This is NOT a style rate thread. Rate facial/body aesthetics ONLY. Don't be a SJW. Absolutely NO circle jerk ratings please. No "(not) my type" mentality - don't rely on personal preferences, rate objectively, not with your vagina/penis.
Important: Use the rate scale in the macro.
Ok :3
>>23487830
7-8 fo sho
>baby face feels :^(
>>23487830 6.8
>>23487844 7.5
>>23487830
9
>>23487844
6
>>23487860
6
>>23487880
7
>>23487830
10
>>23487844
8
>>23487860
7
>>23487879
10
>>23487880
8
>>23487891
8
>>23487896
6
>>23487880
7
>>23487891
6.5
>>23487830
6
>>23487891
7.5 you look tired
>>23487896
8.75 super cute smile ohhh my lord
Attraction is and will always be subjective. It's impossible to rate someone "objectively"
>>23487962
4 i like your hair though!!
>>23487844
>5.5
>>23487879
>maybe 9 post a full face picture
>>23487891
>7.5, good symmetry
>>23487896
>5
>>23487914
>6.5
>>23487830
6
>>23487844
7
>>23487860
7
>>23487879
8
>>23487891
7-8
>>23487896
8
>>23487914
7
>>23487962
5
>>23487977
6
>>23487977
Sorry 7+
>>23488064
I think you should grow your hair out much longer to offset your oblong/square face. other than that 7.
>>23487927
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that this thread is not meant to be about how attracted you are to its posters, but to rate their face symmetry, face ratio, skin, hair, etc?
I understand the subjectivity in being attracted to someone, love someone beyond just their looks, but I also understand the objectivity in finding someone good looking without being attracted to them, or even if you hate them.
Pic related: Sarah Jessica Parker vs Doutzen Kroes. Preferences aside, everyone should be capable of distinguishing who is ugly and who is beautiful.
>>23488103
>one is an old photo with the person wearing no makeup with a shitty style
>one modern photo with extensive makeup and styling
um
>>23488103
they're a liberal
>>23488112
You can have then a recent pic of caked-on SJP, which is even worse.
>>23488064
6
>>23487977
7
>>23487962
6
>>23487914
7
another picture b4 my cut
the photo quality probably looks fuckibg awful on PC sorry....... zoom out or somethi g
>>23487921
Why thank you!
>>23488064
7
>>23488127
5
>>23488134
5, if you dressed better 8
>>23487787
This is a really stupid metric because according to this system practically everyone will get rated a 5-7. That already tends to be the case in these threads, that mentality really doesn't need to be encouraged further. The macro defines anyone below 5 as unrealistically hideous and anyone above 7 as unrealistically attractive, it doesn't even have a real 10 for fuck's sake. Also wtf, how can you say "don't rely on personal preferences" in a rate thread, that's some autistic bullshit. Different people find different traits attractive.
>>23488134
you look like a theatre kid 8
>>23488127
6
manlet reporting in
>>23487830
9/10 for me. really dig the make up
>>23487860
are you old enough to be here?
>>23487962
6.5/10 normally i hate short hair
How do I lose the chub in my f
ace? I hate my round cheeks :/ Should I just keep lifting and hope my body makes up for it?
>>23488134
8/10
>>23487830
8/10, maybe go a little lighter on the makeup, but it's also not a problem either
>>23487844
You're a 7.5, you have this aura of kindness to you that's pretty attractive
>>23487891
7/10, smile dude!
>>23487962
7/10, you remind me of a lot of my friends in the art school at my uni
>>23487830
7
>>23487844
6
>>23487860
5
>>23487879
8
>them lips
>>23487891
6
>>23487896
6
>>23487913
5
>>23487914
5
>>23487962
7
>>23487977
Maybe 7
>>23488064
6
>>23488127
6
>>23488134
7
Good facial structure.
>>23492117
WHEN WILL THEY LEARN
>>23492168
Cardio.
>>23490597
>This is a really stupid metric because according to this system practically everyone will get rated a 5-7.
That's because it's the average mean. The middle value. Is it any mystery to you why it's the majority? You are stupid.
>That already tends to be the case in these threads, that mentality really doesn't need to be encouraged further.
Wrong. People are free to rate however they want in other threads. Each one has its own rules, but here, circle jerking, aka, rating anyone and everyone 7+ just to get a high rate in return, is discouraged.
>The macro defines anyone below 5 as unrealistically hideous and anyone above 7 as unrealistically attractive, it doesn't even have a real 10 for fuck's sake.
Not unrealistic. Anyone below 4 is closer to 1, as well as anyone above 7 closer to 10. 5 is average, which is really not as bad as you make it out to be. Really ugly people exist, and yes, really beautiful also exist. Your point is moot.
>Also wtf, how can you say "don't rely on personal preferences" in a rate thread, that's some autistic bullshit. Different people find different traits attractive.
This thread is not about how attracted you are to a person's traits, please refer to: >>23488103
I rate 7+ and give 2 shits about your opinion
>>23492248
7.5
>>23492117
7 to 7.5
>>23488127
7 to 7.5
buying gf 25k
I've actually been told I have good facial features. But then I always get rated as average or below average which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Sometimes even by the same people. It's really weird/confusing.
Rate me someone??
>>23487830
5/10 irl... don't be fooled by internet virgins
only thing cute about you is your nose
