The 1-to-10 scale is used to rate women's physical attractiveness. Tuthmosis states, "I use halves (.5s) to achieve a little more precision. The idea is that a girl who’s almost at that next level—but doesn’t quite have it takes to get the rating outright—will get a .5. I’ll also occasionally grant (or deduct) halves for “intangibles”—things like extraordinary sweetness (or bitchiness), a sexy vibe (or awkwardness), or a personal preference (though I’m quick to disclose the latter)."[1]

Tuthmosis has argued that the scale is pointless because "It seems we have to account for taste after all. . . . Guys rate their own catches high and others' low. Big-ballerism is rampant. . . . Most guys can't extrapolate. . . . Conversely, guys are easily fooled by camera tricks. . . . It's mental masturbation that breeds pointless arguments."[2] General Stalin notes, "Unfortunately, and I hate to say it, the 1-10 scale is difficult in practice. Generally men can agree whether or not a girl is attractive or not, but to get specifics on how attractive, as Tuth said, calls upon a lot of discretion. Using objective and universal characteristics like symmetry, physical fitness, hip-to-waist ratio, hygiene, etc. are decent points to go on, but everyone has a particular level of preference and ego that makes true objectivity impossible. Men have been referencing the 1-10 scale for an awful long time so I don't see it going anywhere and everyone has a general understanding of it. Dispute over specifics is where men just get into a pissing contest."[3]

MrXY writes, "A 7 is a girl I would describe as being 'pretty'. A 6 to me is 'cute' and an 8 is 'beautiful'".[4]

General Stalin writes:[5]

6/10 is average OK looks. Bangable and respectable but nothing to write home to mom about (not that you should be writing letters to your mom about your conquests)

7/10 is sort of perfect "girlfriend" territory. Where the girl is good looking enough to keep you interested in the long term, but not too good looking where she has a crazy ego or you get anxious about having to mate guard when you go out.

8/10 is where a girl is good looking enough to be able to start making money on her looks. Could be a stripper, bartender, IG hoe, fitness chick, etc. These girls are often crazy, especially where they live a fine line between normal and glamorous life style.

9/10 is a stunner. Model good looks. Gets tons of attention everywhere she goes because of her beauty. Can make a good living off of her looks alone. Most women at this level of physical beauty tend to shack up with wealthy/famous men because they can.

10/10 doesn't exists. No one is perfect. The idea of a "10" would be a girl that has something that a 9 has that makes her specifically more attractive per your personal tastes. Maybe you really fucking love gingers and this girl is a 9 who happens to have long red hair and freckles. There is your 10.

Hume's cheat sheet

L D. Hume notes that the appropriate level of investment in a girl?? depends on her rating:[6]

<table>

Scale

0

Tuthmosis states, "No Such Thing. Has a dick."

1

Tuthmosis states, "Hideously Unattractive. A monster. Disfigured or irretrievably mutilated. Has two heads, is missing an eye, etc."

2

Tuthmosis states, "Very Unattractive. Disproportionate, morbidly obese."

3

Tuthmosis states, "Unattractive. Ugly, fat, and/or old."

4

Tuthmosis states, "Almost Bangable. But definitely doesn't pass the boner test. Still not good-looking." According to L.D. Hume, girls 4 and lower on the scale are suitable only for one night stands, and even then only when blackout drunk or when one has had sex with fewer than five girls in one's life and is trying to gain experience.

5

Tuthmosis states, "Merely Bangable. Barely passes the boner test. You’d be pretty embarrassed to be seen with her." Hume notes that having sex with such girls is "Almost always a result of excessive, yet not blackout amounts of alcohol. The 'last call at the club' slut coupled with a dry streak."

6

Tuthmosis states, "Almost Cute. She might be cute if one or two things were different, but they’re not. You may not be super-embarrassed to be seen with her, but you certainly wouldn't be proud, and you definitely wouldn't willingly bring her around to anything." Hume describes this as "actually the most dangerous category. The 6s are the most likely to finagle you into a relationship. The sheer number of 6s means you are bound to run into some that have a decent personality, or amazing blowjob skills. Your male hamster will start spinning, thinking about how her tight body overlooks the weird haircut and acne she has. Or how her cute face overrides her baby fat."

7

Tuthmosis states, "Solidly Cute. Zero embarrassment, even some nascent pride in being seen with her. You could bring her to things without looking bad, or losing any of the luster on your game." Hume notes that they are suited for short-term but not long-term relationships:

As to why they are not suited for a long term relationship, the reason is simple—there is just better out there in the world. There are 8s and above. So why, even though she is a cute girl and may have the personality traits to go along with it, settle for a 7? It’s a very very tough thing to advise against and even harder to put in practice. I’ve fallen into the trap myself several times.

The answer of course lies in something that most men have yet to experience. The feeling of dating an 8, which is exponentially better (though admittedly harder to pull off) than a 7. I’ve dabbled in this before and it does make a difference. Try to keep the 7s at bay for the short term relationships and everything below. Instead, use the time you would put LTR’ing a 7 into bettering yourself for the 8.

8

Tuthmosis states, "Hot-Cute. Would be straight-up proud to be seen with her or bring her to things. This is often the sweet spot for long-term relationship material."

9

Tuthmosis states, "Smoking Hot. This is a girl who can easily monetize her beauty. You’re going out of your way to be seen with her."

10

Tuthmosis states, "Perfection. A theoretical abstraction that only exists in the laboratory." Athlone McGinnis agrees.[7] According to Donovan Sharpe, tens don’t get hit on as often, are much more pleasant than you think, are extremely insecure, are so-so in bed, and are people too.[8]

Alternative Scales

philosophical_recovery notes, "The 1-10 as a rating scale will be debated until people stop using it. It's been pointed out before that a much better scale is something more like WNB->WB->WHR->WI, or, Would Not Bang -> Would Bang -> Would Hit Raw -> Would Impregnate".[9]

The late comedian Patrice O'Neal devised a thirty-point scale, with 0-10 being degrees of "ugly looking women", 11-20 being degrees of "alright looking women", and 21-30 being degrees of "beautiful women."[10]

Roosh mentioned both the 1-10 scale and the "binary scale" (with 0 being WNB and 1 being WB) in an early article.[11]