WHY the PSL scale out of 8 is COMPLETELY useless

A

ArabIncel

Solstice
Joined
Sep 25, 2019
Posts
2,491
Reputation
2,975
I never understood why the scale is out of 8 as opposed to being out of 10. Isn't it a bit arbitrary to settle for a number like 8?

Potential reason (1): 10/10s don't exist. So we shouldn't rate out of 10.

Counter reply to (1): Well that can't be because when we're rating people out of 8 the 8 is the new 10 so then 8/8s don't exist either (and this is evident in practice too when the top male models here are rated like 7.5/8 at best).

Potential reason (2): When rating out of 10 lots of other things, aside from face, get factored in such as neck, frame, body, height, and race. So we shouldn't rate out of 10.

Counter reply to (2): We don't have to factor in these things. We can make a distinction here. We can note that when normies generally rate people out of 10 in real life they tend to include various things into their rate: face, neck, frame, body, height, race, etc. So they don't only include face. That's fine. But we can rate people out of 10 here where we just include face (and nothing else). So it will STRICTLY be a facial rate out of 10. No problem with doing that. I mean, we're already facially rating people out of 8. I see no issue with facially rating people out of 10 instead.

Potential reason (3): That's just how it is historically speaking. The people who made the scale (back in the day on the P/S/L forums) made it out of 8. Hence we should follow them. So we shouldn't rate out of 10.

Counter reply to (3): That doesn't make sense to me. Why should we follow them? Firstly it is important to determine the reason WHY they made the scale out of 8. Secondly it is important to determine whether their reason for making the scale out of 8 is a good one or not. If, for example, their reason for making the scale out of 8 was either (1) or (2) from above, then, as my counter replies show, they are simply wrong. If their reason was something other than (1) or (2) from above, then, by all means, let's hear it.
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: leosval, thecel, Deleted member 5583 and 6 others
too long didnt read strawmancel
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401, goat2x, Deleted member 2227 and 6 others
I like the number 8, we’ll keep it. End of discussion.
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: Deleted member 6401, Deleted member 4614, Piro and 7 others
Isnt PSL supposed to be out of 9? Its just 9s dont really exist. tbh I prefer IRL/Decile Rating because thats the rating that actually matters.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401, hebbewem and Aesthetic
it is what it is BOYO
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401
Isnt PSL supposed to be out of 9? tbh I prefer IRL/Decile Rating because thats the rating that actually matters.

Some people scale PSL to 8 and others to 9. Most to 8 though from what I can tell. But that's besides the point. The same argument I used above can be applied to the number 9. Why 9 instead of 10?

Someone might turn around and ask me: Why 10 instead of 8 or 9? But I can simply point out that scaling things to 10 is completely normal. It's seen in practice all the time. I can't say quite the same for 8 or 9 though.
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401
There is only a ascale of 2

Gl or not
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401
10 is too many divisions tbh. Fwiw I think chico and tyler maher may as well be 8 psl
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401
8 is completely arbitrary, psl autists just wanna feel like special snowflakes
 
  • +1
  • Hmm...
Reactions: leosval, Deleted member 6401, BigBoy and 10 others
I never understood why the scale is out of 8 as opposed to being out of 10. Isn't it a bit arbitrary to settle for a number like 8?

Potential reason (1): 10/10s don't exist. So we shouldn't rate out of 10.

Counter reply to (1): Well that can't be because when we're rating people out of 8 the 8 is the new 10 so then 8/8s don't exist either (and this is evident in practice too when the top male models here are rated like 7.5/8 at best).

Potential reason (2): When rating out of 10 lots of other things, aside from face, get factored in such as neck, frame, body, height, and race. So we shouldn't rate out of 10.

Counter reply to (2): We don't have to factor in these things. We can make a distinction here. We can note that when normies generally rate people out of 10 in real life they tend to include various things into their rate: face, neck, frame, body, height, race, etc. So they don't only include face. That's fine. But we can rate people out of 10 here where we just include face (and nothing else). So it will STRICTLY be a facial rate out of 10. No problem with doing that. I mean, we're already facially rating people out of 8. I see no issue with facially rating people out of 10 instead.

Potential reason (3): That's just how it is historically speaking. The people who made the scale (back in the day on the P/S/L forums) made it out of 8. Hence we should follow them. So we shouldn't rate out of 10.

