I have spoken before about the four-level scale I use for physical female attractiveness, but I’ve never fully described it or explained it. In this article I will do so as well as explain why I use this scale rather than the usual and highly inaccurate 1 to 10 scale.
Before I get started, I need to be clear that this four-level scale only rates physical attractiveness. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything else. It has absolutely nothing to do with her personality, age, intelligence, education, style of dress, hygiene, culture, socio-economic level, amount of drama she has in typical relationships, and so on. We’re purely talking about how hot (or not) she is, that’s all. I will publish a future article about a separate scale that I sometimes use to rank non-physical traits, but that’s not the topic for today.
Why The 1 to 10 Scale Doesn’t Work
The reason I try to avoid using the 1 to 10 hotness scale most used by other men (“She’s a seven,” “She’s a perfect 10,” and so on) is because of the reasons and data I describe here. The summary is that there is absolutely no consensus whatsoever among men when you point at a woman and ask them to assign a 1 to 10 number to her attractiveness. Some guys will say she’s a seven, others an eight, others a nine, some even a 10 or a six. You see these arguments all the time in guy forums all over the internet when discussing pictures of women. The arguments you see regarding this stuff often gets extreme.
What a man can do is give you an accurate 1 to 10 assignment for what he thinks that woman is. Joe looks at a picture of a hot girl on the internet and declares to the world that she’s an 8.5. That’s a very accurate ranking for him. His friend Larry looks at the exact same photo, even using the exact same screen, says Joe’s insane and that she’s really a seven. That’s 100% accurate for Larry.
This is why doctors ask you to rank your pain from 1 to 10. It works well and is usually an accurate gauge. But that’s just it; the doctor is asking you to rank your pain. If the doctor asks you to rank the pain of the guy in the hospital bed across from you your answer isn’t going to be accurate at all. That’s exactly what you’re doing when you point at a girl and declare her 1 to 10 attractiveness ranking. It only works for you and is not likely to apply to lots of other men. This is why men who declare women as “objective 10s” are completely full of shit. There is no such thing. (I talk about that here.)
Nerds often respond with stuff about facial symmetry and hip to waist ratio. Yes, women with those ideal ratios tend to be hotter to most men; that’s a scientific fact. The problem is that you could post pictures of several women with perfect facial symmetry and ideal hip-to-waist/hip-to-bust ratios, ask men to rank them from 1 to 10 and you will still get no consensus on the exact numbers. You will get consensus that all the women are attractive and that’s an important point I’ll get to in a minute.
Therefore, while the 1 to 10 attractiveness scale is a good way for you to measure what you think of women, it’s nearly useless when trying to describe how hot a woman is to both you and most other men. For that, we need a different system.
The Four-Level Hotness Scale
I use a different system that is far more likely to produce consensus over a broad spectrum of men, which is very unlike the 1 to 10 system.
Instead of a 1 to 10 scale, I use a very simple four-level scale that is much broader. It is simply this:
This looks overly simple, but that’s exactly why it works. If I posted a picture of a random girl right now and asked all of you to assign her a number from 1 to 10, we would get very little consensus. However, if I just asked you all if she was ugly, average, cute, or hot, we’d get massive consensus. Sure, there would still be a little disagreement, but it wouldn’t be nearly the segmentation achieved with the 1 to 10 scale.
If a woman is ugly, most men are going to identify her as such. The same if a woman is average and mostly the same if she is cute. If a woman is hot, you’ll still get most guys indentifying her as such, but you’ll start to get a few dissenters who will identify her as cute. That’s the worst disagreement you’ll get under this four-level scale; a few guys saying a hot girl is cute.
It’s true that a few women ride the line between average and cute and you’d get some disagreement there, but these women are somewhat rare. Again, most men will distinguish between (and agree with each other regarding) a woman who is average and who is cute.
The four-level scale is more objective. The 1 to 10 scale is far more subjective. No, the four-level scale isn’t 100% objective or perfect, but it’s much better at getting a basic consensus than the 1 to 10 scale.
Look at these two statements:
A. “I fucked an eight last night.”
B. “I fucked a cute girl last night.”
If someone makes statement A, most guys react with immediate suspicion. Is she really an eight? Well, what do you consider an eight? And so, the stupid argument ensues.
If someone makes statement B, there’s an immediate understanding and acceptance. There is unlikely to be any argument, discussion, or suspicion since most guys both understand and agree upon what “cute” means.
See the difference?
It’s even true if we drop the hotness drastically. Look at these two statements:
C. “I fucked a five last night.
D. “I fucked an average-looking girl last night.”
Again, statement D makes much more sense to you than statement C ever will.
It is somewhat unlikely that a man would not have sex with a woman another man identifies as cute or hot. The exception to this would be those very few men who are extremely picky. Despite the fact that sometimes you hear from these men in the comments on this blog, those men are extremely rare. In fact, the opposite is true; as I’ve said and demonstrated many times on this blog, men will fuck just about anything.
The four-level scale even accounts for the different “types” of women. As I empirically show here, men find various female body types as most attractive (skinny, curvy, hourglass, athletic, etc) even though most men clearly prefer the hourglass/curvy type.
Yet, if you think the athletic body type is ideal and I think the curvy type is ideal (which I do), I would probably have sex with a woman you think is hot with an athletic body type. She won’t be my favorite, but I’ll probably admit she’s hot rather than cute. The reverse is also true with a curvy woman I say is hot; you’d probably agree with me even if you prefer athletic girls (unless, again, if you were one of those rare super picky guys).
Since I know this topic will be brought up in the comments, I need to address the issue of rankings inside each level like a woman who is on the “high end of cute” or the “low end of hot.”
If you start doing that, you are basically reverting back to the 1 to 10 scale and now we’ll have no consensus again. I could map out a visual scale of four colored blocks of ugly, average, cute, and hot then put a separate scale within each block. But if I did that, I might as well just use the 1 to 10 scale since that’s exactly what it would be.
We’ll get a lot of consensus on whether or not a woman is in the “cute” category, but if we start talking about exactly where she is inside that category (low end, middle, or high end), the arguments and disagreements will begin.
The four-level scale works precisely because it’s less specific than the 1 to 10 scale.
Lastly, the four-level scale doesn’t address the level of hotness in regard to who guys would actually have sex with. As I said, most guys will fuck anything, and most men reading these words will have sex with any women who are hot, cute, and average. Many of you, perhaps even most of you, will go down to ugly, particularly if you’re feeling really horny or bored and you know you can keep it quiet from your friends.
As I’ve talked about several times before, back in 2007 I made a pact with myself that I would only go after women who I considered an eight or higher. Since it was about what I considered an eight, the one-to-ten scale worked for me. If I were to extrapolate that into the four-level scale, it would be women who were only cute or hot (and, in my opinion, on the mid or high range of cute). With only a few exceptions, I’ve kept with that standard for the past 12 years. About two years ago I upped my standards and now I only have sex with hot women, but that took me a while.
That’s just my example. Many of you guys have sex with tons of average women and really enjoy it. That’s fine. My point is that I can now use the ugly/average/cute/hot scale and the vast majority of you will not only understand it, but will agree with it, at least for the most part.
That is why I use the four-level scale instead of the 1 to 10 one. My scale isn’t perfect, and disagreements can and will happen regarding it, but it presents far less problems than the 1 to 10 scale, which doesn’t create any real consensus at all.