Forum
»
strong 9.5/10 actress you probably never heard of
- Results 1 to 11 of 11
-
Page 1 of 1
01-28-2024, 09:23 AM
-
#1
01-28-2024, 09:28 AM
-
#2
01-28-2024, 09:29 AM
-
#3
- BrooksKoepka
- Join Date: May 2021
- Posts: 37,962
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
But Katy mogs her and she’s a 6/10
01-28-2024, 09:37 AM
-
#4
- TappingTheZen
- Everettian
-
- TappingTheZen
- Everettian
- Join Date: Jan 2014
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 12,774
- Rep Power: 173816
-
-
She's hot
Strong 9.5 tho? lol, more like a 7.5
She looks much better in the gif than the other pictures
Strong 9.5 tho? lol, more like a 7.5
She looks much better in the gif than the other pictures
01-28-2024, 09:39 AM
-
#5
01-28-2024, 09:41 AM
-
#6
- XcelerateNYC
- Registered User
-
- XcelerateNYC
- Registered User
- Join Date: Oct 2015
- Age: 35
- Posts: 3,388
- Rep Power: 71577
-
-
Originally Posted By TappingTheZen⏩
I never understand people's rating systems. 7.5 going by what standard? Hollywood actresses? If so, even by that standard you are underrating her.She's hot
Strong 9.5 tho? lol, more like a 7.5
Strong 9.5 tho? lol, more like a 7.5
The way I use the rating system is going by the general public. Take 1000 random sloots and how many of them are hotter than this girl? Maybe 10? 20?
By that logic she's a 9.8
Am I wrong?
Isaiah 45:22-23. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
Catholicism debunked
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=179267571
Pure blood
01-28-2024, 09:43 AM
-
#7
- BrooksKoepka
- Join Date: May 2021
- Posts: 37,962
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
Originally Posted By XcelerateNYC⏩
Normal distributionI never understand people's rating systems. 7.5 going by what standard? Hollywood actresses? If so, even by that standard you are underrating her.
The way I use the rating system is going by the general public. Take 1000 random sloots and how many of them are hotter than this girl? Maybe 10? 20?
By that logic she's a 9.8
Am I wrong?
The way I use the rating system is going by the general public. Take 1000 random sloots and how many of them are hotter than this girl? Maybe 10? 20?
By that logic she's a 9.8
Am I wrong?
01-28-2024, 09:43 AM
-
#8
- OffwhiteBrah
- Join Date: Apr 2015
- Location: Florida, United States
- Posts: 50,218
- Rep Power: 545472
-
-
never heard of her but she look mad good
01-28-2024, 09:54 AM
-
#9
- TappingTheZen
- Everettian
-
- TappingTheZen
- Everettian
- Join Date: Jan 2014
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 12,774
- Rep Power: 173816
-
-
Originally Posted By XcelerateNYC⏩
Nobody ranks like that though, otherwise every girl who isn't overweight or hideously ugly would basically be a 7, since we have an unhealthy, fat population. It also means that rating would have to be tied to time, because the standard distribution of all people change. This would mean we could not compare a 7 now, to a 7 in say 1980, if we ranked according to standard distribution because the standard becomes the 'backdrop' of other people, which is dynamic not static.I never understand people's rating systems. 7.5 going by what standard? Hollywood actresses? If so, even by that standard you are underrating her.
The way I use the rating system is going by the general public. Take 1000 random sloots and how many of them are hotter than this girl? Maybe 10? 20?
By that logic she's a 9.8
Am I wrong?
The way I use the rating system is going by the general public. Take 1000 random sloots and how many of them are hotter than this girl? Maybe 10? 20?
By that logic she's a 9.8
Am I wrong?
Ultimately it's subjective, but i'll say how i rate, essentially someone who is pretty hot but not absoloutly exceptional i rate a 7. To me, this woman is hot, but there's still at least a couple of tiers of women above her, who if you put them in a room with her would absoloutly mog her, this is why i rate her a 7.5, but she could never be a 9 or in that territory from my perspective.
If we start ranking by normal distribution, then i would not find a 7.5 attractive, because if i go and look at the general public, i find less than 25% of women attractive, and i think the same is likely true of a lot of miscers. Yet most people seem to see 7.5 as quite attractive, so clearly most peopleare notrating against a 'standard distribution'. For me, rating someone between a 7 and 8 probably actually puts them into the top 5% of all women, but probably only in the top 30% or so of women i actually find attractive. So again, if people really rated according to a standard distribution, they would probably only find 9+'s hot, but clearly that's not the case.
