I’ve always regarded rating women on a scale of one to ten to be a pathetic and sophomoric practice. It is both demeaning to women and appallingly imprecise.
I prefer the Helen of Troy beauty scale. Using the vastly more precise Helen of Troy beauty scale allows a woman’s beauty to be rated on a scale between 1 and 1,000.
It works like this:
If one Helen is the amount of beauty it takes to launch 1,000 ships, then one millihelen (abbreviated as “mh”) is the amount of beauty it takes to launch one ship. This system affords greater precision in rating women in millihelens, anywhere between 1 mh to 1,000 mh (1,000 mh being the equivalent of 1 Helen.)
Most of Europe uses the more precise Helen of Troy beauty scale.
Comments
last commentI forgot to mention, going metric in measuring the size of your pecker also yields considerable benefits because it puts most of us easily into double digits.
Log in to vote
OK. Then based on the Helen of Troy scale, what would you rate this one :
www.pornhub.com
Log in to vote
Yes, much less pathetic and sophomoric. And not at all demeaning to women.
Log in to vote
@Warrior that’s a hottie. Good taste. I give her a 812.3782
Log in to vote
What is your baseline for ship tonnage? Technically 1 large aircraft carrier could count as multiple baseline "ships".
Log in to vote
Brilliant fact for flagooner:
Anything can be made to sound less sophomoric by embracing precision. pistola would have been a moron if he rated the porn girl an 8. But 812.3782? That some aces girl rating! ;)
Log in to vote
Brilliant advice for 4got2wipe
Eat shit.
No, really. I know you enjoy that.
Log in to vote
imho she is only a 756.2387459925481.
Log in to vote
I’d dine on her 3.14159265359.
Log in to vote
Nidan, it would certainly be some fabulous eating! You’d NEVER run out of decimals to lick!
Log in to vote
Aww she's pretty
Log in to vote
No rating system of women is complete without irrational numbers.
Just sayin'.
Log in to vote
As far as concerns about being demeaning to women(yes I know you were joking), I’d assume a 1-10 scale is less dicey than 1-1000.
For example, instead of two girls hearing they are both a seven and thinking themselves equal, now one is a 730 and the other is a 760. And that’s a bigger deal now.
But the way I see it with numerical ratings in general, is that at the end of the day, it’s too subjective. And getting more precise would make things more fuzzy instead of less.
Unless possibly, it’s just for oneself, and a man has taken the time to set the standards of what aspects weighs in higher and lower for his own scale.
I think most men would rate me a 7 (I’m not too sure) but then there is a small group of men who may rate me 9-10 because my look fits their specific preferences.
For TUSCL specifically, since there are a few haters who I’m sure would lower my ratings, my Helen of Troy scale is a 666. xD
Log in to vote
^^ You are a little devil, aren't you ?
Log in to vote
^^ mwahahaha
Log in to vote
^^^ I would rate you an 8 based on what I have seen. Need to see the motion to go higher. Lol. Some day, hopefully.
Log in to vote
nicespice is a secret succubus
Log in to vote
@Nicespice
“But the way I see it with numerical ratings in general, is that at the end of the day, it’s too subjective.”
That’s what road tests are for!
Log in to vote
@nice
I'd give you a good 6
Log in to vote
But I'd rate you higher than that.
Log in to vote
@Flagooner -
Only a 6 for Nicespice? Are you serious? I think you’re being too hard on Nicespice.
I’d give Nicepice 820 mh. I’d love to give her a “hard time.”
Log in to vote
Saying I would give her a good 6 was optimistic.
Log in to vote
Flag meant 2.5 lmao.
As far as this rating system, I like it. If a gals sat score is lower than her hotness rating and hotness rating is above 600, she’s worth a lap dance.
Log in to vote