I’m not spending money for a dance with a 5 regardless of enthusiasm. I’ll always take a chance with what I consider a 9 or 10. Like Muddy said if I know those are the outcomes, I’ll pass on both options.
Assuming your premise and not questioning the set-up behind the question my answer would be roughly that I prefer the enthusiasm with lesser looks. I assume you mean, better service or better looks? But I would really have to define the terms before I could answer completely.
For "enthusiasm" I'd rather have a woman with whom I really click. Over-the-top fake-seeming enthusiasm annoys me, but if it's performed in a way that I get along with, then I tend to enjoy it.
For a reduction in looks, it depends on what the reduction is. If the body is flabby or fat or loose, then a lesser level of looks will be a deal-breaker and I'll reject her, regardless of whether we click or whether she's enthusiastic. But if the thing that makes her less than perfect is something which, to me, is innocuous, like having a non-standard face, or having very small natural tits to the point of being utterly flat, I would be delighted to enjoy her charms. So, it depends on what type of looks detriment there is.
In fact, the reduction in the original question, from a 9/10 to a 5/6, is simply not a question that arises for me. I don't think I've allowed many 5/6 to dance for me ever. I'd have to have a 6/7 or maybe a 7/8 as a bare minimum in the first place. What do you mean by "5/6", someone who is so ugly she shouldn't be dancing, or one of the girls who is excellent looking but doesn't have golden-pussy syndrome?
Ive had a mechanical 9/10 escort and I didnt give a shit if she was mechanical. All I cared about was she sucked the head good and put those feet up in the air.
If it was an enthusiastic 5/10 I dont think I could even get hard over it.
My two best nights inside a club over the past 5 years were with two very enthusiastic dancers. One was a very fit 40 year old MILF, the other was a very petite 28 year old. I would rate them both a 7 inside the club. Some guys may rate them a 6, others may rate them an 8. Rating is always an opinion and I think it has a lot to do with where you club and the consistent quality you’re used to. A PLs 8 in the Midwest is not going to match a PLs 8 in south Florida.
I’ve been in clubs where nothing is better than a 5, and other than getting a few “pity” dances I usually just cut my losses and left. I’ve spent time with 6s too and those are usually lack luster experiences although the I’ve had a good experience here and there.
Here’s what the objectionable part comes into play. For me, I’ve only actually witnessed a “10” in person inside a club only around 5 times in my entire 20+ years of clubbing. Some guys will say they see a 10 once a month when clubbing.
I'm with those who ask if the 5/6 is in the face or the body. If she's got a butterface I'll just close my eyes and focus on the feeling. If she's a 5/6 because she's a skeleton or morbidly obese, I'll pass.
When rating a stripper's appearance, I don't rate them in comparison to other strippers. I rate them against a whole of the of-age female population. Therefore, a stripper of 5-6 is the average of women in America. Which is a firm no. Just walk around the grocery or mall in any average neighborhood, and ask yourself who you'd want to pay for a lap dance.
Conversely, a 9/10 is a vision, a goddess, my perfect woman come to life. In my lap, grinding. But only for 1 or 2 dances. I've actually been there a couple of times.
On the subject of rating the girl, here's what my own numbers mean.
First, I try to tell myself "there is no such thing as a 10 in reality." The 10 is an ideal in the mind's eye. I give the hottest girl at the hottest club on the hottest night, ever, about a 9.5. Then I adjust everyone else downwards accordingly.
I also think that MOST viable strippers are in the 7, 8, and 9 range. Girls who are 6s and below are simply not stripping. In general, if the whole human female population were plotted on a bell curve with a standard deviation type distribution, I believe any human who fell into that curve's 50th or 60th percentiles would simply be NOT A DANCER.
You could fix the NOT A DANCER problem by saying that you're rating the girls who are actually in the club, in which case you could assign a full distribution. The ugliest would be the 1, the hottest the 10, and you'd work your way inwards from there, perhaps redistributing toward the middle (as in bell curve example, above) or perhaps giving a linear distribution. I don't think this (comparing strictly to girls within the club, not to everybody) is very sensible, but it might be something which other guys are doing, or even if they don't think they're doing it, they might be assuming parts of it within their calculus.
Essentially, I believe I "know" what most people's range of 9s and 8s are. There are standard characteristics, but variation within the model. I think when you get to 7 or lower, it's much more idiosyncratic to the viewer.
Also, ever noticed how frickin' wonky the women's assessments of each other tend to be. Aside from extremely long-term strippers who have learned, probably through difficult experience, what most guys respond to, I believe most women really focus MUCH more on face and make-up than most guys do. I look at body. People on this thread attest to looking at body. I prefer much much skinnier than most women admit. I think most men on this board, even those men who say they prefer hefty or solid or non-skinny women, are choosing within a much lower range of body-fat than most women would guess.