Also, while she looks good in the gif and in a couple of pics, she looks pretty bad in a couple of them to me. (the curly hairstyle doesnt work for me)
Again, i think you're looking far too deeply into something that will never be nailed down and has a largely subjective element.. but regardless hopefully my answer helps clear up your confusion regarding my personal rating, but no i do not rank according to the standard distribution because of the problems outlined above, and considering most men would claim a 7 is attractive, yet most men probably find significantly less than 30% of all women attractive, i'd argue almost nobody actually ranks according to a standard distribution.
01-28-2024, 10:03 AM
-
#10
- XcelerateNYC
- Registered User
-
- XcelerateNYC
- Registered User
- Join Date: Oct 2015
- Age: 35
- Posts: 3,388
- Rep Power: 71577
-
-
Originally Posted By TappingTheZen⏩
I'll agree with you that most people rank the way you do, and I'm ab outlier. But I think my way is more realistic because it includes everyone. If you have a wife that is in the top 85% of looks compared the the general population then you're going to mogg the vast majority of your male counterparts.Nobody ranks like that though, otherwise every girl who isn't overweight or hideously ugly would basically be a 7, since we have an unhealthy, fat population. It also means that rating would have to be tied to time, because the standard distribution of all people change. This would mean we could not compare a 7 now, to a 7 in say 1980, if we ranked according to standard distribution because the standard becomes the 'backdrop' of other people, which is dynamic not static.
Ultimately it's subjective, but i'll say how i rate, essentially someone who is pretty hot but not absoloutly exceptional i rate a 7. To me, this woman is hot, but there's still at least a couple of tiers of women above her, who if you put them in a room with her would absoloutly mog her, this is why i rate her a 7.5, but she could never be a 9 or in that territory from my perspective.
If we start ranking by normal distribution, then i would not find a 7.5 attractive, because if i go and look at the general public, i find less than 25% of women attractive, and i think the same is likely true of a lot of miscers. Yet most people seem to see 7.5 as quite attractive, so clearly most peopleare notrating against a 'standard distribution'. For me, rating someone between a 7 and 8 probably actually puts them into the top 5% of all women, but probably only in the top 30% or so of women i actually find attractive. So again, if people really rated according to a standard distribution, they would probably only find 9+'s hot, but clearly that's not the case.
Also, while she looks good in the gif and in a couple of pics, she looks pretty bad in a couple of them to me.
Again, i think you're looking far too deeply into something that will never be nailed down and has a largely subjective element.. but regardless hopefully my answer helps clear up your confusion regarding my personal rating, but no i do not rank according to the standard distribution because of the problems outlined above, and considering most men would claim a 7 is attractive, yet most men probably find significantly less than 30% of all women attractive, i'd argue almost nobody actually ranks according to a standard distribution.
Ultimately it's subjective, but i'll say how i rate, essentially someone who is pretty hot but not absoloutly exceptional i rate a 7. To me, this woman is hot, but there's still at least a couple of tiers of women above her, who if you put them in a room with her would absoloutly mog her, this is why i rate her a 7.5, but she could never be a 9 or in that territory from my perspective.
If we start ranking by normal distribution, then i would not find a 7.5 attractive, because if i go and look at the general public, i find less than 25% of women attractive, and i think the same is likely true of a lot of miscers. Yet most people seem to see 7.5 as quite attractive, so clearly most peopleare notrating against a 'standard distribution'. For me, rating someone between a 7 and 8 probably actually puts them into the top 5% of all women, but probably only in the top 30% or so of women i actually find attractive. So again, if people really rated according to a standard distribution, they would probably only find 9+'s hot, but clearly that's not the case.
Also, while she looks good in the gif and in a couple of pics, she looks pretty bad in a couple of them to me.
Again, i think you're looking far too deeply into something that will never be nailed down and has a largely subjective element.. but regardless hopefully my answer helps clear up your confusion regarding my personal rating, but no i do not rank according to the standard distribution because of the problems outlined above, and considering most men would claim a 7 is attractive, yet most men probably find significantly less than 30% of all women attractive, i'd argue almost nobody actually ranks according to a standard distribution.
Not a big deal but I just thot I'd bring that up because I never hear anyone talking about it.
Isaiah 45:22-23. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
Catholicism debunked
https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=179267571
Pure blood
Bookmarks
-
- Digg
-
- del.icio.us
-

- StumbleUpon
-
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts






