neighborhood, gets a ungenerous 4 or 5 in a forum. I'm not pointing the finger. I've been guilty of doing it myself. This is why I try my hardest to be objective with my ratings, correcting for all of these factors as best I can.

(05-24-2011 08:30 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

By the way, here's what I consider a 5-6 (left). Yeah I hit it, but she made it really goddamn easy otherwise I wouldn't have put in the work.

See, I'd give that girl a 6. The face is definitely unimpressive, but the body appears serviceable. So, I wouldn't be that embarrassed if a bunch of guys from this forum, wearing name badges, suddenly walked into the Denny's where me and that girl were having breakfast the morning after pounding. I'd probably be like, "hey guys, this is Isabelle," with a flat tone in my voice and a lazy hand-gesture toward her. (For the record, I probably wouldn't have breakfast with her the next morning--and I would also have to likely be wearing a name badge--but you get the point.)

(05-25-2011 01:50 AM)Bronze Wrote:  

I would give this girl a 5 in the picture above, and a 4 in this picture. This good-looking guy is her boyfriend? I always feel pity for guys like him - good looks, probably no game, unattractive girlfriend.

I have the exact opposite reaction. I'm pleased to see guys that have been given massive privilege (in the form of looks, money, or status), and who would otherwise be formidable foes, self-neutralized. It's even more delicious when a decent-looking guy and a fatty cancel each other out. That's two fewer problems I have to think about in the bar.

I also love seeing this because it confirms for me--for like the millionth time--the power of game.

[Moma]

(05-24-2011 08:30 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

By the way, here's what I consider a 5-6 (left). Yeah I hit it, but she made it really goddamn easy otherwise I wouldn't have put in the work.

I'd bang that repeatedly. She's a 6 to me (on this particular day). She has that cute nerdy look.

[Luckystar]

(05-23-2011 06:48 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(05-23-2011 06:37 PM)Mrs. Chocolate Wrote:  

She is not that ugly, again, wrong haircut and a few extra pounds.

I'll go out on a limb and agree with Chocolatinha here. Not that I'd be hollering at her, but there's nothing tragically wrong with her face. It's just that her hair makes her look bad. If she grew long hair, trimmed the weight down a bit and had some idea how to look feminine, she could at least be brought up to average.

I hear what you are sayin, but we don't rate girls on potential. At least I don't. She has manly jawline (manly face for that matter), horrible big bird like haircut, and is fat. She is as she looks...And she's terrible....I'd say a 3.

[Luckystar]

(05-24-2011 06:43 PM)truedat Wrote:  



If this girl had a coach bag and a better hairstyle would she be a 5-6 or even a 7? Chocolate what do ya think?

Bro, this chick is a fatty. She's a 4. I would not hit this farm animal.

[Luckystar]

(05-24-2011 08:30 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

(05-24-2011 08:20 PM)Vesuvius Wrote:  

I guess I'm not a PUA. I'm a whore. I'd bang most of there girls, except that fat hootchie with the smoke. My dick has standards!

Yeah I would probably bang most of these girls when push came to shove, as long as I had to put in zero effort and there were no strings attached (being drunk would help too). I might be able to say no to some of the fatties since that's much more of a deal-breaker for me than a butterface. It's one thing to look at a girl and say you wouldn't hit it on an internet forum and quite another to imagine her naked in a bed telling you to come fuck her. In that situation do I walk away from most of these girls? I can't say I would.

By the way, here's what I consider a 5-6 (left). Yeah I hit it, but she made it really goddamn easy otherwise I wouldn't have put in the work.

Blue - 5.5

Orange - 3

[Moma]

(05-25-2011 01:48 PM)Luckystar Wrote:  

(05-24-2011 06:43 PM)truedat Wrote:  



If this girl had a coach bag and a better hairstyle would she be a 5-6 or even a 7? Chocolate what do ya think?

Bro, this chick is a fatty. She's a 4. I would not hit this farm animal.

I'd fcuk her. The face is decent plus she has 'somewhat' of a coca cola bottle shape body..