10's don't work in strip clubs. if you think you've seen a 10 stripping, your rating system is busted. you might find a couple of 9's, here and there, but not even really. a 9 is a fucking model, flawless skin, perfect body for a catwalk.
so from that standpoint, a TRUE 9, ok, let's see what she's got. but if she's a mechanical 8, which is fine as hell for a strip club, then nah. defining "mechanical" as no eye contact, looks bored or looking around, checking her watch/phone, etc. fuck those bitches, they are a dime a dozen.
the rating system is based on looks, but if you find a bitch who treats you like all she needs in life is to eat your dick, and who is sexy for you, then honestly even a 5 can start to look real good.
Hey yeah, ya know what, I agree 5footguy, real 10s don't work in strip clubs. I'm going to have to re-calibrate my entire rating system. Do you think that maybe in the past they did? Maybe in the 90s when high-service stripping was the biggest money a girl could get on looks alone, maybe then there were 10s in the strip clubs? I dunno, gotta reconsider ...
@bookguy and @5foot.... Interesting that you guys would agree that you can't find a 10 in a strip club.
I think I may use a different rubric for ranking. On a normal distribution curve, 10 would mean 90th percentile to me. That's pretty common, and you can definitely find a 10 in the right club.
You all might consider a 10 like 2 standard deviations from the norm, which I would agree would be impossible to find in a club. I feel like a post or article about rankings with different bell curves and examples would be interesting.
Anyway, to answer by my own rubric, a 5 or 6 would be too low for me, I'd prefer the 9/10. But an enthusiastic 7 or 8 over a 9/10, I'd take.
@RonJax2 if a 10 is so-and-so number of standard deviations from the norm, what is a UNIT? Seriously, you sound like you understand statistics. When there's a UNIT of deviation, what does that represent? If the "ideal" weight for a particular height is (f.e.) 120 pounds, and therefore we assign 10 value to 120 pounds, what do we assign to either 115 pounds or 125 pounds? Do we assign 9.5s, or 9s, or 8s? I have a hard time figuring out HOW FAR a given standard deviation should go. I can't apply statistical analysis accurately.
I have a more intuitive way to do things, generally. I like 10s, but I never see them. I always want to fuck 9s and 8s. 9s can be dumb as bricks, I don't care, they're hot. 8s need a little bit on the ball. The 7s are sometimes disappointments visually, but the can improve my demeanor by means of their behavior, attitude, intelligence, etc.. It would take a lot of cajoling and ideal interaction for me to be interested in a 6. 5s and lower aren't dancing, 6s shouldn't be.
> if a 10 is so-and-so number of standard deviations from the norm, what is a UNIT?
Yeah, I mean, that's the essential question though and what I'm driving at. I think this depends on the PL!
For frame of reference a standard deviation is the square root of the Variance of a set of data. The Variance is the average of the squared differences of all values from the Mean. See here (the visual explanations might help): https://www.mathsisfun.com/data/standard…
It's a useful unit of measurement for data that fits a bell curve, like a group of people's IQ or Height. For such data: * 68% of the data will fall within plus or minus 1 standard deviation * 96% of the data will fall within +/- 2 std deviations * 99.7% of the data will fall within +/- 3 std deviations
I think a lot of mongers use a ranking system intuitively based on standard deviations, maybe something like like: * A 5 is average * A 6 is 0.5 standard deviations more attractive * A 7 is 1 std dev * An 8 is 1.5 std dev * A 9 is 2 std dev * A 10 is 2.5 std deviations more attractive
With a system like that, less than 0.5% of women are 10s, and you need to look to Hollywood or the runways of Milan to find women who are a 10. They aren't in the club.
I tend to use a percentile system when ranking women: * 5 is average * 6 is 50-60th percentile * 7 is 60-70th percentile * 8 is 70-80th percentile * 9 is 80th-90th percentile * 10 is 90+ percentile
By this system, 1 out of every 10 women is a 10. Which is not at all uncommon in the club.
The other question here is, who is our population? I tend to rate women's attractiveness relative to other women *of child bearing age*. So I throw out all the grannies and overweight 50 year olds when I'm thinking about rankings. A 10, for me, means she's more attractive than 90+ % of all women of child bearing age.
Other people tend to rank dancers relative to other dancers. (In this case, a 5 would be an "average dancer".)
And then others tend to rank dancers relative to ALL women. In which case, a 5 would might be a slightly overweight 45 year old.
With all that said, I think an effort post with lots of illustrations diving deeper into how we rank women would be interesting.
@RonJax2 exactly, looking forward to the effort-post. :)
I saw a few weeks ago someone (can't remember) comparing four body-types. There was A1 thin but soft, A2 thin but toned, B1 chunky but soft, B2 chunky but (supposedly) toned. I found only A2 attractive. Most respondents were discussing whether B1 and B2 were adequately distinguished, whereas for me, they were simply overweight.
I recall in the early early days of the internet, literally 1995 or 1997, there was a website called baberank or something like that. You were on dialup, you had to watch the pictures load slowly. Bzzzzzzpongpong-ooooeeee remember that sound? Anyway, the owner would post Playboy models and we'd all vote and the new ranking (cumulative, with an all-time leader and weekly and monthly leaders) would arrive next week. I was a regular participant. Shae Marks was the leading all-time when the site got busted for copyright infringement. It would be great to try to set something up like that again.
@RonJax, interesting distinction and I hadn't thought about it. In short, you're saying that a 10 for you is a p90+. IMO the tails are a bit fatter on the distribution so for me a 9 is probably a +2 sigma (p95) while a 10 is in +3 sigma (p99) territory.
Practically, that means that for me 1 out of every 20 girls is a 9 and 1 out of 100 is a 10. Seems about right to me.
I was literally thinking about this recently! lol A 5 is a bit too low for me, but yeah, I’d much rather have a great dance from a legit 6-7 than garbage dances from supermodel looking dancers. I just don’t have the mentality to tolerate terrible dances anymore no matter how physically hot the dancer looks.
Also, to piggyback on the first reply, I’m more of a body than a face guy, so even if she’s like a 5 or 6 in the face, the body might be more of an 8 or 9, then I prefer that anyway. Pretty faces are irrelevant if they don’t have the body to match. For body, my bare minimum is a 7. For face, I might go as low as 5.
31 comments
Faces don’t get my dick hard. But azz/titties do.
I’m in the m
For "enthusiasm" I'd rather have a woman with whom I really click. Over-the-top fake-seeming enthusiasm annoys me, but if it's performed in a way that I get along with, then I tend to enjoy it.
For a reduction in looks, it depends on what the reduction is. If the body is flabby or fat or loose, then a lesser level of looks will be a deal-breaker and I'll reject her, regardless of whether we click or whether she's enthusiastic. But if the thing that makes her less than perfect is something which, to me, is innocuous, like having a non-standard face, or having very small natural tits to the point of being utterly flat, I would be delighted to enjoy her charms. So, it depends on what type of looks detriment there is.
In fact, the reduction in the original question, from a 9/10 to a 5/6, is simply not a question that arises for me. I don't think I've allowed many 5/6 to dance for me ever. I'd have to have a 6/7 or maybe a 7/8 as a bare minimum in the first place. What do you mean by "5/6", someone who is so ugly she shouldn't be dancing, or one of the girls who is excellent looking but doesn't have golden-pussy syndrome?
If it was an enthusiastic 5/10 I dont think I could even get hard over it.
I’ve been in clubs where nothing is better than a 5, and other than getting a few “pity” dances I usually just cut my losses and left. I’ve spent time with 6s too and those are usually lack luster experiences although the I’ve had a good experience here and there.
Here’s what the objectionable part comes into play. For me, I’ve only actually witnessed a “10” in person inside a club only around 5 times in my entire 20+ years of clubbing. Some guys will say they see a 10 once a month when clubbing.
Mechanical 9/10, at most one dance for the view.
Conversely, a 9/10 is a vision, a goddess, my perfect woman come to life. In my lap, grinding. But only for 1 or 2 dances. I've actually been there a couple of times.
First, I try to tell myself "there is no such thing as a 10 in reality." The 10 is an ideal in the mind's eye. I give the hottest girl at the hottest club on the hottest night, ever, about a 9.5. Then I adjust everyone else downwards accordingly.
I also think that MOST viable strippers are in the 7, 8, and 9 range. Girls who are 6s and below are simply not stripping. In general, if the whole human female population were plotted on a bell curve with a standard deviation type distribution, I believe any human who fell into that curve's 50th or 60th percentiles would simply be NOT A DANCER.
You could fix the NOT A DANCER problem by saying that you're rating the girls who are actually in the club, in which case you could assign a full distribution. The ugliest would be the 1, the hottest the 10, and you'd work your way inwards from there, perhaps redistributing toward the middle (as in bell curve example, above) or perhaps giving a linear distribution. I don't think this (comparing strictly to girls within the club, not to everybody) is very sensible, but it might be something which other guys are doing, or even if they don't think they're doing it, they might be assuming parts of it within their calculus.
Essentially, I believe I "know" what most people's range of 9s and 8s are. There are standard characteristics, but variation within the model. I think when you get to 7 or lower, it's much more idiosyncratic to the viewer.
Also, ever noticed how frickin' wonky the women's assessments of each other tend to be. Aside from extremely long-term strippers who have learned, probably through difficult experience, what most guys respond to, I believe most women really focus MUCH more on face and make-up than most guys do. I look at body. People on this thread attest to looking at body. I prefer much much skinnier than most women admit. I think most men on this board, even those men who say they prefer hefty or solid or non-skinny women, are choosing within a much lower range of body-fat than most women would guess.
so from that standpoint, a TRUE 9, ok, let's see what she's got. but if she's a mechanical 8, which is fine as hell for a strip club, then nah. defining "mechanical" as no eye contact, looks bored or looking around, checking her watch/phone, etc. fuck those bitches, they are a dime a dozen.
the rating system is based on looks, but if you find a bitch who treats you like all she needs in life is to eat your dick, and who is sexy for you, then honestly even a 5 can start to look real good.
I think I may use a different rubric for ranking. On a normal distribution curve, 10 would mean 90th percentile to me. That's pretty common, and you can definitely find a 10 in the right club.
You all might consider a 10 like 2 standard deviations from the norm, which I would agree would be impossible to find in a club. I feel like a post or article about rankings with different bell curves and examples would be interesting.
Anyway, to answer by my own rubric, a 5 or 6 would be too low for me, I'd prefer the 9/10. But an enthusiastic 7 or 8 over a 9/10, I'd take.
But yeah ... Attitude is sexier than any body part. Give me a sexy attitude over looks in nearly every other case.
I have a more intuitive way to do things, generally. I like 10s, but I never see them. I always want to fuck 9s and 8s. 9s can be dumb as bricks, I don't care, they're hot. 8s need a little bit on the ball. The 7s are sometimes disappointments visually, but the can improve my demeanor by means of their behavior, attitude, intelligence, etc.. It would take a lot of cajoling and ideal interaction for me to be interested in a 6. 5s and lower aren't dancing, 6s shouldn't be.
> if a 10 is so-and-so number of standard deviations from the norm, what is a UNIT?
Yeah, I mean, that's the essential question though and what I'm driving at. I think this depends on the PL!
For frame of reference a standard deviation is the square root of the Variance of a set of data. The Variance is the average of the squared differences of all values from the Mean. See here (the visual explanations might help): https://www.mathsisfun.com/data/standard…
It's a useful unit of measurement for data that fits a bell curve, like a group of people's IQ or Height. For such data:
* 68% of the data will fall within plus or minus 1 standard deviation
* 96% of the data will fall within +/- 2 std deviations
* 99.7% of the data will fall within +/- 3 std deviations
I think a lot of mongers use a ranking system intuitively based on standard deviations, maybe something like like:
* A 5 is average
* A 6 is 0.5 standard deviations more attractive
* A 7 is 1 std dev
* An 8 is 1.5 std dev
* A 9 is 2 std dev
* A 10 is 2.5 std deviations more attractive
With a system like that, less than 0.5% of women are 10s, and you need to look to Hollywood or the runways of Milan to find women who are a 10. They aren't in the club.
I tend to use a percentile system when ranking women:
* 5 is average
* 6 is 50-60th percentile
* 7 is 60-70th percentile
* 8 is 70-80th percentile
* 9 is 80th-90th percentile
* 10 is 90+ percentile
By this system, 1 out of every 10 women is a 10. Which is not at all uncommon in the club.
The other question here is, who is our population? I tend to rate women's attractiveness relative to other women *of child bearing age*. So I throw out all the grannies and overweight 50 year olds when I'm thinking about rankings. A 10, for me, means she's more attractive than 90+ % of all women of child bearing age.
Other people tend to rank dancers relative to other dancers. (In this case, a 5 would be an "average dancer".)
And then others tend to rank dancers relative to ALL women. In which case, a 5 would might be a slightly overweight 45 year old.
With all that said, I think an effort post with lots of illustrations diving deeper into how we rank women would be interesting.
5-6 average. not interested.
7 some attractiveness
8 now she is attractive.
9 really attractive... and hot!
10 smokin HOT!
I saw a few weeks ago someone (can't remember) comparing four body-types. There was A1 thin but soft, A2 thin but toned, B1 chunky but soft, B2 chunky but (supposedly) toned. I found only A2 attractive. Most respondents were discussing whether B1 and B2 were adequately distinguished, whereas for me, they were simply overweight.
I recall in the early early days of the internet, literally 1995 or 1997, there was a website called baberank or something like that. You were on dialup, you had to watch the pictures load slowly. Bzzzzzzpongpong-ooooeeee remember that sound? Anyway, the owner would post Playboy models and we'd all vote and the new ranking (cumulative, with an all-time leader and weekly and monthly leaders) would arrive next week. I was a regular participant. Shae Marks was the leading all-time when the site got busted for copyright infringement. It would be great to try to set something up like that again.
Practically, that means that for me 1 out of every 20 girls is a 9 and 1 out of 100 is a 10. Seems about right to me.