This topic was recently brought up in another thread, and some of the issues associated with it constitute a long-standing pet peeve of mine. Rather than perpetuate the discussion there, I thought I'd open a new topic instead.

Everyone has their own tastes, their own likes and dislikes, and their own sexual wants and desires. There are many ways of sharing one's experiences in a forum such as this. Some prefer to grade them on a numerical scale (or assign an ABCDF letter grade) for comparative purposes. Some like to paint a vivid word picture in hopes of recreating that picture in the reader's mind. It's a matter of personal preference, and either can be effective in its own way.

Some people are number-oriented, while others are verbally-oriented. Maybe my judgment is clouded here, because for whatever reason, I lean strongly toward the verbal side. Numerical ratings generally don't work for me. And on top of that, I've concluded that my taste in women is so far from the norm that others' experiences are simply not a reliable predictor of how I'll do with a particular girl. For me, it's all about vibe, which is practically impossible to quantify. One night with a particular girl, the vibe might be there, and the next night it won't be. Then the following night, it might be back again.

Having said all that... I want to say right up front that I have no desire to question those who use a numerical rating system in the context of a chica report or a trip report, which are pretty much expressed opinions anyhow. In and of itself, like I said, it's simply one's personal preference. It's just one way of conveying information.

Before I get too long-winded here, let me get to the crux of my post. The thing that irritates me to no end are general comments like "the bar was full of 8's and 9's" and "I refuse to have sex with a woman unless she's at least an 8." Let me forward these questions to the number-assigners: Do you look at a woman and immediately give her a numerical rating? What's "an 8" or "a 9" or "a 2" or whatever? Is there some sort of unspoken, universal scale of feminine pulchritude that is inherently obvious to all men in search of a little nooky? If so, count me as being out of the loop. And if a particular woman comes up as, say, a 7.98 on your Hottie-o-meter, do you cross her off your list, or do you round up and go for it? I'm being (somewhat) facetious here, but you get the point.

This is not directed at anyone in particular, and in fact, it's by no means limited to this board, or the internet. There's been several times over the years when I've been at a poker game or a sporting event of some kind, and some guy will start boasting about "having a hot time with this girl who was at least a 9". At minimum, they'll get a blank stare from me that says, "what the hell does that mean?"

And setting a minimum numerical "standard" for a potential sex partner is, to me, beyond absurd. It conveys nil in the way of useful information to the reader/fellow conversant, paints the "evaluator" as egotistical beyond words, and trivializes the "evaluatee"... namely, the lady.

Well, that's my rant for this evening. The Eagles lost to the Giants, and I'm in a peevish mood.

Certain cultures prefer to discuss things in terms of numbers and statistics as opposed to verbal details and letting the viewer decide. Many times I see a girl rated a 8 that is really a 4 in my eyes or a 5 that may be a 7 in my eyes, etc. Think about it coming from the cultural perspective of the monger.

I think it's more of a "how your mind works" than a cultural thing. For example, in cultural terms I'm about as American as they come, but I'm not Caucasian.

Farsider,

1. Do you look at a woman and immediately give her a numerical rating?
No, but if I was later asked how she looked I would. Sometimes I play games with guys I'm hanging with and in those cases I'll immediately establish a numerical rating. It's fun to compare scales with other. Also, the longer I look, the more likely that number will change. Factors which may further influence the ranking are her smile, her eyes, and how she moves. I'll also assign an attitude rating if I speak with her and may adjust it based on my observation of how she interacts with others.

2. What's "an 8" or "a 9" or "a 2" or whatever? It's a scale to get a quick comparative rating of a person, place, thing, etc... I find it incredibly useful to get a general idea of a person's opinion because I'm not good at remembering all the details. While it's true that many of our "scales" are different, I personally have a feel for many scales if the guy has posted photos and assigned ratings. Because Blazers has posted photos and assigned numbers, I have a decent idea of what to expect if he says a place is full of 7's and higher even though our personal scales vary quite a bit. I don't (and can't) remember all the details he posts.

3. Is there some sort of unspoken, universal scale of feminine pulchritude that is inherently obvious to all men in search of a little nooky?
No. Personally I need to see someone's photos and numbers assigned (or know the subject or rater personally) for it to be useful to me. For example, I've never met Hombrecito, but I believe I know his tastes very well and that they are almost exactly the same as mine. If he posts about a place that has 8's and higher, I'm very very interested. On the other hand, there are posters like Amous who assign ratings but don't have any girl photos up, so when he assigns ratings I have no idea what he's talking about and feel a bit frustrated.

4. And if a particular woman comes up as, say, a 7.98 on your Hottie-o-meter, do you cross her off your list, or do you round up and go for it?
I think that's your peevish mood talking here. For me there are two basic ideas behind the number rankings. One is to provide order which for me helps me remember things, including girls. The other is to communicate in simple terms, but as I described above there is usually some kind of prerequiste knowledge necessary. The numbering isn't specific to the second decimal and it's used as general guide, not a strict rule.
Alternative Answer: If an 8.01 or higher is available, the 7.98 doesn't get my business for the evening unless the attitude adjustment factor is greater than .03. Of course, there are sometimes other circumstances, one being length of time worked. If the 7.98 has worked only a short period of time, I may pick her over a girl up to a 8.74 due to concern that the 7.98 may not stick around in the business if I believe the 8.74+ may be around the next time I return.

Summary:
I must personally disagree that the number ratings provide little information although it is true in some cases.

Egotistical? Maybe. I find it amusing. I really think you might just be reading into them too seriously, though.

Trivializes? Maybe. Same as above. I often find the numbers very useful with guys that I'm at least somewhat familiar with. I also think the number ranker generally has a closer mindset to the "evaluatees". Remember, a vast majority of the girls are in the business for the money, not the fantasy or the experience. I think most of them are more comfortable and with the guys that have that very clear separation and relate better to them. Of course, the more hardened pros may enjoy the vertical guys more if they see them as potential for more money.

Of course, all of this is just my opinion and I may be wrong.

Don't forget the Athos exchange rate

For every girl in TJ that is a 8 or 9 deduct 2.7 points and you will have your Athos rating

I agree with D'arts statement

Milky

I think it was MrBill or somebody (maybe me) who rated a girl "three thumbs up".

I think rating scales are a fact of life, this being an adult travel site and all. Like Farsider, I generally prefer verbal descriptions to numbers, but I don't have an axe to grind here. When I read Consumer Reports, I tend to read the article, not the summary ratings...

The more serious issues as far as I'm concerned involve explicitly misogynistic statements that pop up on this board periodically. Tmoney (permanently booted from this site, I believe) was pretty pathetic in that way.

I participate in this hobby because I LIKE women. When dudes show up here who clearly don't like them, or want to continually express anger toward prostitutes, my radar goes up.

In the end it is your own experience(s) that will tell you how good the woman was. Take a look at some of the photos posted here and on similar sites. One man's 10 is another's dog.

I agree with all that has been said above. That is why I now give a numerical scale then follow it up with why I give that rating(like on the Tanya thread). What I don't like about a chica my be what others look for.

-snapper-

It's a discussion about as old as the profession, proliferated by the advent of chat and message boards on the net. How does each person define a GFE or sexual experience?

If a guy is in a relationship (married or not), he will be looking for things that a single guy won't and vice versa (perhaps).

If you are a passionate person (at the time of the session), you may look for depth of the experience.

If you are in a good mood, perhaps one thing, an off mood, yet another. And all of this reflects in the rating (numeric) and written tales.

A girl will have a chemistry with you or not. She may be in a good mood or not. She may like younger guys, blondes, brunettes, as well as certain guys have certain tastes. That will reflect a guys rating of her versus another guy. (the old Your Mileage May Vary -YMMV)

There are SO many factors. Having been involved in the "business" for a short time, I began to look at things through a few standards...

Chemistry = Body/Soul - you either connect at this level or you don't. Pheremones come into play. Some guys are comfortable with certain looks. As are the women. But you either have it with each other or you don't. This is where the subjective "looks" ratings come into play. My best friend and I see women completely differently in the looks department.

Compatibility = Mind - what level of connection are you looking for. Want to have a conversation? Go dancing? Listen to music together? Does she smoke and you don't? Are you compatible sensually (as opposed to sexually)?

Trust = Soul/Spirit - do you feel safe with her? in this hooby, you will probably never get a strong trust built into the relationship )unless you get into a long term thing - over time it may develop). But you can develop a strong communication style with one over another that will lead things towards a trusting relationship (feeling safe and secure).

So how do I rate? Based on the 3 things above.

A pretty girl may not be as sensual and sexual as a plainer girl. I may have a better experience with the plainer one. I may like one who is a little smarter than one who is more sexual. It depends on me. And them. If she looks hot, I just say it. But I don't rate her on it. Because it is my opinion on my tastes. To subjective.

