Are we attractive?

Maybe you'd be 8/10 if it went 10 as ugliest

>>7445635
>>>/soc/
also you guys are fucking 3/10

don't forget to sage this garbage, people

all gay couples are like twins... ur both like 2/10s tho. at least u have each other i guess....

File: this.jpg (101KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 960x960px

I'm sure this is a bait thread.. but I always crack up seeing overly negative replies from people who never post their own photos.

File: raw[1].gif (995KB, 342x260px) Image search: [Google]

995KB, 342x260px

paki/10

>>7445715
>I always crack up seeing overly negative replies from people who have enough common sense not to post a picture of themselves on 4chan.

ftfy, sweety.

>>7445735
you didn't change my point at all.

ugly people are rude pussies.
if you think them being pussies means they have "common sense", then that's your opinion.

>>7445752
>post your pictures on the internet or you're a pussy!

Or maybe just less stupid and vainglorious.

>>7445715
lol you're retarded

>>7445770
or they could just stop being rude for no reason.

if you're going to act like a stuck up cunt with high standards, then you should expect people to want you to back it up with some examples from your modeling portfolio. a guy as attractive and confident as you should have no reason not to show off a little.

your really can't have it both ways. if you have a legitimate reason for having high standards, then you don't have a legitimate reason to hide your face.
like, if you're some pussy bitch in the closet, then you should lower your standards because youre pathetic as fuck.

>>7445776
lol post your IQ

Objectively you guys are like 5.7/10. Better than average but nothing to turn your head at.

>>7445715
>responding negatively to negative replies without posting your own photo

Fucking coward lmao, say that to my selfie and see what happens

One on the right is more handsome, but the real important question is that are you going to hire somebody to throw you off of a building or are yo guys going to throw each other off?

>>7445813
I didn't call anyone who posted a picture ugly, so I have no reason to back up any high standards I never claimed to have.

>>7445819
I think the guy on the left is more handsome.. but that might just be because the crappy quality of the photo makes the guy on the right look like he has a unibrow

>>7445820
I'm just playing m8, but really you don't need to be attractive to have an opinion on someone else's appearance just like you don't need to be an author or a director to have an opinion on a book or film. Personally I'm not really attracted to the guys in the OP, to me they're probably somewhere a 4/10, I wouldn't have sex with them and would maybe cuddle with them if I were affection deprived, but I just don't think they're attractive, they're not painful to look at but I wouldn't ever settle for them or be in a relationship with either of them, so I say 4/10. Likewise me and my SO think each other are attractive, but there's plenty of people who wouldn't ever give a chance to either of us.

>>7445831
I think the face no the left is better but I like the haircut no the right one more.

Troll thread but they're both ugly as fuck desu. Anyone who says otherwise has a niche type or very low standards

you guys look like faggots

>>7445635
>both at least 8/10'
LMAO no you're not but stay delusional

>>7445635
4/10
and 3/10

>>7445635
left is cute right is a lil ugly honestly

File: 050d8d162d3ac0166016286785018d86ad28a7-wm.jpg (103KB, 640x920px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 640x920px

some things to remember:

attractiveness is relative.
an 8 in Scranton is a 5 in Manhattan.
everyone thinks they are at least a 7.

this is obviously a bait thread using somebody else's pics, in fact this same pic was just posted on /hm/ >>1477963

below is the actual rating system.
as such, i would rate these guys 3-4 but i might change my mind if they had hot bodies (which i'm pretty certain they don't)

1: Hideously Unattractive. A monster. Disfigured or irretrievably mutilated. Has two heads, is missing an eye, etc.

2: Very Unattractive. Disproportionate, morbidly obese.

3: Unattractive. Ugly, fat, and/or old.

4: Almost Bangable. But definitely doesn’t pass the boner test. Still not good-looking.

5: Merely Bangable. Barely passes the boner test. You’d be pretty embarrassed to be seen with her.

6: Almost Cute. She might be cute if one or two things were different, but they’re not. You may not be super-embarrassed to be seen with her, but you certainly wouldn’t be proud, and you definitely wouldn’t willingly bring her around to anything.

7: Solidly Cute. Zero embarrassment, even some nascent pride in being seen with her. You could bring her to things without looking bad, or losing any of the luster on your game.

8: Hot-Cute. Would be straight-up proud to be seen with her and/or bring her to things. This is often the sweet spot for long-term relationship material.

9: Smoking Hot. This is a girl who can easily monetize her beauty. You’re going out of your way to be seen with her.

10: Perfection. A theoretical abstraction that only exists in the laboratory.

File: a4f56672-4a42-4cb1-a256-83a12def1ef7.png (163KB, 539x960px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 539x960px

*truggered*

No you re not

>>7445635
Are gays inherently narcissistic? Why do they fuck their own 'type'/clones of themselves? (eg masc4masc)

Go back to Africa

Guy on the left: 5-6/10
Guy on the right: 3/10
Both guys being South Asian: 0/10

Assuming you're the guy on the right OP, good job for punching slightly above your weight. Hope you two are happy.