Skip to content

The Ten Point Scale is Meaningless

August 18, 2011

The next man who tells me this is a 7 is getting punched in the face

The 1-10 scale is broken.  The scale implicitly has a mean of 5, but in reality, most men are using a scale with a mean of 6 or 7.  For the typical man, his scale breaks down as follows.

1  –  Ugliest girl he’s ever seen
2  –  A man wearing a wig
3  –  Very ugly girl
4  –  Ugliest girl he would ever have sex with
5  –  Ugly girl
6  –  Average girl
7  –  Cute girl
8  –  Cutest girl he’s ever had sex with
9  –  Any girl hotter than the cutest girl he’s had sex with
10 –  Does not exist

A scale like that is nearly useless for any man with options/experience.  I use a scale with a mean of 5, and a standard deviation of 1.

1  –  Ugliest girl I have ever seen
2  –  A man wearing a wig
3  –  Unfortunate girl
4  –  Average man’s 5
5  –  Average girl
6  –  Cute girl
7  –  Hot girl
8  –  Smoking hot girl/photoshopped 7
9  –  Photoshopped 8
10 –  Hottest girl on Earth

Ok, so my scale is pretty harsh, but at least it gives us something to work with.  If I tell you a girl is a 6, you’ll know that she really is above average.  This scale works for me because it takes about 1 point on my scale to get a qualitative difference between two girls.  The pleasure of being with a 5.5 isn’t noticeably better than with a 5, but the difference between a 6 and a 5 is obvious to me.  For me, the range from 5 to 6 covers what most men think of as the range from 6 to 8.  Around 7, girls are cute enough to be models, assuming they meet the other physical requirements like height, slenderness, etc.

This is a 2

If men can’t bring themselves to admit that the girl they’ve been dating is a 5, they should use comparisons to famous people instead of the 1-10 scale.  If some chump tells me he’s banging a 7, I have no way to tell how hot she really is.  If he tells me she’s really hot, like that girl Pam from The Office, then I know she’s a 4.  This is something I’ve been using with girls for years.  Girls don’t understand the male 1-10 scale, so it’s better to use celebrity comparisons for them as well.  So instead of telling my girl-friend that I want to set her brother up with a 7, I tell her I want to set her brother up with a girl who looks like Christina Hendricks.  It’s not rocket science.

What do you think of the ten point scale? 

Do you think the average girl is a 5? 

What makes a girl a 9 or 10 to you?

14 Comments leave one →
  1. August 18, 2011 3:13 am

    Great Post…

    I am a black guy, & pretty varies a little from race to race and I brought this similar issue up on Dr. Jay’s post Basic Broads Out Here Winning

    And I reminded people that the 8-10s are uber pretty… But the point is, some guys are not exposed to uber pretty women & should adjust their scales…

  2. detinennui32 permalink
    August 18, 2011 12:22 pm


    Good post. This tells me I’ve been using the first scale, not the second. The first scale is more subjective; the second more objective. The second is obviously more useful.

    K: Thanks.

    Using your scale, I don’t believe a 10 is an impossibility. I think 10s exist. Paulina Porizkova, Scarlett Johansen, Rita Hayworth, Sophia Loren.

    K: The hottest girl in the world should be somewhere around an 11 using this scale.

    8s and 9s would be Playboy centerfolds and some pornstars. Christina Hendricks is an 8.

    7s are the top sorority sisters on college campuses. We’re still in the narrow part of the top curve.

    K: I always thought the top sorority girls could compete with playboy centerfolds and pornstars. Playboy just does a ton of photoshopping.

    Fattening out the curve we get to 6s, 5s and 4s – the vast majority of girls. The first girl in your post is a 4, a 5 on a really good day.

    This post tells me that I’ve overrated the girls I dated, probably to make myself feel better. This means I’ve dated in chronological order the following:

    6 (spouse)

    I had each of them rated at least one point higher. I had thought the 7 I had was a 9. Uhh, no. According to this she’s a 7 at best.

    That 7 put on lots of weight and is now a 3 at best. Pretty good showing of how excess weight can drop a woman’s SMV precipitously.

  3. detinennui32 permalink
    August 18, 2011 1:10 pm


    Assuming the scale addresses looks alone, I think the scale is helpful as long as you try to make it as objective as possible.

    It also means most men date in the 3 to 6 range. Looking back honestly, some of the women I dated and hooked up with were 3s and 4s.

    Most men don’t date 7s and above. On your scale I’ve dated one — ONE — 7. I’ve dated only one truly hot girl who could have done some modeling or acting.

    It seems to me the number 1 thing that makes a girl slide up and down this scale is weight. The second is age.

