Rating girls

>>38308980
I just want a sassy tomboy. surely this cant be too much to ask.

>>38309013
>Hotness: 2
>Coolness: 4
>Cuteness: 2

File: NYHETER-23s14-bush-13.jpg (7KB, 200x262px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 200x262px

>>38308980
A classic 0 to 10 scale:
>0
reserved for kids, dead people , guys, obese landwhales etc
>1
Really ugly girls with visible deformities, very fat, etc
>2
Ugly girls, basically somewhat improved versions of 1's.
>3
Ugly girls that don't have any deformities, they are just plain and boring. Bad faces , Bad or average body.
>4
Grey area. Typically reserved for girls with ugly faces but okay bodies. Would not fug
>5
Basically girls with decent or sub-par faces but good bodies. Would fug under specific circumstances
>6
Pretty girls with average or above average faces and good bodies. Would definitely fug
>7
Good face, good body, little to no obvious flaws
>8
Good face, very good body, no flaws
>9
Very good face, very good body, no flaws
>10
Doesn't exist.

Most girls are 3-4, only like 5% are 7 and above.

File: False precision.png (5KB, 492x113px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 492x113px

>>38309222
>A classic 0 to 10 scale
That's too much granularity. You're just lying to yourself. Use a 1-5 scale instead.

>>38309276
tbqh I could work with a 1-5 scale, but then again I can tell the differences between 6s,7s,8s and 9s and tell which one is better