>>29679273
I just sort them as good looking or not good looking

>>29679290

This dude gets it.
See, Anons, a man will say a girl is "above average" if he finds her attractive, but in reality we find most average girls to be attractive, making the word "average" meaningless.

>>29679290
>good looking
Damn you're picky.
I classify them as tolerable or not tolerable. Boner-wise, mostly.

I don't do the ranking thing in my head though. I guess that's your main point? I think it's crass. I don't want to think like this. I never really did. It's the "redpill" people that really insist on doing it I think (for a bunch of reasons).

its time to state again how handsome this cat is. like originally handsome

>>29679763
its not like classifying someone as 'good looking' or not means you have to treat them like an animal. it's better to do it this way than it is to 'mostly' gauge them as tolerable or not tolerable by looks. and if you do, do you know what this means? it means youre fucking thirsty

>>29680222
>it means youre fucking thirsty
Yeah. Very much so.

I was exaggerating a bit though; I have to be able to find them at least little bit cute (which can happen over time too). But I'm really not demanding.

But I have to like them for some other reason too. I don't want a shitty relationship... But my looks "standards" are low. But it's not like it's all that matters and I'd be interested in anyone.