You're viewing a single thread.
What do you have to look like to achieve more than a 7? A biblically accurate angel?
Totally would hit that.
Yes. Specifically
Too many eyes but not fat or disfigured. 4/10.
The whole thing is designed to allow them to call people (especially women) "mid". They arbitrarily chose to use a gaussian distribution pattern so they had an excuse not to give anyone a score beyond 6s.
But real answer is be a hugely successful fashion model who the sub creator found attractive. Then their "objective rating standards" would include arbitrary criteria to bundle your face in. The whole sub could be replaced with a trivial ML model if it were actually about just giving their "objective" ratings. The internal weights used by the ML model would make about as much sense as the crap spouted in the screenshot.
Aren't biblically accurate angels androgynous?
They're fucked up is what they are. See above and also
isn't there an angel in the bible that's supposed to look like that?
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Do keep up, Jenkins 😛
sorry. I had a long day today.
No worries lol, sorry if my snark was needlessly harsh 😁
If you really want to confront the madness:
I'd note that almost all of the headshots there have a lot of makeup, and the named ones are almost certainly professional makeup.
You don't even see light makeup until the 7s and 6.5 range. Damn neckbeard(s?) don't even know what a woman actually looks like, and apparently expect women to pay for a professional cosmetologist to do them up before they leave the house.
Edit: it might be an amusing experiment to post those given a "9.5", but from a shot where they have their normal day to day "face" on and see what rank they get. Or at least how long until its deleted.
Permanently Deleted
To be fair, 8.5 is marked as 1 in 3000, meaning that 2999/3000 women look worse. Even 6.0 is marked as "Top 15%".
So definitely not something they "expect" most women to look like.
I wonder how many people would actually sort them similar to how they're sorted in the first picture.
Because to me the distribution of attractive people between 5.0 and 10 seems to be completely random.
There is the tiniest, infinitesimal amount of value in the statement that, likely because of the way we’re all graded in school, we don’t really use the full range of a 1-10 scale for attractiveness, and are sorta only really saying ugly, mediocre, attractive, or model.
There is zero value in saying that that’s an issue and the solution is a psychopathic and dehumanizing system.
When it comes to looks, the only meaningful scale consist of a 0 (not attractive) and 1 (attractive). E.g., if a woman I am talking to doesn't find me attractive, there is zero practical difference between me looking like Chris Hemsworth or an ogre.
Duckduckgo doesn't seem to know what an ogre is..
does brave search know?
Apparently not. First Brave Search image for "Chris Hemsworth ogre":
that's just disney paying for results that make their actors look good I guess.
Yeah, probably
Biblically accurate angels are looking mighty fine though 👀
We must have very different criteria..
