Assigning numbers to people's looks

[gunhilltrain]

I suppose this is a valid topic for AH because it could appear in a story, although I have never done it. I've brought this up on another site's forum, although I've only asked one person I know about it.

I don't remember this one-to-ten attractiveness scale ever being used until maybe five years ago. It usually seems to be applied more to women, but sometimes it's about men too. From what little research I've done, it is not a big thing in New York but it is in Los Angeles (no surprise?).

The ones who really seem to be most into it are the various manosphere / red pill guys on their blogs and videos. They talk about it as if it's an undeniable aspect of reality; it fact, they are obsessed with it.

It seems to me to be a ridiculous over-simplification of how most people really think. It assumes that there is a universal agreement about other people's looks, and that it can be quantified into a basic numbering system.

 

[lovecraft68]

A few years ago? This movie came out in 1979

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okNvzDF11J4

I was going to reply in the sense of how it applies in a story as no different than the people who like to use D-cup and stats

but seeing you're trying to politicize it and pretend that only people from one political ideology objectify women, its not worth a response other than you're generalizing and being ignorant.

Because no 'blue pill' person has ever judged a woman by looks? That is certainly more of a male thing, but most males not a political party

You never have? You're over 60...so let's put your generalizations against you. You were raised in a far more sexist generation than we have now. I'll ask again...you never judged a woman by looks? Please.

As pertaining to here do you write stories about unattractive women-or men-do you eschew that ideal and write about average to unattractive people?

I'll give you full credit for one of the most hypocritical things I've read here.

take this to the politics forum because that's the conversation you're looking to instigate

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm surprised you haven't heard of evaluating people by their looks on a one to ten scale. It's been around forever, and it's everywhere. It's not just an LA thing, and it's definitely not confined to any particular niche. As LC pointed out, the movie 10 was based on the concept, and that was 41 years ago.

Of course, it's shallow, but human beings have been shallow forever, so that's no surprise.

 

[BelleCanzuto]

I suppose this is a valid topic for AH because it could appear in a story, although I have never done it. I've brought this up on another site's forum, although I've only asked one person I know about it.

I don't remember this one-to-ten attractiveness scale ever being used until maybe five years ago. It usually seems to be applied more to women, but sometimes it's about men too. From what little research I've done, it is not a big thing in New York but it is in Los Angeles (no surprise?).

The ones who really seem to be most into it are the various manosphere / red pill guys on their blogs and videos. They talk about it as if it's an undeniable aspect of reality; it fact, they are obsessed with it.

It seems to me to be a ridiculous over-simplification of how most people really think. It assumes that there is a universal agreement about other people's looks, and that it can be quantified into a basic numbering system.

In addition to the movie LC mentioned, there's the musical "A Chorus Line".
"A Chorus Line" (set on Broadway and the casting process for a Broadway music) has a solo number entitled "Dance 10; Looks 3", the play is from1976 and it was made as a movie in 1985.

link: Dance Ten; Looks Three

And yeah, of course it's a ridiculous oversimplification of how most people really think. Of course it erroneously assumes there's universal agreement. It's also: not new, not limited to one part of the US, and of a piece with all the other ridiculous oversimplifications and assumptions that human beings make.

We're kinda notorious for that.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

I guess I'm not really sure what the question is here. Perhaps you mean this in a "Can you believe this?" sort of way?

As others have said, the rating thing has been around. When someone says, "She's a ten," that's what they're referring to.

When trollish boys did it in school, I figured it was just something that particularly dumb boys did. As an adult, I was very surprised to see that grown men did it. Weirdly, women have started doing it in an apparent effort to demonstrate that they are sexual beings, while inadvertently demonstrating that women can be trollish, too.

I think somebody rating someone's looks on a numerical scale or any other scale is saying something about themselves. I think the speaker's intending to say something about themselves, but I'm pretty sure the message I hear is not the message they intend. And why do these cretins think anyone cares what they think about someone else's appearance?

I wouldn't think any more highly of the ratings "system" if it were more sophisticated to score different aspects of a person's appearance. That would just take it from being simple and stupid to being complicated and stupid.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I suppose this is a valid topic for AH because it could appear in a story, although I have never done it. I've brought this up on another site's forum, although I've only asked one person I know about it.

I don't remember this one-to-ten attractiveness scale ever being used until maybe five years ago. It usually seems to be applied more to women, but sometimes it's about men too. From what little research I've done, it is not a big thing in New York but it is in Los Angeles (no surprise?).

If you haven't encountered it until recently, all I can say is you've chosen well with the company you keep.

 

[BelleCanzuto]

If you haven't encountered it until recently, all I can say is you've chosen well with the company you keep.

Well said.
And I might add -- chosen his virtual company better than most, too.

 

[Handley_Page]

Assessment seems to run in cycles.
Not so long since there was a "nice legs, shame about the face" type . . .