    One of the 4s I dated before I got married could have been a 6 if she had lost the weight. Conversely, that 7 at age 19 became a 3 at age 40 with the weight and age.

  4. detinennui32 permalink
    August 18, 2011 1:17 pm

    some break this down into rating face and body.

    I can think of one GF I had that was a 6 face, 4 body. Cute face but about 50 lbs overweight.

    Another was 5 face, 8 body (a butterface).

    What do you say, Kane? Useful? not useful?

    K: I like that system. I’ve heard it called the area code system. First digit is her face, second digit is 0 if you wouldn’t bang her, 1 if you would. Third digit is her body.

  5. AnonymousDog permalink
    August 18, 2011 7:04 pm

    I think the whole ten point scale thing is entirely subjective and only useful to the extent that an individual man knows what kind(s) of women are more and less attractive to HIM.

    I think such point scales can only describe conventionalized ideas of “beauty” and “ugliness”, not actual individual attraction.

  6. August 19, 2011 12:15 am

    I recently broke the point system into four levels:

    4 – Smokin’ like a stovepipe.
    3 – Pretty.
    2 – Plain.
    1 – Busted.

    it doesn’t waste time debating distinctions that are ultimately meaningless (6 vs 7 is a pointless debate) and helps me simplify my internal mental conception of the whole market, and still acknowledges the reality that given scarcity (weak game/low prospects), I’d hit all the way down to a 2.

    “It seems to me the number 1 thing that makes a girl slide up and down this scale is weight. The second is age.”

    Not all at the same rank are created equal. A 7 who is heavy and unkempt slides down to maybe a 5, but doesn’t look as good in the moving flesh as a true 5 who is making the most of it by being in shape and dressing well.

  7. detinennui32 permalink
    August 19, 2011 4:16 pm

    Badger: Ultimately I guess it’s all fun, academic hair-splitting, but….

    If you use Kane’s scale:

    6 is cute.
    7 is hot.

    I think there’s a big difference between cute and hot.

    Yours is more, uh, stark.

    But there’s a big difference too between

    3 pretty, and
    4 smokin’

  8. August 20, 2011 2:29 am

    The chick in the first picture is a 4, maybe 5 on a good day. Not even close to a 7. Second pic has to be a shemale or something. Fucking barf.

    I consider a 5 to be “meh.” 5 is the middle of the road. I’d say the average girl walking around in my town is a 5, but I live in the most physically fit state in America. In the south or midwest, average is probably a 3. Lardasses abound.

    I’m a big fan of rating, so I’ll break the 10 point scale down even further (ie low 7, high 6, mid 8, etc). The problem with the rating scale is that guys have different standards depending on their own SMV and standards. One of my friends has incredibly low standards. He considers 5s to be 7s. I think actual 7s and above are so far off this dude’s radar that he doesn’t even see them when they pass by. I go with the face/body separation as well. The whole rating scale thing is kind of nerdy, but it’s fun.

    For some real specifics, the highest-rated girls (for me) always have similar qualities:

    – Naturally blonde or red hair (must be longer than shoulder length)
    – Nordic features
    – Freckles across the nose
    – Muscular legs, flat stomach, moderately physically fit (not just thin)
    – 5’4″ to 5″7″
    – C cup boobies
    – No tattoos, excessive piercings or glasses

    Bonus points for a belly button piercing.

  9. August 21, 2011 3:10 am

    I think the damn thing’s useless, as not everyone will EVER agree what exactly constitutes what number. So who cares?

  10. August 22, 2011 7:11 pm

    I still use a mean-7 scale for rating because of the innate number association Americans get from our education system. 90 is great, 75 is average, 50 and below is fail. If I say a girl’s a five, most people associate that with a 50% grade, e.g. a fail, not an average. It’s a little like Celsius vs. Farenheit – your scale might make more sense, but it’s not useful if you have to explain it to everyone first. On top of that, the majority of guys aren’t so successful with women that they’d benefit from the higher-level distinctions a mean-5 scale would offer.

    Points grading is good, pointless fun. Something to bullshit about when you’re walking around town. Also good for keeping male (and female) ego in check.

  11. Wacka mole permalink
    March 4, 2014 4:19 am

    1. Your GF’s dog’s shit
    2. Your GFs dog
    3. Your GF’s fat mom
    4. Your GF’s fat sister
    5. Your GF
    6. Your GF’s cute sister
    7. Your GF’s hottest friend
    8. Your GF’s gym friends
    9. Your GF hates these
    10. Your GF gets depressed with these


  1. The 10-point scale for female attractiveness. « Haley's Halo
  2. The Girl To Avoid « Kane

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: