how low/10 can u go?

File: IMG_0453.png (805KB, 800x1300px) Image search: [Google]

805KB, 800x1300px

I'm a four.

I'm a Male 4 (3 on a bad day)
Won't go below a 5.

>>36521378
6 here, would like a 6 in return

>>36521846
if you live in America no way you will get laid

File: 1462431501673.png (118KB, 410x410px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 410x410px

>>36521378
>tfw a 4/10
>expected to be lower

>>36521257
this chart is all wrong, standards are way too low probably made by a beta and there is such a thing as objective 10's, they're just not on this list

in reality i would go as low as a 7.5/10 but i would hardly touch anything on this list

>>36522339
you must be permanent low T virgin or a rich AF chad
>something isn t adding up

>>36521257
>>36521378
Seriously fucked lists. As if the second, fourth, sixth and seventh women in the 5/10 row are average. Basically every woman between 4 and 7 on that chart needs to be moved down 2 points, except the 6 row which is surprisingly accurate and should be switched around with the 7 row if anything.

The men, on the other hand, are actually held to accurate standards, rather than given the two point boost that all the women got in their chart. If anything, the men should be moved up a point each.

File: 1452508790329.gif (2MB, 297x216px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 297x216px

>>36521378
>tfw 2.5/10
Oh well, better roll in next life.

>>36522910
just a middle-lower class normie with healthy standards

>>36523052
women one is way more accurate than men one

>>36522339
Never thought I would see the day when the word "objective" is used when talking about attractiveness.

>>36523206
In which way is the men one less accurate though? Are the guys in the pictures generally listed as better looking or worse looking than they actually are?

File: image.jpg (133KB, 564x805px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 564x805px

>>36521257
I'd say I'm a 6.5 or a 7 which is at least above average

>>36523309
>I'd say I'm a 6.5 or a 7 which is at least above average
Trannies dont count.

5.

I actually think 6 is ideal. 7+ girls get corrupted by all the attention.

File: image.jpg (155KB, 766x960px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 766x960px

>>36523337
No I'm one of the few femanons that browse this board, I prefer a guy that is my level. It would be too much pressure for people to say "oh he's too good looking for her!"

>>36521257
I refuse to date any woman who hasn't done the most effort she can into making herself more attractive.

A good portion of 4 5 6 can put themselves into a higher tiers just by dieting and working out.

>>36523382
>I prefer a guy that is my level
Which one of 6/7 guys would be your level?

>>36521257
Looking at those pictures I wouldn't go below 8
Maybe that's why I never had a GF

>>36523382
I know quite a few women with more attractive male partners.

Are you saying you would turn down a tall, handsome doctor just because of social pressure?

File: image.jpg (56KB, 366x530px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 366x530px

>>36523419
The first guy on #6, above average but not smoking sexy.

Of course Putin is my hunky dream man, if only....

>>36523210
>muh subjective beauty meme
Just look at OP's pic, each number has girls that are OBJECTIVELY uglier than the girls in number above and OBJECTIVELY prettier than the girls in the number below.
If you say this isn't true you're objectively wrong.

>>36523521
>smoking sexy.
You're not +8/10 either.
>putin
nice meme

File: image.jpg (73KB, 445x615px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 445x615px

>>36523466
I wouldn't turn him down but I'd be very self conscious. I guess because my only 2 boyfriends were fairly ugly, my friends or family would tell me I can do better than that. Compared to those two it looked like I was doing charity work.

File: SWEDISH-CHEF-psd71677.png (439KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 400x400px

>>36521257
I have doubts that the fourth from the left on "1" is a real woman. Other than that, I would start at 3 (as that can sometimes upgrade to a 6-7 if they lost weight) at move up. 8 starts looking too artificial and when they start putting appearance before personality. So probably 7.5 is ideal but a solid 6 is more realistic.

>>36523337
>>36521378
>tfw 3-4 at best
>tfw your life just consists of drugs and shitposting
>tfw mostly venturing out for shows only to stand near an edge to be able to leave between acts to avoid all
>tfw the exceptions are for coffee and to get drugs from your mailbox
>>36523466
desu that shit happened to me and it's a bad feel, because you always know you are the dead weight there.
that and if you have the shitty taste then you feel even worse.
but it's a good feel except for when you just can't like reconcile that you are not what you feel to be based on his accounts.
protip: it only happens when he isn't next to you

File: image.jpg (80KB, 634x366px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 634x366px

>>36523521
You need to get in line, he had 10/10's volunteering to wash his fucking car

>>36521257
Lowest I'd go for, according to that list, is a 3 if I'm really horny!

>>36521378
I'd be a 5. The chart for women is fucked up though. Those 9/10s should be 7/10s, some maybe 8/10s. In other words, put most of the women there 2 places lower, some 1 place, and actually put real 9/10s there, because I see none.

>>36523832
shit, I would rather fuck a passing tranny/trap than any girls on this list that are below 5/10

>>36523949
>tfw """""""passing""""" but 3-4 at best
why

>>36524050
cuz girls on this list that are below 5/10 look like failed tannies

>>36524170
what does it mean by me looking worse than most?