[speakeasy]

(05-24-2011 06:43 PM)truedat Wrote:  



If this girl had a coach bag and a better hairstyle would she be a 5-6 or even a 7? Chocolate what do ya think?

Fat chic litmus test: You can't see the crack of her pussy from the front angle.

[Bronze]

(05-25-2011 02:43 PM)Moma Wrote:  

(05-25-2011 01:48 PM)Luckystar Wrote:  

(05-24-2011 06:43 PM)truedat Wrote:  



If this girl had a coach bag and a better hairstyle would she be a 5-6 or even a 7? Chocolate what do ya think?

Bro, this chick is a fatty. She's a 4. I would not hit this farm animal.

I'd fcuk her. The face is decent plus she has 'somewhat' of a coca cola bottle shape body..

This is not a 5. She's a -5.

[Chad Daring]

I was thinking about all this and I think the difference between "rating" and "bangability" needs to be defined.

Rating is not only personal, IE one mans 9 is another mans 6, but its also somewhat pointless. We've all banged girls we didnt necessarily find that attractive.

Rating is 1 - 10

Bangability is 1 - 2 , 1 for yes, 2 for no.

Just because someone rates a girl a 6, and you think she's an 8, doesn't mean that same guy wouldn't rate her a 1 on the bangability scale.

[Luckystar]

(05-25-2011 06:58 PM)Chad Daring Wrote:  

I was thinking about all this and I think the difference between "rating" and "bangability" needs to be defined.

Rating is not only personal, IE one mans 9 is another mans 6, but its also somewhat pointless. We've all banged girls we didnt necessarily find that attractive.

Rating is 1 - 10

Bangability is 1 - 2 , 1 for yes, 2 for no.

Just because someone rates a girl a 6, and you think she's an 8, doesn't mean that same guy wouldn't rate her a 1 on the bangability scale.

Bangability is built into a rating, so it's easy for me conceptually. A 5 means you would hit it, if you are hard up. Above 5 is discretionary and means you would hit it with a progressively clearer mind.

I think it becomes difficult for those who just want to get their rocks off, and will through it in almost anything (note - this is the vast majority of guys). These guys have a rating system, but do not implement it. No discipline.

Collectively, selfish, undisciplined men send a forgiving, even empowering message to women which inflates their value.

[Tuthmosis]

(05-25-2011 06:58 PM)Chad Daring Wrote:  

Bangability is 1 - 2 , 1 for yes, 2 for no.

(05-25-2011 09:42 PM)Luckystar Wrote:  

Bangability is built into a rating, so it's easy for me conceptually. A 5 means you would hit it, if you are hard up. Above 5 is discretionary and means you would hit it with a progressively clearer mind.

Yes, plus bangability is a matter of circumstance and context. A binary system simply doesn't account for nuanced situations like a brutal dry spell, closing time at the bar, or a hate-fuck opportunity. Not only that, when you oversimplify bangability to a yes/no question, you eliminate all colors of intensity. You would bang a 5, but not work nearly as hard as you would for a 7.

To put a dime piece and a 5 in the same camp--"fuckable"--is simply obscene to me. That's like calling a car "drivable."

There's a massive spectrum between the two bookends.

       

[Luckystar]

(05-26-2011 03:15 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(05-25-2011 06:58 PM)Chad Daring Wrote:  

Bangability is 1 - 2 , 1 for yes, 2 for no.

(05-25-2011 09:42 PM)Luckystar Wrote:  

Bangability is built into a rating, so it's easy for me conceptually. A 5 means you would hit it, if you are hard up. Above 5 is discretionary and means you would hit it with a progressively clearer mind.

Yes, plus bangability is a matter of circumstance and context. A binary system simply doesn't account for nuanced situations like a brutal dry spell, closing time at the bar, or a hate-fuck opportunity. Not only that, when you oversimplify bangability to a yes/no question, you eliminate all colors of intensity. You would bang a 5, but not work nearly as hard as you would for a 7.