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Shallow? Perhaps. But let's keep in mind that nobody every crossed the room at a party to meet a nice personality.

Looks are important in initial social meetings. Drooling over it, obsessing over it may be objectionable, but simply using it as a convenient label? Like none of us have ever thought, "Hot!" when seeing somebody for the first time. Same-same, I think.

And, yes, as lovecraft and belle note, it's been around at least a couple of generations.

 

[gunhilltrain]

A few years ago? This movie came out in 1979

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okNvzDF11J4

I was going to reply in the sense of how it applies in a story as no different than the people who like to use D-cup and stats

but seeing you're trying to politicize it and pretend that only people from one political ideology objectify women, its not worth a response other than you're generalizing and being ignorant.

Because no 'blue pill' person has ever judged a woman by looks? That is certainly more of a male thing, but most males not a political party

You never have? You're over 60...so let's put your generalizations against you. You were raised in a far more sexist generation than we have now. I'll ask again...you never judged a woman by looks? Please.

As pertaining to here do you write stories about unattractive women-or men-do you eschew that ideal and write about average to unattractive people?

I'll give you full credit for one of the most hypocritical things I've read here.

take this to the politics forum because that's the conversation you're looking to instigate

Wait a minute, you have completely missed some things I should have made clearer. As for the politics forum - well, yeah, maybe. I feel like I've stumbled into Monty Python's Department of Arguments.

1. When the Bo Derek move came out, I had to read the reviews to figure out what it meant.

2. I didn't mean to imply that people don't notice other people's looks. I have written stories about people with varying levels of physical attractiveness. I did say there is no universal standard. For one thing, it varies in different cultures, different time periods, and so forth.

3. I have walked the walk on this myself. My ex-wife was always quite heavyset, although her weight fluctuated at times. I found her sexy anyway. I have felt that way about other women of various body sizes. I have noticed women's looks, but please don't call me a hypocrite.

4. Is it really associated with certain political ideologies? That may be a bit of a stretch, I admit. Was my generation more sexist? I'm not really sure; there are too many individual variables and a lot of variation. I'm not convinced that younger generations are really that much better; they talk a better game about that perhaps. I am sure that the terms red pill/blue pill/purple pill were invented in the decade we just left.

5. If I do notice a woman's breasts, I probably wouldn't know exactly what cup size it was. It would be something like small/medium/large.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

Shallow? Perhaps. But let's keep in mind that nobody every crossed the room at a party to meet a nice personality.

Looks are important in initial social meetings. Drooling over it, obsessing over it may be objectionable, but simply using it as a convenient label? Like none of us have ever thought, "Hot!" when seeing somebody for the first time. Same-same, I think.

And, yes, as lovecraft and belle note, it's been around at least a couple of generations.

I have. When I see someone being funny or kind, I'm drawn to that. I don't think I'm the only one.

 

[gunhilltrain]

If you haven't encountered it until recently, all I can say is you've chosen well with the company you keep.

We all have to be careful about generalizing from our own experiences. I've probably been influenced by going to a super-left wing school (City College) in a fairly liberal city (New York). (Gee, doesn't everybody have a subway station just down the block and if they don't, wouldn't they want one?) So yeah, maybe I was cocooned in an untypical environment.

I have consulted my twenty-something daughter who lives in New York. (She was raised in New Jersey). FWIW, she knew about the ratings but claimed it wasn't used in the conversations she knew about. A very small sample size, I admit.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Shallow? Perhaps. But let's keep in mind that nobody every crossed the room at a party to meet a nice personality.

Looks are important in initial social meetings. Drooling over it, obsessing over it may be objectionable, but simply using it as a convenient label? Like none of us have ever thought, "Hot!" when seeing somebody for the first time. Same-same, I think.

And, yes, as lovecraft and belle note, it's been around at least a couple of generations.

I should have known I was going to stir up too much with this. Ah, crossing a room for a nice personality? It depends on what one is looking for - I mean, is it a one-night hook-up or something longer longer-term? (What is longer term? Three months?)

As I said, whatever lovecraft and others had as experiences were not mine. They may be correct. But I was in the middle of New York, not some small town, so it wasn't like I wasn't exposed to how the world worked.

Just saying, the people on the other site's forum were a lot more mellow about this and the thread ended quickly. I should have left well-enough alone.

 

[jaF0]

I remember this scale thing back into the 60s or so.

They're all personal opinion based, none factual in any way. In my view there are no '10s'. That is the hypothetical perfect fantasy, a level which no humans can achieve. Bo isn't one, that's for sure.

 

[SimonDoom]

Was my generation more sexist? I'm not really sure; there are too many individual variables and a lot of variation. I'm not convinced that younger generations are really that much better; they talk a better game about that perhaps. .

I don't think the younger generation is better at all. There are certain forms of sexism that are not tolerated as much as before, and against which women today have more meaningful recourse. But because of the Internet and social media we're more focused on sexiness and people's looks than ever before, as well as on the reduction of these things to rankings and numbers.

IIRC, Mark Zuckerberg's original online project at Harvard was a "hot or not" online application that students could use to rank their peers' looks. So, nothing has really changed much over the years.

 

[gunhilltrain]

I remember this scale thing back into the 60s or so.

They're all personal opinion based, none factual in any way. In my view there are no '10s'. That is the hypothetical perfect fantasy, a level which no humans can achieve. Bo isn't one, that's for sure.

Just curious: would you tell me, geographically, where you heard the scale thing in the 1960s? Just the state or the nation would be sufficient.

 

[KeithD]

It doesn't really matter if someone thinks the numbering system is ridiculous, in writing it's a familiarity shortcut that is pretty much understood by all because the numbering system has been around for a long time. The precise numbers don't mean much (much the same as using measurements in a story), but they are ballpark understood and are comfortable in usage for most. I don't really see the utility in suggesting they shouldn't be used in writing. They have a purpose there if an author wants to employ them.

An 11, by the way, seems now to be invoked with the term "unicorn."

 

[gunhilltrain]

It doesn't really matter if someone thinks the numbering system is ridiculous, in writing it's a familiarity shortcut that is pretty much understood by all because the numbering system has been around for a long time. The precise numbers don't mean much (much the same as using measurements in a story), but they are ballpark understood and are comfortable in usage for most. I don't really see the utility in suggesting they shouldn't be used in writing. They have a purpose there if an author wants to employ them.

An 11, by the way, seems now to be invoked with the term "unicorn."

I didn't mean to suggest that they shouldn't be used in writing. I should have worded it better so it didn't sound so judgmental. I think I was trying to get information about it because I myself was not familiar with it until recently.

I don't know how people really use it because, well, I don't get out there socially so much now. I've only heard it used online, and it is usually is not a ballpark figure but presented as a precise measurement. I can't read these guy's minds; I only know what they chose to say about themselves.

 

[KeithD]

The Urban Dictionary gives a fun explanation:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=1-10 Attractiveness Scale

 

[SimonDoom]

Just saying, the people on the other site's forum were a lot more mellow about this and the thread ended quickly. I should have left well-enough alone.

I don't think one should ever feel bad about starting a thread just because it gets a bit testy at times or heads in unexpected directions. It's an interesting issue and your perspective is your perspective. Others' perspectives are different and that's what makes a thread interesting.

 

[gunhilltrain]

I don't think one should ever feel bad about starting a thread just because it gets a bit testy at times or heads in unexpected directions. It's an interesting issue and your perspective is your perspective. Others' perspectives are different and that's what makes a thread interesting.

Thanks, I get that. Through most of my life I've shied away from confrontations and I have to push myself to go in another direction. Just being on Literotica in the first place has helped me get over that.

 

[Voboy]

We all have to be careful about generalizing from our own experiences. I've probably been influenced by going to a super-left wing school (City College) in a fairly liberal city (New York). (Gee, doesn't everybody have a subway station just down the block and if they don't, wouldn't they want one?) So yeah, maybe I was cocooned in an untypical environment.

I have consulted my twenty-something daughter who lives in New York. (She was raised in New Jersey). FWIW, she knew about the ratings but claimed it wasn't used in the conversations she knew about. A very small sample size, I admit.

Lol. I'm from out west, suburban, urban, and rural. Army. College. Been in a lot of environments, and I've even spent a weekend at CCNY. Live in the bluest of blue Northeast states now.

I've encountered the 1-10 scale everywhere. I don't think I've thought terribly hard about whether it's deep or shallow or both or neither or whether it reflects any sort of philosophical or political bent on the part of the people who use it... personally, I think humans are people who think in schemas and prototypes, and always have been, and that ranking or grouping things like looks is just something "we" do.

Whether you assign a number or call it "small/medium/large," you're still quantifying and comparing it.

 

[Emirus]

Let’s just be silly

Forget about ranking 10 to 1. Use something more accurate.

“Put a bag over their head? I’d have to have a bag over my head as well.”

Can be said by man or woman to woman or man.

 

[LexxRuthless]

I can recall a conversation I had with my grandfather back when the movie "10" came out. He was confused and I tried to explain it, only it turned out his confusion stemmed from the fact that, "Well, they've got it all backwards!"

When he served in the Korean War, they already used a 1-to-10 scale to rank cars, tanks, officers "...and many other things." I can recall him saying that with a wink. "The thing is, a 10 is the worst rating. You wouldn't want to get stuck with a 'number 10 woman' and this girl is gorgeous."

But I guess in the 40s and 50s they were thinking of it as a rank order, with #1 being the best.

If you had a computer-generated algorithm that gave you a very precise score based on your looks, how do you think you would react to it? "6.82?!? Are you shitting me? I don't even rank a 7?"

 

[jaF0]

^^ I'm more like a .07