Counter reply to (3): That doesn't make sense to me. Why should we follow them? Firstly it is important to determine the reason WHY they made the scale out of 8. Secondly it is important to determine whether their reason for making the scale out of 8 is a good one or not. If, for example, their reason for making the scale out of 8 was either (1) or (2) from above, then, as my counter replies show, they are simply wrong. If their reason was something other than (1) or (2) from above, then, by all means, let's hear it.
Out of 10 is just easier to rate tbh. Out of 8 you need to use numbers like 4,75 or 5,5 while from rating out of 10 its always round numbers. Everyone knows what a 6/10 is, its just flows naturally. In psl it would be 4,8.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401 and Deleted member 3202
Why 10 and not 8? Seems arbitrary to choose 10 lol. I think we should use 13 :lul:
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401
its total bullshit its either ugly average or goodlooking
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401, PubertyMaxxer and DutchPrettyBoy
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401
its total bullshit its either ugly average or goodlooking

A system like that just wouldn't work. It would be too arbitrary when it comes to drawing lines. You might have someone who isn't quite "good looking" but isn't "average" either (because they might be OBVIOUSLY above average but not above average to the point where they are good looking or whatever). So what do you do in that case?
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401
A system like that just wouldn't work. It would be too arbitrary when it comes to drawing lines. You might have someone who isn't quite "good looking" but isn't "average" either (because they might be OBVIOUSLY above average but not above average to the point where they are good looking or whatever). So what do you do in that case?
fuck you
Ugly-average-above average-goodlooking-beautiful
So you can cope not being beautiful
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401
Arb
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401
Some people scale PSL to 8 and others to 9. Most to 8 though from what I can tell. But that's besides the point. The same argument I used above can be applied to the number 9. Why 9 instead of 10?

Someone might turn around and ask me: Why 10 instead of 8 or 9? But I can simply point out that scaling things to 10 is completely normal. It's seen in practice all the time. I can't say quite the same for 8 or 9 though.

Im not really sure why PSL isnt out of 10 or whatever, but all I know is if your sub 4 PSL its over. You want to be atleast 5 psl. To slay. Thats the way I understand it.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401
fuck you
Ugly average above average goodlooking beautiful

Trolling aside, the system you're looking for here is:

Below average, average, and above average. That works. ANY person can be put into one of these three categories. However not all persons can be put into a category from ugly, average, and good looking.

But the problem with the below average, average, and above average system is just that it's way too broad. Both a 5.5/10 and a 9.5/10 would be lumped into one category, etc.
Im not really sure why PSL isnt out of 10 or whatever, but all I know is if your sub 4 PSL its over. You want to be atleast 5 psl. To slay. Thats the way I understand it.

Well yes sub 4 PSL just means being sub 5/10. And, yes, in that case it is pretty much over unless you have other things that make up for your face (such as an insane body or whatever).
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401
Going out of 8 makes it more unusual so you think about the answer more
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401, SubhumanCurrycel and Deleted member 4887
Weird how noone could give proper reasons why its 8. Considering all of you are PSL posters an usually are on the looksmax section, odd.

I shall explain why, an 8 is objectively possible. A 9-10 PSL is unachievable since it should mean a person is flawless (which no person has or ever will have). At that point it would be people being subjective and choosing someone that aesthetically is the most pleasing to them (which can differ from person to person), people like prime chico and prime barrett are on the same tier of PSL aesthetics. But there is an obvious division in the way they look. Hence some will say chico is an 9-10 and some will say barrett is an 9-10 and both wouldn't be able to prove the other right or wrong. Hence it wouldnt stay objective anymore.
 
  • +1
Reactions: leosval, Deleted member 6401, Deleted member 2227 and 2 others
Trolling aside, the system you're looking for here is:

Below average, average, and above average. That works. ANY person can be put into one of these three categories. However not all persons can be put into a category from ugly, average, and good looking.

But the problem with the below average, average, and above average system is just that it's way too broad. Both a 5.5/10 and a 9.5/10 would be lumped into one category, etc.


Well yes sub 4 PSL just means being sub 5/10. And, yes, in that case it is pretty much over unless you have other things that make up for your face (such as an insane body or whatever).

