I editted my last post but you posted before me.

Thats just a silly way to interpret what I said, what it means is "Golden Rule" basically.

What my problem is how if certain people don't agree. Like a few of those above, they feel the need to call people stupid, shallow, etc

or hmm Dense as you decided would be your word of choice.

It's completely unnecessary and reeks of trying to be better than someone.

I can assure you, it's never long, unless I'm traveling or my internet connection is down. :thumbsup:

So, would you rather have this be your little "men's lounge," and have us "angry people" leave you alone to chuckle and elbow each other in the ribs about all those sad, ugly bitches?

Well, too bad. It's not a men's lounge, and I'm not going anywhere. :)

maybe we can take over the ladies lounge, turn it in the Forum for the Phallic.

and relegate the ladies lounge to Tilted Cooking until further notice? LOL

A reality is that most men have had a pity screw at some time in their life. How many women can say the same? How many women just feel like getting some and grab the first ugly guy at the bar because he looks easy?

Comon, people. This is radically simple stuff. Men are easier than women. Men don't have to worry about rape or anything, either. Frankly, our only real concern is an STD, and that only enters into some men's minds. If you want to be disgusted by that and think that we should be more evolved, then you have unrealistic expectations. And it's not that we're not nice people, either.

Excellent point.

I wish more guys would admit things like this, because these conversations happen daily between groups of dudes. If a dude has an ugly g/f that guys gonna get slammed by his buddies here and there. Unless he is a whiner and can't take a joke.

Then you grow up a bit more. I know some pretty ugly wives out there, but amazingly no ones buddy make fun of them in front of their husband.

If you really do have feelings for someone, its not being a whiner if you get upset about your 'friends' telling you how ugly she is. Its pretty juvenile to do so, right up their with 'your momma is so ugly...' jokes.

I concur whole-heartedly. Essentially, this is a thread discussing men's standards regarding the physical appearance of potential bedmates.

And Jazz, the difference between your theoretical "nose beans" thread and this one is that people don't actually put beans in there noses and wait for them to sprout, but the actions in the OP occur everyday... so I don't see any harm in discussing them. However, I will agree that the article in the OP did set a rather vulgar and crude tone, which is likely what upset people... not the actual topic.

quoted for truth (even if you did tell me to get my femaleness out of the raw food thread yesterday :p )

I don't usually hate on my friends who might have less than desirable significant others because of my previous post to the one you quoted: women who may appear physically undesirable may very well have other traits that more than make up for it. I know this because I've dated more than a few. Looks are great, sure, but if you're just out for looks in a relationship, you're missing out.

Speaking to the one night stand type of thing? Yeah, our standards are simply lower and we are able to feel more safe because men aren't victimized by sex in the same manner than women can. Our victimization is more often emotional whereas for women it's both emotional and physical.

Y'know what, Ustwo... you're alright. At least, for the time being. ;)

It's not a matter of growing up. Why is it necessary to imply that sort of thing? You honestly think this kind of thing doesn't happen?

I've had buddies with g/fs who were ugly, and I made fun of them here and there for it. You think they got all upset? No, they laughed because its a joke, and thats how guys joke alot of the time. Maybe you cant take the kind of joke, or the people you hang with can't, whatever, How in any way does that imply that people like that need to grow up?

I could switch it around and say you need to lighten up if you can't take it. Would that make me right? Not anymore than you telling someone else their sense of humor is wrong and they should grow up.

I'm pretty sure has been asked elsewhere in this thread, but what constitutes a nine or ten and/or ugly chick? Personally, I like to believe that my definition is a tad bit different then the public male consensus.

I think it's fairly obvious to the majority of men what kind of woman is 9 or 10.

The only people usually who are going to disagree with the normal aesthetic... uhh... well "rating" i guess are people who live in a specific 'niche' of taste. Otherwise, 1 woman who rates a 10 on one mans scale, will most definatly rate a 9.. or 10.. or 11, on the majority of mens scales.

oh really? I rate higher than a 10 on my hubbys "scale".....I seriously doubt the marjority of "men" would rate me as high. Its no different than women thinking Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise or whatever other flavor of the year is popular are the end all be and I personally cant find one attractive thing about them.

and as for your "majority" thats also subjective to....the majority of men I know cant stand skinny girls, while some other guy in this thread could belong to a "majority" that thinks skinny girls are the only way to go

The majority of men *you* know are most definatly not the majority of all men now are they. Why would I be talking about the men you know anyway?

This is going to get touchy, but you are looking at what I said in the wrong way. actually proves my point, just the opposite way though, someone who rates low on one mans, will most likely rate low on the majority of other mens as well. I of course make no judgement on scale in this situation, just explaining my point.

Subjective to what? Okay... Maybe the typical Hollywood stereotype, but a lot of men don't ascribe to such superficial values. Personally, I prefer larger women. The typical super-skinny, Hollywood super-model type doesn't do anything for me. Really. It's just like... "Meh... Please eat something" :D

...But I digress.

alot of men dont... most do, what is the point of argueing this?

There is a reason why the awesome majority of women in show business are skinny and petite. It's certainly not because more men prefer fatties.

I think when guys starting talking about rating women from 1-10 based on looks it is perfectly my right as a female with a pair of hands to type with to say they are being stupid. And no one can imply they are being shallow??

Yeah, whoa, let's be sure and spare the feelings of those who don't give a fuck about people's feelings.

I can't even believe we are having this conversation.

Precisely the point that I tried to make earlier. Every man has his own scale, and women will rank accordingly on it. My particular tastes may differ wildly from yours, or it may just as easily fall into synch. It's all arbitrary. What's important to me may mean diddly squat to you. And it goes a little deeper that just living in "a specific 'niche' of taste".

Perhaps. But, the thing is, there is no one single defining "scale". My scale is going to differ from the next guys scale. To operate under the "One Defining Scale", under which all women are judged? Now, that's stupid. But a scale does exist.

I don't think anyone is denying that these rating systems are shallow. After all, they are only referring to physical, skin-deep beauty... but you need to consider the context in which they were created. Men usually only refer to them in regards to short-term, sexually driven relationships. And when that type of relationship is their goal, factors such as personality, emotional stability, and intelligence take a back seat to visual attractiveness, willingness, and sexual performance.

However, I don't think any of us use them as the sole factor in considering a woman's potential for a long-term relationship. As Ustwo mentioned, as we grow older and mature out of that more machismo-driven phase of our lives, our goals change regarding what type of relationships we are seeking... and therefore our consideration levels of various womanly aspects (physical, emotional, and mental) change as well.

A scale exists in your mind, Bill. :)

To the thread in general:

I'll make this my last post on this thread. I've already unsubscribed so you guys can breathe easy now and go about your, eh, business or whatever the fuck this is. But...

To rate women by looks and then say, 'I'll only sleep with women that are at least a ___.' (Which, of course, presumes that your own appearance is irrelevant.)

And even worse, as purported by the OP 'Sleep with ugly girls because they probably give good blow jobs.'

These ideas are offensive to women. And any amount of whining about how sanctimonious I am for saying so is only whistling in the wind. Feel that way if you must, and rationalize to yourself that you're just being honest, but the truth is that you're wallowing in a depthless puddle of your own abject puerility. One day you're gonna stand up and decide to be a man. Well, one can only hope so anyway.

Keep on whistling...

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

An intelligent woman that can ski and rides her own motorcycle is an automatic "10" to me.

There's one hell of a lot of amazing people of both genders that won't make a 9 or 10 on anyone's beauty scale.

I think the large amount of research on human romantic relationships contradicts your position that preferences for romantic partners are arbitrary. Men across cultures tend to value the same traits in long-term and short-term mates. The same goes for women. The attractiveness of an individual may be sum of the assessments across these traits. Now, who you choose as a mate will always be a function of those shared preferences, the current mating pool, and what your level of attractiveness is (physical or otherwise). Individual differences do play a part, but there are patterns of preferences within each sex that are not arbitrary.

Arguing about "which is more attractive: blonde, brunette, or red-head?" or the like does seem to reflect arbitrary standards. Looking for physically healthy, particular age ranges, sanity, kindness, intelligence, waist-to-hip ratio, symmetry, etc. does not seem as arbitrary to me. I think that part of what may make people think preferences are arbitrary is that people are not considering the full range of available mates. They assume a level of sanity, kindness, physical attractiveness, intelligence, etc. and then argue about really specific traits.

Good point.

as if women don't rate men based on shallow criteria either? I know TFP women tend to be all holy and above this but women in general are not. Being tall, strong, or rich, preferably all of the above, will get you much more attention as a man. It's reality, life just sucks like that, blame evolution. But getting all emo about it doesn't solve anything.

He's right and we have a degree of proof right here.

Take a look at the titty board. What do you see 99% of the time? Young, thin, symmetrical, average faced (by measurements) females. If everyones tastes were all over, you would see the kind of pictures people are posting all over too, and they aren't. Now and then we get a very attractive, thin older woman, now and then.

Now you can find porn of all kinds out there of course, but its classified as fetish porn, it has far lower number target audience than mainstream porn.

The market caters to tastes not the other way around. Some standards are anything but arbitrary.

The different way to take it is, if I start a thread about what your favorite pokemon is, maybe I actually want to know, rather than have two real replies and thirty people saying 'pokemon are stupid, this thread sucks'.

I've slept with people I found interesting but not attractive. Does that count for the purpose of the thread?

you can't talk about things other find stupid or you are stupid duh omfg duhdonm

In a way. I'll admit I was glamorizing the topic by adding my own reasoning to it, but yes, sure.

If you want to know what society views as a 9 or 10, sort the titty board (all threads since the beginning) in descending order of either views or replies. Either way, the first couple pages will be what men have voted with their clicks and 'omg sooo hot' replies as being the gold standard for physical appearance.

If you want to find out in a Safe For Work manner, go to Hot or Not, and look at the top scorers.

My entire group of friends (married, single, guys, girls, work, social, club scene, otherwise, ranging from 18 to 30) acknowledges that there are three or four 1-10 scales. One for 'Real Life Hot', one for 'Work Hot', one for 'Media Hot' and one for Total Package (which evaluates job, personality, social standing, AND looks), for both guys and girls. We even go so far as to have achieved consensus about what most of our ratings are, and how many Total Package points away from yourself you should date. (2 points--I've heard several comedians do routines stating the same, so I know it's not just my friends) We joke about people's relationships failing because they tried to date outside their number.

If you think this doesn't happen, you are being willfully ignorant--there have been very successful internet sites (the aforementioned Hot or Not) based on finding out what your number is. Just the fact that 'a total 10' has meaning to every guy in every bar without needing to give it context means it exists. Let's not pretend like this thread is the only place in the world where this practice exists...this thread wasn't about 'hey, do you guys rate women?' it was something else entirely.


Sorry for the clusterfuck of replies, that's what I get for sleeping in and missing the action.

never said i agree with the thread/post/topic.

i don't see why you feel the need to attack me when i said nothing to you or about you.

mom told me don't act like one unless you wanted to be treated as one....

Wow... lots of name-calling and harsh words kicking around in this thread.

I find it funny that women would complain, given that women are just as superficial as men are- they're just superficial about different things. Both genders talk shit about people, both genders judge people, and both genders are looking out for what they like.

It's always funny that any physical attribute a woman likes in a man is acceptable, but anything a man likes in a woman is considered superficial. 95% of the time, such is the double standard. I think some people are fighting hard in this thread because they know there's a double standard in how women ogle men vs how men ogle women, and would rather the thread die out as being stupid.

I'm not saying this thread has a lot of merit, but man there's a lot of high emotion for what's essentially a double standard. I hear women complaining about the looks of guys they've slept with all the time. Women: you're not innocent of anything. Build a bridge and get over it.

hrm, I can probably dig up pictures all my exes, i'm pretty sure they're all hot.

may not agree with you about certain drugs... but I can definately agree with this.

The amateur threads are always good, but they don't always have the typical model looks. And I wish there were more high quality home images.

And I'm glad this thread is here, you don't have to like it, but this is real life and it shouldn't be censored. Although the title could be better.

Seriously, are some of you people trying to be obtuse here? It's not rocket science. Of course INDIVIDUALS have different scales but it isn't hard to tell what society as a whole thinks is a 9 or a 10 (although I really liked twistedmosaic's description of the four different scales, that was very accurate).

So what's the difference between "work hot" and "real life hot"? I'm picturing Steve Carell saying "Normally she'd only be a 6, but when you see her balance those ledgers, 7 and a half, easy."

We're not talking about romancing the "good ones", we're talking about "jumping on the grenade" here, guys.

Way to change the subject!

You certainly saved me some time by typing my exact thoughts.......