Why There Are No 10’s

The dangers of pedestalization are well documented in the manosphere, but one source of that peril is frequently overlooked: the myth of “the 10”, and the dangers of buying into it.

You’ve all heard it before.

“She’s a solid 10”

“Perfect, she’s a 10/10!”

“She’s a hard ten!”


A 10 implies perfection. When you hand out that label, you’re basically saying that there is absolutely nothing wrong with that girl, nothing at all that’s even slightly less than perfect on her. Even the most beautiful women have some sort of flaw physically and probably at least a couple of additional intangible imperfections. They themselves can often be very forthcoming about these flaws, and that is to be expected. Imperfection is our reality. They are all humans, and humans are naturally imperfect.

When you give out a “10”, you imply otherwise—that she’s transcended human norms of imperfection and become flawless or goddess-like. This is a mentality that naturally lends itself to the supplication and widespread pedestalization that has become rampant in our society. Men are too willing to elevate good-looking women into the realm of the divine where no human belongs.


Think about a girl in your mind who you’ve ever seen labeled a 10. Is she truly flawless? Is there nothing about her that, were you a god, you would make better? Could her boobs be shaped a little more pleasingly? Is her face the prettiest you’ve ever seen? If her face is the prettiest, then does she have a good waist-to-hip ratio to go with it? How are her teeth—could they be whiter? Could her stomach be tighter? Could she have better legs or height? I could go on.

The bottomline is that an objectively flawless woman (a real “10”) cannot be nitpicked. If you can find anything at all you’d like better on her, she isn’t a 10. If a large number of other men can find something they don’t like (even if you can’t quite do it yet), then she isn’t a 10. After all, if a girl were truly perfect there really wouldn’t be any significant number of men who could find obvious fault with her. Human subjectivity prevents this (beauty, though based on objective traits, is subjective beyond a certain point).

Put simply, if any other girl does any one thing (face, hips, etc) better than her, she isn’t a 10. She isn’t without flaws.


The use of this label has a couple of impacts. Firstly, we talk about many girls having inflated egos, and I honestly believe this is part of why. We have too many guys telling them that they are perfect, flawless, entirely without fault and unable to do wrong. If you were that girl getting the “10” label all the time (on top of all the other kinds of red carpet treatment men give you), you’d probably have the same flaky attitude. People have basically said that you are perfection—you can’t be wrong. Why settle for any given guy when you’ve been deemed perfect and absolutely flawless?

On the other hand, even the vainest and most gorgeous women are aware of the fact that they are a) human and b) flawed in some way(s). This raises questions about precisely which signals the men using these “perfect ten” labels are sending to the girls they’re attaching them to. Since these realities are painfully obvious to her, she has to make one of three conclusions when she encounters a man who seems oblivious to them:

1. The man is simply too stupid to see these realities.
2. The man is too desperate or thirsty to acknowledge them.
3. Some combination of the above.


Regardless of which conclusion she settles on, the end result is the same: a man who isn’t capable of recognizing these realities couldn’t be worth much.

When guys ignore such realities and continue to hold females to a standard that even the girls themselves know they can’t objectively meet, they engage in dangerous pedestalization and risk displaying very low value. Self-aware men should recognize this risk, and avoid it. Recognize that all women (even the most gorgeous) are people just like you, not goddesses immune to the realities of human imperfection. Once you’ve done that, proceed to treat them accordingly.


Do this, and you’ll have taken a small but significant step forward in the drive to calm the pedestalization epidemic, while also adopting a mindset whose honesty holds more appeal to women than any supplicating praise could hope to. Despite some claims to the contrary, women (especially those who are more attractive and have many options) are constantly looking for ways to separate the masculine chaff (desperate, needy, insecure, supplicating, beta) from the more worthy wheat. The overuse by some men of the “ten” label and its implied perfection (perfection nearly all women know they can’t actually match) only makes it easier for them to spot the chaff.

Read Next: Face Is Everything

95 thoughts on “Why There Are No 10’s”

  1. One of my friends asked me the other day if I judge women by their looks.
    I told him…I judge them by how awesome they think I am. They better they look the more awesome they think I am.

    1. Actually, just being a dickhead, I don’t go for the glossy types. But Winona Rider in Reality Bites and Alien Resurrection is a hard 10 for me, it’s just a shame she had to get older.

      1. Agreed about glossy types. I still find the chicks in vintage 70s and 80s Playboy and Penthouse mags to be far more attractive than the de rigueur airbrushed chicks in all the men’s mags of today.

  2. I guess it goes to how you choose to define a “10.” If you choose to say a 10 is perfection in feminine beauty, then you’re right.
    But what if you choose to define a 10 as a woman who is a certain number of standard deviations above average in looks? In that case, there must be some 10s purely by definition.
    Another point that bears mentioning is marginal analysis. For for every point on the scale that you increase a woman’s looks, the less significant any additional point will be in her desirability. Increase a 4 to a 5, and she just increased her SMV significantly. Increase a 9 to a 10? How much she excites the guys wouldYou’d hardly notice in any real sense.
    The last point I think is relevant in this context is that of scarcity. Going back to my definition of a 10 as being a certain number of standard deviations above average, a 10 would be, by definition, scarce. Scarcity, in itself, can make something more desirable than otherwise (see the chapter on Scarcity in Robert Cialdini’s book Influence for details).

    1. Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder.
      And, as you mention about scarcity, we’ve heard the meme in the ‘sphere about adopting an “abundance” mentality vs. a “scarcity” mentality. However, hat will depend on what men usually find attractive.
      As for me, the chick in the limo is closer to a “10: than the other ones. The one with the black undies is closer to what I consider “really attractive,” and the blonde in the sparkly dress checking her iPhone is fake. Not worth my time.

      1. “Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder.”
        Only someone who doesn’t get beauty would say that.

        1. only someone who doesnt get ‘love’ would say that.
          a 10 is a girl with your particular desires
          but losing that means losing somethingimportant & a lot of men cant deal with the pain

        2. Okay, Socrates. Beauty is id quod visum placet, or “That which pleases upon being seen” (Aquinas).
          If a certain girl does not please you upon being seen, it can be an objective flaw in her presentation, or it can be the more difficult-to-spot flaw in your perception.
          Just because beauty is, by its very nature, the hardest of all things to quantify, it doesn’t stand to reason that we cannot scrutinize it at all.
          “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is a lazy cop-out from a person without self-awareness. He wants the “beholder” to be sovereign over the definition because his imagination cannot transcend what he immediately “beholds.” Therefore he cannot adjust for the distortion effect of his own lenses, which has nothing to do with what the object is or is not radiating.
          Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
          Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.


        3. My point in the comment was that beauty is largely subjective.
          As I’ve told folks over the years, I know what I find attractive — nay, beautiful — and what, by extension, is fuckable. I know what gives me a boner and what doesn’t. I also know how certain things (e.g., self-centeredness and bitchiness) can help kill that boner.
          You consider Adriana Lima to be a 10 down below. I don’t disagree, on the basis of what you define as a “10.” I wouldn’t go that far because, to me, a 10 is perfection or near-perfection. Perfection doesn’t exist, objectively. That’s my belief, and you can attack it how you will. Personally, I don’t care.
          Also, standards of beauty are largely conditioned. I lived in Asia for a time and found many Asian girls to be quite beautiful. Others wouldn’t. I also remember how much many Asians lionized Meg Ryan as someone who seemed to be classically “beautiful” among Westerners. Where do you see Meg Ryan nowadays?
          Also, since you reference Aquinas, remember that the larger context is that beauty ultimately comes from God. Might be better to reference something more contemporary, eh?

        4. Never said I was an expert in love, and I also didn’t make an authoritative statement about it that exceeded my experience or knowledge. State a falsehood and you will be called out on it.

        5. Two points: Female beauty is more “objective” than male beauty, and the subjectivity of beauty shows itself more when it comes to very intense feelings, or very high ratings. The first point seems obvious to me, the second was expressed in a website I love, which is written by a guy who lifted himself from shy with women to, pretty much, a ladies man, and which is intended to help women understand men; in his experience, they do not to an impressive degree. (I’ve found the website helpful, and motivating to grow my hair out)
          Point one:
          Imagine an experiment asking who is more beautiful between the following pictures? The high degree of agreement among people in RANKING others tells you that beauty has a strong, objective component- the objectivity, while hard to describe (on WHAT do they agree?), and even pointless to try to describe, yet is apparent in the agreement.
          Women agree far less on which men look good, though, so male good looks is more “in the eye of the beholder”.
          See here:
          This matches with my real life experience, so I don’t doubt it. The women I know disagree (from big Arnold Schwarzenager to lanky Orlando Bloom, for example. I don’t find George Clooney good looking). Related to the disagreement is that when women are moved visually, it is by more than “beauty” (Duh), though I can’t find a study I read on it. Also, women’s preferences for more or less masculine facial features varies by where they are in their cycle.
          (This is more of an aside, but I found this article interesting, next time you want to take steroids or shame fat women if you have a spare tire, consider:
          I think if would be wrong to associate the appeal of visual with the appeal of behavioural masculinity, though. And I don’t mind that my boyfriend is chubby, though I’m not. … Women are complicated…)
          Men’s taste is way more consistent, as watching porn, reading Maxim, perusing the manosphere, hanging out with guys (which I often do), etc will show any woman or man.
          Though, men’s average taste does vary, too. … See, for example:
          This is a small, old study, but it suggests a preference for more tanned and muscular/toned versus more fair-skinned and unmuscular/untoned by a personality variable in men. (Aside: God, I love psychology. Not that one study is definitive- don’t misunderstand- but patterns in human personality, behavioural, or other traits are orgasmic to me.)
          Point two:
          If men agree so much, then how is it that they also apparently disagree strongly? Women know this by how some men are enamored by their face, presentation, or whatnot and other men could care less. Yet, cultivating generally attractive traits will increase the male interest in you. How do those go together?
          This guys addresses this for the benefit of women.
          The messages on his website are sound, that men generally like long hair and thin, fit women who wear feminine clothes and have good posture, but to also be yourself, dare I say love yourself, knowing someone will find you particularly attractive, and others won’t care- the first are the ones who matter, dating-wise, and the second give no indication that you wouldn’t generally be regarded as hot, because variation in individual preferences makes all the difference when it comes to who to pursue and who not to pursue (whatever correlations in appearance ranking there might be).
          The apparent agreement and disagreement are not contradictions. So, people can say “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and be saying something real, too.
          Ugh, even though I wrote so much, I have something to add. I don’t want to erase what I wrote, but it can really be boiled down to an individual’s “beauty rating score” variance:
          The variance is small enough that individuals can be ranked, but the varaince is large enough that there will be much disagreement about two individuals with average scores closer to oneanother. (Aside: Math is orgasmic, too.) Before, I thought of it as the variance in viewing someone HIGHLY being large enough that people could disagree, yet you still have a “average scores”, but that doesn’t summarize the phenomenon, it’s just a part of it with practical relevance if you’re a member of the sex that loves to be seen as beautiful, not okay, but beautiful, by someone you’re involved with.
          That is all. My semi-sincere apologies for the ever-long comments, Roosh and co. Though, if you read this far to read the apology, maybe it was interesting enough that I am not pushing the website-runners’ patiences with regard to long comments.

        6. Adriana Lima has crooked teeth and looks like she grew up in a Brazilian slum… oh that’s because she did…. a farmer places a lot of importance on where the livestock was reared….

        7. now you’ve been at it a while, perhaps it’s time to move onto lovers rather than bangers ?

        8. That’s my belief, and you can attack it how you will. Personally, I don’t care.

          Well, you cared enough to restate it at length. And not every disagreement is a “personal[]” “attack.”
          If beauty is subjective and conditioned and all of that standard postmodern claptrap, then there is no basis to objectively say Adriana Lima is more beautiful than Cigstache. Let’s begin with that patent absurdity and build to a mutually-held understanding from there. Rather than submitting to the all too common cop-out/pout, “Well that’s just your opinion.”

        9. You’re comparing apples and oranges with the pics, dude. And, you’re pedestalizing Lima, in case you’re not aware of it.

        10. Idk man. There will always be that 1 guy in 10 who is attracted to something else. I guess probably due to genetic diversity – sometimes we are wired to find certain different things attractive. Though I do agree in general, that most guys would agree on their standards of beauty within a culture.

        11. So you would sleep with your own sister??? Of COURSE it’s objective and based on what you like.
          Maybe hundreds of people would say my sister is beautiful, but I would have my own reason to not think so, and that’s why it’s subjective.

  3. http://therationalmale.com/2012/03/29/hb10/
    On the Tomassi scale, there is no such thing as a an HB10 that you haven’t slept with. The last point to half point is ALWAYS earned on performance. I’m sure you wouldn’t buy a Maseratti if it had a VW engine under the hood. Subjectively I believe there are HB10s it’s just that the last point is earned on performance not attractiveness. An otherwise HB10 who turns out to be a ‘lick it around the edges’ girl instantly falls back to an HB7 or so,..
    That said, I feel the scale also has to be adjusted for geographic region. An HB 8 in Butte, Montana is an HB 5 in Los Angeles. You have to adjust the scale for regional concentration. Hot women tend not to congregate in remote places, they go where they know their looks will serve them best. This then increases the benchmark for that place since the field of competition is deeper. Based on personal experience, an HB 9.5 in South Beach, Miami etc. is well beyond anything NYC, Houston or Chicago could offer up on a consistent basis. The rating curve is more pronounced. Conversley a Miami HB 7, becomes an HB 9.5 in Boise, Idaho. However, after having lived in Hollywood, Las Vegas and Orlando, and traveling somewhat extensively, I think my standards are exceptionally high in this respect.

    1. sorry… but globalization and international standards kill your regional theories….. lots of 9s in a club are lots of 9s in a club…… just because there is lots of Angus Filet in the abattoir doesn’t mean it won’t all make tasty barbeque….. it simply lowers the market value and makes it cheaper to obtain….

      1. Good point. Do 10’s even go to the club outside LA, NYC??? I swear Ive seen more ’10s’ on the street in London than in the club. Mabye Im going to the wrong places.
        Oh yeah, 10=9.5 🙂

    2. The problem is that men will call a woman who they haven’t spent three seconds with in the real world a perfect 10. Objectively, based on looks only, there is no perfect 10 just like there is no perfect circle in the real world.
      If a girl has a good personality and cooks and cleans for you, is she really a 10 on the looks scale, or is she a 9 that is right for you?

  4. Long ago I decided the best I will grant is a 9 – mostly because no one is perfect and I like to have some room to give a higher-score. This is the problem you commonly see in the Olympics – Nadia Comenechi comes to mind. She was better than others who they had given 9.95’s so they had to grant her 10’s which was ridiculous.That lesson stuck with me – as a result I never give higher than a 9 when evaluating women, none of them are perfect it is as simple as that. Most could stand to lose 10 lbs, others really need to be nicer, work on their diction, gain 20 IQ points, etc….

  5. This depends on how you define a 10. The scale to me is purely for physical attractiveness, so a 10 is a girl with a flawless body and a gorgeous face. Nothing more and nothing less. So a 10 for me would mean that she is perfect in terms of physical attractiveness.
    Now the trick here is to treat that 10 like you would a 3.

    1. “So a 10 means that she is perfect, but only in terms of physical attractiveness.”
      Nobody is perfect. Even your 16-22 year old “10” would tell you that.
      “Now the trick here is to treat that 10 like you would a 3.”
      Treating an imperfect human like an imperfect human becomes easier when you let go of the notion that said human is perfect or “flawless” in any way. When you operate on the basis of the notion that this person is already perfect, you make treating her like a normal, flawed human a much more challenging task.
      The trick is not necessarily to go out of your way to treat a beautiful woman like an ugly one.
      The trick is to simply treat her like a person-normal, human, and flawed just like you or anyone else. She may be a beautiful person, but she’s still a person nonetheless, and she’ll probably respect you more if you recognize that and treat her accordingly. That means avoiding notions of her perfection (which she knows are false) and avoiding exaggerated claims of her imperfection (this is where the whole concept of “negging” can become problematic).
      “there’s something about saying “there are no 10’s” that reeks of the sour grapes rationalization of the male hamster to me.”

      1. I don’t know about the kind of girls that you run into, but I’ve seen quite a few that made me think “there is nothing about her looks that I would change”. That right there is a perfect 10. Hell, flip open a Playboy, there’s at least 2 in every issue. Unless you are one of those “pointy elbows” faggots.
        “Treating an imperfect human like an imperfect human becomes easier…”
        When you see a perfect girl but rationalize that she isn’t in order to make it easier for you to treat her a certain way or to keep your ego from being nuked should she reject you — that’s your hamster at work, bud. You CAN acknowledge a girl’s physical perfection and keep it to yourself as you move forward to seduce her. No need to break out the hamster.

        1. You can acknowledge a girl’s physical perfection AND keep it to yourself as you move forward to seduce her.

          Right. What is all the jumping through hoops for? Unless seriously blurting out “OMG you’re the most beautiful woman I’ve ever seen!!!” is a real possibility for a man. Then I guess you’d have to play the philosophical-aesthetic games. Surely this readership has mastered that basic discipline.
          In fact, actively denying a girl’s beauty for psychological/seduction purposes is a fool’s game anyway. You think a ten can’t see through a man engaged in that purposely self-deluding mental exercise anyway? She’s been observing it since she was fifteen.
          You don’t disavow the obvious. You acknowledge it (at least to yourself) and proceed smoothly, giving it no more or no less its due. Pretending she isn’t gorgeous can be just as try-hard (and just as transparent) as overvaluing the importance of her beauty, such as it is. That said, if you can’t control yourself, it’s prudent to err on the side of the former.
          She is what she is. Don’t make a big deal out of confirming or denying what she is.

        2. “When you see a physically stunning girl and start thinking about flaws
          that she may or may not have in order to make it easier for you to treat
          her a certain way or to keep your ego from being nuked should she
          reject you — that’s your rationalization hamster at work.”
          You’re right, which is why I’ve not suggested that. I do not believe that one needs to invest any amount of effort into thinking about which flaws a particularly attractive girl may or may not have.
          I am saying that one simply ought to recognize that a flaw does exist (physically or otherwise-nobody is perfect), and act accordingly. What specifically these flaws are will come out later if they’re not obvious, and once you’ve accepted that they will exist you can then work on accepting them (a crucial part of any relationship).
          Refusing to believe in the possible presence of a flaw (despite the fact that nobody is perfect) seems a less sure way to prepare oneself to deal with the realities that are probably going to pop up over the course of your time spent with any person.
          “I should’ve clarified. I treat girls that are 3-10 with the same
          flirty-yet-indifferent vibe, so that was what I meant when I said “treat a 10 like you would a 3″. Basically don’t put that 10 on a pedestal”
          Cool, we can agree there.

        3. “Right. What is all the jumping through hoops for? In fact, actively denying a girl’s beauty for psychological/seduction
          purposes is a fool’s game anyway. You think a ten can’t see through a
          man engaged in that purposely self-deluding mental exercise anyway?”
          Your characterization of my theory calls for much more effort than I actually recommend.
          It doesn’t take that much energy to recognize that nobody is perfect.

        4. Again, I think the root of our differences is our definition of a “10”. To me, a 10 is simply a girl with looks equivalent to that of lingerie models or Playboy/Maxim models. It seems to me that your definition of a 10 is more of a philosophical/mythological idea of perfection that can never physically exist. Sort of like a male version of Christian Grey or Mr. Big. Can you close your eyes and see your 10?

  6. Being from a small town, few (if any) women I knew growing up or by acquaintance reached even the level of a “7”. Obesity in the USA being what it is now, I expect that to become more rare as well. Couldn’t even fathom an 8 or 9 having never been exposed to it. So my frame of reference was pretty terrible.
    I’ve noticed radio shows, magazines, and etc here in the US treating 6s-7s as “hot” (a.k.a. treating them like they’re 9s or better). Ridiculous.
    Recently having been involved with a woman who is (or at least was, I expect she’ll put on more weight) about a high 8 I hope to never accept anything less. A big change in my mentality has started, and that includes admitting I was “beta” at times and had to learn the hard way that a man needs to be alpha with a woman, especially a latina.
    Unfortunately in her case I paid a high price for being involved with someone like her, what with her emotional instability and the things she put me through with that. As I’ve read about other attractive women, she also had a too-high opinion of herself. Also I discovered she had been working as an escort. I was crushed beyond words.
    On the other hand, any woman who needs implants and liposuction from time to time should never think she’s a 10 even in her own mind.
    I sure hope 8s,9s, & “10s” aren’t all like that: emotionally immature, impulsive, narcissistic, and with possible borderline personality disorder (BPD). It’s hell to deal with, one of the worst experiences a man can endure. Should have bailed early at the first signs.
    I can’t help but think a lot of 8s & 9s think they’re 10s. Now I can begin to see why.

  7. I’ve always been of this mindset. The highest any girl gets is a 9.5 – additionally, as soon as you give a girl a 10, you’re saying there is no-one in the world hotter than her. There’s always a hotter girl.

    1. [Y]ou’re saying there is no-one in the world hotter than her. There’s always a hotter girl.

      Says who? Beauty becomes equal at the heights. A cute shapely breast is no less beautiful than a full perky one, and it’s not just a matter of preference. A sky blue eye is not less beautiful than a big doe eye. This truth leads superficial thinkers to declare relativism rather than equality. “That’s more beautiful to you but not to me,” rather than, “They are of the equal and highest beauty but differently presented.”
      There is not “always a hotter girl.” There is a class of women who inhabit the top percentile, whose beauty is only denied by scrupulous nitpickers.
      Yes, it is true we can always imagine something more beautiful. But that is how we are made, with an imagination whose reach exceeds its grasp. We are born with the desire for perfection in a world where perfection is impossible. “Our hearts are restless till they rest in thee.” When you do get an earthly glimpse of the beatific vision, mundane life seems poor in comparison. And the famous ennui sets in — a condition every man at the apex undergoes — having tasted perfection but not drunk deep of it for long enough.
      “Every one who drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst.”
      You are attempting to express the infinite on a finite scale. Beauty is a sneak peek at infinity. The HB10 scale is about the imperfect intimations of beauty that are possible to see today, here, with our eyes — as opposed of the always-better perfections we can imagine with our more supple minds. If you shy away from declaring tens, you aren’t maintaining a rigorous standard so much as you are using your brain to compare incomparables, apples and oranges.
      If there truly is no such thing as a ten, then that’s a problem with your measuring scale, because you left it open-ended. The ten does not mean “perfection” so much as it means “best possible under this particular standard.” “There’s always hotter” is ultimately an analytical failure of imagination.
      The Beatific Vision is not 10 out of a possible 10, it is a 1 out of a possible zero. “Eye has not seen, ear has not heard…” But we do get momentary glimpses, certain angles of it which come as quickly as they go. That is the definition of a ten.

      1. I’m not sure whether the level of effort you’ve put into replying to a throwaway statement of logic is hilarious or tragic. The latter I expect.

        1. That’s what happens when “throwaway … logic” meets genuine logic. If your thoughts weren’t so disposable, you wouldn’t have a problem seeing them subjected to a higher standard.
          I could have just said your mind is trash and you have no idea what you’re talking about. But I’m more of a show-don’t-tell kind of person.
          I do like it when people like you try to say something profound, get called out on it, and then pretend that profundity is uncool to cover for your deficiencies. I didn’t want to hit the bullseye anyway. I wasn’t even trying…

        2. “I do like it when people like you try to say something profound,”
          Right back at you. That’s called being pretentious, and your pretentiousness is pathetic, really.

      2. “Beauty becomes equal at the heights. A cute shapely breast is no less beautiful than a full perky one, and it’s not just a matter of preference.”
        Yes it is.

        1. You make my point. By calling it “a matter of preference” you agree that they are equal. But I say they are equally objectively beautiful, and you say they are equally unknowable.
          Anyway, bald assertion doesn’t get us anywhere. And I’m getting the sense this forum isn’t all that interested in the hard work of truth so much as it is a contest of who can bluff the loudest. As if the internet needed another one of those.
          I get it, I get it. I’m wrong because you have said it so bluntly, so tersely, so authoritatively. Now give me the down-votes to prove it, and I promise never to make a full argument again.

        2. Why must you pollute every decent manosphere blog? Go away Queen, you aren’t welcome here.

        3. “Now give me the down-votes to prove it, and I promise never to make a full argument again.”
          Your arguments are no more than a troll trying to derail the conversation from it’s original purpose and to cause conflict. That’s why I gave you the down vote, not the above person, because your arguments are full of shit. It’s not proof of anything else.

        There’s always a hotter girl is SOUND logic. If Mathew King had sex with women he would know that the hotter girl is the one he hasn’t had sex with yet.

      4. “no-one in the world hotter than her. There’s always a hotter girl.
        Says who?”
        and with that you just made it obvious that you are part of the problem.

    2. Should have linked this to “the famous ennui sets in — a condition every man at the apex undergoes”:
      It is the condition of every man who has achieved the top of the heap, in satiation of the finite goal he has pursued in place of infinity: champions, presidents, kings, tyrants, players. Every man with a drop of self-awareness, that is. It is the inborn desire for the infinite in a finite world. (Which is one of Aquinas’s contingent proofs of God, the “Argument from Desire”: for every appetite we have an earthly satisfaction, except this one.)

      1. Word of advice . . . drawing Aquinas into this, as you have done more than once, is largely irrelevant. Aquinas, in talking about beauty, had God and the eternal in mind. This post is about earthly and temporal beauty. Also, there’s no relevance here to his proofs of God. Careful with your philosophical references lest you get really sloppy.

  8. “Men are too willing to elevate good-looking women into the realm of the divine where no human belongs.” excellent observation, I forget who wrote it but I read once that a 10 is a 9 on her best night with makeup, every woman has flaws, if they aren’t physical they are mental, just because a girl is the most beautiful you’ve ever seen doesn’t absolve her of responsibility to bring other good qualities to the table

  9. Good essay, but it flies too close to the “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” lie. (Writ large, this lie becomes the myth of relativism, which underwrites the tyranny of feminism.)
    There are tens. And then you get out your magnifying glass like the Pointy Elbows 2/10 Would Not Bang crowd. Anyone who says Adriana Lima is not a ten should not be taken seriously. Appreciating beauty is not the same as being controlled by it. You are making an entire philosophy out of a prophylactic against pedestalizing. I don’t see the point, if you have your shit together.
    Aesthetics are not relative to the beholder, but they are impressionistic, and as Rollo Tomassi says above, heavily dependent on context. If you are flipping through a surfeit of beauty in a Victoria’s Secret catalog, your eyes may wander past the angel in panties above. But when you click over from, say, the text barrage of The Wall Street Journal, that girl’s ass makes a more striking impression. This is the formula for online tabloids, to put enticing photos next to “news” stories to gain clicks. It’s the “Page Three” effect.
    Women in certain contexts are a glass of dirty warm water in the desert. Refreshing despite imperfection, maybe even life-saving. But Adriana Lima is cold champagne, whatever flaws an intrepidly nerdy investigator might uncover.

    1. “There are tens. And then you get out your magnifying glass like the Pointy Elbows 2/10 Would Not Bang crowd.”
      …or you just realize that there are no objectively physically perfect individuals and that this lack of perfection does not make anyone a “2/10”.
      “Anyone who says Adriana Lima is not a ten should not be taken seriously.”
      You should never take me seriously, then. I insist that there are no objective tens, and Adriana Lima is not an exception to that rule. The very existence of Ariel Meredith (who I personally consider to be more attractive) precludes that in my mind. Lima is a 9, Meredith is a 9.5 (imo).
      There would be no debate about an objective ten, which is my point. Tens can only exist in the subjective realm.
      “Appreciating beauty is not the same as being controlled by it.”
      Not so for the majority of men, as any casual observation of our society would show. These are the people I’m talking to.
      “Aesthetics are not relative to the beholder, but they are impressionistic, and as Rollo Tomassi says above, heavily dependent on context.”
      Which is why I have bothered to claim that there are no objective tens, only the subjective ones Rollo alluded to earlier (on an individual basis).

      1. I insist that there are no objective tens, and Adriana Lima is not an exception to that rule. The very existence of Ariel Meredith (who I personally consider to be more attractive) precludes that in my mind. Lima is a 9, Meredith is a 9.5 (imo).

        Then your scale is 1 to 9.5. What’s the point of including an impossibility within your standard? I suppose it is to make an academic point about the feasibility of perfection.
        You’re better off adding to a limited and finite scale (she’s “11 out of 10”) to express the same idea rather than trying to incorporate Zeno’s paradox into what’s supposed to be a practical tool.
        Let me put it this way. You use a lot of qualified language (“I personally consider … in my mind … imo”) to express the unquantifiability of beauty. But a numerical scale is the attempt to discern mutually agreeable, rough qualities, or, to quantify a quality. But either beauty is quantifiable or it is not. When you agree that it is, you use the number scale and append an asterisk to it. When you think that it is not, you regress to “the subjective realm.”
        But beauty is neither subjective nor strictly quantifiable. Add to that the impressionistic tendency of our judgment and it’s just easier to say “different strokes for different folks.” Take that idea to its conclusion, however, and we become unable to definitively say that this is better than this. Subjectivism is a hell of a drug.

        1. “Then your scale is 1 to 9.5. What’s the point of including an impossibility within your standard? ”
          Because hamster.

        2. Why do we conceptualize perfectly round circles in geometry, and straight lines, if they don’t exist in the real world? Do we know the exact value of pi? Will we ever?

        3. Mabye we should have a scale going from 4 to 9.5. I dont think many guys would subscribe to that, as someone is always gonna go for the uggos. But starting at a 4 means the rest of the women under this grade would be ignored because they are trolls. No this isnt sexist; the women of today in the West have truly become less physically attractive on average than even 15 years ago.

        4. “and we become unable to definitively say that this is better than this.”
          and there is no problem with that, because no one arguing any standard – and by the way, I wouldn’t fuck Lima if she were the last woman, to me she is ugly.
          No one ever said it was about proving a standard of beauty, that’s not what this article is about. This article is about each individual man’s standard of beauty and making sure that beauty is not exaggerated. Doesn’t matter if that persons standard of beauty is a fat chubby woman, as long as she is not deified in that person’s mind or given that impression by him. THAT is what this is about.

  10. One of the best negs I’ve ever used: “Hey baby, you’re a solid 10… on a scale of 100! Oh snap!

    1. you don’t understand what a neg is. it’s supposed to be a backhanded compliment that leaves her unsure as to whether it is is or isn’t. calling a girl a 1/10 is just being a dick.

        1. Nope. They love measured asshole behaviour. Try walking around and being as big of a dick toward hot girls as you can possibly muster and watch what happens. Being a dick doesn’t mean literally being a complete sociopath at all times to as strong a degree as possible. It is considered, calculated, balanced with social intuition and empathy where necessary.
          It’s why game is and always will be an art rather than a strict science. I think a lot of people would like blanket rules because it would relieve them from the burden of having to actually develop intuition and fluidity in their game. I think it’s why a lot of nerds initially gravitate toward it (hooray! a system i can use to get the girl!) then get disillusioned and bitter and retreat toward sites like puahate.com when they inevitably fail to get the girl because their “step by step routine” didn’t work.
          Being a dick does not and has never meant being as outright insulting and hateful as possible. It is about not accepting bad behaviour from girls, standing up and owning your own standards of what you expect in people (ie. owning the frame and not failing shit tests), not white knighting, not ingratiating yourself to a girl in the hope she will like you for it, etc etc
          When people like Roissy, Roosh et al talk about being a dick, THIS is what they mean. When you get a playful faux-indignant punch on the arm for something you said rather than making a girl feel like absolute shit becasue you called her a fat ugly bitch.
          But, by all means, go out and be an indiscriminating dick to girls. Let us know how that goes for you..

        2. I see you put a lot of thought into this response.
          However, I can’t take it seriously because there are too many faggy buzzwords like “sociopath” “empathy” “being a dick”.
          pop psychology and adherence to arbitrary standards.
          “measured asshole behavior” LOL. If “measured” asshole behavior works for you keep doing it!
          Just know that being an outright “dick” “sociopath” non “empathy” having “unmeasured asshole” works as well.
          “faux-indignant punch” this comment is pure gold.

        3. Sociopath is a faggy buzzword? Lol ok dude.
          You don’t know what you’re talking about.
          You’re basically advocating having zero social intuition. Saying and doing whatever you want and “fuck the consequences, everybody will bow to my superior frame”. The real world doesn’t work like that buddy. People will get sick of your shit and tell you to fuck off or beat the shit out of you if you are truly being a dick. I get the impression you haven’t tested your theory out in the real world. But please, go out and tell girls they are fat cunts tonight. Just walk up, say it and watch what happens. Videotape it for my amusement too please. You won’t be getting laid. You will probably end up with the shit kicked out of you though.

      1. i agree it’s an insult, but a lot of girls wouldn’t instantly equate 10/100 to 1/10. fractions confuse them.
        i’ve used ‘you’re perfectly imperfect’, but only on girls i’ve already banged and who have earned it.

    2. I second JT. This is the danger of the “negging” concept. Too many men simply do not understand how to apply it, and it too often goes awry. A neg is a gentle, friendly tease, not a soul-crushing insult.

  11. I don’t think that a “10” implies perfection.
    I think it is simply the top tier of the scale. The most desirable that a woman can be, physically. Not utterly perfect, just the top of the market.
    I do appreciate the sentiments of the post, though. I understand. Further, a 10 is subjective- we all like different kinds of looks. I have seen girls that are the physical ideal for my tastes. I never for a moment thought they were perfect, just ideal in appearance for my tastes.
    And no matter how pretty she is, someone out there is sick of her shit.

    1. “And no matter how pretty she is, someone out there is sick of her shit.”

    2. “And no matter how pretty she is, someone out there is sick of her shit.” Amen.

  12. Every grading-system is subjective and can be affected by previous experiences, enviroment etc and therefore i find it hard to really get why some say for example Winona Horowitz should be a perfect ten.
    I never have and i never will be using a 1-10 grading system on women, why? Because it’s damn hard to really get a objectivily good grading-system containing every piece of as(s)pects in it, especially if i haven’t get a bite of her before grading.

  13. “Perfect” is the enemy of “Good.”
    But it’s still an ideal direction in which to keep moving, rather than an actual destination.

  14. This is trying to turn art into science. It’s entirely subjective and thus invalid. Any two mens criteria can be different. Bigger boobs could be a plus for you and negative for me. Blond/brunette, tall/short, blue eyes/green eyes, and on and on it goes into every little detail and caveat.
    It’s the same as saying Babe Ruth was the best baseball player of all time. Yes maybe in his era, but today who knows? Reality is we can’t know and never will and must content ourselves with his being the best at the time, unless you think it was Ty Cobb, but that’s exactly my point, at a certain point it gets down to purely preference.
    Besides, these go up to 11.

    1. “This is trying to turn art into science. It’s entirely subjective and thus invalid. Any two mens criteria can be different. Bigger boobs could be a plus for you and negative for me. Blond/brunette, tall/short, blue eyes/green eyes, and on and on it goes into every little detail and caveat.”
      That was the point of the article. Note this bit here:
      “If a large number of other men can find something they don’t like (even if you can’t quite do it yet), then she isn’t a 10. After all, if a girl were truly perfect there really wouldn’t be any significant number of men who could find obvious fault with her.”
      My point is to say that there are no objective tens. This notion is based in part on the fact that, if there were a truly perfect woman, there would probably be no disagreement as to their perfection. Human subjectivity proves foil to this, meaning that a “10” can only exist in a subjective sense (such as that outlined on Rollo Tomassi’s scale).

  15. i was just thinking of this point today, and suggesting that all models, imagery in magazines and movies etc. be given an 11 to denote that it doesn’t exist… you’ve down graded the hoes a notch further good for you.
    i also noticed that when using Roosh’s method of making approaches, pet shop and so forth, trying to assign the girl a number, gives my head time to think and develop an excuse not to approach. …”ah she’s only a six…never mind…”
    so now i resolved to approach anyway, and i can always blow out the approach if she turns out not to meet my standards. better to waste 10 seconds of my life, approaching a 50 year old I thought was a hottie from a distance, than give my brain a few seconds to make up excuses from some dumb grading system, that gives me a back out clause.
    approach, approach, approach…. the numbers should be assigned only after you’ve been up inside them…..

    1. Quite sound. It’s what we guys have to deal with all the time anyway, whether approaching in daygame, night game, or online dating.

  16. Take up portrait photography and you won’t say ‘a hard ten’ ever again. Seriously, few months of conscious image analysis (that’s how you learn what works in the picture and what not) and you will recite the list of any girl’s flaws within 5 seconds of looking at her.
    Another thing that helps to get rid of this delusion is *actually* meeting a *real* photo model. In person. Like in real life. And see her pictures before or after the meeting. It’s the best, sped up course of ‘2D image representation vs 3D reality’ the world has to offer. You would think trice before assuming that the girl in the picture really looks THAT good, even after adjusting for retoucher’s and make-up artist’s work.
    #sidenote: I generally reject the grading system. It’s like grading competitive dancing or figure skating – in the end, no one knows why the 9.5 instead of 9.75.

    1. I’ve always thought that we guys use the rating system because we like scales and benchmarks. Also, for some of the time, we use it for one-upmanship and status-seeking. If I’m banging a purported “9” and you’re banging a purported “6,” I somehow am better than you. But, what did I have to go through to get that “9”?
      At the end of the day, I managed to bang someone whom I found reasonably attractive. Hopefully, I can do it again until I find someone better.

  17. Oh, and another sidenote on beauty. A (statistically relevant) majority of people perceive the same things as ‘beautiful’. You wouldn’t have trouble picking apples from a cart, would you? The controversy starts when sociology, psychology and evolution sit at the table, and they do so, when human beauty is being disputed.
    Objectively, beauty is about symmetry and proportion. Subjectively we add a ton of other criteria. But it’s not as much ‘beauty’ as it is (in this case) ‘female attractiveness’. ‘Attractive’ changes its meaning over time. Beauty, in that objective meaning, does not. Note that Rubens’ chubsters didn’t have a potato face. Angelina Jolie was years ago considered unattractive, but sure as hell has everything in the right place. It’s not the ‘eye of the beholder’, it’s our brains that make up stuff.

  18. My dad told me this when i was 8. This truth is very basic and is nothing new to anyone in the red pill world.

    1. Early education FTW.
      I was simply trying to draw a distinction between the objective, highly produced image vs. the practical, actual engagement with said object.
      If Adriana Lima left a giant turd in my can without flushing……would she still be a 10? Would it matter?

  19. A few years ago, I was in a meeting with our Sales VP. Behind me and the glass walled conference room was the receptionist, to whom I casually classified as a 10. The VP was glaring over my shoulder at her. He began shaking his head and I assumed the forthcoming comment was going to be an affirmation of my score. With a look of perturbation he stated “Somewhere, someone is sick of her bullshit.” Immediately (And hilariously), she dropped to an 8.
    Practically speaking, what good is a woman who scratches the heights of the high nines when she is a giant pain in the ass? Somewhere, someone is sick of Adriana Lima’s bullshit.
    This always helps when I feel a touch of pedestal-itis.

  20. While being fat and ugly is no guarantee that she’ll have a good personality, in my experience the higher a lady climbs in the “optical hierarchy” she is more likely to suffer grave disqualifying character defects. All that attention and pedestalization just leads to fatal situational narcissism.
    Rather a solid sweet 6 or 7 with a heart of gold than a gorgeous but jaded diva.

  21. I only express my appreciation for women who deserve it, often traditional women from other cultures who are gracious and like compliments.

  22. Agreed wholeheartedly based on thing: No chick is perfect and slapping a 10 on them instantly puts them on a pedestal and you in the backseat. No thanks. I’ll find a flaw and give them a complex over it 😉

  23. Actually when I see attractive women, I think, scale, and figure about how much money it is that she will expect from a Man for the prostitution like payment from him (the price a Man must pay for being with her, and thus how miserable he will be as a slave). Also, I think about if he should fail to supply the payment at any point of their “relationship,” how he’ll simply be history/dumped! For Men in this day and age are nothing more to women than a “means to something,” which is most often MONEY (though they’ll trade their own kids for a real bad-Boy! Yes the prettier she is, the more money she will expect. It’s really a viciously sick fact, but it’s all part of this present day and age; society.

  24. I agree that the probability of there being any 10s out there, although not out of the realm of possibility, is significantly low. I also agree that 10s get thrown out there a little too easily. I’ve found that the problem is the actual grading system that’s used.
    The 1-10 grading system, with the ten being the highest, is too open to error. Why? Because it allows for a guy’s score to be too easily swayed by one great physical trait. How many times has a guy seen a girl with a beautiful face and said, “Wow, she’s a 10!”? Or the same with a chick who has a great body?
    Because of this I decided to tweak the system a little bit. And by tweaking it I was able to keep scores more honest (it even benefits the not so cute girls).
    What I did was separate the grading system from a simple 1-10 to a 1-5 (body) and 1-5 (face) with the total score being the sum of the two. With this system the same guy who was awarding 10s to girls with a beautiful face will be forced to be more objective. He may give the girl a 5 for her face, but if her body is merely good, not great, he would have to give her a 3. Her total score then comes down from a 10 to an 8. If you flip it the other way, and say you award the body a 5, but she has an OK face for which you give her a 3, again she goes from a 10 to an 8. Even butterfaces benefit from this scoring system. Instead of getting a 1 from a guy who finds her face hideous, that same guy would be forced to distinguish between the body and the face. (She may be a 1 in the face, but could get 3 points for the body thus bringing her up to a 4.)
    Even though this system is also victim to subjectivity it can keep scores more honest by forcing a guy to distinguish between the two important things we look for in a female.
    This is how I view each individual score and they apply to both the face and the body (halfs can also be given):
    5 = Perfection for either the body or face. Highly unattainable, but not impossible (especially since it’s subject to an individual’s taste and opinion).
    4 = A chick who’s face (body) is nicer than 90% of other women. Only someone with a face (body) that’s a 5 overtakes her. This chick will usually be the prettiest girl (or have the best body) in the room.
    3 = This would be the chick who is pretty. She’s not beautiful like or drop-dead gorgeous (or have a body) like the 4 or 5, but she’s no slouch herself. Only a 4 or a rarer still 5 is more beautiful than her.
    2 = This is the chick who’s average in the face (and body). She’s not hideous, but she’s nothing to write home about. She’s your run of the mill Plain Jane. And for the body it’s just regular, nothing special.
    1 = This is the score you would give a chick just to be nice. There really isn’t much difference between a 1 and a 0.
    *The halfs can be used for seperation between two numbers. Say a girl who’s not a 4, but you think she’s slightly more than a 3. You would give her a 3.5.
    Lastly, I want to say that I put the system to the test in the heart of NYC. And the system didn’t disappoint. It worked just as I figured it would. I even used my co-workers as guinea pigs. I had them score chicks who they found attractive and they were giving out 9s and 8s. When I had them re-score them using the new system the 9s went down to 7s and the 8s to 6s. They were being swayed by the pretty faces. But when forced to separate the face from the body and score them individually the scores dropped.
    So take it out and use it and you’ll never see a 10 the same way again.

  25. No, no one is perfect. But if the “10” label is viewed as deeming her in the highest 10% of women — more plausibly, the highest 10% of women known to the man awarding the rating — it becomes a little easier to understand and defend.

Comments are closed.