That reminds me of Patrice O'Neal's scale of 1-30. 1-20 Below average, 10-20 average and 20-30 above average.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401
this is so true when i rate someone i always say you are 5 and ppl think i mean they are above average while i mean they are DEAD AVERAGE. they dont understand it until i specify, rating out of 8 is dumb
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401
Most people use 8 so it will stay that way.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401
Well yes sub 4 PSL just means being sub 5/10. And, yes, in that case it is pretty much over unless you have other things that make up for your face (such as an insane body or whatever).
Wrong, 4 PSL is average looking. That isnt even a sub 5/10 in the normie scale
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401 and Deleted member 2205
this is so true when i rate someone i always say you are 5 and ppl think i mean they are above average while i mean they are DEAD AVERAGE. they dont understand it until i specify, rating out of 8 is dumb
That just means you are a shit rater ngl, understanding why the rating is out of 8 is basic psl understanding
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401, Deleted member 2205 and nastynas
Dude it is all about aesthetics, and 8 is an aesthetic number 2^3.

Just say you are 5,6PSL HOLY FUCK you know how intelligent we sound, all the "knowledge" would be lost if we used a simplistic scale like 6/10.

Its all fugazi
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401
Weird how noone could give proper reasons why its 8. Considering all of you are PSL posters an usually are on the looksmax section, odd.

I shall explain why, an 8 is objectively possible. A 9-10 PSL is unachievable since it should mean a person is flawless (which no person has or ever will have). At that point it would be people being subjective and choosing someone that aesthetically is the most pleasing to them (which can differ from person to person), people like prime chico and prime barrett are on the same tier of PSL aesthetics. But there is an obvious division in the way they look. Hence some will say chico is an 9-10 and some will say barrett is an 9-10 and both wouldn't be able to prove the other right or wrong. Hence it wouldnt stay objective anymore.

It seems to me that you're rating out of 10 here but you're just saying that 8/10 is the highest achievable rate (because 9/10s and 10/10s don't exist -- based on how you have laid it out here). So the rate isn't actually out of 8 because if it were out of 8 then no one could be PSL 8 (because if it's out of 8 then the 8 is like the new 10 so then 8/8s don't exist either). Basically we're saying the rate it still out of 10 but, as it happens to be the case, there is no known human being who is above an OBJECTIVE 8/10 (perhaps in the future some human will be born or some already born human will be discovered who is an OBJECTIVE 9.5/10 or whatever).
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401
ok ok... im not gonna lie
i didnt read a single word out of everything youve typed so far in the thread
 
  • JFL
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401 and Deleted member 2227
PSL is rating of what autistic retards think good looking is. It has no real life implications. It could have been 47.9857 out of 45995.84 whatever. Who cares? Autism spectrum is pretty broad too.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401
The PSL scale was created to rate people objectively. However, PSL took into account preference and so PSL 9-10 would be different for everyone based on their own personal taste. Officially, a PSL 8 is the highest objective rating a human can achieve; and by that, I mean they have every positive PSL feature. Such as perfect hunter eyes, perfect nose, lips, hair. Perfect jaw and chin and cheekbones and forward growth etc etc. Obviously, no one is a PSL 8 (except for maybe Barrett).

Eventually, this definition was lost and people simply rate based on who they think is the greatest looking person, giving them a PSL 8 even if they don’t have everything. That’s why people rate only up to 8, since that’s the highest objective rating.

I guess today PSL is more who is the best looking guys, that’s why guys like Chico, Gandy, O’Pry and Barrett are all given PSL 8s.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401, Deleted member 3202 and Aesthetic
It seems to me that you're rating out of 10 here but you're just saying that 8/10 is the highest achievable rate (because 9/10s and 10/10s don't exist -- based on how you have laid it out here). So the rate isn't actually out of 8 because if it were out of 8 then no one could be PSL 8 (because if it's out of 8 then the 8 is like the new 10 so then 8/8s don't exist either). Basically we're saying the rate it still out of 10 but, as it happens to be the case, there is no known human being who is above an OBJECTIVE 8/10 (perhaps in the future some human will be born or some already born human will be discovered who is an OBJECTIVE 9.5/10 or whatever).
You were right untill that point, PSL was always meant to be ¨officially¨ out of 10 but 9-10s dont exist, so rating with an 8 scale would be rational as that is actually achievable. It would be nonsense to use a rating that is unachievable would it?

So the rate isn't actually out of 8 because if it were out of 8 then no one could be PSL 8 (because if it's out of 8 then the 8 is like the new 10 so then 8/8s don't exist either).
Idk what you mean by this, people simply use 8 as the new 10 bcs the new members that came on this site are insanely low iq and cant have a perception of why 9-10 arent used, so they just think 8=10 and therefore not achievable. While it originally was never meant that way.

Basically we're saying the rate it still out of 10 but, as it happens to be the case, there is no known human being who is above an OBJECTIVE 8/10 (perhaps in the future some human will be born or some already born human will be discovered who is an OBJECTIVE 9.5/10 or whatever).

No human can POSSIBLY be a 9 or a 10 bcs that means that they are flawless (9 being flawless and 10 being subjectively perfect in that persons eyes.). There is no human who is born with fullon ideal features bcs people perceive different things as non-ideal, one might see nordic as ideal while the other sees med as ideal etc etc etc. So it would just be impossible and non-objective to say someone is a 9.25 PSL bcs it simply wouldn't be objective by that point.

A morphed person can be objectively a 9 PSL tho, if they fit the golden mask, frankfurt plane etc. P E R F E C T L Y. Through the millimeters. Which no known person has ever achieved before, but they might exist or be born in the future in theory.
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401, Alexanderr, Deleted member 2227 and 1 other person

This is a good way of setting it up. But what are these percentiles based on? Basically here's what I'm asking:

What age group are we considering for these percentiles and (more importantly) what population?

The answer would change a lot depending on this. Because if we're considering literally every male human alive (of any age) then obviously the 50th percentile person will look a lot different than the 50th percentile person if we were to just consider males 20-30 from a specific population.

Normally we only want to consider younger people as far as the age group goes. Obviously not so young that one is not fully developed yet. But not too old where one starts to deteriorate looks-wise. So we might consider people ages 20-30. But what about the population?
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401 and Gazzamogga
This is a good way of setting it up. But what are these percentiles based on? Basically here's what I'm asking:

What age group are we considering for these percentiles and (more importantly) what population?
Idk lol I didn't make it

Just explaining it
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401
Its historical in that IIRC, people starting rating out of 9 because 10s don't exist, then exactly what you described happened and people started rating out of 8 because 9s don't exist. We're pretty much on the way to rating out of 7 now. Eventually PSL will be out of 6, the average person will get rated 2.5ish, and you'll only be considered to be above 6 if you are a highly successful male model or actor.
My opinion on the whole thing is that PSL should stay out of 8 simply because that's what everyone is used to now. My further opinion is that two rates should be given - a PSL rate out of 8 that just considers hard facial aesthetics and an IRL rate out of 10 that considers the rest.
this

END OF THREAD
The normal distribution thing is a fun assumption but it probably isn't true. If we actually took meaningful statistical data on rates of people in a population (impossible), the curve would be to the left of what that thread claims.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401 and Deleted member 2227
Its historical in that IIRC, people starting rating out of 9 because 10s don't exist, then exactly what you described happened and people started rating out of 8 because 9s don't exist. We're pretty much on the way to rating out of 7 now. Eventually PSL will be out of 6, the average person will get rated 2.5ish, and you'll only be considered to be above 6 if you are a highly successful male model or actor.
My opinion on the whole thing is that PSL should stay out of 8 simply because that's what everyone is used to now. My further opinion is that two rates should be given - a PSL rate out of 8 that just considers hard facial aesthetics and an IRL rate out of 10 that considers the rest.

The normal distribution thing is a fun assumption but it probably isn't true. If we actually took meaningful statistical data on rates of people in a population (impossible), the curve would be to the left of what that thread claims.

I mostly agree. I just think we should give two rates where both are out of 10. One being a PSL out of 10 (for face only) and one being an IRL out of 10 (for face + whatever else that matters).

I also think that for the PSL out of 10 (face-only) rate we need to be careful in what we're considering. Obviously we're considering the head but where do we draw the line? Clearly we're going to consider facial bones and facial features. We're also going to want to consider hairline and hair quality. We're also going to want to consider facial skin quality. But what about facial skin coloring? And what about neck? I'm particularly interested in these last two. Should these be factored into a so-called "face-only" rating? I think facial skin coloring should be included. After all we're talking about the coloring of the skin ON THE FACE. I'm not so sure about neck though.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401 and LordNorwood
I mostly agree. I just think we should give two rates where both are out of 10. One being a PSL out of 10 (for face only) and one being an IRL out of 10 (for face + whatever else that matters).

