data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4139f/4139ff5cab534778af008fa82e081e43c01bd296" alt="Mandiblecel"
Mandiblecel
Bronze
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2018
- Posts
- 398
- Reputation
- 333
Fuck dude, that's a tough question. I have no clue how the distribution would play out. Like, if we want to use this guy's scale which is like IRL but weighed (), then I'd say a 2 or below (excluding Looksmaxing, if a 2 loses 150lbs and gets a jaw implant, different rating obvs). Some quick maths would equal 25%ish percent, again, just on a random spread of people. Meaning if you ARE in the bottom 25%, you can climb into the top 75% through Looksmaxing in some form or anther, unless you were a 1, which I don't think are redeemable TBH.
View attachment 2874
*Keep in mind that this is just looks, not status or money or anything else we could factor in.
Yes, this is a rational and normal distribution that makes sense. The problem is, women don't rate men's looks that way.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/68b23/68b23251a480888a14217e50db6903c7f32ce0b9" alt="Download Download"
There is a huge gap between the logical and objectively true distribution of beauty and female perception of it.