To put a dime piece and a 5 in the same camp--"fuckable"--is simply obscene to me. That's like calling a car "drivable."

There's a massive spectrum between the two bookends.

Well said, Tuth. And nice pics. Both well above 5s to me.

[SFTD]

(05-25-2011 06:32 PM)Bronze Wrote:  

(05-25-2011 02:43 PM)Moma Wrote:  

(05-25-2011 01:48 PM)Luckystar Wrote:  

(05-24-2011 06:43 PM)truedat Wrote:  



If this girl had a coach bag and a better hairstyle would she be a 5-6 or even a 7? Chocolate what do ya think?

Bro, this chick is a fatty. She's a 4. I would not hit this farm animal.

I'd fcuk her. The face is decent plus she has 'somewhat' of a coca cola bottle shape body..

This is not a 5. She's a -5.

Who takes naked photos of themselves with a beanie? Nothing special about her at all to get past 4.

[Urban Renaissance Man]

(05-16-2011 09:09 PM)kickboxer Wrote:  

In order from left to right



6, translucent beast, 5

I would give the red head the 6 maybe even 6.5 and the blonde the 5. Obviously, the girl in the middle is there for comic relief.

[Urban Renaissance Man]

(05-17-2011 01:24 AM)bars Wrote:  

So, how do you classify this pair?

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-a...1393_n.jpg

I'd give the girl in the white, based on what I can see, a 7. The other is a 5 to 5.5 at best.

[Urban Renaissance Man]

(05-17-2011 06:52 PM)Amour Fou Wrote:  

What about these:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_6g5yk...G_1206.JPG

The blonde is a 7 to maybe even a 7.5. She's a cutie. The one standing net to her with the wrist watch is about 5.5 to 6. Maybe even 6.5 with make up and nice dress. The other 2 could go bear hunting with a switch!

[Gmac]

(05-24-2011 06:43 PM)truedat Wrote:  



If this girl had a coach bag and a better hairstyle would she be a 5-6 or even a 7? Chocolate what do ya think?

BRAH I wouldn't touch that shit with a 99 foot pole. Hope you're jokin' that chick's a 3 or 4.

[Urban Renaissance Man]

(05-18-2011 12:09 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

Here are some girls of OKCupid I think I could bang:

no question







These are just a few that showed up first, but I think these would be in the bang-without-too-much-alcohol level (depending, of course, on the personality)

That first one is approaching 8, in my opinion! The second one is an easy 7.

[Rebel]

Is this a 5? The chick named Veronica.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oKx8vETOI4

[Tuthmosis]

(05-28-2011 09:14 PM)Urban Renaissance Man Wrote:  

(05-18-2011 12:09 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

Here are some girls of OKCupid I think I could bang:

That first one is approaching 8, in my opinion! The second one is an easy 7.

@Kerouac created quite the controversy by uploading his girls as mere "bangables" (though he never explicitly called them 5s). I'd agree with the guys asserting that that top one is a 7.5 or 8, since that little body of hers is likely banging.

[Tuthmosis]

Let's push the envelope a little bit. Are some of these good enough to be 6s?

       
       

[SFTD]

(06-01-2011 02:30 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Let's push the envelope a little bit. Are some of these good enough to be 6s?

Top left, 4. That jaw and nose freaks me out.
Top right, 6.5. Something about her face makes me think Hebrew.
Bottom right, 6.5. Looks like she's DTF, but I swear she's hiding something.
Bottom left, 5. I bet she's in her 20s but that picture makes me think 30s.

[Bronze]

(06-01-2011 02:30 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Let's push the envelope a little bit. Are some of these good enough to be 6s?

From up to down: 5, 5.5 (close to fuckable, maybe with alcohol...), 3, 4.

The first woman is actually quite good-looking, only her chin works as a deal breaker.

If the second women would go to a surgeon and get a nose job and a lip job, she could climb from 5.5 to 7-8. She has beautiful eyes.

Woman no. 3 is a fatty.

The forth woman SEEMS to have unattractive facial features, however, this could at least partially be due to the shitty quality of the picture.