I also think that for the PSL out of 10 (face-only) rate we need to be careful in what we're considering. Obviously we're considering the head but where do we draw the line? Clearly we're going to consider facial bones and facial features. We're also going to want to consider hairline and hair quality. We're also going to want to consider facial skin quality. But what about facial skin coloring? And what about neck? I'm particularly interested in these last two. Should these be factored into a so-called "face-only" rating? I think facial skin coloring should be included. After all we're talking about the coloring of the skin ON THE FACE. I'm not so sure about neck though.
What I've noticed, and how I think of things, is that there are two dimensions to a PSL rate. These are usefulness and accuracy.
If you're concerned with usefulness, you want PSL to be as specific and zoomed in as possible. You want it to tell you cold information about your face and you want it to be 100% analytical. You don't like concepts like "harmony" because they are black-box concepts, i.e., not useful. Its not even the rating that's worthwhile so much as the explanation behind it. The goal of PSL is to gain more analytical knowledge of the face.
If you're concerned with accuracy, you naturally include pheno/coloring in PSL and you don't explain your ratings much beyond subjective appeals. You are very focused on concepts like harmony and use them to differentiate cases. The rate itself matters, not the explanation. The goal of PSL is to be accurate to how women perceive you and to capture that in a number as best as possible.
So it depends where on that spectrum you fall. Someone on the far end of "useful" would be something like an autist who gives detailed breakdowns of aesthetics that describe major features and ratios and would make the distinctions you're talking about. He would point out that's he is or is not considering hairline and/or neck or whatever else.
Most people on here IMO are more in the "accuracy" camp.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401 and Deleted member 2227
0- Ugly
1- Not attractive (could fall under “not my type”)
2- Attractive

This is how women see it (for the most part). There is not one man that is attractive to all women, even Chico or Pitt.

PSL rating is counterproductive and driven by male ego. There are 4.5PSL users who have high sex appeal that get “PSL mogged” by some 5.5PSL Indian, but the 4.5PSL would out slay the 5.5 by miles IRL.

All that matters is sex appeal. You can be 4.5PSL and have lots of sex appeal and you can be a 6PSL and have little sex appeal.

The “ideal” man in most women’s eyes is a man with white facial features (well developed lower third, almond eyes, defined cheekbones, light eyes) and mediterranean coloring (dark eyebrows, long, dark lashes, darker hair). The closer you are to this, the better. There are exceptions ofc, but this would attract the most amount of women in my opinion.

Sex appeal>PSL. You can hope with your PSL rating but what matters is what you do IRL.
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401, Aesthetics_III and LordNorwood
0- Ugly
1- Not attractive (could fall under “not my type”)
2- Attractive

This is how women see it (for the most part). There is not one man that is attractive to all women, even Chico or Pitt.

PSL rating is counterproductive and driven by male ego. There are 4.5PSL users who have high sex appeal that get “PSL mogged” by some 5.5PSL Indian, but the 4.5PSL would out slay the 5.5 by miles IRL.

All that matters is sex appeal. You can be 4.5PSL and have lots of sex appeal and you can be a 6PSL and have little sex appeal.

The “ideal” man in most women’s eyes is a man with white facial features (well developed lower third, almond eyes, defined cheekbones, light eyes) and mediterranean coloring (dark eyebrows, long, dark lashes, darker dark). The closer you are to this, the better. There are exceptions ofc, but this would attract the most amount of women in my opinion.

Sex appeal>PSL. You can hope with your PSL rating but what matters is what you do IRL.
high IQ
most people would be better off just going by
Ugly
Normie (high tier and low tier breaks)
Chadlite
Chad
more than enough differentiation for how most people here use PSL
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401, middayshowers and Aesthetic
You were right untill that point, PSL was always meant to be ¨officially¨ out of 10 but 9-10s dont exist, so rating with an 8 scale would be rational as that is actually achievable. It would be nonsense to use a rating that is unachievable would it?


Idk what you mean by this, people simply use 8 as the new 10 bcs the new members that came on this site are insanely low iq and cant have a perception of why 9-10 arent used, so they just think 8=10 and therefore not achievable. While it originally was never meant that way.



