Rating my subscribers and people from .org

6'5 HTN

6'5 HTN

Iron
Joined
Jun 14, 2023
Posts
102
Reputation
167
 
  • +1
Reactions: FaceIsLaw, Mog3D, aesthetic beauty and 5 others
  • +1
  • Hmm...
Reactions: aesthetic beauty, axttt_ and cytoplasm
Nice
 
  • +1
  • Love it
Reactions: StacyAttractant, StacyRepellent, coispet and 1 other person
analyzing faces is autism rating faces should be instinctive
I remember years back people saying there's no objective way to measure beauty
Now using objective measures you as a straight male who wants to fuck women wants to tell us what women want to fuck based on that
Nigger iq
 
  • +1
  • Hmm...
Reactions: StacyAttractant, StacyRepellent, aesthetic beauty and 3 others
analyzing faces is autism rating faces should be instinctive
The overall ratings were based visually; I pointed out the positives and negatives of the faces and did not use elements in isolation as reasoning for the overall scores.

Good formulas exist for mathematically rating overall objective beauty now, though.
 
Nigger iq
1713048689502
 
  • Ugh..
  • JFL
Reactions: RTLBbc and Hamdan
I remember years back people saying there's no objective way to measure beauty
Now using objective measures you as a straight male who wants to fuck women wants to tell us what women want to fuck based on that
Nigger iq
but do you think women look at someone and rate it subconsciously in some scale? or just respulsive - average - hot
 
I remember years back people saying there's no objective way to measure beauty
Now using objective measures you as a straight male who wants to fuck women wants to tell us what women want to fuck based on that
Nigger iq
🐵🐵🐵
 
but do you think women look at someone and rate it subconsciously in some scale? or just respulsive - average - hot
they rate the same as men subconsciously; ofc, id say its one of these options:

-repulsive
-midly unattractive
-plain looking
-mildly attractive
-attractive
-very attractive
 
  • +1
Reactions: aesthetic beauty, Blackgymmax and Deleted member 61307
they rate the same as men subconsciously; ofc, id say its one of these options:

-repulsive
-midly unattractive
-plain looking
-mildly attractive
-attractive
-very attractive
that's the sub-5 to chad scale aint it
 
that's the sub-5 to chad scale aint it
yeah u could break it down like this id say

0-3 -repulsive
4 -midly unattractive
5 -plain looking
6 -mildly attractive
7 -attractive
8+ -very attractive
 
  • +1
Reactions: aesthetic beauty and Deleted member 61307
Very good video
 
yeah u could break it down like this id say

0-3 -repulsive
4 -midly unattractive
5 -plain looking
6 -mildly attractive
7 -attractive
8+ -very attractive
if girls rate me 8.5 on average what they are tryna say is that i'm just mildly attractive right
 
The overall ratings were based visually; I pointed out the positives and negatives of the faces and did not use elements in isolation as reasoning for the overall scores.

Good formulas exist for mathematically rating overall objective beauty now, though.
I just think that rating objectively is a loophole tbh because it condradicts itself alot, because sometimes people who have ideal ratios could be mogged by people with not ideal ratios, so I just think rating based upon 3 seconds of seeing the person makes more sense
 
I just think that rating objectively is a loophole tbh because it condradicts itself alot, because sometimes people who have ideal ratios could be mogged by people with not ideal ratios, so I just think rating based upon 3 seconds of seeing the person makes more sense
I agree; most "objective" raters use terrible formulas and end up worse than just eyeballing a rate.


good objective rating doesn't just encompass ratios of course, if that were the case ryan gosling would be a LTN, it encompasses ratios, angularity, dimorphism, and features (coloring, eyebrow density, nose shape, lashes, etc)
 
  • +1
Reactions: Blackgymmax and Deleted member 47042
I agree; most "objective" raters use terrible formulas and end up worse than just eyeballing a rate.


good objective rating doesn't just encompass ratios of course, if that were the case ryan gosling would be a LTN, it encompasses ratios, angularity, dimorphism, and features (coloring, eyebrow density, nose shape, lashes, etc)
you seem like a chill dude tbh, you ever posted your face in here?
 
  • +1
Reactions: 6'5 HTN
you seem like a chill dude tbh, you ever posted your face in here?
I had a face cam video posted at one point, but it was a bad video.

I will do facecam videos and analyze my own face for a video once i finish my accutane cycle
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 47042
I had a face cam video posted at one point, but it was a bad video.

I will do facecam videos and analyze my own face for a video once i finish my accutane cycle
I also did accutane I still have dry lips and skin, it's bad poision for your body but it clears you pretty good tbh
 
  • +1
Reactions: 6'5 HTN
I also did accutane I still have dry lips and skin, it's bad poision for your body but it clears you pretty good tbh
I think a low dose long-term is a pretty good option; the only side effects you would ever get are just from vitamin A toxicity, which can typically be avoided with a lower dose.
 
  • +1
Reactions: StacyAttractant and StacyRepellent
yeah u could break it down like this id say

0-3 -repulsive
4 -midly unattractive
5 -plain looking
6 -mildly attractive
7 -attractive
8+ -very attractive
0-5 unattractive
5.5 mildly unattractive (can be offset if tall like jacob elordi highmtn)
6 mildly attractive
7 attractive
8+ v attractive
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: StacyAttractant, StacyRepellent and 6'5 HTN
analyzing faces is autism rating faces should be instinctive
fr no one gonna fucking scientifically measure ur face irl gonna automatically rank ur attractiveness by what they see
 
fr no one gonna fucking scientifically measure ur face irl gonna automatically rank ur attractiveness by what they see
Wow, you have realized how science works!

In the same way, people used to think the earth was flat or that air didn't exist because it was invisible; we also thought facial attractiveness was random until modern science.

Facial aesthetics covers the basis of what subconsciously goes into facial attractiveness. No girl is measuring your canthal tilt, but it subconsciously impacts how attractive you are.
 
Wow, you have realized how science works!

In the same way, people used to think the earth was flat or that air didn't exist because it was invisible; we also thought facial attractiveness was random until modern science.

Facial aesthetics covers the basis of what subconsciously goes into facial attractiveness. No girl is measuring your canthal tilt, but it subconsciously impacts how attractive you are.
I just sent you a email
 
  • +1
Reactions: new H150i

Similar threads

kingkal
Replies
21
Views
465
matthaal20
matthaal20
Owen124
Replies
24
Views
424
shngstaaaa107
shngstaaaa107
Z
Replies
5
Views
278
valency 2.0
valency 2.0
R
Replies
6
Views
363
venstadt
venstadt
returnofthecutecel
Replies
5
Views
210
Vherny123
Vherny123

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top