But if you treat this as a hobby, and rate it that way, you can use numbers. If it is more emotional to you, than number may not work. And all of that depends on the person...

Taina in Rio -

Chemistry - between she and I was high. She was plain looking though (not in my rating system). Great sensually (she knew how to flirt, put my arms around her, scrub me in the shower, pamper me - it is in my rating of her) and sexually. (8).

Compatibility - She smoked - I don't. She told me some sad stories about herself (and that is not why I am with a woman). But I like her level of intelligence (8)

Trust - I felt safe with her. Never felt like she would rip me off. Felt like she could be a friend sooner than later. She kept her word about things. (9)

None of this describe the positions we had sex in, the techniques she used, the size of her breasts, her skin color or her turned up button nose. Because those I find, from being in the hobby, to truly be personal taste. And sound a bit too "Forum" like. And each person during each session may want something different.

A great experience....A woman comes in to your life for a moment, you negotiate a price. She than focuses on you and provides you the most incredible feelings for that period. She does not burden you, but relieves your burdens. She cares for you. She embraces you. She smiles. And makes you feel, for that period of time, that you are the most attractive, warm person in the world. She is gifted in the physical arts and is not opposed to experimenting (and should be more educated than her client), as long as there is mutual respect. She leaves graciously, without a fuss, but rather the hope that she may see you again. She has serviced you well for the business. That is what we are looking for...

I guess I inadvertently touched off this discussion in another thread, but perhaps in some ways unfairly, because although an excellent example of what I dislike about the system, the author is also quite erudite and not as misogynic as often times these systems tend to become.

Much of what I would say on this topic has been covered quite well by Wandererinphx (nice to hear a new voice, at least a new one to me).

I guess there are two major faults with numerical ranking that I find disturbing. One, what is being ranked, i.e., normally weighted heavily, if not exclusively on looks, and two it's rigid and facile and tends to cheapen the entire experience (I know a strange word from someone so deeply involved in the hobby).

In the thread I took issue with harshness of a "score" assigned to one of the girls in the report. I joked that I have done "3s" and that this girl was no "3". As I wrote it, I realized that there was more truth in that statement than I might have intended. I have meet some women that many of you would rank comparatively low, and to be honest, one that comes to mind leaves me with a warm glow and a smile on my face every time I think of her. Such memories are not subject to a ranking system and I would not cheapen either her or the pleasure we shared by assigning points to it. Do I see her now differently than any of you would? You betcha, and any score on looks alone that I would give her would be meaningless not only to the reader, but even to myself. No, you'll never see her in a beer commercial at half time, in fact I suspect that many of you would think you'd need beer goggles just to do her for free. But long after my encounter with an ice queen from hottie central is forgotten, I'll remember her and our time with a great deal of fondness.

I often wonder after reading reports that statistically analyze encounter after encounter with mind numbing precision what exactly the author had in mind and even why he bothered. It becomes mechanical, so lacking in emotional investment that I'm often left thinking that this has to be the monger equivalent of a hottie central stair burner, mindlessly processing one encounter after another as they all merge together into some amorphous meld that can only be distinguished by referencing some index in a spreadsheet.

I've taken my knocks for over romanticizing my encounters, and admittedly to some extend justifiably so, but at some point isn't there more to this hobby than just friction and exchange of fluids?

I closing I guess I would never be comfortable participating in a ranking system as we are discussing because at some level I would feel that it would say a hell of a lot more about me than it would ever say about those I was ranking.

I don't mean to belittle these women, but I feel rating a chica is kinda like rating the arts. Rating the arts with two thumbs up, or a Grammy, or a Tony is the same thing in that these awards are all give'n based solely on the judges opinions, and not on scientific facts. In our case, rating a chica is all base on that particular mongers opinions. Just because most people may feel that a chica is under-par doesn't mean that another monger won't see something in that person that many others do not.

Billfromreading, I don't think I have ever seen you write about a bad experience with a chica. Your reports make every experience seem surreal. I'm not sure if this is because have never had an unfortunate experience, or if it's just your writing style. If I could write like you I wouldn't use the numbered rating scale either.

-snapper-

By Billfromreading on Monday, December 30, 2002 - 08:06 am:

"I guess I inadvertently touched off this dscussion"

Yeah right Bill, you never start a controversy with your posts.

Happy New Year and best of luck with your current situation.

