Dumb comparisonAnyone that has 6 as above average and 5 as average isn't credible
6/10 on a school test is 60% which is a D aka barely passing, 50% is a F

Dumb comparisonAnyone that has 6 as above average and 5 as average isn't credible
6/10 on a school test is 60% which is a D aka barely passing, 50% is a F
Dumb comparison![]()
Shut yo sissy ass uphmmmm, id say instantly. but in that first pic she looks like she could loose a good 10-15 pounds![]()
This is how people get caught up in dysfunction relationships and baby mama/daddy drama.
Trying to make a baby with a mfer you barely like just bc theyre "sexy"
Nah. Just, nah. It's already a flawed interpretation cuz there's no such thing as a 100% perfect looking bytch. Here, I broke this shyt all down a couple years back.If a 10/10 is perfect = 100% = A+ then a 6/10 is average / mediocre but then again nikkas on this site shift things to fit theirwtheir since most of them only getting busted females and rating them a 8 when they're really a 6![]()
Tha 1-10 (0-10 really) scale should be treated like a basic bell curve with each whole number representing one standard deviation away from tha median (5). Counting up from 5 to 10 should really be like counting from 0 to 5 on tha attractiveness scale, 1 being mildly attractive to 5 being elite rare talent. Conversely you should treat counting down from 5 to 0 like counting from 0 to 5 on tha repulsiveness scale, 1 being mildy repulsive to 5 being a walking abomination. Most humans fall within tha 4 to 6 range, tha average truly ugly person falls at around a 3. I save 1's and 2's for tha ppl with moderate to extreme physical defects (i.e. tha elephant man) or unnatural beings (trannies).
Another thing I'll add is the range on this scale approaches 10 at the maxiumum and approaches 0 at the minimum but never meets those two values, like calculus. A bytch can always be prettier and a bytch can always be uglier.They're probably just confused or mislead as to where they stand on tha totem pole.
One thing I've failed to mention regarding my personal chart is tht for certain data points i deem invalid to be properly quantified by round whole numbers i have designated three classifications for tha inbetweeners: strong, weak, and borderline. Strong means tht they're above a whole number but within tha .01 to .4 decimal range. Borderline means they're right inbetween numbers, around tha .4 to .6 decimal range. Weak means they're just below their closest whole number, in tha .6 to .9 decimal range.
For example i personally find jorja smith to be fine as fukk. She hits all tha dopamine receptors when i see her. Right now I'd rate her a 9 but not quite a 10 (ion believe in dimes). So I'd say she's a strong 9 (within tha 9.01 to 9.4 range)
Nah. Just, nah. It's already a flawed interpretation cuz there's no such thing as a 100% perfect looking bytch. Here, I broke this shyt all down a couple years back.
Another thing I'll add is the range on this scale approaches 10 at the maxiumum and approaches 0 at the minimum but never meets those two values, like calculus. A bytch can always be prettier and a bytch can always be uglier.
How is a bell curve gymnasticsList is invalid because you listed defects and the gymnastics you tried to pull with the 5-10 lol
I don't count defects because it's not their fault they were born with irregularities, I don't date them at all of course, just don't think they even count on the scale. I never said there was 10s existing at all.
I’m not wifing based off looks![]()