No human can POSSIBLY be a 9 or a 10 bcs that means that they are flawless (9 being flawless and 10 being subjectively perfect in that persons eyes.). There is no human who is born with fullon ideal features bcs people perceive different things as non-ideal, one might see nordic as ideal while the other sees med as ideal etc etc etc. So it would just be impossible and non-objective to say someone is a 9.25 PSL bcs it simply wouldn't be objective by that point.

A morphed person can be objectively a 9 PSL tho, if they fit the golden mask, frankfurt plane etc. P E R F E C T L Y. Through the millimeters. Which no known person has ever achieved before, but they might exist or be born in the future in theory.

What I don't understand is, according to the way you have laid it out (and I agree with that way), how does 4 end up being the average?

So you agree that we're still rating out of 10. We're just saying that 8 is the highest OBJECTIVE achievable rate so far because, for example, 9s don't exist yet. That's not to say 9s can't exist. I'm sure you agree that perhaps in the future there may be an objective PSL 9 (or whatever).

But here's the thing. If we're rating out of 10 and we're saying 9s and 10s don't exist, then what about the lower end of the spectrum? Shouldn't we, by the same token, say that 0s and 1s don't exist? And if 0s and 1s don't exist (like 9s and 10s), then the average turns out to be 5, not 4. Because excluding 0s, 1s, 9s, and 10s, the only achievable rates so far are 2 through 8 (with the average being 5, not 4).
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401
high IQ
most people would be better off just going by
Ugly
Normie (high tier and low tier breaks)
Chadlite
Chad
more than enough differentiation for how most people here use PSL
Yeah I agree the scale you mentioned above is the best IMO. Numbers are 100% arbitrary and based on the person who is rating’s location (say you are rating me and live in the Netherlands, I would be rated lower by you compared to someone else who lives in a less attractive place).
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401, LordNorwood and Aesthetic
What I don't understand is, according to the way you have laid it out (and I agree with that way), how does 4 end up being the average?

So you agree that we're still rating out of 10. We're just saying that 8 is the highest OBJECTIVE achievable rate so far because, for example, 9s don't exist yet. That's not to say 9s can't exist. I'm sure you agree that perhaps in the future there may be an objective PSL 9 (or whatever).

But here's the thing. If we're rating out of 10 and we're saying 9s and 10s don't exist, then what about the lower end of the spectrum? Shouldn't we, by the same token, say that 0s and 1s don't exist? And if 0s and 1s don't exist (like 9s and 10s), then the average turns out to be 5, not 4. Because excluding 0s, 1s, 9s, and 10s, the only achievable rates so far are from 2 through 8 (with the average being 5, not 4).
I dont think a human can be a 9 PSL unless artificially created. 0s dont exists, 1s do exist tho but to be a 1 you have to severely deformed. A 4 is average IRL. As it is right between the achievable plain of the PSL scale
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401
I dont think a human can be a 9 PSL unless artificially created. 0s dont exists, 1s do exist tho but to be a 1 you have to severely deformed. A 4 is average IRL. As it is right between the achievable plain of the PSL scale

I see. But even assuming that 1s exist and assuming that 9s and 10s don't, the average turns out to be 4.5 (not 4) because we're considering the following values only: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401
I dont think a human can be a 9 PSL unless artificially created. 0s dont exists, 1s do exist tho but to be a 1 you have to severely deformed. A 4 is average IRL. As it is right between the achievable plain of the PSL scale
I included 0 in my conception of PSL scale, it's just a person who is so severely deformed they're not even seen as a sexual object whatsoever.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401 and Aesthetic
I see. But even assuming that 1s exist and assuming that 9s and 10s don't, the average turns out to be 4.5 (not 4) because we're considering the following values only: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
No bcs 9s are still a thing, they are just never have been humanly achieved outside of morphs.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401
PSL10 girls exist, tons of them. but no guy is above PSL8. being a male is a meme.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401
Wrong, 4 PSL is average looking. That isnt even a sub 5/10 in the normie scale
well im not a "rater" nor do i give a shit about it anyway bro
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 6401

Similar threads

danil97c
Replies
6
Views
468
basedpheno88
basedpheno88
pandamonium
Replies
9
Views
962
juanson
juanson
MogsMost
Replies
12
Views
346
IWantToMax
IWantToMax
larox.psl
Replies
26
Views
593
MentalistKebab
M
M
Replies
2
Views
311
charliewillascend
charliewillascend

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top