AmigoBenwhoisgoingtospreadgoodwilltodayinTJ

….. "I don't think I have ever seen you write about a bad experience with a chica." …..

Snapper, as I read your post I thought to myself, no that can't be right, surely I've had bad experiences that I've reported……

But as I sit here, I honestly can say that with the exception of one encounter with a SG in TJ, I've not had a single bad experience with chica in either TJ or Colombia. Or at least not in the room anyway. I've had painful endings to acquaintances (my Valentina episode from Colombia for instance for one that was not only embarrassing but had a measure of slapstick to it) and certainly my share of lackluster performances. I've been disappointed at times when what I had anticipated as a great session due to a lack of chemistry failed to materialize as anticipated. But I can't think of any that I would classify as "bad". Bad is what you get in Vegas or its legal environs as far as I'm concerned.

Maybe I'm lucky. Or maybe it's because I just enjoy sex and approach each encounter with great deal of anticipation and relish (this is supposed to be fun, right?). But probably it's because basically, I'm easy to please.

A bad session would be one in which my partner minimized the sensual contact, (intimate touching, caressing, kissing), looked and acted bored or distracted, and attempted to escape from the session as quickly as possible. Since I normally try to screen chicas just for those very reasons, I haven't gotten caught in those situations much if at all. And if a chica is willing to met me halfway by making that type of commitment, I feel it's up to me at least as much as it is her to make something memorable for myself from the session.

Ben, amigo, ol' buddy. You know I would never intentionally start a controversy. A discussions, maybe, but a controversy? Me? I don't have that high of an opinion of my opinions to think that is in the cards. Thanks for the good wishes, and of course I return the sentiments. Sooooo, your new GF's name is Goodwill? LOL

I've been following this thread, which began in the TripReports section (2002/12 Athos - Safado Athos: Thanksgiving 2002 Brazilian Style: Thursday)

Viva Wandererinphx, Farsider, and the esteemed Billfromreading. As I mentioned before, I don't have a problem with the rating system as described by various musketeers (D'Artagnan, Athos), even though I don't use it generally.

One of the larger issues that gets my blood boiling is misogeny, as I discussed before. Another, on the other hand, is PC bullshit. The PC types in America frown upon male rating of women in terms of their looks. Somehow, this is viewed as impersonal and ... doglike. The irony and hypocrisy in this is that women evaluate and rate men much more frequently, and with much more intensity, than men rate women. This has always been true, though the nature of the yardstick may vary. Women's rating scales may involve such impersonal things as earning potential or income, power, family status, non-wimpyness, etc. Whereas men tend to admire women, women tend to constantly inspect, inspect, inspect men. Rating members of the opposite sex, in a rather primitive way, is simply human nature, regardless of gender. Most women understand this, despite feminist ramblings on this topic.

Perhaps the biggest issue underlying the rating systems, which some of you touched on, is "humanity". My preferences and biases are pretty similar to yours (W, F, B), I think, when it comes to screening and describing chica personality/vibe factors. And I see the working girls as people first, as worthy of compassion and ...love... as anyone. I believe that it is abundantly healthy to both experience and express emotions when engaging in this hobby, and to acknowledge people beyond their the job descriptions. Being an open person (open-hearted, open to new experiences, open to experimentation, open to all the things a woman has to offer) makes this hobby and life in general much more fulfilling.

In total isolation, the rating scales are stale, and perhaps inhuman. But in my opinion, when integrated into the larger picture, they are no big deal.

Ok, I just glanced over the responces to that report.

LMAO, You guys are still talk'n 'bout this?-lol

...ballbusters

Speaking of rating scales, lets not forget:

Off-Topic: -Humor: Flaming Assholes, and Assholes who Flame – Dogster’s Scientific Rating system

It is a dehumanizing, overly-objectified system for rating mongers. But it works!

Wow... excellent feedback. I'll compose a full response to all, later when I have time.

To the other side. I actually have built rating systems for "the industry" (some of that backchannel web site stuff you know is out there, but don't know where). I am not involved in that side anymore. I'm not saying they exist ;-), but what if escorts had a site where they rated their clients? And local guys had sites that rated girls and visiting escorts? Wouldn't that be safer for them. So I do also believe there is some merit in rating systems, database access to information, etc. And some of those I know of are quite detailed and, well, cold. But that is what some guys like about it. Straight to the point. Does she do x? How much does she weigh? What is her shoes size? Is she on-time?...

There are many types of people in this world. Thank god. And many reasons to have both types of systems.

Dogster, good points. Watch a woman grade other women in a party sometime. They actually move their head up and down as they check out each and every item of clothing. If they are smiling that means a put down of the other woman. A frown means envy and hatred. Women are the most concerned gender when it comes to physical appearance and they always judge both men and other women based on what they can see. And if you're a guy and don't have the appearance then you had better have the wallet. Otherwise.......

Okay, where do I start? I'll handle d'Art's 4 points first...

1) On immediately assigning a number rating... I guess it's that quantitative-qualitative thing again. I suppose that shortly after being with a chica, I do attempt to come up with sort of a verbal summary in my mind for reporting purposes. Is that any different? I'll address that point below.

2) Point taken. Take, for example, Athos, who has posted so many excellent chica reports it's easy to get a comparative feel when you view his information. For me, though, since I don't rely too heavily on others' experience, these reports are mostly for entertainment only. But I'll admit to reading them anyhow.

3)I pretty much addressed this one in #2.

4) Yeah, that was me being peevish, plus I tried to inject a little humor into that rather serious post.

After some thought, here's a few more observations. At my (now former) workplace, all employees were evaluated once a year based on performance, as I'm sure is the case for many if not most of you. The evaluations were in the form of written prose, but it's certainly not unheard of for an employer to use a numerical scale (or at least a categorical one) in evaluating employees. So, I suppose one could argue that for us (the clients) to evaluate these "professionals" is a similar situation.

Here's the one difference I can find, however. Sex, the "commodity" involved here, is a very personal and intimate thing. It's one thing to rate a salesperson on how they performed versus their quota, and rating a woman's lovemaking ability and physical appearance, especially in a public forum such as this. It's true that in most cases, they are hiding behind anonymous names, which, I'll allow, figures into the equation somewhat.

The other issue is this... some prefer to rate their experiences numerically. Others, like Bill, Dogster, myself and others, like to describe our experiences verbally. At first glance, this question comes to mind. Isn't that just two different means to the same end? What's the difference?

For some reason, to me, numerical ratings just come off as less personal and more dismissive of the individual. I'll allow, however, that that is just a matter of individual perception. It certainly isn't my intent to advocate one method over the other. Many people prefer brevity and conciseness, and numerical ratings certainly allow for that.

Dogster made a couple of comments that I'd like to single out:

"In total isolation, the rating scales are stale, and perhaps inhuman. But in my opinion, when
integrated into the larger picture, they are no big deal."

Yep. Exactly. Generally speaking, I find run-of-the-mill chica reports far less objectionable than isolated comments like the ones I noted in my original post.

"I participate in this hobby because I LIKE women. When dudes show up here who clearly
don't like them, or want to continually express anger toward prostitutes, my radar goes up."

Bingo again... and I too, in the past, locked horns with the individual you named for exactly the same reasons.

A related question that was hinted at a few times during this discussion is... how do one's personal experiences figure into all this? Generally, my experiences in adventuring have been positive. I've had two bad experiences that I can think of (which, if you're counting, puts me behind my amigo Bill in this category...LOL). I had one horrible session at Adelitas on my first-ever trip to TJ (see chica reports - Marvieta, AB). And recently, in Montreal, I had a lap dancer scam me for twice the amount I owed, and suffered the indignity of having a bouncer come to my hotel room to collect the money. But that's pretty much it.

While I'm on the topic of Montreal, it presents an interesting case study. A fully detailed spreadsheet (which is linked to in the Montreal section) with information on escorts is maintained by some overworked individual, and yes, the girls are rated from 1-5 for looks, attitude and performance. At first glance, yeah, that did bug me a little bit. The curious thing about it, however, is that all the girls are aware of this spreadsheet, and while I'm sure they aren't overjoyed about the whole thing, seem to realize that there's nothing they can do about it. Quite a different situation from TJ. So locale, as well as culture, is another variable.

Side note... in Montreal, I ended up selecting two girls who are NOT on the spreadsheet, and had mind-blowing experiences with both. What does that mean? Probably not a whole lot, except that I was lucky.

Farsider
We all agree to agree. I think your problem is with hombres who disrespect ladies. I agree with you on that as I always treat ladies with dignity whether they are on my A list or on my throw on the ocean list.
I enjoy reading all trip reports whether story telling style or summary style. I try to do both myself but like to keep it short to not bore reader.
As far as pro ladies grading men, I have no problem. Anyway girls who give me from 8.0 to 10.0 are the ones who give me a good time and the ones giving me a 4.0 are too smart to tell it to my face but I can read body language.

Personally, I assign a "number" rating when I'm writing on the internet or to a friend largely as an indicator of physical appeal relative to my own preferences. It isn't meant to indicate emotional or interpersonal appeal, or to indicate some type of universal code by which I might believe all women should attempt to abide.

I don't personally like a great deal of variation from the "standard" North American beauty ideal, I'll freely admit, and I don't know if that's biological or cultural. So when I assign a visual / physical rating, I think that many readers can probably guess what I'm referring to simply because my reference points are so familiar, even if they're pointless and / or hegemonistic and / or somehow entirely absent of human or humane judgment.

I do agree with a large portion of this thread, that the typical "number" system is indeed devoid of meaning. So many people use it to indicate something akin to "all women should try to be a 10, my type of 10, exactly and only the type of 10 that my own limited imagination can conceive of as a 10." And of course we all know (or should know) that a woman comfortable in her own skin, whatever size color direction and angle that skin happens to be pointing right now, is sexier than any primped up silicone-enhanced barbie-doll, no matter how similar to Pamela Anderson that barbie-doll happens to look.

Nevertheless, in certain cultures, a woman's act of mimicking as much as possible that barbie-doll can give her an air of confidence which, unfortunately, she often cannot find without the silicone and the bleach. And that confidence does lead to a type of comfort in her own skin, and hence to a type of sexiness.

I like 'em lithe, supple, thin, girlish, young-looking, with fresh faces, breasts wider and larger than would be average for the scientifcally determined human genetic pool, hips narrower, ass rounder. I like 'em coy and sweet in the barroom, and demonic sex-starved nymphos in the bedroom, and always willing to teach me new tricks, and always able to fool me into cumming sooner than I had planned. I seldom get all of that wrapped up in one person.

I monger, on most occasions, in order to get away from the interpersonal. I don't want a girlfriend experience, although I like kissing and even with tongues. But the "interpersonal" necessities, for me, are limited to those that alleviate discomfort and enable heightened sexual activity. Anything beyond that, to me, isn't something I like paying for. I've never brought a provider to any location other than a bed, couch, or similar appurtenance for the sole purpose of doing the deed. Sure, we talk and giggle during the act, but beyond that, I don't give a flying fart what her personality is like.

Heck, that's just me. Maybe as I age, my tastes will mellow and mature. But frankly, why force it? There are so many who can fulfill that limited level of interpersonal requirement that I have, that I find it much more fulfilling to judge almost solely on sexual skill and physical appearance. And since my preferences for appearance are indeed "standardized" thanks to North American cultural exportation and exploitation, when I use a number I think most people know what I'm talking about, for better or worse.

But this thread has taught me, to start including my personal list of preferences whenever I use that number. I'll stop just saying "10" and start saying, "I prefer X, and visually she was a 10", and fillin the "X" with all my own predilections.

Oh, and on the subject of misogyny. I hate it. I use the 10 as a mark of respect, not derrogation. I love "all women" the way Bill Clinton taught us to love and need and use all women; and try to love "all women" the way St. Francis of Assisi or Christ would also suggest we love all our neighbors and even all our enemies. The latter part is a lot harder to accomplish than the former.

Here comes one more opinion. I say one more opinion, because this is really 'to each his own'.

Personally, I don't use number scales at all. It doesn't even enter into my thinking. After I return to the US, I find that it is the little things that jolt my memory of a particular person The way she made me laugh, something unusual she said. Or like Simone at 4x4 that has a tiny microscopic tatoo above her lip. Little things.

Now all that said, I am a fairly quantitative guy. In my work, I believe that everything should be measured, tracked, graphed, trended, etc. But I don't do this with women. My reason is that we are making quantitative something that is inherently qualitative. I cannot really tell you why I choose one woman over another in a particular moment. I am sure the factors are quite broad. But at that moment in time, I was more attracted to that women (for whatever reason) than the other choices.

But that's just me. I know many guys that use the numbering system religiously, although I find it slightly demeaning to the situation and the girls, it seems to work for them.

BT

I still think you're a 10 BT..

Layne I agree with you about BT being a 10. When he's in RIO it's always 10 toes up and 10 toes down............. Hemp

"the factors are quite broad", nice BT.

My friends and I use a different scoring system. Instead of 1 to 10, we use 1 to 12... How many beers you need to drink before she looks good enough... 1 being the best. Heheh.